| The Leveson report covers a great many things and it does so clearly and, so far as I can tell, comprehensively. At least it touches on most of the things I can think of as relevant with none of the truly glaring omissions I normally find in the media: it is, in that sense, an embodiment of some of the things it is addressing.
One of those things is the magic word "competition". As with other big words it considers the meaning and application of that word without the prior assumptions discussed above; and to that extent is helpful in clarifying my thinking
An important element of that is the separation of the notions of competition and plurality. This is one of those conflations which is often not made plain in discussion but which is of crucial importance in considering the role of the press, as well as in many other areas. Much of what he has to say is not news: you are aware of it when you stop to think. However the terms of the mainstream debate do not encourage that thought and as is often the case the logic follows inexorably from the premises: if those premises are wrong the conclusion founded on it is also wrong (or right for the wrong reasons) and nothing can save it. Addressing premises is variously discouraged: it might be characterised as pedantry; or as changing the subject; or as idealistic; or as obfuscation. It is none of those things, and if we are to think at all we must return to those assumptions from time to time. If the premise is that the sun does not go round the earth we can accept that as established (though not certain, it accords with a great many objective facts and it gives rise to predictions which hold true): but social and economic and political assumptions are of a different sort and they have no such legitimacy. Scientism is one of the great evils of our age and its sway is used to pretend that there is only one kind of "fact" when that is pretty obviously not true.
Leveson points out that the freedom of the press is not a good in itself, and I think that is important: so important that it is depressing that it not only needs to be said but it needs to be argued. But it does and he argues it effectively. Press freedom is not a good in itself: it is instrumental, rather. It follows that it may be a necessary condition for the true "good" it serves, but it is not a sufficient condition. This is the first level of conflation, well rehearsed by those with a vested interest in obscuring the distinction.
In turn the notion of a "free press" is itself rendered obscure because of a particular set of political assumptions ( some would argue those are pragmatic assumptions, and that may be true to some extent: but the case needs to be made and not taken as a given). So we have to ask what we mean by a free press, in its ideal form. It is interesting to me that the idealised conception of a free press is perceived, at least by some, to be realised (or realisable) through the internet. That is to say that a truly free press would enable each and every citizen to express their view on every subject with equal access to any potential audience. The very interest and popularity of that aspect of the web speaks to me of an inchoate but deeply felt lack in current media arrangements: a lot of people do not feel that the existing media speaks for them, or that it represents their views. If the purpose of a free press is to ensure that at least most people are represented it seems to me that the existing media are failing. The widespread support for things like the Occupy movement and the possibilities of dissent through such single issue campaigns as Hacked Off demonstrates that.
Of course once such a grass roots movement gains a critical mass the mainstream media will report it. But it has long been the case that those movements have had difficulty in reaching that mass precisely because the view expressed is not represented in the media. Most dissenting views complain of lack of media coverage for their events etc. In the past that could be dismissed as the whine of those without popular support: the internet has made that dismissal less credible, and less effective.
What that points to is a failure of plurality: it is not the same thing as a failure of competition for reasons Leveson gives. It is perfectly possible to envisage a company with great market share which yet does not abuse that power to drive out other providers, or to prevent their entry into a market. Indeed if the underlying theory of the benefits of competition hold true that must happen in some instances. If company A produces soap powder which is demonstrably better at getting clothes clean; is also better for the environment than all of its competitors; is substantially cheaper than those rivals; and loads the washing machine optimally all by itself, then competition theory dictates that it should swiftly establish a monopoly without any abuse of market dominance at all. There would be nothing wrong with that on the face of it. But we just know it is a bad idea. That knowledge is pragmatic. What we actually know is that this is very unlikely to be true. But that does not help us with the theory we say we support; for that is a possible outcome and according to the magic of competition it should be an inevitable end point for quite a lot of things. What we do not like is the idea that we are then entirely dependent on that one supplier for something we believe we need: we do not think that the price or other benefits will remain without competition: and you have to ask yourself why not?
That aside, it shows that the "value" which is described as competition is not the same "value" which is described as plurality. And sometimes they are at odds with each other. Where they are at odds we sometimes prefer plurality over competition: and that is worth thinking about. Companies know that: it is why the apparent choice in soap powder referred to in the OP is there. It is obvious that it would be more "efficient" (another magic word) for each company to acknowledge all the products it owns and to rely on real differences in performance to support their different offerings: but they don't. Branding is important for reasons other than competition on performance: choice is a "good" in itself and if it is not available the illusion of choice will do.
There are rules to preserve plurality specifically applied to the media. In this country, as Leveson shows, many of them have been sacrificed on the altar of deregulation. The history of that process he presents is instructive and worth a read, if you are interested. But the main point is that what counts as plurality is a political assumption, allied to what is described in the "rights" thread, as a privilege right. It is presumed that if there is no legal barrier to setting up a newspaper or a broadcast outlet then everybody is equally able to do that: which rather ignores a lot of genuine constraints; both direct and indirect. The most obvious of these is money.
Again Leveson sets out some very pertinent information about that: he gives a list of the financial out-turns for the print media, for example. He does that in the context of demonstrating the difficult financial situation which faces print newspapers (and other mainstream media to a lesser extent) but the important point is this: they are not as profitable, for the most part, as they used to be. This trend has been put forward as a substantive problem for the press and, to some extent presented as a justification for not imposing regulation on them which might increase their costs. That is quite mindboggling, because in another part of the forest we are asked to accept that the clear breaches of the criminal law which led to this furore in the first place were just that: criminal acts already subject to sanction and therefore not a reason for regulating the press, since most already comply. It is quite a mystery to work out how it can much increase costs to have them do what they are already doing: paying for a regulatory body in the form of the PCC is already a cost of doing business for those who sign up to it. I don't really see why an effective body, with statutory underpinning, should be more expensive: after all the press are mostly very keen on the "better service for less money through efficiency savings" which are said to be more than feasible for everyone else. But constency is the hobgoblin of little minds, so I am told......
Chomsky pointed out many years ago that a great deal of the revenue of newspapers derived from advertising. That meant that they could not afford to offend their big business masters, and they did not. In itself that is a major challenge to the idea of a free press, one that was never addressed because of the political assumptions underpinning the scope of that idea. But advertising is moving away from the press now: and that revenue has not been replaced. In the past just over half of the revenue came from sales: but circulation is falling too. The fact remains that entry into this market is not easy and the capital costs of launching a newspaper or broadcaster are prohibitive for most of us. If you see the press as a separate entity independent of big business and government and holding both to account it is possible to justify special treatment for them and that is what they claim: they represent you and me in way that an elected body does not: and, to a lesser extent, in a way that the companies which are subject to our consumer power do not. But you can't have it both ways: they ARE big businesses and so their independence from that strand cannot be accepted: and they ARE powerful and do have unwarranted influence over government (albeit with government collusion) and so they cannot be said to stand free and fearless there either: for back scratching is a two way street.
If instead of slicing the world along the manichean lines promulgated by plutocrats ( that is government and the state v freedom) you slice it in a different way, all of this falls to bits. If, rather than "govt bad/free market good", you consider the issue as "plutocracy bad/democracy good" you come to very different conclusions
Edited by FionaK - 2/12/2012, 13:56
|
