It’s been great to see the phone hacking scandal come to a head after so long when the issues of journalist ethics and unaccountable media power have been under the carpet. But, as the story unfolds, you have to wonder whether the resulting environment will be much improved. If Murdoch follows his decision to shut the NOTW to its logical conclusion by selling his other UK titles (as several commentators have said he might), it is hard to see new owners investing heavily in loss-making outlets, and generally maintaining standards. Newspapers, such as the Times, will still face the problem of producing good work with few resources – only now they’ll have even fewer resources.
For all his commercial nous, Murdoch has had a twilight-years sentimentality for print that successive owners are unlikely to share. Whatever its shortcomings, News International has been subsidising half the UK press over the last decade, and replacing that won’t be easy. As Peter Preston says, the most likely buyers for Murdoch’s papers are Russian oligarchs, Arab Sheiks, and Richard “Dirty” Desmond – none of whom would be first-choice proprietors:
The assumption of so much speculation now is that plurality will be rescued only when Murdoch walks away. An alternative outcome is that plurality will shrivel even more as at least three papers drop out of the market.
I don’t automatically think keeping old newspapers alive is the only way to ensure healthy journalism. Far from it. That is an argument mostly put around by journalists and managers at old newspapers, who have every incentive to present themselves as the last, best hope for free speech and democracy. There are other sorts of organisations that could emerge to take the place of newspapers, which may do a better job of holding the powerful to account (and without making themselves powers in their own right). It may be that Murdoch’s departure from the UK (if it happens) hastens a process by which artificially-supported groups are forced to close, or forced to find new business models, and new market entrants can get a start. It may be in the long-run that this scandal is an unalloyed good thing for journalism, forcing an all-round re-appraisal among providers and consumers. More immediately, though, the effect may be a net-negative, forcing titles, such as News International’s, to cut back or dumb down. There may be less diversity, not more.
That is not an argument for laying off Murdoch in the hope that he stays in the UK. He deserves everything he is getting at the moment; it’s been a long time coming. It is to say that his presence in London hasn’t been all-bad. His record is more complicated than some have made it out to be, and we shouldn’t expect things to magically get better if he does leave. New, unaccountable, individuals could replace him, abusing their power as before, enabled by politicians looking for advantage (the dynamics haven’t changed). Most fundamentally, the media still needs to go from its currently shaky position to something more sustainable, both economically and socially. That task becomes more urgent if Murdoch leaves, but it is the same job.
(Image: World Economic Forum)
[ 1 comment ]
