39

HOUSE OF LORDS
Communications and Digital Committee
1st Report of Session 2024–25
The future of news
Ordered to be printed 12 November 2024 and published 25 November 2024
Published by the Authority of the House of Lords
HL Paper 39
Communications and Digital Committee
The Communications and Digital Committee is appointed by the House of Lords in each
session “to consider the media, digital and the creative industries and highlight areas of concern
to Parliament and the public”.
Membership
The Members of the Communications and Digital Committee are:
Lord Dunlop The Lord Bishop of Leeds
Lord Hall of Birkenhead Lord McNally
Baroness Harding of Winscombe Lord Storey
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chair)
Lord Kamall Baroness Wheatcroft
Lord Knight of Weymouth Lord Young of Norwood Green
Declaration of interests
See Appendix 1.
A full list of Members’ interests can be found in the Register of Lords’ Interests:
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/register-of-
lords-interests/
Publications
All publications of the Committee are available at:
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/170/communications-and-digital-committee/
publications/
Parliament Live
Live coverage of debates and public sessions of the Committee’s meetings are available at:
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/
Further information
Further information about the House of Lords and its Committees, including guidance to
witnesses, details of current inquiries and forthcoming meetings is available at:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/
Committee staff
The staff who worked on this inquiry were Daniel Schlappa (Clerk), Anna Herzog (Policy
Analyst) and Rita Cohen (Committee Operations Officer).
Contact details
All correspondence should be addressed to the Communications and Digital Committee,
Committee Office, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW. Telephone 020 7219 2922. Email
[email protected]
X (formerly known as Twitter)

You can follow the Committee on X: @LordsCommsCom.
CONTENTS
Page
Executive summary 3
Chapter 1: The stakes 7
Inquiry scope 8
Focus 8
Chapter 2: The case for action and its limits 9
The value of news 9
Domestic 9
Global 10
A balanced outlook 10
The role of Government: don’t be evil 10
Chapter 3: Financial health 13
Overall picture 13
Figure 1: Main platforms used for news 14
Table 1: UK advertising expenditure 14
Figure 2: Facebook referrals since 2018 15
Deepening divisions? 18
Response options 19
Tax breaks 19
Box 1: Previous Government support for the news industry 2019–
2024 19
Public sector advertising 19
Innovation schemes 21
Training and recruitment 22
BBC 23
Chapter 4: Tech platforms 27
The world that was 27
What role? 27
Prominence 28
Limiting legitimate content 29
Algorithmic transparency 30
Chapter 5: Generative Artificial Intelligence 31
Fear not for the future? 31
Production 31
Distribution and consumption 31
Monetisation 32
Competition and political inf luence 33
Regulatory crossover 35
Copyright 35
Competing priorities 35
Licences 36
Text and data mining rules 37
Government options 39
Chapter 6: Serving audiences 42
A difficult landscape 42
Figure 3: UK news outlets consumption and trust 45
Figure 4: US news outlets consumption and trust 46
Broadcast media 46
BBC 46
Figure 5: Audience perceptions of the BBC 47
Other PSBs and Sky 48
Table 2: Top 20 news sources 48
New entrants 49
Figure 6 : TV channels used to access news in 2024 50
Two-tier system? 50
Politicians presenting 51
Chapter 7: Mis/disinformation 54
Box 2: Definitions 54
Box 3: Government structures 54
Changing characteristics 55
Implications 56
Counter-disinformation response options 56
Mission creep? 57
Money 57
Technical solutions 58
Strategic responses 60
Deterrence posture 60
Media literacy 60
The role of news media 61
Chapter 8: SLAPPs 63
Investigative journalism and SLAPPs 63
Background to legislation 63
Getting legislation right 63
Solicitors Regulation Authority 65
Flawed evidence base? 65
Inadequate fines 66
Outsourcing the problem 67
National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists 67
Proceeds of crime 67
Summary of conclusions and recommendations 69
Appendix 1: List of Members and declarations of interest 76
Appendix 2: List of witnesses 78
Appendix 3: Call for evidence 85
Appendix 4: Committee visits 88
Evidence is published online at https://committees.parliament.uk/

committee/170/communications-and-digital-committee/publications and
available for inspection at the Parliamentary Archives (020 7219 3074).
Q in footnotes refers to a question in oral evidence.

The future of news 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The future of news matters. The media sector has defied the gloomiest
predictions of the last 15 years and some audiences are better served than ever
before. The UK’s press offers a healthy variety of viewpoints, broadcasters play
an anchoring role, and online outfits are springing up offering unprecedented
choice of formats and perspectives. However, many indicators about the future
are not encouraging. Trust has fallen and news avoidance is rising. Key revenue
streams are declining and will not return. Efforts to silence investigative
reporting continue. AI is starting to reshape the nature of internet search and
the concept of authoritative information.
The value of honest, accurate and informative news remains as significant
as ever—perhaps increasingly so as domestic challenges multiply and the
geopolitical context worsens. But importance does not guarantee survival. The
outlook for some areas is particularly poor. Local journalism faces long term
decline. Several mass market news outlets are following suit. News deserts
have been growing. Some audiences are turning away from mainstream news;
a growing number are embracing dubious online sources. Others switch off
altogether.
Our inquiry left us with no illusions about the stakes: the period of having
informed citizens with a shared understanding of facts is not inevitable and may
not endure.
The risk of a ‘two tier’ media environment is a particular problem. Current
trends suggest that a few large media brands and small niche outlets have a
viable financial future: news afficionados will be well catered for (particularly
those who are prepared to pay). But a growing proportion of the population
risks becoming increasingly poorly served as the economics of mass market
journalism worsen, unreliable online sources proliferate and ‘anchor’ institutions
like the BBC struggle to ensure their reporting takes account of and reflects the
underlying causes of socio-political realignments.
This is not a hypothetical worry: the contours of this scenario are already
apparent. If current trends continue, the gap between those consuming
professional journalism and those who do not will widen at pace. There is a
realistic possibility of the UK’s news environment fracturing irreparably along
social, regional and economic lines within the next 5–10 years. The implications
for our society and democracy would be grim.
Further technological disruption is likely to have a significant influence on this
trajectory. Not all change is bad and many of the impacts are overhyped: doom-
laden prophecies of imminent sector-wide collapse are overblown.
Some trends are however worrying. The consolidation of power among the
world’s pre-eminent tech firms is leading to unprecedented influence over the
information we see. AI models can already produce passable news summaries
and answer politically sensitive questions. These advances are starting to upend
news media business models and change the way people find information. Some
news organisations will receive prominence and money from these emerging
AI-powered services; others will not. We have deepening concerns about the
implications for media plurality, and the way these developments will compound
the shift towards a two tier media environment.
4 The future of news
The Government’s role in supporting the future of news is complex. It must

avoid a policy of managed decline but this is easier said than done. The
Government cannot compel people to engage with the news, and well-meaning
financial support risks doing more harm than good by undermining media
independence. Much of the work needs to be led by industry itself to ensure
audience needs and expectations are well served.
The Government’s task is to establish the conditions that enable the sector
to stand on its own feet and survive a protracted period of technological
turbulence. Doing so will involve decisions which will not please everybody: the
Government will need to confront tech firms and disappoint some parts of the
media sector alike.
We recommend the following:
• Strike a balance: There is good scope for structural changes that

benefit the media sector, such as tackling competition issues. At the
same time we caution against schemes that risk overreach, such as
Government-endorsed kitemarks for ‘quality’ news, or well-meaning
interventions that end up picking winners in ailing markets.
• Support local media: tax breaks for hiring local journalists,

training schemes and an expanded Local Democracy Reporting
Service would all help local newsroom finances without creating
undue distortions. Changes to the use of local authority advertising
spend should also be explored, though with caution.
• Encourage innovation: the UK has good accelerator schemes to

boost innovation elsewhere. The news sector needs one too. We’re
calling for a Future News catalyst scheme to help media organisations
experiment with technology to transition to more sustainable
business models.
• Champion responsible AI: the unauthorised use of news content to

train AI is deeply controversial. We firmly support AI development,
but not at all costs. Previous efforts to mediate between tech firms
and creative rightsholders have been tepid and inadequate. The
Government must update legislation to align incentives between
news providers and AI firms and help them strike mutually
beneficial deals. Changes must include a transparency mechanism
to let rightsholders check for infringements, much better technical
and legal enforceability, and measures to support a new market in
responsible AI training data.
• Take competition issues seriously: the Competition and Markets

Authority should investigate allegations of anti-competitive practice
by big tech firms acquiring AI training data. Updates to Ofcom’s
rules on media plurality and investigation powers should account
for tech firms’ growing influence in their ability to produce news
content through generative AI summaries.
• Public service broadcasters: the Government should use the

Charter renewal discussions to refresh the BBC’s role and mission—
including explicit objectives relating to local news which crowd in
the commercial sector, rather than crowding it out.
• Remain proportionate on mis/disinformation: measures to

protect the health of the information environment are key but must
not undermine confidence in free speech or fuel public distrust. We
caution against overreliance on technical fixes (such as labelling and
watermarks). More effort is needed on long-term resilience, muscular
use of cyber power to deter adversaries and scaled up media literacy
programmes.
• Tackle SLAPPs: investigative journalists continue to face legal

intimidation and security risks. New legislation is needed, alongside
stronger regulatory fining powers and better protections against
transnational security threats.
The future of news
Chapter 1: THE STAKES
1. The future of news is mixed. Trust across the world is low, news avoidance is
rising and a growing share of audiences are turning away.1
2. We found some reasons for optimism. The UK has a vibrant press, numerous
TV and radio broadcasters and a range of online outlets. 2 The value of
news in holding power to account and informing public debate remains as
important as ever.3
3. The importance of news to society does not guarantee commercial
viability or audience engagement though.4 Informed citizens with a shared
understanding of basic facts are not inevitable. Current trends suggest that
some parts of the news system are doing well, while others face inexorable
decline. There is a realistic possibility of the media environment fracturing
along social, geographic, economic and political lines within the next five to
ten years. This phenomenon may be amplified by the gradual fragmentation
of the internet itself into open and closed domains and competing regulatory
blocs.5
4. Some argue that the media sector is best left to its own devices. Others
believe that decisive intervention is needed to save a pillar of our democracy
from collapse.
5. We launched this inquiry in February 2024 to examine what should be done
over the next five years.6 We did not find any silver bullet solutions and do not
believe they exist. Industry and policymakers do have options though. This
report addresses questions about the appropriate extent and limits of policy
intervention, measures to address the influence of technology platforms, the
potential bifurcation of the information environment, and the long-term—
possibly irreversible—consequences of failure.
6. We heard from 51 expert witnesses and reviewed over 600 pages of written
evidence. We visited ITN’s offices in London and a delegation visited San
Francisco where we met senior executives at OpenAI, Apple, Google, Meta,
Andreessen Horowitz, Scale AI, Perplexity, Mozilla, Smart News, Reddit,
and various media organisations including the San Francisco Chronicle, the
FT, Bloomberg, CalMatters, the Markup and Cityside Journalism. Notes
of those visits are included in Appendix 4. We are grateful to all those who
participated in our inquiry.
1 Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Digital News Report 2024 (July 2024), pp 26-27: https://
reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024–06/RISJ_DNR_2024_Digital_v10%20lr.pdf
[accessed 6 November 2024]
2 Q 139 (Robert Colvile)
3 A.G. Sulzberger, ‘Journalism’s Essential Value’ (24 May 2023): https://www.nytco.com/press/
journalisms-essential-value/ [accessed 1 September 2024]
4 Q 137 (Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen)
5 Appendix on Committee visit to San Francisco; written evidence from Impress (FON0041), NewsNow
Publishing (FON0051) and News Media Association (FON0056)
6 The 2024 General Election took place during the course of our inquiry. Some of the written evidence
quoted from the Government is from the previous administration. We held our oral evidence session
with Ministers from the current Government on 15th October 2024.
Inquiry scope
7. James Bennet, Senior Editor at The Economist, noted that definitions of
news tend to expand in line with technological capabilities. The rise of online
commentators and media has for example widened the concept of news and
changed the way it is created, distributed, consumed and monetised.7 The
primary focus of our inquiry aligned broadly with the idea of public interest
news set out in the 2019 Cairncross Review.8 We interpret this notion to
include a broad range of honest, accurate and informative news reflecting
the plurality of viewpoints offered by the UK’s media landscape.
8. Our use of the concept ‘public interest news’ does not imply that other topics
(like leisure or celebrity lifestyle) are unimportant. However, public interest
news can be subject to market failure, which in turn creates democratic deficits
that are a legitimate topic for policymakers’ concern. Nor was the intent
of our inquiry to simply restate the value of establishment institutions and
content often associated with the BBC and upmarket broadsheets. Alongside
national and local papers, TV broadcasters and radio, we considered online
startups, freelancers, podcasters, news aggregators, social media platforms
and AI firms.
Focus
9. Our report focuses on the following issues:
• Chapter 2 examines the case for action and limits of appropriate

intervention.
• Chapter 3 examines financial sustainability and options to help the

media sector survive the transition to new business models.
• Chapter 4 examines the impact of technology platforms and the

discoverability of information online.
• Chapter 5 examines generative AI in more detail, focusing on

competition, media plurality and copyright.
• Chapter 6 examines the adequacy of service provision and trust,

concerns about fragmentation, and due impartiality in broadcast news.
• Chapter 7 examines responses to mis/disinformation and the tensions

around safeguarding free speech.
• Chapter 8 examines abuses of the legal system that are used to silence
journalists from publishing critical stories about powerful individuals
and institutions.
7 Q 2. See also Q 10 (Paul Lee), Q 146 (Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen)

8 These include a) high-quality journalism, which is a “subjective concept that … must be truthful and
comprehensible and should ideally … be edited.”; b) investigative journalism, which typically involves
investigations into abuses of power; and c) democracy reporting, which is coverage of public policy
and government work at both a national and local level. See Dame Frances Cairncross, The Cairncross
Review: A sustainable future for journalism (February 2019), pp 14–17: https://assets.publishing.
service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/779882/021919_DCMS_
Cairncross_Review_.pdf [accessed 1 September 2024]
Chapter 2: THE CASE FOR ACTION AND ITS LIMITS
The value of news

Domestic
10. We noted six persuasive arguments about why the fate of news deserves
policy attention. First, news journalism holds power to account, and deters
improper conduct through the risk of public exposure. Second, news outlets
enable two-way conversations between leaders and the public. This is
particularly important in times of political tension, crisis or war. 9
11. Third, news reporting supports democracy. The decline in numbers of
local journalists is associated with subsequent declines in reporting on
local institutions, falling civic engagement and lower voter turnout.10 We
note this is particularly pertinent given successive governments’ interest in
devolving power locally. Fourth, a vibrant press which maintains a shared
understanding of facts is a key defence against foreign states seeking to
undermine public trust or influence opinion.11
12. Fifth, news investigations benefit public policy and expenditure. One US
study found that each dollar spent on investigative journalism generated
hundreds of times that in societal benefits from the resulting policy, personnel,
industrial and legal changes.12 Other studies have found a causal relationship
between the closure of a local newspaper and higher public sector borrowing
costs, wage bills and contracting expenses.13 Sixth, high quality news outlets
boost UK soft power.14 The BBC, The Mail and The Guardian are among the
top US news sites, for example.15
9 A.G. Sulzberger, ‘Journalism’s Essential Value’ (24 May 2023): https://www.nytco.com/press/

journalisms-essential-value/ [accessed 1 September 2024]
10 Rachel Howells, Journey to the centre of a news black hole: examining the democratic deficit in a town with
no newspaper (June 2015): https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/87313/1/2016howellsrphd.pdf [accessed
14 November 2024]; Sam Schulhofer-Wohl and Miguel Garrido, Do Newspapers Matter? Short-run and
Long-run Evidence from the Closure of The Cincinnati Post, NBER Working Paper No. 14817 (December
2011): https://www.nber.org/papers/w14817.pdf [accessed 14 November 2024]
11 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Countering Disinformation Effectively (2024): https://
carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/Carnegie_Countering_Disinformation_
Effectively.pdf [accessed 1 September 2024]
12 James T. Hamilton, Democracy’s Detectives (Harvard University Press 2018) https://www.hup.harvard.
edu/books/9780674986817 [accessed 14 November 2024]
13 Vivien Lee and David Wessel, ‘How closures of local newspapers increase local government borrowing
costs’, Brookings (July 2018): https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-closures-of-local-newspaper-
increase-local-government-borrowing-costs [accessed 22 October 2024]; Pengjie Gao, Chang Lee,
Dermot Murphy, Financing Dies in Darkness? The Impact of Newspaper Closures on Public Finance
(October 2018): https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/WP44.pdf [accessed 13
November 2024]
14 UK Soft Power Group, The Future of UK Soft Power: Building a Strategic Framework: https://www.ed.ac.
uk/sites/default/files/atoms/files/the_future_of_uk_soft_power_-_building_a_strategic_framework.
pdf [accessed 1 September 2024];
15 Press Gazette, ‘Top 50 news sites in the US’ (10 October 2024): https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-
audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-websites-news-us-monthly-3/ [accessed 6
November 2024]
Global
13. The international context also matters. The World Press Freedom Index
suggests that press freedoms are now partly or completely blocked in over 70
per cent of its ranked countries.16
14. As the global balance of power shifts eastwards, talk is growing of an
alternative to the US-led international order underpinned by liberal
democracy and the free flow of information.17 China’s rise poses an “epoch-
defining challenge” to our values and security.18 TikTok’s disruption of US
social media dominance has already generated unease. Similar trends may
emerge in the AI race, handing more influence to states seeking to shape
opinion and stifle criticism.19 Media organisations will have a vital role to
play in defending freedom of expression, holding Government to account for
addressing global challenges, and ensuring that all sectors of society have a
voice in these debates.
A balanced outlook
15. Following the evidence we took, our hope for the news sector is relatively
straightforward: an independent, commercially sustainable, competitive,
trusted, relevant and dynamic ecosystem that delivers the outcomes
summarised above.
16. Some contributors had limited optimism about this direction of travel. Others
were more circumspect. Andrew Neil, (then) Chairman of The Spectator,
urged us to avoid overly gloomy evaluations.20 Many of the changes we
examined had both positives and negatives. John Quinlan, Chief Executive
Officer of Joe Media Group, noted that social media had disrupted many
businesses but also enabled his organisation to reach 7 billion views.21 David
Dinsmore, Chief Operating Officer at News UK, gave another example about
the acceleration of online information flows. On the one hand this creates an
overabundance and overload. Equally, it underscores the enduring value of
good journalism: “everyone has hold of the facts at any time, but people want
to know what it means for them”.22 In short, we heard that a changing news
landscape should not be conflated with its imminent demise.
The role of Government: don’t be evil

17. We heard contrasting views about the appropriate role of Government. Mr
Neil offered a concise analysis: [Government] “should stay the hell out of it.
16 Reporters Without Borders, ‘2024 World Press Freedom Index’: https://rsf.org/en/2024-world-press-

freedom-index-journalism-under-political-pressure?year=2024&data_type=general [accessed 6
November 2024]
17 See for example Foreign Affairs, ‘China’s Alternative Order’ (April 2024): https://www.foreignaffairs.
com/china/chinas-alternative-order-xi-jinping-elizabeth-economy [accessed 17 September 2024];
Foreign Affairs, ‘The Dysfunctional Superpower’ (September 2023): https://www.foreignaffairs.com/
united-states/robert-gates-america-china-russia-dysfunctional-superpower [accessed 1 September
2024]
18 HM Government, Integrated Review Refresh, CP 811, (2023): https://assets.publishing.service.
gov.uk/media/641d72f45155a2000c6ad5d5/11857435_NS_IR _Refresh_2023_Supply_AllPages_
Revision_7_WEB_PDF.pdf p 6 [accessed 1 September 2024]
19 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, ‘China’s Views on AI Safety Are Changing—Quickly’
(27 August 2024): https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/08/china-artificial-intelligence-ai-
safety-regulation?lang=en [accessed 17 September 2024]
20 Q 115
21 Q 122 (John Quinlan). See also Q 72 (Sam Shetabi, Tom Cheal)
22 Q 42
You do not know anything about it. You are only trouble”.23 James Harding,
Co-founder and Editor of Tortoise Media, was more sceptical of the “laissez-
faire argument … I do not want to see another 25 years where we do not do
anything”.24
18. The Media Act 2024, Online Safety Act 2023 and Digital Markets,
Competition and Consumers Act 2024 will likely make some difference.25
Smaller changes like tax reliefs on digital publications and office space for
local newspapers have also helped.26 Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, (then)
Director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, thought that
wider media policy had however been “more characterised by inaction than
by action”.27
19. Stephanie Peacock MP, Minister for Sport, Media, Civil Society and
Youth at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, said that the new
Government’s approach would provide the “correct framework” to support
the sector—recognising its societal and financial value while respecting the
“fine line” between over- and under-engagement.28
20. We believe three principles should inform this approach. First is balance:
too much government engagement risks market distortions and cronyism,
while too little risks accepting inexorable decline.29 Second, and relatedly,
is independence. Robert Colvile, Director of the Centre for Policy Studies,
argued that the media’s responsibility for holding Government to account
meant that the threshold for support should be “extremely high”.30
21. Third is the importance of objective market-orientated measures. As Professor
Nielsen emphasised, policy interventions can be “effective when they work
with public demand and/or market forces, and they can be expensive failures
when they work against”.31
22. These principles indicate substantial scope for well-meaning interventions
to go wrong.32 Professor Singer, Professor Emerita of Journalism Innovation
at City, University of London, argued that Government must allow news
organisations to fail, and resist “propping up something for which there
is no demand”.33 Fraser Nelson, then editor of The Spectator, stressed that
Government must not take views on what is “good quality, or worth paying
for”.34 Professor Nielsen cautioned against schemes aimed at improving the
“plurality of viewpoints” as they might generate “all sorts of unfortunate
levers … to pressure independent media”.35
23 Q 119
24 Q 131
25 Media Act (2024), Online Safety Act (2023), Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act
(2024)
26 Written evidence from DCMS (FON009)
27 Q 137
28 Q 164 (Stephanie Peacock MP)
29 Q 135 (Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen), Q 139 (Professor Jane Singer)
32 Q 16 (James Bennet)
33 Q 137
34 Q 15
23. Supporting trust in news is another minefield. We found little consensus on

the drivers and consequences of trust, or the best remedies.36 Some of our
contributors highlighted the contested roles of the press oversight bodies (the
Independent Press Standards Organisation, and Impress).37 Jonathan Levy,
Managing Director and Executive Editor of Sky News, argued that it was
not “the Government’s job to confer trust on journalism”.38 Even seeking
industry insight may be tricky: as we explored ideas for a policy forum
(comparable to the Creative Industries Council), Professor Nielsen believed
this risked giving the impression of a “cartel”,39 while Mr Colvile thought it
might generate a “class of privileged insiders”.40
24. This all suggests that industry itself must address issues around quality,
trust, business models and consumer engagement. We heard more consistent
support for Government action on structural and systemic issues, such as anti-
competitive practices by tech firms, barriers to innovation, and distortions in
the legal framework which are exploited to stifle critical reporting.41
25. There are powerful economic, democratic and foreign policy
arguments for supporting the future of honest, accurate and
informative news. Although the value of news is clear, its prospects
are not. The Government’s task is to establish the conditions that
enable UK media to stand on its own feet and ensure that public
service broadcasters are able to thrive. The Government should
focus on sector-wide structural changes which drive innovation while
maintaining media independence. Any interventions must also work
with market trends, not create artificial demand.
36 Q 22 (Professor Charlie Beckett, James Frayne, Douglas McCabe), Q 41 (Anna Bateson), Q 135
(Professor Singer), Q 139 (Robert Colvile)
37 Written evidence from IMPRESS (FON0041), Media Reform Coalition (FON0029), see also written
evidence from Professor Steven Barnett (FON0052)
38 Q 94
41 Q 44, Q 135, QQ 131–133
Chapter 3: FINANCIAL HEALTH
26. The financial outlook for news is challenging.42 The first part of this chapter
provides a brief sector overview. The second part evaluates response options.43
Overall picture
27. Audiences continue to shift online and away from print, radio and traditional
(linear) TV broadcast.44 Many news outlets have followed them, often
funding their online services through digital advertising. But recent market
changes and shifting priorities among some big tech platforms have led to
major declines in such revenue streams.45 At the same time, production
and distribution costs have risen as audiences increasingly expect content
in different formats across multiple platforms.46 Carrying out quality
investigations is also becoming less economical.47
28. The charts below illustrate these developments. Figure 1 shows the growth
of online and social media as news sources. Table 1 suggests that advertising
spend in 2023 was down across TV, radio, magazines, and national and
regional newspapers, with further declines forecasted for all but radio and
TV. Figure 2 shows that fewer people are clicking through to news websites
from Facebook, which in turn impacts news websites’ ability to sell digital
advertising.
42 Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Press Sector Financial Sustainability (May 2021), p 5: https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/627292f3d3bf7f0e74602929/DCMS_Economic_Insight_
final_report.pdf [accessed 18 July 2024]
43 Our review builds on a range of previous works. See for example Communications and Digital
Committee, Breaking News? The Future of UK Journalism (1st Report of Session 2019–21, HL Paper
176); Dame Frances Cairncross, The Cairncross Review: A sustainable future for journalism (February
2019): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/779882/021919_DCMS_Cairncross_Review_.pdf [accessed 14 November 2024]; Scottish
Public Interest Journalism Working Group, ‘Scotland’s news: towards a sustainable future for
public interest journalism’ (November 2021): https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-news-
towards-sustainable-future-public-interest-journalism/ [accessed 13 November 2024]; Wales Public
Interest Journalism Working Group, Of and For Wales: Towards a Sustainable Future for Public Interest
Journalism (July 2023): https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2023–08/of-and-for-
wales-towards-a-sustainable-future-for-public-interest-journalism.pdf [accessed 13 November 2024];
House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Sustainability of local journalism (7th Report
of Session 202–23) HC 153
44 Ofcom, News consumption in the UK: 2024 (September 2024) p 5: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/
resources/documents/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand-research/tv-research/news/news-
consumption-2024/news-consumption-in-the-uk-2024-report.pdf [accessed 13 November 2024]
45 Q 35 (Peter Wright). See also ‘AA/Warc: Adspend further consolidates online as traditional channels
suffer’, The Media Leader (25 April 2024): https://the-media-leader.com/aa-warc-adspend-further-
consolidates-online-as-traditional-channels-suffer/ [accessed 14 November 2024]
46 Q 35 (Anna Bateson, Jon Slade). See also Ofcom, Review of Public Service Media: Terms of Reference
(September 2024), p 3: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/public-service-
broadcasting/information-for-industry/statement-public-service-media-review---terms-of-reference/
statement-public-service-media-review---terms-of-reference.pdf [accessed 13 November 2024].
47 See for example written evidence from Dr Steven Buckley (FON0001), Reach (FON0065). See also
Q 139 (Robert Colvile), Q 133 (James Harding).
Figure 1: Main platforms used for news
Television Online Social Media Radio Newspapers

