(Dis)owning the news...

****

There was a time when I bought two newspapers every day. In the morning I'd buy the Daily Telegraph in the shop over the road, walk to Kent House station and complete the crossword on the journey to London Bridge (the aim was to get it done before reaching Herne Hill but this seldom happened). On the way home I'd buy the London Evening News and do its three crosswords - the worst of these was the so-called children's crossword.

I write this because, back then, other than the evening news on the TV, that was the sum total of our news consumption. Almost everyone bought one or other of the national papers and in doing so maintained a huge industry of paper boys, paper stalls, newsagents, journalists, advertising executives and sales people. Not to ignore the legendary - or should I say notorious - printers with their closed shops and 'spanish practices'. Living in South London I knew a few printers - my friend in the YCs, Ian was from a whole family of Fleet Street printers (Tory voters every one). They all had private print shops and, when they needed some extra cash, would do a shift or two on the Sundays - whether this actually entailed any work was something I never fully discovered.

Newspapers were big business and they were important. Ownership mattered and those papers could and did set the national agenda, influence the outcome of political debates and make a difference to the way people voted. And the legacy of all this remains - the media is still slightly obsessed with the ups and downs of the newspapers especially that part of the media not owned by Rupert Murdoch or Lord Rothermere.

The most recent manifestation of this obsession is the idea that we can crowdsource the funds to buy one or two of the national titles off Rupert Murdoch:

Hardly surprising, then, to see the groundswell of support for a new campaign, “Let’s Own the News” which launched this week and is inviting pledges from people who like the idea of buying The Times and The Sunday Times from Rupert Murdoch.  Backed by The Young Foundation, Let’s Own the News say that “80% of the national newspapers we read are controlled by 5 families, this is not a free press and it undermines our democracy. Our vote is worth little if a few people control the information we read. ”

So far the campaign has raised a little over £250,000 which probably isn't enough to buy the two titles right now. However,  setting aside the vanity of this project, the truth about news - or rather newspapers - is that ownership is of little relevance. We the people have, in the main, disowned newspapers.

Back in the 1970s sales for daily newspapers were around 16m and for Sunday newspapers around 20m - this is more-or-less one per household (there were about 19m households in the UK in 1975). By way on contrast, in 2000, there were 25m households and sales for daily and Sunday papers stand at around 10m apiece. This suggests that at least half - and probably more - of households did not buy a newspaper at all. This trend continues.

A hard business look at the Times and Sunday Times might suggest that these titles simply aren't viable (or likely to be viable). It makes sense for a large conglomerate to own them - they provide gravitas, have a brand that can be used elsewhere and provide an influential platform for opinion. On their own - without the protection of News Corp or a deep pocketed private trust such as the Guardian's owner - the prospects for creating a sustainable and profitable newspaper business is, to put it mildly, pretty slim.

But that's the business of the folk trying to buy the newspaper. What bugs me slightly is their argument that the change is needed to reduce the concentrated control of the news and hence the news agenda. The argument that the newspapers are owned by only 5 families completely misses the point. The real problem isn't with newspapers but with the organisation that controls nearly 40% of media output in the UK and which has a wholly disproportionate influence over the news agenda.

Changing the ownership of the Times wouldn't make a jot of difference - fewer than a million folk buy the papers and, since they disappeared behind a paywall, they don't get the millions of online visits that the Telegraph, Mail and Guardian enjoy. But reforming the BBC would make a difference. Our news consumption is via the TV, computer and mobile phone and it is here that the change must come. Put simply the case for having a state broadcaster that dominates UK online news and is funded via a poll tax is now almost impossible to justify. Rather than trying (and probably failing) to raise £100m to buy the times, the Young Foundation would serve the cause of a more open news economy much better by campaigning to scrap the licence fee.

As consumers we have disowned newspapers, they are increasingly marginal and it is hard to see a future for them in their traditional role or format. The future of news creation and distribution is online and mobile and right now the BBC is making it hard for choice and independence to succeed in this new news market. If we want to reduce the concentration of media power then the place to start is with the BBC not the Times.

....

Is it time to scrap the licence fee?

****

The nature of technology means that the license fee - unless the basis for its collection changes - is a diminishing return as people switch to self-programmed TV and media consumption. In effect, only big live events would make the cut and these will be on at the local pub, on big screens in the town square and probably in new venues like village halls or community centres.

And the public rather understands this and, increasingly supports scrapping the fee:

Half (51 per cent) of the UK want the BBC licence fee scrapped and the corporation to fund itself, a study of 2,049 Brits by ComRes has found.

