News crash
ITV Wales news is set to disappear from our screens
THERE are some questions that are far too difficult to answer. Zen riddles, for instance. ‘What happens to your fist when you open your hand?’ Or ‘What is the sound of one hand clapping?’
As far as riddles go, the question of what will happen to the terms and conditions of ITV staff who work in regions where Independently Funded News Consortia (IFNCs) are to be piloted doesn’t seem in the same league. It appears, however, to have the government genuinely stumped. The question is one of many relating to this scheme.
They are questions that are greeted with Zen-like equanimity and acres of rolling silence. Luke Crawley, assistant general secretary of the broadcasting union Bectu, asked the government for clarification regarding ITV jobs back in September. He subsequently told The Guardian: “They looked at us blankly, as if we were talking ancient Greek. It was pretty obvious that none of the policy-makers have given any thought to it – for us, it looks like a dog’s breakfast.”
Crawley is right. The Ofcom-devised and Government-supported plans are a dog’s breakfast. Though undoubtedly ambitious, and in some ways innovative, they will do little to support and improve regional media. They will do much to damage plurality and further line the pockets of media groups that have fallen on relatively hard times.
Ofcom devised the plans for IFNCs as a consequence of the problems ITV was having in meeting its public service broadcasting obligations. It should be remembered at this point that Ofcom is largely responsible for ensuring that ITV meets those obligations. Instead, ITV has gradually and relentlessly withdrawn from public service broadcasting. This has been done in order to allow ITV to maintain its commercial position, and not in the best interests of public service broadcasting.
IFNCs were defined in the Digital Britain report as ”a joining of interested parties who will provide a more ambitious cross-media proposition and enhanced localness compared with current commercial television regional news; but which, to maximise audience reach, will also broadcast in the regional news slots in the schedule of current Channel 3 Licensees.”
This initially is quite exciting, but the truth about IFNCs starts to become a little clearer in what follows: ”Consortia would include but not be limited to existing television news providers, newspaper groups or other newsgathering agencies. IFNCs would be chosen against public criteria. As essential criteria these are likely to include: the ability to achieve reach and impact; high production and editorial standards to sustain accuracy and impartiality; and the financial stamina to sustain the service at quality throughout the period of the award.”
This criterion clearly plays into the hands of current news providers and already dominant media monopolies. The ability to achieve reach and impact, for instance, hints at large existing news providers. The reference to financial stamina, a quality rarely found in the independent media world at the moment, gives a further clue as to the organisations likely to succeed with their bid.
Indeed, if we had any doubt that IFNCs were designed to attract alternative, large regional news organisations to the table, we need only consider the groups currently bidding for the pilot schemes. The Guardian Media Group, Northcliffe Media, Newsquest, Johnston Press, DC Thompson, PA, UTV, and Trinity Mirror. The media revolution this is not.
That IFNCs appear to have been designed with media groups and publishers such as these in mind is disturbing. On a number of fronts it signals a retreat by the regulator and the Government. Newspaper publishers in Wales, for instance, have been lobbying government to relax cross-media ownership rules so that they can hold interests in television and radio channels. This, they have argued, is essential to their continuation and economic viability. Hostility towards this measure, on the basis that it would damage plurality in local media, has been fierce. There has also been outrage at the suggestion that “struggling” newspaper groups should receive a bailout using public money.
IFNCs will allow both of these things to happen. It is difficult, therefore, not to see IFNCs as a method of channelling money into struggling newspaper groups, while also allowing them to branch out into other media sectors. Ofcom, in designing this scheme, have given large media businesses exactly what they wanted.
If Ofcom had wanted to change the media landscape in the UK it could have proposed a completely different business model and approach. It could have stated that delivery of public service broadcasting should be for non-profit purposes only. It could have encouraged cooperatives or employee run news organisations. It could, in short, have saved the public from having to pay for a media experiment likely to benefit only large, rich, media organisations willing to take a punt with the public’s money.
It is also worth asking where this money will come from in the long term. Initially, the Government suggested the use of ring-fenced digital switchover monies to fund the scheme. These funds, which formed part of the licence fee, will become available following the switchover. Objections to this suggestion were significant, with many claiming that the move amounted to top-slicing of the BBC licence fee. This is a measure that would be damaging to the independence of the BBC and perhaps allow for future micro-management of BBC finances by MPs. The Government has subsequently finessed the subject by moving the decision about top-slicing to 2012. The question of future funding remains largely unanswered. It remains so because the Government knows the answer would not be very popular. The BBC argument was that the left over digital switchover funds should be returned to the public in the form of a reduced licence fee. A suggestion that is as vastly sensible as, no doubt, it would be popular.
