by Peter Joyce
* * *
Media regulation in the United Kingdom
There is a wide range of formal and informal mechanisms to regulate the media. Public morality is safeguarded in legislation which includes the 1959 Obscene Publications Act and the 1984 Video Recordings Act and also through the work performed by the Broadcasting Standards Council which was established on a statutory footing in 1990 governing both radio and television.
State interests are safeguarded by the 1989 Official Secrets Act: however, governments have a range of other means at their disposal to influence the conduct of the media. These include the D-Notice system (which is a procedure designed to stop the reporting of security matters, re-named DA Notices in 1993). The political concerns of a government may be furthered by the provision of information to selected journalists through the ‘lobby system’. Allegations have also been made that appointments to bodies such as the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Commission may be used in a partisan manner.
* * *
A PRIVACY LAW
The main alternative to media self-regulation is through privacy legislation which would enable the courts to award damages when such rights were violated. Privacy legislation exists in a number of European countries: a right to privacy is recognized in both French and German law while in Denmark unauthorized photography on private property is forbidden. This issue is regulated by state governments in America and most have some form of privacy law. However, privacy legislation to regulate the media in the United Kingdom has been fiercely resisted on the grounds that it would interfere with their ability to act as a public watchdog.
However, the effectiveness of privacy legislation is limited in those countries which have it by broader considerations. In France, for example, the civil damages awarded are usually low and the sanction of the total stoppage of a publication is rarely used. In Germany, privacy is balanced by Article 5 of the 1949 Constitution which specifically protects the freedom of speech and of the press. The main objections to a specific privacy law in the United Kingdom have been that it would be very complicated to draft and would encounter key problems, including the precise legal definition which could be accorded to ‘privacy’, thereby possibly preventing the reporting of issues such as corruption in government by investigative journalists.
The debate concerning a specific law of privacy in the United Kingdom has been influenced by beliefs that other legislation concerning open government and human rights, which was put forward by the Labour government after 1997, could also safeguard privacy and effectively secure the enactment of a privacy law ‘through the back door’. This argument rested on the ability of judges to develop a common law right of privacy derived from their interpretation of this new legislation. This consisted of the following.
Data protection legislation
Data protection introduced in Italy in 1996 has been used to restrict media coverage. In 1998, the UK’s Labour government enacted the Data Protection Act to implement a European Directive designed to protect the individual’s rights to privacy. It gave the public the right to inspect personal information held on them in computer files and other databases and insisted that such personal data could not be used without the subject’s consent.
Human rights legislation
In 1998, the government’s Human Rights Act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into United Kingdom law. This required all bodies described as ‘public authorities’ to uphold these rights. This prospect alarmed the press, which feared that Article 8 (concerned with asserting an individual’s right to privacy in connection with his or her relationship to state authority) would be applied to them and that used in conjunction with the data protection legislation and the new offence of harassment, their ability to investigate, report and comment on matters of public interest would be curtailed.
The government’s response to such fears was to deny their intention to provide for privacy legislation in this indirect manner. The legislation included an explicit statement that the courts should give higher priority to freedom of expression (embodied in Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights) when it clashed with respect for private life and required the courts to take into account the public interest of any disputed published item coupled with a judgement as to whether the newspaper had acted ‘fairly and reasonably’ within the provisions of the Code of Practice of the Press Complaints Commission. This situation still gave judges a wide discretion which might aid them in developing a law of privacy.
In America, the determination of the boundary between freedom of speech and the right to privacy is left to the judges who deal with the matter on a case-by-case basis. The increased involvement of the United Kingdom judiciary in matters affecting privacy was viewed sceptically by the media in the belief that judges are likely to adopt a hostile attitude towards them. This view is justified by the negative stance frequently adopted by the judiciary towards the disclosure of information, whether state or private interests are concerned. The ability of journalists to protect the sources of information is regarded by many as a key safeguard of press freedom. The judiciary have, however, frequently taken a different view of this situation and have compelled journalists to disclose the sources on which their stories were based.
Question
Are the activities of the media subject to sufficient external control?
Assess the advantages and disadvantages of enacting a privacy law governing media activities.
The media and the conduct of politics
* * *
Insight
The media, especially television, exert a major influence on the conduct of contemporary politics and perform a prominent role in national election campaigns.
