the uk’s media industries
week four
In the UK, the BBC, ITV, and Sky are all examples of the top media companies and TV channels that exist. Most commonly recognised worldwide, the BBC stands as the world’ oldest and largest national broadcaster; it is established by the Royal Charter and funded by the TV licensing fee that is set by the British government. The BBC is publicly owned, whereas ITV, a commercially funded broadcaster, is financed by selling advertisement slots. As the most predominant organisation, the BBC was commonly considered to be the most “neutral and impartial” news source. (This was something I also believed growing up!) However, Dr. Mark Berry debunks this false notion by examining the invisibility of trade unions indicates BBC’s lack of commitment to truly impartial and balanced coverage.
Sky UK is subsidiary of Sky Group, owned by American conglomerate, Comcast. Arguably, Sky is the prime example of an archetypal capitalist organisation, emphasised by its abundance of revenue streams – paid subscriptions, advertising, hardware, sponsorship etc. to maximise profits. For example, matches scheduled between the biggest premier league football clubs are almost always exclusively broadcasted live by Sky Sports. In March 2020, it seemed that the decision to postpone football games during lockdown was only reversed once Sky had organised a deal to be able to televise games without fans in the stadium. This means that Sky not only holds a monopoly on broadcasting rights, but also holds power in controlling sport in the UK. This is just one example of how media corporations are able to control access to content, just like how billionaire owners of UK newspapers can interfere with what content is published. Profit, politics and agenda all hold significant influence on mainstream media outlets. Additionally, Ofcom reported that in 2019, over half the population of adults in the UK get news from social media. While accessibility to new information has increased, this also complicates further risks of fake news, corruption and information overload, creating a communication paradox.
case study: gal-dem
Founded in 2015 by Liv Little, gal-dem is an online media publication, centring its content on people of colour from marginalised genders. In 2016, it was reported that the journalism landscape was 94% white and 55% male. The existence and function of gal-dem directly addresses these inequalities, enabling underrepresented POC communities to share their stories and experiences, taking control of their narratives. Gal-dem welcomes pitches that ‘tell stories and perspectives that people cannot find anywhere else’, encouraging a sense of ‘participatory democracy‘. The existing racial divide in news media does not facilitate for an environment to accurately represent and share stories of these marginalised groups. When marginalised groups are covered in mainstream media, they are actively harmful in creating a greater divide. Publication platforms like gal-dem will most likely never break into the “mainstream” media sources of news. But when marginalised groups are afforded safe spaces to democratise their own media, diversity breeds creativity. Gal-dem’s funding is predominantly sourced from in-person events, which have been negatively impacted by COVID-19. For independent media companies like gal-dem, funding is scarce compared to mainstream media news outlets. People are able to become Gal-dem members, with three options of monthly payment plans, helping them to continue to amplify marginalised voices.
It remains fundamentally important for publications like gal-dem to continue centring the narratives of marginalised voices, in order for true and meaningful representation to exist for them. When mainstream news outlets have never accurately represented or understood these groups, people take it upon themselves to carve their own space.
As we supposedly fight for inclusive, democratic and free platforms, we should interrogate what that actually means.
Micha Frazer-Carroll (2019)