The Media Bill: a thing of shreds and patches
The Media Bill, currently en route between Houses and Committees, is (ostensibly) the first attempt in twenty years to ‘modernize and future proof the UK media regulatory environment’ — a grand claim, and an overstated and misdirected challenge distorted, I believe, by the blanket of Conservative competitive credo that has stifled progress since the Thatcher/Reagan years.
After years of avoidance, visiting legislators seem taken aback by the shock realisation that the media landscape has changed. In contrast to conventional regulatory assumptions, this spotlight has been welcomed by various parts of the ‘recognised’ media sector and assorted culture warriors — a glorious performance space and (of course) an opportunity to sharpen axes.
The expanded stage is now not merely dressed for larger productions but is enriched/threatened by the creative capacities of Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Realities, and armies of semi-professional producers with a diverse range of attitudes towards monetization whilst rejoicing in the relatively unmoderated freedoms of platforms like YouTube or Amazon or umpteen Podcasting channels, all competing for your eyes and ears — but not necessarily for your money.
Do the authors of this Media Bill fully grasp the enormity of these technological typhoons? The tools of the trade, previously the preserve of major production houses, are now widely available to anyone with a creative bent, and many will be seeking wider audiences. Fewer and fewer citizens looking to be ‘informed, educated, or entertained’, will turn first to check, ‘what’s on the telly?’ The scope for ill-informed conspiracy hawkers is open-ended
Our current government’s slender appetite for any regulation is always constrained, partly because of deep dependencies, or where there’s no evidence of ‘market failure’, and where the notion of creative intervention is beyond their self-imposed libertarian remit. Caught between unwillingness to ‘bite the hand that feeds’, and soothing uncertain public alarm about technological turmoil, the Media Bill appears designed to look grand but change very little — and most definitely (surely) not to encourage ‘ex-streamist’ attitudes to Public Service Broadcasting.
Now that broadcasting (with perhaps the exception of live sports) is less relevant in a streaming, time-shifted, networked world, and now that public service is regarded by the current regime as subservient to commerce, the channel operators can, it seems, only be valued for their role in nurturing the independent production sector — except, apparently, for Channel4 where its publisher status will be removed. Arts and Culture programming could unwittingly be thrown onto the pyre — sacrificed in the name of commerce.
Such is the poverty of cultural commandants in Government, that the best they can suggest is (i) a debate about ‘Prominence’ (i.e. where exactly a channel appears in an electronic programme schedule), (ii) to dump public service broadcast requirements for a broad range of genres, and (iii) shift regulatory responsibilities onto Ofcom with little or no clues (beyond the almighty god of competition) about how the sector might be better regulated and young innocent minds protected for fear of awkward adult questions.
Spare a moment for commiseration with actors left waiting in the wings (like Local TV operators broadcasting on channel 7 or 8) who are rarely invited to play and get no mention in this Media Bill — not even as a training ground for future presenters. And, moreover, this is yet another piece of legislation that has nothing to say about the sector’s climate goals or energy efficiency targets.
No one should disparage this vast sector’s potential economic stimulus and export potential. In Belfast redundant ship-building facilities played a vital production role for Game of Thrones and provided employment for an array of artisanal talent. But more importantly that investment stimulated community cohesion, a sense of purpose, and a massive boost for tourism. Maybe one day we will review with horror how humanity became hopelessly addicted to home entertainment as a global diversion from dealing with more immediate matters of conflict and climate resolution.
If the UK government is casting around for new production ideas, perhaps they should commission legislative scripts that are far less about capitalism and much more about community. Or maybe they should look across the Channel for inspiration?
The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) aims to harmonise EU members’ national legislation on editorial freedom, as well as media pluralism and independence. It was passed in response to the digital transformation of the media sector in recent decades. Yet even with these high ideals and remarkably clear priorities, their legislative harmonisation works can still be criticised.
The UK could, of course, have played an important part in setting that European -wide agenda — and our media industry would have willingly engaged — not least because of that huge and expanding audience for our cultural talent and technological innovators. But that’s a different story, with an altogether different ending. Meanwhile we muddle through with a Media Bill of mixed messages.
______________
Notes:
This article was informed by a Westminster Forum seminar on 28th Feb 2024 featuring speakers from the UK’s Media Sector, including Ofcom, BT, ITV, C4, Leeds University, Listener and Viewer magazine (BBC) and the APPG on Media Literacy. Additional information from European Commission Press Office and TheConversation.com online newsletter.
This article is archived in the Governance section of the Groupe Intellex Library — a resource for students. A version of this article was also published by LibdemVoice.com — an online journal for the UK’s liberal Democrat Party.
