Reporting on the Ofcom/Reuters Institute ‘New News, Future News’ conference at Reuters Global HQ in Canary Wharf, November 23, 2007.
Notes posted during the event. These notes are not to be cited as direct quotes.
Peter: Role of Internet in helping people reinforce their prejudices
Get rid of the agonised public space
Claire: Need for paternalistic role of telling us something is important, such as what is happening in Burma? Is it an ideal worth having.
Let chaos/the market deal with it
Pam: Value in the BBC's rigourousness
For example, BBC climate change coverage is [poor]
Yes, though should still report negative stories
Claire: Who would you trust to deliver better news?
View that there are only tokenistic non-white, etc, news reporters.
Claire: Why would young person be better reporter?
When each channel has a different view on the news which do I trust?
Claire: Surely you are then asking for more diverse views from the young, etc.
All reporters sound like the Queen!
Claire: Are young working class people incapable of understanding this?
Problem is poor education for understanding news
David: Experience editing the Sun was that only way could increase sales was to run stories on Big Brother. Responsibility of young people to educate themselves, eg: I discovered Radio 4 when I was a kid
Why is it up to us to go out and find the news
David: It is up to you to decide [check]
Doesn't it in with my life
Pam: Should young people be expected to watch news?
Should have the choice Peter: What kinds of stories should we cover more or less?
Less on celebrity and reality TV. If you want to know about that you watch the programme or buy OK magazine
Peter: But if young people want those stories?
They can get that online. General viewers shouldn't be forced to watch it.
Lack of positive stories
Chair: Al Jazeera more trustworthy than the BBC?
Absolutely!
David: In event of terrorist attack in UK why would you turn to Al Jazeera over BBC?
Al Jazeera might really look at the root of the problem. Wouldn't associate it with religion.
David: Image problem for Islam? Don't get universal condemnation by Islamic organisations [when there are attrocities].
Need to look at causes. No religious motivation. David: Would it have been wrong to report attack on Twin Towers as a Muslim attack given history?
Report as attack on human values
Peter: How much more Muslim representation responding in these situations needed on BBC?
Don't just rely on [usual suspects] such as the Muslim Council of Britain. Think about impact if you don't present a fair and balanced way.
Danger of fragmenting public space and single conversation by diversifying news. Young people tend to have paranoid and conspiracy view young people had, made worse with ethnic minority groups.
Pam: Not watching news maps to the decline of voting
[Missed some comments]
Coverage of 7/7 was exemplary... There are objective facts that [need to be presented]. Always going or the slant [is not appropriate].
Claire: Are you preaching complacency?
We have gone a long way to fragmenting the message. "We have a balkanised media" and should try to shore up an authoritative voice.
Peter: Support shared set of facts, but need to response to fragmented debates that flows from a shared set of facts.
Do that in other formats, such a current affairs, but not mainstream news [Key]
David: Should we hope to see all quality newspapers read in schools? [check]
Yes. But not something the media itself can address. Broader social [issue]. [Key]
Chair: Final comments
Basically getting things right. rise of market, political converegnce with more technocratic politics that requires more effort, a framework, to understand [Key]
Pam: People want a space where news is unpacked for them. People have changed, society has changed, and we need to chill.
David: You need to try pretty hard to disengage from the media in this country
Claire: Youth are being used a stage army to push celebrity news and they don't even want it. But could just say: You are a teenager and we aren't going to [accede to your demand]. "Young people deserve complexity whether they want it or not". There is a possibility and and ideal of [presenting a] universal perspective, the quest for the truth. News is not a social service: it is meant to tell you the truth about what is happening in the world. It might have done it badly for years, but we should try. If it did young people might respect it. Institutions panicking in the face of a changing world.
Peter: Respectful view of audiences and responding to what audiences are looking for. The news needs to be what editorial judgement considers important, but also what people want.
The Business of the Nations and Regions: What do we want and can we afford it?
Discusses production cost of news
Possibilities: sponsored sections of non-news elements of programmes, 'aggregated eyeballs' [and others]
Sense that Scotland requires its own dedicated news services
[Shows video clips]
Our news talks to people not at them
[Discusses low costs achieved in local TV production]
"We make incredible inroads into the community". People are getting on TV who would never have been on ITV.
