A few basic points.

This goes a long way beyond hacking. The media failed to warn the public of the coming financial crisis in the years leading up to 2007-08, for example, because their fundamental role is not to openly disseminate information and facilitate debate in a free society, but to serve a specific and narrow set of class interests, often against the interests of the general population. A “conspiracy against the public”, if you like.

We would expect a media owned my major corporations, and reliant on other major corporations for advertising revenue, to broadly reflect those same, narrow interests in their ideological framing of the news and in the views they promote on their opinion pages.

This tendency is bound to be exascerbated when – due to general social immobility and more particular elements, such as the internship system – those who work in the media tend to be disproportionately drawn from the most privileged classes.

The challenge for the left therefore is to come up with a working model for common ownership and democratic control in the media. Dan Hind offered some good ideas in his recent book “The Return of the Public” (which I reviewed here http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/exit_murdoch_enter_the_public ). Others will have their own proposals.

The bottom line is that, if our aim is to create a media that works as a genuine public service, then we need to think seriously about the media’s precise location in our hierarchical political economy, and come up with ideas about how to shift it down the hierarchy, and open it up to active, popular participation and ownership.

‘The Institute for Public Policy Research, Our Kingdom, Liberal Conspiracy and Liberal Democrat Voice have come together to start a debate on these critical issues. Over the next four weeks we will look in turn at media plurality, privacy, regulation, and democracy.’

You ought to include a discussion on the sinister relationship between the madia and the police, which goes way beyond a few bent coppers.

And privacy isn’t just a matter of press intrusion because they are merely following the example of the State.

I’ve looked at the press regulation issue twice recently, and concluded – reluctantly – that voluntary regulation would be fine, but that it doesn’t work right now, and I can’t see it working in the future:

http://zelo.tv/rjXD9Y
http://zelo.tv/pcwkS0

What we have now, with the PCC, is a toothless and useless body that was absent during Phonehackgate, and didn’t lift a finger to stop the feeding frenzies over the McCanns, Robert Murat or Christopher Jefferies.

Papers like the Daily Mail – whose legendarily foul mouthed editor is head of the PCC’s editors’ code of conduct committee – are able to ruin reputations of whoever they please, hindered only by the occasional action taken by those well enough off to be able to afford it. And even then the Mail generally only caves in at the door of the court.

And there is too much hiding behind the “Littlejohn Defence” of articles being opinion pieces and somehow not requiring factual accuracy.

And so on …

How can we secure greater plurality in media ownership?

Well, reducing or abolishing the massive monopolistic BBC would probably be a start. How can you have plurality in a system dominated by a State broadcaster?

More facts and less opinion.

Most of what the newspapers report is simply incorrect. These incorrect facts are then regurgitated into comment pieces which are even more incorrect. These incorrect opinions then become policy positions.

Rather than abolish the BBC why don’t we stop politicians interfering and imposing impossible restrictions that suit Mr Murdoch’s tribe of wreckers. It might also be useful to stop them imposing their unwanted ‘elder statesmen’ on BBC to do the slash and burn that is so favoured at the moment. I tend to believe that since both left and right wings of our sorry political system have such a down on the poor old ‘beeb’ that they must be doing something right.
This much appreciated broadcaster was given the mandate at its inception to ‘inform, educate and entertain’ in that order I believe. Please allow it to do so!

Well, reducing or abolishing the massive monopolistic BBC would probably be a start. How can you have plurality in a system dominated by a State broadcaster?
It is not controlled by the state but is independent trust but I agree the days of the BBC are numbered mainly beacuse of the way it is funded and the digital age.
All I would like to see is that OFCOM is retained.
As for laws controlling the press
What is the point ?
In twenty years time all newspapers will be free or gone
Most journalists are or will be right wing in whatever system or era because it appeals to those type of individuals. Fortunately their days are numbered
Also the laws in place are quite adequate, they are prosecuting the phone hackers.
More laws and you make martyrs of the right wing toerags
As for content, Another Tom is right, less opinion and more reporting the facts.

his week we ask: How can we secure greater plurality in media ownership? Would greater plurality advance the public interest or not? How could it be achieved? Is a different and better structure of ownership of the print media possible?