(broadcast + BVoD) (offline + online) (print + online)
Top bar
represents 79%75%75%74%75%
additional 70% 68% 71%
online reach 64%66%65%66%
70%
of news 66% 52% 51%49%
49%
platforms 44% 45%46%47% 45%44%43% 47%
41%41%40% 38%39%
34%
Bottom bar 40%
represents 40%
offline 26%
22%
usage
2024
2022*
2023
2018
2019
2020
2024
2022*
2023
2018
2019
2022*
2023
2024
2018
2019
2020
2020
2024
2022*
2023
2018
2019
2020
2024
2022*
2023
2018
2019
2020
Significantly higher/lower than 2023
Source: Ofcom, News consumption in the UK: 2024 (September 2024) p 5: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/
siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand-research/tv-research/news/news-
consumption-2024/news-consumption-in-the-uk-2024-report.pdf [accessed 23 October 2024]
Table 1: UK advertising expenditure

Q4 2023 2023 2024(f ) 2025(f )
Adspend % Adspend % Adspend % Latest vs Adspend %
change change change last change
Search 3,699.7 12.9% 14,705.0 11.9% 16,015.7 8.9% +0.2pp 17,042.9 6.4%
Online display 3,449.6 13.2% 12,925.1 11.3% 13,748.3 6.4% -1.0pp 14,505.3 5.5%
TV 1,426.0 -9.2% 4,900.0 -8.9% 5,028.2 2.6% +1.2pp 5,073.8 0.9%
of which 276.1 15.9% 979.6 15.9% 1,117.3 14.1% -0.5pp 1,240.4 11.0%
broadcaster VOD
Out of home 396.0 14.4% 1,295.3 9.7% 1,389.1 7.2% -0.1pp 1,466.9 5.6%
of which digital 266.8 18.1% 841.3 12.2% 921.0 9.5% +0.7pp 988.5 7.3%
Online classified 285.3 8.2% 1,080.8 -2.7% 1,074.7 -0.6% +2.9pp 1,090.6 1.5%
Direct mail 276.7 -5.4% 956.7 -12.6% 909.5 -4.9% +0.5pp 879.1 -3.3%
National 224.9 -5.7% 773.5 -6.2% 747.8 -3.3% -1.7pp 732.3 -2.1%
newsbrands
of which digital 101.0 -5.5% 352.8 -5.8% 350.0 -0.8% -2.9pp 352.9 0.8%
Radio 202.4 0.3% 715.5 -3.3% 731.7 2.3% +0.2pp 743.1 1.6%
of which digital 19.8 -12.3% 72.2 -7.1% 77.6 7.5% -0.5pp 80.7 4.1%
Magazine brands 124.8 -13.5% 503.3 -9.1% 477.7 -5.1% -4.0pp 474.0 -0.8%
Regional 115.4 -6.8% 454.2 -10.1% 439.1 -3.3% -0.8pp 430.4 -2.0%
newsbrands
Cinema 69.0 -16.2% 219.9 -4.2% 225.5 2.5% -2.1pp 230.4 2.2%
TOTAL UK 9,746.4 7.4% 36,624.3 6.1% 38,758.5 5.8% -0.1pp 40,505.7 4.5%
ADSPEND
Source: AA/WARC, ‘Expenditure Report’ (April 2024), p 7: https://www.warc.com/about-media/expenditure-

report [accessed 23 October 2024]
Figure 2: Facebook referrals since 2018
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Source: Press Gazette, ‘Facebook’s referral traffic for publishers down 50% in 12 months’, (May 2024): https://
pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/facebooks-referral-traffic-for-publishers-
down-50-in-12-months/ [accessed 23 October 2024]
29. Douglas McCabe, CEO of Enders Analysis, told us that print newspaper
circulation “has gone from 8 million copies per day to well under 3 million
copies per day … that rate continues apace”.48 Peter Wright, Editor Emeritus
at DMG Media, said that national newspapers were adapting to survive.49
Tactics include focusing on digital subscribers, bundling supplements with
news, brand-building via podcasts, international expansion, events and much
more.50 National papers have added 2 million additional subscribers (print
and digital) since the pandemic,51 though this does not mean that everyone
benefits: the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism has cautioned about
a “winner takes most” market, as the majority of subscribers pay only for one
publication.52 In 2023 The Telegraph and The Times alone accounted for 41
per cent of all UK news subscriptions.53
30. The fate of local news is a longstanding concern.54 Advertising revenues for
local publishers fell by 70 per cent between 2010 and 2020 alone.55 Local
media outlets have struggled to find an appropriate response, creating a cycle
of revenue losses and financial insecurity which hampers investments in the
48 Q 32 (Douglas McCabe), Enders Analysis, UK national news industry - Green shoots of recovery (January
2024), p 3: https://www.endersanalysis.com/reports/uk-national-news-industry-green-shoots-
recovery [accessed 13 November 2024]
49 Q 35 (Peter Wright)
50 Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, ‘Journalism, media and technology trends and
predictions 2024’: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-
and-predictions-2024#header--5 [accessed 19 July 2024]; Appendix 4.
51 Q 32 (Douglas McCabe). Enders Analysis, UK national news industry - Green shoots of recovery, p 3
52 Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Paying for news: Price-conscious consumers look for value
amid cost-of-living crisis (September 2023) p 14: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/
files/2023–09/Newman_and_Robertson_Paying_for_News.pdf [accessed 13 November 2024]
53 Ibid.
54 Q 10 (Paul Lee), Q 32 (Douglas McCabe), Q 48 (David Higgerson, Henry Faure Walker), Q 115
(Andrew Neil), Q 139 (Professor Rasmus Kleis Neilsen)
55 See also Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Sustainability of local journalism, para 16
type of innovation needed to adapt.56 Local TV has also faced challenges as

audiences move online.57
31. According to the Public Interest News Foundation (PINF), 4.1 million UK
residents live in a “local news desert”, defined as “a local authority area that has
no dedicated local news outlet, whether print, online, radio or TV”.58 Reach,
a local and national news conglomerate, contested the PINF’s definition of a
“news desert” as outdated and too narrow, and warned against “misleading”
representations of the sector.59 Reach also told us that journalists face barriers
reporting on local democracy, citing an instance where journalists were asked
by the police to sign non-disclosure agreements.60
32. While some promising models have emerged, the local news market has seen
mass consolidation.61 Opinion remains divided about the merits: local news
conglomerates told us that they had preserved the viability of smaller titles.62
Joshi Herrmann, Founder & Editor-in-Chief of the Manchester Mill, argued
in contrast that consolidation led to “zombie” newspapers with centralised
hubs, little local presence and generic reporting.63 Henry Faure Walker, CEO
of Newsquest, argued that local subscription-based models would only work
in metropolitan areas with larger populations,64 (which also have a higher
density of wealthier customers).
33. UK broadcast news is also facing financial pressures. It is not particularly
profitable: ITV and Channel 4 suggested that their news is effectively
subsidised by other genres.65 Sky News is reportedly loss-making,66 and
its funding arrangements from the 2018 Comcast merger expire in 2028.67
David Rhodes, Executive Chairman EMEA at Sky News, told us there were
“some regulatory guardrails” about the channel’s future and said there would
be an “ongoing commercial and business plan to properly monetise what we
do”.68 Newer entrants have also struggled. TalkTV, owned by News UK,
moved to online-only distribution in March 2024 after reporting operating
56 Written evidence from The Bristol Cable (FON0008). See also Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Committee, Sustainability of local journalism para 17; and Ofcom, Review of local media in the UK, Part
1: Initial findings (July 2024), pp 36–39: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/
tv-radio-and-on-demand/reviews-and-investigations/local-media/review-of-local-media-in-the-uk-
initial-findings.pdf [accessed 15 November 2024]
57 Written evidence from Local TV Network (FON0038)
58 Written evidence from the Public Interest News Foundation (FON0032)
59 Written evidence from Reach (FON0065)
60 Q 54 (David Higgerson)
61 ‘Who owns UK local news media? Print and digital consolidation charted’, Press Gazette (5 January
2023): https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/who-owns-the-uk-regional-
media-print-and-digital/ [accessed 15 November 2024]
62 Written evidence from Newsquest (FON0064)
63 QQ 40–52 (Joshi Herrmann). See also written evidence from Mill Media (FON0066)
64 Q 52 (Henry Faure Walker)
65 Q 66 (Michael Jermey, Louisa Compton); ‘Paramount’s Channel 5 Says Drama Fuelling Ratings
Growth & Record Profit As It Eyes New Series From ‘All Creatures Great & Small’ Producer’,
Deadline (10 January 2023):https://deadline.com/2023/01/channel-5-2022-ratings-earnings-drama-
all-creatures-great-and-small-1235215692/ [accessed 15 November 2024]
66 ‘Sky News slashes freelance budgets as viewing figures slump’, The Daily Telegraph (14 July 2024):
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/14/sky-news-slashes-freelance-budgets-as-viewing-
figures-slump/ [accessed 15 November 2024]
67 Sky Group, Press Release: Establishment of independent Sky News Editorial Board and confirmation
of long-term commitments to Sky News on 5 December 2018: https://www.skygroup.sky/en-gb/
article/establishment-of-independent-sky-news-editorial-board-and-confirmation-of-long-term-
commitments-to-sky-news [accessed 15 November 2024]
68 Q 90 (David Rhodes)
losses of £53.7 million.69 GB News has made successive losses since its launch
in 2021.70
34. Commercial radio paints a more positive picture. Global told us that increased
audiences meant advertising revenues in 2022 were “the highest ever”.71
Overall commercial radio revenues increased by two per cent between 2022
and 2023.72 Some providers are diversifying with subscriptions and targeted
advertising.73
35. Both commercial radio companies and the BBC have reportedly shifted
their local radio production towards regional hubs in recent years.74 Global
told us they had been “reshaping our regional news teams” to “beef up our
journalism right around the country”.75 We note that Ofcom will consult
on changes to localness requirements for commercial radio as part of the
implementation of the Media Act.76 The BBC accepted that “some aspects
of the local radio network … perhaps feel more regional than they did six or
12 months ago”, describing a “balancing act” of serving audiences on radio
and online.77
36. The podcast market is growing.78 Sam Shetabi, Creator Network Director
of the podcast firm Acast, said podcasts were providing listeners with “an
abundance of choice” and enabling news providers to “spread their wings”.79
Advertising linked to podcasts rose by 23 per cent to reach £83 million in
2023.80 But this remains a fraction of the billions spent on advertising across
69 ‘News UK pulls the plug on linear TalkTV to focus on cross-platform video content’, Press Gazette (5
March 2024): https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/broadcast/talktv-channel-online-only/ [accessed
15 November 2024]; ‘TalkTV losses rise in second year of operation’, The Independent (9 April 2024):
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/talktv-losses-rise-in-second-year-of-operation-b2525758.
html [accessed 15 November 2024]
70 ‘GB News losses up 38% to £42.4m giving channel total deficit of £76m since launch’, Press Gazette (5
March 2024): https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/broadcast/gb-news-results-2023-losses/ [accessed
15 November 2024]
71 Q 77 (Sebastian Enser-Wight)
72 Ofcom, Media Nations: UK 2024 (July 2024). p 45: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/
documents/research-and-data/multi-sector/media-nations/2024/media-nations-2024 -uk.pdf
73 ‘Global: radio needs to be ‘a dynamic and forward-thinking medium’’, The Media Leader (4 October
2023): https://the-media-leader.com/global-radio-needs-to-be-a-dynamic-and-forward-thinking-
medium/ [accessed 15 November 2024]; Bauer Media Group, Press Release: Magic and Greatest Hits
Radio become latest Bauer brands to launch premium subscription service on 6 February 2023: https://
www.bauermedia.co.uk/news/magic-and-greatest-hits-radio-become-latest-bauer-brands-to-launch-
premium-subscription-service/ [accessed 15 November 2024]
74 Written evidence from the NUJ (FON0005), see also ‘Dozens of local radio stations to vanish across
England’, The Guardian (27 May 2020): https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/27/local-
radio-regional-stations-england-bauer-rebranding-national-network#:~:text=BBC%20local%20
radio%20stations%20are,presenters%20from%20former%20commercial%20rivals [accessed 15
November 2024]; ‘Global radio cuts leave 40 jobs at risk with Newcastle local news to be broadcast
from Glasgow’, inews (19 July 2023): https://inews.co.uk/news/media/global-radio-cuts-jobs-risk-
newcastle-local-news-broadcast-glasgow-2489125 [accessed 15 November 2024]
75 Q 86
76 Ofcom, ‘Update on implementing the Media Act—October 2024’ (October 2024): https://www.
ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/public-service-broadcasting/update-on-implementing-the-
media-act-october-2024/ [accessed 5 November 2024]
77 Q 58 (Rhodri Talfan Davies)
78 Q 127 (James Harding); Ofcom, Media Nations: UK 2024, p 66
79 Q 72
80 Ofcom, Media Nations: UK 2024, p 45
national news, regional news and magazines.81 While news and current
affairs podcasts are popular (a fifth of monthly podcast users listen to news
and current affairs podcasts daily) only a few make substantial profits.82
37. Approaches to digital-first news outlets are evolving as formats merge and
consumer habits change. James Harding of Tortoise Media noted some business
models were becoming less sustainable, citing Buzzfeed News and VICE as
a cautionary tale.83 But others will continue to emerge. Jonathan Paterson,
Managing Editor of The News Movement and John Quinlan, CEO of JOE
Media Group, said their organisations had grown by using social media and
targeting younger audiences.84 Mr Herrmann cited the online newsletter
platform Substack as a tool which helped him launch Mill Media with limited
overheads.85
Deepening divisions?
38. The considerations above suggest that a few large outlets may have a
reasonably viable financial future, benefitting from investments in quality
journalism and digital innovations which attract a paying audience—
reportedly wealthier and more educated groups.86 Smaller niche outlets
can also support themselves at a modest size, targeting hyper-local (often
metropolitan) readers or specialist interest groups who are often willing to pay
for valued products. Many mass market tabloids and traditional local news
outlets look increasingly squeezed.87 As their financial situation worsens, the
gap between well and poorly served audiences will only grow.
39. Overall these trends indicate deepening differences of supply and demand
across social, regional and economic lines.88 Douglas McCabe, CEO and
Director of Publishing and Tech at Enders Analysis, warned that such
dynamics pointed towards a “two tier” media environment where the
decline of “popular” journalism means a growing proportion of society has
limited engagement with professionally produced news—absorbing instead
“whatever they can pick up online”. He thought this was a “pretty horrible
outcome”.89
40. This also suggests the role of the UK’s public service broadcasters (PSBs) is,
in some ways, becoming more important. In Chapter 6 we examine in more
detail the need for PSBs (and the BBC in particular) to address shortcomings
in service provision given their “anchor” role in the media market.90
81 ‘Google takes lion’s share of growing UK ad market as publishers lose out’, Press Gazette (25 April
2024): https://pressgazette.co.uk/marketing/google-takes-lions-share-of-growing-uk-ad-market-as-
publishers-lose-out/ [accessed 15 November 2024]
82 Ofcom, Media Nations: UK 2024, p 68, ‘How to make big money from podcasts’, The Sunday Times (15
October 2023): https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-to-make-money-from-podcasts-w6ldrdbvr
83 Q 127 (James Harding)
84 Q 51 (Jonathan Paterson), Q 126 (John Quinlan)
85 Q 51 (Joshi Herrmann)
86 Q 14 (Paul Lee), Q 32 (Douglas McCabe), Q 115 (Andrew Neil)
87 Q 22 (James Frayne), Q 115 (Andrew Neil). For example, Reach Plc, the UK’s largest commercial news
publisher (whose titles include the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror as well as local and regional
papers) reported a 45 per cent fall in pre-tax profits in 2023. See ‘Mirror and Express publisher hit
by advertising drop and Meta shift’, Financial Times (5 March 2024): available at https://www.ft.com/
content/93efa90e-128c-4885-a7b8-4d0ea5f17d52 [accessed 15 November 2024]
88 Q 143 (Robert Colvile, Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen)
89 Q 32 (Douglas McCabe)
90 For further discussion this see Q 136; written evidence from Maggie Carver DBE DL (FON0070) and
James Frayne (FON0060)
41. Stephanie Peacock MP acknowledged the “huge challenges” facing the

media sector and highlighted the Government’s intention to develop a “local
media strategy” which will be “across government”.91
Response options
Tax breaks
Box 1: Previous Government support for the news industry 2019–2024
“Our support for the sector has included the delivery of a £2 million Future
News Fund, designed to invest in new technological prototypes, start-ups and
innovative business models to explore new ways of sustaining the industry in
this changing landscape; the zero rating of VAT on e-newspapers; the extension
of a 2017 business rates relief on local newspaper office space until 2025”.
Source: Written evidence from DCMS (FON009)
42. Tax breaks are one option for sector-wide financial support that would help
news organisations invest in relatable news, without picking winners. (The
2024 Autumn Budget did not address in detail the issue of newspaper office
reliefs which were expected to end in Spring 2025).92 Mr Nelson said that
the previous Government’s cut to VAT on digital-only sales was “a big help”
that had allowed his organisation to “trade its way” out of the pandemic.93
DMG Media suggested that tax exemptions for digital publications should
be extended to rolling news websites.94 Some US states are introducing tax
breaks related to the hiring of local journalists.95 Professor Jane Singer of
City, University of London said tax breaks should “certainly” be considered.96
43. Tax reliefs are one way to reduce the costs of producing quality
journalism. The Government should review the impacts of business
rates relief on local newspaper offices. If found to be helpful, this
scheme should be extended until 2029. The Government should also
issue a consultation before the 2025 summer recess on tax breaks
for hiring local journalists.
Public sector advertising

44. Another way to support local outlets involves public notice advertising
in traditional newspapers, which local authorities are required to publish
for information like planning applications or tenders. These adverts were
worth an estimated £46.3 million in 2022. We heard online-only titles
and publishers providing print editions less frequently than every 26 days
91 Q 164 (Stephanie Peacock)

92 See HM Treasury, Autumn Budget 2024 (October 2024), p 94: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.
uk/media/6722120210b0d582ee8c48c0/Autumn_Budget_2024__print_.pdf [accessed 6 November
2024]
93 Q 15
94 Written evidence from DMG Media (FON0030)
95 See for example ‘Tax breaks to hire local journalists approved in New York, a national first’,
POLITICO (21 April 2024): https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/21/new-york-journalism-tax-
breaks-00153482 [accessed 14 November 2024]; News Media Alliance, Press Release: News/Media
Alliance Statement: Illinois State Lawmakers Approve $25 Million in Tax Credits for Journalists on 30 May
2024: https://www.newsmediaalliance.org/news-media-alliance-statement-illinois-state-lawmakers-
approve-25-million-in-tax-credits-for-journalists/ [accessed 14 November 2024]
96 Q 142 (Professor Jane Singer)
are ineligible to host them, because public notices must be published in a

“newspaper” whose definition predates the internet.97
45. Mill Media and the PINF advocated changing the rules, arguing that
even a minor financial benefit would make a major difference to small
(digital) providers.98 Newsquest and Reach (which benefit from current
arrangements) countered that print organisations remain better placed to
serve more audiences, especially those not digitally connected.99 The previous
Government said that changing the system for local authority notices would
not benefit the sector as a whole.100
46. Alternatively, both Mill Media and Newsquest suggested that a larger
proportion of central government advertising (much of which is spent on
social media firms) could be spent on local outlets.101 Examples of central
government advertising include public health messaging or schemes
encouraging EU citizens to apply for settled status.102 The PINF called
for 25 per cent of central government advertising to go to “public interest
news providers”.103 Creating further reliance on Government brings other
considerations, however. Robert Colvile highlighted the example of the
Government’s pandemic advertising partnership with newspapers, which he
believed “was probably quite a good thing for democracy” but also risked
compromising the perception of an independent press.104 Andrew Neil raised
similar concerns.105
47. Stephanie Peacock MP said she was keen to explore effective uses of
Government advertising spend but noted that it must fulfil its primary
objective of informing audiences.106 The Minister cited reach and cost-
effectiveness criteria but said she had had a “very positive conversation”
with Cabinet Office counterparts responsible for Government advertising.
Robert Specterman-Green, Director of Media and Creative Industries
at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), suggested a
need to “think more broadly about the key performance indicators” when
designating advertising spend.107
48. Local authority public notice advertising is a substantial source of
income for local print news providers (many of which are owned by
large conglomerates). The rules generally exclude digital titles and
smaller outlets that publish print editions less frequently. Questions
remain about using local government advertising to support local
media, as this risks becoming a market distortion. However, if this
spending is happening anyway, modest changes would help to make
the situation more equitable.
97 Written evidence from Mill Media (FON0066); Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881, section 1
98 Written evidence from Mill Media (FON0066), PINF (FON0032)
99 Written evidence from Newsquest (FON0064)
100 Digital, Culture Media and Sport Committee, The sustainability of local journalism: Government
Response to the Committee’s Seventh Report (Ninth Special Report of Session 2022–23, HC 1278) p
vii
101 Written evidence from Mill Media (FON0066), Newsquest (FON0064)
102 See for example Home Office ‘ Home Office launches £1 million advertising campaign for EU
Settlement Scheme’ (October 2019): https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-office-launches-1-
million-advertising-campaign-for-eu-settlement-scheme [accessed 25 October 2024]
103 Written evidence from PINF (FON0032)
105 Q 119
106 Q 165 (Robert Specterman-Green)
107 Q 166 (Robert Specterman-Green)
49. The Government should consult on changing the definition of

a “newspaper” to allow local authorities greater flexibility in
determining the most effective use of public notice advertising
spend. We suggest local authorities should be permitted to use both
online providers and a wider variety of print outlets.
50. Local authorities should ensure public notice adverts remain
accessible to digitally excluded groups. In line with the findings
from our 2023 report on digital exclusion, we recommend local
and central government advertising teams explore creative ways
to engage digitally excluded groups (for example using community
centres and local hubs).
Innovation schemes
51. Joshi Herrmann of Mill Media said that innovation was the best response
to the unprecedented loss of advertising revenue.108 Professor Nielsen noted
that media organisations lagged on research and development investment
however, typically falling behind the furniture industry in spending.109 Our
previous report on the creative industries recommended trialling changes to
the research and development tax credit scheme to help creative industries
to innovate.110
52. In 2019 the Government set up a £2 million Future News Pilot Fund to
boost innovation.111 The pilot, which was administered by an innovation
charity, Nesta, ran for several months and funded 20 projects. Examples
included testing Tortoise Media’s membership model for local publications;
improving the way mainstream publishers acknowledge the original local
source of news stories; and testing audience engagement strategies at the
Manchester Meteor.112 Comparable initiatives in Europe, as well as other UK
catalyst schemes focussed on small and medium sized enterprises, suggest
that a more comprehensive version for news media would be worthwhile.113
53. Learning lessons about the scope and focus would be key: the limited scale
and length of the pilot seems unlikely to be transformative, particularly when
overheads are accounted for. As the House of Commons Culture, Media
and Sport Committee noted, the project was “neither substantial nor long-
term enough to make a significant difference”.114 The Cairncross Review
108 Q 51
110 Communications and Digital Committee, At risk: our creative future (2nd Report of Session 2022–23,
HL 125) para 76
111 Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Sustainability of local journalism (Seventh Report,
Session 2022–23, HC 153), para 44; Nesta, Future News Pilot Fund: End of programme report (August
2020), p 41: https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Nesta_Future_News_Pilot_Fund_End_Of_Prog.
pdf [accessed 14 November 2024]
112 Nesta, Future News Pilot Fund: End of programme report (August 2020), p 3: https://media.nesta.
org.uk/documents/Nesta_Future_News_Pilot_Fund_End_Of_Prog.pdf [accessed 14 November
2024]
113 See for example the European Broadcasting Union, ‘Media Innovation Fund’: https://www.ebu.ch/
media/media-innovation-fund [accessed 14 July 2024]; Department for Business and Trade, ‘Help
to Grow’, (February 2024): https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-backs-smes-with-
new-help-to-grow-campaign-and-small-business-council [accessed 14 July 2024]; UK Research and
Innovation, ‘Innovate UK funding’: https://www.ukri.org/councils/innovate-uk/ [accessed 14 July
2024]; Digital Catapult, ‘Creative industries to be catalysed by advanced AI solutions’ (13 September
2024): https://www.digicatapult.org.uk/about/press-releases/post/creative-industries-to-be-catalysed-
by-advanced-ai-solutions/ [accessed 6 November 2024]
114 Sustainability of local journalism, para 44
had recommended £10 million per year over four years. It also stressed the
importance of focusing on technology-driven business transformation for
long term financial sustainability.115
54. Professor Nielsen cautioned that funding should only be allocated to those
who demonstrate their commitment to innovation.116 Maintaining media
independence remains vital too. (We suggest options for the BBC to help
catalyse innovation later in this chapter).
55. The PINF highlighted that funding for journalism initiatives could be
sought by adding public interest news to the list of eligible causes funded by
the Government’s dormant asset scheme.117 This scheme was expected to
release £350 million for eligible causes from 2024 to 2028;118 a review of the
scheme is also expected by February 2025.
56. Media organisations will need to innovate and take more risks to
transition to long-term sustainable business models. The UK already
has good innovation initiatives for other industries which help
catalyse, scale and monetise new ideas. The news sector needs one
too.
57. The Government should establish a new Future News innovation
catalyst scheme. The objective should be to facilitate technology-
driven business transformation to help participants improve their
long-term financial sustainability. While the Government should
provide the funding, the scheme should be delivered independently.
It should learn from the successes and shortcomings of the previous
pilot. The number of recipients should be small to ensure the
available funding can make a meaningful difference. Some grants
should be match funded by recipients to ensure value for money and
participant buy-in.
Training and recruitment

58. Increased financial pressures and the decline of local media outlets have
affected recruitment and training routes. Supporting entry-level schemes to
attract and train diverse talent, perhaps focusing on regional outlets, is a
further way to alleviate newsroom costs without unduly distorting market
dynamics. This could build on the previous Community News Project
delivered at arms-length by the National Council for the Training of
Journalists (NCTJ). This project trained 280 journalists between 2019 and
2023 and resulted in over 100 new community reporter roles in newsrooms.119
115 Dame Frances Cairncross, The Cairncross Review: A sustainable future for journalism (February 2019),
pp 97–98: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/779882/021919_DCMS_Cairncross_Review_.pdf [accessed 13 November 2024]
117 Written evidence from PINF (FON0032)
118 The Dormant Asset Scheme is a voluntary industry-led initiative that allows financial institutions to
transfer dormant assets (accounts, funds, policies or shares that have been inactive for an extended
period) to a central fund for distribution across social and environmental initiatives in the UK. For
more information see Department for Culture, Media and Sport, ‘Dormant Assets Scheme: statement
of intent overview’: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dormant-assets-scheme-statement-of-
intent-overview [accessed 14 July 2024]
119 Written evidence from the NCTJ (FON0045), NCTJ, ‘Community News Project’: https://www.nctj.
com/why-choose-nctj/diversity/community-news-project/ [accessed 17 October 2024]
59. This might also address concerns about elitism. Mr Colvile of the Centre for
Policy Studies worried that journalism was becoming a “prestige profession”,
as those from wealthier backgrounds could better support themselves through
the poorly paid lower ranks.120 The NCTJ said “72 per cent of journalists had
a parent in one of the three highest occupational groups, compared to 44 per
cent of all UK workers”.121 This in turn may influence the editorial outlook of
newsrooms.122 However, David Dinsmore, Chief Operating Officer of News
UK and Anna Bateson, CEO of The Guardian Media Group, believed that
access routes were improving, notably via apprenticeships.123 The Minister
agreed that routes into journalism need to be “open to everyone, wherever
they grow up”, and noted that the Department for Education and DCMS
would have to work together to achieve this.124
60. The financial precarity of many jobs in journalism is not conducive to
attracting a diverse workforce representative of the UK’s population.
We welcome schemes from industry and the National Council for the
Training of Journalists to attract and train under-represented groups,
particularly outside London. As part of its local media strategy the
Government should seek partnership funding to support attraction
and training schemes for local news, including apprenticeships.
BBC
61. Our report on the future of the BBC examined a variety of strategic
challenges around growing competition, online fragmentation, and balancing
investments in digital media while continuing to serve older audiences (who
often prefer linear media).125 The corporation told us it is facing “significant
financial challenges”.126 News programmes and jobs have been reduced
or cut.127 Deborah Turness, CEO of BBC News, defended making “really
tough choices” and argued the corporation was having to “to do more with
less”.128
62. BBC World Service is another substantial cost.129 The Director-General
has been reported as saying that Russian and Chinese state media were
filling the vacuum left by an underfunded World Service,130 and called for

