The Hypodermic Needle Model
Advertising and World War I propaganda
The 'folk belief' in the Hypodermic Needle Model was fuelled initially by the rapid
growth of advertising from the late nineteenth century on, coupled with the practice of
political propaganda and psychological warfare during World War I. Quite what was
achieved by either advertising or political propaganda is hard to say, but the mere fact
of their existence raised concern about the media's potential for persuasion. Certainly,
some of the propaganda messages seem to have stuck, since many of us still believe
today that the Germans bayoneted babies and replaced the clappers of church bells
with the churches' own priests in 'plucky little Belgium', though there is no evidence
for that. Some of us still cherish the belief that Britain, the 'land of the free', was
fighting at the time for other countries' 'right to self-determination', though we didn't
seem particularly keen to accord the right to the countries we controlled.
The Inter-War Years
Later, as the 'Press Barons' strengthened their hold on British newspapers and made
no secret of their belief that they could make or break governments and set the
political agenda, popular belief in the irresistible power of the media steadily grew. It
was fuelled also by widespread concern, especially among élitist literary critics, but
amongst the middle and upper classes generally, about the supposed threat to civilised
values posed by the new mass popular culture of radio, cinema and the newspapers.
The radio broadcast of War of the Worlds seemed also to provide very strong
justification for these worries.
Concern also grew about the supposed power of advertisers who were known to be
using the techniques of behaviourist psychology. Watson, the founding father of
behaviourism, having abandoned his academic career in the '20s, worked in
advertising, where he made extravagant claims for the effectiveness of his techniques.
Political propaganda in European dictatorships
1917 had seen the success of the Russian Revolution, which was followed by the
marshalling of all the arts in support of spreading the revolutionary message. Lenin
considered film in particular to be a uniquely powerful propaganda medium and,
despite the financial privations during the post-revolutionary period, considerable
resources were invested in film production.
This period also saw the rise and eventual triumph of fascism in Europe. This was
believed by many to be due to the powerful propaganda of the fascist parties,
especially of Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels had great admiration for the propaganda of
the Soviet Union, especially for Eisenstein's masterpiece Battleship Potemkin. Though
himself a fanatical opponent of Bolshevism, Goebbels said admiringly of that film:
'Someone with no firm ideological convictions could be turned into a Bolshevik by
this film.' The film was generally believed to be so powerful that members of the
German army were forbidden to see it even long before the Nazis came to power and
it was also banned in Britain for many years.
After the war, Speer, Hitler's armaments minister, said at his trial for war crimes:
[Hitler's] was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical
development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means for the
domination of its own country ... Through technical devices like the radio and the
loudspeaker, eighty million people were deprived of independent thought. It was
thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man.
quoted in Carter (1971)
While bearing in mind that Speer was concerned to save his own skin, we have to
recognise that this view of the manipulative power of propaganda was fairly typical.
Post-War and the present day
With the development of television after World War II and the very rapid increase in
advertising, concern about the 'power' of the mass media continued to mount and we
find that conern constantly reflected in the popular press. That concern underlies the
frequent panics about media power. In the popular press, Michael Ryan was reported
to have gone out and shot people at random in Hungerford because he had watched
Rambo videos, two children were supposed to have abducted and murdered Jamie
Bulger because they had watched Child's Play. After the 1992 General Election, The
Sun announced 'It's the Sun what won it' - a view echoed by the then Conservative
Party Treasurer, Lord McAlpine, and the defeated Leader of the Opposition, Neil
Kinnock.
Horror comics
This kind of concern has a long history. Even the Greek philosopher Plato was
prepared to exclude dramatists from his ideal republic lest they corrupt the citizens.
He wasn't prepared to have any truck with new music either: 'one should be cautious
in adopting a new kind of poetry or music, for this endangers the whole system ....
lawlessness creeps in there unawares,' he wrote in his Republic, in terms depressingly
familiar to anyone who has heard what our guardians of public morality have had to
say about Elvis, Hendrix, Sid Vicious, Madonna and the rest, not to mention the waltz
and the tango!In the 1950s there was a sustained campaign in Britain against
American horror comics, a campaign which saw an unlikely alliance of the morally
outraged right and the British Communist Party, concerned about the American, antiCommunist messages in the comics (Barker 1984a)) an alliance reminiscent of the
rather odd anti=pornography alliance today between some radical feminists and the
religious right. The campaign resulted in the Children and Young Persons Act 1955,
which is still in force today; the 1958 film The Wild One with Marlon Brando and Lee
Marvin was banned because it might lead to juvenile delinquency; Alan Watkins'
brilliant The War Game was banned because it might unduly alarm the public (though
most likely because it told some unpalatable truths about nuclear warfare). The
concern is always with the effect the questionable messages might have on those who
are most susceptible - children, adolescents, the mentally unstable - and, of course,
those who express the concerns are not themselves corrupted by those messages. The
prosecuting counsel in the trail on obscenity charges of D H Lawrence's Lady
Chatterly's Lover famously asked the jury if it was the sort of thing they would 'want
their servants to read'. Would the servants be corrupted by the use of the word 'fuck'
while their masters wouldn't? I suspect that the unspoken question was whether they
would perhaps be corrupted by the tale of a servant 'fucking' a master (mistress in this
case). It's not difficult to see how a concern with moral standards can be close to a
concern with keeping people in their place.
Today those concerns would probably strike most of us as laughable when we read
the comics and watch the movies that were banned. Will it seem silly in twenty years'
time that in the '90s the sale of hard-core porn was limited to licensed sex shops, that
various European governments tried to ban the Red Hot Dutch Channel and that
software was available to screen out rude words on the Net?
Video nasties
It might, but there was a re-run of the horror comics campaign during the 1980s with
the video nasties campaign, which led to the Video Recordings Act. Just as the 1955
Act had been supported by an unlikely alliance of the right and the CPGB, so we find
that the video nasties campaign was spearheaded by the Conservative MP, Winston
Churchill, with the support of many feminists (Barker (1984b)).
Whether or not these concerns will strike us as silly at some time in the future, they
are used by the 'moral entrepreneurs', such as Mrs Whitehouse of National VALA,
Winston Churchill MP, or Nicholas Alton MP, or feminists like the American Andrea
Dworkin, to determine what limitations there should be on what you and I see, read
and listen to. And those people are in part responsible for the existence of
the BSC, BCC, ITC, the various Royal Commissions on the Press,
the BBFC, National VALA, the Video Recordings Act, the ASA, the Obscene
Publications Act and all the other regulations which make Britain's media one of the
most restricted in the 'free world'.
The Mass Media as Fourth Estate
The mass media are often attacked by left-wing critics: from within the
broadly Marxist vein of critical theory they are criticized for reproducing the
dominant bourgeois culture; from within the 'political economy' vein of research, they
are attacked for representing the interests of those who own them (see, for
example, Chomsky's 'propaganda model').
Carlyle's definition of the fourth estate
However, from the perspective of those researchers who see the media as situated
within the model of a pluralist liberal democracy, the mass media are often seen as
fulfilling the vitally important rôle of fourth estate, the guardians of democracy,
defenders of the public interest.
The term fourth estate is frequently attributed to the nineteenth century historian
Carlyle, though he himself seems to have attributed it to Edmund Burke:
Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery
yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important than they all. It is not a figure of
speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact, .... Printing, which comes necessarily out
of Writing, I say often, is equivalent to Democracy: invent Writing, Democracy is
inevitable. ..... Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a
power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of
authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures: the requisite
thing is that he have a tongue which others will listen to; this and nothing more is
requisite.
Carlyle (1905) pp.349-350
Carlyle here was describing the newly found power of the man of letters, and, by
extension, the newspaper reporter. In his account, it seems that the press are a new
fourth estate added to the three existing estates (as they were conceived of at the time)
running the country: priesthood, aristocracy and commons. Other modern
commentators seem to interpret the term fourth estate as meaning the fourth 'power'
which checks and counterbalances the three state 'powers' of executive, legislature
and judiciary.(For more detail of this notion, click here:
Habermas's public sphere
In recent years increasing attention has been paid by media theorists to the notion of
the public sphere as developed by German philosopher Jürgen Habermas. Habermas,
implacable opponent of postmodernist theorizing, argues that in eighteenth century
England there was the emergence of a 'public sphere ... which mediates between
society and state', in which 'the public organises itself as the bearer of public opinion'
(Habermas (1989)).
Simultaneously with the growth of urban culture, where there was the development of
a new arena of public life (theatres, museums, opera houses, coffee houses, etc.), there
was also the growth of a new infrastructure for social communication (the press,
publishing houses, libraries), together with increased literacy and better transportation.
These communication webs allowed discussion of matters which branched out from
relatively small groups into affairs of the state and of politics. According to Habermas,
these led to increased social intercourse.
Rather differently from Carlyle (above: 'it matters not what rank he has'), Habermas
emphasizes that the public sphere was class-linked and therefore accessible only to
members of the bourgeoisie. As Habermas sees it, any member of the bourgeoisie
who had access to the technology (i.e. novels, journals, newspapers etc.) was able to
join in popular cultural debate based on a firm faith in the value of reasoned
discussion. As Mark Poster succinctly summarizes the idea,
Although the public sphere never included everyone, and by itself did not determine
the outcome of all parliamentary actions, it contributed to the spirit of dissent found in
a healthy representative democracy.
Poster (1995)
In fact perhaps the most evocative description of that kind of public sphere is to be
found in Neil Postman's description of eighteenth century America, a society in which
literacy was vastly more widespread and democratized than in the Britain of the time.
Postman is also concerned to show how print literacy in itself encourages rational and
ordered thinking, participation in contemporary debate and the ability to understand
and follow detailed and complex argument. (Postman (1987): 45-64)
Incidentally, the similarity of Habermas's claimed development of a public sphere to
the current development of the Internet is striking and probably accounts in part for
the renewed interest in his idea, some thirty odd years after it was first aired. (For
comment on the Internet as public sphere, see Internet: general discussion) It has also
no doubt come to be seen as an increasingly important question as increasing
globalization undermines the power of the nation-state and the legitimacy of national
democracies. As our traditional forms of representative, democratic politics
apparently decline in relevance, as participation in such politics declines and citizens
turn towards identity-based 'single issues', how can we develop a meaningful concept
of the public sphere?
Habermas identified a variety of liberal-bourgeois rights which guaranteed the
operation of the various spheres and their institutions:
A set of basic rights concerned the sphere of the public engaged in rational-critical
debate (freedom of opinion and speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly and
association etc.) and the political function of private people in this public sphere
(rights of petition, equality of vote etc.). A second set of basic rights concerned the
individual's status as a free human being, grounded in the intimate sphere of the
patriarchal conjugal family (personal freedom, inviolability of the home etc.). The
third set of basic rights concerned the transactions of the private owners of property in
the sphere of civil society (equality before the law, protection of private property etc.).
The basic rights guaranteed: the spheres of the public realm and of the private (with
the intimate sphere at its core); the institutions and instruments of the public sphere,
on the one hand (press, parties), and the foundation of private autonomy (family and
property), on the other; finally, the functions of the private people, both their political
ones as citizens and their economic ones as owners of commodities (and, as 'human
beings', those of individual communication, e.g. through inviolability of letters).
This 'bourgeois public sphere' is seen by Habermas, then, as an area of informed,
public and reasoned debate, to which the emergence of an independent, market-based
press was crucial. It was open to a large number of people, within it various
arguments and views were subjected to rational discussion and government policies
were systematically submitted to its critical scrutiny.
However, according to Habermas, after the first half of the nineteenth century the
situation changed, as the public sphere became dominated by a strong, expanded state
and a press which represented organized economic interests. The media, from having
been part of the public sphere of reasoned discussion, became part of the process of
're-feudalization' of the public sphere as state, industrial conglomerates and the media
undergo a process of fusion. The media became the manipulators of public opinion,
conditioning the public into the rôle of passive onlookers and consumers. Similarly to
Habermas, Elliott argues that in 1980s Britain technological and economic
developments were promoting a
continuation of the shift away from involving people in societies as political citizens
of nation states towards involving them as consumption units in a corporate world.
