Those who argue for an unregulated free-for-all on the internet are in danger of becoming the cheer leaders for Rupert Murdoch, the Conservative Party and host of other multi-national businesses whose sole interest is to exploit the commercial potential of the web.
Newspaper websites are now moving big time into internet television and the ability of media proprietors to buy up exclusive audio-visual material is already enticing viewers away from mainstream broadcasters and undermining their viability.
An even greater threat is posed by the bit-by-bit demolition of the long-established and much-admired traditions of the UK’s public service broadcasting. The hallmark of British political reporting on radio and television -- on the BBC, ITV, Sky News etc -- has been political impartiality.
What organisations like the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom have to face up to is the danger of allowing regulation to be so light-touch that media monopolies will be able to use internet television services to exploit media convergence and reconfigure the broadcasting industry to their advantage.
Rupert Murdoch is keen to introduce Fox News-style broadcasting to Britain and so far he has been thwarted because Ofcom and the government have defended the need for political impartiality. But -- to the great advantage of Murdoch and other media proprietors -- the regulators have willingly turned a blind eye to the internet allowing a free-for-all for newspaper websites which are investing heavily in online television reporting. Their highly-partisan coverage of politics is a pointer to the future.
Britain has long been proud of a democratic settlement that encourages a free press but regulates broadcasting especially during elections in order to ensure impartiality and a degree of access even for minority parties.
Measures designed to enable free and fair voting include the safeguard that when polling stations are open, broadcasting should be politics free. There are no such restraints on newspaper websites and their video reporting continued unchecked while voting was taking place in recent parliamentary by-elections and council elections. Their coverage was highly partisan and included interviews with candidates, the kind of politicking which no mainstream broadcaster could or would permit.
At this point we have to consider the law of unintended consequences. In a discussion document published in March 2008, the Conservative Party said the rules on political impartiality on radio and television should be relaxed for those organisations not in receipt of public funds or subsidies.
Regulators were urged to lift regulations which stifled creativity and diversity. “Why should Telegraph TV -- or for that matter Guardian TV -- be prevented from following the editorial lines pursued by their newspapers if they were to become digital channels and not simply broadcast on the internet?” (The Future of Public Service Broadcasting, Conservative Research Department, March 2008).
At this point I am reminded of Margaret Thatcher’s decision in 1986 to encourage the demutualisation of building societies. Great regional institutions such as Halifax, Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley are no more because long-established traditions and regulations were thrown out of the window.
I am all in favour of the widest possible access to the internet but while arguing for the greatest diversity, the Conservatives should not be allowed to get away with their assertion that newspapers monopolies should be free to become unregulated broadcasters because they are “not in receipt of public funds or subsidies”.
In fact Britain’s national newspapers do enjoy considerable benefits including a zero rating for value added tax. In addition they have privileged access and get preferential treatment when it comes to the distribution of state information.
In return for the status they have been afforded, they do have responsibilities and if they seek to use their websites to broadcast during election campaigns they should respect established practices.
Therefore I would propose a ban on online television reporting by newspapers on polling day. What is the justification for not insisting that the audio-visual output of their websites should fall into line with television and radio services? British newspapers are highly politicised; their proprietors flaunt their political influence and patronage. Do campaigners for media freedom want to give these monopolies an even bigger platform and even greater opportunities to manipulate political coverage?
Perhaps there might even be a case for some kind of restraint on online television reporting of politics in the period running up to an election. Should there be some degree of guaranteed access for smaller minority parties? Perhaps they could get airtime along the lines of the existing arrangement for election broadcasts based on the number of candidates being fielded.
Online political advertising poses another quandary. US-style attack advertisements are already appearing on political websites. Will these online tv ads be given free rein on newspaper websites?
Organisations like the CPBF can either join Ofcom and the government in turning a blind eye or start a debate. Online television reporting of politics is an ideal starting point: Will it be a Trojan horse and allow the likes of Murdoch to introduce partisan political broadcasting by the back door?
As a first step I would like to propose that the audio-visual reporting of politics by newspaper websites should be monitored during the run-up and on polling day in the 2009 European Parliamentary elections. We could then assess whether we should be demanding safeguards for the long build-up to the likely 2010 general election.
Nicholas Jones 30.9.2008