You cannot expect any support for any sort of reform as long as the State Broadcaster is such a behemoth dominating news and on line news as well . Its a bit like wanting to limit Party contributions except form the Unions
As long as that whole problem is ignored you are talking to yourselves

Why not try to have a real debate and face up to some realities

You cannot expect any support for any sort of reform as long as the State Broadcaster is such a behemoth dominating news and on line news as well . Its a bit like wanting to limit Party contributions except form the Unions
As long as that whole problem is ignored you are talking to yourselves

It is not a state broadcaster. It is an independent trust.
Personally I am quite happy for the BBC to be split up, but to blame the media ills on just one organisation is stupid.

8. Paul Newman

The breakup of the BBC is a fringe idea supported only by a few paranoid rightwing quacks.

The BBC is owned by us all, we all have a stake in it and thus it is already under our control, so it remains wholly unlike other media players held and run by a few – usually foreign – barons.

Well, most of the good ideas are fringe ones. That’s why the country’s in the shitter.

Bizarre ideas like “being forced to pay a tax to watch TV means you own the TV company when you don’t own it at all and don’t have a jot of control over it” are the mainstream. But then, the mainstream a hundred years ago was that the White Man was destined to rule the Earth, women should stay in the kitchen and homosexuals are vile deviants who need destroying, so I wouldn’t put too much store in being mainstream if I were you. It’s not a proxy for correctness.

I doubt there’s a huge amount of public enthusiasm for breaking up the Beeb, but equally if you’re looking at media plurality you can’t really ignore the fact that one corporation controls 70% of broadcast news on a multi-platform basis.

The BBC is not much cared about one way or another by most people,the left love it the right hate it. I am not talking about breaking it up I am talking about slimming it down, it is not under my control and its funding is by taxation, a form of funding it naturally supports making it left leaning and institutionally biassed.
There was never any public support for it growing form the reasonably sized organisation it once was to its current all gobbling size.

You cannot tip the media balance towards Public ownership and expect support form those who feel our media is already too state dominated .

I doubt there’s a huge amount of public enthusiasm for breaking up the Beeb, but equally if you’re looking at media plurality you can’t really ignore the fact that one corporation controls 70% of broadcast news on a multi-platform basis.
Is that true have you any links?
Also are we not all stakeholders in the beeb.
So we break up the bbeb and have broadcast news that is responsive to all citizens to be replaced by a media controlled by 5 or 6 men.
I don’t mind but media plurity ?

Down below in the Porn Thread, I noted that when an activist says, “let’s discuss” it is a prelude to an attempt to enforce their will. This is another such situation.

So let’s be honest here and stop beating around the bush. LC and its friends don’t want “plurality”. They’re looking for ideas on regulation that will exclude right wing, or counterhegemonic voices, and in particular Rupert Murdoch and a means to force regulation of speech on the press.

For instance, the “symbiotic concentrations of power” in the question above is actually about avoiding right wing influence. Nobody at LC wants to break down the enormous “symbiotic concentrations” which they approve of, between activists, charities, government, quangos and so on. This isn’t about pluralism. It is doublespeak for exclusion of “off message” opinion.

Let’s at least be honest in this discussion, or we’re not going to get anywhere.

Anyway, let’s start on a positive note by investigating how we can reduce the appalling levels of nepotism and class networking in the Establishment. Perhaps Will Straw can contribute an idea or two there.

Is that true have you any links?

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/OfcomPITReport_NewsCorp-BSkyB_31DEC2010.pdf

BBC has a 70% share of TV broadcast news. It’s also by a long way the leader in internet news services, and I suspect an equally dominant player in the radio news sector. If you’re seriously looking at plurality in the media as a whole, there’s only one truly dominant player. And it isn’t Murdoch.

Quite so it has an absolute monopoly of talk radio for example and quite why we had to use tax payers money to kill of the nascent on line media business is anyone`s guess .
Not hard ot see why the Beeb wants to kill off competition quickly and early .

@17 – Ah yes, another right-wing line: Because of , the BBC must go!

Someone’s granny spat at the camera, the BBC must go!

The BBC do well because of their quality, and quality in a public funded organisation is unacceptable!

