权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Media ownership, journalism and securing diversity

媒体所有权、新闻业和确保多样性

基本信息

批准号：
AH/H006370/1
负责人：
Steven Barnett
金额：
$ 4.02万
依托单位：
University of Westminster
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2010
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2010 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FH006370%2F1
关键词：
Media ownership journalism securing diversity

项目摘要

Media enterprises are under more severe pressure today than perhaps at any time in their history. National newspapers throughout the western world are shedding jobs, regional newspapers are closing, broadcasters are reining in expenditure and closing foreign bureaux. Two factors have conspired to challenge the traditional business model of media corporations. First, the cyclical problem of a global economic recession is being compounded by the progressive migration of advertising revenue to the web. Second, new technologies are fragmenting audiences and transforming consumer behaviour. With newspaper readership and TV news in decline, both the print and broadcast media are finding it increasingly difficult to make journalism profitable. Attempts to monetise the web show no prospect of compensating for lost revenue. For many of these companies, the easiest route to survival is some form of amalgamation with other media enterprises. There is an industrial logic to such consolidation which allows for rationalisation of 'back office' functions, greater centralisation and - theoretically - release of resources to invest in the core activity of news production. But what of the impact on media pluralism? Diversity of expression and editorial approach underpins democratic life: the fewer media outlets which control those editorial agendas, the less healthy it is for a vibrant democracy. There is some compensation from the cacophany of voices on the internet, but these are fragmented and often unreliable sources with tiny audiences which conduct virtually no newsgathering. For the vast majority of people in mature democracies, the traditional press and broadcasting instutions are still by far the most important conduits for information and debates about the world around them.This raises two crucial issues. First, in what ways does the ownership of a media enterprise actually impact on editorial output? Theoretical concerns about the dangers of consolidation require some empirical evidence of how influence is exerted on editorial direction, distribution of journalistic resources, investment in foreign reporting and overseas bureaux, deployment of specialist correspondents, the omission and commission of particular stories, and the myriad ways in which news organisations organise their journalistic priorities. In broadcasting, which in Western Europe is governed by impartiality requirements, slightly different questions are raised about whether and how these requirements impact on editorial diversity. A comparison of experience in the UK and the US where the equivalent 'Fairness Doctrine' was abolished 25 years ago would be instructive.Second, what policy initiatives might reconcile the apparently conflicting aims of media pluralism and industry consolidation? For struggling media corporations, consolidation is a blunt but usually effective form of salvation. For governments, a policy regime which prevents consolidation can be equally blunt as well as politically difficult in the face of threatened job losses and bankruptcies. Creative solutions such as Trusts, incentives for smaller media businesses, guarantees of investment in journalism, or other structural means (including public funding) of mitigating the effects of concentrated media power urgently need to be explored.During the course of 2007/8, I was special adviser to a House of Lords select committee which examined and reported on News and Media Ownership. The enquiry, which included a visit to the US, compiled a huge volume of oral and written evidence on the editorial influence of owners and on the policy regime governing media ownership. Using that material - which has never been properly exploited - and supplementing it with original interviews with UK policy makers and regulators, this study will seek to address the question of whether and how media diversity can be sustained in the face of unparalled economic and technological upheaval.

媒体企业今天面临的压力可能比历史上任何时候都要大。整个西方世界的全国性报纸都在裁员，地区性报纸正在关闭，广播公司正在控制开支，关闭驻外办事处。有两个因素共同挑战了媒体公司的传统商业模式。首先，全球经济衰退的周期性问题由于广告收入逐步转移到网络而变得更加复杂。其次，新技术正在分化受众，改变消费者行为。随着报纸读者和电视新闻的减少，印刷和广播媒体都发现越来越难以使新闻业盈利。将网络货币化的尝试没有显示出弥补收入损失的前景。对于许多这样的公司来说，最简单的生存之道是与其他媒体企业进行某种形式的合并。这种整合有一个工业逻辑，它允许“后台”功能的合理化，更大的集中化，以及-理论上-释放资源投资于新闻制作的核心活动。但对媒体多元化的影响如何呢？表达和编辑方式的多样性是民主生活的基础：控制这些编辑议程的媒体渠道越少，对一个充满活力的民主就越不健康。互联网上各种各样的声音也有一定的补偿，但这些声音都是支离破碎的，而且往往不可靠，受众很少，几乎没有新闻采集。对于成熟民主国家的绝大多数人来说，传统的新闻和广播机构仍然是他们了解周围世界和进行辩论的最重要渠道，这就提出了两个关键问题。第一，媒体企业的所有权在哪些方面实际上影响了编辑产出？对合并危险的理论担忧需要一些经验证据来证明如何对编辑方向、新闻资源的分配、对外报道和海外分社的投资、专业记者的部署、特定报道的省略和委托以及新闻机构组织新闻优先事项的多种方式施加影响。在西欧受公正性要求制约的广播业，人们对这些要求是否以及如何影响编辑多样性提出了略有不同的问题。英国和美国在25年前就废除了与之相当的“公平原则”，比较一下两国的经验会有启发性。第二，什么样的政策举措可以调和媒体多元化和行业整合这两个明显相互冲突的目标？对于苦苦挣扎的媒体公司来说，合并是一种生硬但通常有效的拯救形式。对于政府来说，在面临失业和破产威胁时，阻止整合的政策制度可能同样生硬，而且在政治上也很困难。创造性的解决方案，如信托，激励较小的媒体企业，保证投资于新闻业，或其他结构性手段（包括公共资金）减轻集中的媒体权力的影响迫切需要探索。在2007/8年期间，我是上议院特别委员会的特别顾问，该委员会审查和报告了新闻和媒体所有权。调查包括前往美国，收集了大量口头和书面证据，证明媒体所有者对编辑的影响力，以及管理媒体所有权的政策制度。利用这些从未被适当利用的材料，并辅以对英国政策制定者和监管机构的原始采访，本研究将寻求解决媒体多样性是否以及如何在面对无与伦比的经济和技术动荡时保持的问题。