This question of PSB funding was addressed by the Institute for Public Policy research in its report for Bectu, which was published in April of this year. The report, entitled Mind the Funding Gap, suggested a levy on non-PSB providers in order to fund local and/or regional news. This may seem like a radical suggestion, but in fact it is an idea that is neither particularly original nor innovative. Already countries like Canada, Finland and, perhaps most notably, France, have a system of taxation that draws money from organisations that do not provide public service broadcasting but benefit from it.
To put this within a UK context, a 1% levy on Virgin Media and Sky alone would net the government upwards of £70 million. A fund of this kind pumped into local and regional news would significantly change the media landscape. So why did this idea disappear without a trace? It doesn’t involve any taxpayers’ money. It would provide a regular income to produce local and regional not-for-profit news. It would provide security for workers in the broadcasting industry, and help restore PSB in the UK’s regions. The reason is, of course, that the UK Government is not interested in upsetting companies like Sky or Virgin Media. The next government will be even less interested. This is no reason why the Welsh Government should not be lobbying Westminster to introduce such a levy. However, the silence from Welsh ministers has been deafening.
In Wales, the suggested establishment of a Welsh Media Commission is an excellent one and the IFNCs model seems tailored to this kind of commissioning arrangement. Instead, however, the Government intends to pass on the running of the IFNCs to Ofcom in the longer term. It is surely the case that a Welsh Media Commission, established by the Welsh Government, would be better at deciding on the allocation of funding. It would be a much more appropriate organisation to do so.
Central to all of these proposals is the improvement of public service broadcasting provision in UK regions. Central to these improvements is a greater range of voices and a plurality of opinion. The media companies bidding for the pilot schemes may well have genuine ambition for the regional news project. They may well be ready to grasp the nettle and roll out a range of multi-media services which transform our media landscape forever.
Unfortunately, what seems likely is that they will continue to produce the type of content they already produce. And, the truth is, that more of the same will simply not cut it. It is no good rolling out a range of multi-media platforms if you fill them with the low-cost, low-brow dreck that got your business into bother in the first place. There is potential for these organisations to develop the online side of their businesses and make genuine investment in new-media solutions. There is also potential for them to make a real improvement in the standard of the content they churn out. This seems unlikely to happen though, and the way in which IFNCs have been structured suggests our money is to be used to fund more of what we already don’t want. More of the same old rubbish, with a sparkly bow on it.
Good regional broadcast news does have a future in Wales. Indeed, it is vital to our communities and our burgeoning Welsh democracy that it does. When local journalism and programming is done well it should be thoroughly and roundly applauded. This scheme, sadly, seems destined not to produce that applause. Instead, it seems more likely they will hear the sound of that one hand clapping.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
Another outstanding piece, Rob. Having had a variety of conversations about IFNCs (as well as reading various pieces and Government literature that’s out there), what is interesting is the divergence of views between new media organisations (usually those with little or no experience of news gathering and production) who are fired by the idea of regional, multi-media consortia as it chimes with their idea of a democratised market, and journalists, who have greeted the DCMS’ plans with a gloomy despondency.
That reporters should react in this way should be no surprise. The abiding business practice of regional commercial media organisations here in Wales has involved taking money out of the country while putting skilled staff onto the dole, and rewarding them for such shameful and, often, hypocritical behaviour (they spend their column inches usually criticising others) doesn’t seem very fair at all – not least because, as you rightly point out, it is the quality of the content that is perceived to have lost these organisations their reading or viewing bases.
Nevertheless, there is some logic to the suggestion that established media organisations should take up the cudgels as Ofcom, in particular, will be looking for continuity of service. Many media businesses have shorter lifespans than house flies, and I can imagine that the last thing the regulator wants is a blank signal.
Which brings me on to funding. Why is the possibility of funding for profitable media businesses even being discussed? These businesses are getting what they have asked for all these years, a relaxation on cross-media ownership. They don’t need it gift-wrapped and delivered with a gold bow on top. And this goes to the nub of the issue where I’m concerned. In all of these proposals, I find it hard to see any responsibility on the part of these failing media organisations being asked for, or demanded. They are getting something for nothing – further monopolisation. Will they be tied into fixed-length contracts? What safeguards are in place to stop them pocketing the money and then declaring the whole thing a failed experiment? How will junior partners be protected? Are issues of copyright and first rights on dissemination going to be protected through bidding criteria? You’ll see where I’m going with this.
I think it is very easy for all of us that have lived and breathed news for (on my part) nearly two decades to get angry with politicians for failing to see the industry in the same ways. But it is a great deal more technical than we give it credit for.
