Following the example of right-wing regimes in eastern Europe, the government seems determined to undermine journalistic freedom in the UK. Labour has a duty to call this out—and develop a long-term plan for a healthy, sustainable and genuinely independent media.
Culture secretary Michelle Donelan has become increasingly menacing in her public statements about our media. In recent weeks she has stepped up her attack on the BBC, singling out one individual presenter—Gary Lineker—for personal criticism, while simultaneously putting pressure on his employer. This is taking place in the absence of a politically settled and long-term funding arrangement for the BBC, pending a review of the licence fee model to be conducted by Donelan’s department.
Coupled with increasing alarm about the politicisation of the BBC board—including recent reports about its chair, Richard Sharp—and Emily Maitlis’s allegations of direct interference by another member of that board in editorial policy, this pattern is not likely to foster long-term trust in the BBC, or for that matter our democratic system. Could the government be preparing the ground for the privatisation of a much bigger fish than Channel Four—by raising questions about its independence?
The perception game—whether and to what extent the public trust the BBC to treat politics fairly—matters. Labour has a clear role here, not only to counterbalance allegations of left-wing bias, and call out the very real danger of right-wing capture, but to put down markers about what is, and what is not, acceptable practice for ministers when it comes to criticising public media. Ironically, it was her reluctance to criticise the Daily Mail’s infamous “Enemies of the People” headline that led to Liz Truss, as justice secretary, being reminded of her constitutional duty to protect the judiciary. The culture secretary surely has a similar responsibility to protect the media and shadow culture secretary Lucy Powell should be doing much more to challenge government criticism of the BBC.
Donelan should refrain from offering subjective pronouncements on the impartiality of the national broadcaster and its journalists. Clearly ministers are not objective in their judgements about news made by those who hold them to account on behalf of the public. That is why parliament and Ofcom have designed finely balanced codes and procedures to monitor and regulate BBC impartiality. If Donelan wants to complain about partiality she should do so through the official complaints procedures. And these complaints should be treated by Ofcom and the BBC exactly as any other complaint would be. If Donelan wants to change these procedures she needs to persuade parliament that this needs doing. That is the way the system should work if we want to safeguard democracy.
In the century since the BBC was founded, governments with respect for our institutions have developed a tradition of forbearance in dealing with sensitive issues of media freedom. Foremost must be a sense of propriety in dealing with the media directly, including the BBC.
A traditional Burkean Tory defence of media freedom in the UK would maintain that it is not laws that protect the BBC but an instinctive sense of what is right and proper. But the tradition of forbearance in government dealings with the BBC seems to have been forgotten. The Labour opposition should remind ministers of their responsibilities and lay down some clear ground rules. No calling out of individual journalists. Public allegations of partiality, whether substantiated or not, should be avoided. And the fuss about Richard Sharp surely provides a chance for Labour to explain how it would replace the current appointments system with a much more robust and independent process. China has a state broadcaster: we have a public broadcaster and the appointments process should reflect this.
The bigger task for Labour is to address the broader crisis of media freedom, and set out some solutions.
The crisis of media freedom is not as complex as it may seem. Many of the current threats to media freedom can be traced to a single explanation. There is one thing that links threats to the physical safety of journalists, their vulnerability to harassment by the law and the increasing swagger of politicians keen to boss the media about in ways that compromise the basic tenets of journalistic freedom. It is the same thing that has devastated the news landscape and made entire municipalities into “news deserts”, with no trusted local news source at all.
It’s revenue. Media companies that cannot afford to invest in the lawyers, dispute resolution and even frankly the taxis and security measures that protect journalists are also less able to effectively lobby for their own interests when their influence and wallets are dwarfed by those of tech. Media outlets are less free because they are weak, and they are weak because they are still searching for a secure business model—and as long as there is a question mark hanging over the licence fee, this includes the BBC.
So as well as protecting the media from these attacks, Labour should show that it understands the challenges faced by news media and set out some aspirations for the future. And it should be grown up enough to put democracy at the centre of any reform programme, rather than using media policy as another means to hoard power, as seems to be the approach of the current government.
Critics are right to argue that a move to taxation as the source of BBC funding raises questions about independence. So aspiring ministers in a future Labour government should be examining how any change of funding model would be accompanied by an overhaul of BBC governance, to replace what has this week been revealed as an appallingly compromised process for appointing the chair.
And when it comes to investing in the system beyond the BBC, all sorts of support should be considered—but only with appropriate safeguards. There should be no pork barrel subsidies for friendly media; instead we need careful legal reforms to give charitable status and tax breaks to media outlets while respecting their autonomy. No sweeping powers for a Ministry of Truth to zap so-called disinformation, but enhanced independence for Ofcom to monitor codes agreed with parliament under the new Online Safety legislation, and a new effort to ensure that ethical independent media—rather than crony propagandists—are prominent and discoverable on streaming and social platforms.
Media freedom requires the development of clear guardrails to curb the worst excesses of ministerial threats and posturing; but it also requires politicians to set out a convincing package of policies to support media in the long term, at a time when the legacy model is beyond repair.
The gathering crisis of media freedom strikes at the core of our democracy. In a world increasingly characterised by the standoff with authoritarian systems, we will need serious policies to set out the role of media freedom in democratic renewal. This starts with protecting the media from ministerial threats at home.
