UK news regulation stands in the way of newsroom convergence

Judith Townend is news reporter for Journalism.co.uk; blogs at fromtheonline.com and is @jtownend on Twitter. You can email her: judith at journalism.co.uk.

Note: This post looks at restrictions on the uptake of multimedia and social media posed by UK regulation, outside the courts. I’ll save the equally problematic nature of UK media law for another time; right now I’m just touching on the issues arising from the hybrid of regulatory systems governing UK press and broadcasters.

We talk about converging newsrooms of the future that transcend boundaries between online, print and broadcast, but at a very fundamental level that process is impossible in the United Kingdom.

Martin Belam, information architect for the Guardian, recently emphasized that point in an interview with Journalism.co.uk:

“In a converged media landscape, it seems odd that [BBC's] Robert Peston’s blog is regulated by the BBC Trust, [Channel 4's] Jon Snow’s blog is regulated by Ofcom, and [the Guardian's] Roy Greenslade’s blog is regulated by the PCC.”

Now, Martin was actually wrong on the Jon Snow point: Ofcom does not regulate any television Web sites at all. That is to say, the brands which must adhere to a strict code for television content are completely unregulated online. Ofcom advises consumers to make complaints about online content to their Internet service provider.

The BBC Trust regulates the BBC online; the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) regulates newspapers, magazines and their online content.

And Stephen Fry, who – at the time of writing — is nearing half a million followers on Twitter? Or Guido Fawkes (aka Paul Staines) who has a loyal readership to rival most newspaper commentators? Well, they govern themselves – unless the law gets involved.

When the traditional media sectors go online, they’re regulated by their various bodies, and the ‘online-onlys’ only have the courts to worry about. Press publications have a less strict code than broadcasters, but online, broadcasters have more freedom than the press – though they don’t seem to be exercising it.

In a nutshell, a financial commentator from a newspaper has greater freedom than a financial commentator from a broadcaster, and an independent online-only financial commentator has the greatest freedom of all.

What happens when a bank crashes? Channel 4 and ITV can theoretically report how they like — online. The BBC must always answer to the BBC Trust. The newspapers must comply with the PCC code. Martin Lewis, of the MoneySaving Expert can, if he so chooses, be a law unto himself.

Same news and it’s all online but in very different guises. We might think people know the difference, but do they?

Extend that to international context and it could be said those differentiations are even more arbitrary. We – i.e. the British — are sharing in the world’s news resources regulated by completely different systems. And they’re sharing in ours: but do they know that what they read in the BBC is going to be so different from what they might read on the Guardian site? And what Channel 4 puts online could be different – in theory – from what it puts on television?

The point was hammered home to me on a recent visit to the United States. Normally, any line of questioning about news business models etc. ends up with the interviewee touching on the problematic nature of news regulation and the ‘role’ of media. ‘We would do this, but… X, Y and Z are in the way’.

Interviews in the US with Jeff Jarvis, Jay Rosen, The New York Times’ Aron Pilhofer and ProPublica’s Stephen Engelberg led me to believe that the US seems freer of these constraints and more able to concentrate on the financial viability and quality of emerging news models. Now I don’t know enough about US regulation and law to make a properly informed comment, but it seemed to me that these factors didn’t frame the debate the way it does in the UK. The American commentators could really concentrate on the task in hand: how do we produce sustainable, useful journalism in a financially viable fashion?

Yes, the US start-ups have the luxury of rich foundations, but they also enjoy the luxury of experimentation that the UK broadcasters can’t, and UK press often won’t because it’s trapped in a self-defined ‘role.’ An inquiry in the House of Commons at the moment clearly indicates that print journalists see themselves as having a specific democratic function – however misguided critics might say that is.

Every debate I’ve covered in recent months, and the ongoing House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport select committee investigation into press standards, libel law and privacy, has focused on the barriers, rather than the opportunities for UK media. The irony is, of course, that the UK press is more outrageous in its allegations than many of its European or American equivalents. How, for example, does it get away with the irresponsible journalism that it does time and time again? (Here is an example from Martin Belam, as a case in point.)

That’s a brief context to the really gray area: social media. Suddenly, it’s not just about blogs, which often still go through an editor (Jon Snow’s has a producer; Roy Greenslade is one, if not the only, blogger on the Guardian to forgo the editorial process), it’s about how they express themselves in 140 characters.

The House of Commons committee, for the inquiry mentioned above, has been probing on the efficiency of the PCC and the high-cost of legal battles. But why has social media not been made a more prominent issue in its hearings?

The ambiguous status of social media is a point picked up on Daniel Bennett’s blog from Journalism.co.uk’s interview — via Twitter — with Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy. Keep in mind the constraints of 140 characters, but this is how it went:

• journalism_live: @krishgm and has there been any mention of Ofcom? Of course it’s a very grey area what they do and don’t police

• krishgm @journalism_live never heard anything about ofcom – but our reputation is at stake on all media so we have to be careful.

• krishgm @journalism_live and twitter is not overseen by an editor – so there are potential problems. blogs are checked before publication

• krishgm @journalism_live god, i’ve just thrown up a massive issue there about overseeing output…

• journalism_live @krishgm Vicky Taylor said journs are ‘prof journalists – they’re aware of what they can and can’t write’ so it’s not a ‘major prob’

• krishgm @journalism_live well that’s good and a great and supportive position from the Channel – until somebody screws up!

These are professional journalists suddenly free of the editorial process that they’ve been governed by for decades. A speaker at a B2B event recently said that for the first time editors can ‘really roll up their sleeves.’ Editors, reporters and presenters are suddenly online and unedited.

So how much damage can they do? Well, here’s one (overly?) cautious case involving the BBC. No, it seems, you can’t necessarily be friends with the weather presenter.

The advice at the AOP B2B event last week was mixed when someone asked how they should regulate their staff. The panel of online community experts’ social media policies differed. John Welsh, digital director of UBM Live, said that any social media account linking to a UBM site should be under company jurisdiction. Tony Hallett, editorial director of technology and business of CBS Interactive, was more relaxed, but said he trusted his staff to act appropriately.

The fact is, we don’t know how it should be handled. It can go wrong — like in the not-so serious case of Peter Horrocks, the new director of BBC World Service, when he sent out an accidental direct message as a public tweet. And misunderstandings can arise — just ask BBC technology correspondent, Rory Cellan-Jones. Worse, inaccuracies can occur, when a re-tweet becomes an endorsement of fact.

It’s uncharted water, and it’s for the UK media to sail. One thing seems clear, the regulators don’t seem to be watching. Until a journalists is in trouble. Then they might. For now, we can make the most — and enjoy — the journalists’ period of experimentation.

I’ve ranted in various places about how Henry Porter writing in the Observer got it so wrong when he said he’s fatigued of the ‘business model phrase.’ It’s time to concentrate on the quality of journalism, he said. I disagree because I don’t think it’s possible to think about quality without considering sustainability — whether in profit or non-profit form.

I certainly share his fatigue but mine is with arbitrary UK regulation allowing some newspapers to get away with outrageously irresponsible journalism, while our broadcasters are limited by strict notions of balance and fairness. It’s ok right now — no-one’s got into much trouble yet and good journalism continues to rise to the top.

But when the regulators finally pay attention, will they be able to control social media like they do with everything else? If not, then why do we find this hybrid regulatory system the most relevant one at all? If it’s not applicable to 140 characters, then why is appropriate for a one minute broadcast segment, or a ten word headline?

It’s time to re-assess, and this time include social media in the audit.