* * *
In all liberal democracies the media exert a profound influence over the conduct of political affairs. In the nineteenth century, the only way members of the general public could see a leading politician was physically to attend meetings which they addressed. It followed, therefore, that oratory was a prized political skill in that period. But this is no longer the case. Initially, the popular press made it possible for politicians to put their case to a wider audience than was able to attend a political meeting. Then the radio and now television enabled leading politicians to address us directly in our own living rooms. This has had a significant influence over the conduct of national election campaigns.
* * *
Election campaigns
Election campaigns may fulfil one of three roles: they may reinforce a voter’s existing loyalty to a political party, attempt to activate its existing supporters to turn out and vote on election day or seek to convert members of the general public and thus gain new sources of electoral support for the party.
Political meetings are now a less important feature of election campaigns. Campaigns at national level now utilize technology and market research techniques. Computerized mailing lists, opinion polls and advertising are commonly utilized in an attempt to ‘sell’ candidates to the general public. Politicians seize opportunities offered by the media to project themselves to the electorate: the photo opportunity, the walkabout, the press conference, televised debates and political broadcasts have diminished the importance of the old-style political meeting. The role of the media is especially enhanced in countries such as America in which it is possible for politicians and political parties to buy airtime.
* * *
Television, in particular, has had a number of consequences for the conduct of national elections. This provides candidates with an opportunity to address large audiences and ‘head-to-head’ televised debates are common in countries with directly elected presidents.
This is especially the case in America, where televised debates between the two main contenders for the office of president were introduced in 1960 (between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy) and became a feature of all subsequent contests after 1976. They are organized by the Com
mission on Presidential Debates.
In the 1980 presidential election an estimated audience of 81 million people watched the first Jimmy Carter–Ronald Reagan debate and in 2008 the viewing figures for the three Obama–McCain debates were 52.4 million, 63.2 million and 56.5 million. A further 69.9 million viewed the one debate between the two vice presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. Although social networking sites have become an important source of information for younger people, television remains the main source from which the public obtain information regarding presidential election contests.
Even in countries with a parliamentary form of government such as the UK, television has tended to focus attention on party leaders and thus transform general elections into contests for the office of prime minister. In such countries, national elections have become ‘presidentialized’. This trend was accentuated in the UK 2010 general election when the leaders of the three main parties took part in a series of three televised debates. Central control over party affairs has also been enhanced by this development, which has also tended to reduce the importance of activities performed by local party members in connection with the election of candidates to public office.
Additionally, television has placed emphasis on presentation: major political events such as campaign rallies are carefully orchestrated so that viewers are presented with an image of a united and enthusiastic party. Leading politicians are carefully schooled in television techniques since the ability to perform professionally on television has become an essential political skill. Advertising companies play an ever-increasing role in ‘selling’ political parties and their leaders. The danger with such developments is that content may be of secondary importance to what advertisers refer to as ‘packaging’.
However, the influence of the media over the conduct of politics is not confined to national elections. The role performed by legislatures may also be adversely affected. Investigative journalism may provide more effective scrutiny of the actions of the executive than a legislator’s speeches or questions. An appearance by a legislator in a brief televised interview will reach a wider audience than a speech delivered within the legislature. One response to the latter issue has been the televising of the proceedings of legislative bodies. The Australian parliament, for example, voted to televise the proceedings of the Senate, House of Representatives and their committees in October 1991.
There have also been disadvantages associated with this development, however. Ministers have been accused of ‘planting’ questions: this involves an MP from the government party tabling a question of which the minister has prior knowledge. This is designed to make the minister appear an effective parliamentary performer, thus enhancing both minister’s and government’s reputation. It has also been argued that MPs ‘play up’ to the cameras, perhaps tailoring their speeches to include words or phrases which are likely to get reported. These are referred to as ‘soundbites’.
Legislatures may respond to arguments that the media have taken over their traditional functions by using them to publicize their activities. In 1989, the House of Commons allowed its proceedings to be televised. The main benefit intended from this course of action was to make government more visible to members of the general public, who would thus understand the importance of the work performed by parliament. Although the viewing public of live proceedings is not substantial, snippets of broadcasts are utilized in the more widely viewed news programmes.
* * *
Soundbites
Soundbites consist of a short, self-contained phrase or sentence through which a politician seeks to communicate views, opinions, attitudes or personality traits to the general public. The term was first used in America in the 1960s but has subsequently been applied on both sides of the Atlantic.
