Latest news with #mediaIndependence
The Guardian
06-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the BBC's future: the broadcaster's independence and funding face challenges
The BBC will soon charge US users for full news access. In Britain, it may seem a distant prospect, but if universality can be dropped abroad, how long before it's tested at home? With the BBC's charter due for renewal in 2027, the funding debate is intensifying. What becomes of the licence fee will define the broadcaster's future. There is increased scrutiny of Auntie's independence and impartiality after political pressure was applied through censure, funding freezes and contentious board appointments. What the BBC should look like in a fragmented media landscape is uncertain. A big question is whether the licence fee levied on households should be replaced by subscription, limited advertising or public funding. The last option is surely a non-starter, opening the door to more direct political control. Carrying adverts would force the BBC to compete with other broadcasters for cash, and destabilise existing providers. A subscription-style BBC, even if technical hurdles were overcome, wouldn't be a national institution. Those most in need of public-service media – navigating disinformation, political alienation or regional marginalisation – would be left out. Once you charge, the question isn't how to inform, educate and entertain the public; it's who can afford to be included. Partial subscription might keep some core services – like news – free, while others are paywalled. This would entrench a two-tier public service. The BBC is a large organisation and not without its faults. But critics with vested interests often exaggerate them. What began as commercial pressure has been inflamed by culture wars. Success – from Peaky Blinders to Blue Planet – has not shielded it from attack. No wonder the director-general, Tim Davie, warned in May of a looming 'trust crisis'. It's now easier to list the political groups at war with BBC News than those who trust it. The row over Glastonbury – and the BBC's retreat – underscores the pressure on Mr Davie. But the broadcaster's fight isn't just with critics. It's also battling for attention in an ecosystem flooded by algorithmic noise. Since the last charter renewal in 2016, streamers, podcasts and AI have disrupted the landscape, collapsing trust in 'legacy' media. When outrage spreads faster than facts, and filter bubbles shape belief, the BBC's global stature as a respected public institution matters more than ever. Every government leans on the BBC – at a price. The BBC pulled a documentary, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, citing vague concerns about 'partiality'. Channel 4 aired it instead. Meanwhile, Robbie Gibb, a controversial Johnson-era appointee, helps shape BBC editorial priorities as a board member. A former Tory spin doctor, he became the Jewish Chronicle's owner, appointing an editor who pushed a hardline pro-Israel stance and oversaw multiple scandals. He refused to reveal who was funding the paper. His role in guiding how the BBC reviews its Middle East coverage raises concerns about impartiality. More than 400 media figures last week called for his removal. His departure is long overdue. In 1977, the Annan committee reimagined broadcasting for a changing Britain. Channel 4 was the result. The culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, who has sensibly called for a modern Annan‑style review, is chary of backing Mr Davie. But broader reform is needed in a time of distrust and disruption. For the BBC, this could offer not just a funding fix but a democratic roadmap. The charter review must rebuild a trusted civic platform – a public good, not a private preserve.
CNN
19-05-2025
- Business
- CNN
CBS News boss exits amid Trump pressure
The top executive in charge of CBS News resigned on Monday amid President Trump's intensifying political pressure against the news operation. Wendy McMahon alluded to a 'challenging' past few months in a farewell memo to employees. 'It's become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward,' she wrote. 'It's time for me to move on and for this organization to move forward with new leadership.' While McMahon did not address Trump's legally dubious lawsuit against CBS in the memo, the suit has been top of mind in recent months. McMahon has publicly stood up for the news division while its parent company, Paramount Global, has sought to settle with Trump while trying to win administration approval for its pending merger with Skydance Media. The clash between editorial principles and corporate priorities has profoundly shaken CBS, one of America's most distinguished broadcast networks. Last month, '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens, who ran the program that triggered Trump's ire, said he was stepping down, citing a loss of independence. Owens and McMahon praised each other at the time, signaling a united front against Trump's legal attacks. Thus, McMahon's exit — coming one day after the season finale of '60 Minutes,' no less — has employees feeling 'like a purge is underway,' as one CBS correspondent told CNN on Monday. The correspondent spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not allowed to speak publicly. In a memo on Monday morning, Paramount Global co-CEO George Cheeks thanked McMahon for four years of leadership. He said that McMahon's recently named number two, CBS News president Tom Cibrowski, will now report directly to him. A person with knowledge of the matter pointed out that McMahon's departure removes a layer of management at a time when Paramount