The British Press Market - Essay Example

1. How free is the British press market When people talk about "free press" they mean a press that is independent of direct control. Since theabolition of the Star Chamber Court and the abandonment of press licensing in 1695, as well as the 1792 Fox's Libel Act and the 1843 libel reforms, the British press was now believed to be independent of state's political, ideological and financial control (Currant, 2002, 79). The advent of advertising meant that newspapers could generate their own income and not have to rely on state and party subsidies, which put them under subjection to those who held the purse strings. While today's "independent" British press enjoys relative freedom and can offer the reading public a range of viewpoints, it is controlled by the sway of advertising dollars, which has introduced a new type of censorship regulated by market forces (Curran 2002, 81). Today, some of the influences that restrict the notion of press freedom include: "the political commitments and private interests of media shareholders, the influence exerted through news management and the ideological power of leading groups in society." (Currant 2002, 221) 2. Does Britain have a 'fourth-rate' estate The term "fourth estate" refers to media, which was the fourth estate after the proverbial "three estates": the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal, and the House of Commons (MSN Encarta Online). More recently, it has come to refer to the press' "explicit capacity of advocacy and its implicit ability to frame political issues" (Wikipedia). Originally, the press stood in "an antagonistic and inquisitional role in relation to the state and its institutions", but with the changes in direct state control and the emergence of politically affiliated "free" press, the press has now become "a part of the political machine" (Negrine 1994, 44). Although the idea of the press as the "fourth estate" has been criticized as a myth, many critics suggest that politicians have a vested interest in maintaining the propaganda of an independent press. (Negrine 47). Inherent in Baislow's term "fourth-rate" then, is the strong belief that the press industry is in urgent need of reform. 3. How partisan is the British press Many sources argue that the British press is quite partisan, which is an ironic development from the press' "freedom" from the state, which actually "freed it into the arms of eager politicians" (Negrine, 42). Without state subsidies and stamps, newspaper went through a process of commercialization which gave birth to a press that is "predominantly supportive of established power" contributing to "the underlying conservatism of British society." (Currant 2002, 103) Among the criticisms levelled at the British press is its right-wing bias. (Currant 2002, 98) Curran, for example, shows that papers such as the Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily Telegraph, Daily Sketch and Daily Herald/Sun were unflinchingly partisan for decades, reflecting the influence of "a new generation of partisan, interventionist proprietors" (Curran 2003, 69), even if the majority of their readership does not support the political leaning of the papers' proprietor. In the pre-world war period, there were many newspaper proprietors who were politicians, and later many journalists and editors were politically engaged, while some papers were even funded by political parties because they espoused the same political ideologies. "Despite the growing independence of the press from political parties, vestiges of 19th-century practices remained as politicians persisted in summoning newspapers to their side of the political battle by whatever means possible." (Negrine 44) However, partisanship is not strictly true of all newspapers, at least not in their initial years. Today is one example, or The Independent, launched in October 1986 with venture capital, which "seeks to give fair coverage to all political viewpoints and to treat all views with a degree of respect not always found in other serious newspapers". (Negrine 51) 4. What is meant by the concept of 'parallelism' Parallelism is a correlation between political parties and individual newspapers, as well as between "the range of papers and the range of parties". In the British press for example, parallelism is manifested in an "unfairness" to the Labour Party and an "infatuation" with the Conservative Party (Negrine 40). Parallelism is based on certain criteria: i) if a newspaper is closely linked to a party by organisation, loyalty to party goals and the partisanship of its readers. ii) if every newspaper is linked extremely closely to one or another party iii) if the number of newspapers in the system was distributed between the parties in proportion to each party's strength (Negrine 52). 5. Is this a useful explanation of partisan relations Parallelism is useful in determining "the extent to which newspapers reflect or fail to reflect the breadth of the party political discourse". (Negrine 52) It gives a plausible explanation to the intimate relationship politics and print, and it also explains how the system reproduces itself. Even when there is partial parallelism, political ideologies are mirrored in the media: dominant political views dominate the press, and less dominant ones (or opposition parties) have little opportunity to challenge the status quo. (Negrine 40) This explains in part the conservatism of the British media, but insofar as the press also tries to cater to the public in order to broaden readership, it can be seen that the readership also influences, at least to some extent, the continued political affiliation of some papers. 6. What is the relationship between ownership and output As seen in the days of state control, media output is largely regulated by those who own the media. When the press was state owned, the state had a right to censor those content that seemed to speak out against it. In the age of the independent press, as we have seen, private ownership poses similar problems. The control might not be official but subtle. Sometimes proprietors would question editorial position, or keep editors on a tight budget so that they would be forced to consult before undertaking particular projects; or would be allowed unlimited "freedom", but within a certain framework stipulated by the owner. (Curran 2003, 71) An example is Today, which in its inception tried to avoid partisanship, but since its acquisition by Rupert Murdoch's News group it changed its neutral stance for more Conservative views. (Negrine 54) The challenge of the editor is to choose between the bottom line and the high road, and editors don't always dare to draw the line. 7. How far does journalistic and editorial autonomy offset dangers of media concentration World media is dominated by concentrations, mergers and large holdings, in the trend of conglomerate businesses. This is usually due to purely market forces, but in the case of the press, it is also frequently to eliminate competition or to consolidate press with similar political sway, by acquiring the most powerful or read newspapers under an increasingly powerful media mogul, the contemporary "press barons". This further serves to limit the range of voices in the press, and creates partial parallelism. As we saw before, editors can and do hold some sway over the content of their papers. This of course depends on the autonomy allowed them by their proprietors, and "whether the owners of the paper are able to exercise their power speedily and effectively" (Negrine 53). Contemporary newspapers don't always conform to their expected or published political affinities, as we can see in the examples of the Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times and the Morning Star, which have gone against the political leanings of their proprietors in order to publish what they consider important viewpoints. The balance of power however is not equal. Insofar as proprietors make the financial decisions, including appointing editors and chief executives, "editors (and journalists) work within already defined structures and processes" (Negrine 64). While specialist journalists do enjoy a certain level of autonomy in their stories, the ultimate power rests with the editors, and to a larger extent, proprietors. (Curran 2003, 68) 8. Does the press evidence 'power without responsibility' Stanley Baldwin stated that: 'What proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility-the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.' (Curran 2003, 38) In the Victorian era, press barons amassed power through acquiring large newspapers, not just through industrial activities. In this way they could secure public favour and control over public opinion. Baldwin called this 'power without responsibility' because, while the press barons have the ultimate say in the appointment of politicians, they don't have the ultimate responsibility that public office entails. In a sense they run the country from behind the scenes, pulling the puppet- and purse-strings, and newspapers have become "mere engines of propaganda, manipulated to further [proprietors'] political ambitions" (Curran 2003 38). While the continued partisanship of British newspapers is evidence of individual owners and news groups wielding "power without responsibility, the press is often more concerned today with questions of survival through broad range advertising than with "a blind commitment to a political creed" (Negrine 50). Read More