One other issue – these large organisations have delivered nothing in the way of innovation for at least the past decade. In fact, there is little evidence that they have done anything other than follow, or indeed that they recognise the changing nature of news dissemination. With Twitter and other social media, we are all editors and publishers now – where will that lead? It seems frustratingly unfair to me that young, bright sparks who have grown up in this new world will find their path to progress blocked by dinosaurs.
However (ending on a positive note), placing these sparks closer to established media does have the potential to feed the other way. After all, tried-and-trusted production processes are a great deal easier to learn than innovation. You may find that small, aggressive and focused new media outfits will use IFNCs to learn how to run a news gathering organisation from our traditional media before going on to supplant them. After all, all the funding in the world won’t bring any PSB an audience.
Thanks for that Duncan. I agree it’s technical and in many ways this article is the written equivalent of lobbing bricks at Ofcom’s windows and legging it (which of course I don’t advocate).
However, despite this, I stand by my assertion that the structure of IFNCs is a threat to competition and innovation in the Welsh Media.
I take your point about media businesses biting the dust everyday, but the truth is that this often happens because of the high barriers to entry in the media market and the dominance of certain publishers and broadcasters. It makes it impossible for innovation in journalism to flourish. IFNCs had the potential to alter this arrangement and pilot a different approach. Perhaps a non-profit approach.
The emphasis on the businesses involved being financially robust seems to be contradictory. Given that public money could be used to support them – why do they actually need to make any money?
Indeed why should they be allowed to?
On your last, and positive note, I wish I could agree. I cannot believe that the smaller players in these consortia will have any real or significant say in how they are run, and maybe even the content they put out. They will be dominated by and absorbed into the major stakeholder involved. The consequence of this: These companies will lose their independent voice and start to produce the worthless nonsense we see knocking about in our news media everywhere these days.
Ofcom to my mind has created a system whereby cross-media rules will be relaxed, failing newspaper groups will be bailed out, and smaller media organisations will be cowed by unfair and uneven relationships by businesses that have already done enough to destroy Welsh press and broadcasting.
Ofcom should go back to the drawing board following the pilots. This, of course, assumes we won’t have a change of government and that the new government won’t do away with INFCs….but that’s another story!
A seminal contribution to the media debate. Well done.
You shouldn’t worry too much about IFNCs if they make you uncomfortable. At an Ofcom event on Friday the guy from DCMS said the processing of awarding the IFNC pilots will be suspended if an election is called by next March. The Tories are lukewarm to the IFNC prospect.
It would be nonsensical to provide state support for Trinity Mirror or other newspaper corporations and so it should be for their local TV output. If there is public money to go into the Welsh media it should be clearly targetted at community-based initiatives that would otherwise never get off the ground because, as Rob points out, both print and television media cost money to get into.
The likely reason journalists are sceptical of these moves is that 10 years ago they got crap money for churning out copy for a newspaper. Today they get the same crap money for churning out copy for the newspaper, online and taking still pics and perhaps some shaky video. Tomorrow’s vision could well see that pressure intensify as the drive for squeezing more profit out of the production line continues.
And as for ITV Wales… that’s possibly one service that could be improved by these IFNCs. ITV Wales has abandoned much of Wales in terms of news coverage as well churning out archive-based “regional programming” of decreasing quality. A very sad decline that I hope will not be followed by the BBC in Wales.
As one of 28 trainee broadcast journalists in Cardiff, we are all watching the IFNC debate with bated breath. A couple of months back we had a guest lecture from Michael Jermey the head of ITV News, Sport and Current affairs. The lecture was billed as a discussion of ‘ what sort of structure – and what sort of journalism – is likely to emerge from the proposed and current changes?’ Instead we got an ITV sales pitch encouraging us to apply for their traineeship. One couldn’t help but feel they were flogging somewhat of a dead donkey. With regards to innovation, their online content has been offline for the best part of a year having only just had its revamp, and when quizzed on social media such as twitter, he confessed that they’d missed the boat on that one.
This social media lark is pretty much all that has been drilled into us from the very beginning, so the notion of the dinosaur standing in the way of us ‘ bright young sparks’ to quote, is extremely apt! Yet, collectively we are all sad to see the demise of ITV, and as yet know very little about its replacement. It’s no suprise we are a little sceptical as the person who should have known most about the future merely alluded to it is his ‘promotional’ lecture. Will the case of the IFNC’s be one of many different agendas and almost become journalism by committee? Can Newspaper groups, production companies and other businesses work together in order to achieve high quality news output day in day out?
Our other guest speakers who have been in to visited us have said one of two things. It’s either ‘I’d love to be where you are now as the future looks very exciting and you’re on the cusp of something very new’, or ‘I’m glad I’m almost retiring as I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes right now’. I hope to god it’s the former.