121 Written evidence from NCTJ (FON0045)
122 For a discussion on issues around diverse recruitment and geographical challenges see: Oral evidence
taken before Communications and Digital Committee on the Work of the BBC on 10 September 2024
(Session 2024–25) Q 9 (Tim Davie)
123 Q 40 (David Dinsmore), written evidence from NCTJ (FON0045)
124 Q 166
125 Communications and Digital Committee, Licence to change: BBC future funding (1st Report of Session
2022–23, HL Paper 44), para 32. See also Committee of Public Accounts, BBC Digital (Forty-Sixth
Report of Session 2022–23, HC Paper 736), para 4
126 Q 58 (Deborah Turness). See ‘BBC funding: TV licence fee to rise by £10.50, government says’,
BBC News (7 December 2023): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67646601 [accessed
14 November 2024]
127 In 2022, the BBC announced a £500 million savings plan. See ‘BBC’s Newsnight to be cut back as
part of savings plan’, BBC News (29 November 2023): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-
arts-67564479 [accessed 23 October 2024]; ‘BBC News job losses aim to save £24m’ BBC News (15
October 2024): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0m07g49004o [accessed 23 October 2024]
128 Q 61
129 Q 58 (Jonathan Munro). The BBC World Service is funded by the licence fee with additional grant
funding from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
130 ‘BBC boss warns of Russian and Chinese propaganda’, BBC News (14 October 2024): https://www.
bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9jgmexmx4o
the Government to fund it given other pressures on UK licence fee payers.131

The 2024 Autumn Budget included an increase in funding for the BBC
World Service from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
for 2025–26.132
63. Concerns about the BBC’s priorities and spending choices persist. Efforts
to reach more audiences online have been critiqued by various groups for
crowding out commercial competitors, while changes to radio services
have reduced unique local programming.133 Ofcom said it would review the
impacts134 and delayed the launch of an online music extension to BBC Radio 2
on competition grounds.135 The BBC’s proposal to introduce advertising
on podcasts hosted outside BBC Sounds has sparked further criticism.
Global said that smaller producers would lose advertising.136 James Harding
of Tortoise Media said that licence fee-payers would be paying twice.137
Rhodri Talfan Davies, Director of Nations at the BBC, acknowledged that
continuing to serve linear audiences while strengthening its digital offering
is “one of the most delicate balancing acts we have at the moment”, adding
that even older audiences are moving towards online formats.138
64. The upcoming Charter Review in 2027 offers an opportunity to re-examine
the BBC’s future, including funding models and its strategic priorities.139 This
could include recognising the BBC’s role in global soft power more explicitly.
Dr Samir Shah, Chairman of the BBC, described the World Service as “an
incredibly important instrument of soft power” and advocated for it to be
“properly funded” and “not dependent on actions that we correctly take
on public service”.140 We acknowledge the challenges faced by the World
Service, and we note these are being explored by the House of Commons
Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee.141
We look forward to seeing the conclusions of their respective inquiries.
131 BBC, A BBC for the future (March 2024), p 26: https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/a-bbc-
for-the-future.pdf [accessed 13 November 2024]
132 HM Treasury, Autumn Budget 2024 (October 2024), p 89: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
media/6722120210b0d582ee8c48c0/Autumn_Budget_2024__print_.pdf [accessed 13 November
2024]
133 See for example HC Deb, 15 June 2023, cols 419-420; Ofcom, ‘Letter from Kevin Bakhurst, Group
Director for Broadcasting & Online Content Group, Ofcom to Clare Sumner, Former Director of
Policy, BBC’ (24 February 2023): https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/255718/
ofcom-letter-to-bbc-regarding-planned-changes-to-bbc-provision-of-local-content-and-news.pdf
[accessed 14 November 2024]; National Union of Journalists, ‘#KeepLocalRadioLocal’: https://www.
nuj.org.uk/resource/keepbbclocalradiolocal.html [accessed 14 July 2024]
134 Q 162 (Cristina Nicolotti Squires)
135 Sebastian Enser-Wight of Global said the BBC’s proposals were “almost duplicative of commercial
radio’s output” and not “a great use of licence fee payers’ money”, see Q 79. See also Ofcom, Review
of the BBC’s materiality assessment of proposed new streams on BBC Sounds (16 July 2024), p 3: https://
www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/consultations/uncategorised/93904-ofcom-and-
the-bbc/review-of-the-bbcs-materiality-assessment-of-proposed-new-streams-on-bbc-sounds.pdf
136 Q 79 (Sebastian Enser-Wight)
137 Q 127
139 Q 189
140 See oral evidence taken before Communications and Digital Committee on the Work of the BBC on
10 September 2024 (Session 2024–25) Q 8 (Dr Samir Shah).
141 Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘New inquiry: CMS Committee to examine future funding
of the World Service’ (November 2024): https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/378/culture-
media-and-sport-committee/news/203640/new-inquir y-cms-committee-to-examine-future-
funding-of-bbc-world-service/; Foreign Affairs Committee, ‘The future of the BBC World Service’
(November 2024): https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8597/the-future-of-the-bbc-world-service/
65. At the same time, the BBC must address its shortcomings, for example
around serving all audiences and concerns about due impartiality. We
examine these issues in detail in Chapter 6.
66. Charter renewal discussions could also involve a bigger focus on supporting
the wider UK news environment. The BBC could reinvigorate its relationship
with independent local news providers, building on its Local News
Partnership Scheme. The BBC invests up to £8 million in this scheme each
year.142 As part of this, the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS)
funds the salaries of 165 journalists allocated to local news providers. Some
stakeholders have called for its expansion, and to broaden the number of
recipients beyond big conglomerates.143 Further expanding the initiative’s
links to apprenticeship schemes could also be explored. Stephanie Peacock
MP expressed support for continuing the LDRS, adding that the BBC plays
a “really important role underpinning the fragile ecosystem” of local news.144
67. Technological innovation is another priority. The BBC told us that it
is examining potential uses of generative AI, and “actively looking” at
options to build a foundation model “in partnership or unilaterally”.145 We
considered the potential for public service large language models (LLMs) in
our previous report on generative AI.146 We note that a BBC-led generative
AI tool could come in several forms, including an internal-facing LLM to
boost productivity, an externally available open source model, a generative
AI ‘news chatbot’, or wider news search application. Looking beyond internal
productivity tools, we see potential value in an external-facing generative
AI application which surfaces BBC content. This could be developed in
partnership with Government investments in publicly accessible compute.147
68. The upcoming Charter Review is a key opportunity to refresh the
BBC’s relationship with local news. The Government should give the
BBC an objective to engage with local news providers as strategic
partners. This should involve expanding the Local Democracy
Reporting Service and increasing the proportion of journalists
allocated to small (including online-only) outlets. The BBC should
also explore expanding its apprenticeship scheme in ways that
support local news.
69. The BBC must pursue transformational innovation as new
technologies fundamentally reshape the news environment. In doing
so, it should benefit the wider health of the UK media sector.
70. Developing a public interest news generative AI tool is one option
the BBC could explore as it seeks to keep pace with new technologies
and changing consumer habits. This might involve a service that
is designed to improve public access to authoritative information—
perhaps with a particular focus on partnering with local news
142 See BBC, ‘Local News Partnerships’: https://www.bbc.com/lnp/ [accessed 16 October 2024]
143 Written evidence from PNIF (FON0032), NewsNow (FON0051)
144 Q 188
146 Communications and Digital Committee, Large language models and generative AI (1st Report of
Session 2023–24, HL Paper 54), pp 96–107
147 See for example the previous Government’s plans for an exascale computing facility in Edinburgh:
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, ‘Game-changing exascale computer planned
for Edinburgh’ (9 October 2023): https://www.gov.uk/government/news/game-changing-exascale-
computer-planned-for-edinburgh [accessed 13 November 2024]
organisations. Any major projects of this nature would need to

be subject to industry consultation and relevant public value and
market impact assessments.
Chapter 4: TECH PLATFORMS
The world that was

71. Much has been written about the impacts of tech platforms on the news
industry. On the positive side, companies such as Google, Apple, Meta,
X and others offer routes to the news market, new audiences and spaces
for new business models to develop.148 Nearly one third of all visits to news
publishers’ sites come via online intermediaries.149
72. On the more negative side, industry experts say these changes have led to big
tech dominance of the advertising market, upended business models, created
strategic dependencies, intermediated access to news and hence control over
customer data, reduced bargaining power over the financial value of news,
and raised concerns about ‘brand blindness’ as media firms lose control over
the way their content is presented and users struggle to identify sources (or
spot those simply masquerading as legitimate outlets).150 Younger generations
are now reading less as short form video becomes more dominant.151 The
structure of some social media sites has further incentivised some outlets to
offer ever more content and more opinions,152 and enabled users to self-select
news that reinforces existing views.153
What role?
73. Tech platforms have different approaches to news. Meta has been moving
decisively away from news and seems unlikely to return soon, though the
implications of its recent generative AI deal with Reuters remain unclear.154
Apple by contrast has various commercial arrangements with news outlets.155
Google’s News Showcase provides a partnership and aggregation service
with stories selected by editors, as well as numerous news project funding
initiatives, alongside innovation-focused funding through the Google News
Initiative.156 X (formerly Twitter) is pursuing its own approach to news; we
remain unclear about its long term direction.
74. Some industry experts advocate making tech firms pay publishers directly
for news content appearing on their platform.157 In California, the State
148 Q 49 (Jonathan Paterson), Q 37 (David Dinsmore), Q 70 (Louisa Compton), Q 51 (Joshi Herrmann)

149 Ofcom, Online news: research update (March 2024), p 9: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/
documents/research-and-data/multi-sector/media-plurality/2024/0324-online-news-research-
update.pdf [accessed 13 November 2024]
150 Ofcom, Online news: research update, p 9; written evidence from News UK (FON0055), Q 36
(Peter Wright), written evidence from DMG Media (FON0030), Professor Stephen Cushion
and Emeritus Professor Richard Sambrook (FON0003)
151 Reuters Institute for Study of Journalism, Digital News Report 2024, p 13
152 Ofcom, Online news: research update, p 12
153 Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles, and Polarisation: a
Literature Review (January 2022), p 4: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/echo-chambers-filter-
bubbles-and-polarisation-literature-review#header--8 [accessed 13 November 2024]. See also written
evidence from Dr Charlotte Galpin (FON0027), Norms for the New Public Sphere (FON0035).
154 Meta, ‘An update about Facebook news’ (29 February 2024): https://about.fb.com/news/2024/02/
update-on-facebook-news-us-australia/ [accessed 25 October 2024], ‘Meta signs its first big AI deal
for news’, The Verge (25 October 2024): https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/25/24279259/meta-
reuters-ai-chatbot-deal-news-licensing-media [accessed 15 November 2024]
155 Appendix on Committee visit to San Francisco
156 Written evidence from Google (FON0058)
157 Written evidence from Dr Jingrong Tong (FON0013)
Senate considered legislation to this effect.158 Canada negotiated financial

agreements between Google and news organisations, recently valued at circa
£59 million.159
75. Making this work is not easy though. When legislation was being considered
in California, Google said it was “pausing further investment in the California
news ecosystem”.160 When Australia passed a law, Facebook reportedly
withheld news provision and Google warned about damaging news services
until financial agreements were reached privately.161 ITN noted that, when
Canada sought to implement legislation requiring tech platforms to pay news
publishers, “Facebook walked away and pulled news from the platform and
has never offered it since”.162
76. Hypothecated taxes raised through other sources (such as on digital
advertising) may have more appeal, as they would allow governments to
spend the money raised on news media support projects. Such taxes might
also raise similar challenges however.163 These issues will become still more
complex as news outlets negotiate payments for generative AI training,
explored in the next chapter.
Prominence
77. Boosting the online prominence of quality news journalism is another
longstanding industry proposal.164 We heard mixed views about formalising
such ideas through a kitemark scheme however.165 Deciding who gets
prominence would be difficult—most media outlets might stake a claim.166
DMG Media noted the complexities and suggested that organisational criteria
(i.e. having governance and editorial structures) rather than the quality or
type of product should be the key consideration.167 Similar schemes like the
158 ‘Scoop: Google threatens to pause Google News Initiative funding in U.S.’, Axios (21 May
2024):https://www.axios.com/2024/05/21/google-news-initiative-journalism-funding-california
159 ‘Meta’s news ban in Canada remains as Online News Act goes into effect’, BBC News (19 December
2023): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67755133 [accessed 15 November 2024]
160 Google, ‘ Why the California Journalism Preservation Act is putting support of the news ecosystem
at risk, (April 2024): https://blog.google/products/news/california-journalism-preservation-act-puts-
news-ecosystem-at-risk/ [accessed 31 October 2024]
161 Reuters Institute, ‘In Canada’s battle with Big Tech, smaller publishers are caught in the crossfire’
(7 November 2023): https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/canadas-battle-big-tech-smaller-
publishers-are-caught-crossfire [accessed 17 October 2024]
162 Written evidence from ITN (FON0053)
163 Forum on Information and Democracy, A New Deal for Journalism (June 2021), p 31: https://rsf.org/
sites/default/files/sustainability_2021_v4_web_1.pdf [accessed 13 November 2024]
164 Dame Frances Cairncross, The Cairncross Review: A sustainable future for journalism (February 2019),
pp 10: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/779882/021919_DCMS_Cairncross_Review_.pdf [accessed 17 October 2024]; Council of
Europe, ‘Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on
promoting a favourable environment for quality journalism in the digital age’ (March 2022): https://
search.coe.int/cm?i=0900001680a5ddd0 [accessed 2 August 2024]. See also written evidence from
ITN (FON0053).
165 Q 82 (Shini Pattni, Sebastian Enser-Wight)
166 Q 99 (Angelos Frangopoulos), written evidence from Dr Irini Katsirea (FON0048), ITN (FON0053),
DMG Media (FON0030)
167 DMG Media suggested focusing instead on content produced by recognised news publishers as defined
in the Online Safety Act. See written evidence from DMG Media (FON0030). Douglas McCabe
noted the Online Safety Act also sets precedents for adopting a tiered approach to determining in-
scope platforms. See Q 33 (Douglas McCabe)
Journalism Trust Initiative already exist.168 Google told us that it already

promotes trusted news, for example via YouTube’s news section.169
78. The Media Reform Coalition argued that the way tech firms prioritise
content already means that most of the news comes from “dominant
news organisations that control large shares of traditional news markets.”170
Angelos Frangopoulos, CEO of GB News, raised concerns around market
barriers and risks of Government involvement.171 Ofcom’s experimental
studies suggest that trust scoring tools tend to reinforce existing views on
news sources rather than having a practical impact on the types of news
which the public want to read.172
79. We encourage tech platforms to give more prominence to recognised
news publishers (as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023), for
example through better visual cues or adjusting prominence on user
feeds. This should be an industry-led initiative: we do not support a
mandatory Government-led kitemark scheme.
Limiting legitimate content

80. Mr Nelson of The Spectator raised concerns about tech firms removing
legitimate news content. While the Online Safety Act 2023 has protections
for recognised news publishers, he highlighted grey areas such as ‘shadow
bans’, where content is not technically taken down but subtly downgraded by
opaque algorithms with the result that few users see it. He cited examples of
TikTok demoting content critical of the Chinese government and YouTube
banning speeches of parliamentarians challenging Government lockdown
policies during the pandemic.173
81. Channel 4 raised related concerns about YouTube imposing age restrictions
on news stories despite the programmes being compliant with Ofcom’s
watershed rules.174 In the time it takes to resolve the dispute, the story is
no longer current. Ofcom said that the Online Safety Act would speed up
complaints procedures.175
82. We are concerned that tech platforms have been imposing age
restrictions on news that is Ofcom-compliant. We are also concerned
at reports of ‘shadow bans’ and the blocking of other legitimate
content.
83. Ofcom should engage with tech platforms at pace to align content
moderation policies with Ofcom’s broadcasting codes and the duties
contained in the Online Safety Act 2023. When implementing the
Act’s protections for news publishers, Ofcom should pay particular
168 Sky News, ‘The Trust Project’: https://news.sky.com/info/policies-and-standards [accessed 2 August
2024]
170 Written evidence from the Media Reform Coalition (FON0029)
171 Q 99
172 Ofcom, Online news: qualitative research (2024), pp 46–49: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/
resources/documents/research-and-data/multi-sector/media-plurality/2024/annex-3-online-news-
qual-research.pdf [accessed 13 November 2024]. Ofcom’s study explored methods for improving “the
breadth and quality of news consumed on social media”, including through following PSBs’ social
media accounts; following counter-attitudinal news sources; reviewing news diets; and using a trust
score browser extension.
173 QQ 7–13
174 Written evidence from Channel 4 (FON0067)
175 Written evidence from Ofcom (FON0063)
attention to grey areas where content is not blocked but subtly

downranked to minimise user engagement.
Algorithmic transparency
84. Dame Melanie Dawes, CEO of Ofcom, told us that the lack of transparency
about how tech platforms’ recommender algorithms work remained “one of
the biggest challenges” around improving the health of the online media
ecosystem. She called for the regulator or vetted researchers to be given access
for testing.176 Audits of algorithms could investigate potential biases or the
impacts of service changes,177 something likely to be increasingly important
as the political leanings of generative AI products attract increasing scrutiny.178
85. Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the
Competition and Markets Authority could require greater transparency over
recommender algorithms, but there are various limitations.179 The Online
Safety Act 2023 will require some platforms to publish annual transparency
reports.180 The Data (Use and Access) Bill seeks to require tech platforms
to provide information to researchers in relation to online safety.181 The EU
Digital Services Act requires large platforms to disclose further information
on recommender algorithms, indicating that wider transparency in the UK
is achievable.182 Mr McCabe suggested that platforms could run different
algorithms in parallel, creating more transparency about the impact of
changes on users’ feeds.183 Google said it already “provides significant
transparency to users why they are seeing what they see” and did “not believe
further Ofcom powers are necessary”.184
86. More transparency over tech platforms’ algorithms is needed (even
if transparency on its own will not be enough). Empowering the
regulators quickly is necessary and achievable. The Government
should give Ofcom the necessary powers to investigate tech firm
recommender algorithms and the operations of large language
models (LLMs). This will become increasingly important amid
concerns about the potential for political influence and bias in LLMs.
176 Q 158 (Dame Melanie Dawes)

177 Ofcom, Discussion Document: Media plurality and online news (November 2022), p 49: https://www.
ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/247548/discussion-media-plurality.pdf [accessed 13
November 2024]
178 Centre for Policy Studies, The Politics of AI: an evaluation of political preferences in large language models
from a European perspective (October 2024), p 4: https://cps.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CPS_
THE_POLITICS_OF_AI-1.pdf [accessed 13 November 2024]
179 Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, Department for Business, Energy & Industrial
Strategy, A new pro-competition regime for digital markets - government response to consultation (May 2022):
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-new-pro-competition-regime-for-digital-markets/
outcome/a-new-pro-competition-regime-for-digital-markets-government-response-to-consultation
[accessed 2 August 2024]
180 Department for Science, Innovation & Technology, ‘Online Safety Act: explainer’ (May 2024):
https://www.gov.uk /government /publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-
explainer#:~:text=Some%20platforms%20will%20be%20required,users’%20experience%2C%20
including%20children [accessed 2 August 2024]
181 Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL], clause 123
182 European Commission, ‘Questions and answers on the Digital Services Act’ (February 2024): https://
ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2348 [accessed 2 August 2024]
Chapter 5: GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Fear not for the future?

87. A new frontier is fast emerging around news influenced by artificial
intelligence (AI). Some issues extend existing challenges examined in the
previous chapter. Others feel new.185 The full implications for news remain
uncertain but some trends are becoming clearer.
Production
88. AI has long been used in news and will likely shape parts of production
further,186 for example automating rote tasks.187 AI-assisted journalists are
already being used.188 Concerns about job cuts loom.189 Some publishers
are also trialling chatbots which can be fine-tuned on inhouse news.190
These efficiencies alone are unlikely to transform the nature of news or
media finances.191 However, we note that unresolved challenges around
hallucinations, biases and audience mistrust may dampen enthusiasm for AI
journalism in the short term.192
89. Public service media warrant particular scrutiny. Some industry experts
have suggested that AI will help public service broadcasters (PSBs) better
serve diverging audience needs; others have argued that over-personalisation
of news content using AI might undermine the concept of delivering shared
experiences that bring audiences together.193
Distribution and consumption

90. During our visit to San Francisco we heard that the traditional concept of
internet search is being disrupted by generative AI summaries which draw on
multiple sources. Aravind Srinivas, Co-Founder of Perplexity AI, outlined
the shift away from keyword searches and towards more extended questions
with AI tools.194 Meta’s advances in wearable technologies suggest that audio
and visual interactions with AI will become more common and seamless. At
185 Appendix of Committee visit to San Francisco
186 See for example: Washington Post, Press Release: The Washington Post leverages automated storytelling
to cover high school football on 1 September 2017: https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/wp/2017/09/01/
the-washington-post-leverages-heliograf-to-cover-high-school-football/ [accessed 15 November
2024]; Reuters, Press Release: Reuters News Tracer on 15 May 2017: https://www.reutersagency.com/
en/reuters-community/reuters-news-tracer-filtering-through-the-noise-of-social-media/ [accessed 15
November 2024]; BBC Research & Development, ‘Natural language processing’: https://www.bbc.
co.uk/rd/projects/natural-language-processing [accessed on 2 August 2024]
187 Written evidence from AGENCY (FON0017), Felix M. Simon (FON0024)
188 Q 51 (Henry Faure Walker, David Higgerson)
189 Written evidence from The Bristol Cable (FON0008)
190 Washington Post, ‘Climate answers’: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/climate-
answers/ [accessed 16 October 2024]
191 Q 32 (Professor Charlie Beckett), written evidence from Felix M. Simon (FON0024)
192 Written evidence from DMG Media (FON0030), Professor Rafael Calvo (FON0047), BBC
(FON0059), The Bristol Cable (FON0008), Q 145 (Robert Colvile), Q 10 (Paul Lee), written evidence
from Dominic Young (FON0021), YouGov, ‘AI in journalism: how would public trust in the news be
affected?’ (April 2024): https://yougov.co.uk/technology/articles/49105-ai-in-journalism-how-would-
public-trust-in-the-news-be-affected [accessed 13 November 2024]
193 European Broadcasting Union, Trusted journalism in the age of generative AI (June 2024), p 140:
https://www.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/ebu/files/Publications/Reports/open/ News_report_2024.pdf
[accessed 13 November 2024] See the BBC’s guidelines for generative AI at BBC, ‘Press Release: An
update on the BBC’s plans for Generative AI (Gen AI) and how we plan to use AI tools responsibly’
(28 February 2024): https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/articles/2024/update-generative-ai-and-ai-
tools-bbc
Google we discussed the proliferation of AI-summary tools, like those that

can convert lengthy tomes into engaging AI-narrated podcasts.195 In future,
these might be interruptible, enabling users to ask the AI narrators for more
information.
91. This all suggests that the trend towards disintermediation of news by tech
platforms will continue.196 Like search engines and social media, large
language models (and the applications built on top of them) are likely to have
increasing influence over the types of information people see. We cannot
yet know what the most popular news applications of the future will look
like; much also depends on how Google responds to the challenge to its
search business. But some issues are already clear. Providing search users
with much longer answers to questions may obviate the need for visiting the
actual source of news. Whether the AI provides one answer to a question
about current affairs, or a variety of views, may shape the average casual
user’s views on a topic. Political risks for tech firms loom too, as the way they
curate information attracts scrutiny—illustrated recently by the controversy
over Google’s Gemini AI.197
92. There is a possibility that diverging regulations in the US, EU, UK and China
will influence what types of AI tools (including news chatbots) are used in
different jurisdictions—perhaps shaped by rules on using copyrighted or
personal data for training. Meta for example did not release its latest AI model
in the EU, reportedly citing an “unpredictable” regulatory environment.198
Monetisation
93. During our visit to San Francisco, we were told that up-to-date news will
remain valuable to AI firms, as this is used to provide models with timely
and accurate information. Whether, and how much, tech firms will pay
remains unclear though.199 Media firms with business models based on
users clicking through to a website might suffer if the AI summary is ‘good
enough’ for the average reader.200 Some stakeholders worry that this could
make it economically unviable for some news outlets to continue producing
quality journalism.201
94. James Harding of Tortoise Media told us that generative AI would “increase
the value of quality journalism because there will be so much stuff out there
that is a mash-up of everything else that is out there”.202 Conversely, Professor
Nielsen has warned that generative AI could make some publishers “more
efficient at delivering something that audiences and advertisers increasingly
195 Ibid.
196 Appendix of Committee visit to San Francisco. See also Q 145 (Robert Colvile), written evidence from
Ofcom (FON0063), Media Reform Coalition (FON0029), BBC (FON0059)
197 See for example: ‘Google apologized for ‘missing the mark’ after Gemini generated racially diverse
Nazis’, The Verge (21 February 2024): https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/21/24079371/google-ai-
gemini-generative-inaccurate-historical [accessed 15 November 2024].
198 Meta, ‘Building AI Technology for Europeans in a Transparent and Responsible Way’ (10 June 2024):
https://about.f b.com/news/2024/06/building-ai-technology-for-europeans-in-a-transparent-and-
responsible-way/ [accessed 25 October 2024]; ‘ Meta pulls plug on release of advanced AI model
in EU’, The Guardian (18 July 2024): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/18/
meta-release-advanced-ai-multimodal-llama-model-eu-facebook-owner [accessed 15 October 2024]
200 Ibid.
201 Appendix on Committee visit to San Francisco. See also written evidence from Felix M. Simon
(FON0024), NewsNow (FON0051), NMA (FON0056).
202 Q 127
do not value”.203 Generic content is likely to become less useful to AI firms

