Access to online newspapers and magazines is becoming more difficult as it becomes common for paywalls to be introduced.
I imagine the bean counters have done their sums and it all works out as an exercise worth doing….though it might indicate to advertisers that their adverts don’t work and so encourage them to take a lower, less expensive presence online.
However whether it pays or not is irrelevant here. What is an issue is access to high quality news and information from a variety of reliable sources from which you can gain a reasonable overview of events taking into account the various publication’s own political or ideological views.
The more publications that become paywalled the fewer most people will access.
Such a scenario hands on a plate enormous power and influence to an organisation like the BBC which provides free online news funded by the license fee……something which already damages the ability of commercial news providers to get a foothold on the Web.
The BBC, already dominant in the sector, will become practically the sole provider of news to most people….their only other source of information their daily paper should they buy one, whereas before they could access a vast number of publications with widely differing views and interpretations of the world as well as indepth analysis and debate encompassing a wide base of subjects that television news can’t provide.
As more and more publications introduce a paywall the BBC becomes a ‘stonewall’ blocking and filtering the world, shaping the news to fit their agenda and only letting you see what they want you to see.
Any solutions to this?
I guess the best one is for the BBC to be encouraged to be impartial, unbiased, accurate and balanced in its reporting.
Good luck with that!
This is from Guido site from 2010 , BBC has just under 40% share, i am sure Ed Miliband called for cap of 20-30% share in his Leveson evidence. http://order-order.com/2010/12/31/if-you-want-media-plurality-break-up-the-bbc/
Percentages, darn percentages, and BBC ‘unique’ maths.
All numbers can be made to fit whatever suits, whom it suits, when it suits.
That’s only part of the story: the ONLY part News Corp “dominates” is newspapers with….10%! Also, it should be noted that newspapers are a shrinking sector
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2010/dec/30/murdoch-to-control-22percent
Added to the fact that 73% get their main news from TV, of that, 70% use the BBC:
http://owsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/overt-opportunist-overreaction.html
Factor in radio BBC has 60-65% (monopoly?)
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/07/the-bbc-has-a-monopoly-and-its-abusing-it-says-timmontgomerie.html
Then look at webpage views (see image below)
Don’t forget the radio where the BBC have an almost complete monopoly on news and current affairs. Try finding a news and current affairs programme lasting half an hour or more on the radio anywhere other than on the BBC. Now that is an area, especially between six and nine in the morning, where the BBCs propaganda monopoly really is a danger.
‘practically the sole provider of news to most people….their only other source of information their daily paper’
—-
I agree it’s all a market forces-driven situation that is less than ideal.
But let us not ignore the influence of the Internet, over time, in this.
Yes, the MSM alternatives are contracting now, and that’s a pity, but the still ‘free’ alternatives are now established. Yes they do need to be viewed in the round, but that is now true of the MSM. Telegraph’s Lean or Gray on ‘environment’? The Graun on matters ME? The BBC on… well, most things now (at a ‘free’ compelled annual fee).
Also let’s not forget that pre-web, the ‘choice’ was only the BBC vs. paid print, with ITV being a soap-powder funded alternative via Corrie (now Wonga via Downton Abbey?).
And as Media Lens quoted the other day, the circular echo chamber that the ‘established’ media used to think was all folk needed – with papers quoting TV and TV quoting papers – is now a silly joke chasing ratings and each other.
As some have noted, Sky thinks the biggest news is a footyballist manager retiring is the only game in town, because the tabs do.
Me, I’m off to see what’s what on Benghazi, and as the MSM & BBC don’t see the need to go there, I’ll have to look elsewhere.
Only in one case am I expected still to pay for their pre-pro choices, editorial omissions and selected views.
Did you hear Harriet Harman yesterday being given a very comfortable interview on the Media Show? Although she wanted no organisation to control more than 30% of news output, she would exempt the BBC because it is a “public service” organisation. There you go,
‘she would exempt the BBC because it is a “public service” organisation’
—
Little unclear how being public service renders any monopoly less capable of malign influence in being handed more by those it serves and who serve it.
‘Exemption’ and the BBC seem to go hand in hand, and for some, that raises no issues.
When this applies, for what, in service of whom, may be interesting connections to explore.
Meantime, Ms. Harman may benefit from reading more Orwell.
Stick her on page 3 !
Cosmo. What a horrible thought!! Ugh.
Urgh….no thanks.
Would be like looking at Gollum.
It makes me think that some women having to wear the burka might not be too bad an idea after all.
