Brake On Power In Press Control Urged

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29932, 20 September 1962, Page 13

Brake On Power In Press Control Urged

(N.Z.P. A.-Reuter—Copyright)

LONDON, September 19.

An independent Commission of Inquiry into the British press said in effect today a brake was needed on large-scale take-over bids and amalgamations.

The commission was set up in March, 1961, after the death of two London dailies and four Sunday papers, and also major changes in the control elsewhere.

The commission recommended that a special court should decide whether big upheavals in the concentration of power were in the public interest or not. New laws should be made to determine the criteria of what public interest should be.

At the same time the General Council of the Press —a voluntary body—should be remodelled and extend its scope to scrutinise and publicise changes in the ownership, control and growth of press undertakings. If the press did not do this voluntarily within a given time limit, such a body should be set up by law

The five-man commission, headed by the eminent international jurist. Lord Shawcross. also recommended that no newspaper undertaking should be allowed a controlling interest in commercial television companies.

Explaining the proposed special court on newspaper amalgamations, the commission. whose findings are not binding on the Government, said it would apply to cases where the purchaser controlled—or would control —daily or Sunday newspapers with aggregate weekly circulations of more than 3.000,000, To illustrate its point, the commission said that such a “press amalgamations court" would not examine a case where, for instance, the owner of a morning paper with a 70.000 daily circulation (weekly 420.000) and a Sunday paper of 250.000 circulation. acquired an evening paper with a dailv circulation of 300.000 (1.800.000 weekly) The Royal Commission was set up after sweeping changes in British press ownership and control had provoked widespread parliamentary and public concernposing the question whether too much power tended to be concentrated in too few hands.

The commission said that it was not set up to inquire into "the rights and wrongs” of these events but into the economic factors affecting the British press generally

“The question arises whether the public can continue to rely for the proper satisfaction of their varied needs on a system which enables large undertakings to expand their 'ontrol over the press whether they misuse the powe. thus obtained or not” it said “Big Three” Figure Analysing the concentration of readership between "big three” (Beaverbrook Newspapers. Associated Newspapers and the Daily Mirror group) it said these top three had now acquired 87 per cent of the circulation of all daily newspapers n Britain This was an increase of 22 per cent since 1948 In the Sunday newsnaper field, the Daily Mirror group, the mass-appeal “News of the World." and Beaverbrook Newspapers shared 84 per cent of circulation among them In 1948 when the set-up of control was different, the top three at that time—" News of the World.” Kems’ey Newspapers and Odhams Press —had 61 per cent of the circulation Taking all daily and Sundav newspapers together, the P’-esen* too three groups had 65 r>er cent of the circulation w’hile the ton three of 1948 had 4’ ner cent Assessing the influence >f the nres- in general, the commlsslon considered it was not as great as some had sug-g“-fed or as it had been n th- oast. Large numbers of people relied inereasinglv for news on broadeastin? and television. and probably tended to be more influenced by opin-

ions and arguments on social and political problems put out on radio and television than they were by those set forth in newspapers. The commission produced tables to show that smallcirculation quality papers had to rely far more heavily on advertising than big-cir-culation papers with popular appeal. In the case of quality morning papers no less than 73 per cent, of their revenue came from advertising, and in popular morning papers only 45 per cent. Editorial expenditure accounted for 16 per cent, of the total cost of quality papers and 14 per cent, for popular newspapers. The commission judged that on the production side national newspapers in London w’ere “seriously inefficient.” It considered they were overmanned, and productivity was going down Television Interest The commission recommended that no newspaper undertaking should be allowed a controlling interest in television. It noted that at present only in one case did such an interest amount to control—that of Mr Roy Thomson’s interest in Scottish television. But some other newspapers were substantially engaged, particularly those of the Daily Mirror group and Associated Newspapers. “Any reduction in costs which was spread evenly over the press would leave the competitive position as between newspapers unchanged,” the commission said The commission was also resolutely opposed to Government subsidies to the press It gave particular attention to the problems of modifying the forces of competition Two of the five-member commission, including Lord Shawcross, thought it was wholly improper to impose schemes thaX deliberately discriminated against newspapers achieving commercial

success to assist those that were not.

They said that the freedom of the press meant not only freedom to publish but also freedom to read the newspapers of one’ choice.

The three other members of the commission were against the particular remedies proposed but thought circumstances might arise when discrimination would be desirable in the public interest.

The commission criticised the present set-up of the General Council of the Press which was established in 1953 on the recommendation of a previous Royal Commission in 1949. The 1949 Commission had recommended that this council should encourage the growth of the sense of public responsibility and public service in journalism, and further the efficiency of the profession and the wellbeing of those who practised it.

The commission said the Press Council, since it began its work in 1953, had been mainly concerned with professional standards —and there was no lay element in it at all. as originally envisaged. It recommended that it should be reconstituted with a lay chairman and a substantial lay membership. It said that it should have additional functions to scrutinise changes in the ownership, -ontrol and growth of press undertakings. It should also keep the public informed on these matters by publishing authoritative annual reports or by special reports if the need arose.

It preferred that such an authoritative general press council be established on a voluntary basis by the press itself.

But it recommended that the Government should give the press a time-limit. If it had not been established by then, legislation should be introduced to put the proposal into effect.