This time as cut and paste. Sorry for forgetting about attachments being 
removed.
D

David Miller wrote:
> The article attached was originally sent to the Guardian for its 
> comment page. It shows how public debate on political issues is 
> narrowed on the most influential media because of the absence of 
> critical voices – whether the issue is the financial crisis or world 
> conflicts such as in Israel/Palestine. New polling evidence from 
> YouGov and the GUMG, suggests that this is not at all what the public 
> wants. The article was rejected by the Guardian on the grounds that 
> ‘it would be read as a piece of old lefty whingeing about bias’. ..
>
>

 From Greg Philo Glasgow Media Group.

The article below was originally sent to the Guardian for its comments 
page. It shows how public debate on political issues is narrowed on the 
most influential media because of the absence of critical voices – 
whether the issue is the financial crisis or world conflicts such as in 
Israel/Palestine. New polling evidence from YouGov and the GUMG, 
suggests that this is not at all what the public wants. The article was 
rejected by the Guardian on the grounds that ‘it would be read as a 
piece of old lefty whingeing about bias’.
But I think there is more at stake than this. There is a deep crisis of 
legitimacy both for politicians and broadcasters, in that many people do 
not feel properly represented. There is also great public confusion over 
issues such as the reasons for world conflict and the nature of the 
present economic crisis. Until recently there has been very little 
debate about the consequences of the free market policies which were 
promoted by political and economic elites. One consequence is that areas 
of public spending such as education and health are likely to be 
sacrificed in order to pay for the black holes in the banking system. As 
Naomi Klein has pointed out, the global budget crisis may be used as a 
rationale for deep cuts in social programmes. At present the 
Conservative Party is ahead in the polls. But do voters really 
understand what it would mean ‘to balance the government’s books’ and 
‘reduce its debt’? There is little discussion of such issues in 
broadcast media or of possible alternatives. Re-structuring the 
ownership of the economy in favour of the mass of the population is 
apparently off the agenda. Nationalisation has come to mean the 
privatisation and selling of valuable assets, while losses are 
socialised. We are offered various forms of the free market discussed 
mostly by bankers ,stockbrokers and the economic experts and politicians 
who have delivered the crisis. But the closure of debate will only 
increase public frustration and the sense that broadcasters have 
abandoned their duty to inform their audience.

30.09.08



More News, Less Views

News is a procession of the powerful. Watch it on TV, listen to the 
Today programme and marvel at the orthodoxy of views and the lack of 
critical voices. When the credit crunch hit, we were given a succession 
of bankers, stockbrokers and even hedge-fund managers to explain and say 
what should be done. But these were the people who had caused the 
problem, thinking nothing of taking £20 billion a year in city bonuses. 
The solution these free market wizards agreed to, was that tax payers 
should stump up £50 billion (and rising) to fill up the black holes in 
the banking system. Where were the critical voices to say it would be a 
better idea to take the bonuses back? Mainstream news has sometimes a 
social-democratic edge. There are complaints aired about fuel poverty 
and the state of inner cities. But there are precious few voices making 
the point that the reason why there are so many poor people is because 
the rich have taken the bulk of the disposable wealth. The notion that 
the people should own the nation’s resources is close to derided on 
orthodox news. When Northern Rock was nationalised, TV news showed us 
pictures of British Leyland and the old problem ridden car industry. 
Never mind that it was actually privately owned when most of the 
problems occurred and that company policy had been to distribute 95% of 
profits as dividends to shareholders, rather than to invest in new plant 
and machinery. This is all lost in the mists of history and what is 
conveyed is the vague sense that nationalisation is a “bad thing”. We 
showed how this affects public understanding by asking a sample of 244 
young people in higher education (aged 18 –23) about the great spate of 
privatizations which had taken place in the 1980s. We asked whether the 
industries involved had in general been profitable or unprofitable. 
Actually, the major ones of gas, electricity, oil and telecommunications 
were both profitable and major sources of revenue to the state, but 
nearly 60% of the sample thought that the industries had been losing 
money. This is especially poignant now that energy prices are being 
jacked up and the foreign owners of many of these companies are not 
interested in passing on their windfall profits to the British people. 
Countries such as China, Venezuala and even Russia keep key industries 
very firmly in state hands, but where are the critical voices in 
broadcasting here, who are given space to raise these arguments? They 
can be heard in the outer reaches, occasionally on Question Time, 
Channel 4 News or Newsnight. But is this what the population want? At 
the start of the Iraq war we had the normal parade of generals and 
military experts, but in fact, a consistent body of opinion then and 
since has been completely opposed to it. We asked our sample whether 
people such as Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Naomi Klein and Michael Moore 
should be featured routinely on the news as part of a normal range of 
opinion. Seventy three per cent opted for this rather than wanting them 
on just occasionally, as at present.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is another area of great imbalance in 
the views that are heard. Our study of the main TV news output showed 
that pro-Israeli speakers were featured about twice as much as 
Palestinians. This year BBC News covered Israel’s ‘birthday’ of 60 years 
since the setting up of the state. This was of course also the 
anniversary of what, from the Palestinian perspective, was the great 
disaster when they were forced from their homes and land. Israel’s 
superior public relations machine meant that they set the agenda on 
broadcast news. The Palestinians were featured, but rather less and as a 
sort of afterthought. As a presenter on BBC’s Today programme put it, 
“Today Israel is 60 years old, and all this week we have been hearing 
from Israelis about what it means to them”. Quite so.
We commissioned YouGov to ask a sample of 2086 UK adults whether they 
thought that more coverage should be given to the Israeli point of view, 
or more to the Palestinians, or equal for both. Nearly twice as many 
people thought that the Palestinians should have the most as compared 
with the Israelis, but the bulk of the replies (72%) were that both 
should have the same. Only 5% of the population supported what the 
broadcasters have actually been doing in the main news output. 
Politicians and broadcasters say they are worried about a growing lack 
of interest in politics especially amongst the young. Our work shows 
there is no lack of interest in lively critical debate. The problem is 
that a news which largely features the views of two political parties 
with very similar free market policies at home, and an international 
agenda which follows America, does not provide this.

Greg Philo
Glasgow University Media Group
3.09.08
Please forward to anyone interested



YOU ARE ALSO WELCOME TO TRY OUR UPDATED WEBSITE AT WHICH

MUCH OF OUR WORK CAN NOW BE DOWNLOADED

http://www.gla.ac.uk/centres/mediagroup/