and discerning readers alike.204
Competition and political influence

95. The AI landscape is fast becoming dominated by OpenAI (backed by
Microsoft), Google, Anthropic (backed by Amazon) and Meta, followed
by a series of smaller firms.205 A long tail of smaller (likely open source)
providers may also emerge, but market consolidation and competition issues
already loom.206 If the trend towards generative search continues, many
smaller media outlets may struggle to make money or reach consumers—
particularly if they do not have licensing deals granting them revenue streams
and exposure.207 Elsewhere in the market, there is a risk that a few (larger)
media outlets will experience growing dependency on a handful of AI firms.
In future, it is conceivable that tech firms might exert extensive financial
influence over some news outlets (or even buy them outright via affiliates)
and secure a ready supply of timely journalism.
96. We found Ofcom’s media ownership and merger rules poorly suited to this
evolving environment. Ofcom has a duty to “maintain a sufficient plurality of
providers of television and radio services”, but its current frameworks focus
largely on traditional print and broadcast outlets. Ofcom reviews the Media
Ownership Rules every three years. The Secretary of State can request that
Ofcom carry out a Public Interest Test on potential media mergers.208
97. In 2021 Ofcom called for updates to the Media Public Interest Test
framework to include online “news creators”, which would cover online-only
news websites.209 This modest change has remained outstanding for three
years. The Government recently launched a consultation on implementing
this recommendation by amending the definition of a “newspaper” in the
Enterprise Act 2002 to include online news publications.210 The consultation
set out a “policy intention to exclude aggregators … and online intermediaries”
from the updated rules, citing the number of firms that could be caught in
scope and Ofcom’s 2021 report as justification. The Government suggested
that this approach
203 Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, ‘How the news ecosystem might look like in the age of generative AI’
(March 2024): https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/how-news-ecosystem-might-look-age-
generative-ai [accessed 2 August 2024]
204 Q 127
205 Amba Kak, Sarah Myers West and Meredith Whittaker, ‘Make no mistake—AI is owned by Big Tech’,
MIT Review, (5 December 2023): https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/12/05/1084393/make-
no-mistake-ai-is-owned-by-big-tech/#:~:text=With%20vanishingly%20few%20exceptions%2C%20
every,and%20sell%20their%20AI%20products [accessed 13 November 2024]
206 Federal Trade Commission, ‘FTC Launches Inquiry into Generative AI Investments and Partnerships’
(25 January 2024): https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/ftc-launches-
inquiry-generative-ai-investments-partnerships [accessed 25 October 2024]
207 Written evidence from News Media Coalition (FON0036)
208 The Secretary of State can intervene in a “relevant merger situation” or “special merger situation”
involving a broadcaster and/or a print newspaper enterprise on the grounds of “public interest
considerations” outlined in the Enterprise Act 2008. The Secretary of State has powers to redefine
“broadcasting” or “newspaper”; add or modify media public interest considerations and redefine the
conditions for a “special merger situation”. See written evidence from Ofcom (FON0063).
209 Ofcom, The future of media plurality in the UK (November 2021), p 26: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__
data/assets/pdf_file/0019/228124/statement-future-of-media-plurality.pdf [accessed 13 November
2024]
210 Department of Culture, Media and Sport, ‘Consultation on updating the media mergers regime’
(November 2024): https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-updating-the-
media-mergers-regime/consultation-on-updating-the-media-mergers-regime#proposedchanges
“reflects the way in which news is consumed in the modern day, whilst
avoiding bringing into scope additional entities that are less likely to
pose public interest concerns”.211
98. We were disappointed that the Government did not seek a wider update to the
media plurality rules and we struggled to follow its logic in pursuing a limited
approach via this consultation. Research by the regulator has highlighted the
“significant role” that online news intermediaries play across the news value
chain.212 The scope of an expanded regime could be limited to the largest
news intermediaries without much difficulty. The risk of burden to business
is less clear too: if the Secretary of State decides to investigate a merger then
presumably there will be public interest grounds for doing so—and if there is
no investigation then it is not obvious how significant the burden to business
would be.
99. In our evidence session the Minister further suggested that the Digital
Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 would address media
competition. While the Act may help,213 it is no panacea. The legislation is
cross-sector, not specific to news. It remains unclear how far the provisions
of that Act would affect tech firms’ practices in news, and how quickly.
Experiences from the EU suggest that rapid and robust implementation will
be key, but difficult.214 ITV warned that “the threat to news business models
risks outpacing the speed of implementation”.215
100. Advances in generative AI are enabling tech firms to provide engaging
and high quality news summaries. This suggests they are increasingly
acting as publishers and may need to be regulated as such. Ofcom’s
media plurality framework is rapidly becoming outdated, and the
previous Government’s years-long timeline for implementing vital
changes has been inadequate. The Government should commit
to a 12 month deadline for responding to future Ofcom priority
recommendations on media plurality.
101. The Government’s proposed amendments to the media mergers
regime are a good start. But we are disappointed it has not sought a
wider update to the media plurality regime. The decision to exclude
online intermediaries looks oddly short sighted given the rapid
advances in tech firms’ ability to produce news summaries. We
appreciate that tech firms are not newspapers but this does not mean
their evolving role in the news landscape should be overlooked. We
recommend the Government works with Ofcom to set out plans and
timelines for capturing online news intermediaries within the scope
of the media ownership rules.
211 Ibid.
212 Ofcom, Online news: research update, p 6
213 Written evidence from ITV (FON0019); Q 82 (Sebastian Enser-Wight). Interventions might be
possible around app stores, advertising, transparency, self-preferencing and bargaining power, for
example.
214 ‘EU probes Apple, Meta and Alphabet under landmark new law’, Financial Times (25 March 2024),
available at: https://www.ft.com/content/22ce95a6-e473-4102-a330-f7d02cfb6fd1 [accessed 15
November 2024]
215 Written evidence from NMA (FON0056), ITV (FON0019)
Regulatory crossover
102. As generative AI progresses and tech platforms continue to dominate
advertising and data flows, we anticipate growing convergence between
regulatory remits and their impact on news publishers. Further co-ordination
across regulators may be helpful. The News Media Association highlighted
the focus of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on data privacy,
saying that its proposals around cookies would undercut news media business
models.216 DMG Media noted separate work by the Competition and Markets
Authority (CMA) on Google’s proposed changes to third-party cookies,
which would also damage publisher revenues.217 Ofcom has statutory duties
to oversee media plurality but still lacks adequate means, while the CMA has
powers but its priorities for news are less clear. The issues around the use of
personal data for AI training are a further potential challenge.
103. The Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum, which brings together the
CMA, ICO, Ofcom and the Financial Conduct Authority, has various related
workstreams (for example AI and data protection) but does not appear to
have dedicated projects addressing the impacts of regulation on news media.218
104. The Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum should establish a
dedicated workstream examining areas of regulatory crossover,
conflict and collaboration that will affect the news sector—focusing
in particular on privacy, advertising and competition.
Copyright
105. Our recent report on large language models examined the use of copyright
materials for AI training.219 In brief, AI firms need significant amounts of
data to train their models. This includes text but increasingly audio, video
and other types of data. Under the UK’s current text and data mining rules,
obtaining permission typically involves acquiring a licence or relying on an
exception. Noncommercial research is however permitted.
106. Tech firms have said their use of data for AI training is legitimate—citing
legal exceptions and arguing that allowing machines to ‘read’ and ‘learn’
from material should be permitted. Many copyright holders (such as news
publishers, academics, performers and similar) have argued in contrast that
the copyright law exceptions do not apply, and that tech firms should seek
permission or provide renumeration for using their data.220
107. Our present inquiry examined three implications of this for journalism in
more detail.
Competing priorities
108. First is the difficulty of balancing competing strategic objectives. Many
stakeholders favour an AI-friendly approach and looser rules on text and
data mining—the process by which tech firms obtain the content needed
216 Written evidence from NMA (FON0056), DMG Media (FON0030), IAB (FON0039)
218 DRCF, ‘Workplan 2024–25’ (April 2024): https://www.drcf.org.uk/siteassets/drcf/pdf-files/drcf-
workplan-202425/ [accessed 22 October 2024]
219 Communications and Digital Committee, Letter from the Chair to the Secretary of State for Science,
Innovation and Technology (2 May 2024): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/44563/
documents/221372/default/
220 Communications and Digital Committee, Large language models and generative AI, para 232
to train their models.221 There are multiple reasons. Boosting productivity

and improving public sector service efficiencies will increasingly require
AI knowhow. Yet onerous regulation may make it harder to attract AI
investment and talent, or encourage tech firms to withhold products from
the UK market. Making AI firms pay more for data might hamper startups.
Some argue that deepening geopolitical competition with China makes it
important for national security reasons for the UK to ‘win the AI race’.222
109. On the other hand, the UK’s diversified economy and longstanding
intellectual property rules benefit a range of people and businesses. As
our reports on the creative industries and on large language models found,
undermining copyright principles will likely damage the UK’s £100 billion
creative industries (which the new Government has recognised as a strategic
growth sector).223 We were told that AI frameworks that do not improve the
economic outlook for quality journalism risk eroding the foundations of our
democracy.224 Some suggest that the best response to data scraping by big
tech firms should not involve making unethical behaviour cheaper and easier
for everyone else,225 particularly as developers seem prepared to pay vast
sums on compute.226
110. Favouring tech firms without supporting media organisations also risks further
splintering the news landscape along lines identified in Chapter 3: wealthier
outlets (who can strike licensing deals and may enjoy greater prominence)
may serve a small demographic of well-informed news aficionados, while a
much larger proportion of the population becomes increasingly poorly served
as the economics of mass market journalism worsen, smaller outlets offering
alternative perspectives struggle to gain prominence, and local news deserts
expand.227 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for the Future Digital Economy and Online Safety at the Department
for Science, Innovation and Technology, said she was “trying to find a way
through that is acceptable to all sides”.228
Licences
111. The principle of using real-time and archive news for the development
of AI products remains contested.229 Lawsuits are multiplying on some
221 Ibid., para 234

222 Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, National AI Strategy (September 2021): https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk /media/614db4d1e90e077a2cbdf3c4/ National_ AI_Strategy_-_
PDF_version.pdf [accessed 15 November 2024]; Appendix on Committee visit to San Francisco;
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Charting the Geopolitics and European Governance of
Artificial Intelligence (March 2024): https://carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/
Csernatoni_-_Governance_AI-1.pdf [accessed 15 November 2024]
223 Communications and Digital Committee, At risk: our creative future,para 34; Communications and
Digital Committee, Large language models and generative AI,para 45; Department for Buisness and
Trade, ‘Invest 2035: The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy’ (14 October 2024): https://www.gov.
uk/government/consultations/invest-2035-the-uks-modern-industrial-strategy [accessed 22 October
2024]
224 Written evidence from NMA (FON0056)
225 Witten evidence from Radiocentre (FON0025)
226 ‘Thom Yorke and Julianne Moore join thousands of creatives in AI warning’ The Guardian (22
October 2024): https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/oct/22/thom-yorke-and-julianne-moore-
join-thousands-of-creatives-in-ai-warning [accessed 15 November 2024]
227 Q 32 (Douglas McCabe), Q 143 (Robert Colvile, Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen)
228 Q 175
229 ‘The Times sues OpenAI and Microsoft over A.I. use of copyrighted work’, The New York Times (27
December 2023), available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-times-
open-ai-microsoft-lawsuit.html [accessed 15 November 2024]
fronts even as licensing deals between news organisations and tech firms
emerge elsewhere.230 OpenAI told us that they were leading the way on
establishing partnerships. Several stakeholders welcomed this move towards
more partnership-based development.231 Sceptics described the deals as an
insurance policy against litigation, suggesting it encourages future lawsuits
to be directed against challenger AI firms (who may not be able to afford
such deals) rather than wealthy incumbents.232
112. Whether generative AI licensing deals are one-time offers or long-term
partnerships remains uncertain. Under the first scenario, AI firms would
extract most of the value of news content from a news publisher upfront and
then train new models (by reusing the tokens and ‘vector representations’)
without having to relicense when the deal expires. Alternatively, deals might
create long-term partnerships which envisage relicensing and align the
interests of the AI developer and news publisher—perhaps with a particular
focus on up-to-date news from reputable sources, which remains valuable
for generative search.233
113. The nature of licensing deals made now will set precedents and may influence
which firms survive into the future.234 The terms governing access to real-
time news, royalties, opt-outs, anti-cloning protections, transparency and
responsiveness to market conditions will be key.235 Smaller outlets with less
data and little bargaining power risk being left out. Collective licensing (for
example through organisations like the Copyright Licensing Agency) could
provide a more even playing field, alongside a system for responsible data
access—though progress, appetite and prospects are mixed.236 (We note that
our report is focused on news: while the principles of intellectual property
apply broadly, it is possible that the details of AI licensing agreements will
differ across economic sectors).
Text and data mining rules

114. The third implication of AI and copyright rules that we considered was the
practical difficulties inherent in developing new text and data mining rules.
In 2022 the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) proposed to change the UK’s
rules to allow any form of commercial mining. This Committee examined
the trade-offs and concluded the IPO had not considered sufficiently the
impact on the creative sector. The Government subsequently confirmed it
would no longer pursue a “broad copyright exception” and set up a working
group to develop a new code of practice.237 We followed this work closely and
230 Bloomberg Law, ‘ AI Models Force Media Firms to Pick Licensing or Litigation’ (5 August 2024):
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/generative-ai-forces-media-firms-to-pick-licensing-or-
litigation [accessed 17 October 2024]
231 See for example News Corp, ‘News Corp and OpenAI Sign Landmark Multi-Year Global Partnership’
(22 May 2024): https://investors.newscorp.com/news-releases/news-release-details/news-corp-and-
openai-sign-landmark-multi-year-global-partnership [accessed 25 October 2024]
233 Ibid.
234 See for example the press release announcing a deal between OpenAI and The Atlantic, which
emphasises the importance of the publication being discoverable as generative search evolves. The
Atlantic, Press release: The Atlantic announces product and content partnership with OpenAI (29 May
2024): https://www.theatlantic.com/press-releases/archive/2024/05/atlantic-product-content-
partnership-openai/678529/ [accessed 15 November 2024]
235 Enders Analysis, ‘AI, press and licensing deals’ (2024): https://www.endersanalysis.com/reports/ai-
press-and-licensing-deals-chosen-few [accessed 16 October 2024]
236 Communications and Digital Committee, Large language models and generative AI, para 253
237 Ibid., para 229
were disappointed by the way the IPO-led roundtables were handled and the
lack of progress. We wrote to the Government in May 2024, raising concerns
that their
“record on copyright was inadequate and deteriorating … the
Government has set up and subsequently disbanded a failed series of
roundtables led by the Intellectual Property Office … The Government’s
reticence to take meaningful action amounts to a de facto endorsement
of tech firms’ practices”.238
115. Recent media reports suggest that the new Government has been exploring an
opt-out approach,239 building on the previous administration’s consultation.240
This might involve specifying that tech firms may acquire data for non-
research purposes unless rightsholders specifically decline. Anyone wishing
to opt out might use tools like robots.txt to tell AI crawlers to exclude a site.
A comparable regime is used in the EU—RELX, an information platform,
previously said it worked “tolerably well”.241 Google advocates allowing
mining for “both commercial and research purposes”.242
116. But adopting an EU-style opt-out scheme wholesale would be problematic.
The Financial Times told us that there is no clear enforcement mechanism for
infringements, short of costly and uncertain court cases that few can afford.243
The lack of transparency also makes it hard to prove illegal scraping anyway.
DMG Media highlighted the stakes for those considering litigation in the
UK: “If a news publisher loses it would then be open season for LLMs to use
its copyright content without restriction.”244
117. An assessment by the European Publishers Council found that publishers
cannot tell if a crawler is operating for research or commercial purposes, and
it is technically difficult or impossible to block crawlers outright. Some third
parties might appear to be crawling for academic research but then give or
sell data to tech firms, who are one step removed from any abuses.245 A note
on Google Search Central acknowledges that “while Googlebot and other
respectable web crawlers obey the instructions in a robots.txt file, other
crawlers might not”.246 Publishers also worry that blocking crawlers in other
238 Communications and Digital Committee, Letter from the Chair to the Secretary of State for Science,
Innovation and Technology (2 May 2024): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/44563/
239 ‘UK to consult on ‘opt-out’ AI content scraping in blow to publishers’, The Financial Times (16 October
2024): https://www.ft.com/content/26bc3de1-af90-4c69-9f53-61814514aeaa [accessed 17 October
2024]
240 Intellectual Property Office, ‘Artificial Intelligence and IP: copyright and patents’ (October 2021):
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-ip-copyright-and-patents
[accessed 22 October 2024]
241 Oral evidence taken before the Communications and Digital Committee inquiry on Large Language
Models, 7 November 2023 (Session 2023–24), Q 60
242 Google, ’Unlocking the UK’s AI potential’ (September 2024), p 20: https://blog.google/around-the-
globe/google-europe/united-kingdom/ai-potential-uk/ [accessed 26 September 2024]
243 Letter from Matt Rogerson, Director of Global Public Policy & Platform Strategy Financial Times
to the Chair of the Communications and Digital Committee, (18 October 2024): https://committees.
parliament.uk/publications/45506/documents/225308/default/
245 European Publishers Council, Letter from Matt Rogerson, Director of Global Public Policy & Platform
Strategy Financial Times to the Chair of the Communications and Digital Committee, Annex (18
October 2024): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/45506/documents/225308/default/
246 Google Search Central, ‘Introduction to robots.txt’: https://developers.google.com/search/
docs/crawling-indexing /robots/intro#:~:text=The%20instructions%20in%20robots.,the%20
instructions%20in%20a%20robots [accessed 13 November 2024]
ways may affect whether they show up in other online search rankings, and
have accused tech firms of exploiting dominance in internet search to gain
advantages in obtaining AI training data.247
Government options
118. The complexity of the issues outlined above should not become an excuse for
inertia, and we note the Government’s forthcoming plans in this space.248 We
welcomed the Prime Minister’s comments recognising the “basic principle
that publishers should have control over and seek payment for their work”.249
Jon Slade, Chief Operating Officer of the Financial Times, suggested that
publishers need more clarity on copyright law.250 This could specify more
clearly how copyright applies to text and data mining for large language
models used for commercial purposes, and establish enforceable protocols
and sanctions for the Government’s future text and data mining regime.
119. At a minimum, this would likely require a transparency mechanism enabling
rightsholders to check if their data has been used. Original repositories of
raw data might be too unwieldy, but lists of websites or metadata may be
manageable.251 If tech firms have concerns about revealing commercially
sensitive data, vetted researchers, the Government or a regulatory unit could
be established to act as an ‘honest broker’ to carry out the checks.252
120. Any regime would need to require web crawlers to identify themselves, or
else tech firms could remain immune from retribution where rightsholders’
data has been misused. Rules would also need to be flexible; it is possible
that if internet search and generative AI services converge, web crawling
activity may do the same. New rules would also need to be clear about how
far protections extend to the real-time use of news to help generative AI
tools answer questions—as opposed to simply using archive data to train
base models.
121. Enforcement will need more work too, as copyright is typically treated
as a private matter, and the UK lacks suitable institutions for addressing
breaches. The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) does not have regulatory
powers comparable to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), for
example. DMG Media suggested that the Digital Markets Unit, which sits
within the CMA, should address anti-competitive use of web crawlers.253 We
247 Q 44 (Peter Wright), written evidence from DMG Media (FON0030)

248 ‘UK to consult on ‘opt-out’ AI content scraping in blow to publishers’, The Financial Times (16 October
2024): https://www.ft.com/content/26bc3de1-af90-4c69-9f53-61814514aeaa [accessed 17 October
2024]
249 ‘Journalism is the lifeblood of British democracy. My government will protect it’, The Guardian (28
October 2024): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/28/keir-starmer-journalism-
lifeblood-british-democracy-labour [accessed 13 November 2024]
250 Q 44 (Jon Slade)
251 Model developers typically discard original training data once processed, but a repository of metadata
indicating the websites or content domains accessed by web crawlers seems unlikely to present
insurmountable technical obstacles. See Oral evidence taken before the Communications and Digital
Committee inquiry on Large Language Models, 7 November 2023 (Session 2023–24), Q 59 (Dan
Conway). See also reporting on the New York Times court case: Business Insider, ‘Why the New
York Times’ lawyers are inspecting OpenAI’s code in a secret room’ (11 October 2024): https://www.
businessinsider.com/ai-future-copyright-lawsuits-new-york-times-times-authors-2024–10 [accessed
17 October 2024]
252 This might involve vetted researchers, the Intellectual Property Office, or a joint unit with the AI
Safety Institute. Funding for this could involve a fee paid by rightsholders, or some form of levy paid
by the relevant parties.
noted however that such enforcement might still focus on the largest tech
firms with Strategic Market Status, without sufficiently addressing the long
tail of smaller AI firms that may also be breaching rules.254 A wider approach
might involve the IPO referring cases to the relevant existing regulator (whose
commensurate powers and remits may need reviewing to ensure meaningful
action can be taken).
122. Aside from rule changes, the Government could champion AI firms acting
responsibly. Start-up companies like UK-based Human Native AI indicate
that there is an emerging market for providing licensed AI training content.255
The Government could encourage such moves to make the UK an attractive
AI training destination—particularly around technical areas valuable to
fine tune specialised AI models. Finally, following the failure of the IPO-
led working group process, the Government should be cautious about the
risks of discussion forums becoming protracted exercises in entrenching the
status quo.256
123. Baroness Jones of Whitchurch acknowledged the need to encourage AI
and also “protect the rightsholders”, including news media. She said the
Government was “moving at pace” and noted that the prospect of voluntary
agreements was “clearly not the case now”. She further suggested that a
transparency mechanism was a “good idea”.257
124. The use of news content to train generative AI has the potential to
reshape the economics of the media industry. The UK needs a better
framework for governing how this works. There are arguments for
and against tougher rules. On the one hand, the UK must remain
competitive in AI development, or else lose any claim to international
leadership. Economic prosperity, public sector efficiencies and
national security all provide good arguments for establishing an AI-
friendly training regime.
125. But that does not mean the Government should pursue rules that
primarily benefit foreign tech firms (who seem prepared to pay vast
sums on energy, computing facilities and staff—but not on data).
Previous efforts to find a solution have been weak and ineffectual. The
Government must aim for a robust framework that helps the creative
industries strike mutually beneficial deals with tech firms, aligns
incentives, respects intellectual property and champions responsible
AI development in the UK. Media organisations, for their part, will
need to continue to demonstrate their value—and be clear that their
position is not about special pleading or propping up outlets for which
there is limited demand.
126. While we welcome the new Government’s desire to make progress
on this issue, we caution strongly against adopting a flawed opt-
out regime comparable to the version operating in the EU. Much
better means for ensuring technical viability, transparency, consent
254 Competition and Markets Authority, ‘Digital Markets Unit’ (18 June 2024): https://www.gov.uk/
government/collections/digital-markets-unit#:~:text=The%20main%20components%20of %20
the,penalties%20and%20wider%20administrative%20matters [accessed 25 October 2024]
255 Fortune, ‘Startup that wants to be the eBay for AI data taps Google vets and a top IP lawyer for
key roles’ (15 October 2024): https://fortune.com/2024/10/15/human-native-ai-startup-building-
marketplace-for-data-hires-veteran-google-execs-top-ip-lawyer/ [accessed 17 October 2024]
256 Communications and Digital Committee, Large language models and generative AI para 252
257 Q 178
and enforcement are needed for a new text and data mining regime
to work to UK advantage. If the Government gets this right, it can
provide speedy regulatory certainty and encourage a new AI-licensing
startup scene to flourish too.
127. Any proposal for a new text and data mining regime must include
transparency mechanisms that enable rightsholders to check
whether their data has been used. It must offer technical enforceability
that goes beyond the likes of robots.txt indicators, which remain
inadequate. Meaningful sanctions for non-compliance are essential
and the Government’s anticipated IP consultation should explore
the options for independent regulatory enforcement. Requirements
for web crawlers to identify their purpose are needed too. The
Government should encourage good practice by championing an
emerging market for licensed AI data training providers. We urge
the Government to dedicate significant technical, policy and political
resource to address these challenges at pace. The Department for
Science, Innovation and Technology should outline its plans in
response to this report.
128. The Competition and Markets Authority should investigate and
address tech firms leveraging dominance in one domain, notably
internet search, to secure anti-competitive advantages in obtaining
data for generative AI training. We suggest this should be an
immediate priority given the pace of market developments and
impacts on news media business models.
Chapter 6: SERVING AUDIENCES
129. This chapter examines some of the challenges around serving all audiences
with honest, accurate, informative and balanced news. First we set out the
context of trust in news, online fragmentation, declining engagement and
concern about the direction of travel.
130. We then examine three issues concerning the health of the UK broadcasting
market in particular: the work of incumbent broadcasters serving a diverse
range of audiences; new market entrants complying with the Broadcasting
Code; and Ofcom enforcing its rules robustly in a way that upholds public
trust. We found room for improvement in all of these areas for the regulated
broadcast sector to maintain its ‘anchor’ position in the media market and
continue to support a cohesive society.
A difficult landscape
131. The data on UK attitudes to news are mixed. James Frayne, Founding
Partner of the political consultancy Public First, argued that “most people
trust … the BBC and their newspapers, but it has diminished significantly”.258
Around 96 per cent of UK adults say they watch, read or listen to news
in some form. This suggests relatively strong demand for information. The
sources of information are varied—over half of adults say social media is their
main news source, though it remains unclear what this involves: authoritative
news links, influencer commentary and organic user posts are all captured
in this figure.259 The impacts of algorithmically curated news diets remain
an ongoing area of research.260
132. Yet separate data from the Reuters Institute show that, between 2015 and
2024, the overall proportion of people in the UK saying they trust “most
news most of the time” fell from 51 to 36 per cent. The proportion of people
extremely or very interested in news fell from 70 to 38 per cent over the
same period.261 The causes and consequences of these trends are myriad and
linked to some of the factors discussed in Chapter 4.
133. We asked witnesses about the relationship between demand, engagement
and trust. Paul Lee, Global Head of Research for Technology, Media and
Telecommunications at Deloitte, cautioned against conflating the provenance
of news (e.g. the BBC) with the level of trust in the distribution mechanism
(e.g. Facebook feeds).262 Douglas McCabe of Enders Analysis thought that
headline figures on low trust were not overly troubling and reflected a plural
media market and healthy consumer scepticism.263 Mr Frayne identified
young people and new arrivals to the UK as groups where “trust in the
mainstream media has never really been established”, but suggested that a
“collapse” in trust among other groups “ought to be a worry”.264 Professor
Charlie Beckett thought the area of concern centred on where this issue
“spills over into fragmentation and cynicism and a complete avoidance of
the news media”. He further drew attention to the way online distribution
258 Q 22 (James Frayne)

