THE media plays a huge role in all our lives as creators and consumers. The stories we write can impact long after publication and as creators of media – which includes those of us who use our voices on social media – we should try to ensure those who have the lived experiences of what we choose to report on are reflected.
Last month, I co-organised The Ferret’s – Scotland’s investigative journalism co-operative – annual summer conference, “Owning a Collaborative Media”, at the University of Stirling, with the aim of creating an inspiring and welcoming learning space.
As a co-operative, The Ferret, which contributes every week to the Sunday National, has a responsibility to its subscribers, and this includes finding ways to tackle some of the issues which crop up within media itself, from representation and plurality to financial sustainability and reader and journalist accountability.
One of the discussions which attracted a great deal of debate at the conference was “Making the Media: The Future(s) of Journalism”, which featured representatives from West Highland Free Press, Clydesider, CommonSpace and A Thousand Flowers – all independent media channels from across Scotland. They spoke candidly about their values, business and social models.
Who Sells the Stories?
ACCORDING to the Media Reform Coalition 2019 report, “Who Owns The UK Media?”, Britain has one of the most concentrated media environments in the world.
This report shows that just three companies (News UK, Daily Mail Group and Reach) dominate 83% of the national newspaper market (up from 71% in 2015).
When online readers are included, just five companies (News UK, Daily Mail Group, Reach, Guardian and Telegraph) dominate nearly 80% of the market, slightly up from the 2015 report.
Meanwhile, in the area of local news, just five companies (Gannett, Johnston Press, Trinity Mirror, Tindle and Archant) account for 80% of titles (back in 2015, six companies had the same share).
Who Tells the Stories?
PERHAPS there would be better balance in media storytelling if historically mis and/or under-represented people were writing the stories? Research undertaken by the University of Oxford and Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in 2015 suggests that won’t be happening in a meaningful way anytime soon.
The research was drawn from the UK population working across broadcast, print and digital in local, regional and national news organisations in the UK.
Sadly, the research only touches upon socio/economic status, gender (only defined by male and female), ethnicity and religion. If we were to look at intersections of sexuality, gender identity, disability, age and class, the picture would likely be more grim.
The research found that British journalism is 94% white; of those journalists who began their careers in 2013, 2014, and 2015, 98% have a Bachelor Degree and 36% a Masters Degree; 55% are male and 45% female.
The most under-represented group are black Britons, who make up approximately 3% of the British population but just 0.2% of the sample. Asian Britons represent approximately 7% of the UK population but just 2.5% of the sample.
Why does journalism look like this?
The survey found 45% of UK journalists see it as very or extremely important to provide news that attracts the largest audience, and twice as many UK journalists believe that their freedom to make editorial decisions has decreased over time as believe it has increased. In addition, right-wing political beliefs increase with rank.
Since the Scottish independence referendum, issues around representation have also surfaced, and it has become increasingly felt that British media doesn’t reflect life in Scotland.
This has enabled a space for new and online media such as The Ferret, CommonSpace and existing independent media such as Bella Caledonia to gain prominence in the Scottish media landscape.
Though these media channels try – and try hard on small budgets – to cover key topics across Scotland, they too can encounter similar issues related to representation as national traditional media outlets.
The representation of local news from smaller regions and towns beyond the central belt or main cities still struggles to make it into new independent media.
However, models such as the employee-owned West Highlands Free Press demonstrate how independent and local news can work.
Sustaining new media models via crowdfunding, subscription models and grants allowing for a growth of independent media can still exclude voices by allowing only those with access to resources to choose which stories and media they want to see.
In a bid to highlight the ways in which Scottish media could be truly radical and representative, “Telling Our Own Stories: People of Colour in Scotland’s Media” took place at Kinning Park Complex in Glasgow.
Oftentimes, radical ways of thinking come from those who are the most marginalised.
Having a reflective media which is collaborative and representative of our society can go a long way in exchanging ideas and information in ways which are healing and helpful, instead of harmful.
This includes all media; from legacy to new media and from ourselves as media creators and sharers on our social media.
Politics is lurching from one crisis to the next. The neoliberal economic model which has relied on sustained propaganda to account for its failings is also coming into question like never before.
As questions of economic and climate justice intersect with conflicts over national identity, race and class, the openings for new media narratives exit.
But we must think outside of the old institutions which grew up with the system in the first place, if we are to realise them.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here