The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-13064, in the name of Jean Urquhart, on media, society and democracy. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite those who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons now, or as soon as possible.
I remind members that they should not make reference to on-going cases in their speeches.
I call Jean Urquhart, who has seven minutes.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament believes that there is widespread debate in Scotland about the relationship between the media, political power and democracy; believes that critical and well-supported journalism is essential to a thriving democracy; believes that many Scots have lost trust in a range of media institutions; notes the development of new methods of delivering news and commentary through the internet and social media; notes the importance of local media and press in areas such as the Highlands and Islands, which rely on the many and diverse local news services available, and welcomes the continuing public debate on how media can be held to account by citizens and civil society and how to sustain and develop diverse media outlets that contribute to generating positive engagement with politics, the Parliament and the important issues facing society.
12:36
We live in a society that relies on the quick flow of information, and we live in a time when analysis and opinion of the latest developments are consumed by an awakening general public. That awakening is, in large part, down to the referendum debate, through which there was widespread discussion not just of the constitutional question, but of wider social issues and, indeed, of the media coverage of that historic event.
The relationship between the people of Scotland and power is changing; the democratic revival that we are experiencing is marked by a surge in interest in politics. Therefore, where we get our news and, indeed, in whose interests the media are run are of renewed importance and must come under intensified scrutiny.
On 29 April, the Scottish Government—rightly so—had a debate on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, or TTIP. In my short experience in Parliament, I have not seen the gallery so packed. I think that I am in right in saying that the issue was raised through social media, which brought to the public’s attention an item of interest and concern. If social media do that, then let us have more of it.
We must discuss how we can support journalism in Scotland. Local newspapers provide an often invaluable service; we certainly have a healthy distribution of local press in the Highlands and Islands. The new wave of citizen-led coverage and comment is an important development that must be registered. I did not know this until recently, but I am pleased to note that this is local newspaper week.
We must think in an interconnected way about investment in journalism and print media, while recognising the surge in social and new media. However, we must take the debate much further, and we must apply scrutiny to how particular media institutions have covered recent social and political affairs: for example, we might question and expose the mythmongering that was pushed by broad sections of the press on the question of immigration. We might also note the widespread problem that the BBC has in Scotland. In recent years, staff cuts and reduced resources have had a negative impact on the service that we need and want. Would change to the BBC charter make it possible for responsibility to rest with Holyrood instead of Westminster? That, of course, should also be the subject of a debate.
In many profound ways we live in a media-managed democracy. We know the hold that a tiny minority of media owners can have over the framing of political events in the public mind, and their outcomes. For so long that situation has been impenetrable. As democrats who have a view on the need for balanced and critical debate, perhaps now more than ever we have a chance to challenge the vested interests and corporate power that lie behind sections of the mass media: we have an electorate that has begun the process of grappling with the question. People are becoming shrewder about what information they digest, and many are using the internet to do their own more considered research into the issues of the day, both domestic and international.
As elected representatives of the people, we have a particular responsibility to uphold when it comes to how our actions are covered. More than that, we have a duty to ensure that coverage of the big debates that are polarising society is not left to the media barons. It is time for us to take a new look at our media, to carry out a proper assessment of new media and to exhibit a willingness to explore how we can support journalism as a trade and as a hugely important profession in Scotland. At a time when we are seeing a resurgence in people sensing the power of their opinion and their vote, it is crucial that we express our desire to support those who can articulate and record their considered opinion for the benefit of increasing our knowledge and challenging how we think.
Today’s debate could not be taking place at a more important moment in the development of our democracy and our society as a whole. It is time for an even bigger debate to take place in Scotland, as we discover more about our country and as we learn more about one another and about the possibilities that exist for us to take action and raise our game. In that context, I think that today’s debate is relevant, and I am grateful for being given the ability to voice my concern.
12:41
I congratulate Jean Urquhart on bringing this matter to the chamber for debate, and I apologise to the Presiding Officer and other members for the fact that I will not be able to remain for the entire debate, because I will host a meeting shortly.
When we reach a certain age, there is a danger that we view the past through rose-tinted spectacles and hark back to the good old days, so let me be clear: although the bulk of the 30 years that I spent in my previous career were enjoyable, the last few were anything but. When I left journalism in November 2010, I was grateful that I was escaping an industry that was already sailing into very difficult waters. Now, the best part of five years on, I genuinely fear for where the print media are headed as regards practices and viability, and I have a good deal of sympathy for many of the people who make their living in that field.
I would like to expand on that, in no particular order. I begin by highlighting an experience that was suffered by a constituent of mine. He had posted something on his personal Facebook page about the fact that the pain of having lost his daughter some months earlier had been stoked by his receiving a piece of mail for her. Understandably, he criticised the organisation that had sent it. The following morning, my constituent took a call from a journalist who sought a quotation to include in a story that the journalist’s paper was running on the situation. The man was horrified to learn that the paper had sourced the planned article through a routine trawl of social media and that it had every intention of running with it, despite his making it clear that he had received an apology, that the matter was at an end and that he felt that it would be utterly inappropriate for the paper to intrude on what he considered to be a private matter.
The man told me that he had to spend the day negotiating with the paper to ensure that his family were not subjected to publicity that they simply did not want. They remained shocked that a newspaper would stoop to trawling Facebook in that way and be resistant to rowing back once the family had made clear their position. Such are the demands that are being made on journalists because of staff cutbacks that journalists on some titles routinely sit in offices sourcing copy, including quotations, directly from social media. I highlight that example as an illustration of the kind of practices that are now being employed in parts of our media that previously would never have behaved in that way. The public are experiencing those practices at first hand and are balking at them, and that has reputational consequences.
That said, let us recognise the pressures that some journalists are having to contend with. Newspapers are trapped in a downward spiral that they seem to be incapable of escaping. As circulation falls, they embark on cost cutting and make further demands on demoralised staff, which in turn lead to diminishing quality of product, which results in circulation collapsing further, and so it goes on.
As a former journalist, I hear tales that genuinely sadden me. For example, I heard about a newspaper at which the longest-serving reporter had been there for 11 months. I heard about a young reporter who was handed, by his editor, the phone number of a Scot who had been caught up in the tragedy in Nepal. He was also given a list of questions: two questions into the interview, he had the phone put down on him, with the interviewee branding him an ambulance chaser, such was the nature of the tack that he had been instructed to take.
I have also heard about the phasing out of sub-editors, which can have implications for quality control and presentation, and the doing away with of staff photographers, with picture duties instead being given to reporters and freelancers, who have to submit pictures on spec and for a relative pittance. That is the reality for many journalists nowadays. Morale is at rock bottom because of that, because of erosion of terms and conditions of employment, and because of the wider cuts agenda.
One respected weekly paper editor told me recently that the financial restraints had become so bad that members of the public had wandered into his office to check whether it was still open, because the refusal of the proprietors to meet the cost of window cleaning had left the premises looking as though they were closed.
The print media may well be headed online—we may be only a few years away from that happening—but I still hope that there is and can be a future for newspapers. A thriving written press that holds those in authority to account in a considered way without fear or favour is vital in any democracy. I especially hope that we can somehow save the weekly-paper sector at community level. At the risk of sounding old-fashioned, both are surely to be valued.
12:45
I congratulate Jean Urquhart on lodging an important motion.
I will start with what is perhaps the least controversial bit of the motion. I think that we would all agree on the importance of local media. I pay tribute to the great work over many years of the North Edinburgh News in my constituency, and Greener Leith. Regrettably, the former lost its regular council funding three or four years ago, and the mass distribution of hard copies of the newspaper that was possible as a result of the funding, but it is still a great source of news online, as is Greener Leith. I should point out that Greener Leith runs a social website, which is an interactive forum for raising awareness of local concerns. I think that we all value the local media in our constituencies.
The issue of media ownership is more controversial, although it was perhaps not so controversial three or four years ago. When David Cameron spoke in the House of Commons just days after the hacking scandal broke in 2011, he was explicit about the need for action. He said that the
“challenge is how we address the vexed issue of media power. We need competition policy to be properly enforced. We need a sensible look at the relevance of plurality and cross-media ownership ... and never again should we let a media group get too powerful.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 20 July 2011; Vol 531, c 967.]
To address that problem, the Labour Party pledged in its manifesto for the recent election that
“No media company should have so much power that those who run it believe themselves above the rule of law.”
