The Cairncross report makes me nervous. Here's why
The Government commissioned Cairncross Review, aimed at helping create a sustainable future for journalism, was released this week. Despite being a major piece of work, it got somewhat buried in the ongoing Brexit chaos.
There is much to recommend in Dame Frances Cairncross’ report. In particular, the former journalist and academic rightly highlights the need for far greater media literacy – that means teaching people how to evaluate the information they are given and the sources they get it from. The review recommends that the Government work with Ofcom, online platforms, news publishers, broadcasters, voluntary organisations and academics to develop and improve media literacy strategy.
However, it appears that Dame Frances sees a rather significant role for the state in the future media landscape beyond that. For example, she says that online platforms must expand initiatives for identifying reliable and trustworthy sources, and that this should be done with “appropriate oversight” because “this task is too important to leave entirely to the judgment of commercial entities.”
I appreciate we already have regulators that oversee the work of commercial media entities – the likes of Ofcom and IPSO. But there is something about a regulator deciding what news is trustworthy or not that makes me somewhat nervous.
While Dame Frances’ idea does not go nearly as far as the Royal Prerogative proposal that came in for such criticism during the Leveson process, it does feels a step beyond what IPSO and Ofcom currently do. They decide if reporting is accurate and fair. Beyond that, it is for the public to decide what is trustworthy, and better media literacy would help us all do this more proficiently. (It is worth noting that the Cairncross review explicitly did not look at the issue of fake news.)
I still have Jeremy Corbyn’s threat to the media – “change is coming” – ringing in my ears. Given the current Labour leadership’s approach to the media, it is not too hard to imagine a Corbyn-led Government pressurising, or even forcing, a regulator into branding as “untrustworthy” outlets that do not act as his cheerleaders.
The review goes on to say that “the Government should launch a new fund focussed on innovations aimed at improving the supply of public-interest news”. This would not be run directly by the Government but, at least initially, by global innovation foundation, Nesta. It would then be taken on by a new Institute for Public Interest News that the review wants to see established. Dame Frances suggested that such a body “might become a rough equivalent to the Arts Council, channelling a combination of public and private finance into those parts of the industry it deemed most worthy of support.”
It is a worthy aim, but again I’m nervous – if at least some of the money is coming from the state, what impact does that have of the coverage? Isn’t there a risk that if “public interest news” goes a bit too hard on local authorities, the Government or other public bodies, that money could suddenly disappear? Private media proprietors and backers get asked such questions all the time. Public money should certainly get scrutinised in the same way, even if it is being supplied by an arms length QUANGO.
And how to go about deciding what news outlets and subjects are “worthy of support”? If there is public money involved, people will want justification for every story it funds. Look at the scrutiny of the BBC for evidence of that. Look too at the mocking and sneering which greet many Arts Council commissions. When public money is spent on things like arts and culture, inevitably it goes towards things that some people do not like. The tension that causes will only be heightened when it is “public interest news” that’s getting the cash.
Elsewhere, the Cairncross Review calls for the “direct funding for local public-interest news” via the expansion of the Local Democracy Reporting Service. Government funding local news? I’m not so sure.
Of course, I understand the motivation behind such an idea. Local news is a cornerstone of democracy. It provides a crucial service to communities across the country day-in-day-out. But it is hard, verging on impossible, to cover the local council, courts and so on in a financially viable way. However, I do worry about both the principle and the practical consequences of one arm of the state providing money for journalists to cover another part of it.
It is somewhat stating the obvious to say that the media industry has been severely disrupted in recent times. Your reading this on TheArticle proves that! It is perfectly worthy and noble for the Government to commission experts to help it understand what it is going on.
Equally, I do not want to criticise an in-depth piece of work, whilst giving few answers myself. I agree with the review’s recommendations for an increased government role in media literacy, and a Competitions and Market Authority investigation into the online advertising market, and the Facebook/Google duopoly that dominates it.
Media literacy in particular, though not a silver bullet, is an essential part of making sure people can evaluate the trustworthiness of the news sources they read and watch. It is right that the Government should actively work to improve it. But further government intervention in the media landscape, certainly in way the Dame Frances advocates it, is not the right answer.