259 Ofcom, News consumption in the UK: 2024, p 5
260 See for example Ofcom, Online news: research update (March 2024)
261 Reuters Institute for Study of Jounalism, Digital News Report 2024,p 62:
262 Q6
264 Q 22 (James Frayne)
and consumption were reshaping the traditional relationship between media

outlets and their audiences:
“You have to be on their side, be more relevant to them and be more
accessible. You have to talk about the things that they are interested in
rather than things that are important to you.”265
134. Associated issues around competition for attention, the proliferation of
platforms and the rise of opinion-led online commentary and influencer culture
all raise difficulties for traditional media outlets seeking to engage audiences
while maintaining balanced and reliable reporting.266 The disaggregation of
news packages into individual articles, short-form clips or online commentary
tends to remove context and detail which might provide more balance.267
Anna Bateson, CEO of The Guardian Media Group, thought it was getting
harder to achieve “that sense of commonality around truth”.268
135. James Bennet, senior editor at The Economist, raised further concerns about
social media becoming a “powerful means of enforcing orthodoxy”, telling
us that:
“the intensity with which people respond to a particular piece of news
or a particular opinion piece has a profoundly inhibiting effect on the
ambitions of a news organisation to be impartial, or to be objective, or to
present a range of views”.269
136. During our visit to San Francisco we heard that some news outlets were
increasingly preoccupied with younger audiences and their preference
for “authentic” content rather than “authoritative” sources: relatable
online influencers that share (and shape) the viewer’s values fall into the
first category, whereas establishment titles tend not to. We were told that
some US publishers are considering borrowing from influencer culture to
attract customers. This might bring a fresh approach to engaging (younger)
audiences. It may also bring difficulties around alignment of principles and
retaining audiences when the star moves on.270 Whether younger consumers
will drive additional changes in the tools that media and tech companies
employ—and possibly shape the underlying political slant of content
prioritised in personalised generative search—is a further unknown.
137. In some respects these developments continue longstanding trends:
consumers have always shaped supplier behaviours, chosen preferred titles
and presenters, and switched when dissatisfied. In other ways the implications
are more concerning. News UK noted that the traditional role of news in
“convening society” is becoming inverted, as users consume disparate stories
and follow opinion-shapers on personalised newsfeeds.271
265 Q 22. Commentators in the aftermath of the 2024 US presidential election raised further questions
about the way certain topics are covered. See for example Tim Shipman (@ShippersUnbound) Tweet
on 6 November 2024: https://x.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1854238191248724113. For further
discussion on journalists engaging with a wider variety of veiwpoints see also @ShippersUnbound,
tweet on 6 November 2024: https://x.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1854238191248724113
267 Q 42
268 Q 41
271 Written evidence from NewsUK (FON0055)
138. Mr Bennet thought that the UK’s media landscape still offered “a nice
combination of a reliable narrative about what is actually happening in the
world, and a cacophony of views that surround that”.272 He issued a stark
warning however about the implications if the UK were to follow the US
trajectory, where he said audiences find “their own version of reality.”273 Mr
Neil issued similar warnings: “I would not like to see Britain go down that
road. It is bad for democracy”.274
139. The charts below provide an indication that UK voters’ trust in and
consumption of news media has not yet fractured along party-political lines.
We note that the shifts in the UK’s political environment are complex and
not necessarily well captured by headline statements on party affiliation. But
the figures nevertheless provide one suggestion of how the UK compares to
the US. Figure 3 shows that in many cases the level of party-political trust/
distrust (indicated by the length of the vertical bar) is fairly modest. Figure 4
shows by contrast that the difference in the US is extensive and widespread.
140. The regulation of the UK’s broadcasting sector has likely played a role in
guarding against partisan splits. Some stakeholders worried however that
many audiences (particularly those who feel insufficiently represented by
traditional media) will increasingly shift to online alternatives.275 Mr Neil
argued that the UK was not yet comparable to the US but believed one
risk factor was the “monopoly of opinion” among British broadcasters,
cautioning that an “increasing number of people [ … ] will feel that they
are not getting the kind of news that they expect” and consequently turn to
alternative sources.276

273 Q9
274 Q 116
275 See for example written evidence from the Voice of the Listener and Viewer (FON0015) and Q 22
(James Frayne). For a discussion on the work of the PSBs in this regard see written evidence from
Maggie Carter CBE DL (FON0070)
276 Q 116
Figure 3: UK news outlets consumption and trust
60
Party: Conservative Labour

Channel 4
40
FT
Guardian ITV
Net trust in news sources (%)
BBC
20
Sky
GB News
-20
Express
Daily Mail
-40
Mirror
Sun
-60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
-80
% who frequently consume news from source
Source: Written evidence from the BBC (FON0069). Original analysis obtained from ‘Britain is not America
- and the right shouldn’t forget it’, Financial Times (26 May 2024), available at: https://www.ft.com/content/
a2050877–124a-472d-925a-fc794737d814 [accessed 15 November 2024]
Figure 4: US news outlets consumption and trust
BBC WSJ New York Times

60
The Guardian MSNBC
Party: Republican Democrat
The Economist CNN
The Atlantic Fox
40 News
The Hill
Axios
Net trust in news sources (%)
20
Daily Kos
Infowars
-20
-40
-60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
-80
% who frequently consume news from source
Source: Written evidence from the BBC (FON0069). Original analysis obtained from ‘Britain is not America
- and the right shouldn’t forget it’, Financial Times (26 May 2024), available at: https://www.ft.com/content/
a2050877–124a-472d-925a-fc794737d814 [accessed 15 November 2024]
Broadcast media
BBC
141. The BBC plays an important part in the delivery of trusted and authoritative
news. Its ability to maintain high levels of audience engagement, trust and
satisfaction matters. Declining support would mean fewer licence fee payers,
fewer justifications for its privileges and probably a deterioration of the BBC’s
‘anchor’ position in the UK media market.277
142. We found mixed progress since our last report in 2022. On some metrics it
is doing well: the BBC remains by far the most used news source, though
the overall proportion of people turning to the BBC as their first choice
appears to be in gradual decline.278 It has also launched a range of initiatives
addressing concerns about its approach.279
277 Q 136 (Robert Colvile). For a discussion on BBC strategic challenges see our report Licence to change:
BBC future funding, p 3
278 National Audit Office, BBC Departmental Overview (2023), p 18): https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2023/10/BBC-DO-2022–23.pdf, [accessed 23 October 2024]
279 The BBC for the future’ strategy sets out plans to “report fearlessly and fairly” in domestic and
international journalism. The BBC has been moving production out of London, expanding its
social media presence to reach different demographics, updating social media guidance; launching
transparency initiatives and holding thematic reviews of its content. See BBC, A BBC for the future
(March 2024): https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/documents/a-bbc-for-the-future.pdf [accessed 15
November 2024]
143. Shortcomings persist in serving less satisfied audiences though.280 Qualitative

research suggests that lower socio-economic groups feel “criticised or
caricatured” rather than authentically reflected.281 Figure 5 demonstrates
audience perceptions of the BBC, as calculated by a National Audit Office
study. Mr Frayne said that there had been “a very marked decline [in trust]
over the course of the past 10 to 15 years among older, Brexit-voting, working-
class, provincial leave voters”.282 The BBC responded with data contesting
this assessment.283
Figure 5: Audience perceptions of the BBC

Percentage of adults who follow the news (%)
70
60 62
50 55
51 51
49 48
45 47
40 44
40 39 39
30
20
10
0
Of all the news sources (TV, radio, Of all the news sources (TV, radio, newspaper,
newspaper, magazine, website, app or social magazine, website, app or social media), which
media), which one source are you most likely one source are you most likely to turn to if you
to turn to for news you trust the most? want impartial news coverage?
Survey question
2017-18 2020-21
2018-19 2021-22
2019-20 2022-23
Source: National Audit Office, BBC Departmental Overview (2023), p 18: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2023/10/BBC-DO-2022–23.pdf [accessed 23 October 2024]
144. The BBC’s Chairman Dr Samir Shah CBE acknowledged challenges and
highlighted the corporation’s “thematic reviews” as a good way to examine
and improve problems with coverage.284 We welcomed these assessments,
though noted that alone they will not solve the problem. Others have
questioned their rigour.285 James Frayne thought that more focus on public
concerns would help, noting the level of attention that GB News paid to
small boat arrivals.286 Professor Charlie Beckett said that newsroom diversity
would improve the variety of world views that shape editorial choices.287
280 Ofcom’s 2023 report on the BBC found “viewers of other TV news sources, particularly the non-PSB
channels (such as Sky News or CNN), tend to rate news on those channels higher for impartiality
than viewers of BBC TV news. However, it is worth noting that BBC TV has a much higher, and
broader, reach than these channels”. See Ofcom, Annual Report on the BBC 2022 – 23 (November
2023), p 11: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/tv-radio-and-on-demand/bbc/
bbc-annual-report/2023/ofcoms-sixth-annual-report-on-the-bbc [accessed 14 June 2024]
281 Ofcom, BBC Audiences Review: Understanding what factors may drive lower satisfaction levels
among D and E socio-economic groups (November 2023), p 22: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/
assets/pdf_file/0016/272401/BBC-Audiences-Review.pdf [accessed 14 June 2024]
282 Q 22 (James Frayne) and written evidence from Public First (FON0060)
283 Written evidence from the BBC (FON0069)
284 Oral evidence taken before the Communications and Digital Committee, session on the work of the
BBC, 10 September 2024 (Session 2024–25), Q 9 (Dr Samir Shah CBE)
285 Written evidence from Professor Stephen Cushion and Emeritus Professor Richard Sambrook
(FON0003)
286 Q 29
287 Q 30
Tim Davie CBE told us about efforts to move production out of London,
though acknowledged that this did not guarantee more diverse intakes (a
point also raised by Mr Neil).288
Other PSBs and Sky

145. ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 are meant to “meet the needs and satisfy
the interests of as many different audiences as practicable”.289 While they
each target different demographics, we were told that they confront ongoing
challenges in delivering engaging, trusted content due to evolving audience
expectations, habits and interests.290 Ofcom data indicate that the PSBs have
delivered relatively well against their news provision requirements,291 yet
viewing numbers continue to fall.292
146. Jonathan Levy, Managing Editor of Sky News said his organisation
complemented the PSBs by being able to “take risks in the public service
space” that PSBs do not.293 We note that Sky News ranks consistently highly
on trust and satisfaction,294 but also faces challenges around competition,
costs, audience habits, and perceptions of relevance.295
147. Dame Maggie Carver CBE, former chair of Ofcom and ITN said that
investment in “a number of distinct, verified and impartial” British news
sources online was important to “keep the BBC up to scratch” and provide
a “broader overall range” of views.296 Professor Nielsen suggested that a
key problem lay in demand rather than supply, noting that plenty of good
journalism “is out there for free [but] people are not engaging it”. He argued
it was “incumbent on journalists and news organisations to think why that
might be”.297 Table 2 sets out the top UK news sources.
Table 2: Top 20 news sources
2019 2020 2022* 2023 2024

BBC One 58% 56% 53% 49% 43%
ITV1/ITV WALES/UTV/STV 40% 41% 35% 34% 30%
Facebook 35% 34% 32% 30% 30%
BBC iPlayer** - - - 24% 23%
YouTube 6% 6% 8% 7% 19%
Sky News Channel 23% 25% 23% 21% 19%
BBC News Channel 23% 21% 24% 23% 18%
288 Q 116 (Andrew Neil), Oral evidence taken before the Communications and Digital Committee,
session on the work of the BBC, 10 September 2024 (Session 2024–25), Q 9 (Tim Davie CBE)
289 Communications Act 2003, section 264
290 QQ 66–69 (Michael Jermey, Louisa Compton, Guy Davies)
291 Ofcom, Media Nations: UK 2024, p 13
292 Ibid., p 11
293 Q 89 (Jonathan Levy)
294 Ofcom, News consumption in the UK 2024: Supporting data, (September 2024), p 22: https://www.
ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand-research/
tv-research/news/news-consumption-2024/news-consumption-in-the-uk-2024---supporting-data.
pdf [accessed 13 November 2024]
295 See for example Q 116, Q 96, written evidence from News UK (FON0055), ITV (FON0019). See also
Ofcom, Media Nations: UK 2024
296 Written evidence from Maggie Carver CBE DL (FON0070)
297 Q 144 (Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen), Q 115
2019 2020 2022* 2023 2024

BBC news online (website/app) 25% 23% 23% 22% 18%
Instagram 13% 14% 16% 16% 18%
X (formerly known as Twitter) 16% 17% 17% 17% 15%
WhatsApp 14% 13% 14% 13% 14%
Channel 4 17% 18% 17% 16% 14%
Google (search engine) 19% 15% 12% 13% 14%
Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday 18% 17% 15% 14% 13%
Channel 4/Channel 4+** (All4/All4+) - - - 8% 12%
ITV/ITVX Premium** - - - 11% 12%
TikTok** - 1% 7% 10% 11%
The Guardian/Observer 11% 10% 10% 10% 10%
BBC Radio 2 12% 12% 11% 11% 10%
BBC Sounds** - - - - 9%
Source: Ofcom, News consumption in the UK 2024: Supporting data (2024) p 10: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/
siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand-research/tv-research/news/
news-consumption-2024/news-consumption-in-the-uk-2024---supporting-data.pdf [accessed 23 October
2024]
New entrants
148. GB News and TalkTV have been described as alternatives to “mainstream”
broadcasters.298 Angelos Frangopoulos, CEO of GB News, said his
organisation offered “plurality and choice” to those who “genuinely did not
feel that metropolitan-based media reflected or reported what was important
to them. They were underrepresented.”299 Mr Nelson thought the newcomers
brought more diversity.300 Regular consumers report high levels of trust,
accuracy and impartiality.301
149. Others were more critical. Professor Steven Barnett said the new entrants
were “avowedly partisan”, arguing that GB News displayed a “contempt for
balance” with “barely a nod in the direction of competing views”.302 The
Voice of the Listener and Viewer warned about the “‘Foxification’ of UK
news.”303
150. Andrew Neil did not believe that the UK was yet comparable to the
polarisation visible in US broadcasting, but he warned of this “trend and I
think that people will react [ … and move to] things that are more congenial
to their way of looking at things”. He suggested GB News’ long-term viability
may rely more on financial backing than audience revenues.304
298 Written evidence from News UK (FON0055). See also ‘Why Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are
obsessed with ‘Britain’s Fox News’’, POLITICO (2 February 2024): https://www.politico.eu/article/
boris-johnson-nigel-farage-gb-news-fox/ [accessed 15 November 2024]
299 Q 196
300 Q 19
301 Ofcom, News consumption in the UK 2024: Supporting data, p 25
302 Written evidence from Professor Steven Barnett (FON0052)
303 Written evidence from VLV (FON0015)
304 Q 116
151. The CEO of GB News contended that the channel was defying expectations
of failure, and said competitors were recognising that “there is a part of the
United Kingdom that has not been served”.305 Professor Nielsen said that
public service broadcasters needed to adapt, or would otherwise serve “a
shrinking, older, privileged part of the public”.306 Figure 6 shows the range
of TV channels used to access news in 2024.
Figure 6 : TV channels used to access news in 2024
Number of TV broadcast sources used by TV news

viewers in 2024
TV broadcast channels used for news nowadays
All adults 16+ using broadcast TV or BVoDfor news 1 2 3 4 5
29% 29% 17% 10% 6%
65%
There is a longtail observed for 5+ sources: 6 sources=3%, 7
sources=2% etc.
* Mean sources in 2024 was 2.7 while mean sources in 2013 was 1.9.
45% Net PSB broadcast channels: 91% Any BVoD service: 43%
Net BBC broadcast channels: 80%
32%
28% 28%
22%
17% 17%
12% 10% 8% 7% 6% 6%
5% 5%
BBC ITV1/ BBC Sky Channel BBC Channel GB CNN Al Jazeera BBC BBC BBC Channel 4 / ITVX / My5
One ITV News News 4 Two 5 News (English)ParliamentFour iPlayer Channel ITVX
WALES/ Channel Channel 4+(BVoD)premium
UTV/
STV
Source: Ofcom, News consumption in the UK 2024: Supporting data (2024) p 20: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/
siteassets/resources/documents/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand-research/tv-research/news/news-
consumption-2024/news-consumption-in-the-uk-2024---supporting-data.pdf [accessed 23 October 2024]
Two-tier system?
152. Ofcom has a duty to ensure that “all licensed broadcasters within the UK
present their news in a duly accurate and duly impartial way”.307 Complaints
to Ofcom have reportedly risen by 600 per cent since the launch of GB News
and TalkTV.308 As of October 2024, the regulator found GB News in breach
of its rules 12 times since it launched in 2021.309 Mr Frangopoulos said:
“The challenge is that we are doing something different. When the
Communications Act was set up in 2003, the rules were set up for the
“News at Ten” and the “Nine O’Clock News”. It is a different world
now, and our programming is different, certainly from Section 5 [of
Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code]. You can read it one way, or you can read
it the other.”310
153. Stewart Purvis CBE and Chris Banatvala, former TV journalists and senior
executives at Ofcom, suggested that the regulator was being overly reticent
and creating a “two-tier impartiality system”.311 Professors Stephen Cushion
and Richard Sambrook of Cardiff University were also critical, arguing
305 Q 99
307 Written evidence from Ofcom (FON0063)
308 Data refers to a comparison of complaints between 2021 and April 2024. See ‘Ofcom complaints soar
by 600% in age of GB News and TalkTV’, iNews (11 April 2024): https://inews.co.uk/news/ofcom-
complaints-soar-by-600-in-age-of-gb-news-and-talktv-2999438 [accessed 15 November 2024]
309 ‘GB News fines GB News £100,000 over impartiality’, BBC News (31 October 2024): https://www.
bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v3d44zj03o [accessed 19 November 2024]
310 Q 98
311 Written evidence from Stewart Purvis CBE and Chris Banatvala (FON0072)
that “free speech does not mean allowing conspiracy theories free reign”.312
Numerous others made similar arguments.313
154. Mr Frangopoulos argued in contrast that he was “confident” GB News had
“a very comprehensive compliance regime”, noting that the broadcaster was
“under a lot of pressure externally, particularly from those who may feel that
we are not a positive contributor”. He argued that Ofcom investigations were
too slow to allow innovative broadcasters to learn from mistakes and improve
compliance.314 Others suggested that accounting for audience expectation
was important in order to avoid homogeneity in news programmes and
provide variety.315
155. We questioned Ofcom about its response. Cristina Nicolotti Squires, Head
of Broadcasting at Ofcom, said “we have one set of rules that we apply fairly
to all broadcasters”.316 She previously stated that “there are some people who
won’t be happy unless we shut GB News down tomorrow and that’s not the
kind of country we live in”.317
156. Dame Melanie told us that “there is a degree of flexibility, which is the right
thing”.318 She had previously suggested in another forum that channels like
BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky News need to be “scrupulous”
whereas “there are other channels … that can present the news from a
particular perspective” as long as they present a “sufficient range of views”.
Dame Melanie further argued that free speech was paramount.319 Mr
McCabe suggested that Ofcom commit to “a deep study of trust at a more
granular level that can be sustained over time”.320 This might also provide a
more stable basis for evaluating audience expectations.
Politicians presenting
157. The use of politicians as presenters has attracted particular attention.321 In
March 2024, Ofcom found GB News in breach of the Broadcasting Code on
five occasions in relation to the use of politicians as presenters.322 News UK
312 Written evidence from Professor Stephen Cushion and Emeritus Professor Richard Sambrook
(FON0003)
313 Written evidence from Media Reform Coalition (FON0029), Campaign for Press and Broadcasting
Freedom North (FON0040), Dr Steven Buckley (FON0001), Professor Steven Barnett (FON0052)
314 Q 98
315 Q 25 (Douglas McCabe, James Frayne)
317 Philip Geddes Memorial Lecture 2024 (7 March 2024), added by St Edmund Hall: https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=q5u_YXv9GOw [accessed 14 November 2024]; ‘Ofcom says it won’t shut
down GB News, is unsure if Farage counts as a politician’ iNews (24 April 2024), available at:
https://inews.co.uk/news/ofcom-says-it-wont-shut-down-gb-news-is-unsure-if-farage-counts-as-a-
politician-3021317 [accessed 15 November 2024]
319 ‘GB News gets away with more than BBC as fewer people watch, suggests Ofcom boss’, iNews (4th
March 2024), available at: https://inews.co.uk/news/media/gb-news-gets-away-more-bbc-ofcom-
boss-2938731 [accessed 15 November 2024]
321 Q 160 (Cristina Nicolotti Squires). Rule 5.3 of the Broadcasting Code states that no politician may
be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it
is editorially justified. In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the
audience. See Broadcasting Code, section 5
322 Ofcom, Press Release: Politicians acting as news presenters on GB News broke broadcasting rules on 18
March 2024: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/politicians-
acting-as-news-presenters-on-gb-news-broke-broadcasting-rules/ [accessed 15 November 2024]
noted that other stations had also used politicians as presenters.323 Ofcom
told us that its rules “say very clearly that politicians cannot present news”,
but added that “they [politicians] can present current affairs, but, again, it is
all about due impartiality”.324
158. Mr Neil found Ofcom’s approach “incredible” and recommended the regulator
“find a backbone and quick”.325 Others expressed similar sentiments.326 Mr
Purvis and Mr Banatvala argued that “Ofcom’s distinction between the two
genres [news and current affairs] and hence the allowing [of] politicians to
present programmes dealing with controversial matters is one that is self-
created”.327 They suggested some channels were “taking advantage” of the
way the Code was drafted.328
159. Dame Melanie argued in contrast that:
“It is a matter for Parliament as to whether politicians should or should
not be allowed to do things. Our job is to uphold the due impartiality
rules and assess whether or not a programme is meeting those rules …
you may present current affairs programmes but the programme editor,
the producer, needs to make sure and take special steps … that there is
a sufficiently broad range of views when the discussion is about major
matters of public policy. That is how the system is designed to work”.329
160. Ofcom’s research found that “nearly all participants were instinctively against
politicians presenting the news”, noting “politicians would naturally have
a viewpoint to promote”. Participants were comfortable with news having
stricter rules than current affairs, but “struggled” to distinguish between
the formats. They also noted that politicians might not be recognised easily.330
161. The UK’s broadcasting market will only thrive if there is healthy
competition, a focus on serving all audiences and respect for the rules.
New entrants like GB News provide an alternative to the public service
broadcasters. Their offering needs to comply with the spirit of the
rules, not stretch them to breaking point. Public service broadcasters,
for their part, should reflect on why alternative providers are finding
a following and how this relates to the way underserved communities
are represented in their own news coverage.
162. Ofcom’s senior leadership argued that its approach to impartiality
had been very clear. We struggled to reconcile this with the evidence.
Ofcom’s approach has sparked accusations of a two-tier system on the
one hand, and of overreaction on the other. This risks dissatisfaction
on all sides. We were reassured that Ofcom is aware of the challenges
323 Written evidence from News UK (FON0055); ‘David Lammy leaves LBC ahead of election and is
replaced by Lewis Goodall’, Press Gazette (29 April 2024): https://pressgazette.co.uk/the-wire/media-
jobs-uk-news/lbc-david-lammy-lewis-goodall/ [accessed 15 November 2024]
325 Q 117
326 Written evidence from Media Reform Coalition (FON0029), Campaign for Press and Broadcasting
Freedom North (FON0040), Dr Steven Buckley (FON0001), Prof Steven Barnett (FON0052)
327 Written evidence from Stewart Purvis CBE and Chris Banatvala (FON0072)
328 Ibid.
330 Ofcom, Audience attitudes towards politicians presenting programmes on television and radio (April 2024),
pp 5–6: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/tv-radio-and-on-demand/
broadcast-codes/politicians-research/audience-attitudes-towards-politicians-presenting-on-tv-and-
radio-report.pdf [accessed 14 June 2024]
and the need to avoid the impression that political sensitivities have
influenced regulatory enforcement. But more transparency in future
would help, particularly around the thresholds at which alternative
interpretations of the rules might apply. Ofcom must also remain
alive to the risk that underserved audiences may migrate online or
switch off altogether: healthy plurality in broadcasting therefore
remains key to the sector’s long-term viability.
163. Better information is also needed about the drivers of audience trust
in broadcast news. This is notoriously difficult and not helped by the
inconsistency in methods. Ofcom should conduct more thorough
longitudinal audience research with consistent metrics and more
granular audience profiles, focusing both on the drivers of trust and
confidence in due impartiality being upheld. This could include more
detailed assessments of audience views about using politicians as
presenters.
Chapter 7: MIS/DISINFORMATION
Box 2: Definitions
Disinformation: “the deliberate creation and spreading of false and/or

manipulated information that is intended to deceive and mislead people, either
for the purposes of causing harm, or for political, personal or financial gain”.
Misinformation: “the inadvertent spread of false information”. People may
unwittingly share false content (misinformation) that has been deliberately
planted by malicious actors (disinformation).
Co-ordinated inauthentic behaviour: tactics used in developing a mixture of
authentic, fake and duplicated social media accounts across multiple platforms
to spread and amplify misleading content.
Source: Cabinet Office, ‘Fact Sheet on the CDU and RRU’ (9 June 2023): https://www.gov.uk/
government/news/fact-sheet-on-the-cdu-and-rru#:~:text=The%20UK%20government%20defines%20
disinformation,inadvertent%20spread%20of%20false%20information [accessed 1 September 2024]; Parliamentary
Office for Science and Technology, Disinformation: sources, spread and impact, POSTnote 719 (25 April 2024)
Box 3: Government structures
The Government’s policy approach to disinformation is largely led by the