If Labour had been elected to Government last week, we as a party would have sought to adopt the proposal that was endorsed by campaigners to limit national newspaper ownership to 30 per cent of the market. Such a law could have led to the break-up of News Corp in the United Kingdom, which currently publishes 32 per cent of the national daily newspapers and 34.5 per cent of the Sunday market, with its titles The Sun, The Times and The Sunday Times.
Many members here and, indeed, at Westminster will give testament to the enormous shift from the dominance of traditional media that we have seen over recent years. The ability of papers and broadcasters to steer the course of political dialogue is still a prevalent aspect of contemporary politics, but the use of social media to shape political debate and to allow a more dynamic, instantaneous and reciprocal news source now offers the public the chance to become creators of content, with direct access to politicians.
After the general election, the research director of the centre for the analysis of social media, Carl Miller, gave an account of the importance of social media in the success and failure of campaigns. On the whole, he was largely positive about Twitter as a medium through which a more representative politics could be forged. He said:
“Twitter is broadly representative of the UK—now much more than 2010”,
and that
“In 2010 about 34 per cent of people in the UK were on social media, now well over half are.”
That is reflected in the sheer level of political content that passes through Twitter feeds every day. During the election campaign alone, there were an estimated 7 million tweets to politicians and candidates. As Carl Miller pointed out:
“that’s an enormous chaotic morass of lots of things”.
He said that what drives Twitter usage is
“converting likes and tweets and favourites into things that matter—volunteers, donations and ultimately votes”.
Twitter also offers a direct and instantaneous source of news—often much faster than traditional media. As many members will have witnessed, media such as Twitter and Facebook have the ability to generate crowd-sourced reaction to key political developments. As a result of that direct user-generated content, citizens feel more able to have direct contact with MPs and MSPs. That will undoubtedly have some impact in the long term on broader expectations about politicians.
In conclusion, I welcome this timely debate. It poses many questions that are simply too complex to answer in one short debate. However, the mere fact that we are able to speak these words, broadcast them to the media, write them on our parliamentary website and tweet them to our followers shows that we have come very far since the days of the penny dreadfuls—the early yellow-top gossip papers. Let us hope that this journey towards a more transparent and engaging system continues. I support the motion and congratulate Jean Urquhart on lodging it.
12:50
I, too, congratulate Jean Urquhart on securing the debate. I agree with much in her motion, and especially the belief that
“critical and well-supported journalism is essential to a thriving democracy”.
A strong media plays an important role in making politicians and government at all levels accountable, and that is how it should be.
The motion notes the importance of the local media and press in my region—the Highlands and Islands—which I completely agree with. The Highlands and Islands are fortunate to have a wide range of fantastic local newspapers, of which there are far too many to mention them individually.
I commend the journalists and editors who work so hard to cover local news stories in my region. As well as reporting on local stories and performing the important task of scrutinising the performance and decisions of local government in Scotland, many such newspapers can help to effect change by supporting local campaigns. I think for example of the recent and successful campaign to establish a new dialysis unit in Campbeltown hospital, which was backed by great support from the Campbeltown Courier.
Jean Urquhart is right to mention the development of news through the internet and social media, and she mentioned TTIP. I received upwards of 500 emails railing against TTIP and only one or two that were pro-TTIP. However, it was obvious that the 500 were generated from one source. During the inquiry that the European and External Relations Committee conducted into TTIP, the majority of the witnesses were in favour of it. I do not think that social media can always be used—
The vast majority—more than 90 per cent—were corporate lobbyists. Does Jamie McGrigor think that they reflect the general public of the European Union?
Before Mr McGrigor responds, I have to say that I do not want this debate to descend into a TTIP debate; it is about social media.
I will take your advice on that and carry on, Presiding Officer.
Many of our local newspapers have developed first-class websites. In Argyll and Bute, the news website forargyll.com has developed a well-deserved reputation for its extensive and comprehensive coverage of all the key stories in the area and its insightful analysis. Lynda Henderson and her team at forargyll.com work extremely hard, and their success is reflected in the many thousands of page impressions that they receive every day and in the site’s lively comments sections.
