UK Newspaper News

It's been a while, but there's been a flock of articles recently about the present and future of the newspaper business in the UK that deserves a post.

• A ZenithOptimedia forecast predicts that mobile advertising expenditures will bypass newspaper advertising revenues in the UK this year.  The study shows a 38% growth in mobile, compared to a 4% decline in newspaper advertising.
• The same report also shows mobile advertising surpassing newspapers on a global basis, based in part on the continuing decline in print advertising expenditures across most of the world. 

The worst part of the internet advertising boom for newspapers is the fact that not all digital sectors are reaping the benefits.  In particular, display advertising is lagging, and newspapers rely primarily on display advertising for their Internet and mobile sites as well as print editions. With the growth of ad-blocking on mobile devices, one analyst predicts that display ad revenues for mobile "are going to fall through the floor."

With predicted declines in revenues, many news outlets are looking for ways to trim already tight budgets further.  The National Union of Journalists  (UK's trade union for journalists) is warning that it's members are ready to strike if news outlets look to cut costs by shrinking newsrooms.

So the tough times for newspapers and other news outlets look to continue.

Sources - Mobile adspend in UK to overtake newspapers faster than expected, predicts report.  campaign

If Display Struggles To Keep Online News Going On Desktop, What Hope Is There On Mobile? LondonBlog

NUJ members ready to strike 'as and when needed', says union chief.  the Guardian

UK Govt vs Press - Actions and Updates

The last week or two have seen several actions in the continuing government intrusion into UK's press system.

At the beginning of the month, the UK government finalized the establishment of a new press regulatory authority in the form of a Privy Council.  The use of the Privy Council form was ostensibly selected to remove elected officials from the oversight process, but the industry fears that it will be still be strongly influenced by the government.  Unlike the previous Press Complaints Commission, the Privy Council will have no press representatives, and only limits currently-serving politicians and government civil servants from serving.  There is no prohibition on "retired" political or government figures, their friends and supporters, or representative of pressure groups from serving.

While those behind the plan claim "near universal support" from publishers, there has been very little public support, and very vocal concerns and objections presented by major news organizations.  In addition, several international groups concerned with the state of press freedom around the world have expressed their reservations and concerns to the UK government.

This week it was time for another shot across the bow for media in the UK. UK Home Secretary Theresa May told a meeting of the Society of Editors that the BBC was competing unfairly with local newspapers by using their Broadcast License fee revenues to subsidize its Internet operations.

"If the BBC can, as they do, provide all the locally significant news, what is left to motivate the local community to buy a paper? It's destroying local newspapers and could eventually happen to national newspapers as well."

She expressed concern that a dominant or monopoly news provider would be far too easily captured by special interests - perhaps forgetting that the BBC was the monopoly broadcast news provider for the UK for almost all of the 20th century.

In another speech to the Society of Editors, former BBC Chairman Lord Grade lambasted the new authority.

“The trouble is, that as soon as the politicians became involved, they did what politicians always do: they reached for the statute book — always the wrong answer where press regulation is concerned.”
“That final session, where politicians of three main parties huddled in secret over pizza with (activist group) Hacked Off to agree the final draft of the royal charter, while the industry directly affected was unrepresented — that session was, to say the very least, counter-productive”.

Even this early, it certainly looks like the British government's seeking to influence press operations and coverage.  It will be interesting to see whether the government chooses control over freedom as these new UK press oversight and regulation efforts get established and implemented.

Sources -  Britain approves new press regulation system, newspapers cry foul,  Reuters UK
Home Secretary warns BBC's internet dominance damages local media, The Drum
Lord Grade hits out at 'bonkers' press regulation charter,  TheCourier.co.uk

If the BBC can, as they do, provide all the locally significant news, what is left to motivate the local community to buy a paper?
“It’s destroying local newspapers and could eventually happen to national newspapers as well.”

