Just written a quick blog for Media Reform UK on Theresa May’s comments blaming the BBC for the crisis in local media. Reproduced below so as to keep all my stuff in one place. […]
I did a post some months back over at Our Beeb on how the BBC could become accountable to licence payers, and today, Tessa Jowell has said something similar in the Telegraph.
When I wrote the piece, it was all a touch theoretical since the BBC’s governance wasn’t a live issue. (update – The Independent’s Steve Richards suggests there might be a link) […]
[author_info]I’ve just done a piece on how the BBC could become the British Broadcasting Co-operative, and why it should, as part of OpenDemocracy’s Our Beeb series. It draws on the references I make in my pamphlet on media ownership to the BBC.[/author_info] [/author]
Now is absolutely the right moment to be querying the BBC’s governance. Just because people who beat up on the BBC seem to have an ulterior motive, and just because the cultural life of the UK would be much worse without it, that’s no reason for the rest of us to give it a free pass from scrutiny. […]
[box type=”info”] Visitors landing here from Roy Greenslade’s piece in the Guardian about my report on media co-operatives should visit this page first![/box]
[author][author_image timthumb=’on’]http://daveboyle.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/demsoc.png[/author_image] [author_info]I was very kindly asked by Anthony Zacharzewski of The Democratic Society to contribute a piece to their series on media regulation. My research on media co-operatives is mainly focussed on the how they meet the challenge of the digital age, but there’s an important dimension in respect of regulating the media for the public interest. [/author_info] [/author]
In his famous mea culpa, Alan Greenspan told the US Congress that there was a flaw at the heart of his vision of capitalism, which was that he hadn’t expected shareholders of companies to be unable to ensure their own interests were protected; in his world, such self-interest would serve to provide the wider interest in true neo-liberal fashion. […]
Last night, Darren Ambrose apparently scored a screamer for Crystal Palace in their win over Manchester United in the Carling Cup.
I say apparently as I only saw that on twitter, so I went hunting this morning to see it myself.
I was on the Guardian’s youtube roundup, and saw that several uploads of the goal had been pulled due to a copyright claim by the Football League. […]
[author_info]Originally published on OpenDemocracy as part of their series examining media policy. The piece also has extra relevance given their own exploration of a membership scheme to their reader community as part of their own attempts to make their site sustainable in the medium and longer-term.[/author_info] [/author]
For 11 years, I worked at Supporters Direct, helping to create mutual structures through which fans could run their football clubs, and in recent years, I’ve been drawn to the similarities between clubs and newspapers.
For starters, people often speak of their choice of national newspaper as a choice that is part of their identity, whilst local newspapers are as important a part of a community’s identity as their local club.
But more importantly, both have a public character, which seems ill-suited to private ownership, and both have gone through financial crises that flow directly from the way in which they are owned gives owners power to make poor decisions about them. […]
The issue of ownership has been the absent part of the British media debate but there is growing recognition that the issue has to be on the table as the various strands of inquiry into the media resulting from hackgate start in earnest. […]
[author_info]Originally published on New Left Project in the wake of the hacking scandal to argue for using co-operative and mutual structures in media ownership, a project I’ve been working on with Co-operatives UK. The piece argues that ownership has always been thought of in terms of ‘who’ rather than ‘how’.[/author_info] [/author]
It’s strange that in the renewed debates about UK media policy in the wake of the hacking scandal, the critical importance of the nature of media ownership hasn’t featured.
We’re familiar with the spats and rivalries between different papers’ editors and proprietors, but beyond the knockabout copy, there was a collective reticence towards investigating what rivals got up to, no doubt in part a media form of mutually-assured destruction; you don’t attack my owner, I don’t attack yours. […]
[author_info]First published on Liberal Conspiracy on the need to consider issues of media ownership in the context of how they are owned, not just who owns them, as the debate following the revelations of the hacking scandal focussed on News International and the Murdoch family.[/author_info] [/author]
The plurality debate recognises that who owns newspapers matters, but says little about how> they’re owned; the regulation debate recognises that media need to be held to account but is focussed on external control, with little conception of the potential for greater internal accountability. But what if the media were owned differently, where journalists, executives and boards accountable for their actions to empowered readers and staff? What if media could be co-operative? […]