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Delivery includes
work from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Ministry
of Defence; Home Office, Cabinet Office; and the security and intelligence
agencies, among others.
Activities in recent years include new foreign interference offences under the
National Security Act 2023 and some limited offences under the Online Safety
Act 2023; national security communications campaigns; monitoring and co-
ordination units; research programmes; tech platform engagements; media
literacy programmes; and international initiatives through Five Eyes, the G7,
NATO, the EU and an extensive range of other groupings.
The cross-government Defending Democracy programme, launched in 2019,
had an objective to co-ordinate efforts to tackle disinformation. In late 2022
the previous Government announced it had launched a Defending Democracy
Taskforce overseen by the Minister for Security. A Joint Election Security
Preparedness unit is stood up ahead of elections to provide cross-government
co-ordination.
Sources: Written Statement, HCWS1772, Session 2019–21; Home Office, ‘Ministerial Taskforce meets to tackle
state threats to democracy’ (28 November 2022): https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ministerial-taskforce-
meets-to-tackle-state-threats-to-uk-democracy [accessed 1 September 2024]; National Cyber Security Centre,
‘Annual review’ (2023): https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/annual-review-2023/resilience/case-study-defending-
democracy#:~:text=The%20government’s%20Defending%20Democracy%20Taskforce,drives%20the%20
government’s%20election%20preparedness [accessed 1 September 2024]; Department for Science, Innovation
and Technology, ‘G7 ministerial declaration’ (15 March 2024): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
g7-ministerial-declaration-deployment-of-ai-and-innovation/g7-ministerial-declaration [accessed 1 September
2024]; FCDO, ‘Foreign information manipulation’ (16 February 2024): https://www.gov.uk/government/news/
us-uk-canada-joint-statement-foreign-information-manipulation#:~:text=That%20is%20why%20today%2C%20
the,the%20foreign%20information%20manipulation%20challenge [accessed 1 September 2024]; NATO, ‘Setting
the record straight’ (12 January 2024): https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm [accessed 1 September
2024]; Civil Service World, ‘Cabinet Office signs up fake news detection firm’ (3 April 2024): https://www.
civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/cabinet-office-signs-up-fake-newsdetection-firm-to-track-disinformation
[accessed 1 September 2024]
164. This chapter examines mis/disinformation and how it relates to news. The
topic is vast and our review was confined to four issues. First is the evolving
nature of the challenge. Second is the unease about counter-disinformation
measures undermining free speech. Third is the risk of over-reliance on
technical solutions, and the need for better long-term strategic responses.
Fourth is the role of the media in reducing hype. There is a substantial
literature on the principles-based arguments and operational issues which
we draw on but do not attempt to summarise here.331
Changing characteristics
165. Professor Ciaran Martin CB, former CEO of the National Cyber Security
Centre, told us that the characteristics, narratives, technologies and response
options associated with mis/disinformation have evolved considerably over
the past decade.332 Rising international competition, political realignments
and the proliferation of new technologies all provide increasing motives,
opportunities and means for adversaries to manipulate the information
environment, and for false content to spread organically.333 Katie Harbarth,
formerly Facebook’s Public Policy Director for Global Elections, noted that
these changes are driven by supply and demand forces that go beyond any
single platform, state or type of technology.334
166. Generative AI has caused much concern though, as our recent report on
large language models found, the implications appear substantial rather than
catastrophic.335 Much of the changes extend existing challenges, rather than
create qualitatively new ones.
167. Future concerns might centre on ‘autonomous agents’, which are expected
to mature over the next few years.336 These are AI tools capable of navigating
their environment unaided to complete complex tasks—perhaps running
marketing campaigns and making payments.337 In time these may be applied
to run self-sustaining disinformation campaigns. Automated AI-run news
331 See for example Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Disinformation: sources, spread and
impact, POSTnote 179, 25 April 2024; US Department of State, Counter-Disinformation Literature
Review (July 2023): https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Learning-Brief-Counter-
Disinformation-Literature-Review.pdf [accessed 15 November 2024]; Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, Countering Disinformation Effectively (2024): https://carnegie-production-
assets.s3.amazonaws.com /static/f iles/Carnegie_Countering _Disinformation_ Effectively.pdf
332 QQ 101–105
333 See for example selection of reports from Hybrid Centre of Excellent, ‘Research and Analysis’:
https://www.hybridcoe.fi/research-and-analysis/ [accessed 1 September 2024]; RUSI, ‘The Need for
a Strategic Approach to Disinformation and AI-Driven Threats’ (25 July 2024): https://www.rusi.
org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/need-strategic-approach-disinformation-and-ai-
driven-threats [accessed 1 September 2024]
334 Q 110. See also reports from NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, ‘Publications’:
https://stratcomcoe.org/publications?tid[]=30 [accessed 1 September 2024]
335 See also written evidence from Getty Images (FON0043), Sense about Science (FON0042), News
Media Association (FON0056), AGENCY (FON0017)
336 Boston Consulting Group, ‘GPT was just the beginning’ (28 November 2023): https://www.bcg.
com/publications/2023/gpt-was-only-the-beginning-autonomous-agents-are-coming [accessed 1
September 2024]; ‘Microsoft to let clients build AI agents for routine tasks from November’, Reuters
(21 October 2024): https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/microsoft-allow-
autonomous-ai-agent-development-starting-next-month-2024–10-21/ [accessed 22 October 2024]
337 AutoGPT, ‘Autonomous agents are the new future’ (20 March 2024): https://autogpt.net/autonomous-
agents-are-the-new-future-complete-guide/ [accessed 1 September 2024]
sites (which earn money through advertising) provide an early indicator of

future trends.338
Implications
168. The growing scale of misleading content does not mean a linear increase
in reach, however. Meta told us that they were improving techniques to
disrupt co-ordinated inauthentic activity, which reduces exposure; some
other tech firms are doing likewise.339 Some studies suggest “trustworthy”
information sites are far more visited than “untrustworthy” ones (though
this methodology has been disputed).340 Search and news-related services
may nevertheless find it increasingly complex to favour reliable sources.341
169. Nor does the growth in misleading content mean linear increases in impact.
Various studies suggest that the effects of mis/disinformation range from
insignificant to extensive, with much uncertainty.342 Dire predictions for the
UK’s 2024 general election did not materialise, and there is likely a limit
to the overall demand for unreliable content.343 Professor Martin believed
the 2023 audio deepfake in Slovakia’s election, where the pro-Russian party
subsequently won, was the “closest European experience we have seen to a
fake intervention actually shifting the dial”.344 Moldova’s recent election is
another test case, though the parallels with the UK remain limited.345
170. We heard that news organisations therefore had a responsibility to ensure
proportionate reporting about disinformation, and avoid unnecessarily
undermining confidence in the integrity of the information environment. As
Professor Martin put it, “Don’t do the Russians’ job for them by bigging up
the threat”.346
Counter-disinformation response options

171. In recent years governments and industry figures across the world have
explored a range of potential responses to mis/disinformation. A recent
analysis by the Carnegie Endowment indicates varying degrees of success
and political sensitivity. Some of these actions include:
• tactical responses relating to specific content, for example independent

fact-checking initiatives, pre- or rebuttals, and counter-messaging
communications;
• wider operational responses (often delivered voluntarily by tech

platforms or third parties), such as changing recommender algorithms,
338 Written evidence from Fenimore Harper (FON0016); News Guard, ‘tracking AI-enabled
misinformation’: https://www.newsguardtech.com/special-reports/ai-tracking-center/ [accessed 1
September 2024]
340 Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Disinformation: sources, spread and impact, POSTnote
179, 25 April 2024
342 For a brief summary see Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Disinformation: sources,
spread and impact, POSTnote 179, 25 April 2024
343 Felix M Simon et al, ‘Misinformation reloaded?’ (18 October 2023): https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.
edu/article/misinformation-reloaded-fears-about-the-impact-of-generative-ai-on-misinformation-
are-overblown/ [accessed 1 September 2024]
344 Q 103
345 Reuters, ‘Moldova’s Sandu decries ‘unprecedented’ meddling as EU referendum goes to wire’ (21
October 2024): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moldova-votes-election-eu-referendum-
shadow-alleged-russian-meddling-2024–10-20/ [accessed 22 October 2024]
346 Q 103
labelling or watermarking systems for social media content, and

disrupting co-ordinated inauthentic networks;
• regulatory responses, such as requiring tech firms to take some of the

measures outlined above, or imposing criminal sanctions for spreading
certain content; and
• strategic long-term responses such as changing the state’s deterrence

posture, and improving societal resilience through good journalism
and media literacy.347
Mission creep?
172. Our evidence suggested some unease about mission creep. As the Carnegie
Endowment noted, the term “disinformation” is “often invoked quite
loosely to denigrate any viewpoint seen as wrong, baseless, disingenuous,
or harmful”. This, in turn, risks deepening mistrust and undermining the
legitimacy of tackling mis/disinformation across the board.
173. Tom Slater, Editor at the online Spiked magazine, believed for example that
a “new anti-disinformation industry” had emerged, which he described as
“a kind of anti-dissent industry”. He called for more focus on “not funding
organisations that are censoring journalists”.348 Freddie Sayers, Editor
in Chief and CEO of UnHerd, similarly believed that a “disinformation
movement” had “exacerbated losses in public trust and fastforwarded the
collapse in trust in the media and in government”.349
174. We also heard mixed views on the use of factcheckers. David Dinsmore,
Chief Operating Officer of News UK said it was the role of journalists and
editors to verify information, adding “I certainly do not want a third party
coming in”.350 Peter Wright, Editor Emeritus of DMG Media, however said
he found fact-checkers to be “helpful sometimes”.351
175. James Harding, Co-founder of Tortoise Media, worried that some arguments
were “made under the banner of freedom of speech that actually promotes
freedom from fact”. He raised concerns about lack of action from tech firms
and believed they should do more to “deal with the deliberate dissemination
of information that is untrue, divisive and sometimes dangerous”. He said
that this differed from the idea of dissent outlined by Mr Slater: “Dissent is
something else”.352
Money
176. Second, and relatedly, is the growing tension between publishers’ free
speech, and online advertisers’ desires to ensure their adverts do not appear
alongside problematic content. The UK Stop Advertising Funded Crime
group has outlined how the complexity of the programmatic advertising
347 For an analysis on the evidence underpinning these types of responses see Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, Countering Disinformation Effectively (2024): https://carnegie-production-assets.
s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/Carnegie_Countering_Disinformation_Effectively.pdf [accessed 1
September 2024]. See also details in Box 3.
348 QQ 125, 131
349 Q 131
350 Q 42 (David Dinsmore)
351 Q 42 (Peter Wright)
352 Q 131
system353 makes it almost impossible for brands to know where adverts will
end up. Many ‘ghost’ AI-powered news sites earn advertising revenues,
sometimes backed by organised crime.354 To protect their reputation, brands
use third-party agencies to screen websites.355
177. Mr Sayers said that his news website UnHerd had faced a fall in advertising
revenue after receiving a poor rating from the Global Disinformation Index
(GDI), which describes itself as a non-profit service “enabling advertisers
to reduce the unintended monetisation of deceptive and highly adversarial
online content”.356 Mr Sayers argued this was an example of “detached and
unaccountable actors” taking “very politicised views on things”.357
178. The GDI argued in response that “publishers have no automatic right to
expect advertisers’ money” and that advertisers “aren’t compelled to buy ads
alongside content they feel might harm their brand”. The GDI contended
that the provision of services to inform advertising transactions was “a key
tenet of a free market”.358 Concerns about advertising blacklists and the role
of brand safety have become more widespread.359 Stephanie Peacock MP
confirmed that public funding for the GDI from the Foreign, Commonwealth
and Development Office to “promote initiatives that tackled disinformation”
ended in 2023. She added that it is “not for the Government” to dictate
where brands should advertise.360
179. The rise of brand safety organisations has raised complex questions
about the extent and implications of their work. The Government’s
online advertising taskforce should review the work and impact of
brand safety organisations on news publisher revenue.
Technical solutions
180. A third theme was about the limits of technical solutions and risks of
overreliance. The calls for watermarking on generative AI content are a
good example.361 Meta, Google and OpenAI are among those working on
353 Programmatic advertising is an automated process for buying and selling digital advertising, which
involves a real-time bidding process through which ads can be bought in seconds with little human
interaction.
354 UK Stop Advertising Funded Crime, ‘Stop Advertising Funded Crime’: https://uksafc.org/ [accessed
22 October 2024]
355 WARC, ‘The Future of Programmatic’ (2024): https://www.warc.com/content/paywall/article/warc-
exclusive/the-future-of-programmatic-2024/en-gb/156796? [accessed 22 October 2024]
356 Written evidence from the Global Disinformation Index (FON0071)
357 Q 111
358 Written evidence from the Global Disinformation Index (FON0071)
359 ‘News publishers and broadcasters warn over advertising blacklists’, Financial Times (26 September
2024): https://www.ft.com/content/51216ef9-b4b7-43ca-86b6-8da1ff6f65cd [accessed 15 November
2024]
360 Q 194. The Committee wrote to the (then) Minister for Europe, Nusrat Ghani MP, regarding action
on mis/disinformation and the role of brand safety organisations. See Letter from The Rt Hon
the Baroness Stowell of Beeston MBE, Chair of the Select Committee on Communications and
Digital to Nusrat Ghani MP, Minister for Europe (9 May 2024): https://committees.parliament.uk/
publications/44707/documents/222021/default/
361 Written evidence from Logically (FON0068), Professor Rafael A. Calvo (FON0047). See also
Adobe, ‘Generative AI Content’ (2 August 2024): https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/stock/contributor/help/
generative-ai-content.html [accessed 1 September 2024]; and our previous report on generative AI:
Large language models and generative AI, para 223
watermarks.362 Many stakeholders have welcomed these moves. Yet although

they are worth pursuing, they are no panacea. Watermarks can be limited or
bypassed; an effective system requires widespread collaboration and mutual
recognition across developers and platforms; malicious actors can use less
scrupulous model providers (or simply fake watermarks directly); and users
need to know what they are looking at.363 None of this seems likely to be
solved in the short term.
181. Other common suggestions like content and source labelling are progressing,
but remain complex. Much depends on the specific way they are
implemented.364 Practices can also change quickly, as X (formerly Twitter)
shows. The European Commission has said that the platform’s new blue tick
verifier could “deceive” users into believing that the accounts are actually
verified.365
182. Making tech platforms change their algorithms is another common
proposal. Options exist, as voluntary initiatives366 and the EU’s Digital
Services Act show.367 Stakeholder appetite seems mixed. The Media Reform
Coalition advocated “imposing responsibilities on platforms to flag, label
and deprioritise misleading or factually inaccurate content”.368 Professor
William Dutton, Emeritus Professor, University of Southern California,
argued in contrast that existing measures under the Online Safety Act would
already “lead to over-regulation, oversurveillance and over-censorship”.369
362 See for example The Verge, ‘Meta says you better disclose your AI fakes or it might just pull them’ (6
February 2024): https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/6/24062388/meta-ai-photo-watermark-facebook-
instagram-threads [accessed 1 September 2024]; The Verge, ‘OpenAI is adding new watermarks
to DALL-E 3’ (6 February 2024): https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/6/24063954/ai-watermarks-
dalle3-openai-content-credentials [accessed 1 September 2024]; The Verge, ‘Google is embedding
inaudible watermarks right into its AI generated music’ (16 November 2023): https://www.theverge.
com/2023/11/16/23963607/google-deepmind-synthid-audio-watermarks [accessed 1 September
2024]; AutoGPT, ‘OpenAI divided over launch of AI watermarking tool’ (6 August 2024): https://
autogpt.net/openai-divided-over-launch-of-ai-watermarking-tool/ [accessed 1 September 2024]
363 MIT Technology Review, ‘Why Big Tech’s watermarking plans are some welcome good news’
(13 February 2024): https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/02/13/1088103/why-big-techs-
watermarking-plans-are-some-welcome-good-news/ [accessed 1 September 2024]; AutoGPT,
‘OpenAI divided over launch of AI watermarking tool’ (6 August 2024): https://autogpt.net/openai-
divided-over-launch-of-ai-watermarking-tool/ [accessed 1 September 2024]; Brookings, ‘Detecting
AI fingerprints’ (January 2024): https://www.brookings.edu/articles/detecting-ai-fingerprints-
a-guide-to-watermarking-and-beyond /#:~:text=Relative%20to%20other%20approaches%20
to,watermarks%20in%20AI%2Dgenerated%20content [accessed 1 September 2024]; MIT
Technology Review, ‘It’s easy to tamper with watermarks from AI generated text’ (29 March 2024):
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/29/1090310/its-easy-to-tamper-with-watermarks-from-
ai-generated-text/#:~:text=The%20first%20one%2C%20called%20a,passed%20off %20as%20
human%2Dwritten [accessed 1 September 2024]
364 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Countering Disinformation Effectively (2024): https://
carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/Carnegie_Countering_Disinformation_
Effectively.pdf [accessed 1 September 2024]
365 BBC, ‘EU says X’s blue tick accounts deceive users’ (12 July 2024): https://www.bbc.co.uk/
news/articles/cw0y1ezpv5xo#:~:text=The%20bloc’s%20tech%20regulator%20said,Digital%20
Services%20Act%20(DSA) [accessed 18 October 2024]
366 National Technology News, ‘Meta introduces AI system to tackle harmful content’ (9 December 2021):
https://nationaltechnology.co.uk/Meta_Introduces_AI_System_To_Tackle_Harmful_Content.php
367 European Commission, ‘The Digital Services Act package’:https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/
policies/digital-services-act-package [accessed 1 September 2024]. This includes provisions around
profiting from disinformation, tackling co-ordinated inauthentic activity and boosting transparency
requirements.
368 Written evidence from the Media Reform Coalition (FON0029). See also written evidence from
AGENCY (FON0017).
369 Q 114
One disinformation company, Logically, said that new legislation was

unnecessary and that Ofcom should rather focus on getting its guidance
right—for example stating explicitly that tech firms should track and address
common tactics used by foreign adversaries. Clarifying what the new “false
communications” offence means in practice might also help.370
Strategic responses
183. We were more persuaded by long-term strategic responses. These would
likely require time, money and sustained commitment—but offer greater
self-reliance and raise fewer free speech sensitivities.
Deterrence posture
184. A more muscular deterrence posture could help deter egregious foreign
interference efforts. Professor Martin noted that the Russians were
“unembarrassable”, indicating the limited impact of diplomatic responses.
Yet harder options including offensive cyber are available. The US Cyber
Command is thought to have degraded the Internet Research Agency’s
technical infrastructure, for example.371 The UK’s National Cyber Force, a
partnership between the Ministry of Defence and intelligence agencies, cites
the possibility of using cyber power to “make it harder for states to use the
internet to spread disinformation”.372 Professor Martin argued that:
“the more we can use interventions to take down the disinformation
infrastructure of these groups, and the costlier we make it for them to
operate, the better”.373
Media literacy
185. Media literacy initiatives remain a key way to improve societal resilience, and
tend to be less intrusive than regulation.374 The Government’s Online Media
Literacy Strategy funded initiatives throughout 2021–2025 and Ofcom has
new duties under the Online Safety Act.375
186. A 2023 report for the Government by the London School of Economics
summarised the various difficulties, including “short-term, small-scale
funding” which creates fragmentation, duplication and administrative
burdens; “limited coordination [which] leads to duplication and a lack of
oversight”; and a “lack of clear benchmarks or specified outcomes” which
affects scaling, evaluation and best practice sharing.376
187. Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Stephanie Peacock MP noted the
importance of cross-government media literacy efforts. They also suggested
370 Written evidence from Logically (FON0068)

371 Q 106
372 National Cyber Force, ‘Responsible Cyber Power in Practice’ (4 April 2023): https://www.gov.uk/
government/publications/responsible-cyber-power-in-practice/responsible-cyber-power-in-practice-
html#:~:text=to%20the%20strategy.-,National%20Cyber%20Force,interests%20at%20home%20
and%20abroad [accessed 1 September 2024]
373 Q 106
374 Q 111 (Professor Dutton), written evidence from Dr Madrid-Morales (FON0049)
375 Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, ‘Year 3 online media literacy action plan’
(23 October 2023): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/year-3-media-literacy-action-
plan-202324/year-3-online-media-literacy-action-plan-202324 [accessed 1 September 2024]
376 Lee Edwards et al, Cross-sectoral challenges to media literacy (August 2023), p 23: https://assets.
publishing.service.gov.uk/media/651167fabf7c1a0011bb4660/cross-sectoral_challenges_to_media_
literacy.pdf [accessed 1 September 2024]
that the Government’s media literacy plans will be replaced by Ofcom’s new
strategy.377 We did not find this wholly reassuring. Ofcom’s three-year media
literacy strategy argues that:
“while Ofcom has an important part to play, media literacy must be
everyone’s business—online platforms, parents, educators, third-sector
organisations, providers of health and social care, professionals working
with children, broadcasters (including the public service broadcasters)
and others”.378
188. We remain uncertain about how well a regulator (as opposed to Government)
is placed to drive progress in areas critical to media literacy—such as
setting up real-world interventions, administering grant funding and
influencing the plethora of Government departments central to this work.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said her department was “looking now
at the independent curriculum and assessment review into education in
schools” and talking with the Department for Education.379
The role of news media

189. A robust media sector provides good options for responding to foreign
interference efforts. Professor Martin suggested that agreements for
structured dialogue between the Government and media could help media
organisations balance their duties to report without becoming “unwitting
agents” of foreign states by amplifying false narratives (and perhaps, more
controversially, hack and leak materials).380 He cited successful examples
from Australia as a model.381
190. Finally we heard that a healthy media sector, staffed by professionals
producing stories that engage the public, remains one of the most enduring
solutions to fears about mis/disinformation eroding a shared understanding
of fact.382 The controversies surrounding the recent US election are
illustrative. Commentators have highlighted the difficult choices in deciding
whether highly contested assertions (such as the integrity of the US 2020
election) should be treated as demonstrably false claims or protected as
legitimate political talking points.383 Ensuring such challenges are dealt
with appropriately may become increasingly difficult as the information
environment fragments.384 But as stakeholders throughout our inquiry
argued, well-funded and professional news organisations remain the best
placed actors to navigate such sensitivities.385
377 Q 181
378 Ofcom, A Positive Vision for Media Literacy (October 2024) p 3: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/
resources/documents/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/making-sense-of-media/media-
literacy/ofcoms-three-year-media-literacy-strategy-final.pdf [accessed 15 November 2024]
379 Q 181 (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch)
380 This refers to material illicitly obtained and then published. It is typically associated with foreign
interference campaigns.
381 Q 107 (Professor Ciaran Martin)
382 Written evidence from the News Media Association (FON0056)
383 ‘News Organizations Cut Away From Trump’s Misleading Speech’ (31 May 2024), The New York
Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/31/business/media/cnn-nbc-trump-speech.html [accessed
29 October 2024]; The Verge, ‘J.D. Vance is anti-Big Tech, pro-crypto’ (16 July 2024): https://www.
theverge.com/24199314/jd-vance-donald-trump-vp-antitrust-big-tech-ftc-lina-khan-elizabeth-
warren-google [accessed 1 September 2024]; ‘ The New York Times is facing backlash over its coverage
of Donald Trump and the 2024 election’, CNN (5 March 2024): https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/05/
media/new-york-times-trump-coverage-backlash/index.html [accessed 6 November 2024].
384 Written evidence from the News Media Association (FON0056)
385 See for example written evidence from News UK (FON0055)
191. We welcome efforts to improve trust in the information environment,

but we caution against a counter-mis/disinformation strategy that
relies too heavily on measures in the Online Safety Act, or technical
fixes like watermarks, labelling and algorithmic tweaking. Some
of these are doubtless welcome, but such solutions are unlikely to
tackle the root causes of supply and demand. They raise questions
about potential overreach and free speech sensitivities. And they risk
creating strategic dependencies on overseas tech firms to address
highly sensitive societal challenges.
192. The Government should focus more on strengthening long-term
resilience. We suggest four priorities.
(1) First is recognising more explicitly the value of a financially
sustainable news sector: this is the best way to maintain a
shared understanding of facts.
(2) Second, the Government could engage further with media
organisations about protocols for responding to major foreign
interference efforts, particularly around elections.
(3) Third, the Government should adopt a more muscular
deterrence posture to impose greater costs on adversaries, for
example using responsible cyber power to degrade adversary
infrastructure. This could feature in the Strategic Defence
Review currently underway.
(4) Fourth is media literacy. We are not yet convinced that the
Government has a good plan. More resources and effort are
needed to scale ‘what works’ in media literacy, and avoid a
tangle of short-term fragmented projects. Ofcom is already
taking on major burdens: we hope it is not left to be the main
lead for such a complex policy issue. The Government needs
its own strategy. DSIT should set out its future plans for media
literacy and timeline for evaluating its current activities in
response to this report. The Department for Education should
use the opportunity of the Curriculum and Assessment Review
to ensure that media literacy is given more time and prominence
in schools.
Chapter 8: SLAPPS
Investigative journalism and SLAPPs

193. The final issue we examined was the legal and security risks of investigative
journalism. Professor Nielsen summarised the challenges: “it is expensive,
it is uncertain and you might get sued”.386 The most pernicious form of
intimidation involves ‘strategic litigation against public participation’, or
SLAPPs.387 The previous Government described these as “an abuse of
the legal process, where the primary objective is to harass, intimidate and
financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent”.388 Fiona O’Brien,
Bureau Director of Reporters Without Borders, said SLAPPs make journalists
“self-censor, stop reporting on stories, and stop doing investigations because
[of] the fear of legal action” and insurmountable legal fees.389
194. Over the past two years we have engaged with numerous departments and
the Solicitors Regulation Authority to advocate proportionate protections.390
Valuable progress includes action to prevent sanctioned individuals receiving
waivers to sue UK journalists; the establishment of a SLAPPs Taskforce;
and more proactive work from the regulator. Susan Coughtrie, Director of
the Foreign Policy Centre, cautioned however that “none of it will actually
hold water if the legislative and regulatory side does not bear fruit”.391
Background to legislation
195. In 2022 the Government consulted on SLAPPs and committed to legislate.
In 2023 the Government amended the Economic Crime and Corporate
Transparency (ECCT) Bill to include some anti-SLAPP protections.392 We
welcomed this, while noting that the definition was restricted to economic
crime and hence excluded a wide range of topics. The (then) Lord Chancellor
and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport committed to more
comprehensive legislation “at the earliest opportunity”.393
196. In February 2024 a Government-backed Private Member’s Bill sponsored
by the then Labour MP Wayne David had its second reading.394 This sought
to address the ECCT’s deficiencies. Due to the 2024 General Election the
Bill was not passed.
Getting legislation right

197. Any anti-SLAPP legislation must be balanced. The principle of preventing
abuses is sound, though doing this in ways that maintain access to justice
is more complex. As former justice minister Lord Bellamy argued, “the
386 Q 139
387 Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘Warning notice’ (31 May 2024): https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/
guidance/slapps-warning-notice/ [accessed 15 November 2024]
388 Ministerial Statement UIN HCWS103, (Session 2023–24)
389 Q 149
390 Communications and Digital Committee, ‘Correspondence on lawfare and free speech’: https://
committees.parliament.uk/work/6604/lawfare-and-free-speech/publications/3/correspondence/
391 Q 149
392 This included a definition of a SLAPP, powers to strike out baseless claims at an early stage, and a
costs protection scheme.
393 Letter, Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the Chair (11
September 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/42202/documents/209733/default/
394 Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill
key problem is to distinguish access to justice from harassment. It is quite

difficult, but it can be done”.395
198. New rules should make it harder for claimants and less lucrative for law
firms to pursue SLAPP cases. Not everyone seems enthusiastic. The Society
of Media Lawyers, a recent industry group, says calls to tackle SLAPPs
“grossly exaggerates the problem”, lacks a “proper evidential basis” and risks
“oppressive regulatory pressure”. The group stated that its members “play
an important role in providing access to justice” and criticised the idea of
“accepting, as an established fact, that there is a SLAPP issue requiring a
legislative response”.396
199. The experience of the Private Member’s Bill suggests that more transparent
engagement will be needed to uphold public confidence that the Government
is taking the right approach. Sayra Tekin, Director of Legal at the News
Media Association, said the first version of the Bill (which was developed with
significant Government involvement) contained numerous deficiencies that
would have made the situation worse, not better.397 We wrote to the (then)
Lord Chancellor recommending changes, but struggled to understand why
an anti-SLAPP Bill was so drafted in the first place.398 Ms Tekin believed
that the issues stemmed in part from Ministry of Justice officials who she
thought were:
“trying to balance the interests of claimant lawyers against SLAPP
victims, which seems to be entirely the wrong starting point … It perhaps
gives an indication of why this Bill … has been framed in this way,
because it is extremely claimant litigants-friendly … We have gone from
a Government [who] said, “Abuse of the system will not be tolerated” to
… tolerating a certain level of abuse—harassment, harm, distress—not
as a corollary of bringing litigation but the very intent of it.”399
200. In July 2024 the new justice minister Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede said
that the Government had “every intention” of continuing discussions
about SLAPPs.400 The Minister for Sport, Media, Civil Society and Youth
acknowledged that SLAPPs legislation was not in the King’s speech. She
told us that legislation was a Ministry of Justice lead and assured us that she
would discuss it with them.401
201. The new Government is failing to prioritise anti-SLAPP legislation.
This is troubling and has serious potential consequences for press
freedom and the future of the news industry. There has already been
a public consultation. Viable legislative options and precedents exist.
What is missing now is political will. Its absence reflects poorly on
the new Government’s values and commitment to justice. We are
not persuaded that the complexity of the issue, or the need for cross-
395 HL Deb, 25 April 2024, col 419GC

396 The Society of Media Lawyers, Letter to Mr Nick Emmerson (27 October 2023): https://inforrm.org/
wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The-Law-Society-271023.pdf {accessed 15 November 2024]
397 Q 150. Issues included failing to address pre-action protocols sufficiently, unhelpful requirements on
proving intent, and a “pernicious” concept that the intent to cause a degree of harassment, distress or
alarm may be a legitimate aim in the ordinary course of litigation.
398 Communications and Digital Committee, letter to the Lord Chancellor (14 May 2024): https://
committees.parliament.uk/publications/44726/documents/222221/default/
399 Q 150
400 HL Deb, 24 July 2024, cols 500–502
401 QQ 192–193
government engagement, are a valid excuse for lengthy delays. The