Issue of 'our currency' [viewer stats] not being accepted by advertisers
Why no 'devolution bounce' in Scotland? Drop in factual broadcasting in Scotland. In newspapers, steady decline in Scottish papers, including the Daily Record (once had the highest penetration of any title in Western Europe).
Reporting on Scottish affairs tending to appear only in Scottish editions
How to move forward: [missed one], partner with broadcasters, target audiences, grow digital across a range of platforms.
We have a standalone S1 online service. Almost not worth trying to engage young people in print (Yes, the case over many generations) but trying to engage them in digital with a focus on [areas of interest to them].
Re-launching site with rich content, micro-sites, video
Future: [missed on], complementary use of platforms, strategic positioning
Local news stations an important source of news [check]
What do people want? Weather (especially in times of severe weather), not international news. Local is very local.
Viewers by generation: [show generation-based sources for Boomers, Generation Xers, and Adult Millennials]. TV still has primacy. Shows such as Jon Stewart seen as a top source of news by Adult Millennials. [Key] Newspapers more important for news in UK. Newscast of record is moving to late show, local news and early morning. Women more interested in breaking hard news.
Growth of political advertising.
Content is king for local broadcasters. Move to hyper-localism, eg: street mapping of weather. [Key]
Bobby: See Gallic Digital project [check]
Nick Toon, C4:
John Lloyd: Do people who take more local news take less international news?
Bill: Not a zero sum game. We are just consuming a lot more news. [Notes simplicity of Google interface.] Rising tide has raised all ships.
Robert Beveridge, Napier University: [on where/how public sector news requirement should be delivered]
Mark: ITV no longer geared up for local news. Costs per hour still too high.
Chair: Broadband solutions?
Mark: Not seen anyone able to monetise a broadband TV station. We are acting as a bridge, from a service they can recognise to a narrowcast future
Dave Rushton, Institute of Local Television: Possibility of STV failing to properly service any of its audiences properly [?]
Chair: Haven't discussed radio today
Much continuity of news stories across channels, not entirely down to regulatory requirements
More skepticism about impartiality, perhaps partly because of media literacy
Accuracy considered more important that impartiality
Brain doesn't allow these feelings to come out in choices made
It is possible and desirable to present an impartial report on stories
We have no definition of impartiality which helps decide between Madeleine McCann story and inheritance tax
Self-supression of views: where can this come from? Top down media. Impartiality will exclude large parts of your audience. Unacceptable views become acceptable.
18 Doughty Street doesn't attempt to be even-handed. Fewer and fewer people watch mainstream TV.
Prefer concept of fairness through diversity.
In Northern Ireland there were typically two newspapers: one for Unionist the other for [Republican]. Resolution was helped by [impartiality] of media [check].
Why put in jeopardy our impartial broadcast media which is the envy of the world Is it argued that impartiality is dull? Or...
No one has ever said to me that there should be a change
Keeping impartiality will retain public trust
You can trust broadcasters even if you don't think they are being impartial
Legacy of lack of bandwidth/opportunities to respond
[Missed point]
Apart from last point, these are no longer issues
Head of news research, Channel 4: [Critiques research.] Research for 'What Muslims want' showed how many Muslims believe in conspiracy theories and I don't want to see a Muslim channel established to promote these views.
Peter Horrocks: Similar stories doesn't mean there is no diversity of approaches. Even if no rules, broadcasters would continue with impartiality as it is in their interest.
Tim Gardam, Oxford University: [...] When democracy was growing fastest in the UK, in the 1920s, we had no regulation. Wary of restricting diversity today. [Discusses Ofcom ruling on Fox News.]
Adrian Monck, City University: This research is leading in one particular direction and is less straight forward than we are lead to believe.
Dave Rushton, Institute for Local Television [check]:
Vicki Nash, Ofcom Scotland: Are both unrealistic as absolute concepts?
Stephen Whittle, BTSR: In Azerbaijan ot just the government speaking but the opposition.
Issue of disengagement in a period when news is more prevalent than ever, and lack of sense of responsibility for keeping in touch.
Plurality: see Burmese protests: traditional journalism and eye-witnness accounts along with user-generated images.
Competition has pushed up by quality Don
Nations and regions more pessimistic
Viewers value impartiality
We have no requirement to plurality. We also supply news to other broadcasters.