Jean Urquhart talked about trust in the media. All of us can agree that the events that led to the Leveson inquiry shocked many of our constituents. However, I think that the United Kingdom Government got the balance right in its response to Leveson by seeking to preserve the freedom of the press while ensuring that bad practice in journalism can be challenged. We need to monitor the effectiveness of the new Independent Press Standards Organisation, which replaced the Press Complaints Commission, and assess its performance before considering any further changes in press regulation.
While Leveson focused on bad journalism, we should recognise that the vast majority of journalists and others in the media work to very high standards. The BBC remains an institution that is respected worldwide and we must cherish the expertise that we have in, for example, the BBC World Service. The broadcast media’s coverage of the recent general election was balanced and robust, despite the polls. ITN and Channel 4 also offer some of the best international news coverage and analysis to be found anywhere in the world.
I welcome today’s debate. I agree that it is important that we support a strong media in Scotland and the UK and have an on-going and measured debate about how citizens and society engage with our media and ensure that it meets the expectations that we have for fairness and balance.
12:54
I, too, congratulate my colleague Jean Urquhart on bringing the motion to the chamber. We know from the media and from the speeches that we have heard that the subject is of great interest to the general public. It is perhaps unfortunate that there is not a bigger attendance in the chamber for the debate.
The motion refers to a
“widespread debate”
and to
“the relationship between the media, political power and democracy”.
Members have talked about the range of media, from the locals, nationals and broadcasters to social media and the internet. The question of who has the power may be important. Mr McGrigor touched on that, and I venture that, at United Kingdom level, the power still rests with a group of elites—bankers, public schoolboys, the military and the like, and their lobbyists—and people will always have concerns about the term “state broadcaster”.
I referred to witnesses we had at the European and External Relations Committee. Is Mr Finnie suggesting that all of them were public schoolboys?
I do not know the committee that Mr McGrigor talks about, but I am not suggesting that the witnesses from whom it received evidence were exclusively public schoolboys, and nor was my remark a personal dig at Mr McGrigor.
The promotion of news is terribly important, and so is the reflection of opinion. We need to ask ourselves what we expect from the media. We want facts, opinion and analysis, and we want a combination of all that, but we must look at what the facts are and at who says that they are facts and on what basis. Opinions cannot be right or wrong, but we can ask whether they are based on facts. Analysis of facts and opinions is challenging for many people in the media, for the very reasons that we heard from Graeme Dey—it was good to have that input from someone from the profession.
People ask, “Are there agendas?” Of course there are agendas. We all have agendas. I support an organisation called Reporters Without Borders, which wants freedom of expression and of information and says that that will always be the most important freedom that the world has. It also says:
“if journalists were not free to report the facts, denounce abuses and alert the public, how would we resist the problem of child-soldiers, defend women’s rights, or preserve our environment?”
Reporters Without Borders is asking the United Nations Security Council to refer to the International Criminal Court the situation in which its members find themselves in Syria and Iraq, and we know about the situation with Al Jazeera staff.
By and large, our media people do not find themselves in such circumstances, and we know that good work is done by those who work on community broadsheets and on local radio stations, as a result of community empowerment. We must sustain and develop those media outlets, as the motion says. The national corporations follow a narrow agenda, and I am not sure how we can deal with that, but there is much to commend outlets such as Common Space and Bella Caledonia.
The motion notes that trust has been lost
“in a range of media institutions”.
Trust has been lost in a lot of institutions, including politics, and we must all move away from spinning stories and towards a situation in which we provide facts and the basis for saying that they are facts. That would allow analysis. It is a two-way engagement.
As has been rightly said, the Highlands and Islands have a vibrant papers sector, and long may that continue. People view the sector as having a public service ethos.
There must be a separation between our media and party politics. There is much to be positive about for the future, and I applaud the work of the National Union of Journalists to encourage young people into the profession. I commend its code of conduct, and I stress that journalists must at all times uphold and defend the principle of media freedom, the right to freedom of expression and the public’s right to be informed. If we stick to those principles, I do not think that we will go far wrong.
12:59
I congratulate Jean Urquhart on securing the debate. In local newspaper week, I have to say that life would not be the same without a weekly read of the Linlithgow Gazette. I welcome the chance to speak in this timely debate and I thank members for the interesting and informative comments that we have heard. There is a widespread debate in Scotland about the relationship between the media, political power and democracy, and there is also a belief that critical and well-supported journalism is essential to a thriving democracy—Jamie McGrigor made that point.