Read more at http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/11/12/home-secretary-warns-bbc-s-internet-dominance-damages-local-media#eh5ZxZlTY3SKShk1.99

If the BBC can, as they do, provide all the locally significant news, what is left to motivate the local community to buy a paper?
“It’s destroying local newspapers and could eventually happen to national newspapers as well.”

Read more at http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/11/12/home-secretary-warns-bbc-s-internet-dominance-damages-local-media#eh5ZxZlTY3SKShk1.99

If the BBC can, as they do, provide all the locally significant news, what is left to motivate the local community to buy a paper?
“It’s destroying local newspapers and could eventually happen to national newspapers as well.”

Read more at http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/11/12/home-secretary-warns-bbc-s-internet-dominance-damages-local-media#eh5ZxZlTY3SKShk1.99

UK: Newspaper Regulation "Will Be Imposed"

After politicians rejected a UK newspaper industry proposal for self-regulation, the government is poised to impose the first state regulation of the press in 300 years.

Lest you think that the industry's proposals were weak or self-serving, their proposal has been described at the toughest regulatory regime in the world, capable of imposing £1 million fines.  The main differences cited in the two proposals was that under the industry proposal, participation by news organizations was voluntary, that there would be someone with news experience on the main oversight panel, and that the government could not block or change regulations.  Officials, in rejecting the industry proposal would make news organization participation mandatory, have the industry fund the regulatory authority, prohibit anyone with news experience from serving on the oversight panel while allowing former MPs to serve, and provide a mechanism for political "involvement" in setting regulations and determining violations.  (Another concern was the overly broad definition of news outlet and the impact on small organizations, nonprofits, and bloggers).

As one might expect, the industry raised concerns about the action, and the fact that industry representatives were not involved in the decision-making process, while critics were.  Press opponents (who were involved in the initial late-night deal-making that resulted in the government's initial proposal) predictably indicated that rejection of news industry concerns was "long overdue." 

And one Labour member of Parliament, Tom Harris, expressed his concern eloquently in an opinion piece published in The Telegraph -

I sympathise with Ed Miliband’s call for “decency” from Fleet Street, especially in the wake of last week’s unedifying row between him and the Daily Mail over his late father. But the state should have no role in forcing its definition of “decency” on a free press. The British press is intrusive, arrogant, vicious, unfair, unbalanced and generally infuriating. What a relief! That is as it should be. Politicians and those in positions of power should be wary of journalists. We should worry about what will be reported about us and our actions. We should shudder on a Friday night when a reporter from a Sunday tabloid calls us at home to ask for “your side of the story”. 

By supporting Parliament’s Royal Charter for press regulation, to be agreed by the Privy Council at the end of this month, my party is turning its back on a core tenet of progressive politics: that a genuinely free press, however infuriating, is an indispensable foundation stone of democracy.

Even if the goal is worthy, the way the UK government has proceeded in this matter doesn't give much indication of a concern for fairness or the social, economic, and political value of a free press.  While there is no constitutional protection of a press free from government influence and control in the U.K. (such as the First Amendment in the U.S.), they are members of the EU and UN, both of which support the role of a free press as a fundamental human right.  Should these be disregarded because of the occasional bad act or embarrassing story?  I'd hope not, but I expect that they will.  It's one reason politicians are generally seen as even less ethical than the press.

Sources -  Regulation will be imposed on press as politicians reject self-regulation, The Telegraph
Labour should not be muzzling free speech with its support of the Royal Charter, The Telegraph

Online News Use continues Rise

Two recent studies, one in the U.S. and one in the U.K., are indicating that at least half of adults go online for news.  The two differ in methodology and in how use is measured, so I'll discuss them separately.