Sky News may appeal to young people as it is [less formal?].
Video on demand will change.
The people who should be here and aren't are Google
We can strengthen our position, with the value staying [complete]
Not just about us, but bloggers. We want competition. Greater ranges of voice for UK citizens.
Got to be more open, transparent and trustworthy
Will be more plurality within contribution
New forms of vertical integration: on the desktop, eg: MSNBC ticker/feed in Windows; Google is effectively the operating system for the Web, see Google News; mobile devices
There will be a lot more content out there but will be distilled by fewer [platforms]
Three strongest UK news brands in US are: BBC, Guardian and Daily Mail. Tremendous cause for excitement but need to be able to deliver.
But who will provide quality, and investigative reporting?
News at 10 coming back. Channel 4 News successful and has a younger audience
Lots of work to do on covering stories
Changes: Guardian, etc, will be big players in future. Having partial news won't be an issue as audiences understand.
Challenges of engaging with disengaged audiences
Brining in audiences to [us?]
But economic models are no longer work. Need new business models.
Most exciting medium and one in which we can ensure plurality.
Mark Byford: We are trusted, but have learned. Eg: around 7/7 that sticking to police point of view undermined trust. We also need to be prepared to link to other blog
Chair: has commitment to impartiality constrained plurality [check]
Simon: Historical situation was different, with limited bandwidth
Claire Fox: Issue of context. Beyond news, we had news analysis programmes, etc, to help people understand the news. Factual programming now is often lifestyle, or [propagandistic], eg: Honey, We're Killing the Kids. A more complicated picture. Post-ideological age of politics in which all parties agree. So, how do you bring in other voices to genuinely create critical thinking when politicians aren't delivering, but for the nation debating these things is important.
Martin Moore, Media Standards Trust: Losing plurality as news organisations not actively going to seek voices that aren't represented.
Mark: Challenging orthodoxy is what Channel 4 is. We are diversifying, not homogenising. "Journalistic filter is so vital in adding the trust element". This is where our future is as news providers and commercially.
Simon Waldman: We sometimes focus too much on blogging. Around tsunami, input was from tourists, and we didn't hear what was happening where tourists weren't, such as Banda Aceh. Just because we haven't heard from someone, or they haven't sent us a video, doesn't mean it is not going on. [Key] The core news story has remained remarkably resilient. [Key] Bloggers pinched the whole ideom of news stories.
Mark Byford: Should be confident that news is wanted and valued by the public.
Peter Philips: [...] Google News shows relative homogeneity of news providers [check]. Benefit of competition between strong news organisations. This will drive the kind of innovation we need to address issues such as homogeneity.
Will the regional broadcaster trump the national broadcaster? Is ITV's 50s model on the way out. Impartiality vs diversity debate: I didn't vote. Most compelling was Paul Murphy's comment that the need for someone trying to be objective was of greater value. We do need diversity. We have diversity already. See Claire Fox's point on needing hard reporting, searching for the truth, probably never getting to it. Objectivity gives reporting its public right, though the broadcaster should try to be all things to all people.
Last session: Google will even more determine what we watch... Argument in new book that new media are even more hierarchical than old, with people going to more restricted [views].
Is there a 'group essentialism' embodied in the idea that there is a particular view from ethnic minority and other groups?
Welcome and introduction: key themes for the day
Ed Richards, Chief Executive, Ofcom New News, Future News document- Plurality in an age of proliferation: does it need explicit regulatory intervention when it delivers value anyway to broadcasters
- Diversity of perspective and risk of disengagement: some decline in disengagement, and serious in some areas, including the young and some ethic minorities; issues of how groups presented in the media. (See Dispatches undercover reporting on mosques.)