@Ian B

A call for pluralisation of the media will inevitably lead to more left-of-centre voices being heard simply because the media is currently so bloody right wing.

@Paul Newman

When the BBC has been implicated in phone hacking and police corruption then you can start using it in your examples of bad media practice. Until then, shut up.

Sorry Tim
It is a large document could you please refer to the page where you got those figures.
“Down below in the Porn Thread, I noted that when an activist says, “let’s discuss” it is a prelude to an attempt to enforce their will. This is another such situation.|
are you are doing the same. You want to enforce your views, why post ?

“So let’s be honest here and stop beating around the bush. LC and its friends don’t want “plurality”. They’re looking for ideas on regulation that will exclude right wing, or counterhegemonic voices, and in particular Rupert Murdoch and a means to force regulation of speech on the press.”
Not really. I don’t fancy power in the hands of just a few individuals, whatever their politics. ian 90% of the press follows your right wing agenda. Most broadcasters, even the BBC ones are not leftists, nearly every columnist and most journos are rightists. Most of the net is right wing. Also the SKY bid was referred to the monopoly commision by a Tory minister. Also when has sunny asked for restictions on the freedom of the press. Ian you are becoming a right wing paranoid

“For instance, the “symbiotic concentrations of power” in the question above is actually about avoiding right wing influence. Nobody at LC wants to break down the enormous “symbiotic concentrations” which they approve of, between activists, charities, government, quangos and so on. This isn’t about pluralism. It is doublespeak for exclusion of “off message” opinion.”
Rubbish, your right view is the prevelant one across the media.
As for symbiotic concentrations look at the right. Are you saying it doesn’t occur.
Also how can an obscure leftist site change the minds of a right wing government
“Let’s at least be honest in this discussion, or we’re not going to get anywhere.”
Some honesty from you Ian, about your political views

Anyway, let’s start on a positive note by investigating how we can reduce the appalling levels of nepotism and class networking in the Establishment. Perhaps Will Straw can contribute an idea or two there.
I agree with you on that one. What is the name of Murdoch’s successor ?

19 – why does the Sun sell better than the Mirror and the Telegraph better than the Guardian? It’s almost as if the dominance of the right-wing papers is due to consumer choice…

Libel law reform must run alongside media reform. There are two strands to libel law reform, of course.

Small publishers need better protection from wealthy predatory complainants seeking a pay off for a minor slur or to shutdown serious investigation of wrong doing.

And ordinary people need greater opportunity to challenge large publishers. In our current environment, Chris Jeffries was “fortunate” in that newspapers libelled him so clearly that pursuing them for damages carried little risk; had those newspapers been more circumspect with their phrasing, he could have been as badly maligned without the chance to challenge.

@22 – Without legal aid, largely pointless for ordinary people anyway, sadly.

why does the Sun sell better than the Mirror and the Telegraph better than the Guardian? It’s almost as if the dominance of the right-wing papers is due to consumer choice…
So they don’t believe in what they write they just pander to the market.

@23. Leon Wolfson: “Without legal aid, largely pointless for ordinary people anyway, sadly.”

Come on, Leon, show a bit of imagination. Just because the legal process operates this way today does not require that it works in the same way tomorrow. Divorce law reform is an imperfect example; but it is usually better to go through informal arbitration, and if that fails, more formal arbitration, than a court room confrontation.

Via threats of legal intervention, Chris Jeffries has received financial compensation for the moral slurs against him. His example implies that justice can and should be accessible. And it needs to be very accessible; Chris Jeffries is brighter than the ordinary man and used his resources.

Leon – If the BBC is so marvellous why not let those that agree fund it and those of us who do not fund something else
Not so confident now are you

@26. Paul Newman: “If the BBC is so marvellous why not let those that agree fund it and those of us who do not fund something else”

That’s OK. Just unplug your TV analog aerial, unsubscribe from a services provider that acts as a repeater for UK BBC broadcasts and there is no requirement to own a UK TV licence. Easy. And you can still listen to “Sorry I don’t have a clue” on the radio.

@26 – Because it is in the interests of this country to have a quality media service with a mandate for impartiality. There’s not even a HINT they’re involved in the media scandals – and for good reason.

