Three Sensible, Non-Radical Things Labour Could Do to Reform our News Media

Our news media desperately need reform. Wherever you look there are deep and damaging problems. For example:

• The BBC, by far our biggest and our most trusted news provider, is adrift and stumbling, under siege by vested interests, meddled with by government, subjected to relentless cuts and inevitably lacking in confidence. 
• The national corporate press, largely in the hands of non-resident billionaires, pollutes our public sphere with lies and distortions, holding the country back by rendering rational policy-making all but impossible. At the same time it is internationally known for abusing innocent individuals with impunity.
• Regional and local news services, whether broadcast, in print and online, are under acute stress. Predatory corporations continue to asset-strip and close valued titles; local radio is shrinking and local innovators are starved of funds while “news deserts” are opening up across the country.
• Press “self-regulation” has failed again. The so-called Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) is manifestly unable to uphold standards or to protect the public from abuses. Like its predecessors it has no teeth, so even on the rare occasions if finds fault with a big paper its opinion makes no difference. 

Yes, there is some great journalism, but it cannot excuse or obscure the bad. The UK deserves better. If things are to change, politicians – and in particular Labour politicians – must be brave enough to face down the billionaires and bold enough to show the public the tremendous benefits of change. 

The actual policies they need to include in their manifestos are not remotely radical. They might be described as sober, modest and even establishment in character. So what are they? 

As we shall see, these policies would not only protect and enhance our  democracy, in which independent journalism obviously plays a vital role, but they would also protect and enhance journalism itself. Let us look at them now in more detail.

---

An Inquiry

Leveson 2 was to be the second phase of the Leveson Inquiry into the press, as ordered by Parliament in 2011 on the basis of cross-party agreement (including the Conservatives). The Conservatives cancelled it in 2018 (over Labour objections) but it should be relaunched as soon as there is a change of government. 

The brief of Leveson part one, which took place in 2011-2, was chiefly to propose reform of press regulation, which everyone admitted had failed. Unfortunately the Conservatives, having backed the agreed changes, then quietly sabotaged them, putting us back where we started. Part two was meant to deal chiefly with criminality in the press (and the police), and that is still very much necessary, as the continuing hacking trials in the civil courts demonstrate.

But part two would inevitably do more than that. It would have to begin by reviewing events since 2012, which would be an opportunity for all parties to address the current crisis in the press, including the continuing failure of regulation, the role of non-resident billionaire proprietors, the extraordinarily low levels of public trust in the national press and the deep-seated problems of standards. If the original terms of reference are insufficiently broad to cover this, they should be amended. 

In this way, Labour could place all these thorny issues before an impartial judge (who would presumably not now be Sir Brian Leveson since he has retired), and leave him or her to make considered recommendations, on the evidence, for what should be done. That in turn would make implementation of the recommendations much easier to defend when, as is all but inevitable whatever they may be, the corporate press objects to them. 

Such an inquiry need not be long or expensive. Sir Brian Leveson took 18 months to hear evidence and deliver his report and the total cost was around £5 million. For obvious reasons, however, the inquiry should be launched very early in the new parliament.  

---

An Institute

A central recommendation of the Cairncross Review of the future of journalism, established by Matt Hancock when he was Media Secretary, was the creation of an Institute for Public Interest News, a public body independent of political control, tasked to protect and encourage journalism serving the public interest.

Again this was something the Conservatives refused to implement, even when the proposal was revived by the cross-party DCMS Select Committee. Their close friends in the corporate press feared that such a body would challenge their power. 

What would an Institute do? As described by Cairncross, it would function like the Arts Council, acting as advocate for journalism while raising and disbursing money to support news provision where it has an important public function. Cairncross acknowledged what many have been slow to see: that news provision at all levels is too important to be left to the private sector.

An important beneficiary of the Institute, though not its only one, would be regional and local news provision, which is in desperate need of rescue. But there could also be big benefits in national news in the form of support for investigative reporting, court reporting and other public-interest activities.  

And where would the institute find its money? That should be part of the challenge given to it by government. It might sensibly be given the initial task of creating and managing a relationship with the big tech companies. Meta, Google and others owe UK journalism money; the Institute could extract it and distribute it. Equally, the Institute would make the case for additional forms of state support for journalism – forms which do not privilege billionaires or give rise to perceptions of corruption or censorship.        

---

Reform of the BBC

The BBC, which is in many ways the cultural engine of the country as well is its principal source of news, can and must be reinvigorated, and a key priority must be to remove the stigma and burden of political interference. This would not cost money and after the experiences of past few years would be popular with the public.  

Labour should undertake to reform the process of top appointments to remove political influence. It is indefensible that individuals chosen by government ministers exercise oversight of journalists whose job is to report politics and challenge politicians. Not only is the BBC chair currently a political appointee but so are several of the trustees. 

A genuinely independent and transparent process of appointment can easily be found and it needs to be introduced at the earliest opportunity not only at the BBC but also at Ofcom, which regulates broadcasting, including some BBC output. 

Such a step would enhance the confidence and the journalistic integrity of the Corporation. For example, we might see it defining its own news agenda on the basis of the public interest, rather than sheepishly following the lead of the corporate press as it so often does at present. 

But the BBC – and the public who rely on it so heavily – clearly need more. Its income needs to be protected – far from bei