For our part, public engagement with politicians and the media’s critical analysis of our work inside and outwith Parliament are essential to building and maintaining trust in the political process. It is essential to ensure the continued participation of people throughout Scotland in shaping our nation’s future.
Malcolm Chisholm talked about the role of social media, particularly in elections. A thriving media sector that supports diverse job opportunities, training and development is important, and a press and media environment that values, respects and champions quality journalism is essential to our future. We should also note, recognise and appreciate the role of the new publication The National.
The levels of engagement in September’s referendum and during the UK general election campaign have been rightly celebrated and it is heartening that so many people feel that they have a voice in the critical decisions that affect us all. However, despite such high levels of engagement, we find ourselves at a time of great change in how the media delivers its content and ensures its continued relevance amid changing perceptions of what constitutes international, national and local.
Nowadays, I can consume information from a variety of media outlets, with news in many languages and from many perspectives at my fingertips. Such easy access to a plurality of information is a challenge to our traditional modes of consumption and engagement and it can have an unsettling effect when what seems to be established fact is quickly challenged by another point of view. That is positive for the quality of debate, but it changes our relationship with the media and challenges our ability and appetite to distinguish between opinion and fact, which might also impact on our levels of trust in media institutions, at least in the short term.
To sustain a flourishing democracy in Scotland, we will need diverse and independent voices across the media. However, the media continues to be concentrated in a handful of corporations and individuals who have considerable power over our news, cultural life and access to information. That was a focus of John Finnie’s speech. Decisions about the newspaper industry, such as decisions on merging titles, deskilling and the laying off of good journalists, are often made with scant regard for the impact that such decisions will have on the media’s ability to support democracy, political engagement and high-quality debate in Scotland.
We have seen job cuts throughout the media sector, including at the BBC. On print journalism, Graeme Dey warned of the vicious cycle of deteriorating circulation and standards in the media. The move to go online is also creating an ever more economically challenging environment for the print media. Circulation figures in February show reductions in the past six months across most major titles of between 5 and 15 per cent, and there have been closures at a range of media organisations. Of course, some publications have moved successfully to online circulation that pays.
Such challenging times for print journalism are leading to increasing domination of the industry by a smaller number of large media organisations. That is a challenge for industry regulators and one of the reasons for the loss of trust in the media that we have heard about today.
Alternative new media platforms have sprung up rapidly in the past few years, and access to local and social media provides many opportunities for voices to be heard on a range of issues. An example of that comes from Jean Urquhart’s work on xenophobia earlier this year, which made excellent use of exactly that kind of opportunity. However, the ability of digital intermediaries, such as search engines and social media giants, to filter information threatens to create new monopolies that will undermine positive developments.
As the traditional print media adapts to respond to the digital age, it is critical that local voices are still heard and that high-quality local journalism and media remain vibrant and continue to develop. The launch of local TV services in Edinburgh and Glasgow earlier this year and the forthcoming launches in Aberdeen, Ayr and Dundee are an interesting development. The risks and opportunities for the media in Scotland at this time must be assessed, and we must address the issues facing us, particularly where trust has broken down, in order to rebuild the relationship with people across Scotland.
As members know, the Smith commission proposed new powers for Scotland over broadcasting, and today’s debate is well timed as we enter this critical period. The continued work to implement proposals on independent press self-regulation is also key to rebuilding trust in our media and helping to address structural issues.
I am committed to making sure that we seize the opportunity and promote continued public debate so that we can sustain and develop diverse media outlets that can generate positive engagement with politics, the Parliament and the important issues facing society, thereby ensuring that everyone has a voice in Scotland’s future. I want to see a national debate with politicians, the industry and—critically—the public to ensure that we fully understand the vision for media in Scotland and the key issues that we want to address, from BBC charter renewal to support for independent producers across Scotland and support for vibrant and diverse print and online media.
I look forward to a lively and informed discussion of the issues with colleagues across the chamber and throughout Scotland. This is a critical agenda that matters. I am pleased and grateful that Jean Urquhart brought the debate to Parliament.
13:05 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question Time