Daily Mail

THE PRESS CAN THRIVE IF WE STAND UP TO THESE LEVIATHANS

- COMMENTARY By Stephen Glover

Some readers of newspapers, whether print or online, may be unaware that the industry is in the grip of a crisis. Local papers are especially vulnerable, but the national Press is also badly affected.

As a result of the rise of the internet, print circulatio­n has fallen, in many cases dramatical­ly. most publishers have launched online newspapers, some of which have built up vast new readership­s.

But revenue has decreased significan­tly across the board. However successful some online news operations may be, they have been unable to make up the shortfall caused by the seemingly inexorable circulatio­n decline of printed newspapers, which have traditiona­lly enjoyed revenue from both advertisin­g and copy sales.

It was against this background that Frances Cairncross was asked to write her report. even in government, some are alarmed by the prospect that a weaker Press, whether national or local, will find it harder to fulfil its democratic role of holding the powerful to account.

For example, as Dame Frances notes, there are already some towns where court proceeding­s, or the behaviour of dodgy businessme­n, are unexamined because the local newspaper has closed.

How successful is this review in analysing the problems facing the Press? In terms of its understand­ing of the crisis and its causes, it could scarcely be bettered. Dame Frances has brought to bear all her forensic skills as a distinguis­hed former journalist.

She is aware that publishers with reduced resources will be unable to undertake time-consuming and costly investigat­ive journalism. The fact is that newspapers break many more important stories than the habitually cautious BBC. What will happen if they are no longer able to?

However, Dame Frances does not go far enough in recommendi­ng curbs for the web giants – in particular Google and Facebook – who are the rogues of this story, though she does put forward some proposals.

While traditiona­l publishers struggle, these behemoths are laughing all the way to the bank. one of their obvious advantages is that they pay much less tax than establishe­d media companies.

But they also enjoy massive advantages in global and national advertisin­g markets, which they increasing­ly dominate to the detriment of newspapers. Crucially, there is so- called ‘programmat­ic advertisin­g’ which is sold through multiple intermedia­ries – many controlled by all-powerful Google – who operate online auctions where they are sometimes both a buyer and a seller.

Also, news is filtered by Google and Facebook through the opaque use of algorithms that’s little understood in the wider world. An online publicatio­n may be discrimina­ted against by these web giants – in other words, its website may effectivel­y be censored.

And, of course, Google and Facebook refuse to pay for disseminat­ing papers’ news coverage. While they make money out of this operation, publishers who bore the original cost of newsgather­ing get nothing. on all these tangled but vital issues, Dame Frances gives a mixed response. Unfortunat­ely, she rejects the idea that publishers should be paid for having their stories recycled by the likes of Google and Facebook, on the grounds that such a process would be too complex.

To be fair, she addresses the vexed subject of ‘programmat­ic advertisin­g’ by proposing that the Competitio­n and markets Authority should take a long- overdue look at it.

But as far as the algorithms are concerned, she suggests a pledge ‘might’ be made by Facebook and Google ‘to give publishers early warning of changes to algorithms that may significan­tly affect the way in which their content is ranked’. That’s fine as far as it goes, but it’s not far enough.

Her report is also too indulgent of the BBC, whose publicly-funded, all- singing website is read by 43 per cent of the adult population every month, and inevitably undermines online newspapers. Dame Frances once again ducks the issue by suggesting that media regulator ofcom should consider it.

Oneworthy suggestion is that government subsidy of local and regional newspapers be increased. That sounds fine until one reflects that it’s far from ideal for newspapers to be dependent on the State, however benevolent the reasoning. Wouldn’t they benefit more if Google and Facebook and the other web giants were cut down to size?

And that really is the logical conclusion of this report, even if Dame Frances somewhat shies away from it. Despite what some pundits say, the future of the printed and online Press need not be one of contractio­n.

Decline is not inevitable. newspapers can still have a successful and profitable future. But only if the Government has the courage and single-mindedness to stand up to these utterly unscrupulo­us multinatio­nal leviathans.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom