When England win at cricket or a Briton wins at Wimbledon, are we surprised by the prominence given to these stories by the editors of our national media? Is this evidence of ‘pack mentality’ and a lack of diversity in the media? The answer may be that this is a flippant example. Nonetheless, the broader questions raised by examining the diversity of perspectives available to UK citizens in the media and the strength of influence they hold over public opinion and the political agenda are – rightly – hotly debated.
Looking at discussion generated over these questions reveals a somewhat foreboding prospect – which perhaps helps explain politicians’ reluctance hitherto to risk entering the fray. However, these are, I would argue, too important a set of questions to leave aside. That is why the Select Committee on Communications, which I chair, is currently tackling them head on, conducting our own inquiry into media plurality.
We are taking a great deal of evidence, which you can follow on our website, on a range of fundamental questions: What is the scope of policy in this area? How should media plurality be measured? Which are the right remedies if insufficient plurality is found? Who should administer these and how? And so on.
Asking these questions shows that in many cases lines are drawn, trenches are dug and the embers of old battles recently fought are not yet fully out. However, there are signs that some real consensus might be found. By early next year we will make recommendations to the Government which we hope, therefore, will help form the basis for a less fractured and more understanding discussion on media plurality. Perhaps it is even possible that from the ashes a new settlement will emerge with which all sides might agree.
To find out more about this inquiry and the work of the Select Committee on Communications – visit the Committee’s website.
I am not sure but I think the noble lord Inglewood is making a comment about what I usually describe as “propaganda”.
Media news editors are a law surely unto themselves and have policies which we can only guess at. The subliminal effect of statements made to the “plebs” or masses has to be thought out carefully, if one senses any personal involvement, any angled personal attack?
Closing one’s ears to the news can be one way of avoiding their objectionable remarks, but sometimes one has to search to establish
what has been said and how to deal with it.
i have been confronted on occasion with a private individual telling me something about myself, which is entirely false and damaging, and having to enquire where they acquired that particular gem of information, in order to deal with it through/on the appropriate channels.
It is not as though I am, or have been, paid in any way, for my conscientious pains or pleasures.
If that is not the subject the noble lord is dealing with then just ignore the post!
Eh?
Even allowing for your flippant example the suggestion that with more media players the coverage of Wimbledon or the Ashes would be meaningfully different is strange. You can’t force papers (though many politicians might wish they could) to cover the stories that politicians want in the way they wish.
Media plurality is usually little more than code for left of centre media or political interests to attack Rupert Murdoch. The BBC is easily the biggest and only effective monopoly in the UK media yet seemingly that is never regarded as a plurality issue whereas massively smaller organisations are. For anyone with an interest Ofcom provided some reasonable up to date graphs below for media reach.
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/OfcomPITReport_NewsCorp-BSkyB_31DEC2010.pdf
Surely what is missing from the Media (especially from the BBC which should know better)
is “essentiality”.
For instance, why does the Media not raise public-campaigns of Protest in favour of all sides of information being not only fully presented to the Public but disinterested-honestly so ?
Why corrupt our minds with wrongful-whitewash words such as
“Friendly-Fire”,
“Ethnic-Cleansing”, and
“got to let you go”
when the facts are
“accidental injury/killing”
“genocidal persecution” and
“sacking you” ?
Why does the BBC not show us new advances in Individual and Collective Human Development (such as “The Busy Person’s Guide To Easier Movement” (Wildman following Feldenkrais) and “How To Win Every Argument” (Pirie) ?
and in Cooperative-Problem-Solving such as jointly between “Six Thinking Hats” (de Bono) and “Leader Effectiveness Training” (Gordon; showing the ‘win-win-win’ Method III first and friendly resort for recognising our needs and planning how they may best be met [“Affordable-Hows”] ?
(but please don’t try to go on kidding us that such information-sharing is ever going to be a delivering of “Intelligence”).
you (governance and media) need to be providing us (All Peoples) with all-round-information, then Clear, Charitable, and Self-Corrigible two-way dialectical communication and multi-way discussion;
and be delivering Honest-Argumentation
& All-Round-In-Depth-Moral-Reasoning.
We need a Media dedicated and staffed to publish not only all-round and particular “Truth, Whole Truth, and nothing but The Truth”
but to also be constitutionally required to publish non-biased critiques, questions and comments thereto.
Croft put that rather well.