Report recommending ‘Google Tax’ seems rather confused

I’ve had to find time to try and make sense of the argument presented by The Commission of Inquiry into the Future of Civil Society, but going by an article on Paid Content, it’s going to be a fruitless task.

It seems that ‘Making Good Society’ will warn against recycled news and that the Government has to guard against media being owned by the few, with levies on Google to fund new media.

And evidence of that?

It says four publishers control 70 percent of the local and regional press, three companies – BBC, ITN and BSkyB – produce national television news and just four companies have nearly 80 percent of the commercial radio market. Apparently 100+ local and regional newspapers vanished last year:

“The advent of free newspapers, the emergence of 24-hour television news and the popularisation of online and mobile platforms have all contributed to a far more volatile and unstable environment for news organisations.”

So the arguments for taxing digital news aggregation sites are that print,TV and radio are owned by a tiny amount of companies, and local newspapers need propping up despite the fact people are looking elsewhere?

*confused*

If people are increasingly looking online for their news, then where’s the stimulus for more online news products from a wider range of people? Where’s the suggestion to open up media production, which is far more possible online than ever before? I could start a TV station today on a video streaming site, a radio station by streaming over IP, or any number of text publications, but the biggest challenge for most of these is the cost.

Solving the problem of local newspapers vanishing:

Here’s the idea I’ve been thinking about to solve the problem of local newspapers dying off and leaving a gap in useful local news and information.

Fund an online resource for local news and info – if you’re finding money to do it, then use it to either pay someone at the hub of a local community, or fund ways for them to be able to effectively monetise what they do. Encourage it by people who already exist in the community e.g. librarians, schoolteachers etc who have access to IT equipment, and potentailly news gathering volunteers.

And then allow anyone who doesn’t have internet access to request print copies in person, by text or phone. Forget the cost of printing newspapers and instead use a flyer as a starting point and build from there.

That way you can attempt to kickstart local news sites across the country with a tiny amount of resource, with existing equipment, and with the ability to also reach those who require print for the time being, until eventually everyone ends up online. Plus the information will be more relevant and interesting, and less commercially orientated to please advertisers.

And it’ll hopefully inspire a new generation to try to serve communities by providing information in an engaging way, rather than luring them into a profession which has less and less opportunities as time goes by – after they’ve invested time and money to get into it.

Personally, I’d quite like to know more about what’s going on in the local area, but I’m barely sat still long enough to read a paper, let alone pay for that content on a daily/weekly basis for the percentage which is of interest to me.

But give me an online and smartphone resource I could use to find out the things I really want to know about e.g. local gigs, football games, motorsport, road closures, council tax rises, but leave the rest, and I’d pay a small amount for that so I could check up on it at work or on the train.

Link it into booking tickets, contacting the local council, or watching highlights of the football with pre-roll advertising, and it’d have the chance to make even more.

That’s the future of local services.

  • http://fixtheweb.wordpress.com/ Gail Bradbrook

    The kind of idea you are suggesting is the sort of thing we have done in our Everybody Online projects (http://www.citizensonline.org.uk)

    Its no easy thing though- 80% of local services are used by 20% of the population. In one council something like 75% of their 4million budget was spent on about 400 families. These folks are offline- we still have 13 million non internet using adults in this country- about 25% of the adult population.

    Supporting, cajoling and enabling people to go online is a lengthy process in many cases- embedded issues in literacy, language, confidence, skills and social inclusion all have to be tackled. But the good news is that the technologies allow new ways to tackle these problems… it comes down to holistic approaches (you can see many examples at solutions4inclusion.org.uk).

    I think when you are online its hard now to imagine this offline population. Then there is the issue of e-acessibility for disabled people- something we are looking at this year through Fix the Web…

  • http://angusfarquhar.tv Angus Farquhar

    I'm with you on this one. We've known for a long time that traditional media is struggling, so falsely propping it up is never going to be a viable solution. People will continue to jump ship to better and more convenient sources of content.
    I love reading the paper but hardly ever buy it because it just doesn't fit my life. I do however have many small gaps in my schedule where I regularly check various news sources so a 'hyperlocal' site/blog is ideal and I use them quite often from various sources.
    They don't have to be exclusively area based either, my wife works for a local youth charity and they are currently looking at this kind of thing to engage with the people they are trying to attract to their centre.
    In this instance they will need to make it both relevant to local people but also relevant to the correct demographic so it will be even more niche.
    Being a charity though they are always short of resources so this kind funding would be a welcome help and provide a valuable resource to a community rather than chucking it in to a dead-tree landfill.

  • http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thornton

    Hi, and thanks to both of you for the comments. I totally agree that we shouldn't ignore the fact many people are offline – hence the need for print versions of local information.

    But I do think there are better ways to get that information delivered in print format than a traditional local newspaper structure and with the costs and profit requirements it entails.

    We could always buy 13 million people an iPad, but I don't think it's about cost etc, it's more about perception and fear, which technology won't tackle by itself. But by creating a hub around a library or school which has terminals available (Although often old), it might entice a few more people in to take advantage of the facility.

    Essentially we need to use technology as the core of improving the service for everyone, but tailor the delivery format to each requirement for mobile, computer,print,telephone,TV etc, which technically is all possible.

  • Pingback: Is the eBook, the end of the library?