 "The culture of newsrooms in UK is still un-diverse: Charlie Beckett")
Charlie Beckett is the founding director of POLIS, a think-tank for research and debate on international journalism and society. POLIS is part of the media and communications department at the London School of Economics. It runs a series of public lectures and seminars for journalists and the public, in addition to offering fellowships for research. Beckett speaks to Vanita Kohli-Khandekar about news and journalism. Edited excerpts:
What's your take on the UK news market?
Newspapers are still the dominant drivers of agenda. If these decide on something, TV usually follows it. What happens with digital is TV and print tend to bump against each other. The idea of competition between print and TV, however, is irrelevant.
News has never paid, except perhaps for Financial Times or The Economist. This is because they deliver hard news for people and are making money from that information. With that exception, there has always been a cross-subsidy. News has always been bundled with something else that makes money, like cable. The only reason I buy Sky is because of the cinema it offers. If you told people, "Pay licence fees for BBC News," they won't. But they pay for a bundle which has drama, radio and other entertainment.
Are there structures that could make news do better?
Newspapers may die. In the UK, these are falling five per cent every year. But this is not just about the internet, it is about habits changing. So much of the news in the golden era of the 80s and 90s was duplicated. Newsrooms will become smaller.
What about professionally-generated content? Does it have a future?
Content is king. For instance, Netflix can't run on reruns, nor can BBC. There is absolutely a demand for journalists. People want more celebrity and sports news. The problem is not demand for content. The problem is the ability to control the market like in the old days. Building a business model is now partly technological.
What is POLIS about?
It was floated because media is very critical to society. We wanted something that connected society and journalists. Its 'moral purpose' is to make journalism better. We could do it through conferences; for instance, one on 'how do you report on war', the ethical issues involved. Then, there are fellowships which can be used to write a book. Most of this is for working journalists. We have had hundreds of journalists and other people associated with news media working with us on improving both the practice and understanding of international journalism.
How focused are news organisations in the UK on training journalists? Typically, what is the percentage of total revenues (or costs) spent on training by news organisations? Is there a range?
You would have to ask the media organisations about training budgets; these vary enormously. But I have noticed much more interest in news skills such as data or programming; I have also noticed some media groups have re-introduced or started internships and trainee and apprentice schemes in an effort to get the best people. The main problem is still a lack of diversity, as the unpaid internship route combined with the Oxbridge bias means the culture of newsrooms is still un-diverse.
What's your take on the UK news market?
Newspapers are still the dominant drivers of agenda. If these decide on something, TV usually follows it. What happens with digital is TV and print tend to bump against each other. The idea of competition between print and TV, however, is irrelevant.
Also Read
Is news largely a patronage industry? It doesn't seem to thrive unless funded by a trust (The Guardian), the taxpayer (BBC) or a benevolent state (Al Jazeera).
News has never paid, except perhaps for Financial Times or The Economist. This is because they deliver hard news for people and are making money from that information. With that exception, there has always been a cross-subsidy. News has always been bundled with something else that makes money, like cable. The only reason I buy Sky is because of the cinema it offers. If you told people, "Pay licence fees for BBC News," they won't. But they pay for a bundle which has drama, radio and other entertainment.
Are there structures that could make news do better?
Newspapers may die. In the UK, these are falling five per cent every year. But this is not just about the internet, it is about habits changing. So much of the news in the golden era of the 80s and 90s was duplicated. Newsrooms will become smaller.
What about professionally-generated content? Does it have a future?
Content is king. For instance, Netflix can't run on reruns, nor can BBC. There is absolutely a demand for journalists. People want more celebrity and sports news. The problem is not demand for content. The problem is the ability to control the market like in the old days. Building a business model is now partly technological.
What is POLIS about?
It was floated because media is very critical to society. We wanted something that connected society and journalists. Its 'moral purpose' is to make journalism better. We could do it through conferences; for instance, one on 'how do you report on war', the ethical issues involved. Then, there are fellowships which can be used to write a book. Most of this is for working journalists. We have had hundreds of journalists and other people associated with news media working with us on improving both the practice and understanding of international journalism.
How focused are news organisations in the UK on training journalists? Typically, what is the percentage of total revenues (or costs) spent on training by news organisations? Is there a range?
You would have to ask the media organisations about training budgets; these vary enormously. But I have noticed much more interest in news skills such as data or programming; I have also noticed some media groups have re-introduced or started internships and trainee and apprentice schemes in an effort to get the best people. The main problem is still a lack of diversity, as the unpaid internship route combined with the Oxbridge bias means the culture of newsrooms is still un-diverse.