- Impartiality: potential for stifling innovation, and denying access to other views of the world
- Nations and regions: viewers attach high value to these areas, especially today in nations
Disengagement among the young and ethnic minorities
Introduced by Alison Preston, Senior Research Officer, Ofcom Strong sense of apathy, though not around certain areas such as news. News media seen as an extension of authority. Factors:- Dominance of non-English parents
- Reliance on word of mouth
- [Missed others]
The Moral Maze: Disengagement
Chair: Ian Hargreaves, Senior Partner, Ofcom Panel- Claire Fox, Director, Institute of Ideas
- Pam Giddy, Ofcom Content Board
- David Mannion, Editor in Chief, ITV News
- David Yelland, Brunswick Group LLP Public Relations
Witnesses
Richard D North, Journalist and Commentator
Chair: [what is your position?] Scrap Ofcom as well! Wouldn't be a problem if broadcasting were stopped. News fetishises information. Takes days for the news to say anything sensible about what has happened.Peter: Role of Internet in helping people reinforce their prejudices
Get rid of the agonised public space
Claire: Need for paternalistic role of telling us something is important, such as what is happening in Burma? Is it an ideal worth having.
Let chaos/the market deal with it
Pam: Value in the BBC's rigourousness
For example, BBC climate change coverage is [poor]
Stacey, youth worker, Manchester
Claire: More positive stories on youth? And others, such as MPs?Yes, though should still report negative stories
Claire: Who would you trust to deliver better news?
View that there are only tokenistic non-white, etc, news reporters.
Claire: Why would young person be better reporter?
When each channel has a different view on the news which do I trust?
Claire: Surely you are then asking for more diverse views from the young, etc.
All reporters sound like the Queen!
Claire: Are young working class people incapable of understanding this?
Problem is poor education for understanding news
David: Experience editing the Sun was that only way could increase sales was to run stories on Big Brother. Responsibility of young people to educate themselves, eg: I discovered Radio 4 when I was a kid
Why is it up to us to go out and find the news
David: It is up to you to decide [check]
Taschen, doing A-levels, lives in Brixton
Pam: Are you happy with news?Doesn't it in with my life
Pam: Should young people be expected to watch news?
Should have the choice Peter: What kinds of stories should we cover more or less?
Less on celebrity and reality TV. If you want to know about that you watch the programme or buy OK magazine
Peter: But if young people want those stories?
They can get that online. General viewers shouldn't be forced to watch it.
Salma Yusef, Crime Prosecution Service, training to be a barrister
Chair: Correct balance?Lack of positive stories
Chair: Al Jazeera more trustworthy than the BBC?
Absolutely!
David: In event of terrorist attack in UK why would you turn to Al Jazeera over BBC?
Al Jazeera might really look at the root of the problem. Wouldn't associate it with religion.
David: Image problem for Islam? Don't get universal condemnation by Islamic organisations [when there are attrocities].
Need to look at causes. No religious motivation. David: Would it have been wrong to report attack on Twin Towers as a Muslim attack given history?
Report as attack on human values
Peter: How much more Muslim representation responding in these situations needed on BBC?
Don't just rely on [usual suspects] such as the Muslim Council of Britain. Think about impact if you don't present a fair and balanced way.
David Goodhart, Prospect magazine
Chair: Where do you stand?Danger of fragmenting public space and single conversation by diversifying news. Young people tend to have paranoid and conspiracy view young people had, made worse with ethnic minority groups.
Pam: Not watching news maps to the decline of voting
[Missed some comments]
Coverage of 7/7 was exemplary... There are objective facts that [need to be presented]. Always going or the slant [is not appropriate].
Claire: Are you preaching complacency?
We have gone a long way to fragmenting the message. "We have a balkanised media" and should try to shore up an authoritative voice.
Peter: Support shared set of facts, but need to response to fragmented debates that flows from a shared set of facts.
Do that in other formats, such a current affairs, but not mainstream news [Key]
David: Should we hope to see all quality newspapers read in schools? [check]
Yes. But not something the media itself can address. Broader social [issue]. [Key]
Chair: Final comments
Basically getting things right. rise of market, political converegnce with more technocratic politics that requires more effort, a framework, to understand [Key]
Audience discussion
Steve Barnett, University of Westminster: Three issues: Disengagement: no worse that when I was a student. Role of TV in addressing this: is it capable of or should it be obliged to address this. And what has this to do with impartiality requirements. No evidence that impartiality causes disengagement.Summing up
Peter: Need to get used to hearing things we don't want to hear, such as entertainment newsPam: People want a space where news is unpacked for them. People have changed, society has changed, and we need to chill.
