At last media chiefs agree they must act to save local journalism from crisis

Roy Greenslade
29 Apr 2009

There are breakthrough moments in history and, at the risk of being accused of hyperbole, I think I witnessed one yesterday. By the standards of many discussions, the “local media summit” held in the House of Commons and hosted by the Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport, Andy Burnham, would probably be considered rather dull.

But it was all the better for the absence of fireworks, the lack of point-scoring and even the rather obvious and well-rehearsed contributions from some of the representatives because it revealed a welcome trend towards co-operation.

It is recognised by everybody across the media that there is a crisis. They might see it in different terms, but they all understand that, if nothing is done, local journalism will wither on the vine. Moreover, given that all stories begin locally — as two speakers correctly pointed out — the knock-on effect for national journalism is also clear.

This industrywide expression of a new spirit of participation was evident in a key presentation by Ofcom's chief executive, Ed Richards, who put flesh on the bones of an increasingly enticing proposal first floated in September last year and then touched upon again in January. This is the idea that, in order to safeguard the plurality of news in the nations and regions as ITV retreats from its commitment to providing a news service, independently funded news consortia should be established.

Richards set the tone by saying: “If we want to retain nations and regions news beyond the BBC we need to act. The current system may be particularly hard hit by the recession, but it is also unsustainable even under a benign economic climate. Unless we act soon, a diverse supply of high-quality news provision will slip away. It is as simple as that.”

So bring on the news consortia, groups of geographically defined operators willing and able to provide vital news that people want and need, initially in the regions and, down the line, possibly in more localised areas too.

Richards stressed that such consortia “would operate transparently, through a tender process” with “contracts awarded against clear criteria of delivering public purposes in a manner not dissimilar to the process in which news supply is contracted for the commercial public service broadcasters”.

They would be based initially on the existing “Channel 3” news slots, but would eventually “offer a path to full cross-media provision of regional and local news”. Each consortium would be expected to operate independently “tailored to meet the distinctive needs of its region or devolved nation.”

In a crucial acknowledgment of the digital media revolution, Richards pointed out that it was “no longer necessary to tie ourselves completely to the analogue pattern of transmission and distribution. A new network of news consortia could be based on smaller regions that correspond more closely to people's sense of local identity.”

On cost, he argued that a basic service — using the current ITV footprint — would be feasible at £40-£60 million, while an enhanced service — offering cross-media capability over a number of regions — could be accomplished for £60-£100 million. And where would the money come from? By far the strongest candidate, in his view, is to raid that portion of the licence fee known as the digital switchover surplus.

He concluded with a flourish, claiming that his consortia proposal could provide a regional and local video news service while enhancing public service journalism at both regional and local level. “But we need to move quickly,” he said. “It's time now to take this idea on to the next stage. Not to do so would be an historic missed opportunity.”

What was so fascinating was to witness the apparent acceptance of this idea from a range of TV, radio and newspaper representatives, whether they were employers, editors, or trades unions or politicians. The reason, of course, is that no one else has anything like as good an idea that has the slightest hope of working.

It was noticeable that none of the contributors, whether from the Newspaper Society, the National Union of Journalists, the Society of Editors or a variety of television and radio organisations, were able to explain how to fund a revitalisation of local journalism. All, however, agreed that there is a crisis.

Most crucially, and this is what I mean by it being a historic meeting, all appeared to agree that they must work together to do something positive to sort it out. The director of BBC news, Helen Boaden, devoted her contribution to the virtues of participation. Both Burnham and the communications minister, Lord (Stephen) Carter, also picked up on this new spirit of détente. It was the only hope, they implied.

But it was participation at the basic level that was of greater concern to Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian (full disclosure: I write a media blog for the paper). He spoke of the growing importance of a new kind of journalism, participation between trained, experienced professional journalists and citizens.

Some might offer specific knowledge and skills to aid journalistic understanding (such as the help of tax experts to guide reporters through the thickets of arcane financial instruments) and some might simply happen to be eyewitnesses to events (such as the suppliers of video footage taken during the G20 protests).

So participation, at both industry level and in acts of journalism, is the new watchword. It could well prove to be the silver lining in the present dark clouds hanging over the media.