thanks from me too, Steve.
Re 'consumer habits' it strikes me that this is one of the issues on which we could offer some evidence to one of Jonathan Breckon's suggested 'briefing meetings' with policy makers/ civil servants.
Some of the work my colleagues at Cardiff, Bournemouth, de Montfort and myself have done recently with young people suggests that 'TV is still king' - that is, it is seen as the favoured source of factual information, at least - and Ofcom figures show that it's still the main source of entertainment for children and younger teenagers. (This phrase "tv is king' was used to me in an interview with Charlotte Cole, Research director at Sesame Workshop in New York earlier this year).
Hopefully, despite holiday season, Sylvia and Natalie have also made some headway on trying to set up a meeting on Digital Britain issues? Hope all are enjoying the summer . . .
best
Máire
Máire Messenger Davies, PhD, FRSA (Professor)
Director, Centre for Media Research,
School of Media, Film and Journalism
University of Ulster
Cromore Rd, Coleraine BT52 1SA
Telephone: +44(0)28324069
www.arts.ulster.ac.uk/media/cmr.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Media, Communications & Cultural Studies Association (MeCCSA) - Policy Network on behalf of Thomas Patrick O'Malley [tpo]
Sent: Fri 7/17/2009 6:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MECCSA-POLICY] Digital Britain and Stephen Carter's evidence
thanks for this Steve, very useful
Tom
Professor T.P. O'Malley, BA, PhD, Department of Theatre Film & Television Studies,
Parry Williams Building,Aberystwyth University,Penglais Campus,Aberystwyth, Ceredigion
SY23 3AJ, Wales, UK,Tel: +44 (0)1970 622 833,[log in to unmask],Co-editor, Media History
________________________________
From: Media, Communications & Cultural Studies Association (MeCCSA) - Policy Network on behalf of Steven Barnett
Sent: Fri 17/07/2009 5:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Digital Britain and Stephen Carter's evidence
A brief update on Stephen Carter's evidence to the House of Lords committee on Wednesday, which received no coverage, plus 3 brief observations. The main points were:
- Top-slicing the licence fee. Very clear that this is currently just a proposal. Underlined that the decision has not been made.
- But very clear that funding needs to be found for a regional news presence which is impartial (first time that I heard impartiality being emphasised)
- the policy decision applies to an enabling power to create local consortia and to extend impartiality rules to cover them.
- top-slicing is therefore being seen as a means of funding alternative sources of impartial news at local/regional level. But happy to look at other means of fund-raising if suggestions are put forward.
- local/regional news would have first call on the £135m thus made available post 2012. Other content (children's, drama, factual etc) would be fighting for any left-over scraps.
- there does not appear to be any plan B for C4 if the BBC Worldwide partnership falls through (not his exact words, more "let's wait and see").
- not keen on any levy ideas. Argument was that every country has a different culture of intervention and that £3.6 bn raised through the licence fee + gifted spectrum etc is the UK's way of doing it.
- the UK viewer is well served by UK content, and the balance is shifting away from mainstream TV quicker than we realise. There will be "unrecognisably different ways of consuming content" within a couple of years.
My observations:
1. Arguments against other creative fund-raising ideas such as levies on recording devices or on ISPs were unconvincing. Any concrete information on how the per capita value of UK intervention compares with other countries would be extremely valuable.
2. He has an exaggerated view of changing consumption habits which is contradicted by all available evidence (e.g. even in Virgin homes, over 90% of viewing is live and linear). Much of DB is predicated on this erroneous vision of a revolution in consumer behaviour which will, by implication, gradually remove any need for regulatory intervention as viewers become customers. It is not happening. Any evidence to that effect will be important.
3. There is still time for those opposed to top-slicing to make effective representations. There is implicit acceptance that the argument for supporting journalism at local/regional level is clearly separate from the argument on how to fund it. Those keen to support the former need not support top-slicing the BBC as a funding mechanism; but more strenuous efforts need to be made to convey the benefits of other, more creative methods of intervention.
Finally, on point 2 above, I'm particularly concerned by par 8 of chapter 5 of DB. It is proposing to redefine PSB to include all "public service content" however delivered (including, by implications, paid-for content). This undermines the whole philosophy of universality.
Hope that helps. Happy hols to everyone.
Steve
Prof Steven Barnett
Professor of Communications
School of Media, Art and Design
University of Westminster
Watford Road, Harrow
Middlesex HA1 3TP
Direct Line: +44 (0)20 7911 5981
email: [log in to unmask]
--
The University of Westminster is a charity and a company limited by
guarantee. Registration number: 977818 England. Registered Office:
309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW, UK.
-------------------------------------------------
MeCCSA Policy mailing list
W: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/meccsa-policy.html
Please visit this page to browse list's archives, or to join or leave the list.
-------------------------------------------------
MeCCSA Policy mailing list
W: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/meccsa-policy.html
Please visit this page to browse list's archives, or to join or leave the list.
-------------------------------------------------
MeCCSA Policy mailing list
W: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/meccsa-policy.html
Please visit this page to browse list's archives, or to join or leave the list.
|