Dreadful though the bBBC is, at least it’s not killing us like Ms Harman’s favourite “public service” organisation – the NHS.
Isn’t Harman the one who was screaming in Parliament not long after the Savile/McAlpine mess hit the fan about enemies of the BBC waiting to destroy it?
“I guess the best one is for the BBC to be encouraged to be impartial, unbiased, accurate and balanced in its reporting.”
Except it’s already more than encouraged: it’s required by Charter to be impartial. And a fat lot of good that seems to do.
I’ll return to a favourite hobby horse of mine. I think it should be required to show why it thinks it’s been impartial by releasing its statistics. (No laughing at the back, of course they keep some….. don’t they?) There is a lot of doubt as to what constitutes “impartiality” but at least if the data they use were available one could see what the BBC thinks impartiality means and argue from there.
‘(No laughing at the back, of course they keep some….. don’t they?)
—
Well… if (a target-obsessed, navel-gazing, public-sector box-ticking, admin-laden organisation: what are the odds?) they did..do… they’d be kept their little secret for the purposes of journalism, commercial sensitivity, porcine aerodynamics and, of course, a unique commitment to transparency.
My, how we can laugh along when that one gets cracked again. Never gets old.
DavidP raised the notion of pro-con ‘balance’ averages based on accusations from various interest groups, but which would be easy to categorise and it’s hard to think the BBC has resisted quantifying this, if internally.
Impartiality is a lot trickier. For a start it is so governed by perception, and those of who is assessing.
If such stats existed, they would surely be influenced by the inherent biases of the internal drafting teams.
Given CECUTT daily sees black is white, how such summaries get logged may not be much use without raw data. And given 20,000 folk are cranking it out across a broad media estate daily, even GCHQ may struggle to stay on top of it if they paused checking the UK public’s e-output.
In an ideal world they get held to proper account when proven to be in breach. But as they are, uniquely, defence, jury, judge and appeal court on themselves, the results are rather predictable.
Another check or balance would be market forces.
But getting into that maybe see the rictus grin of disbelief stray into a fit of the giggles.
… But statistics on what? Some years ago a record was released of BBC performances by the Beatles, early in their careers. Most were taken from listeners (illegally) recording from their sets. The powers at the Beeb had thrown away most of the performance tapes but kept all the bureaucratic paperwork – including canteen vouchers for the sessions.
Whatever statistics they keep. They have a statutory duty of impartiality; surely to God they must keep some record to show how this duty is properly discharged? Once we know what they keep, then we can discuss whether they are sufficient.
‘We think we got it about right’ wouldn’t suffice in any other sphere:
“Tell us, Mr Old Folks Home Provider, how have you discharged your duty to ensure proper treatment of
inmatesresidents?”“Well, we think we got it about right.”
“Thank you for that”
It was a different ti… public sector service provision?
Disable all cookies. That will get you over the paywalls in nearly every case, until the cheap bastards figure it out.
Main headline on ‘Drive’ yesterday
“Commenting on the Queen’s speech, Ed Milliband….”
Nothing at all on the content of the Queen’s speech or any comment from the Coalition.
The paywalls are having the effect of shutting down debate – I used to comment on the Times but have now moved to the Telegraph whose paywall technology is a bit more benign.
I have stopped commenting in the BBC and Guardian as they routinely deleted my comments as infringing their “standards”.
What this meant was that I had made (IMO) a cogent but “right wing” comment and it disturbed their liberal sentiments.
I would not consider myself right wing – but as the Guardian and the BBC are clearly left wing and I disagree with them on almost everything they say then I suppose I must be.
Know what you mean Mark, 90% of my comments on Mailonline never see the light of day. I am very supprised because there are some very nasty comments left their by the anti Israel/anti Jewish brigade.
“…as the Guardian and the BBC are clearly Far-left wing”
in my opinion, as they act to support the transfer of sovereignty from the people, which I regard as an extremist political act;
then that leaves the middle-ground for you.
No need to accept their self-aggrandising morally-superior definition of themselves – let their traitorous actions speak instead.
“BBC blocks licence fee payers from accessing BBC websites”
http://www.anorak.co.uk/356088/news/bbc-blocks-licence-fee-payers-from-accessing-bbc-websites.html/
Funny how “Turnip” and “A journalist” and the rest of them are nowhere to be seen on the Anorak site.
Possibly they were too busy expressing concerns to the BBC on the calibre of their ME coverage, to effect the correction?
If so effective, one looks forward to their sharing any other such exchanges.