Elliott (1982: 243-244) in Golding and Murdock (1991: 23))
The 'fourth estate', 'guardians of the public sphere' become increasingly converted into
industries, wholly oriented towards the profit motive, just another business held by
some conglomerate. For Habermas the decline of the public sphere is linked to the
triumph of instrumental rationality which he later discusses at length in his Theory of
Communicative Action Habermas pleads for the revivification of the 'lifeworld' which
operates according to principles of communicative rationality, but which has been
'uncoupled' from 'system' which operates according to principles of money and power,
reward and punishment. The instrumental rationality of the system invades or
'colonizes' the lifeworld and thereby erodes the public sphere.
McGuigan takes as an example the Thatcherisation of Independent Television in the
UK, after which
casualisation, poor pay and overwork all grew apace. Colin Sparks (1994: 151) has
likened the resultant labour market to a peasant economy: '[Independents] are the
industrial equivalent of small peasants who work themselves and their families to
death in order to hold onto the family plot after the realities of the market place have
dictated that it would be rational to sell up to a large capitalist farmer and move to the
city to find work.'
Is this, then, the 'refeudalization of the public sphere' at the point of production? The
robber barons themselves now raid on a much grander scale than in medieval times,
organizing neo-feudal relations of production and consumption in the burgeoning
information industries across the globe.
McGuigan (1996: 93)
The output of the robber barons' media no longer, in Habermas's view, can be seen as
contributing to rational discourse in the public sphere. Rather it serves merely to
entertain and turn the potential participants in the public sphere into mere passive
consumers. Despite the radically different views held by Habermas and Baudrillard,
the picture Habermas paints is not all that different in essence from Baudrillard's
claim in In the Shadow of Silent Majorities that people simply don't care about 'the
issues'. Baudrillard's silent passivities would equate, in Habermas's terms to a failure
to take part in rational-critical debate (Baudrillard, though, seems to see them as
having a kind of potential for a sort of resistance - the masses resist by demanding
more of the same rubbish (though I may have misunderstood)). Habermas's refeudalization is Baudrillard's simulation of debate by TV politicians. It would seem
fairly clear that Habermas's portrayal of the re-feudalization of the public sphere is
influenced by Adorno's and Horkheimer's portrayal of the operation and effects of the
'culture industries' (see the separate section) and equally clear that he would not take
quite the same view today. Apart from the thesis of the public sphere overstating and
idealizing the free debate of the eighteenth century, it also overstates the 'dumbing-
down' thesis of modern media effects, assuming that the content of certain media
products necessarily engenders passivity and false consciousness. Certainly, modern
politicians attempt to manage the media agenda, certainly they rely on their spin
doctors to present the right image, but in the eighteenth century they bribed voters and
got them drunk on election day. The increasing mediazation of modern culture has
been accompanied by increasing democratization, so media exposure cuts both ways.
At the same time as it increases the potential influence of political leaders
it should also be emphasized that this situation greatly increases the visibility of
political leaders, and limits the extent to which they can control the conditions of
reception of messages and the ways in which these messages are interpreted by
recipients. .... Hence the development of mass communication has not only created
new stages for the carefully managed presentation of leaders and their views; it has
also given these leaders a new visibility and vulnerability before audiences which are
more extensive and endowed with information and more power (however
intermittently expressed) than ever before.
Thompson (1990 :115)
The media as watchdog
It probably doesn't matter a great deal what Carlyle originally meant; similarly, it's
probably of no great importance that Habermas has been criticized for idealizing the
supposed period of informed public debate (for example, there were certainly class,
gender and race imbalances in any public sphere that might have existed; it is also
pertinent to ask whose public sphere is it and in whose interest does it operate?). What
is important is that both writers paint a powerful picture of the media participating in
the maintenance of the public sphere as a kind of neutral zone in which people
organize and debate collectively and rationally for the benefit of the common good
and contributing to the development of democratic debate.
Thus, the term 'fourth estate' is used today to refer to the mass media as a powerful
watchdog in liberal democracy, revealing abuses of state authority and defending the
democratic rights of citizens.
Media independence from the state - the free market
Not surprisingly, since this view of the media's fourth estate function is rooted within
the pluralist liberal democracy model, it is commonly accompanied by an assumption
that the media, in order to act as fourth estate, must be independent of the state. In
other words, the watchdog function can only be fulfilled by a free market organization
of the media. It is assumed that, if the watchdog is subject to state regulation, then it
will become the state's poodle.
This argument has been used to legitimate the increasing deregulation of American
and British broadcasting over the last decade or so. The regulation of broadcasting
(even in the USA) was originally tolerated because the relatively limited number of
frequencies available meant that franchises had necessarily to be limited. Therefore,
since some had to be excluded from obtaining a franchise (a restriction which did not
apply to anyone wishing to launch a press title), there was a requirement in both
countries of some measure of public service broadcasting (more especially in the UK),
which to an extent would cater for the interests of those excluded from a franchise.
However, the development of cable and satellite TV has meant that in the USA people
can choose from more TV stations than newspapers and in Great Britain from at least
as many. The deregulation of broadcasting, from this point of view, therefore
becomes a legitimate goal, since, it can be argued, that will ensure broadcasting's
independence of the state.
Whilst in Britain the deregulation of the media has continued apace, a move justified
in part by the desirability of reducing the interference of the 'nanny-state', this has not
been accompanied by any significant liberalization of the Official Secrets Act .
Despite New Labour's professed intentions of introducing a Freedom of Information
Act, nothing has yet been passed into law and the proposals so far made for such an
Act could hardly be recognized as promoting freedom of information. At present
(mid-2001) it remains unclear what will be the effect of the European Convention on
Human Rights, now part of UK law. Article 10 of the Convention prescribes a basic
right to freedom of expression, which should be restricted only for pressing reasons of
the public interest.
Media concern with rational debate?
However, whilst one can certainly find the media revealing abuses of state power - for
example, the repeated exposures of 'sleaze' in parliament, especially within the ranks
of the current (April 1997) Conservative majority in the UK parliament, we need to
bear in mind that the prime function of most media organs today is to provide the
public with entertainment. That naturally tends to negate any supposed fourth estate
function, since there is not even much coverage of state practices in the first place, let
alone any rational debate and criticism of them. As mentioned above, it is always
pertinent to ask whose fourth estate is this and in whose interest does it operate? If we
consider the current revelations of 'sleaze' on the part of Conservative MPs in The Sun,
it could be argues that The Sun is performing a public service by making public the
greed and sexual indiscretions of MPs, matters whose revelation is in the public
interest. However, it should be borne in mind that these attacks on Conservative
misdemeanours are within the context of The Sun's switch of allegiance from the
Conservatives to New Labour. The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch. In preparation
for the 1997 election victory, Tony Blair, leader of New Labour was careful to court
Rupert Murdock, whose support he believes he needs in the election. One way of
gaining Murdoch support is to propose more lenient legislation than the Conservatives
on cross-media ownership, which is indeed the position New Labour has adopted.
During the early months of 1998, US media organizations have repeatedly had to
issue apologies for misreporting. The New Republic discovered that certain articles by
one of its most favoured young reporters were fabrications; the Boston Globe's
Patricia Smith resigned after admitting to inventing characters in four 1998 columns;
Time magazine at the time of writing (July 1998) is investigating what it suspects is
untrue reporting in in its columns and on CNN regarding claims of US troops using
nerve gas against other US troops in South-East Asia. A New York Times editor
ascribed this current surge in misreporting to 'a massively increased sensitivity to all
things financial'. This is in part due to the operation of the global free market as we
see it operating in other spheres too: mergers into huge corporations, with the usual
attendant reductions in staff and staff training in order to maximize shareholders'
dividends, shareholders who are to a great extent composed of retirement funds and
insurance companies who will soon shift their stock elsewhere if they can get a higher
return. In part it is probably also due to the increased competition arising from the use
of new technologies. Photos are transmitted digitally, stories are e-mailed from across
the globe, and perhaps more importantly scoops are announced on Web sites by
freelancers running their own fairly small and cheap set-ups; 'freebooters' might be a
more accurate term as some of them don't seem overly scrupulous about checking
their facts. In such circumstances, the conventional media can be easily scooped by a
small Web organization. As a signal of the shift from hard to soft news, Neil Hickey
of the Columbia Journalism Review examined the cover stories of Time and
Newsweek in 1987 and 1997. In 1987, Time had eleven covers relating to foreign
news; in 1997, only one. Domestic hard news covers reduced from twelve to nine. In
other words, the overall total for straight news dropped from around 45% in 1987 to
20% in 1997. Obsession with ratings, says Hickey, is 'at an all-time high' in TV
newsrooms, where, until recently, ratings were largely an irrelevance, the emphasis
being on news coverage. The broadcasters and the press editors respond to criticism
by saying that the US public are currently not concerned with hard news as the
economy is prospering and are not concerned with foreign news since the collapse of
the USSR. In giving the public soft news, the media are merely giving the public what
they want. To some that may sound like the way a democracy should function, but, in
response to this argument Hickey quotes the former President of NBC News, Reuven
Frank:
This business of giving people what they want is a dope-pusher's argument. News is
something people don't know they're interested in until they hear about it. The job of a
journalist is to take what's important and make it interesting.
in Sell The Front Page! by Neil Hickey, extracted by The Guardian, July 11, 1998,
with permission from Columbia Journalism Review
Media independence from their owners?
Another factor which needs to be borne in mind is the increasing concentration of
media ownership and the merger of media organizations with non-media corporations.
It could be argued that, with the declining rôle of national state governments and the
increasing power of transnational corporations, the media watchdog should pay more
attention to abuses by global capitalist institutions than by the state. And here, of
course, is the rub. The supporters of the free, deregulated media market argue
vociferously that media institutions must be independent of the state otherwise they
will be in some way beholden to it. The argument runs, for example, that such media
will think twice before criticizing the government of the day for fear of losing
subsidies or of provoking restrictive legislation. So newspaper editors in Britain have
campaigned against the introduction of any kind of right to privacy. Pressure for such
legislation has mounted as the press have become increasingly intrusive in their
coverage of royalty, celebrities and MPs. The British press point to the example of
France, where there is an established right to privacy and where, as a result - or so
they claim - the press is the government's lapdog. (It is ironic, perhaps, that Diana
Princess of Wales was killed in a car crash allegedly caused by pursuing press
photographers in Paris) (For further comments on the right to privacy, see the section
on the Press Complaints Commission. Note that the European Convention on Human
Rights was incorporated into British law via the Human Rights Act in 2000. Currently,
early 2001, Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones are about to sue for invasion
of privacy, relying on the provisions of that Act. There has never before been a right
to privacy in British law, so it remains to be seen how the courts interpret the Act,
especially as it may conflict, particularly where the media are concerned, with the
Act's guarantee of freedom of expression.) Similarly, Rupert Murdoch, owner
of News Corp., for instance, claimed that the price paid by British broadcasters for
their privileges was their freedom. From this argument, though, it surely follows
logically that those media which are owned by major corporations must be beholden
to those corporations, a corollary which Mr Murdoch chooses to overlook.
The following issues are discussed in other sections of the Infobase:
•
•
•
•
possible effects of deregulation of broadcasting: Blumler
supposed advantages of public ownership: public service
ideal rôle of the press in a democracy: the Royal Commission on the Press
some of the possible influences newspaper owners may have had: newspaper
ownership
But it is not an open and shut case. Supporters of the free market's independence of
the state should bear in mind, for example, Thames Television's defiance of the
Thatcher government in the Death on the Rock affair. On the other hand, those who
argue that the free market must necessarily lead to protection of the owners' interests
should bear in mind Donald Trelford's defiance of Tiny Rowlands.
The question needs to be asked, though, to what extent the free press is at all free.
When Carlyle advanced his notion of the fourth estate, he said that for anyone to
become 'a power, a branch of government' in the nation 'the requisite thing is that he
have a tongue which others will listen to; this and nothing more is requisite'. Carlyle
is speaking here of the Habermasian public sphere in which a range of relatively small
partisan presses present their views, which are taken up in discussion, fed back into,
and commented on in, those presses in open and rational debate.