Government should publish draft legislative proposals before the
2025 summer recess and allow time for proper scrutiny. If necessary
it should explore using the Victims, Courts and Public Protection
Bill, announced in the recent King’s Speech, as a vehicle.
202. Anti-SLAPP legislation is unlikely to be supported by everyone in the
legal profession. Some concerns are valid, others less so. The Ministry
of Justice must learn lessons from the experience of developing the
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill introduced
in the previous session of Parliament. We heard that it was initially
drafted in ways that would make the situation worse. We would like to
understand the process by which this came about.
203. In response to this report the Ministry of Justice should publish an
exhaustive list of stakeholders it engaged with in relation to the
development of the Private Member’s Bill between May 2023 and
May 2024. This should include the names of organisations, meeting
dates and topics, and substantive written correspondence.
Solicitors Regulation Authority

Flawed evidence base?
204. We were pleased to hear that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has
made significant progress on SLAPPs. Its CEO Paul Philip said the SRA
had received 71 cases, of which 48 were live (as of May 2024) and two of the
most serious had been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The
SRA had also issued warning notices.402 These actions represent a substantial
improvement since we first took evidence from them.403
205. We struggled however to follow the logic behind its recent approach to
gathering evidence. A thematic review published in February 2023 found “no
evidence” of abusive practices.404 The methods though involved reviewing
just two closed files per firm, and excluded all of the firms under investigation
for conducting suspected SLAPP activity. Other reviews apparently followed
similar practices.405 The Society for Media Lawyers has cited the 2023
review’s finding as evidence that SLAPPs are overblown.406
206. We asked Mr Philip if it was a coincidence that the SRA had found no
evidence of SLAPPs wrongdoing, if the SRA reviews deliberately excluded
all of the firms under investigation for alleged SLAPPs. He acknowledged the
conundrum but said that the reviews should not “prejudice the investigation”,
and believed that the SRA needed to avoid accusations of “inappropriate”
behaviour or “fishing expeditions”. He suggested that statutory powers for
inspections would be needed to enable more targeted assessments.407
402 Q 154 (Paul Philip)

403 Oral evidence taken before the Communications and Digital Committee inquiry on Lawfare and free
speech, 24 January 2023 (Session 2022–23) Q 16 (Paul Philip)
404 Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘Review shows law firms need to do more on SLAPPs’ (14 February
2023): https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/news/press/2023-press-releases/conduct-dispute-thematic-review/
405 Q 154
406 The Society of Media Lawyers, ‘Letter to Mr Nick Emmerson’ (27 October 2023): https://inforrm.
org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The-Law-Society-271023.pdf [accessed 15 November 2024]
407 Q 154
207. We applaud the progress made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority

(SRA) in recent years. However, we do not agree that it should
conduct thematic evaluations of SLAPPs that deliberately exclude
the law firms accused of malpractice. Predictably and implausibly,
these evaluations have found limited evidence of wrongdoing. This
risks creating a flawed evidence base to inform public debate.
With transparent governance structures and information firewalls
between teams, it should be possible to conduct multiple separate
engagements with the same firm without prejudicing the outcome of
investigations.
208. The SRA’s future reviews of SLAPP activity should not exclude law
firms subject to ongoing investigations. The Government should
also review whether the SRA has the necessary inspection powers to
enable more targeted assessments.
Inadequate fines
209. We have made repeated calls to raise the SRA’s £25,000 fining limit (only
recently raised from £2,000) which applies to traditional solicitors’ firms.
The SRA can fine other types of licensed bodies (Alternative Business
Structures) and the solicitors working there up to £250 million and £50
million respectively. We have been unable to discern any clear rationale for
this discrepancy.408 The SRA has described its fining powers as “pea-shooter
against a tank”.409
210. In 2023 we sought to amend the Economic Crime and Corporate
Transparency (ECCT) Bill to address this imbalance. The Government’s
subsequent changes to the Bill empowered the SRA to levy higher fines for
cases related specifically to economic crime. The implications for tackling
SLAPPs remains unclear. Mr Philip told us that the Act had increased his
fining powers only for a “very definite list of economic crimes but not for this
type of issue at all.”410 Juliet Oliver, General Counsel at the SRA, said they
would need to try to prove that the conduct of the solicitor “prevented the
investigation or detection of economic crime” and had breached the SRA’s
rules.411 This appears to be a high bar. Mr Philip has “formally requested”
broader fining powers and said the matter lies with the Legal Services Board.412
211. The £25,000 fining limit for the Solicitors Regulation Authority
is too low. The changes in the Economic Crime and Corporate
Transparency (ECCT) Act 2023 are a welcome start but appear too
tightly circumscribed to have the desired effect. The Legal Services
Board should work with the Ministry of Justice to raise the fining
limit to £250 million for SLAPPs. We would be grateful for a progress
update before the 2025 summer recess.
408 See Letter from the Chair to Rt Hon Alex Chalk KC MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State
for Justice, Ministry of Justice (14 May 2024): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/44726/
speech, 24 January 2023 (Session 2022–23) Q 17 (Paul Philip)
410 Q 153
411 Q 154
412 Q 153
Outsourcing the problem

212. During previous inquiries we have heard numerous allegations that law firms
engage private investigative or PR firms to intimidate and smear defendants.413
The SRA has said that some solicitors are not doing enough to ensure the
organisations they instruct are acting lawfully and ethically. Few firms in the
regulator’s recent review had a written policy on due diligence in checking
third party agents, for example.414 The SRA said however that their powers
of investigation do not extend to third parties.415
213. The Government should extend the SRA’s remit to ensure that
activities commissioned directly by solicitors can be subject to
regulatory oversight. This would prevent lawyers from outsourcing
harassment to third parties without scrutiny.
National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists

214. We heard praise for the Government’s SLAPPs taskforce. Susan Coughtrie
said it was usefully joining up action on physical surveillance, trolling and
other harassment that typically accompanies SLAPPs.416 Fiona O’Brien
noted ongoing challenges though, including limited funding for a new
tracker led by the National Union of Journalists, a “lack of engagement” from
social media platforms, and police forces that have “largely been absent”.417
There is still no standard way of recording intimidation or assaults against
journalists across police forces, for example.418 Further worries were raised
about transnational repression. The Government has provided welcome
recognition of the issue,419 but the scale of security threats (including kidnap
and assassination efforts) remains concerning.420
215. We commend the Government’s progress in establishing the
SLAPPs Taskforce. We urge participants to maintain momentum.
Particular attention should be paid to engaging the police to establish
a standard way of reporting intimidation of journalists, and tackling
transnational repression from foreign states.
Proceeds of crime
216. The use of illicit money to fund SLAPPs remains a concern. We have been
told previously that payment for legal services to facilitate SLAPPs is not
covered by Anti-Money Laundering legislation.421 The Law Society has
highlighted risks around “professional enablers” evading money laundering
or due diligence checks.422 Clare Rewcastle Brown, a journalist, previously
413 Communications and Digital Committee, Oral evidence, 7 May 2024; Oral evidence, 24 January
2023; Oral evidence, 31 March 2022
414 Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SLAPPs thematic review’ (19 April 2024): https://www.sra.org.uk/
sra/research-publications/strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-thematic-review/ [accessed
23 October 2024]
415 Q 155 (Paul Philip)
416 Q 151
417 Q 152
418 Ibid.
419 HC Deb, 26 February 2024, col 8
420 ‘Met police and MI5 foil 15 plots by Iran against British or UK-based enemies’ The Guardian (18
February 2023): https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/18/met-police-mi5-foil-15-iranian-
plots-against-british-or-uk-based-enemies [accessed 15 November 2024]
421 Letter from the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, SLAPPs
(30 June 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40903/documents/199190/default/
422 The Law Society, ‘Professional enablers’ (15 May 2024): https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/anti-
money-laundering/professional-enablers [accessed 23 October 2024]
told us that she had informed a law firm that the funds used for a SLAPP
case were illicit: “Invariably, they have said that they have satisfied themselves
… They clearly do not have the due diligence that the financial services
industry has”.423
217. The previous Government told us that the regulator could update its
guidance on money laundering.424 This appears unlikely to solve the more
fundamental issue that the statutory basis for the regulator to intervene is
weak. The SRA told us that:
“in order for us to sanction lawyers for wrongdoing if they accept
criminal property as funding for SLAPP cases, it would in our view
be important for legislation to be enacted to make the position under
POCA clear: for example, by putting beyond doubt that section 327 (the
offence of ‘concealing, converting, transferring, disguising, removing’
stolen property) applies to the taking of monies for legal fees in certain
circumstances.”425
218. Gathering more evidence on these risks appears difficult given the
regulator’s limited ability to conduct spot checks or require source of wealth
investigations. Changing the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 would therefore
have merit in clarifying the law, preventing abuses and enabling the regulator
to obtain evidence of wrongdoing.426
219. We remain concerned that SLAPPs can be financed by illicit money.
We appreciate the sensitivities: everyone has a right to pay for legal
representation. But SLAPPs are not a form of access to justice—they
are an abuse of the system. The Government has been oddly reluctant
to deal with this problem.
220. The Government should amend section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime
Act 2002 to clarify that subsection (1) applies to the acceptance of
proceeds of crime as payment for legal services. If necessary this
could specify the application to services provided in relation to
litigation which has the intention or effect of supressing reporting on
matters of public interest.
221. The Government should also update Anti-Money Laundering
legislation to ensure solicitors have to conduct more comprehensive
due diligence, including source of wealth and customer background
checks, for cases that concern matters of public interest. The SRA
should be given powers to conduct spot checks to provide an effective
deterrent.
speech, 31 March 2022 (Session 2021–22) Q 6 (Clare Rewcastle Brown)
424 Letter from the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, SLAPPs
(30 June 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40903/documents/199190/default/
425 Solicitors Regulation Authority, Letter to the Chair of the Communications and Digital Committee
(19 April 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/39112/documents/192242/default/
The SRA notes that consequential changes to money laundering regulations would also need to follow.
426 We wrote to the (then) Chancellor of the Exchequer in January 2023, to the Home Secretary in April
2023 and to the Lord Chancellor in March 2024 recommending these changes. For our suggested
amendment see Communications and Digital Committee, letter to the Home Secretary—Annex (21
April 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/39136/documents/192446/default/
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 2: The case for action and its limits

1. There are powerful economic, democratic and foreign policy arguments for
supporting the future of honest, accurate and informative news. Although
the value of news is clear, its prospects are not. The Government’s task is to
establish the conditions that enable UK media to stand on its own feet and
ensure that public service broadcasters are able to thrive. The Government
should focus on sector-wide structural changes which drive innovation while
maintaining media independence. Any interventions must also work with
market trends, not create artificial demand. (Paragraph 25)
Chapter 3: Financial health

2. Tax reliefs are one way to reduce the costs of producing quality journalism.
(Paragraph 43)
3. The Government should review the impacts of business rates relief on local newspaper
offices. If found to be helpful, this scheme should be extended until 2029. The
Government should also issue a consultation before the 2025 summer recess on tax
breaks for hiring local journalists. (Paragraph 43)
4. Local authority public notice advertising is a substantial source of income for
local print news providers (many of which are owned by large conglomerates).
The rules generally exclude digital titles and smaller outlets that publish print
editions less frequently. Questions remain about using local government
advertising to support local media, as this risks becoming a market distortion.
However, if this spending is happening anyway, modest changes would help
to make the situation more equitable. (Paragraph 48)
5. The Government should consult on changing the definition of a “newspaper” to
allow local authorities greater flexibility in determining the most effective use of
public notice advertising spend. We suggest local authorities should be permitted to
use both online providers and a wider variety of print outlets. (Paragraph 49)
6. Local authorities should ensure public notice adverts remain accessible to digitally
excluded groups. In line with the findings from our 2023 report on digital exclusion,
we recommend local and central government advertising teams explore creative
ways to engage digitally excluded groups (for example using community centres and
local hubs). (Paragraph 50)
7. Media organisations will need to innovate and take more risks to transition to
long-term sustainable business models. The UK already has good innovation
initiatives for other industries which help catalyse, scale and monetise new
ideas. The news sector needs one too. (Paragraph 56)
8. The Government should establish a new Future News innovation catalyst scheme.
The objective should be to facilitate technology-driven business transformation to help
participants improve their long-term financial sustainability. While the Government
should provide the funding, the scheme should be delivered independently. It should
learn from the successes and shortcomings of the previous pilot. The number of
recipients should be small to ensure the available funding can make a meaningful
difference. Some grants should be match funded by recipients to ensure value for
money and participant buy-in. (Paragraph 57)
9. The financial precarity of many jobs in journalism is not conducive to

attracting a diverse workforce representative of the UK’s population. We
welcome schemes from industry and the National Council for the Training
of Journalists to attract and train under-represented groups, particularly
outside London. As part of its local media strategy the Government should
seek partnership funding to support attraction and training schemes for local
news, including apprenticeships. (Paragraph 60)
10. As part of its local media strategy the Government should seek partnership funding
to support attraction and training schemes for local news, including apprenticeships.
(Paragraph 60)
11. The upcoming Charter Review is a key opportunity to refresh the BBC’s
relationship with local news. (Paragraph 68)
12. The Government should give the BBC an objective to engage with local news
providers as strategic partners. This should involve expanding the Local Democracy
Reporting Service and increasing the proportion of journalists allocated to small
(including online-only) outlets. The BBC should also explore expanding its
apprenticeship scheme in ways that support local news. (Paragraph 68)
13. The BBC must pursue transformational innovation as new technologies
fundamentally reshape the news environment. In doing so, it should benefit
the wider health of the UK media sector. (Paragraph 69)
14. Developing a public interest news generative AI tool is one option the BBC could
explore as it seeks to keep pace with new technologies and changing consumer
habits. This might involve a service that is designed to improve public access to
authoritative information—perhaps with a particular focus on partnering with local
news organisations. Any major projects of this nature would need to be subject to
industry consultation and relevant public value and market impact assessments.
(Paragraph 70)
Chapter 4: Tech platforms

15. We encourage tech platforms to give more prominence to recognised news publishers
(as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023), for example through better visual cues
or adjusting prominence on user feeds. This should be an industry-led initiative: we
do not support a mandatory Government-led kitemark scheme. (Paragraph 79)
16. We are concerned that tech platforms have been imposing age restrictions on
news that is Ofcom-compliant. We are also concerned at reports of ‘shadow
bans’ and the blocking of other legitimate content. (Paragraph 82)
17. Ofcom should engage with tech platforms at pace to align content moderation policies
with Ofcom’s broadcasting codes and the duties contained in the Online Safety
Act 2023. When implementing the Act’s protections for news publishers, Ofcom
should pay particular attention to grey areas where content is not blocked but subtly
downranked to minimise user engagement. (Paragraph 83)
18. More transparency over tech platforms’ algorithms is needed (even if
transparency on its own will not be enough). Empowering the regulators
quickly is necessary and achievable. (Paragraph 86)
19. The Government should give Ofcom the necessary powers to investigate tech firm
recommender algorithms and the operations of large language models (LLMs). This
will become increasingly important amid concerns about the potential for political
influence and bias in LLMs. (Paragraph 86)
Chapter 5: Generative Artificial Intelligence

20. Advances in generative AI are enabling tech firms to provide engaging and
high quality news summaries. This suggests they are increasingly acting as
publishers and may need to be regulated as such. Ofcom’s media plurality
framework is rapidly becoming outdated, and the previous Government’s
years-long timeline for implementing vital changes has been inadequate.
(Paragraph 100)
21. The Government should commit to a 12 month deadline for responding to future
Ofcom priority recommendations on media plurality. (Paragraph 100)
22. The Government’s proposed amendments to the media mergers regime are
a good start. But we are disappointed it has not sought a wider update to
the media plurality regime. The decision to exclude online intermediaries
looks oddly short sighted given the rapid advances in tech firms’ ability to
produce news summaries. We appreciate that tech firms are not newspapers
but this does not mean their evolving role in the news landscape should be
overlooked. (Paragraph 101)
23. We recommend the Government works with Ofcom to set out plans and timelines for
capturing online news intermediaries within the scope of the media ownership rules.
(Paragraph 101)
24. The Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum should establish a dedicated workstream
examining areas of regulatory crossover, conflict and collaboration that will affect
the news sector—focusing in particular on privacy, advertising and competition.
(Paragraph 104)
25. The use of news content to train generative AI has the potential to reshape
the economics of the media industry. The UK needs a better framework
for governing how this works. There are arguments for and against tougher
rules. On the one hand, the UK must remain competitive in AI development,
or else lose any claim to international leadership. Economic prosperity,
public sector efficiencies and national security all provide good arguments
for establishing an AI-friendly training regime. (Paragraph 124)
26. But that does not mean the Government should pursue rules that primarily
benefit foreign tech firms (who seem prepared to pay vast sums on energy,
computing facilities and staff—but not on data). Previous efforts to find a
solution have been weak and ineffectual. The Government must aim for a
robust framework that helps the creative industries strike mutually beneficial
deals with tech firms, aligns incentives, respects intellectual property and
champions responsible AI development in the UK. Media organisations, for
their part, will need to continue to demonstrate their value—and be clear
that their position is not about special pleading or propping up outlets for
which there is limited demand. (Paragraph 125)
27. While we welcome the new Government’s desire to make progress on this issue,
we caution strongly against adopting a flawed opt-out regime comparable to
the version operating in the EU. Much better means for ensuring technical
viability, transparency, consent and enforcement are needed for a new text
and data mining regime to work to UK advantage. If the Government gets
this right, it can provide speedy regulatory certainty and encourage a new
AI-licensing startup scene to flourish too. (Paragraph 126)
28. Any proposal for a new text and data mining regime must include transparency
mechanisms that enable rightsholders to check whether their data has been used. It
must offer technical enforceability that goes beyond the likes of robots.txt indicators,
which remain inadequate. Meaningful sanctions for non-compliance are essential
and the Government’s anticipated IP consultation should explore the options for
independent regulatory enforcement. Requirements for web crawlers to identify
their purpose are needed too. The Government should encourage good practice by
championing an emerging market for licensed AI data training providers. We urge
the Government to dedicate significant technical, policy and political resource to
address these challenges at pace. The Department for Science, Innovation and
Technology should outline its plans in response to this report. (Paragraph 127)
29. The Competition and Markets Authority should investigate and address tech firms
leveraging dominance in one domain, notably internet search, to secure anti-
competitive advantages in obtaining data for generative AI training. We suggest this
should be an immediate priority given the pace of market developments and impacts
on news media business models. (Paragraph 128)
Chapter 6: Serving audiences

30. The UK’s broadcasting market will only thrive if there is healthy competition,
a focus on serving all audiences and respect for the rules. New entrants like
GB News provide an alternative to the public service broadcasters. Their
offering needs to comply with the spirit of the rules, not stretch them to
breaking point. Public service broadcasters, for their part, should reflect on
why alternative providers are finding a following and how this relates to the
way underserved communities are represented in their own news coverage.
(Paragraph 161)
31. Ofcom’s senior leadership argued that its approach to impartiality had
been very clear. We struggled to reconcile this with the evidence. Ofcom’s
approach has sparked accusations of a two-tier system on the one hand,
and of overreaction on the other. This risks dissatisfaction on all sides.
We were reassured that Ofcom is aware of the challenges and the need to
avoid the impression that political sensitivities have influenced regulatory
enforcement. But more transparency in future would help, particularly
around the thresholds at which alternative interpretations of the rules might
apply. Ofcom must also remain alive to the risk that underserved audiences
may migrate online or switch off altogether: healthy plurality in broadcasting
therefore remains key to the sector’s long-term viability. (Paragraph 162)
32. Better information is also needed about the drivers of audience trust
in broadcast news. This is notoriously difficult and not helped by the
inconsistency in methods. (Paragraph 163)
33. Ofcom should conduct more thorough longitudinal audience research with consistent
metrics and more granular audience profiles, focusing both on the drivers of trust
and confidence in due impartiality being upheld. This could include more detailed
assessments of audience views about using politicians as presenters. (Paragraph 163)
Chapter 7: Mis/disinformation
34. The rise of brand safety organisations has raised complex questions about
the extent and implications of their work. (Paragraph 179)
35. The Government’s online advertising taskforce should review the work and impact
of brand safety organisations on news publisher revenue. (Paragraph 179)
36. We welcome efforts to improve trust in the information environment, but we
caution against a counter-mis/disinformation strategy that relies too heavily
on measures in the Online Safety Act, or technical fixes like watermarks,
labelling and algorithmic tweaking. Some of these are doubtless welcome,
but such solutions are unlikely to tackle the root causes of supply and
demand. They raise questions about potential overreach and free speech
sensitivities. And they risk creating strategic dependencies on overseas tech
firms to address highly sensitive societal challenges. (Paragraph 191)
37. The Government should focus more on strengthening long-term resilience. We
suggest four priorities.
(1) First is recognising more explicitly the value of a financially sustainable news
sector: this is the best way to maintain a shared understanding of facts.
(2) Second, the Government could engage further with media organisations about
protocols for responding to major foreign interference efforts, particularly
around elections.
(3) Third, the Government should adopt a more muscular deterrence posture
to impose greater costs on adversaries, for example using responsible cyber
power to degrade adversary infrastructure. This could feature in the Strategic
Defence Review currently underway.
(4) Fourth is media literacy. We are not yet convinced that the Government has
a good plan. More resources and effort are needed to scale ‘what works’ in
media literacy, and avoid a tangle of short-term fragmented projects. Ofcom is
already taking on major burdens: we hope it is not left to be the main lead for
such a complex policy issue. The Government needs its own strategy. DSIT
should set out its future plans for media literacy and timeline for evaluating
its current activities in response to this report. The Department for Education
should use the opportunity of the Curriculum and Assessment Review to
ensure that media literacy is given more time and prominence in schools.
(Paragraph 192)
Chapter 8: SLAPPs
38. The new Government is failing to prioritise anti-SLAPP legislation. This is
troubling and has serious potential consequences for press freedom and the
future of the news industry. There has already been a public consultation.
Viable legislative options and precedents exist. What is missing now is
political will. Its absence reflects poorly on the new Government’s values
and commitment to justice. We are not persuaded that the complexity of the
issue, or the need for cross-government engagement, are a valid excuse for
lengthy delays. (Paragraph 201)
39. The Government should publish draft legislative proposals before the 2025 summer
recess and allow time for proper scrutiny. If necessary it should explore using the
Victims, Courts and Public Protection Bill, announced in the recent King’s Speech,
as a vehicle. (Paragraph 201)
40. Anti-SLAPP legislation is unlikely to be supported by everyone in the legal
profession. Some concerns are valid, others less so. The Ministry of Justice
must learn lessons from the experience of developing the Strategic Litigation
Against Public Participation Bill introduced in the previous session of

Parliament. We heard that it was initially drafted in ways that would make
the situation worse. We would like to understand the process by which this
came about. (Paragraph 202)
41. In response to this report the Ministry of Justice should publish an exhaustive
list of stakeholders it engaged with in relation to the development of the Private
Member’s Bill between May 2023 and May 2024. This should include the names
of organisations, meeting dates and topics, and substantive written correspondence.
(Paragraph 203)
42. We applaud the progress made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)
in recent years. However, we do not agree that it should conduct thematic
evaluations of SLAPPs that deliberately exclude the law firms accused of
malpractice. Predictably and implausibly, these evaluations have found
limited evidence of wrongdoing. This risks creating a flawed evidence
base to inform public debate. With transparent governance structures
and information firewalls between teams, it should be possible to conduct
multiple separate engagements with the same firm without prejudicing the
outcome of investigations. (Paragraph 207)
43. The SRA’s future reviews of SLAPP activity should not exclude law firms subject to
ongoing investigations. The Government should also review whether the SRA has the
necessary inspection powers to enable more targeted assessments. (Paragraph 208)
44. The £25,000 fining limit for the Solicitors Regulation Authority is too low.
The changes in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency (ECCT)
Act 2023 are a welcome start but appear too tightly circumscribed to have
the desired effect. (Paragraph 211)
45. The Legal Services Board should work with the Ministry of Justice to raise the
fining limit to £250 million for SLAPPs. We would be grateful for a progress update
before the 2025 summer recess. (Paragraph 211)
46. The Government should extend the SRA’s remit to ensure that activities
commissioned directly by solicitors can be subject to regulatory oversight. This would
prevent lawyers from outsourcing harassment to third parties without scrutiny.
(Paragraph 213)
47. We commend the Government’s progress in establishing the SLAPPs
Taskforce. We urge participants to maintain momentum. Particular
attention should be paid to engaging the police to establish a standard way of
reporting intimidation of journalists, and tackling transnational repression
from foreign states. (Paragraph 215)
14. We remain concerned that SLAPPs can be financed by illicit money. We
appreciate the sensitivities: everyone has a right to pay for legal representation.
But SLAPPs are not a form of access to justice—they are an abuse of the
system. The Government has been oddly reluctant to deal with this problem.
(Paragraph 219)
48. The Government should amend section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to
clarify that subsection (1) applies to the acceptance of proceeds of crime as payment
for legal services. If necessary this could specify the application to services provided
in relation to litigation which has the intention or effect of supressing reporting on
matters of public interest. (Paragraph 220)
49. The Government should also update Anti-Money Laundering legislation to ensure
solicitors have to conduct more comprehensive due diligence, including source of
wealth and customer background checks, for cases that concern matters of public
interest. The SRA should be given powers to conduct spot checks to provide an
effective deterrent. (Paragraph 221)
Appendix 1: LIST OF MEMBERS AND DECLARATIONS OF

INTEREST
Members
Lord Dunlop
Lord Hall of Birkenhead
Baroness Harding of Winscombe
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill
Lord Kamall
Lord Knight of Weymouth
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
Lord McNally
Baroness Primarolo (to 9 October 2024)
Lord Storey
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chair)
Baroness Wheatcroft
Lord Young of Norwood Green
Declarations of interest
Lord Dunlop
No relevant interests declared
Lord Hall of Birkenhead
Former Director General, BBC
Previous professional engagements with witnesses
Baroness Harding of Winscombe
Family member is a director at Ofcom
Previous professional engagements with witnesses
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill
Lord Kamall
Previous work with think tanks commenting on the BBC
Previous work with CapX and engagements with the Centre for Policy
Studies
Lord Knight of Weymouth
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
Lord McNally
Fellow, Chartered Institute of Public Relations
Fellow, Public Relations and Communications Association
Baroness Primarolo
Lord Storey
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chair)
Former Head of Corporate Affairs, BBC (until 2010)
Baroness Wheatcroft
Chair, Financial Times appointments and oversight committee
Occasional freelance journalist
Involved in proposals for pro bono legal support
Lord Young of Norwood Green

Former Governor, BBC
A full list of Members’ interests can be found in the Register of Lords’ Interests:
https://members.parliament.uk/members/lords/interests/register-of-lords-interests
Appendix 2: LIST OF WITNESSES
Evidence is published online at https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/170/

communications-and-digital-committee/publications/ and available for inspection
at the Parliamentary Archives (020 7219 3074).
Evidence received by the Committee is listed below in chronological order of oral
evidence session and in alphabetical order. Those witnesses marked with ** gave
both oral evidence and written evidence. Those marked with * gave oral evidence
and did not submit any written evidence. All other witnesses submitted written
evidence only.
Oral evidence in chronological order

