MEDIA

The ownership of our media is too concentrated and allows wealthy individuals far too much power to manipulate the political discourse, destroying trust in its reliability and truthfulness. One person should not be allowed to swing an election to benefit their own interests at the expense of the common good. A healthy democracy requires a plurality of voices across the political spectrum coupled with a commitment to neutrality and fairness.

• We would legislate to limit ownership to 1% in any outlet and 1% across the industry as a whole, with only tax-resident UK citizens allowed to buy their shares.

  • This would be assessed and enforced by the regulator assessing circulation for print and digital publications, unique monthly readers for online news, and audience share for television broadcasters with offending individuals/companies required to divest their assets until they fall under the threshold.

  • Non-compliance would be met with heavy fines and/or forced sales.

  • Media is not a normal market because it shapes democracy so the usual standards should not apply. Allowing kingmakers and foreign influencers to decide who governs the UK is not democratic.

• In conjunction, we would also ban conglomeration of media companies and ban individuals with shares in a newspaper from also having shares in other media avenues e.g. TV/film companies to prevent one person/organisation having media-wide influence.

  • Transitional funding would be provided to keep outlets open until they can establish new funding models e.g. non-profit trusts, worker cooperatives, paid subscribers, or public grants.

• We would also break up the big tech monopolies by forcing divestment of their news-distribution dominance.

  • Google would be required to split its search function from its news aggregation, similar to the EU’s Digital Markets Act.

  • Meta would be banned from prioritising news in feeds without paying publishers, as Australia currently requires.

  • Social media platforms required to offer choice of open-source algorithmic filters e.g. ‘only news’, ‘news + opinion’, 'friends only', ‘chronological’ (i.e. no filtering)

  • They would also be required to use open-source ranking systems for news content so the public can audit it and see what they are prioritising.

  • This is needed because Google and Meta between them control roughly 80% of digital ad revenue which starves publishers of income, and it has been well-documented that Facebook and Twitter/X algorithms were changed after 2017 to deprioritise left-wing content and promote far-right content in its place. They are digital equivalents of the town square and political opinions must not be prioritised one way or the other. The only limits on political speech should be if it breaks the law.

• We would also require all outlets to publish corrections with same prominence and placement as the original article in print/online, the same time slot and screen time for broadcasts, and amplified as aggressively as the original story for digital.

  • Non-compliance would be punished with a fine of 25% of global revenue for each infractionand downgrading in search and social media algorithms for digital outlets.

  • This corrects the problem of lies spreading 6 times faster than corrections (MIT 2018), forces accountability for clickbait and sensationalist journalism, and aligns with international standards on best practice.

• Election neutrality laws would also be made permanent to ensure that the media cannot lie and deliberately misrepresent political positions, policies, statements etc.

  • Breaches would become a criminal offence for the journalist who wrote the story, the editor who approved it, and the board of directors for allowing a culture of deceit to grow.

    • Journalists and Editors: 1 year in prison and fine of 10% of annual income.

    • Boards: 10% of global revenue for repeat offenses and directorship disqualifications.

    • Whistleblowing and investigative reporting with a public interest defence would be exempted.

  • This would be enforced by an independent Media Standards Tribunal.

    • Burden of proof would be proving intent to distort, not just mere bias.

    • Cases would be fast-tracked during election periods.

  • Outlets offering both news and opinion would be required to strictly separate the two, either by forming two publications e.g. Telegraph News for fact-based reporting and no editorial slant, and Telegraph Opinion for clearly-labelled commentary, editorials and analysis with prominent disclosures on the author’s and outlet’s biases and associations, or clearly labelled sections on their website. Journalists in the News section would not be allowed to write for the Opinion outlet, or vice versa, to prevent bias seepage.

    • Opinion and op-ed pieces would have to cite verifiable sources for factual claims – no more “unnamed insiders” and anonymous briefings except in case of whistleblowing or significant public interest – and prominently disclose conflicts of interest/political leanings.

    • Opinions cannot be cited as news.

    • Distinctive and separate branding for each to avoid confusion.

  • This will force all outlets to compete on facts and quality journalism, not influence.

  • This does not violate free speech – it brings them fairly into line with the requirements of the BBC. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences and no reasonable person believes lying should be protected.

  • This will not affect third-party endorsements from trade unions, charities, professional associations, advocacy groups (but not think tanks) etc. as these operate on the principle of democratic collective action and are representing their members’ material interests.

• Hold the Leveson 2 Inquiry

• All press to be regulated by IMPRESS and IPSO would be scrapped.

  • IMPRESS should be given real teeth to deal with violations including the power to close down titles who repeatedly breach media standards. These decisions will be subject to judicial review.

    • ‘Repeated dishonesty’ shall be defined in terms of:

      • Proven, intentional deception

      • Pattern of harm e.g. 5 major breaches in 2 years

      • Public interest: Lies that cause serious harm e.g. inciting violence, undermining democracy, endangering public health etc.

    • They should have the power to escalate from fines and corrections to publishing bans and closures (with judicial oversight) to demonstrate outlet was given fair warning to change.

    • Titles shall be allowed to reopen after 3 years if ownership and/or editorial changes are made, or if IMPRESS forces a sale to new owners committed to ethical standards.

  • Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 should be enacted which will force publishers to pay legal costs in libel cases unless they join IMPRESS.

  • Make IMPRESS membership a condition of receiving press accreditation.

• Abolish the licence fee and move the BBC to receiving a government grant administered by an independent body, prioritising the founding principles of Inform, Educate, Entertain. This would retain universal access without a need for advertising revenue which a subscription model would not do (just look at how many ‘ad-free’ tiers still include ads) and eliminate prosecutions for non-payment.

• There must also be a forensic investigation into the political and moral cowardice shown by the BBC senior management team over issues like the Gaza genocide and their craven capitulation to the pro-Israel lobby. The BBC should not be cowed into silence by cry-bullies and must have a legal mandate to broadcast uncomfortable/controversial topics.

• Any subscription service that offers ‘ad-free’ tiers must keep them ad-free and will be prevented from ‘function-creeping’ them into their service.