As Habermas sees it, early capitalism was compelled to resist the state, hence the
drive for a free press, open discussion of state affairs and the demand for political
reform and greater representation. However, as capitalism gathered impetus, it moved
from calls for reform of the state to the take-over of the state. Once the capitalist state
was in being with the corporate financing of lobbyists and government think tanks,
MPs' directorships, the injection of business funds into parties' election campaigns
and so on, the media's rôle underwent a significant change, in Habermas's view:
where they had once been providers of information and argument to the neutral public
sphere, they became manufacturers and manipulators of public opinion. The public
sphere became a fake. This view seems certainly to be shared by Noam Chomsky,
who comments that:
What is being reported blandly on the front pages would elicit ridicule and horror in a
society with a genuinely free and democratic intellectual culture.
Chomsky (1996 : 91)
and that:
The intellectual level of prevailing discourse is beneath contempt, and the moral level
grotesque.
Chomsky (1996 : 92)
Thirty years after Habermas first sketched his gloomy vision of the collapse of the
public sphere, the media have progressed ever further towards concentration of
ownership, ever further towards monopoly capitalism. Murdoch's News Corp, for
example owns around 60% of metropolitan daily circulation in Australia, Fox TV,
Twentieth Century Fox, a controlling interest in BSkyB, Star TV (the SE Asian
satellite channels), Times Newspapers, The Sun newspaper as well as magazine and
book publishers including Harper Collins and Triangle. The enormous wealth and
global reach of such media organizations is unprecedented, with the result that the
free play of market forces hardly allows a level playing field.
Does it necessarily follow that, because ownership is concentrated, because media
conglomerates and the state share common interests, the media are powerful shapers
of public opinion? It is a widely held view that that does follow - for example after the
1992 General Election, won by the Conservatives after confident predictions of a
Labour victory, the Sun newspaper proclaimed triumphantly in a banner headline: 'It's
the Sun wot won it!'; Lord McAlpine, Conservative Party treasurer, thanked the
Conservative press for securing the victory; Neil Kinnock, the Labour leader, blamed
the Conservative press for Labour's defeat. There is plenty of evidence from the
reception studies of the 'new audience research', though, that there is no such simple
linkage between the views expressed by the media and people's political (or other)
choices. Reception studies show that readers do readily develop oppositional readings
of media texts. That is clear from the simple fact that somewhere around 40% of the
Sun's readership - a fairly constant figure - are not Conservative voters.
A revival of the public sphere?
A recent study by the Harwood Group, Citizens and Politics: A View from Main
Street America (sorry, I don't have a reference) revealed widespread dissatisfaction
with news coverage. The factors we have discussed above (concentration on
soundbites, focus on personalities in politics, sensationalism etc.) led people to feel
that the newsmakers' agenda was not theirs.
It has been suggested that TV talk shows have to some extent supplanted the news
media in addressing people's genuine concerns. One only needs to take a quick look at
some talk shows to see that the distorted infotainment which is presented there would
hardly satisfy Habermas's criteria. I don't suppose that we would want to see the Ricki
Lake or Jerry Springer shows as model democratic forums, with their barely articulate
guests, their pop psychologists and their stacked audiences baying for blood. And
yet..... in the USA there has been an interesting development over the past few years,
namely the use of Web-based message forums devoted to these talk shows. On these
message forums the debates which were aired on the show continue to be discussed.
They are not moderated as far as I know, so the content is not always as reasoned as
Habermas might like to see in his public sphere, nor, to the best of my knowledge, is
there any evidence that the producers take any notice of what is discussed. However,
they look to me as if they offer potential for open and productive debate, especially as
Web TV is just around the corner. Watch this space....
Introduction to Mass Media Effects
Glossary of media studies terms
Media ownership in the UK
See the section on EU legislation for examples of ownership across the EU
Please note that you should treat all this information with caution as the media
market is changing very rapidly.
Circulation figures shown on this page are Dec 1999 figures (source ABC).
Readership figures for any given newspaper are generally around three times higher
than the circulation figures.
Although circulation and readership figures are naturally of importance, it is
important to the newspapers to know the demographic composition of their
readership. In the information below, newspapers' readerships are characterized as
•
•
•
up-market
middle-market
down-market
as a very rough guide. Much more precise information is required by newspapers; for
a useful discussion, see Express Newspapers' research section, which provides a
useful overview of the newspaper market and considers some of the essential
questions media studies students need to answer. For a full listing of all press, TV etc.
try media uk For up-to-date circulation figures, try the ABC Databank (where
you'll have to register but the information is free).
For ownership details of virtually every media organ in the UK, as well as links to
websites, journalists' e-mail addresses and more, check out MediaUK's Internet
Directory, as well as the National Union of Journalists' excellent site. A very useful
source of the latest information is the UK Business Park's 'company search' pages,
whose media page summarizes the latest deals and rumoured deals and provides
links to further details of individual media groups. See also Media Guardian.
Produced by the Guardian newspaper, UK. A round-up of the latest developments in
the media world - takeovers, mergers, IPOs, new TV projects, new magazine launches
etc. - gossip from the media world, condensed stories and major headlines from the
specialist trade press etc. An invaluable insight into current developments in the
media (especially in the UK).
For a discussion of why media ownership matters (and much more), see
MediaChannel
For up-to-date news on developments in the media industry worldwide, discussion of
journalism issues and a host of links to press and broadcasting institutions worldwide try the American Journalism Review at http://www.newslink.org/
Another excellent source of news on the latest acquisitions and mergers worldwide, as
well as their legal implications is the Communications Law Center at the New
York Law School
For media ownership in the European Union, see the highly detailed and up-to-date
information at the Italy-based Media Law Site (take the link to The Media Market
in Europe (seems to have disappeared; please e-mail me if you find it. October 8 2000:
Alan Buchan has kindly mailed me that the link seems to be active again and (March
2001) Thomas Wachtler has kindly mailed me this link:http://www.luiss.it/medialaw/uk/mediaeu/index.htm))
You may also find something of interest at the US site Theyrule.net, an attempt to
'make some of the relationships of the US ruling class visible'.
For an extraordinarily comprehensive list of links to media organizations around the
world, check out the Webovision site (sorry, this one seems to have gone missing;
please mail me if you find it.)
For discussion of some of the implications of media ownership, besides what is
discussed in this section, see under fourth estate.
For a broad overview of the regulation of media ownership in the UK, with links to
the detail of Acts of Parliament, see the Department of Culture's Guide
This section deals with:
•
•
•
The argument for diversity
o The Royal Commission on the Press
Concentration of ownership
Major groups
o News International
o Daily Mail and General Trust plc (DMGT)
o Independent News & Media plc
o Trinity Mirror
o United MAI
o The Telegraph plc
o Pearson
o Guardian Media Group plc
•
•
•
Free newspapers
Satellite ownership
Miscellaneous - some random bits and bobs
Introduction - the argument for diversity
ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS
Although the era of the press barons is long over, concern about the concentration of
newspaper ownership and their possible political power continues.
In its 1949 report the Royal Commission on the Press took the view that the press is
more than just another business. It has a public task and a corresponding public
responsibility, being the 'chief instrument for instructing the public on the main issues
of the day':
The democratic form of society demands of its members an active and intelligent
participation in the affairs of their community, whether local or national. It
assumes that they are sufficiently well-informed about the issues of the day to be
able to form the broad judgments required by an election, and to maintain,
between elections, the vigilance necessary in those whose governors are their
servants and not their masters .... Democratic society, therefore needs a clear
and truthful account of events, of their background and their causes; a forum for
discussion and informed criticism; and a means whereby individuals and groups
can express a point of view or advocate a cause.'
The Royal Commission was concerned to see that the press should show
truthfulness and diversity and avoid sensationalism. This view was repeated by
successive Royal Commissions.
•
•
•
Truthfulness was said to be the avoidance of excessive bias, which included
the deliberate suppression or omission of relevant facts; thirdly exaggerated or
highly coloured and emotive presentation of facts.
Diversity was seen as the requirement that 'the number and variety of
newspapers should be such that the Press as a whole gives an opportunity for
all important points of view to be effectively presented in terms of the varying
standards of taste, public opinion, and education among the principal groups
of the population'.
Sensationalism was seen as giving undue attention to crime, scandal,
entertainment and human interest. The Commission was also concerned that
the layout of newspapers should not 'dangerously stimulate public excitement
in times of tension'.
In essence those are the two sides of the argument which we are still debating today.
The Royal Commission recognised the value to democracy of a free press. At the
same time they recognised the dangers for democracy of an unashamedly commercial
press. Can these two different sides to the nature of the press both be accommodated?
Concentration of ownership
The British Industry Media Group (Associated Newspapers, Daily Telegraph, Pearson,
Guardian Media Group) is constantly lobbying for an end to cross-media ownership
restrictions.
Carlton and Granada are making it quite clear that they wish to take over more TV
franchises. In the Broadcasting Bill of December 1995, the government announced its
intention of removing the two-licence limit on ITV companies. Companies would be
allowed to hold as many licences as they want, subject to a limit of a 15% share of the
total viewing public.
Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) already owns two of Scotland's strongest titles
(Daily Record & Sunday Mail) recently acquired a 19.9% stake in Scottish Television
and runs L!ve TV, a 24-hour cable service (now, thankfully, defunct).
Concern over this rapid concentration is expressed by liberal reformers, such as the
Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom (CPBF), as well as by advertisers (for
example, if MGN had a majority holding in Scottish Television, they could force
advertisers to buy space in MGN newspapers as a condition for buying airtime). The
1995 Broadcastiing Bill allowed regional newspapers with a share of between 20%
and 50% of the area's circulation to own larger stakes in local radio.
The Conservative government's 1995 Green Paper on cross-media ownership raised
papers' circulation levels from 25,000 to 50,000 before referral to the Monopolies and
Mergers Commission is automatic. In December 1995, Virginia Bottomley, the then
National Heritage Secretary, launched the government's Broadcasting Bill. The bill
would allow newspaper groups to control ITV companies. However, Mirror Group
Newspapers and Murdoch's News International would not be permitted to do so,
because each exceeds the threshold of 20% of total national circulation. Nevertheless,
they would be able to expand their cable and satellite interests and run digital TV
services.
Gerald Kaufmann MP, chair of the influential Commons National Heritage Select
Committee, although a Labour MP, dismissed Labour's concerns about the increased
concentration of ownership, arguing that the notion of monopolistic control of the
media is meaningless with the 'multiplicity of entertainment channels, and a growing
range of interactive services'. Similarly, Tony Blair, speaking at a conference in
Australia to which he was invited by Rupert Murdoch, owner of NewsCorp, said that
it was time to look again at the rules on cross-media ownership, which had, he said,
been rendered largely outdated by technological developments. [This was before Blair
became Prime Minister in May 1997]
....the British national press has been dominated by four companies at least since
the mid-1950s. The newspapers published outside these large groups have never
accounted for more than 24% of the market and, for the last 35 years at least,
have had around 15% of the market.
Sparks (1995)
Media markets are currently in turmoil across the world, with worldwide
conglomerates jockeying for position. As an example, the American Financier
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts bought up the Reed Regional Newspaper group for
£205 million in November 1995 and announced its intention to stalk further titles
in the UK.
Clearly one of the major concerns over increased concentration of ownership is
the assumption that the press have an influence on the readership's political
views and voting patterns. In this connexion you may find the Guardian articles
Paper Chase and Paper Politics by Prof. Paul Whiteley of some interest.
With ever-increasing concentration of the media, there is also the concern that
the content of one medium may be skewed by the owner's interests in another.
Typically, for example, it has often been claimed that Rupert Murdoch's
newspapers have generally reviewed the output of BSkyB more favourably than is
deserved. In 1998 an award-winning investigative team began an investigation
of the lax security in theme parks and holiday resorts. As a result of these lapses,
sex offenders including paedophiles had been hired as employees by some parks.
