Session 1 – Media-Just Pawns Of The Government And City?
The 1995 Media Research Group Conference, held in Barcelona, was kicked off by Ray Snoddy of the Financial Times, who started the conference off with the forthright opinion that he does not believe the superhighway will be sorted by the year 2000; “Visions should be left to Archbishops”.
The recent record of government intervention in the media/communications industry is poor, with little hope Tony Blair’s Labour would fare any better, judging by what he called Labour’s “disgraceful” deal with BT.
Newspapers will not be succeeded by electronic publishing in the foreseeable future, he said, citing a fairly static 20% penetration of cable, and the fact that in new media homes, new media only gets 30% of share of voice. The big players in the industry are not investing in the superhighway; Warner has just invested in Blockbusters, in the old fashioned industry of shops and video tapes. When it came to his predictions for the future, he was struck by how “robust” traditional media is, and also by the large investments into high digital satellites; with modems attached to people’s black boxes maybe these will lead to the future.
He highlighted two roles for the governments to play in the new future:
1. Ensuring fair ownership rules, so that Rupert Murdoch does not inherit the world
2. To ensure plurality, the industry needs a points system.
To sum up, he noted three things that are certain for the future:
1. Politicians will get it wrong
2. Consumers are the only ones who will get it right
3. Leave visions for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Following the theme of governments, next to speak was Chris Smith, Labour MP. He began by answering the debated point straight out; no, media are not just pawns of the government. He is in favour of self-regulation for the media, because if not you have to go down the road of control, and control is not acceptable. He agreed with Ray Snoddy that consumers should lead the way for governments to follow, but cited Channel 4 as notable exception to that; their remit was to be UNpopular.
With regard to changing ownership rules, he said he is not averse to newspapers owning ITV regional stations, his big concern is that ITV maintains its regionality. He also highlighted worries about the role of the BBC under the Public Service Broadcasting remit; there is a need to define exactly what PBS is.
He conceded that groundrules need to be set to ensure we are ready for the media revolution; this also crucially includes copyright laws which must include a provision for international access. He finished by saying, reassuringly, that control in the new media must be done in the interests of readers and viewers, not the politicians. David Forster, Media Analyst at Smith New Court finished the first part of the first session, by talking about the city’s relationship with media companies; City intervention, either to excess as in the case of Maurice Saatchi, or not enough, as in Bob Maxwell, is rare and the stuff of headlines.
Media stocks are the most highly rated on the stock exchange, with Reuters the best performing media share. However, he warned that UK media owners may be at a disadvantage compared to other countries; what is needed is a restructuring of media regulation; the proposed changes are superficial. He suggested it would be sensible to create a regulatory body called “OFTMEDIA”, which should cover the Internet as well as media.
A panel session following the speeches asked what Labour would do re the BBC licence fee; Chris Smith said that the fee will remain the primary source of income.