SY4882 - 1999

Culture, Modernity and the Media

Dr. Talja Blokand

Non-assessed essay, 23 Mar 1999

No. of words: 1631

Conditions for free speech in a free market

Chosen topic: Does a free market make free speech and free access to information possible?

(argument illustrated with British broadcasting history)

Christian Einsiedel

Erasmus Student (9852810)

Grosvenor Place CD7, Grosvenor St.

Manchester M1 7HR

+44-161-933-4726

christian.einsiedel@stud.man.ac.uk

einsiedel@hotmail.com

---

Conditions for free speech in a free market p. 2 of 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1

INTRODUCTION 3

2

GENERAL REMARKS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH 4

2.1

Freedom of expression 4

2.2

Freedom of the press 4

2.3

Free access to information 5

2.3.1

Technical access 5

2.3.2

Media Pluralism 5

2.3.3

Speaking through the media 6

3

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN BRITISH BROADCASTING 7

3.1

British broadcasting before the introduction of market forces 7

3.2

Transformations of the British broadcasting system from 1954 until 1990 7

3.3

Broadcasting in the 1990s 8

4

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK 9

---

Conditions for free speech in a free market p. 3 of 10

1 INTRODUCTION

Does a free market make free speech and free access to information possible?

My answer to this question is yes and no, for it depends on what views of ′free speech′ and

′free access to information′ are adopted.

In the following text I will attempt to show under which conditions the notion of a free market

providing freedom of speech is justified. My main argument is that although a free market

will help to decrease governmental influence on the media - making free speech seem more

likely in the absence of political censorship - it will also introduce new limitations due to the

special interests of (amongst others) its owners and advertisers.

To avoid confusion and increase argumentative precision, I will devote most of this paper to

the understanding of free speech in general. I will then illustrate my argument by looking at

three significant episodes of British broadcasting history (although the underlying principles

are not limited to broadcasting only). Following Jean Seaton1 and Wolfgang Hoffmann-

Riem2, I will show how the British broadcasting system was transformed by the introduction

of market forces from 1954 onwards, and which effects these transformations had on freedom

of speech in broadcasting.

1 SEATON, Jean,

Broadcasting history

, in: CURRAN 1997, 109-236

2 HOFFMANN-RIEM, Wolfgang,

Regulating media, The Licensing and Supervision of Broadcasting in Six
Countries

, New York, The Guilford Press, 1996

---

Conditions for free speech in a free market p. 4 of 10

2 GENERAL REMARKS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Whenever the phrase ′free speech′ is used in the following text, it is meant to include the

notions of freedom of expression, freedom of the press and free access to information for

reasons of simplicity. However, I think it is crucial to the following argument to differentiate

between them at this point.

2.1 Freedom of expression

"Freedom of expression", writes Albert Weale in an essay on the Rushdie affair, "is an

essential condition for the discovery of truth, enabling old ideas to be challenged and new

ones established. It provides a mechanism for the control of economic and political power, by

publicising cases of injustice and helping to make the powerful accountable for their

actions."3 This illustration of the value free speech holds in a democratic society is commonly

agreed - and yet, argues Stanley Fish, it "could only be a primary value if what you are

valuing is the right to make noise; but if you are engaged in some purposive activity in the

course of which speech happens to be produced, sooner or later you will come to a point when

you decide that some forms of speech do not further but endanger that purpose."4

This ′consequentionalist′5 approach is the one most attempts at defending as well as restricting

free expression will be based on, as the likely consequences of utterances are pointed out to

justify positions towards freedom of expression.

2.2 Freedom of the press

The First Amendment of the American constitution′s Bill of Rights differentiates between

freedom of speech and that of the press6. Referring to this separation, Edwin C. Baker argues

that "the only persuasive (secular) reason to give constitutional protection to an institution are

instrumental judgements that doing so will serve human values."7 In other words, the press is

seen as a ′public good′ worth protecting. But since it has considerably greater reach than a

3 WEALE, Albert,

Freedom of speech vs freedom of Religion?