One of the park owners to be investigated was Disney, amongst many others. As
the investigation continued, it became apparent that Disney was at the centre of
the story. When the reporters handed in what had turned into a damning exposé
of business world, ABC decided not to run it. Guess which family-friendly film
producer and theme park company owns ABC. (Klein (2000 : 170))
The increasing financial might of the media corporations may also allow them to
skew the market against their competitors. One classic example from the height
of the Cold War was Axel Springer's press empire in the then West Germany.
Many West German magazines which carried TV listings also carried the listings
for East German TV. As East German communism was anathema to Springer he
ordered the publishers to remove the East German listings. When some refused,
Springer announced that he would not allow his newspapers to be delivered to
those newsagents who stocked the offending magazines. As Springer published
both the biggest-selling broadsheet (Die Welt) and the biggest-selling tabloid (Die
Bildzeitung), capitulation was rapid.
But it's not only media organizations which can wield this kind of power. So can
the distributors, as, for example, Wal-Mart, which refused to carry Nirvana's In
Utero album on the grounds that the artwork offended against the 'family values'
it claimed to foster through its stores. The loss of the sales of a single album
would make hardly a dent on Wal-Mart's sales, but it did represent a potential
loss of 10% of the sales for Warner, who duly backed down (Klein (2000 : 167)).
Klein points out that this type of censorship has become so common that many
major studios have stopped producing NC-17 movies because they won't be
carried by Blockbuster, otherwise they forfeit 25% of their earnings from video
before the film is even released. Similarly, major magazines show advance copies
to the big distributors before they ship them. Presumably it has occurred to the
media moguls that it would be so much more convenient if they owned both the
production and the distribution - so Murdoch owns BSkyB and Fox Studios,
Sumner owns Paramount Films and Blockbuster Video, Vivendi owns Canal+ and
Universal Films and Universal Music, Disney owns ABC and Miramax, AOL-TimeWarner-EMI - well, I guess it's obvious what they own.
Major groups
News International
For detailed information on the group's current holdings, visit News Corporation's
'Corporate Information' page, which includes links to ownership of television, film,
newspapers etc., as well as full company reports. The News Corporation
has links to their media outlets which have web pages.
Newspapers
front page
Circulation
Sun
3,437,716 down-market
Times ( website)
665,393 up-market
Today
614,459 (closed 17/11/95)
News of the World
3,846,697 down-market
Sunday Times (
1,306,199 up-market
website)
(=37% share of daily & 39% share of Sunday newspaper sales - since this
share exceeds the 20% share of circulation set by the government, NI will not
be permitted to expand into ownership of ITV companies.)
Book Publishing
Harper Collins (
'Fire and Water - the booklover's website)
Magazines
Shoppers Friend
Times Educational Supplement ( website)
Times Higher Education Supplement ( website)
Times Educational Supplement Scotland
Times Literary Supplement ( website) TV Hits (UK) (45%)
Inside Soap (45%)
Satellite TV
British Sky
Broadcasting (40%) (Sky claims 3,000,000+ dish homes)
( website)
Sky multi-channels
Granada Sky
Broadcasting (49.5%)
Fox Kids
Sky Box Office
News Corp's Asian TV channel was launched in the
UK in January 2001. It brings to Britain Star News
and Star Plus, aimed at British Asians. There is no
additional production cost since both programmes are
Star
already being produced for the Indian market. Sky
Global Networks will also be using BSkyB's existing
distribution platform and expertise, so this should be a
very cheap new venture for a large audience, likley to
generate a profit of around £10 million per year.
Currently (February 2001) Murdoch is in talks with
DirecTV. If the planned $70 billion merger goes
ahead, it will be Murdoch's first major acquisition
since Star TV in 1993.
New media
supergoals.com
page3.com
firedup
Murdoch was initially skeptical of the Internet and
NewsCorp's involvement came late in the game, so
late that many pundits began to claim he'd lost his
touch, as other news organizations scrambled to get
on-line. In the meantime, after the shake-out of the
dotcoms, it begins to look as if Murdoch might have
been right again.
Rupert Murdoch (owner of NI, subsidiary of Murdoch's global operation, News
Corporation) took over The Times and The Sunday Times in 1981. It is said that this
was not referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because of Mrs
Thatcher's determination to reward him for his support in the election. It could be for
the same reason that in the 1990 Broadcasting Act Sky TV was excluded from the
restrictions which prevent newspapers from owning more than a 20% stake in
terrestrial TV stations.
Murdoch's company mounted a media assault on the BBC during the 80s and on
Labour in every General Election from Thatcher's victory in 1979 to Major's in 1992,
but switched to Labour in the 97 election. The Sun in particular was Murdoch's most
spectacular success story in Britain and it is not a little ironic that it started life as a
relaunch in 1964 of the Daily Herald, which had been a mass market broadsheet
owned by the trade union movement. The relaunch was undertaken by the Daily
Mirror, which targeted the new working class of Harold Wilson's Labour Britain,
polytechnic-educated and working in the 'white heat of the technological revolution'.
Within some five years it was virtually bankrupt. Murdoch bought it for a snip,
relaunched it again, targeting the bottom end of the baby-boomer generation and
completely turned it around to become the biggest selling tabloid in the UK,
especially under the editorship of the brilliant Kelvin MacKenzie, who gave the
newspaper a hard-right, Thatcherite and highly xenophobic feel and built circulation
by adding bingo to the sex, sensationalism and entertainment which already
characterized the Sun's content. Currently, the Sun has to face the problem of any
well-established brand with ageing customers - how do you hang on to your old
customers while appealing to their children? This is particularly difficult for the Sun
whose target readership is the antithesis of the highly educated female readership
many advertisers now wish to reach.
Hugo Young, former political editor of The Sunday Times writes of the Murdoch
version of that newspaper: 'Very little space is any longer available for the discussion
of poverty, inequality, injustice or anything which might be recognisable as a moral
issue. If there is an ethic at work, it is an unvarnished version of the business ethic.'
Consider here, for example, the recent Michael Foot/KGB smear (the claim that a
former leader of the Labour Party was in the pay of the KGB), the Kinnock/Kremlin
smear in the 1992 election campaign and the savaging of Thames TV's Death on the
Rock.
The Sun can usually be relied upon to adopt a stridently xenophobic position on most
issues relating to the non-British, ranging from the coverage of football (especially if
England are playing Germany) to asylum seekers. In particular, the Sun will adopt an
overtly jingoistic tone in any international conflict in which the UK is involved,
perhaps the most notorious example being its headline 'Gotcha!' when the Argentinian
warship General Belgrano was sunk by a British submarine during the Falklands
conflict. One of its most extraordinary outbursts came in November 2001 during the
'war on terrorism' in Afghanistan, when the newspaper accused those newspapers
which failed to voice wholehearted support of being traitors. The Sun took the view
that in times of war it is the duty of all press organs to support the government line, a
view certainly in tune with the government's chief spin doctor, Alastair Campbell,
who predictably criticized the 'corrosive negativism' of those newspapers which
voiced any dissent. One wonders what Sun editor David Yelland thinks newspapers
are for - presumably not to foster the 'diversity' which we have discussed above.
Ralph Negrine points out (1994) that in recent years some newspapers have clearly
abandoned any notion of social responsibility, throwing their weight wholeheartedly
behind a political point of view, allowing no room for discussion and argument. He
takes the 1984-5 miners' strike as an example. Editors of newspapers which supported
the National Coal Board against the National Union of Mineworkers were favoured
by ministers and given regular briefings Even the BBC's radio correspondent,
Nicholas Jones, admitted that 'stories that gave prominence to the position of the
NUM could simply be omitted, shortened or submerged into another report' (p.66))
According to Negrine, specialist correspondents were kept well removed from the
power centres and even an experienced and senior journalist like the Sunday Times'
labour correspondent found his copy altered without consultation. The Sunday Times
editor had a clearly political mission in this coverage, writing that
[The Sunday Times] took a clear editorial line: for the sake of liberal democracy and
the rolling back of union power ... Scargill [the NUM leader] and his forces had to be
defeated, and would be ... Our views, however, were kept to where they belong in a
quality newspaper: the editorial column.
Referring to the decision by the Sun to swing its weight behind the Labour Party prior
to the 1997 General Election, the Guardian's Peter Preston commented that there was
no need to wonder at the curiously sudden conversion of the newspaper's editor:
The reason why was painfully obvious. Every ex-News Corporation tabloid editor
knew the form. 'You'd be sitting in your office getting out an edition,' said one, 'and
the private line would ring. "Rupert here. What've you got? That's crap. Junk it."
Whether it was news or views, he just told you what you had to do.' The orders came
from LA or New York and they were orders. Shit, or be busted.'
Since that General Election, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, has continued to write
regular articles for The Sun and Murdoch is reputed to be very influential with the
Labour Party. Certainly, since their defeat in the 1992 election, Labour appears to
believe that it is vital to have Murdoch on board. A March 1998 example of the
allegedly close relationship between Murdoch and Blair was the former's 'phone call
to the Prime Minister enquiring about his prospects for further developing his interests
in Italy. When the call became public knowledge, Blair dismissed it as being no more
nor less than he would do for any British businessman to further the country's fortunes.
In this age of globalization, of course, 'British' is perhaps a rather fluid concept, but to
refer to an Australian-born, naturalized American, whose companies succeed in
avoiding huge amounts of British taxes as 'British' seems to be stretching the concept
rather far. Labour's constant attempts at media-friendly news management became a
major concern during their first year of government, especially the activities of
Alastair Campbell, the PM's press secretary, who has frequently been criticized by
MPs from other parties. The comment by Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, Norman
Baker is typical of such criticism:
The motivation is clear. It is to keep Mr Murdoch on board and keep his newspapers
on side. It seems the Prime Minister is very much in bed with Mr Murdoch
The Guardian 25/04/98
Against the background of Labour's cosying up to Murdoch, the decision in April
1999 to accept the full recommendations of the Monoploies and Mergers
Commission's enquiry into BSkyB's bid for control of Manchester United Football
Club was a surprise. Media commentators had confidently predicted some kind of
murky compromise, whereby the government would approve the bid, but impose
some strict conditions to satisfy the public mood. Media coverage of the proposed
merger had on the one hand pandered to populist pictures of outraged supporters
determined to keep their club local, preserve its traditions and keep it out of the
clutches of Mark Booth, BSkyB's CEO, who could not name Man U's left back - this
of a club owned in part by Marathon Asset Management and in part by Abu Dhabi
Asset Management! On the other hand, media coverages, especially in the
broadsheets had paid much attention to the close relationship between Blair and
Murdoch. The decision is potentially a serious blow to Murdoch, who, if he had
succeeded, would have had a seat at the same table in Europe as Italy's Silvio
Berlusconi (media mogul and owner of AC Milan) and France's Pierre Lescure (CEO
of Canal+ and owner of Paris St Germain) and thus a bidding position for the
European SuperLeague.
Murdoch's interests also suffered a blow a month later when the Office of Fair
Trading accused The Times of deliberately making a loss on the cover price (10p) of
each copy of the Monday edition in an attempt to price its rivals out of the market.
The OFT required that The Times should not again cut its cover price without
providing a detailed explanation ten days in advance
Whether Murdoch is pursuing what might be termed a 'political' agenda or simply
seeking to further the interests of his media empire is an open question. Clearly, the
pursuit of the latter must have political consequences, so political and financial
motivation are in effect indistinguishable. Thus, a stance is bound to be adopted
against public service broadcasting in Britain and against further integration with the
European Union, which is perceived as interventionist and thus a threat to 'free' trade.
Speaking at an international conference a few years ago, Murdoch praised the new
communication technologies for their ability to 'pose an unambiguous threat to
totalitarian regimes everywhere'. In 1994, however, when the government of mainland
China had been upset by the BBC World Service's coverage of the brutal repression
of student protest in Tiananmen Square and by an unflattering documentary on Mao
Tse Tung, Murdoch removed the BBC from his Hong-Kong based Star TV
programmes.
Former Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil has hinted that he was removed by
Murdoch because of the newspaper's treading on the toes of the government of
Singapore where Murdoch had financial interests.
