Peer Pressure

The House of Lords �filibustered� the Communications Bill last week on grounds that the proposed relaxation of foreign ownership restrictions would leave the UK broadcasting ecology at the mercy of large, multi-national media conglomerates.

The outcry stems from the potential of a Murdoch buyout of �Five� if the ownership liberalization goes ahead as currently drafted. By stalling for time, the peers, led by media-insiders Lord Puttnam, Lord Bragg, Lord Hussey and Lord McNally, hope to remove the ownership proposals - dubbed the �Murdoch Clause�.

The Government is under pressure to pass the legislation before the end of the session. They are likely to achieve their aims despite the �rebels� thanks to the support of the opposition on the issue.

Puttnam, who headed up last year�s scrutiny committee on the bill, has made no secret of his dislike for the ownership provisions, and believes the current shape and tone of the legislation puts too little emphasis on the public interest.

Of course this depends on how you define the public interest � never easy. The proposed Communications Bill very much looks to the market as an indicator of the public interest. And the market is the best guide we have as to what the public want - particularly in such a subjective arena.

Not so in the eyes of some peers. For them the broadcasting ecology needs not only the �guiding hand� of the BBC but a structure that continues to weaken the commercial sector in relation to it.

Murdoch, for his part, has said from the beginning that he isn�t even interested in holding the fifth terrestrial licence. If that�s the truth he must be having a right old chuckle now. You have to admire how he always manages to upset the establishment.

But lets say that News Corporation reassesses and decides, in light of a new ownership regime, to take advantage of the possible synergies offered it by owning a terrestrial channel. Is this the death of diversity in the UK media market?

Unlikely. If Murdoch was to buy/takeover the fifth terrestrial licence � diversity in the broadcasting ecology may actually be boosted � through competition. Surely, this is aim of the Communication Bill.

Sure, a terrestrial channel under Murdoch is likely to cross-promote the rest of the sprawling empire. And it is likely to continue to show much of the dross Five prides itself on now.

But the channel would also likely have deeper pockets than at present and be a serious bidder for much of the mid-level US content that the other terrestrials all too often idly fall back on to offset their commissioning or ratings disasters.

Bereft of �Will and Grace� or �Friends� or �24� the terrestrial focus will have to shift. Minds will have to focus. Cash still in pocket the only way out will be through intelligent, quality development and commissioning of home made programming.

This then could be the wider effect of competition � a stronger domestic production base working hard to win audiences. We have got the creative resources and talent here despite what the peers, academics and pundits may think.

Isn�t this what we all claim to want � a strong production base, not always dependent on production quota handouts for work, an industry capable of competing at home and abroad? The word �compete� is the key here. That is what the bill aims to achieve - competition.

But the cultural alarmists are unlikely to agree. In their view, the public will flock to the nectar of the new �easy� offerings, eyeballs stolen from legitimate, sanctioned broadcasting sources. The perceived wisdom in the House of Lords is that there is a foreign shark circling in the waters ready to pick off the media illiterate.

And that is obviously how peers view the UK population � media illiterate. In the Lords they defend the public by making choices for them in line with those choices already sanctioned. If in doubt just prescribe the establishment line. Is this the public interest?

No. It is an inability to believe that people are capable of rational choice in a market and industry that continues to fragment and develop substitutable technologies and content. The Communications Bill aims to enhance this dynamic environment - it understands that media and communications technologies evolve - rapidly.

Media is no longer domestic or even really national. Technology is quickly removing borders. The next wave of broadband development will allow people to watch the �narrowcasts� streamed from any national broadcasting system.

Of course, that is not to say people don�t want media that reflect and represent them. They do. You could argue that Murdoch seems to have done a rather successful job here if his newspapers and television subscription take up rates are to be the gauge of such a choice.

A relaxation of ownership will undoubtably allow large, wealthy players in the door. Their investment will be needed to push the market to its potential. But money alone will not necessarily buy viewers who will always gravitate to the best content, which needn�t be the most expensive if it is the most creative.

Lord Bragg said of UK television last week, “It’s the way we do it and no fashionable financial flummery, or jezebel friends, or talk of greener grass elsewhere should shift us from that ground.”

Such a statement is surely the enemy of progress and indicates a reluctance to see the industry realize its competitive, commercial potential. This is the old � comfortable - school talking not the public interest.

The Lords, un-elected but always keen to be relevant, pose a real risk here. The proposed Communications Bill aims to liberalize a market steeped in cynical protectionism and cosy paternalism.

This is a brave bill, one that is likely to generate international respect, encourage investment and most importantly build a strong, progressive, domestic industry. We can�t stand still whilst the world moves around us.

Comment? - blog@ofcomwatch.co.uk