Summary

Public service broadcasting (PSB), by definition, puts public interest above corporate profits. These broadcasters, and the public service journalists who serve them, focus on the production and distribution of unbiased information. This prioritisation of truth over commercial interest has made PSB a cornerstone of our democracy. But in recent years the rise of online search and social media has undermined the business model of newsroom journalism. In place of investigative, deep-dive commentary, social media companies serve up disposable, sensationalist content which services their business model - a business model which prioritises digital advertising revenues over quality content. This shift in standards does not serve the public interest, and the dissemination and disregard of quality information undermines democracy. Most worryingly, as has been apparent during the pandemic, it also lends itself to abuse and manipulation, spewing out falsehoods and disinformation at a dangerous and alarming rate. In times of crisis, PSB has a critical role to play in responding to public need. Now more than ever it should be strengthened and supported by government and public policy.

PSB in the modern age

As last year’s Cairncross Review states, PSB and public interest news in particular are “essential to the preservation of an accountable democracy”.[1] The 20th century media marketplace had a core value of serving democracy the information it needed to work.

There were editors and journalists in newsrooms making the decisions about what news and information the public should get every day. At a local level, journalists shared details about community support schemes, local businesses and neighbourhood events. Customers had high expectations of these outlets, which were subject to equally high levels of scrutiny by governments, regulators and policymakers. Of course, the commitment of professional journalists to an ethic of public interest news curation did not hold for every news outlet, everywhere, all the time. Commercial interests have always been a powerful force and distorted outcomes for democracy. But the market for public service news worked well enough for most of the people most of the time. Because control over news distribution was decentralised across different media and across different properties within those media, competitive diversity served as a moderate check on the spread of disinformation, conspiracy, and extremism.

Contrast this with the 21st century media industry, where distribution of news and information is dominated by a much smaller number of players - all big and international, rather than small and local - who are funded by ad revenues and largely unregulated. Within this more concentrated market, two players, Google and Facebook, stratospherically outstrip the rest in terms of reach and revenues. In the first quarter of this year, Facebook alone had 2.6 billion monthly active users.[2] In 2018, Google accounted for more than 90% of all revenues earned from search advertising in the UK, with revenues of around £6 billion; and Facebook accounted for almost half of all display advertising revenues in the UK, reaching more than £2 billion.[3] Meanwhile people increasingly choose social media over print newspapers for their news [4]; and print advertising revenues, which used to carry much of the cost of producing news, has declined by almost 70% in a decade.[5]

Although there are more news outlets than ever before (websites, blogs, podcasts, YouTube channels etc), they have been largely commodified by the dominance of search engines and social media networks as access points to content. Aside from media channels that are able to carve out a niche market and a self-selecting audience, everyone else is at the mercy of the tech giants. They control access. And they have captured most of the ad revenue that once supported the entire market. That market power is extraordinary. Witness recent attempts by publishers in Germany, France and Australia -- with the support of their governments -- to compel Facebook and Google to compensate news producers in a shared revenue scheme. They have all failed in the face of monopoly power. Journalists and editors no long decide what news the public will see. Algorithms do. And they are optimised for one thing: capturing attention to sell more advertising.

Quality information and democratic integrity do not feature in this new, lucrative business model. Rather, it promotes a new kind of information: sensationalist, disposable content that keeps us staring at screens and clicking on ads. Disinformation and conspiracy theories are particularly enticing content, and both have abounded in recent months. Pre-pandemic, such fake news was mostly associated with democratic events such as referenda or elections. Now, it is everywhere. OfCom’s recent polling showed that exposure to disinformation is extraordinarily high, with 50% of respondents encountering false or misleading information on a weekly basis since the start of the pandemic.[6] And it is not surprising that the vast majority of this disinformation, particularly around 5G and anti-vax, is witnessed on social media sites and not on traditional media. Notably, this extraordinary level of exposure is NOT declining week after week - despite much publicised attempts by tech companies to reduce disinformation.[7] Social media is still awash in links to clickbait sites that are profiting through online ads from people panic-consuming online information as they search for answers.

In response, as the Ofcom polls shows, people are turning to traditional media outlets to access trustworthy information. These outlets remain the most-used source of news about Covid-19, with over 80% of respondents using them on a weekly basis. Fewer than 40% of respondents look to social media for information or news on the pandemic.[8] And as the recent study by King’s College London has shown, those that do turn to social media for their news are more likely to believe conspiracy theories and more likely to break lockdown rules.[9] So despite the meteoric rise of social media in the 21st century, PSB is still the safest and most trusted source of information in times of crisis.

But it is fighting to survive. The number of frontline journalists in the industry fell from an estimated 23,000 full-time journalists in 2007, to 17,000 in 2019.[10] Mergers have resulted in fewer outlets, especially at local levels. And ad revenues are in decline. Those outlets that remain have, to their credit, adapted fairly well to the new digital era, building their own online platforms and creatively pursuing new revenue streams. But much of their revenues now depend on tech firms - the very companies they are competing against for viewers and readers. Facebook and Google are not only competing with publishers, they are also the publishers’ lifeline. And Facebook’s recent response to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission left no doubt that social media firms have little regard for the value of public interest news:

Notwithstanding this reduction in engagement with news content, the past two years have seen (…) increased revenues, suggesting both that news content is highly substitutable with other content for our users and that news does not drive significant long-term value for our business.

If there were no news content available on Facebook in Australia, we are confident the impact on Facebook’s community metrics and revenues in Australia would not be significant.[11]

So this is not only a new business model, but one that shamelessly demotes the visibility of public interest news. That these attention optimising machines are both hardwired to demote public interest news in favour of sensationalist content, and have the power to cut-off PSB revenues is astounding. PSB will always struggle to maintain its rightful place on feeds and results while the current business model continues.

Regulation, or the lack of it, is exacerbating this commercial imbalance. PSB remains a heavily regulated industry, unlike that of search and social media. The requirement for PSB to adhere to strict content standards while navigating the new commercial landscape gives unregulated tech firms a further advantage. For example, in the case of the 5G conspiracy theory, London Live television station was sanctioned by OfCom for disseminating content which ‘had the potential to cause significant harm to viewers’. Meanwhile, content promoting the same and similar theories continue to circulate freely on social media. As the researchers at King’s College London conclude “one wonders how long this state of affairs can be allowed to persist while social media platforms continue to provide a worldwide distribution mechanism for medical misinformation.”[12]

Arm PSB in fight against disinformation

Broadcasters and news outlets will find it impossible to achieve anywhere near the audience and revenue figures that tech firms enjoy while the Facebook and Google monopoly continues. And if PSB is pushed too heavily towards replicating the big tech business model, it will need to produce more attention-grabbing, fast-churn content to hook customers. The overall quality and veracity of information in the market will decline as the race to the bottom continues. And as more revenue clusters around sensational content promoted by digital media algorithms, quality news organisations will fail and people will be left with fewer channels of reason and fact.

Government is a crucial backstop for PSB. It fills a gap that the current market cannot provide. It is right to consider the future of PSB in the modern age, and to explore how it can further adapt to the new world order. Public policy can help PSB to innovate while maintaining its commitment to unbiased reporting. But weakening the power and reach of PSB, or forcing broadcasters to prioritise income over information, will have further consequences for public health and democracy.