In February 1998 a storm erupted over the decision by Random House publishers not
to publish a book by Chris Patten, the last Governor of Hong Kong, despite having
paid him £125,000 for the book. Patten declared his intention to sue, the
commissioning editor of Random-House resigned, issuing a full statement through his
solicitors and declaring his intention to take his employers to an industrial tribunal on
the grounds of constructive dismissal. Interestingly, during the week when the story
featured frequently in non-Murdoch newspapers, it was not even mentioned in The
Times, Murdoch's supposed 'quality' daily. Johnathan Mirsky, former East Asia editor
for The Times, claimed that the newspaper 'has simply decided, because of Murdoch's
interests, not to cover Chain in a serious way'. (Klein (2000 : 172))
In the same week, The Sun which had consistently attacked Labour's plans for the
Millenium Dome suddenly changed tack and threw its weight wholeheartedly behind
the project. Could this have been connected with the recent investment in the Dome
by Murdoch's BSkyB? There has been speculation too that the dropping of 'page 3
girls' from The Sun may have been Murdoch's, influenced by his new wife, Wendy
Deng, 'which is absolute proof,' Julie Burchill drily commented in The Observer, 'that
when a man is having good sex, he doesn't need porny pictures any more', though it's
hard to imagine that Murdoch's decision was not more motivated by financial than
ethical or sexual considerations.
Much of the above is necessarily speculative, except for the Random House affair,
which seems to be quite well documented. However, what seems to be a crystal-clear
example of interference in editorial decisions in order to protect business interests was
provided in a recent Observer article by Nick Cohen. Cohen's article concerns the
case of reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson who, until recently, worked for
Murdoch-owned WTVT in Florida. Wilson and Akre investigated charges that the US
biotechnology conglomerate was not properly reporting the effects on animals of one
of its drugs, using its legal and political muscle to oppose labelling efforts which
would allow consumers to make an informed choice when buying dairy products.
WTVT promoted the impending programme heavily. However, Monsanto's lawyers
contacted the executives of Murdoch's Fox TV, which owns WTVT. WTVT were
required to double-check the case to be made in the programme. They could find no
fault in the two journalists' work. Fox disagreed, pulled the programme and ordered
the journalists to re-write it - a process the unfortunate pair went through seventy
times. Wilson and Akre complained to David Boylan, a Murdoch manager who was
sent down to the TV company. Cohen reports that:
Boylan's reply broke with all the traditions of the Murdoch empire. In a moment of
insane candour, he told an unvarnished truth which should be framed and stuck on the
top of every television set: 'We paid $3 billion for these television stations,' he
snapped. 'We'll decide what news is. News is what we say it is.'
Observer July 5 1998
According to Cohen, Akre and Wilson were repeatedly ordered to insert Monsanto's
own claims into their report. They repeatedly refused and were eventually fired in
December 1997. They have now filed a suit against Fox. Although Murdoch owns the
PR company, Actmedia, one of whose clients is Monsanto, Wilson and Akre do not
believe they were required to rewrite the story just to avoid upsetting a customer;
rather
They see the censorship as the natural consequence of the domination of
communications by very right-wing businesses whose owners have more in common
with the perpetrators of scandals than their audience.
Observer July 5 1998
Finally, in August 2000, a jury found against Fox:
After listening to all the evidence for five full weeks and deliberating more than six
hours, a state court jury has agreed with what fired journalists Steve Wilson and Jane
Akre said long ago: Fox Television pressured them to broadcast a false, distorted or
slanted news report.
(http://www.foxbghsuit.com/jasw081800.htm August 18 2000)
Fox's lawyers said they would appeal.
It is rare to find clear evidence of journalists' stories being suppressed by owners, but
that may in part be due to the fact that the owners don't need to suppress stories, since
the journalists practise self-censorship in advance. In an Observer article of June 11
2000, Peter Preston quoted the results of a survey of 300 leading US media
professionals across the US, conducted by The Columbia Journalism Review, which
revealed that the third most regular reason why stories don't appear is that they are
'damaging to the interests of the news organization they're working for'.
As newspapers increasingly become just another part of global conglomerates which
own everything from cartoon characters to news magazines, as well as a range of
interests beyond the media, this kind of pressure on journalists is bound to be an
increasing cause for concern. There is, of course, nothing new in this financial
pressure; newspapers are, after all, capitalist concerns. Mark Crispin Miller of the
Project on Media Ownership at New York University claims that there is clear
evidence of news being suppressed as long ago as 1935 when medical evidence of the
dangers of smoking emerged, but was not reported, according to Miller, for fear of
losing the vast advertising revenue from tobacco companies. The Daily Herald is
reported to have withered away because there were insufficient advertisers willing to
pay to address its working class readership and the left-oriented News on Sunday,
launched during the eighties faced the same problem. Just as it is rare to find clear
evidence of newspaper owners interfering directly in editorial decisions, so it is rare to
find direct evidence of advertisers' pressure. However, startlingly clear evidence of
one such attempt is provided by a letter from Ted Graham, the head of external
communications at BT, to the deputy city editor of The Sunday Telegraph. BT had
been irritated by reports in the newspaper which suggested tensions between members
of senior management at BT. Graham wrote:
I should also point out that BT spends several million pounds each year advertising in
the Telegraph; given your apparent vendetta against BT's management, is that
advertising spend something we should continue? I don't believe either of us will
benefit from this state of strained relations, but I cannot overstate the anger felt by the
key players here in BT.
(source: The Guardian 27/09/99)
BT, of course, doesn't own The Telegraph (yet), so the editors are quite at liberty to
tell BT's management where to stick their anger. But what if they did? What is
worrying now, especially since the mega-merger in January 2000 of Time-Warner
and AOL, is the sheer scale of the corporations and the vast range of their financial
interests, not to mention the fact that the bigger they are, the more likely they are to be
influential in the political arena.
Blake Fleetwood, writing in the Washington Monthly (reprinted in the Guardian,
17/09/99), recounts how he had an idea for a story about Tiffany, the jewellery store,
while he was working for the New York Times:
The editors loved the idea, but as my finished story moved up the chain of command,
things got funny. I suddenly realized that Tiffany was one of the largest and oldest
advertisers at the Times.
Fleetwood also reports how, in recent years, editorial staff have increasingly been
given marketing responsibilities in the US press, penetrating the 'wall' between
advertising and editorial.
For examples of a variety of significant stories that failed to make the news, see
Project Censored
Daily Mail and General Trust plc (DMGT)
National Newspapers/
Associated Newspapers
website
Circulation
Daily Mail
2,338,592 middle-market
Mail on Sunday
2,316,638 middle-market
London Evening
385,480
Standard
( website)
Metro (see below)
(share of newspaper circulation: 13%, excluding Metro)
Regional Newspapers/Northcliffe Newspapers
List of links to Northcliffe Newspapers on-line
Bristol Evening Post (24%)
Cornish Guardian ( website)
Derby Evening Telegraph
Exeter Express and Echo
Gloucestershire Citizen
Gloucestershire Echo
Grimsby Evening Telegraph
Hull Daily Mail ( website)
Leicester Mercury ( website)
Lincolnshire Echo
Nottingham Evening Telegraph
Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph
South Wales Evening Post
Stoke Evening Sentinel
Torquay Herald Express ( website)
Western Evening News
Western Morning Herald
Northcliffe Free Newspapers 27 regionals
Television
Harmsworth TV (Channel One TV and the Performance Channel)
Westcountry TV (20%)
ITN (20%)
British Pathé
Performance Channel
New Era Television
Teletext (40%)
Radio
Chiltern Radio (18.5%)
Classic FM (5%)
East Anglian Radio (19.2%)
Essex Radio (13.3%)
GWR Group (26.9%)
Radio Trust plc (39.8%)
Swansea Sound (18%)
Varying stakes in 13 ILR stations (19.3%)
Vibe FM (50.01%)
Others
Reuters (31.1%)
Bristol United Press (40%)
Whittle Communications Ltd (24.6%)
Pulmans Weekly News (100%)
Euromoney
Institutional Investor
New Media
UK Plus
This Is London
This Is Money
Charlotte Street.com
Under One Roof
Owned until his death in September 1998 by Vere Harmsworth, third Viscount
Rothermere since 1978, one of the 50 richest people in the UK. Wanted cross-media
ownership restrictions lifted despite showing a 43% increase in group profits in 1994
(from £64.4m to £92.1m). 1998 operating profit was £89.8 million. DMGT at his
death estimated to be worth £1.2 billion. Harmsworth's son Jonathan, Fourth Viscount
Rothermere inherited the contolling share in DMGT.
In London, the Evening Standard provides monopoly control of the London daily
evening newspaper market. There is also a ten-year contract to supply a consortium of
six London cable TV companies (the London Interconnect Group (LIG)) with 12
hours of TV daily. There is cross-promotion between the Evening Standard and the
LIG.
Sir David English, then editor of the Daily Mail , knighted by Thatcher in 1982 for
services to journalism, was the authentic voice of Thatcherism throughout the 80s.
The Observer commented on English's rôle in the 1992 election: "In the dishing of
Neil Kinnock, English excelled himself by merging fact with comment in a seamless
robe of bias. For example, a straight(ish) report on Labour leader John Smith's tax
plans 'to help the poor' was swiftly air-brushed for the second edition to read 'to
savage high earners'."
English was instrumental in realizing Harmsworth's ambition in turning the Daily
Mail into a newspaper for women. Whilst I cannot disguise my distaste for its
staunchly (sometimes loopily) right-wing political stance, it has succeeded in
becoming a high-selling women's newspaper (overtaking the Express's sales and by
1998 challenging the Mirror in circulation figures) not merely by publishing a
Princess Di supplement every weekend and giving space to diets and horoscopes, but
by taking seriously matters which are important to women such as rape, workplace
discrimination and domestic violence. This has led to criticism that the Mail portrays
women either as victims or as babes. Whilst there is some substance in that criticism,
the Mail at least has made some progress towards integrating 'women's issues' into the
main body of the news rather than relegating them to a features section.
English was criticized for poor judgment after the 1997 General Election, during
which the Daily Mail maintained its Conservative support, even though it was evident
that the Labour Party was likely to be victorious. Critics asked if he had lost touch
with 'middle England'. Nonetheless, Rothermere was to be content to allow him to
continue with his editorial line, even though Rothermere himself has since changed
his allegiance to Labour. English died in 1998 to the usual chorus of praise from all
sides of mainstream politics and was replaced by Paul Dacre.
DMGT's take-over of the Nottingham Evening Post Group was stopped by the
Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC). The MMC feared the take-over would
reduce 'diversity of opinion' with the risk that 'editors in the Northcliffe Group will
adopt similar positions on some issues as a result of close contact with each other and
the uniform standards set by the group'. The then Industry Minister Tim Eggar
rejected the report and allowed the take-over to proceed, with the result that DMGT
now owns the largest contiguous grouping of newspapers anywhere in the UK. The
government's recent Green Paper on cross-media ownership has raised papers'
circulation levels from 25,000 to 50,000 before referral to the Monopolies and
Mergers Commission is automatic.
Independent News and Media plc
The Independent
192,599 up-market
The Independent on
196,671 up-market
Sunday
Various regional newspapers and recruitment magazines; a range of paid-for
and free weekly papers in the London area.
Independent newspaper website
Independent News and Media website
Trinity Mirror
Press
Circulation
Daily Mirror
2,075,725 down-market
Sunday Mirror
1,752,257 down-market
Sunday People
1,413,681 down-market
Racing Post
News Letter (Northern
Ireland)
Sunday Business Post
(Republic of Ireland)
Daily Record
(Scotland)
Sunday Mail
(Scotland)
Share of national newspaper circulation: 23%. Since this figure exceeds the
government's 20% limit, Mirror Group will not be permitted to own ITV
companies.