Of course the BBC is having some sort of apoplexy at the temerity of the public and refers to its own (unpublished) research on the matter. Research that, naturally, shows a majority supporting the license fee.  What we need to appreciate here is that the BBC start by establishing that the licence fee is value-for-money (which it probably is) and then move to argue that this justifies its continuation. I find that, quite the contrary, the value-for-money defence undermines the rationale for a licence fee - if the fee is such good value then people will surely be happy to pay it voluntarily?

I am also uncertain as to the sense or purpose in having a state broadcaster. In the infancy of TV this rather made sense as did getting the income from licensing the hardware - after all it was only in the 1970s when near universal ownership of TVs was reached. Now, in a world of multiple, competing broadcasters the case for a state system collapses as does the compulsory approach to funding. If government wishes to use part of available output for its messages then, rather than owning the biggest chunk of broadcasting, it should purchase such coverage on the market.

And the way to guarantee the independence of the BBC - something we treasure - could be to take away the government's control of the Corporation's financing. So long as the funding for the BBC is via a state mandated poll tax then it remains a state broadcaster. I see no reason why the majority of people, through one route or another, wouldn't carry on subscribing to the BBC's coverage on a voluntary basis. And we would maybe see a reduction in the Corporation's indulgence in casual financial waste such as sending nearly 400 people to Brazil for the World Cup Finals and similar numbers to cover the US elections and Glastonbury festival.

None of the arguments here are about attacking the BBC. Rather, such an approach would make the BBC a more potent force since it would lose it's 'part of the state' tag and get a defence against being simply dismissed as 'establishment'. The Corporation might be smaller and some of its programming may move to orthodox advertising-based funding models but I believe it would be strengthened by such independence not weakened.

....

How the BBC licence fee amounts to subsidising middle class hobbies

****



I return to this matter of the free rider. But this time, I am stretching the thinking a little to look at the extent to which certain groups receive far more value from the BBC licence fee than others. It has seemed to me for some while that, despite its efficiency as a tax (it is after all a near universal poll tax), the license fee presents some issues of equity.

At the heart of this is use – whether or not we get value from the license fee depends on the extent to which we make use of the BBC’s services. As I noted before with cinema popcorn and service stations, there is an implicit cross subsidy within the BBC's business model. And, as with those situations the cross subsidy is intended to ensure that some ‘free’ goods are provided. In the BBC’s case, these free goods are what is termed ‘public service’ and provision for ‘minorities’ (or rather a selected group of minorities – we have an Asian radio station but no station for gypsies, for example). And the biggest minority benefit goes to elite arts and culture.

This all seems perfectly fine until you appreciate that my friends who slump before assorted soaps, televised sport and reality TV are forced to subsidise grand opera, symphony orchestras and ‘up themselves’ late night arts discussions (and frankly such folk are more likely to be annoyed by this than they are irritated by Jonathan Ross’s package). Because of the ‘public service’ requirement (and limiting broadcast restrictions), my friends are contributing to religious programming, to earnest current affairs analyses and the development of a vast internet empire. I suspect that, given a choice, these friends would choose not to cough up for any of this stuff.

Which brings us to the free rider problem. Bluntly, middle class arty-farty types like me are getting a brilliant deal from the BBC – vast subsidies for our narrow, minority interests are achieved by transferring cash from people forced to pay for the license fee who would never pay for subsidising a ballet company. And these people will make some observations about these subsidies – like the fact that their chosen preferences either are too plebby for subsidy (not a lot of public subsidy for the Northern club circuit, I notice) or else are more than capable for paying their own way without support – the BBC aren’t subsidising rugby league, country and western or snooker.

So those of us who enjoy minority music, who want to watch a bunch of smug people pontificate about books we’ll never read or who want to watch god being bothered get this on the cheap because people who don’t want that stuff are paying the same price. And the BBC gets a further economic benefit from all this as those benefiting from this cross-subsidy (which is, generally speaking, from poor to rich) provide an articulate, media-savvy, well-connected lobby aimed at persuading the government to maintain the current poll tax. Plus, of course, reminding the poor saps being ripped off just how important the poll tax is to maintaining these vital cultural institutions.

As a result we have an ‘elite’ arts and cultural sector that is de facto nationalised (this is especially the case with music) – so dependent on continued subsidy that its leaders simply cannot envisage a sustainable model based on the idea that people pay an economic price to watch or listen. The very business model that makes London theatre profitable and allows for the continued extension of aging rock stars’ careers wouldn't work for Philip Glass or Newsnight Review.

I do not think the licence fee should be scrapped rather that a gradual reduction of its significance to the BBC is needed. The BBC’s business model should seek to monetise all those aspects of provision that are not clearly and definably a public service. Over time the license fee should whither to a small amount directed to clearly described and limited purposes – everything else should be paid for by the user, through advertising, using sponsorship or through other charges. I can think of no rational or moral case for carrying on with taking poor people’s money to subsidise rich folk’s hobbies – however much I may like those hobbies.



....