, in: PAREKH 1990, 52

4 FISH, Stanley,

There′s no such thing as free speech - and it′s a good thing, too

, Oxford, Oxford University

Press, 1994, 107

5 as opposed to freedom of expression as primary value or ′principle′, see FISH, 14

6 The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the

people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Online in the

Internet, URL: http://Constitution.by.net/uSA/BillOfRights.html, [Status: 22 Mar 1999]

---

Conditions for free speech in a free market p. 5 of 10

single speaker could ever have, and messages delivered through it will thus have a bigger

impact, the same view is also widely used to justify regulations. For example, according to

Bikhu Parekh, a press which is "public, powerful, reaches out to millions, has no institutional

check and is capable of causing considerable damage to ordinary men an women is rightly

subject to greater constraints."8

In contrast to this point of view, the advocates of a market oriented approach towards the

press and other mass media do not see them as a special good, and rigidly oppose any

regulation other than through market forces. It is only within this frame of thought the

influence of a free market can be seen as providing free speech - because ′free speech′ is

defined so narrowly that freedom from political regulation is seen as sufficient condition for

freedom of speech.

2.3 Free access to information

Free access to information is closely related to freedom of expression, since the availability of

information largely determines what can be spoken about. I would like to differentiate

between the three following areas in which free access to information seems problematic.9

2.3.1 Technical access

Free access to information that is distributed through audiovisual media is not possible

without the technical means to receive transmissions. Although the access to these media in

Britain is not ′free′ due to the existence of the license fee, almost everybody has access to

radio and TV. However, the problem of technical access is likely to reoccur with the

emergence of new media technology, as the example of the Internet shows.

2.3.2 Media Pluralism

Ideally, free access to information would include all available information. However, there

will always be the necessity for information arrangement and selection due to technical

limitations of the transporting medium as well as limitations of time and space10. This process

7 BAKER, Edwin C.,

Advertising and a democratic press

, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1994, 118

8 PAREKH, Bikhu,

The Rushdie Affair and the British press: Some Salutary lessons,

in: PAREKH 1990, 74

9 Given the limited length this essay should have, I will not comment on the general ability of information and

means of restricting public access such as the Official Secrets Act, since this is only indirectly related to the

media.

10 this includes both the time and space limitations within the media as well as the amount of attention the

recipients are willing to devote to information. The need for arrangement and selection can again be illustrated

with the current situation of the Internet, where as a consequence of more information being available, it is also

harder to find relevant documents from reliable sources.

---

Conditions for free speech in a free market p. 6 of 10

normally follows certain journalistic standards11, but there is a chance for other factors - such

as political or economic interests - to influence the choice.

2.3.3 Speaking through the media

Accessing the media to actively state an opinion requires passing the stage of selection - an

obstacle that is easier to eliminate if the message satisfies news values, and even more so if

the persons conveying it are of a certain news value themselves. Even if ′ordinary people′

appear on television, it remains questionable whether they are given the same attention as

more ′privileged′ members of society - or if they are even displayed adequately. Thus, there is

no real freedom of access in this point.

11 see initial studies on news selection by WHITE (1950) and news values by GALTUNG (1965)

---

Conditions for free speech in a free market p. 7 of 10

3 FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN BRITISH BROADCASTING

3.1 British broadcasting before the introduction of market forces

The British Broadcasting Company was according to Jean Seaton created mainly as a solution

to the problem the scarcity of airwaves presented.12 Since advertising was not regarded as a

proper way of funding, a tariff on wireless systems and license fee were adopted to finance

the institution. These considerations, as well as the influence of first director Lord Reith,

account for the special ′public service′ organisation that was finally manifested by the creation

of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in 1926.

Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem argues that "from the very outset, broadcasting regulation was not

charged simply with the pragmatic role of ′traffic police′ but in addition by continual reference

to a special public interest in freedom of communication."13 Although the BBC "has remained

worldwide a paragon of independent broadcasting"14, this ′public interest′ was more than once

closely related to governmental interests. Political regulation has seldom been explicit, but on

several occasions the BBC avoided it only by more or less adapting to official positions.15

3.2 Transformations of the British broadcasting system from 1954 until 1990

With the introduction of the Independent Television (ITV) in 1954, the broadcasting system

was carefully balanced so that "commercial aspects were, as far as possible, not to have

impact on the quality of programming."16 Although the new companies were profit oriented, it

is more appropriate to speak of a regulated monopoly than of a free market situation, since in

economic terms the ITV companies competed neither with the BBC nor amongst

themselves.17

Regarding freedom of speech, the introduction of commercial TV and thus creation of

diversity18 certainly improved access to information as discussed above. Nevertheless, the

12 see SEATON, 112

13 HOFFMANN-RIEM, 335

14 HOFFMANN-RIEM, 70

15 i.e. the general strike in 1926 (see SEATON, 119), the second World War (see SEATON, 128-150)

16 HOFFMANN-RIEM, 71

17 see HOFFMANN-RIEM, 79

18 further expanded with the introduction of Channel 4 in 1982

---

Conditions for free speech in a free market p. 8 of 10

Independent Broadcasting Authority indirectly remained accountable to the home secretary,

and political influence19 was too strong to really refer to a ′free market′ furthering freedom of

speech.