Soundbites may be used to provide the public with a brief statement which encapsulates a politician’s or political party’s stance on a particular policy issue or which seeks to provide the public with an image associating a politician or political party with a particular course of action. In this case they are similar to an advertising jingle. An example of a soundbite with this intention was the statement in 1993 by the then United Kingdom Home Secretary, Michael Howard, that ‘prison works’. This was intended to convey the impression of a government that intended that a tough line on crime should be taken, involving the use of imprisonment rather than non-custodial forms of punishment.
Soundbites may also be used by politicians to summarize their personality traits, which they believe might enhance their popular appeal. An example of this was the statement made by the then prime minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher, in 1980 that ‘the lady’s not for turning’ in response to suggestions that her economic policies should be adjusted to combat increasing unemployment and deepening economic recession.
The use of soundbites has been especially prompted by the role played by the media (especially television) in political affairs. The time given over to political affairs is limited and it is thus essential that politicians use the time at their disposal to maximum effect. Their use has additionally been encouraged by a perception that the attention span of the general public is extremely limited and that anything beyond a brief statement will not be absorbed.
A major problem with soundbites is that complex political issues become abbreviated into catchy words, slogans or catchphrases designed to cultivate public support without seeking fully to explain to the public the rationale for the course of action proposed.
* * *
* * *
Question
Assess the advantages and disadvantages that have arisen as the result of television coverage of political events.
* * *
The political influence of the media
* * *
Insight
Although political parties seek to cultivate a good image for themselves in the media, there is debate as to whether the media are able to change political views or merely reinforce existing political habits.
* * *
Issues such as ownership and bias are regarded as important in liberal democracies, as it is assumed that the media possess considerable ability to determine the course of political events. In this section we consider various arguments concerning the influence of the media on political affairs.
AGENDA SETTING
It is argued that the media have the ability to ‘set the political agenda’: that is, the media may publicize a particular issue in the hope of concentrating the attention of their readers, listeners or viewers on this topic. Whether this is a good or a bad development much depends on the motives that lie behind the media’s attempts to influence public perceptions. A beneficial aspect of this activity is that the media may lead public opinion in a progressive direction, perhaps securing action on a social problem which would otherwise have been ignored. In the United Kingdom, a television programme shown in 1966, ‘Cathy Come Home’, had a significant impact on publicizing the plight of Britain’s homeless and aided the growth of the organization Shelter.
Alternatively, however, the media may be guided by partisan motives. Attention may be directed at an issue in order to secure support for a course of action favoured by their owners or by the political interests which the owners support. This may involve whipping up public hysteria to persuade governments to act in a manner advocated by the media or the interests which lay behind them.
REINFORCEMENT OR CHANGE?
Agenda setting is, however, only one aspect of media influence. It is sometimes argued that the media have the ability to determine not merely the policies which governments adopt but, more fundamentally, their political complexion. This accusation implies that the media have a significant influence over voting behaviour at election times. There are two basic schools of thought concerning the ability of the media to influence how we vote. The debate centres on the extent to which the media merely reinforce existing political behaviour rather than being able to act as the agent of politica
l change.
Those who argue that the media reinforce existing political activity suggest that the power of the media over politics is limited since most members of the general public have preconceived political opinions. They will either read, listen to or view material which is consistent with these existing ideas or ignore contrary ideas should these be expressed. Further, as the media know the tastes of their clientele, they will cater for these opinions and not run the risk of losing readers, listeners or viewers. The reinforcement theory thus suggests that issues of media bias are of no significant political importance even at election times.
A contrary opinion to the reinforcement theory suggests that the media have a profound influence over political activity such as voting behaviour. It is suggested that many people are unaware of the political biases of the media to which they are subject and may thus be influenced by the manner in which they portray events, especially when such exposure takes place over a long period of time.
This may be especially important when the gap between the leading parties for political office is small: in the United Kingdom the Conservative Party’s election victory in 1992 has been attributed to the influence exerted by the pro-Conservative tabloid press on working-class voters, and Silvio Berlusconi’s victory in the 1994 Italian elections has been explained by the impact of his three television channels on voting behaviour. The perception that the United Kingdom Labour Party needed to convert Conservative supporters in order to win elections considerably affected this party’s stance towards the tabloid press, especially that owned by Rupert Murdoch. It was estimated that the support to the Labour Party by his Sun newspaper was an important aspect of Labour’s victories in 1997 and 2001. In the latter election, studies suggested that 52 per cent of Sun readers voted Labour and 29 per cent Conservative. Labour was thus keen to retain the support of this newspaper in the 2005 election, which was eventually forthcoming on the eve of the contest. In 2010, however, it supported the Conservative Party.