Regionals
North East = 25 titles
North West = 48 titles
Midlands = 45 titles
South = 6 titles
Wales = 32 titles
Cable Television
L!ve TV - famous for its topless darts and 'news bunny' (a newsreader dressed
as a rabbit - don't ask me!), L!ve TV closed in the last quarter of 1999
New media
www.ic24.net
www.mirror.co.uk
www.people.co.uk
www.sundaymirror.co.uk
and 22 more related sites
United MAI
Update 2001: After months of speculation, Express Newspapers were finally sold by
Hollick. Rosie Boycott and her deputy editor at The Daily Express, Chris Blackhurst,
had been charged by Hollick with the task of turning round the newspaper's fortunes,
keeping it upmarket, but appealing to a younger, more progressive audience, and
were promised access to the vast resources of United News and Media. According to
Blackhurst (in The Guardian, Jan 29 2001), Hollick was an enthusiastic and regular
particpant in management meetings. Suddenly, however, in May 1999, the tap was
turned off, the first sign, in retrospect, of the papers' sale, a change of direction which
apparently resulted from an investigation by management consultancy firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), which concluded that further investment could be
difficult to justify in a publicly listed company. Hollick's responsibility was to his
shareholders and PwC appeared to be suggesting that the paper needed an ownerproprietor. For months speculation over buyers was rife - the Barclay Brothers, the
Hinduja Borthers, Associated Newspapers, the Daily Mail and General Trust, Conrad
Black, owner of The Telegraph and Hollinger Group. When the sale eventually took
place (for £125 million), the new owner was a complete surprise: Richard Desmond,
proprietor of the Northern & Shell magazine group, not least surprising because
Desmond's stable includes Asian Babes, Nude Readers' Wives, the celebrity magazine
OK! and Television X and The Fantasy Channel - which hardly seems to augur well
for the maintenance of the 'upmarket' status of the Express stable. The Guardian
revelaed 'that a company wholly owned by Mr Desmond has registered a website
which promises live heterosexual sex, live lesbian sex as well as other images
portraying women as old as 78, pregnant, and one who calls herself Anal
Annie'. I gather Desmond sues anyone who refers to him as a 'porn king' - so I'll
refrain. Some of the potential bidders have protested against the sale on the grounds
that they might well have bid more, but Hollick has argued that if he had entered into
negotiations with any of the other press groups, that would have triggered a
competition commission enquiry, no doubt lasting several months, during which the
value of the Express could well have declined. So this rather strange sale is essentially
due to the capitalist imperative to maximize value for shareholders, a fine example of
the possible conflict between private and public interest.
Despite an expectation that the resources of Desmond's porn mags would be used to
bolster the Express, he fairly soon started on a pretty savage cost-cutting exercise,
which included selling off the Express websites (Express Digital Media) for £1.
Technically, they were put into liquidation, which the staff claim was a cynical ploy
by Desmond to avoid paying them redundancy compensation. The four-strong
investigations team, originally brought in by then editor Rosie Boycott to help
transform the newspaper into a credible organ of the left, were removed from the
Express, though continuing to be employed within the group, on the grounds that the
paper could no longer afford to pay for investigative journalism. Stephen Pollard, a
leader writer who was one of the first big names to leave the Express wrote his final
leader on the problems of the farming industry, arranged in such a way that the first
letters of successive paragraphs spelled the message 'fuck you Desmond'. The offer
of a job at The Times was withdrawn. Unsurprisingly, the Express's editor, Rosie
Boycott, many years ago founder editor of feminist magazine Spare Rib, to whose
principles she remains loyal, has left, to be replaced by Chris Williams, until then
Associate Editor.
In the first ten weeks of Desmond's ownership, sales of the Express fell by 6%, the
main beneficiary apparently being the Daily Mail, whose sales increased by 5%.
United MAI has now, apparently, become United Business Media, which owns a
range of British magazines, as well as a number of websites and newswires. United
appears now to have abandoned its planned expansion into TV, it is selling off
LineOne, its internet portal and ISP joint venture with BT and intends to sell off its
remaining business-to-consumer internet operations, apparently preferring to stick
with a business-to-business model.
The Daily Express's website is closed. What follows below is what I wrote before
Desmond's takeover. As soon as I have more details, I'll update this section.
Further details can be obtained from the group's excellent
a 3-D version!)
Press
website (which even has
Circulation
Daily Express
943,898 middle-market
( website, which includes an
excellent example of a
demographic profile)
Daily Star (same web url as
637,826 down-market
above)
Sunday Express
841,873 middle-market
Share of national newspaper circulation: 14%
Minority stake (29%) in the new Channel 5 tv channel
Note: In February 1996, United News and Media merged with MAI. The New Group
is now known as United MAI. The chairman of United was Lord Stevens, the
managing director of MAI was Lord Hollick. What was surprising about the merger is
that Lord Hollick is a Labour peer, while the Daily Express is a staunch supporter of
the Conservative Party. During the May 1997 General Election, the Daily Express
maintained its Conservative support. It's perhaps worth mentioning that most media
speculation centred on the fate of Express Newspapers, whereas, from the point of
view of the owners, perhaps, the Express is pretty small beer, representing as it does
only 7% of the group's turnover.
Hollick's hands-off approach changed quite unexpectedly in April 1998, when he
appointed as editor Rosie Boycott, formerly co-editor of The Independent and
originally employed with feminist magazine Spare Rib. Prior to Boycott's
appointment, under the editorship of Richard Addis, the Express had started to move
slightly leftwards, in the direction of New Labour, but, under Rosie Boycott, this
leftward move looks set to accelerate, if her comments to The Observer are anything
to go by: 'I certainly wouldn't back [Conservative leader] William Hague under any
circumstances. It is a shame [New Labour Prime Minister] Blair is having this
romance with new money. Labour have to get back to the basics of reducing hospital
waiting lists. But then the Labour Government have done some terrific things, with
Northern Ireland at the top of the list.' (The Observer April 26 1998). Quite
extraordinary comments from the editor of one of the Conservative party's most loyal
supporters. Quite what the readership will make of their newspaper being edited by a
leftish feminist supporter of the legalization of cannabis remains to be seen.
The Telegraph Group Ltd.
Up-to-date information about the group's activities and holdings can be found at its
website
Press
Daily Telegraph ( website)
968,630
Sunday Telegraph
773,360
Share of national newspaper circulation: 7.5%
The owner of the Telegraph, Chair of Hollinger, Conrad Black is the thrid biggest
press magnate in the world. In the UK, the group also owns the Spectator and also has
major titles in Canada, Australia and Israel.
Pearson
Up-to-date information about the group's activities and holdings can be found at its
website
Press
Circulation
465,737 up-market (which represents an astonishing
13% gain in circulation share during a period when
all other papers except The Independent saw their
share fall)
Westminster Press (100%)
Share of national newspaper circulation: 2%
Also owns South African newspapers
Financial Times
(100%)
( website)
Books
Addison Wesley (100%)
Federal and Capital (100%)
Longman (100%)
Penguin (100%)
US publishing house, Putnam
TV and Satellite
In early 2002, Pearson pulled out of commercial television, selling its 22%
stake in RTL to Bertelsmann, giving Bertelsmann 89% control of RTL, which
owns Channel 5 in the UK.
BSkyB (3%)
Thames TV (100%)
Yorkshire/Tyne Tees TV (14%)
On October 27 1995, the Channel 5 Broadcasting consortium, led by Greg
Dyke of Pearson TV (20% share), was awarded the Channel 5 franchise.
Dyke is now Director General of the BBC
Also owns US gameshow originator Grundy and a stake in satellite operator
SES
Also owns Madame Tussaud's
Guardian Media Group plc
For full details of the group's operations and methods, see their
Press
own page.
Circulation
The Guardian (
381,013 up-market
website)
The Observer
398,124 up-market
Share of national newspaper circulation: 3%
Although the Guardian and the Observer, both politically left of centre, are
traditionally rather sniffy about right-wing newspapers, especially those owned by
Murdoch, the Observer, when it was owned by Tiny Rowland, certainly seemed to be
subject from the proprietor, whose long running battle with the Fayed brothers for
control of the House of Fraser (to which the famous London store, Harrods, belongs)
was regularly featured in the newspaper throughout the 80s.
On the other hand, however, in 1984, when the then editor, Donald Trelford, was told
by Rowlands not to run story critical of the regime in Zimbabwe, where Lonrho had
significant investments, Trelford refused and insisted on running the story, with the
unanimous support of his staff. He also offered to resign, thus putting Rowlands in the
no-win position of either accepting the resignation and thus generating storm of
protest against Lonrho, or refusing the resignation and strengthening Trelford's
position.
This latter incident lends support to the view of those who see the media as
performing an essential 'fourth estate' function. In this case, they would argue,
journalists are seen to be asserting their professional independence and Rowlands,
who would have been tried before the 'court of public opinion'
emap
Press
Elle
The Face
Arena
+ around 80 other consumer titles + 100
business titles
Television
The Box
Radio
Kiss FM
Magic
Piccadilly Radio
+ 15 others
New media
bargainholidays.com
aloud.com
board-it.com
thebox.co.uk
emap owns around 40 magazines in France.
Free Newspapers
I've tucked this bit in here at the end of the section on newspapers because the current
struggle over free newspapers' market share is quite fascinating to watch. At first sight,
it looks a bit like the economics of the madhouse as newspaper companies fall over
one another to give their products away free, at a time when most newspapers'
circulation figures have fallen year on year for the last decade. Quite how you get
rich from giving stuff away is a bit of a mystery to me and looks rather like
commercial suicide, but, if Internet companies seem to see their shares more highly
valued the greater the operating loss they make, maybe it makes some kind of sense.
(I never have understood money.)
In this case, the idea arose not in the US, but in Sweden, where a small publishing
company, Modern Times, run by a group of young people dreamt up the idea of
giving away a free newspaper called Metro, which they distributed in the major cities
to the morning commuters, achieving a circulation of 240,000 a day. The idea turned
out to be such a money spinner that it soon spread to other major European cities,
even becoming the major morning newspaper in Prague and Budapest. As far as I am
aware, Rothermere was the first in Britain to launch a Metro clone, presumably
because he must have seen such an idea as a threat to his own London-based Evening
Standard. Meanwhile the battle has been joined by more the major newspaper houses,
which have recently (Jan 2000) been throwing injunctions at one another with a total
disregard for yet more expense in an effort to prevent rivals from using the word
Metro in the titles of their freebies. DMGT lost four court cases in Manchester, where
it was up against the Guardian Media Group, which distributes its own Metro. The
Swedes entered the battle too, distributing their own free newspaper in Tyneside, but
retired hurt under the assault from DMGT and its partners, Trinity-Mirror. Metro is
distributed in regionalized versions in London, Birmingham, central Scotland,
Newcastle and Manchester with total distribution around 800,000. In January 2000,
the Yorkshire Metro was released with circulation around 55,000, intended to rise to
75,000 by March.
Though it may seem madness to give away a newspaper which is often in competition
with your own paid-for publications, it seems that the free ones are able to reach a
new generation of wealthy urban consumers, which must make them the advertisers'
Holy Grail.
This will be interesting to watch, I think, though there is a possibility that the
Competition Commission will feel obliged to intervene at some point soon.
International stations - ownership
Internationally, the two major players are Rupert Murdoch, who owns BSkyB in
Europe and a range of other satellite broadcasting facilities around the world and Ted
Turner, who owns CNN. Amongst news services, the BBC's World News Service is
worthy of mention, as it has a reputation for impartiality and reliability.