David: You need to try pretty hard to disengage from the media in this country
Claire: Youth are being used a stage army to push celebrity news and they don't even want it. But could just say: You are a teenager and we aren't going to [accede to your demand]. "Young people deserve complexity whether they want it or not". There is a possibility and and ideal of [presenting a] universal perspective, the quest for the truth. News is not a social service: it is meant to tell you the truth about what is happening in the world. It might have done it badly for years, but we should try. If it did young people might respect it. Institutions panicking in the face of a changing world.
Peter: Respectful view of audiences and responding to what audiences are looking for. The news needs to be what editorial judgement considers important, but also what people want.
Nations, regions and local news
Chair: OfcomThe Business of the Nations and Regions: What do we want and can we afford it?
Introduced by John Glover, Senior Programme Executive, Ofcom
People want more local news, and more political news [check]Bobby Hain, Managing Director, SMG Television
[Discusses structure of STV news in Scotland, and challenges of last year]Discusses production cost of news
Possibilities: sponsored sections of non-news elements of programmes, 'aggregated eyeballs' [and others]
Sense that Scotland requires its own dedicated news services
Mark Dodson, Chief Executive, Channel M
There is a thirst for local news and content and odd that broadcasters are moving away from it[Shows video clips]
Our news talks to people not at them
[Discusses low costs achieved in local TV production]
"We make incredible inroads into the community". People are getting on TV who would never have been on ITV.
Issue of 'our currency' [viewer stats] not being accepted by advertisers
Charles McGhee, Editor, Glasgow Herald
We no longer enjoy a media monopoly and are being challenged by upstartsWhy no 'devolution bounce' in Scotland? Drop in factual broadcasting in Scotland. In newspapers, steady decline in Scottish papers, including the Daily Record (once had the highest penetration of any title in Western Europe).
Reporting on Scottish affairs tending to appear only in Scottish editions
How to move forward: [missed one], partner with broadcasters, target audiences, grow digital across a range of platforms.
We have a standalone S1 online service. Almost not worth trying to engage young people in print (Yes, the case over many generations) but trying to engage them in digital with a focus on [areas of interest to them].
Re-launching site with rich content, micro-sites, video
Future: [missed on], complementary use of platforms, strategic positioning
Bill Hague, Senior Vice President, Magid Associates: A North American Perspective: Why Local Matters
Local stations have very high marginsLocal news stations an important source of news [check]
What do people want? Weather (especially in times of severe weather), not international news. Local is very local.
Viewers by generation: [show generation-based sources for Boomers, Generation Xers, and Adult Millennials]. TV still has primacy. Shows such as Jon Stewart seen as a top source of news by Adult Millennials. [Key] Newspapers more important for news in UK. Newscast of record is moving to late show, local news and early morning. Women more interested in breaking hard news.
Growth of political advertising.
Content is king for local broadcasters. Move to hyper-localism, eg: street mapping of weather. [Key]
Panel discussion
[Discussion of (end of/new) advertising models]Audience discussion
[Missed question] Mark: [discusses CRR (Contracts Rights Renewal) and idea of aggregating local advertising across country] Tim Gardam: Impact of local competition from BBCBobby: See Gallic Digital project [check]
Nick Toon, C4:
John Lloyd: Do people who take more local news take less international news?
Bill: Not a zero sum game. We are just consuming a lot more news. [Notes simplicity of Google interface.] Rising tide has raised all ships.
Robert Beveridge, Napier University: [on where/how public sector news requirement should be delivered]
Mark: ITV no longer geared up for local news. Costs per hour still too high.
Chair: Broadband solutions?
Mark: Not seen anyone able to monetise a broadband TV station. We are acting as a bridge, from a service they can recognise to a narrowcast future
Dave Rushton, Institute of Local Television: Possibility of STV failing to properly service any of its audiences properly [?]
Chair: Haven't discussed radio today
The issue of impartiality
Steve Perkins, Head of Public Service Broadcasting Content, Ofcom [Missed start]Much continuity of news stories across channels, not entirely down to regulatory requirements
More skepticism about impartiality, perhaps partly because of media literacy
Accuracy considered more important that impartiality
Debate: “This House believes that, when it comes to news, diversity is more important than impartiality”
Chair: Richard Holme, House of LordsFor: Stephan Shakespeare, 18 Doughty Street
Impartiality is a middle class fetish. See number of BBC people showing themselves as liberal on Facebook.Brain doesn't allow these feelings to come out in choices made
It is possible and desirable to present an impartial report on stories
We have no definition of impartiality which helps decide between Madeleine McCann story and inheritance tax
Self-supression of views: where can this come from? Top down media. Impartiality will exclude large parts of your audience. Unacceptable views become acceptable.