3.3 Broadcasting in the 1990s

With the Broadcasting Act of 1990, "regional monopolies held thus far by the program

companies were formally terminated"20, and therefore "broadcasters are under more pressure

to orient their programming toward profitability objectives"21. Even though they are less

confronted with government regulations, they are under pressure to satisfy their advertiser′s

needs. Iain Ramsay describes the trend towards ′advertisement-compatible′ programming as

follows: "Most programmes which raise controversial issues generally convert them into

personal problems to be addressed at the family or personal level, with facile ending. Groups

which are not of market interests, such as low income consumers, will find little material

which reflects issues which affect them in their daily life."22

Concerned with free speech in a democratic society, Graham Murdock concludes that

"looking at the outcome of the franchise auction overall we need to ask whether it has created

a system that is likely to address the crisis of representation by sustaining and extending the

diversity of programming. The answer is almost certainly ′no′."23

In addition, the Broadcasting Act also provides for certain forms of regulation that render the

argumentation of a free market providing free speech (seen as freedom from political control)

furthermore implausible. "The concept of deregulation and thus the confidence placed in

market forces have been renounced in favour of the protection of certain political and moral

values. Despite claims to the contrary, consumer sovereignty is not trusted, and far-reaching

procedural and substantive control of programming is made possible."24

19 i.e. obligations on program content

20 HOFFMANN-RIEM, 100

21 HOFFMANN-RIEM, 107

22 RAMSAY, Iain,

Advertising, Culture and the Law: Beyond Lies, Ignorance and Manipulation

, London, Sweet

& Maxwell, 1996, 91/92

23 MURDOCK, Graham:

Corporate dynamics and broadcasting futures

, in: ALDRIDGE 1994, 15

24 HOFFMANN-RIEM, 104

---

Conditions for free speech in a free market p. 9 of 10

4 CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

I hope to have clearly indicated in my argumentation that a free market is by no means a

guarantee for freedom of speech. Even the narrow definition of free speech (being provided

by the absence of political regulation) presents some difficulties when looking at the current

broadcasting system in Britain, since even the introduction of a relatively free market in 1990

did not abolish the means for political intervention.

There remain many related fields beyond the scope of this essay, global concentration of

media ownership, cross-ownership, new digital technology, to name but a few. The question

how free speech can be strengthened under the given and emerging conditions remains

unsolved, despite its crucial importance for a democratic society.

---

Conditions for free speech in a free market p. 10 of 10

5 BIBLIOGRAPHY

- ALDRIDGE, Meryl and Nicholas Hewitt (eds

.), Controlling broadcasting - Access policy

and practice in North America and Europe

, The Fulbright Papers vol. 13, Manchester,

Manchester University Press, 1994

- BAKER, Edwin C.,

Advertising and a democratic press

, Princeton, Princeton University

Press, 1994

- CURRAN, James and Jean Seaton

, Power without Responsibility - The Press and

Broadcasting in Britain

, London, Routledge, 5th editiion 1997

- FISH, Stanley,

There′s no such thing as free speech - and it′s a good thing, too

, Oxford,

Oxford University Press, 1994

- GALTUNG, Johan and Mari Holmboe Ruge: The structure of foreign news. The

presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in four foreign newspapers. In:

Journal of Peace Research 2 (1965), 64-91

- HOFFMANN-RIEM, Wolfgang,

Regulating media, The Licensing and Supervision of

Broadcasting in Six Countries

, New York, The Guilford Press, 1996

- MURDOCK, Graham:

Corporate dynamics and broadcasting futures

, in: ALDRIDGE

1994, 3-19

- PAREKH, Bikhu (ed.),

Free speech - report of a seminar

, London, Commission for

Racial Equality, 1990

- PAREKH, Bikhu,

The Rushdie Affair and the British press: Some Salutary lessons,

in:

PAREKH 1990, 59-78

- RAMSAY, Iain,

Advertising, Culture and the Law: Beyond Lies, Ignorance and

Manipulation

, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1996

- SEATON, Jean,

Broadcasting history

, in: CURRAN 1997, 109-236

- WEALE, Albert,

Freedom of speech vs freedom of Religion?

, in: PAREKH 1990, 49-58

- WHITE, David M.,

The ′Gatekeeper′: A case study in the Selection of News

, in:

Journalism Quarterly 27 (1950), 383-390

(sources for quotes from the Internet are indicated directly in the footnotes)

---