If you are interested in checking out Ted Turner's interests, try:
•
•
•
•
•
CNN Interactive news site
CNN Networks, which contains a list of CNN's holdings
Turner Entertainment Group
Turner Broadcasting Systems
Turner Foundation, which concerns Ted Turner's philanthropic work
In Europe, these are the big names:
CNN
Transmitted in Europe on the Intelsat satellite. Owned by Ted Turner
UK Gold
Britain's most successful satellite channel outside BSkyB. Stakes held by BBC and
Telecommunications Inc (TCI). TCI is a US corporation whose subsidiary in Britain
is Flextech, which owns The Family Channel, Playboy, Bravo, Discovery and The
Sega Channel and has a 20% holding in Scottish TV; TCI, through its UK subsidiary
Tinta, also is part-owner of TeleWest, the UK's largest cable operator. (An interesting
recent development (early 1999), which highlights the extraordinary complexity of
the global media, is Murdoch's move to full ownership of Fox/Liberty, buying out
John Maolne's US-based Liberty Media. Liberty Media own a controlling share in
Flextech, which probably means that we will see a close co-operation between BSkyB
and Flextech's UK-based pay-TV operation in the near future.) In addition, TCI owns
the largest cable operation in the US (but is nevertheless also behind two US satellite
systems), has a presence in eighteen countries (including France's Canal+) and
interests in more than a hundred programme outlets, including Ted Turner's Turner
Broadcasting Sytems and many Japanese outlets. TCI is also a major investor in Bill
Gates's Microsoft Network. Not unlike Murdoch's UK-based News International, TCI
(run by John Malone) has never shown a profit (and therefore not paid taxes). As an
example of the complexity of media ownership, consider the Federal Trade
Commission's permission for the merger of Turner Broadcasting Systems and TimeWarner: the FTC had concerns about the monopoly implications of the deal as TCI
owns 7.5% of Time-Warner and 22% of Turner. As Time-Warner and Turner account
for around 50% of US cable subscribers, the FTC required TCI to transfer its shares in
Time-Warner to another company spun off from TCI's control and also to require
some cable systems to carry another news service in addition to CNN.
BSkyB
By far the dominant satellite broadcaster in Europe, as shown in the ITC's figures:
Channel
Audience
share (%)
Sky One
1.24
Sky Sports
1.04
Sky Movies
0.87
The Movie Channel
0.79
Cartoon Network
0.70
UK Gold
0.56
Nickelodeon
0.42
Disney
0.30
Eurosport
0.29
UK Living
0.26
12 months to Sept. 30 1996 Source: ITC, Graphic News
As a point of comparison, BBC1's share of the TV audience was 32.5%
Transmitted on the Astra satellite. 40% owned by Rupert Murdoch's News
Corporation. Other stakeholders are: Pathé (17%); British terrestrial broadcaster,
Granada, part of the ITV network (11%); Pearson (3%). In 1995, Sky One was the
most popular satellite channel, with a 4.8% share of the British TV audience. Its
growth-rate is expected to outstrip ITV's by the year 2000, overtaking ITV's current
annual advertising revenue of £1.4bn. BSkyB's introduction of pay-per-view for
major sports events led to calls from Parliament to ensure that the 'national heritage' in
sports should not be sold to the highest bidder, but such calls seem in fact to have had
little effect. BSkyB took over £5m for the broadcast of the Bruno v Tyson boxing
match; BSkyB has exclusive rights to coverage of Premier League football matches
until 2001; the report of the Office of Fair Trading's eqnuiry into pay TV in the UK
merely asked BSkyB for informal undertakings that it would allow fair access to its
subscription system. In May 1996, Murdoch's News Corp and TCI's Liberty Media
and Tinta (see above under UK Gold) signed a global agreement to work together on
the acquisition and distribution of world sports rights. In the US in February 1997,
Murdoch's American Sky Broadcasting paid $1bn for half the equity of EchoStar, the
US's fastest growing DBS (direct broadcasting by satellite) provider. Murdoch stated
at the time that his real targets were the cable providers, rather than rival satellite
providers, an interesting remark in the light of the global agreement with TCI on
sports.
Finninvest
Owned by Berlusconi of Italy. Dominates Italian TV and has interests in other
countries, including France's TF1, Germany's Tele 5, Spain's TeleCinco and stations
in the former Yugoslavia.
Euronews
Transmitted via the Eutelsat-II F1 satellite. It aims within Europe to rival CNN and is
financially assisted by the EU.
Vivendi
Not a station, but a company, mentioned here because it has been France's great
success story in communications corporations, since 1994 under the leadership of
Jean-Marie Messier, who transformed it from a state-owned, over-bureaucratic and
soporific water company into an international player in both environmental concerns
such as water supply and communications, where the company owns 49% of Canal+,
39% of the UGC cinema chain and 20% of Pathé, which gives it a 17% stake in
BSkyB. Vivendi owns SFR which controls 40% of France's mobile phone market
and forms an important part of Cégétel, a telecomms group with both fixed and
mobile capacity and in which Vivendi has a 40% stake. It is in an Internet alliance
with AoL and Germany's Bertelsmann, plus the French publisher Larousse and
Robert Laffont and the weekly news magazines L'Express and L'Expansion. Watch
this space. (source: Scaring the Pants off Rupert Murdoch by Jon Henley, The
Guardian 26/06/99).
In December 2000 Vivendi merged with Canal+ and Seagram, a Canadian producer
of alcoholic drinks, which also own Universal Films and Universal Music, the biggest
music producer in the world. Vivendi Universal promised its customers 'every access
to the Internet by all existing means, at any time, anywhere'. The number of customers
for Canal+ is projected to reach 24 million by 2005.
Now the second largest media group in the world.
Viacom
Viacom is also mentioned here because many may not have heard of its owner,
Sumner Redstone, though he is possibly as influential as the Rupert Murdochs and
Ted Turners of the media world, running, as he does, Simon and Schuster books,
MTV, Nickelodeon, Blockbuster video shops, Paramount film studios and, possibly,
by the time of writing, the CBS network, from which, ironically, Viacom was spun off
by the regulators in the first place, fearing that CBS was acquiring too much influence.
In the meantime, the Federal Communications Commisssion has ended its prohibition
on a single group owning two TV stations in the same market.
Miscellaneous
Here are some fairly random bits and bobs relating to media ownership in the UK. I
invite you to treat them with some circumspection, as the pattern of media ownership
changes so fast that it's almost impossible for me to keep up with.
(last update : July 2001)
Microsoft
Microsoft boss Gates is clearly determined to extend his reach beyond PC software to
the new media. In the UK, his company holds stakes in telecommunications
companies Telewest and NTL. He may be linking up with Murdoch in the proposed
merger between Sky Global and DirecTV.
AOL
At the beginning of 2000, AOL boss Steve Case steered his company through the
takeover of Time-Warner, then the biggest merger ever. In the UK he took over IPC
in July 2001 for £1.15 billion.
Telewest
Under the leadership of Chief Executive, Adam Singer, cable company Telewest has
merged with content provider Flextech andhas developed 12 satellite and cable
subscription channels.
GWR
The largest group of independent radio stations, including Classic FM and Digital
One. Currently prevented by law from making further acquisitions.
SMG
Owns Scottish and Grampian TV, Virgin Radio and Herald newspapers.
IPC Media
The UK's biggest magazine publisher, around 100 publications reaching over 50% of
the population. Titles include Marie-Claire, Loaded, NME, What's On TV and
Country Life. Taken over by AOL Time Warner in July 2001. Interesting that Warner
HBO, which produces some of the biggest money-spinners on TV now owns What's
On TV; interesting that Warner Music now owns NME.
RTL
Europe's biggest TV and radio broadcasting and production company. Based in
Luxembourg it controls 23 TV channels and 17 radio stations in Europe. In the UK it
controls Channel 5 and Pearson TV. It is 89% controlled by Bertelsmann.
Press Holdings
Owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers and run by Andrew Neil, former Sunday
Times editor. Publisher of The Scotsman, Scotland on Sunday, Sunday Business.
Gannett
Gannett of Arlington, Virginia, owns Newsquest, operator of over 300 regional
newspapers in the UK.
Related articles:
For up-to-date information on the press in France, check out Geoff Hare's page of
links at the University of Newcastle
See the section on EU legislation for examples of ownership across the EU
See the section on EU legislation for examples of ownership across the EU
De Fleur's model of the taste-differentiated audience
Public Service broadcasting
Broadcasting systems
Introduction to Mass Media Effects
Glossary of media studies terms
Press Complaints Commission
Address
1 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8AE (0171-353 1248)
Special helpline for members of the public who fear a breach of the Code of Practice
may take place in respect of their own affairs: 0171-353 3732
Website: http://www.pcc.org.uk/
Organization
President: Lord Wakeham (1995) - note that in early 2002 Wakeham resigned his
chairmanship 'temporarily', announcing it was the 'honourable' thing to do, given that
he had acted as a director for the bankrupt energy company Enron and that it would
therefore, given the intensity of press attention, for him to continue as Chair of the
PCC until the Enron matter was settled.
Sixteen members: Chairman, Public Members (8 in 1995) & Press Members (7 in
1995)
Chairman not allowed to be involved in press business.
Public Members may not be connected with press business.
Press Members must be experienced at senior editorial level.
Funded by press industry.
History
A voluntary Press Council existed for some 40 years, which was generally considered
a toothless watchdog.
During the 1980s there was mounting concern about press standards, notably as
regards the moves downmarket of the 'gutter press', as well as much much concern
about invasion of privacy, in particular the relentless hounding of the younger
members of the Royal Family, as well as various politicians
The Conservative government therefore appointed Sir David Calcutt to run a
Departmental Committee of enquiry. Calcutt Committee reported (1990) that there
should be a new, non-statutory Press Complaints Commission. The press were given
eighteen months to see if it could work. If it failed, then the Government was urged to
introduce legislation. The press were warned by Government that they were 'drinking
at the last chance saloon'.
In the event, the PCC was set up with great speed by the press in order to avoid
statutory controls. It is a matter of debate whether the press have improved their
standards. David Mellor MP, the first Minister for the National Heritage in John
Major's post-1992 government was perhaps the first in the new government to find
himself exposed across the front pages. Some ministers would probably argue that it
is unwarranted invasion of privacy to print stories of a politician's dalliance with an
actress. The press argue that it is in the public interest to expose such matters - the
'fourth estate' argument.
Despite the claimed success of the Commission, Lord Wakeham continued to warn as
late as April 1995 that privacy legislation was still on the agenda and he urged
newspapers to avoid destroying the excellent work of the PCC by 'a crisis of our own
making'. (The Guardian 05/04/95)
The question of standards of press behaviour has repeatedly arisen. For example, the
issue of digitally edited photographs has become a major issue on at least two
occasions. One was when the the then Deputy Leader of the Labour Party in
opposition, John Prescott (now Deputy Prime Minister (1997)), was shown in a
photograph together with his wife sitting at a pub table on which was what appeared
to be a bottle of champagne. The photograph was published in the Conservativesupporting London Evening Standard above an article which questioned whether
Prescott was now a 'champagne socialist' disloyal to his working class roots. This was
in the very early days of the build-up towards the election campaign when the
Conservative press attempted the difficult balancing act of claiming that the Labour
leadership was anti-business and pro-union at the same time as also claiming that they
were hypocritical in belonging to the Labour Party when they had all become middle
class. It eventually transpired that in the original photograph there was in fact a bottle
of beer on the table immediately in front of Prescott. It had been digitally removed
from the picture.
Another high profile case arose in early 1997 when Murdoch's Sun published photos
of Princess Diana and her lover Captain James Hewitt cavorting in a bedroom. The
photos were shot, clearly with a very long range lens, through the windows of what
appeared to be a country house. Unfortunately for the Sun, it transpired that the photos
were a hoax, but the incident did nevertheless raise questions about press standards if
they were prepared to publish pictures of a very intimate nature. How could they
claim that this was information in the public interest? What could the Sun claim that
the public had a right to know here? After all, Charles' and Diana's adultery during the
marriage was in the public domain, admitted by each of them. What purpose could be
served by publishing pictures of it? Except of course boosting circulation figures.
In the summer of 1997, the Daily Mirror, arch-rival to the Sun reputedly paid a
quarter of a million dollars for photographs of Princess Diana and her alleged lover at
the time, Dodi Al-Fayed, kissing in a boat on the Mediterranean. Here again it
emerged that one crucial photograph was digitally altered by the Mirrorto make it
look as if the Princess and Al-Fayed were kissing.