18 Doughty Street doesn't attempt to be even-handed. Fewer and fewer people watch mainstream TV.
Prefer concept of fairness through diversity.
Against: Paul Murphy MP
Good interviewers are politically impartial, but diverse in [approaches]In Northern Ireland there were typically two newspapers: one for Unionist the other for [Republican]. Resolution was helped by [impartiality] of media [check].
Why put in jeopardy our impartial broadcast media which is the envy of the world Is it argued that impartiality is dull? Or...
No one has ever said to me that there should be a change
Keeping impartiality will retain public trust
You can trust broadcasters even if you don't think they are being impartial
- [Issue of how you regulate stories you regulator doesn't see?]
- Do broadcasters tend to pick subjects that are easier to cover impartiality, such as politics?
- 'Due impartiality': who decides? Broadcasters. More misleading for the audience that someone else is deciding impartiality. Be explicit. Let the audience decide. [Check]
- Look at terms of debate: more important than...Making it the overall goal is wrong. Impartiality is only important when there is an absence of diversity. Regulators shouldn't let audiences believe they live in a protected environment. Audiences are distrustful of broadcasting's professional mystique.
For: Tim Suter, Ofcom
Impartiality is an anachronism. Regulators ind it hard to throw rules away. Rare chance to start from the beginning.Legacy of lack of bandwidth/opportunities to respond
[Missed point]
Apart from last point, these are no longer issues
Against: Richard Tait, Director of Journalism, Cardiff School of Journalism
- [Describes lack of impartiality in US network coverage of Iraq War
- People get the value of impartiality as an aspiration, even if it is not achieved. Not desirable to present black and ethic minority audiences biased news.
- Old fashioned view of what impartiality is. We have moved on from the 'on the one hand, on the other hand approach. See recent BBC report [the Wagon Wheels report?] True impartiality is about fairly reflecting diversity. The tools and technologies are there to bring impartial journalism to areas in which it doesn't yet exist.
Audience discussion
Steve Barnett, University of Westminster: "This debate has been mugged by Ofcom". The research is flawed and has been misinterpreted. (Comparing figures from one year an another.) There are no empirical conclusions that can be drawn from this research. Is Ofcom going to be taking sides, or presenting evidence to inform debate?Head of news research, Channel 4: [Critiques research.] Research for 'What Muslims want' showed how many Muslims believe in conspiracy theories and I don't want to see a Muslim channel established to promote these views.
Peter Horrocks: Similar stories doesn't mean there is no diversity of approaches. Even if no rules, broadcasters would continue with impartiality as it is in their interest.
Tim Gardam, Oxford University: [...] When democracy was growing fastest in the UK, in the 1920s, we had no regulation. Wary of restricting diversity today. [Discusses Ofcom ruling on Fox News.]
Adrian Monck, City University: This research is leading in one particular direction and is less straight forward than we are lead to believe.
Dave Rushton, Institute for Local Television [check]:
Vicki Nash, Ofcom Scotland: Are both unrealistic as absolute concepts?
Stephen Whittle, BTSR: In Azerbaijan ot just the government speaking but the opposition.
Summing up
Chair: Motion overwhelmingly defeatedQuality, plurality and platforms – and other themes from the day
Chair: Tim Gardam, Chair, Reuters InstituteIssue of disengagement in a period when news is more prevalent than ever, and lack of sense of responsibility for keeping in touch.
Kristina Glushkova [check], Ofcom
[Discusses statistics around news use.] Online use for traditional ends, eg: reading stories.Peter Philips, Ofcom
[Didn't fully note]Plurality: see Burmese protests: traditional journalism and eye-witnness accounts along with user-generated images.
Competition has pushed up by quality Don
Nations and regions more pessimistic
Viewers value impartiality
Simon Bucks, Sky News
Relentless expansionism of BBC, eg: News 24 against Sky News. This has had an impact on profitability.We have no requirement to plurality. We also supply news to other broadcasters.