I’m plenty confident that you’ll keep on attacking the BBC regardless what happens, the typical monomaniac solutions you have for everything.

@25 – You really think that this coalition government will do ANYTHING to return the access to law they’ve ripped away? They’ve utterly ignored fully-costed proposals from quite a few organisations, including the law society, which would have saved as much or more AND retained critical legal aid funding.

Arbitration is a complete waste of time when there is no meeting of the side’s positions whatsoever. In many cases, people will be forced to pay for what amounts to being verbally harassed by the other side.

Chris Jeffries had sufficient funds to bring an action. Not a good example.

28. Leon Wolfson: “Arbitration is a complete waste of time when there is no meeting of the side’s positions whatsoever.”

Agreed. So make it clear that arbitration is the preferred solution, and that if you go to court everyone loses financially.

“Chris Jeffries had sufficient funds to bring an action.”

Who knows? He “owned” a posh house but I don’t know how rich he is. It would be a social benefit if he was able to talk about his newspaper/lawyer deal.

Well, yes, gagging orders and the level of use they see is something else…they should only be permitted where they’re in the public interest.

But my point about arbitration is while it might be a good option in, oh, 80% of cases, the other 20% is literally paying to be yelled at. It gets nowhere, except delaying the day in court.

SOME forms of litigation might do well with tribunals, patterned off job tribunals. Except those are being turned nastily against workers now, too.

Leon if the BBC was impartial then there would not be such a problem and the assumption that “quality will suffer ” is hardly assisted by the vast amounts the BBC uses (mystifyingly ) to purchase US programming. It has no greater requirement to be impartial than any other broadcaster which is itself a patronizing limit on our freedom of choice
I am not as you idiotically suggest mono maniacal about the BBC neither would I suggest it has no use . I would like it to provide what the market will not rather than crowd out an entire industry with state pop music radio,state celebrity dancing etc. etc. It should be smaller and funded from general taxation.
The only reason you defend it is because it is on your side and a general timidity and the extremist are those who want a Soviet Broadcaster in what is supposed to be a free country.

The only reason you defend it is because it is on your side and a general timidity and the extremist are those who want a Soviet Broadcaster in what is supposed to be a free country.
Paul newman, you wish
You make some good points, then you lose the plot.

It is a large document could you please refer to the page where you got those figures.

Lazy git. 28-9

But my point about arbitration is while it might be a good option in, oh, 80% of cases, the other 20% is literally paying to be yelled at. It gets nowhere, except delaying the day in court.

You’re confusing arbitration and mediation. Different things.

Why you are there Tim
Could I have the page number, to back up you figures, from the link you gave me. I cannot find it.
It is not that I don’t believe you

34 – um, I just gave them to you. Right there in that post. Pages 28-29 (although on checking again it’s actually 29-30 but there we are). There are graphs and everything. 73% of us rely on television (i.e. broadcast) news, and the BBC has a 70% share of broadcast news.

Lazy git
Dear me we have got out of the bed in the wrong mood.
Not enough of the day to spend mummy’s money

So 70% of viewing public CHOOSE to watch BBC, they are not forced to.
In fact they have the choice of ITN, SKY (if they have digital) or channel 4 news.
I would say that was an argument for the BBC.
You want to get rid of the Beeb to deny that choice.

37 – what the hell do you think ‘plurality in the media’ means? If one corporation has a 70% market share, they are clearly the dominant producer. If you’re worried about the media being so dominated, then they are the corporation you should be worried about.

If you’re not worried about plurality in the media (which I’m not desperately), then there’s no problem.

But they CHOOSE to watch the Beeb.
At 10.00 pm you can choose between BBC or ITN news and there is this delightful thing called a remote.
Most choose the BBC.
I can understand, even agree, the point that we should not be paying for a TV licence in a digital age but arguing against people choosing the BEEB.

But they CHOOSE to watch the Beeb.

Of course they do. Just as people CHOOSE to buy the Sun or the Times. I’m not sure what point you’re making. The question asked in the OP was “How can we secure greater plurality in media ownership?” The point I’m making is that when answering this question you have to do so in the knowledge that there is only one truly dominant player in the UK media – the Beeb. That should hardly be a controversial statement.