is trying to slim down and spend less. McMahon's future was also far from certain under Skydance, the company that is trying to take control of CBS and the rest of Paramount. But by stepping down now, and referencing corporate disagreements about the 'path forward,' McMahon is highlighting Paramount's controversial dealings with the president. Trump sued CBS over the editing of last October's '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. The suit's allegations that CBS violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a consumer protection law, have been derided by legal experts as frivolous and ridiculous. CBS lawyers defended '60 Minutes' and its editorial judgment on First Amendment grounds. But Trump has blasted the network over and over again, at times even urging the FCC, an agency he has sought to control, to punish CBS by revoking its licenses. With the FCC tasked with reviewing the Paramount-Skydance deal, top executives sought to settle with Trump to make the lawsuit go away. Mediation talks reportedly began at the end of April, and the current status is unknown. The notion of a settlement is anathema to '60 Minutes' employees. The transcript of the Harris interview, which CBS provided to the FCC in February, confirmed what the network said all along: It engaged in normal editing, not any nefarious activity like Trump alleged. Months before resigning, Owens told '60 Minutes' employees that he would not apologize as part of any settlement, since the newsmagazine did not do anything to warrant saying sorry. Despite Trump's attacks, '60 Minutes' continued to broadcast probing reports about his administration all winter and spring long. McMahon acknowledged the viewing audience in her memo Monday, writing, 'Thank you for your trust. You hold us accountable, and you remind us why this work matters.' Anna Gomez, one of the Democrats on the Republican-controlled FCC, wrote on X that McMahon's departure was 'beyond alarming.' 'Independent journalists are being silenced simply because their reporting may threaten the ambitions of their corporate owners,' Gomez wrote. 'It will only embolden an Administration hell-bent on censoring speech and controlling content.'
Telegraph
16-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
We Conservatives believe it is reasonable to allow foreign states to part-own newspapers
The freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy. Not a luxury, but a necessity. It safeguards the public's right to be informed, challenges those in positions of power, and ensures that our national discourse remains open, balanced and accountable. In a democratic society, a free press does not simply report the news. That is why the last Conservative government was entirely right to act decisively in preventing majority control of a British newspaper group by a foreign state-owned entity. However well-intentioned a buyer may be, the relevant principle is defending the independence of our press from external influence that could compromise its perceived editorial autonomy and integrity. In general, the Conservative Party welcomes foreign investment in our economy and recognises that we need sustainable funding models for journalism, which may include private and overseas capital. But we also acknowledge that this must be combined with upholding the independence of the media. When it comes to the media, especially the press, the stakes are different. Ownership carries important influence over public discourse and political accountability. The case for scrutiny is about protecting the independence and integrity of one of our most important democratic institutions. A free press must be answerable only to the truth, not to political interests, foreign or domestic. We also acknowledge the economic pressures facing the journalism industry today. The rise of digital media, the decline in print circulation, and the dominance of global tech platforms have made it increasingly difficult for traditional news organisations to remain financially viable. A well-funded press is only valuable if it is independent and guided by journalistic integrity. As we are in Opposition, we will scrutinise the Government's policy on this matter with care and rigour. We will ask the difficult and necessary questions. We will ensure that actions taken in the name of national interest are grounded in transparency and a clear understanding of the long-term implications for press freedom. We will examine the details and fine print of policy. Encouragingly, so far it appears that the Government's decision about permitted minority holdings does follow established precedents. We believe that the proposed 15pc threshold seems reasonable as it is combined with a new duty on the Secretary of State, which will safeguard editorial independence. Therefore, we will be supporting the Government's overall approach, while continuing to provide the scrutiny on the detail which is expected of the Opposition. Overall, we must also be a country that welcomes investment, but also one that knows where and when to draw the line. Our commitment as Conservatives is unequivocal: we will always stand on the side of a free and independent press. At a time when disinformation is rife and trust in institutions is under strain, a press that is accountable only to its readers, and governed by professional ethics rather than political directives, is more essential than ever. The British people rightly expect their newspapers to tell the truth, challenge authority and reflect the full diversity of opinion in our society. They deserve nothing less, and as Conservatives, we will not falter in defending that principle.