Sky News may appeal to young people as it is [less formal?].
Video on demand will change.
The people who should be here and aren't are Google
Mark Byford, Deputy Director General, BBC
[Didn't fully note]We can strengthen our position, with the value staying [complete]
Not just about us, but bloggers. We want competition. Greater ranges of voice for UK citizens.
Got to be more open, transparent and trustworthy
Simon Waldman, Director of Digital Strategy and Development, Guardian Media Group
Building up outlets in other areas, such as Real Radio ScotlandWill be more plurality within contribution
New forms of vertical integration: on the desktop, eg: MSNBC ticker/feed in Windows; Google is effectively the operating system for the Web, see Google News; mobile devices
There will be a lot more content out there but will be distilled by fewer [platforms]
Three strongest UK news brands in US are: BBC, Guardian and Daily Mail. Tremendous cause for excitement but need to be able to deliver.
But who will provide quality, and investigative reporting?
Mark Wood, Chief Executive, ITN
News coverage immeasurably better than in the past with respect toNews at 10 coming back. Channel 4 News successful and has a younger audience
Lots of work to do on covering stories
Changes: Guardian, etc, will be big players in future. Having partial news won't be an issue as audiences understand.
Challenges of engaging with disengaged audiences
Brining in audiences to [us?]
But economic models are no longer work. Need new business models.
Most exciting medium and one in which we can ensure plurality.
Panel discussion
Chair: problem of BBC trying to be authoritative in a society where people accept authorityMark Byford: We are trusted, but have learned. Eg: around 7/7 that sticking to police point of view undermined trust. We also need to be prepared to link to other blog
Chair: has commitment to impartiality constrained plurality [check]
Simon: Historical situation was different, with limited bandwidth
Audience discussion
Mandy McCormack, Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust: Panel of middle-aged white men is not very plural [check]. Very self-referential. Needs to be a wider appreciation of the changes going on in the industry. [Interesting point, but needs clarification.]Claire Fox: Issue of context. Beyond news, we had news analysis programmes, etc, to help people understand the news. Factual programming now is often lifestyle, or [propagandistic], eg: Honey, We're Killing the Kids. A more complicated picture. Post-ideological age of politics in which all parties agree. So, how do you bring in other voices to genuinely create critical thinking when politicians aren't delivering, but for the nation debating these things is important.
Martin Moore, Media Standards Trust: Losing plurality as news organisations not actively going to seek voices that aren't represented.
Summing up
Simon Bucks: We are all middle-aged white men. Need more voices inside our newsrooms. Variety of consumers by platform. See experiment with Sky.com TV. But should one be leading on Madeleine McCann every day? Need more diverse news gatherers/treaters.Mark: Challenging orthodoxy is what Channel 4 is. We are diversifying, not homogenising. "Journalistic filter is so vital in adding the trust element". This is where our future is as news providers and commercially.
Simon Waldman: We sometimes focus too much on blogging. Around tsunami, input was from tourists, and we didn't hear what was happening where tourists weren't, such as Banda Aceh. Just because we haven't heard from someone, or they haven't sent us a video, doesn't mean it is not going on. [Key] The core news story has remained remarkably resilient. [Key] Bloggers pinched the whole ideom of news stories.
Mark Byford: Should be confident that news is wanted and valued by the public.
Peter Philips: [...] Google News shows relative homogeneity of news providers [check]. Benefit of competition between strong news organisations. This will drive the kind of innovation we need to address issues such as homogeneity.
Summing up
John Lloyd, Reuters Institute, Ofcom Disengagement can be a choice. Maybe there is no way of avoiding the Balkanisation of broadcasting.Will the regional broadcaster trump the national broadcaster? Is ITV's 50s model on the way out. Impartiality vs diversity debate: I didn't vote. Most compelling was Paul Murphy's comment that the need for someone trying to be objective was of greater value. We do need diversity. We have diversity already. See Claire Fox's point on needing hard reporting, searching for the truth, probably never getting to it. Objectivity gives reporting its public right, though the broadcaster should try to be all things to all people.
Last session: Google will even more determine what we watch... Argument in new book that new media are even more hierarchical than old, with people going to more restricted [views].
Is there a 'group essentialism' embodied in the idea that there is a particular view from ethnic minority and other groups?
Comments