The U.K. study comes from the Office for National Statistics, and looks at Internet Access by individuals, and within households.  The survey found that Internet access in Great Britain continues to grow and diffuse: 73% of adults report using the Internet daily, 53% now access the Internet from mobile phones.  83% of households report having Internet access, and 42% had land-based broadband Internet connections.
  More than half of adults (55%) reported "reading or downloading online news, newspapers or magazines" on a daily basis, more than doubling the rate reported in 2007 (20%).  That change in usage was the biggest of the services reported. 

"In 2013, with reports of decreased physical newspaper readership, there has been media interest in how people will access the news in the future," said the ONS.

The survey also found that more than half (52%) of those UK adults have purchased reading materials online had done so through digital forms such as eBooks.  A substantial number also reported buying eBooks for the readers in their family.
  Usage among young adults (16-24) was greatest for leisure or recreational activities: 93% engaged in online social networking daily, 60% accessed wikis, 55% downloaded software, and 40% made phone or video calls over the Internet.  People in the 25-34 age group, on the other hand, had the highest use of regular activities like sending emails (89%), getting information on goods and services (i.e. shopping) (77%), and engaging in online banking (76%).  The highest growth in reported Internet usage was among older users, where daily use for seniors (65+)grew from 10% in 2006 to 38% in 2013 and reported daily use among those 55-64 grew from 37% in 2006 to 68% in 2013.

The U.S. numbers come from the Pew State of the News Media 2013 report.  In a survey conducted in 2012, Pew asked U.S. adults where they had gotten news "yesterday."  Respondents were allowed to cite multiple sources.  Half (50%) of respondents reported getting news from digital sources.  The only form used more was "TV" at 55%, but that number combined local and national broadcast news with cable news.

Pew does provide some further breakdowns - in 2012, 39% of respondents reported getting news online from mobile devices "yesterday."  That would still be the second highest platform usage, but when combined with other online access portals the use jumps to 50%.  About one in five respondents (19%) reported getting news from social media, while 16% reported getting news from email feeds and 8% said they'd listened to a news podcast.  There is an age break in online news usage - only 43% of those 50-64 reported getting news from online sources "yesterday", compared with 60% daily usage from those under 50.
  The other point that the Pew report makes is that online news use is the only format that has not been consistently trending downward over the last 20 years.  "TV" daily use has dropped from a high of 71% in 1994 to 55% in 2012.  Newspaper usage has dropped from a high of 57% in 1991 to 29% in 2012.  And radio as a daily news source has dropped from 54% in 1991 to 33% in 2012.  Yes, that's right - more American adults report getting their news from radio than report getting news from newspapers.

Not so good news for legacy formats, but still somewhat optimistic about news usage overall.

Sources -  More than half of Britons access news online, The Guardian
Statistical Bulletin: Internet Access - Households and Individuals, 2013, ONS.gov.uk
Digital: As Mobile Grows Rapidly, the Pressures on News Intensify, Pew Research Center
The full Pew report on The State of the News Media 2013 is available here.

UK Tries to Reign in Press

The Labour Party claims it has a deal with the other major UK parties to publish a Royal Charter, to be backed by legislation, that would set tough new standards and oversight on journalism and the press in Great Britain.  The prompt for action comes after the publication of the Leveson inquiry into the actions and ethics of the press following a series of scandals. Leveson proposed statutory changes, but balance them with enshrining into law the freedom of the press, and the government's duty to actively promote press freedom.  The shift to the device of a Royal Charter was seen as a way to impose regulation and oversight without having to actually formally commit to the principal of a free press.

  Press and free speech advocates were outraged.  From tabloid The Sun:

As they bargained overnight in talks that ended at 2.30am, newspaper industry experts appealed to MPs not to shame Britain by throwing away 318 years of Press freedom.

Tim Luckhurst, Kent University’s Professor of Journalism, said: “Popular newspapers are bold defenders of the public interest. It protects our liberties and holds power to account. MPs should search their conscience and vote for freedom of expression unlimited by state intervention.”

Nick Pickles, director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, said of proposals to shackle newspapers: “MPs should reject these dangerous measures that would be seen around the world as Britain abandoning its free Press.”

Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Thorbjorn Jagland, commented, "I’m very cautious about controlling the media, because it always leads to something bad - it always leads to misuse of power."

In a perversion of language, Prime Minister David Cameron claimed

“What we wanted to avoid and we have avoided is a press law,” he said. “Nowhere will it say what this body is, what it does, what it can’t do, what the press can and can’t do. That, quite rightly, is being kept out of parliament.”

Instead, the Charter will create an "independent press regulator" that will create and enforce a strict code, including the ability to impose heavy fines and require front page "apologizes."  And instead of transparent language and judicial oversight inherent in any statute, the "independent regulator" will be under the oversight of the Privy Council (i.e. not subject to public oversight).  Sounds a lot like telling the press what it "can and can't do."  Only without the protections for the press that the Leveson Inquiry report felt were critical to maintaining press freedom and independence.
  In particular, the new regulator would draw up a code of behavior for journalists and the press, set up a bureaucratic authority to investigate complaints, adjudicate complaints, and levy fines and other punishments.  Including telling the press what it must print and where to print it.
  While the inquiry and later discussion focused on the print press, it seems the Charter proposal takes things a large step beyond.

Schedule 4, Point 1 of both the government and the opposition’s versions of the Royal Charter will bring blogs under the regulator’s control:
“relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom: a. a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or b. a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine)”

What's most bewildering to me is that this is the one thing that can unite U.K.'s three largest political parties.  They must really hate having to deal with a free, inquisitive, and at times argumentative press.


Sources -  Parties reach deal on UK press regulation,  ft.com
European Human Rights Watchdog Criticizes. U.K. Press Regulation Proposals, The Hollywood Reporter
D-Day for Press Freedom, The Sun 
Guido's Warning to Liberal & Progressive Bloggers: Royal Charter Aims for Tabloids and Guido, It'll Get You Too,  Order-Order blog

For background on the Levenson Inquiry and Report,
Leveson - New Regulator Proposed,  BBC.co.uk

UK & Digital Radio

Earlier this month, UK's Ofcom (state regulatory authority) released its third annual report on the development of digital radio in the UK.  Current government policy calls for digital radio to eventually replace current analog radio offerings, with the switchover to be triggered when digital radio's signal coverage becomes comparable to existing FM coverage, and roughly half of listening is to digital radio stations.  This report, the third annual, shows that digital radio is well on the way to meet those goals.
  Specifically, the report indicates that:

• Digital radio services are provided through multiple platforms: digital terrestrial radio, digital television, and through the Internet.
• Coverage varies by service and platform -  BBC's digital radio service reaches 94.3% of UK homes (using multiple platforms); commercial digital radio services reach 84.6%; local digital radio services reach 66.6%; 95% of the primary TV sets in UK homes are capable of receiving some digital radio services; and 77% of UK homes have broadband Internet service capable of streaming digital radio services.
• As of June 2012, 29.5% of radio listening was to digital radio services.  Roughly two-thirds of that listening was to terrestrial digital radio (DAB) receivers, 15% through digital TV sets, and 13% online.
• Most people still don't own digital radio receivers - less than 30% of radios sold in the last year included a DAB tuner; only a quarter of cars include a DAB tuner; and half of those currently without a DAB receiver said they were not likely to buy one in the next year.  Nationally, only 41.2% of people claimed ownership of a DAB receiver, and diffusion varies widely in different regions of the UK (from a high of 54.4% in Surrey to a low of 25.8% in the Scottish Borders).

FM radio continues to dominate radio listening -  54% of adults have listened to FM radio services (30% do so daily), while about 1 in three listen to radio services through digital TV sets and another third through DAB receivers. About a quarter listen to AM radio, and one in five listen to radio services online.  BBC services account for half of all digital radio listening.

Source -  The Communications Market: Digital Radio Report,  Ofcom research report, Oct. 2012