Page 7 - 24_Bafta ACADEMY_Anthony Minghella_ok

whose principal interest was to safeguard the diversity of voices available to us.
My reaction to this assertion could most generously be described as – “dream on!” I thought the Government was being dangerously naïve; in fact, I believed that the kind of dereg- ulation they envisaged by which, for example, Rupert Murdoch was being all but encouraged to take control of a significant ter- restrial channel could, in the long run, prove lethal to any hope of sustaining acceptable levels of media plurality.
I tried to draw attention to the dangers of unregulated cross- media ownership, to the point at which I found myself in opposition to just about every provision in the Bill that would allow any ter- restrial channel, to be wholly or partially owned by any large national Newspaper Group.
Why did I become so obdu- rate? I think it’s because, over the years, I’ve come to understand that successful media environ- ments tend not to happen by accident, and when they do emerge they can, and to my mind absolutely should be supported by thoughtful and firm regulation.
What’s certain is that plurality and diversity are not, and never can be a natural by-product of unregulated market forces. Wherever you look in the world, deregulation has inexorably led in only one direction, towards the consolidation of ownership.
And so I found myself increas- ingly at odds with a number of important aspects of the pro- posed legislation. Only after a protracted, and sometimes quite bruising Parliamentary struggle, did we emerge with an accept- able and thoroughly defensible piece of legislation.
Over time we successfully argued for the inclusion in the Act, not only of a specific refer- ence to the rights of citizens, but also the creation of a “public interest test” for mergers and takeovers.
Consequently, if any change of ownership raises a “specified public interest concern in relation to media plurality”, the Secretary of State can order the media regulator, Ofcom, to report on the public interest implications.
Under this test, plurality would be defined in three ways:
1) The maintenance of a range of media owners and voices suffi- cient to satisfy a variety of tastes and interests – that is, many speaking to many.
2) The promotion and mainte- nance of a plurality of broadcast media owners, each of whom demonstrates a commitment to the impartial presentation of news and factual programming – that is, many broadcasters all abiding by important impartiality requirements.
3) The promotion and mainte- nance in all media, including news- papers, of a balanced and accu- rate presentation of the news, and the free expression of opinion.
Do we really need such a test, you might ask? Won’t normal competition policy do the job? Well maybe, but maybe not; in the UK this summer we witnessed an intense and very specific debate about the role the media plays in our public life.
The BBC has, of course, been at the eye of that particular storm. But the resulting furore has seen our entire political and media culture put under the microscope as never before. And this debate, for me, perfectly underlines why purposeful and sensitive regulation is so vital to the future of our particular form of democracy.
As has been widely noted, the motives of many of the media organisations in the “Kelly affair”, are only too transparent. There are those who would like nothing better than to see the back of the present Government. There are those who would like nothing better than to see the back of the BBC. And then there are those who believe they have a unique opportunity to achieve both ambitions!
This has resulted in the Press invariably taking an editorial line that reflects which institution they despise the most, the BBC, or the present Government. And this editorial line has, in turn, infected much of their reporting as is all too detectable in the pages of the Telegraph, The Times and the Daily Mail.
Let me be very clear. I am in no way arguing for some compli- ant, slavish media of the kind
favoured by totalitarian regimes. Arguing implications is fine, but distorting underlying facts isn’t. Establishing the clearest possible differentiation between opinion and fact ought to be one of the fundamental duties of any responsible media organisation, and indeed any responsible Government.
Any failure in this respect becomes doubly worrying when you consider the power and reach of television. The over- whelming majority of people in the U.K. and elsewhere around the world now rely on television as their primary source of news.
And the manner in which 24 hour “rolling news” is changing the face of television journalism poses, as I see it, serious questions for the public interest.
The refusal to thoughtfully interrogate and contextualise events as they happen, the lack of on-screen correction and apology, all of this combined with the erosion of impartiality, can only be very unhealthy for any functioning democracy.
As a former film producer, I’m only too aware of how easily visu- al images can be manipulated to serve particular ends. I’ve remained profoundly aware that the responsibility for creating moving images for television or the cinema is becoming, if any- thing, ever more potent – you really are tinkering around in peo- ple’s minds, imprinting emotions, messages and ideas which may well influence them for the rest of their lives.
You can spend hours, or even days in an editing suite, manipu- lating images in an attempt to get your audience to share a set of very specific emotions. This is a unique form of influence which, in my experience, filmmakers simultaneously strive for, but are for the most part, terrified of acknowledging.
All of which only gives force to my belief that this proliferation of media demands regulatory frameworks which encourage, in fact enable, the most trusted forms of Public Service Broadcasting to flourish.
Sadly we have to acknowl- edge that we cannot legislate for good journalism, but we can leg- islate for the conditions under
which the very best journalism is nurtured and sustained. We can create frameworks in which each new technology becomes an opportunity, a spur to diversity. Not an instrument of its erosion.
Like many others, I have fought all of my life for a media environment, in Film, in Television and in the Press, of which we can be truly proud.
That’s why so many of us in the UK battled long and hard to secure changes to the Communications Act, changes which, although imperfect, will I believe prove to be of benefit to all the citizens of this country.
I will never come to terms with the view expressed by Mark Fowler, the former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission in the U.S., when he insisted that “The public interest is simply that which the public is interested in.”
I continue to believe that whatever we do, wherever we live, we must reassert the fact that we are not just consumers, we are citizens. And in the world of information that difference is very, very important.
Yes, all of us are consumers some, or even a lot of the time; but every one of us are citizens all of the time – and we must accept that citizenship entails responsibilities every bit as much as it confers rights. And that’s why I, for one, will be watching very, very closely the future of media regulation in this country.
5