AS IS OFTEN THE CASE, the Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, came straight to the point last night. Speaking at the Media Standards Trust’s Why Journalism Matters event, in London, Rusbridger said the industry ‘would have to accept the need for publicly subsidised news reporting.’
Rusbridger makes a good case; but then you would expect that when the Guardian Media Group part-owns the Press Association (PA) — and Rusbridger’s theme is to provide that organisation with public funds.
I remain unconvinced by his argument.
Maybe public subsidy is part of the answer, at local level; but the idea of contracting the PA to cover local public bodies, in my view, is a non-starter. Rusbridger dismisses the idea of the BBC fulfilling such a role on the grounds of a ‘monopolistic backlash;’ but the fact is that the BBC already has the necessary infrastructure to undertake the task nationwide, and, moreover, is trusted to do so — not only by the public; but by the journalistic profession as a whole.
I do not wish to imply any type of bias in PA reporting (I often quote from their feed on the Canvey Beat) but my short experience in producing that blog has taught me one thing in particular: local media can be corrupted.
It is not the case that the PA has spare capacity with which to provide this ‘free service’ — it will need to recruit additional staff. And that staff, in the main, will likely be provided by existing journals and newspapers for their local knowledge. (The same staff — along with all their personal baggage).
Despite my experience, I do not hold the view that all county titles are corrupt. But if I were a local newspaper editor, I would much sooner use material from a trustworthy source, which has proper checks and balances in-place in its editorial departments, than I would from someone I suspected of bias.
Court reporting does not provide many opportunities to provide biased material; but political reporting does. Furthermore, when the proposed service expands into more general local news gathering (which must be the long term objective) the public will be left with nothing more than the same views, from the same people; but under a different masthead.
In short: I prefer to place my faith in an unbiased BBC, which, when confronted by a spurious gagging order, can be trusted to act in the public interest and deliver a two-finger riposte.
Ted Pugh's Blog 