Finally, in August 1997, there was a wave of public revulsion against the 'paperazzi',
the freelance photographers, who were widely believed to have caused the death of
Diana and Al-Fayed as photographers on motorcycles chased their chauffeur-driven
car through the streets of Paris, allegedly causing a fatal car crash. At the time of
writing, it the cause of the crash has yet to be determined. On the day she died, her
brother made a full frontal attack on the press, accusing every editor who had ever
paid for sensational photos of her of having 'blood on his hands'. This sentiment
seemed to be echoed by many of those who flocked to Buckingham and Kensington
Palaces to mourn her. The Great British Public would do well to remember, though,
that Princess Diana, self-styled 'Princess of Hearts', was good box-office. Whenever
she was featured in newspapers, circulation rocketed. If newspaper editors can
reasonably be said to be complicit in her death, then so must the newspapers' readers.
One might also argue that one who deliberately courted media attention can hardly be
said to have been 'hounded'. It is ironic, perhaps, that the Princess died in France,
perhaps the country with the most draconian privacy laws in the whole of Europe.
The issue of invasion of royals' privacy was high on the agenda again in May 1999,
when The Sun editor, David Yelland, decided to publish pictures of the bride-to-be of
Prince Edward in which one of her nipples was visible. Rival newspapers were quick
to exploit the publication as a crass error of judgment, as indeed was the Palace.
Interestingly, The Times, like The Sun one of the Murdoch stable, also criticized
Yelland's 'empty folly' in publishing the picture. An Observer/ICM poll taken at the
time revealed that 77% of those questioned felt Britain should have some kind of
privacy laws to prevent press intrusion. It continued to seem unlikely, though, that
either the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, or the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, would
relish any attempt to frame a workable law.
Yelland, like every other newspaper editor, has the observance of the PCC's code
written into his contract and can therefore be sacked if in flagrant breach. Murdoch
'stood by' his editor, but the media outcry over the pictures may well prove to have
been a significant warning to the tabloids. This seems to be borne out by the
opprobrium heaped on The Sport later in the year by other newspaper editors when
Tony Livesey, editor-in-Chief, decided to run photos of Prime Minister Tony Blair's
son Euan kissing a girl at the Ministry of Sound club. Several downmarket tabloids
had also been offered the photos, but declined to publish because they clearly
infringed against the code. After Tony Balir made a formal complaint to the PCC,
other editors were quick to express their anger with Livesey and to distance
themselves from The Sport's practice, no doubt in an attempt to defuse the row before
it might lead to any strengthening of the Code.
In The Guardian of April 12 1999, Lord Wakeham, the PCC's head, mounted a stout
defence of the current self-policing system, arguing that the code imposes a
significant degree of self-censorship on editors and that the 'genuinely independent'
commission guarantees that the system will be operated fairly. In defence of the PCC,
Wakeham pointed out that since 1991 the Commission had dealt with 25,000
complaints and that in all of those the editors had responded in terms of the code.
Further, such problems as jigsaw identification of children in child abuse cases,
identification of victims of sexual assault have now been almost completely stamped
out, as also intrusion into the privacy of hospital patients and the unauthorized use of
listening devices. Wakeham claimed also that he could not think of a single editor
who would not correct an acknowleged inaccuracy rather than suffer the
Commission's censure. Finally, in Wakeham's view, one significant virtue of the
voluntary system is that it ensures cases are settled swiftly, 75% of all complaints
being dealt with in forty working days, which, he says, would almost certainly not be
the case if there were a statutory system, which would be challenged all along the line
by editors.
On the whole, ten years (in 2001) after its founding, the PCC seems to have been a
success, though many commentators remain dissatisfied with the PCC's preference for
acting as conciliator rather than judge, with the result that newspapers often have to
publish a small correction or letter, which seems to many of the aggrieved to be a
small price to pay for what they have suffered. Another significant criticism of the
PCC is that it does not permit complaints by third parties or by groups. Thus, for
example, there is no way that asylum seekers can respond to their vilification in the
British press, unless one of them is named individually.
Possible developments - the Human Rights Act
So under New Labour the issue of invasion of privacy remained high on the agenda.
Commenting on press reports on Foreign Secretary Robin Cook's affair with his
secretary, Labour's Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, suggested in the early days of the
New Labour Administration that there should be formalized protection of privacy
with the PCC given effective powers and remedies. All campaigners for freedom of
speech have always argued strongly against such 'prior restraint' and Irvine was duly
given a well-deserved kicking by the British press and the usually restrained Lord
Wakeham, Chairman of the PCC, expressed his disquiet about the Lord Chancellor's
Human Rights Bill, which has now become the Human Rights Act, incorporating the
European Convention on Human Rights into British law.
Downing Street was quick to dissociate itself from Irvine's statement, assuring the
press that there was no intention of introducing legislation on privacy.
However, Article 8 of the European Convention may well come to be interpreted by
the judges as in effect affording protection of privacy - thus 'prior restraint' on the
freedom of the press - although Article 10 guarantees the freedom of the press.
Furthermore, Downing Street's statement seems disingenuous at best, given that the
new government's Data Protection Bill had already had its second reading in
Parliament. The Bill is intended to implement the European Directive on the
Protection of Individuals in regard to the Processing of Data and thus will bring
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, protecting
'the fundamental rights and freedoms, notably the right to privacy'. This Bill caused
grave concern in the press, since its definition of 'personal data' was so broad that it
could, for example, encompass Robin Cook's relationship with his secretary (now his
wife) and the Bill would cover all such data held on computer, which of course would
cover journalists' stories. The Bill would require disclosure by a newspaper in reply to
any enquiry by an individual as to whether data are held about her and intends to give
such an individual the right to require the newspaper not to use the personal data if
their use may cause 'substantial damage' or 'substantial distress'. There are other
clauses in the Bill which provide for exemptions of journalists, but their application
will ultimately depend on the courts' interpretation of them.
After the Human Rights Act entered into law, it seemed ironic that the first legal case
in Britain to appeal to the right to privacy enshrined in the European convention was
brought by a couple who actively courted publicity - Michael Douglas and Catherine
Zeta-Jones. They had signed an exclusive contract with OK! magazine giving the
magazine the right to photograph their wedding. All other cameras were excluded,
guests electronically frisked as they arrived. Somebody, however, clearly did smuggle
a camera in, since Hello! magazine, OK!'s arch-rival proposed to publish photos three
days before OK! OK! attempted, and failed, to prevent the publication of the photos,
but Douglas and Zeta-Jones intended to sue Hello! for breach of privacy. Now that
might seem a pretty odd claim, given that they appeared to have sold their right to
privacy to OK! However, the appeal court agreed with them that, since they had
insisted on having full editorial control over the choice of photos, they had in fact
retained the right to privacy since they would have been able to maintain control of
the way in which their image was presented. The appeal court ruled that they had a
reasonable chance of winning and allowed their suit to proceed.
In June 2001, Heather Mills, at the time Paul McCartney's girlfriend, failed in a bid to
prevent the Sun from revealing the address of a house she had bought in Hove, even
though e-mails she had received had led her to believe that she was in danger. In that
case the judge took into account that it was well-known that Miss Mills already lived
in Hove and that her new address was bound to become known simply because she
was well-known and lived in a busy town.
Around the same time, it was ruled by the High Court that no British media outlet
would ever be permitted to reveal the whereabouts of Thompson and Venables, the
child killers of toddler James Bulger, who, having reached the age of 18, were due for
release at that time.
In July 2001 TV celebrity Amanda Holden sought an ex parte injunction against the
Daily Star newspaper (an ex parte injunction is issued in the absence of one of the
parties - the Daily Star in this case). She had been photographed apparently using a
long lens while on holiday with her husband in a private Italian villa. Although the
PCC would almost certainly have censured the use of the pictures, Ms Holden chose
to go straight to court, claiming infringement of her right to privacy under the Human
Rights Act. Ms Holden demanded that the Star desist from publishing the other
photos it intended to publish and issued a writ demanding damages.
The law relating to privacy seems currently to be a mess. There never has been any
such right recognized in British common law, but the right is recognized under the
European Convention. If such actions as Douglas's and Holden's are successful,
especially since damages might turn out to be much higher than any fines which could
be imposed by a regulatory body, then the PCC's self-regulatory code will take on a
mandatory character, in effect introducing 'prior restraint', especially if a damages
element is introduced. Whilst many of us might find the intrusiveness of the tabloid
press unwarranted and distasteful much of the time, the effects of prior restraint could
be disastrous for investigative journalism. Was the lying politician, Johnathan Aitken,
on a private holiday when he was in Paris? If he was and the Human Rights Act had
been law at the time, how could The Guardian legally have discovered who paid his
hotel bill?
How this right comes to be applied and how it will impact on the media rests in the
lap of the judiciary for now. There have been complaints in the first few months since
the Act became law from a variety of different celebrities. There is a distinct
possibility that the press, which has escaped legislation on privacy through its
relatively responsible attitude in recent years, may well have privacy legislation
imposed on it, as a result of the Human Rights Act. Since the European Convention
also enshrines the right to freedom of speech, it is difficult to see how these two
potentially self-contradictory rights can both be safeguarded.
Remit
Code of Practice
The PCC operate a Code of Practice which covers the following:
•
•
•
accuracy - newspapers and periodicals should endeavour to print accurate
reports; if it transpires that a report was inaccurate, they should publish a
correction and an apology where appropriate; where the newspaper has been
the subject of an action for defamation, that should be reported;
opportunity to reply - individuals and organisations should be given a fair
opportunity to reply when reasonable;
comment, conjecture and fact - there should be a clear distinction between
conjecture and the reporting of facts;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
privacy - there should not normally be intrusion into people's private lives and
there should be no long-lens photos of people on private property. The 'public
interest' is justification for so doing;
listening devices - 'bugs' should not normally be used. The 'public interest' is a
justification for their use;
hospitals - permission should be obtained before a journalist reports from a
hospital; the privacy restrictions also apply here;
misrepresentation - journalists should not normally misrepresent themselves
in order to obtain information; documents and photos should not be removed
without the owner's position. The 'public interest' is justification only if
material cannot be obtained by other means;
harassment - journalists should not intimidate or harass. The 'public interest'
provides justification for photography, persistent telephoning, remaining on
property when asked to leave etc;
payment for articles - no offers of payment should be made to witnesses or
potential witnesses in a current criminal matter, nor to people engaged in
crime. The 'public interest' provides an exception;
intrusion into grief or shock - this should not happen unless the public has a
right to know;
interviewing or photographing children - not normally if under 16, except
with permission of parents/guardians; should not be approached or
photographed at school without permission;
children in sex cases - victims under 16 not to be identified, even if the law
does allow it; adult in a sex offence against a child should be identified - term
'incest' not to be used - offence to be described as 'serious offences against
young children' or similar - child not to be identified - nothing in report should
imply relationship between child and accused;
victims of crime - not to be identified, unless law permits it
discrimination - should avoid prejudicial reference to race, colour, sex,
religion, sexual orientation, physical illness, mental handicap; should avoid
publishing details of such matters unless of direct relevance;
financial journalism - information received not to be used for own profit, nor
passed on to others, even if not illegal; should not write about shares etc. in
which they have an interest without informing editor; should not buy or sell
shares etc. which they have written about in recent past or will write about in
near future;
confidential sources - should be protected;
public interest
Who may complain?
The PCC will normally consider complaints from those people directly affected. It
may sometimes consider complaints from third parties.
The PCC will not consider complaints which are the subject of court proceedings, nor
complaints which the complainant intends to take to court.
Complaints are normally accepted only within one month of the publication of the
subject of the complaint.
Normally, the PCC will expect that the matter will have been taken up with the
appropriate editor before the PCC is approached.
Complaints may normally be made only about matters covered by the Code of
Practice.
Dealing with complaints
Complaints are normally dealt with on paper, with no formal hearings.
Complaints are first sent to the relevant editor in the hope that the complaint can be
resolved.
If it is not resolved, the PCC will invite comment from the editor and sometimes from
a third party.
A report is then considered at the PCC's monthly meeting.
The PCC's adjudication is then sent to all parties. The newspaper or magazine is
required to publish the adjudication when a complaint is upheld. Publication is not
required in cases of intrusion into privacy or something which may allow the
identification of children.
Regulation and censorship contents list
Introduction to Mass Media Effects
Glossary of media studies terms