* James Bennet, Senior Editor, The Economist QQ 1–20
* Josephine Hansom, Vice President and Youth Practice
Lead, Savanta
* Paul Lee, Global Head of Research for Technology,
Media and Telecommunications, Deloitte
* Fraser Nelson, Editor, The Spectator
* Professor Charlie Beckett, Professor of Practice, QQ 21–33
Director of Polis and the Polis/LSE JournalismAI
project, London School of Economics and Political
Science
* Douglas McCabe, Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Publishing and Tech, Enders Analysis
** James Frayne, founding partner, Public First
** David Dinsmore, Chief Operating Officer, News UK QQ 34–46
** Jon Slade, Chief Commercial Officer, Financial Times
** Peter Wright, Editor Emeritus, DMG Media
* Anna Bateson, Chief Executive Officer, Guardian
Media Group
** Henry Faure Walker, Chief Executive Officer, QQ 47–54
Newsquest
** David Higgerson, Chief Digital Publisher, Reach
** Jonathan Paterson, Managing Editor, The News
Movement
** Joshi Herrmann, Founder & Editor-in-Chief, The
Manchester Mill
** Deborah Turness, Chief Executive Officer, News and QQ 55–63
Current Affairs, BBC; Jonathan Munro, Director of
Journalism, BBC and Rhodri Talfan Davies, Director,
Nations, BBC
** Michael Jermey, Director of News, ITV QQ 64–70
** Louisa Compton, Head of News and Current Affairs,
Channel 4
* Guy Davies, Commissioning Editor of Factual,

Channel 5
* Sebastian Enser-Wight, Chief Strategy Officer, Global QQ 71–87
and Tom Cheal, Managing Editor, LBC Radio, part of
Global
* Sam Shetabi, Creator Network Director, Acast; and
Shini Pattni, Legal Counsel, Acast
* David Rhodes, Executive Chairman EMEA, Sky QQ 88–94
News; and Jonathan Levy, Managing Editor and
Executive Director, Sky News
* Angelos Frangopoulos, Chief Executive Officer, GB QQ 95–99
News
* Professor Ciaran Martin, Professor of Practice in the QQ 100–108
Management of Public Organisations, Blavatnik School
of Government, University of Oxford and former Chief
Executive Officer, HMG’s National Cyber Security
Centre
* Freddie Sayers, Editor-in-Chief and Chief Executive QQ 109–114
Officer, UnHerd
* Katie Harbath, Founder & Chief Executive Officer,
Anchor Change
** Professor William Dutton, Emeritus Professor,
University of Southern California (USC)
* Andrew Neil, Chairman, The Spectator QQ 115–119
* James Harding, co-founder, Tortoise Media QQ 120–133
* John Quinlan, Chief Executive Officer, Joe Media
Group
* Tom Slater, Editor, Spiked Magazine
* Robert Colvile, Director, Centre for Policy Studies QQ 134–147
* Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, Director, Reuters
Institute for the Study of Journalism and Professor of
Political Communication, University of Oxford
* Professor Jane Singer, Professor Emerita of Journalism
Innovation, City University of London
* Susan Coughtrie, Director, Foreign Policy Centre QQ 148–152
** Sayra Tekin, Director of Legal, News Media
Association
* Fiona O’Brien, Bureau Director, Reporters Without
Borders
* David Hooper, independent media lawyer
* Paul Philip, Chief Executive Officer, Solicitors QQ 153–156
Regulation Authority; and Juliet Oliver, General
Counsel, Solicitors Regulation Authority
** Dame Melanie Dawes, Chief Executive Officer, QQ 157–162

Ofcom; and Cristina Nicolotti Squires, Group Director
of Broadcasting and Media, Ofcom
** Stephanie Peacock MP, Parliamentary Under- QQ 163–195
Secretary of State (Minister for Sport, Media, Civil
Society and Youth); and Robert Specterman-Green,
Director, Media and Creative Industries, HM
Government—Department for Culture, Media and
Sport
* Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State for the Future Digital Economy and
Online Safety; and Sam Cannicott, Deputy Director
for AI Capability, HM Government—Department for
Science, Innovation and Technology
Alphabetical list of all witnesses
24hourlondon FON0061
* Acast (QQ 71–87)
Agency: Assuring Citizen Agency in a World with FON0017
Complex Online Harms
* Anchor Change (QQ 109–114)
Dr Natalie Alana Ashton, Research Associate, Vrije FON0035
Universiteit Amsterdam [joint submission]
Chris Banatvala [joint submission] FON0072
Professor Steven Barnett, Professor of FON0052
Communications, Westminster School of Media and
Communication, University of Westminster
** BBC (QQ 55–63) FON0059
FON0069
* Professor Charlie Beckett (QQ 21–33)
The Bristol Cable FON0008
Broadcast 2040+ Campaign FON0034
Dr Steven Buckley, Lecturer in Media and FON0001
Communication, City, University of London
Professor Simon Burnett, Professor of Information FON0010
Management, Robert Gordon University [joint
submission]
Professor Rafael Alejandro Calvo, Chair in Design FON0047
Engineering, Imperial College London
Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom FON0040
(North)
Maggie Carver CBE DL FON0070
* Centre for Policy Studies (QQ 134–147)
** Channel 4 (QQ 64–70) FON0067
* Channel 5 (QQ 64–70)

Dr Esyin Chew, Director of EUREKA Robotics FON0033
Centre, Cardiff School of Technologies, Cardiff
Metropolitan University [joint submission]
Community Policy Forum FON0050
Crail Matters FON0011
Professor Rowan Cruft, Professor, University of FON0026
Stirling [joint submission] FON0035
Professor Stephen Cushion, Professor, Cardiff FON0003
University [joint submission]
** DMG Media (QQ 34–46) FON0030
* Emeritus Professor William Dutton (QQ 109–114)
* James Bennet, Senior Editor, The Economist (QQ
1–20)
* Enders Analysis (QQ 21–33)
Fenimore Harper FON0016
** Financial Times (QQ 34–46) FON0073
* Foreign Policy Centre (QQ 148–152)
Dr Ingo Frommholz, Head of AI and Data Science FON0031
Research, University of Wolverhampton [joint
submission]
Dr Charlotte Galpin, Associate Professor in German FON0027
and European Politics, University of Birmingham
* GB News (QQ 95–99)
Getty Images (UK) FON0043
Dr Michele Giavazzi, Postdoctoral Fellow, Ludwig FON0035
Maximilians University Munich [joint submission]
* Global (QQ 71–87)
The Global Disinformation Index FON0071
Google FON0058
Professor Sebastian Groes, Professor of English FON0023
Literature, University of Wolverhampton
* Guardian Media Group (QQ 34–46)
Hacked Off FON0020
Professor Tom Harrison, Professor of Education, FON0037
University of Birmingham [joint submission]
Dr Jonathan Heawood, Senior Research Fellow and FON0026
Executive Director, Norms for the New Public Sphere FON0035
project, and Chief Executive Officer, Public Interest
News Foundation [joint submission]
Dr Michael Higgins, Senior Lecturer in Media and FON0004

Communication, University of Strathclyde [joint
submission]
** HM Government—Department for Culture, Media FON0009
and Sport (QQ 163–195)
* HM Government—Department for Science,
Innovation and Technology (QQ 163–195)
* David Hooper (QQ 148–152)
Mr Shuyang Hu, Robotics Innovator; Doctoral FON0033
Researcher, Eureka Robotic Centre, Cardiff
Metropolitan University [joint submission]
IAB UK FON0039
IMPRESS FON0041
International Broadcasting Trust FON0006
ITN FON0053
** ITV (QQ 64–70) FON0019
* Joe Media Group (QQ 120–133)
Dr Irini Katsirea, Reader in International Media Law, FON0048
University of Sheffield
* Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen (QQ 134–147)
Dr Akshi Kumar, Senior Lecturer in Computer FON0002
Science, Director-Post Graduate Research,
Department of Computing, Goldsmiths, University of
London
* Paul Lee, Global Head of Research for Technology,
Media and Telecommunications, Deloitte (QQ 1–20)
Dr Rodolfo Leyva, Lecturer in Quantitative Methods, FON0012
University of Birmingham
LGB Alliance FON0054
Local TV Network FON0038
Logically FON0068
Sebastijan Maček, Journalist/Translator, Slovenian FON0031
Press Agency [joint submission]
* Professor Ciaran Martin (QQ 100–108)
** Mill Media (QQ 47–54) FON0066
Dr Dani Madrid-Morales, Lecturer in Journalism and FON0049
Global Communication, University of Sheffield
Media Reform Coalition FON0029
National Council for the Training of Journalists FON0045
(NCTJ)
National Union of Journalists (NUJ) FON0005
Dr Francois Nel, Reader/Associate Professor of Media FON0044

Innovation and Entrepreneurship, University of
Central Lancashire
NewsNow Publishing FON0051
** Newsquest Media Group (QQ 47–54) FON0064
** News Media Association (QQ 148–152) FON0056
News Media Coalition FON0036
** The News Movement (QQ 47–54) FON0062
** News UK (QQ 34–46) FON0055
** Ofcom (QQ 157–162) FON0063
Professor Sarah Pedersen, Professor of Media and FON0010
Communication, Robert Gordon University [joint
submission]
Professor Fabienne Peter, Professor of Philosophy, FON0026
University of Warwick [joint submission] FON0035
Dr Gianfranco Polizzi, Postdoctoral Research FON0037
Associate, University of Liverpool [joint submission]
Professional Publishers Association FON0046
** Public First (QQ 21–33) FON0060
Public Interest News Foundation FON0032
Stewart Purvis CBE [joint submission] FON0072
Radiocentre FON0025
** Reach (QQ 47–54) FON0065
* Reporters Without Borders (QQ 148–152)
Dr Thomas Rhys Evans, Associate Professor in FON0014
Occupational Psychology, University of Greenwich
Professor Jacob Rowbottom FON0018
Richard Sambrook, Emeritus Professor, Cardiff FON0003
University [joint submission]
Dr Michael Samuel, Lecturer in Digital Film and FON0007
Television, University of Bristol
* Savanta (QQ 1–20)
Sense about Science FON0042
Felix Marvin Simon, Dieter Schwarz Scholar, Oxford FON0024
Internet Institute, University of Oxford
** Emerita Professor Jane Singer (QQ 134–147)
* Sky News (QQ 88–94)
Professor Angela Smith, Professor of Language and FON0004
Culture, University of Sunderland [joint submission]
* Solicitors Regulation Authority (QQ 153–156)
* The Spectator (QQ 1–20; QQ 115–119)

* Spiked Magazine (QQ 120–133)
Dr Jingrong Tong, Senior Lecturer, University of FON0013
Sheffield
* Tortoise Media (QQ 120–133)
TransActual [joint submission] FON0022
Trans Media Watch [joint submission] FON0022
* UnHerd (QQ 109–114)
Voice of the Listener & Viewer FON0015
Dr Chris Wyatt, Research Impact & Policy Manager, FON0031
University of Wolverhampton [joint submission]
Frances Yeoman, Head of Journalism, Liverpool John FON0057
Moores University
Dominic Young, Chief Executive Officer/founder, FON0021
Axate
Appendix 3: CALL FOR EVIDENCE
Inquiry summary
A healthy news ecosystem is vital to our democratic society. Changes are underway
which will have major consequences for the future of the UK’s news media.
The House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee will examine a
selection of strategic challenges facing the sector, focusing on impartiality, trust and
the impact of tech platforms. Some of these issues are longstanding, while others are
new. Some are driven by external factors, others are internal to news organisations
themselves. In combination they pose a formidable challenge to the UK news
sector and raise questions about the viability of maintaining a trusted information
environment underpinned by a healthy and financially sustainable news system.
Our inquiry will explore immediate and long-term actions needed from industry,
regulators and Government to respond. It builds on the Committee’s recent
inquiries on the future of journalism, BBC funding, and large language models.
Concerns have been growing over the challenges around due impartiality.
Audiences continue to say that impartiality is key, but have very different views on
what this means in practice.427 Public service broadcasters, notably the BBC, are
under particular pressure to serve all audiences and demonstrate their relevance in
an increasingly complex and fragmented media environment.428
Current trends suggest this task is becoming ever more complex. Political realignments
among the public and societal divides pose ongoing challenges to serving audiences from
all walks of life. Opinionated online content is growing in popularity. Furthermore, the
increasing availability of news online has also been associated with ‘bias by omission’,
where audiences are exposed to a wider variety of events and interpretations which
have not been covered by a particular news organisation.429 Coverage of the conflicts
in Gaza and Ukraine provide recent examples.
Trust in news remains in long-term decline, falling from 51 per cent in 2015 to 33
per cent in 2023.430 People are accessing news less frequently and are becoming
less interested.431 The UK faces a general election amid fears about AI-enabled
mis- and dis-information, alongside concern that over-emphasising such issues
can be unhelpful and problematic. Over 2 billion people from 50 countries are
going to the polls in 2024, making it the largest global election year in history.432
427 JIGSAW research/Ofcom, Drivers of perceptions of due impartiality: The BBC and the wider news
landscape (June 2022): https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/239175/4-Drivers-of-
perceptions-of-due-impartiality-the-BBC-and-the-wider-news-landscape.pdf [accessed 19 November
2024
428 Communications and Digital Committee, Licence to change: BBC future funding (1st report, Session
2022-23, HL Paper 44)
429 JIGSAW research/Ofcom, Drivers of perceptions of due impartiality: The BBC and the wider news
landscape (June 2022): https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/239175/4-Drivers-of-
perceptions-of-due-impartiality-the-BBC-and-the-wider-news-landscape.pdf [accessed 19 November
2024
430 Nic Newman, ‘United Kingdom’ , Reuters Institute, University of Oxford (June 2023): https://
reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2023/united-kingdom [accessed 19 November
2024]
431 Nic Newman, ‘United Kingdom’, Reuters Institute, University of Oxford (June 2023): https://
reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2023/dnr-executive-summary [accessed 19
November 2024]
432 World Economic Forum, ‘2024 is a record year for elections. Here’s what you need to know’ (December
2023): https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/12/2024-elections-around-world/ [accessed 19
November 2024]
Recent advances in large language models have led some media organisations to
voice unease about their industry’s long-term financial sustainability.433 Some large
US technology platforms are also moving away from external news content, with
significant financial implications for media organisations who have relied on them
for audience engagement and revenue.434 Online news intermediaries continue to
play a key role in curating and recommending the type of news that people see;
Ofcom has already raised questions about the impacts on media plurality.435 Such
influence may grow as generative AI tools become more widespread.
Our inquiry will examine the implications of the issues summarised above, and
explore the extent to which responses must come from industry, Government or
regulators. We aim to identify tangible actions that can be taken (a) over the next
12 months to address immediate issues, and (b) over the next five years to address
long-term concerns.
Inquiry questions:
1. What impacts (positive and negative) do large technology platforms and
online news aggregators have on the UK’s news environment, including
media plurality? And how might this change?
2. How is generative AI affecting news media business models and how might
this evolve?
3. How are perceptions of due impartiality evolving and what challenges do
news organisations face around impartial reporting?
4. What factors affect trust in news and how might this evolve?
• To what extent is trust linked to perceptions of impartiality, or to other

trends in online news?
• What impact do concerns around disinformation have on trust in the
information environment? (And to what extent does this differ between
difference sections of society?)
5. How well are news organisations responding to factors affecting their
business models, and are any changes needed?
6. How adequately are UK news organisations providing impartial and trusted
news? What actions are needed to address any shortcomings?
• How should news organisations balance competing demands to provide

content that aligns with particular values on the one hand, and provides
trusted and impartial news on the other?
• How adequately are news media organisations ensuring that efforts to
provide trusted information and tackle disinformation do not alienate
some sections of society in the process?
7. How well is regulatory oversight working? Are any changes needed, for
example:
• In the way Ofcom oversees due impartiality and the extent of its remit?
433 Written evidence from DMG Media to the Communications and Digital Committee’s inquiry ‘Large
language models’ (LLM0068)
434 ‘Meta unfriends the news industry in growing rift with publishers’, The Financial Times (July 2023):
https://www.ft.com/content/8ebb8854–426b-46f8-9c5c-b8f988c298f7 [accessed 19 November 2024]
435 Ofcom, Media plurality and online news, (November 2022): https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0030/247548/discussion-media-plurality.pdf [accessed 19 November 2024]
• In the way Ofcom oversees media plurality?

8. Are there any actions the Government should take to address concerns
around due impartiality, trust, and the influence of technology platforms?
• Are changes needed to the Media Bill?

• Are changes needed to the way the Government addresses mis- and dis-
information?
The Committee invites written contributions to its inquiry by Monday 12 February
2024.
Appendix 4: COMMITTEE VISITS
Committee visit to ITN

On 12 March 2024, the Committee visited ITN’s offices in London. In attendance
were Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chair), Lord Dunlop, Lord Hall of Birkenhead,
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill, The Lord Bishop of Leeds, Lord Storey and
Lord Young of Norwood Green.
The purpose was to learn more about the work of the UK’s public service
broadcasters and their approach to producing news. We discussed the work of
ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 newsrooms in catering to different audiences, and
the importance of ensuring news stories are selected to appeal to a broad range
of demographic groups. We further discussed the opportunities and challenges
of providing news in different formats across multiple platforms—and the
implications for needing multi-skilled teams able to deliver on these requirements.
Committee visit to San Francisco

The Committee visited San Francisco from 7 to 11 October 2024. In attendance
were Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Chair), Lord Hall of Birkenhead, Baroness
Healy of Primrose Hill, Lord Kamall and Lord Knight of Weymouth.
The primary purpose was to learn about the work of US technology firms and
media organisations in relation to our inquiry into the future of news. We also
used the opportunity to examine issues with generative AI as a follow-up to our
recent report on large language models. We further held meetings relating to our
inquiry on the challenges facing AI-first and creative technology firms seeking to
scale up in the UK. We are grateful to all those who participated in our work.
The section below provides an overview of our view on some key themes that
emerged from the visit. The subsequent sections provide a non-exhaustive
summary of our engagements.
Our view on key themes

We found much uncertainty about the impacts of technology on news. The roles
of large technology platforms, and how they viewed their position in the market,
varied considerably. The relationships between them and news providers will
continue to evolve as generative AI plays an increasingly influential role in the
production, discovery and monetisation of news.
Some trends around the most recent advances in large language models were
however becoming clearer. Generative AI tools were thought to be likely to have
increasing influence over the types of information people see. Whether the AI
applications provide one answer to a question about current affairs, or a variety of
views, could prove decisive in shaping the average casual user’s views on a topic.
We heard that these new tools would likely drive a shift in consumer behaviour—
away from clicking on links, and towards long-form AI-generated summaries that
draw on multiple sources (perhaps increasingly involving voice activated tools).
News media business models based on users clicking through to viewing a website
might therefore suffer if the AI summary is ‘good enough’ for the average reader.
Some stakeholders worried that these trends could make it economically unviable
for some news outlets to continue producing quality journalism.
The interests of publishers and AI developers appeared to be aligned around
the value of high-quality, timely data needed to train and ground AI models.
It was less clear though whether AI firms would be prepared to pay sufficient
amounts to sustain the continuation of high quality journalism that provides a
plurality of viewpoints. We further heard that the value of journalism lay not just
in breaking news: much of the information available on the internet is accepted
as fact because it has been originally produced and verified through journalistic
endeavours. If generative AI tools lead to a situation where quality journalism
becomes increasingly uneconomical, it was unclear how well future AI tools would
function.
Many news providers were pursuing a variety of licensing deals with AI firms,
though how favourable these arrangements were in practice remained unclear.
The terms may involve AI firms gaining access to archive or real time news (or
both), in exchange for payment and/or exposure. We heard concerns that the types
of licensing deals may be, effectively, a time-limited offer that do not guarantee
a sufficient link between the growth of the AI marketplace and a commensurate
expansion in news providers’ revenue.
Our discussions suggested that we were still in the early stages of generative AI-
influenced news. Widespread changes to audience habits may occur over the next
few years, though the details of what this might look like remained uncertain.
Media organisations were already experimenting with AI and may shift from
using ‘AI as an efficiency’ to ‘AI as a service’ over the next few years too. The
negative impacts of generative AI on news advertising revenues, exposure and
audience engagement could be envisaged, but the full effects were likely to take
some time to feed through and newsrooms were likely to adapt along the way.
This all suggested that the long-term implications for the financial health of the
media sector would play out over the next five years or more, rather than in a
matter of months.
Finally, we heard that progress in generative AI capability is not linear: those at the
forefront are likely to draw increasingly far ahead. It therefore matters what types
of AI firms and services flourish, and where the UK chooses to focus its efforts.
Some stakeholders envisaged a future of 5-10 major providers of base models, who
effectively act as commodities (comparable to the situation with cloud compute
providers). A plethora of smaller open source and specialised models may be built
on top. Some stakeholders suggested this second layer is where the transformative
value to society will be at, and where the UK should focus its efforts in developing
public-interest AI tools and standards.
Meta
We met with Andy O’Connell, Vice President, Product Policy; Matt Scutari, AI
Policy Director; Elizabeth Kendall, Global Public Policy Director, Media and IP;
Marc Dinsdale, Director of Digital Media Partnerships & News; Megan Thomas,
Public Policy Manager and Richard Earley, Head of UK Content Regulation
Policy
Meta provided updates on their latest products, including wearable technologies
and generative AI tools. Meta discussed developments on their Llama model and
the moves towards multimodal and specialist use cases.
We discussed issues relating to the spectrum of ‘open’ and ‘closed’ source models.
Meta outlined the importance of openly accessible development, which we heard
promoted better innovation, competition and transparency. We further discussed
the need for guardrails and safety interventions, particularly around identifying
AI-generated content.
We heard about Meta’s in-application AI assistant, Meta AI, and the increased
popularity of voice interaction. Meta highlighted the importance of models being
trained locally in order to reflect cultural nuances and better serve consumers.
Meta executives reiterated previous comments about the limited extent to which
audiences seek out news on its platforms. We discussed Meta’s decision to switch
off news tools in Canada, as well as concerns about the use of copyrighted
data, licensing arrangements and the differences between the UK, EU and US
approaches in this regard.
Finally, we discussed the steps Meta is taking to counter misinformation and
disrupt co-ordinated inauthentic activity on its platforms.
Google
We met with executives Kent Walker, President of Global Affairs; Jaffer Zaidi,
Vice President for News Partnerships; Prabhakar Raghavan, (then) Senior Vice
President, Knowledge and Information Products; and Katie O’Donovan, Director
of Government Affairs and Public Policy, UK.
We discussed the merits and challenges of Google’s initiatives to support the news
industry, including lump-sum payments, licensing deals and innovation funding.
Google said it was testing new approaches for supporting local news, and suggested
that more innovative business models might emerge and help attract better talent
into journalism.
We heard about the implications of AI for the news industry. Google suggested
that news organisations’ internal use of AI may evolve from a focus on efficiency
towards exploring opportunities for new products and services. We heard that
text-to-speech products, as well as summarisation tools (for example Google’s
Notebook LM), could provide opportunities for efficiency. We further discussed
future options for publishers to generate and monetise content using AI tools, as
well as future trajectories for deeper interaction with generative AI audio content.
We discussed copyright concerns, including the potential challenges and
opportunities of adopting an EU approach to copyright. We discussed whether
licensing agreements may be most useful for grounding AI tools to ensure they
provided accurate answers, rather than for the initial training of foundation
models. On regulation more broadly, we discussed the potential tension between
competition regulators wanting openness on one hand, and privacy regulators
preferring information to be protected.
Finally, we discussed Google’s Search business. We discussed suggestions that
some younger audiences are seeking authenticity over authority, which in turn
has implications for how younger demographics seek out and use information
online. We discussed whether this indicated a commensurate political shift in
the prioritisation and ranking of topics and news. Google said that developments
among younger audiences did not mean that Google needed to change the way its
search engine ranked information.
Apple
We met with executives including Roger Rosner, Vice President, Applications and
Nick Ascheim, Head of Apple News Business.
We discussed the role that Apple News played in the media environment, notably
as the most used news app in the US. We heard that its top stories were chosen by
human editorial teams based in each global region where the service was offered;
the choices were intended to provide a balance of outlets and ensure topics were
relevant to the user.
Alongside human-selected top stories, we heard about how Apple News provided
algorithmically-driven personalised news recommendations. We heard that
editorial quality and balance remained an important consideration for this feature.
Apple News did not have user engagement tools common to social media platforms
(such as ‘likes’).
Apple News featured stories from partner media organisations; Apple told us that
it did not crawl the open internet for content. Apple had commercial arrangements
so that publishers may earn a share of revenue via engagement time on Apple
News+ (the app’s subscription product for paywalled content) or via advertising
the publishers sell themselves or that third parties sell on their behalf.
We further discussed the implications of generative AI for news, and how this
would affect different types of news outlets, as well as wider trust in the information
environment. Apple executives noted the challenges, though highlighted that
there were still opportunities for quality news to remain resilient in the face of AI-
generated content.
OpenAI
We met with executives including Jason Kwon, Chief Strategy Officer; Tom
Rubin, Chief of Intellectual Property and Content; Chris Lehane, Vice President
of Global Affairs; and Mark Gray, Copyright Counsel.
We discussed the trajectory for future developments in AI, including the possibility
for humans to interact with the AI model throughout its reasoning process and the
potential for more ‘agentic’ capabilities (for example asking ChatGPT to research,
plan and book a vacation).
We further discussed AI safety issues, including the potential for autonomous
artificial agents capable of navigating their environment without oversight.
OpenAI told us that significant effort was being dedicated to improving guardrails
and ensuring safe and responsible development.
We heard about the partnerships that OpenAI has developed with news providers.
OpenAI expressed a commitment to collaborating on ways to drive readers of
news content back to publishers. The details of recent licensing deals with news
publishers, and opportunities for renewal, remained unclear. OpenAI suggested
that there was particular value in using news content to ensure ChatGPT and
search provided grounded and accurate answers. We noted that the relative value
of news archive content for training base models may be less significant.
Perplexity
We met with Aravind Srinivas, CEO and co-founder of Perplexity, a search engine
which provides users with AI-generated summaries of search results with citations
to sources.
We discussed competition in the internet search market, and the role of generative
search in disrupting the digital advertising landscape which often relied on users
clicking through to websites. We heard that consolidation in the browser market
made it difficult for start-up companies to strike partnerships with web browsers.
Although Perplexity offered summaries of the news, we heard that it did not see
itself as an alternative to news sites. Its selection of the top news sources was
AI-driven, though its algorithms would summarise content from websites (rather
than social media posts). We discussed the potential implications of AI-generated
summaries on news publisher web traffic.
While Perplexity offers a premium subscription, we heard that further monetisation
can come from corporate sponsorship of associated queries. Perplexity emphasised
that sharing revenue from these activities was a valuable way to develop mutually
beneficial partnerships between publishers and tech firms. Perplexity also said
that it was looking to engage with more publishers outside the US, where it had
made some deals.
Scale AI
We met with Vijay Karunamuthy, Field Chief Technology Officer and Max
Fenkell, Head of Government Relations.
Scale AI executives discussed their work on providing businesses, researchers
and governments with comprehensive and high quality data to support safe AI
development and deployment.
We heard that the availability of well-structured data sets was important for
developing the next generation of models, and to train models for specific use cases
(such as in health care or finance). Scale AI discussed the importance of good data
governance and opportunities for developing in-house proprietary models.
We heard that the particular value of news lay in being authoritative and timely;
such content could be used to ground AI models and ensure they provided
accurate answers to questions about real-time issues. News sources could also be
used to help a model better assess the validity of information it received from other
sources on the web and give greater weighting to authoritative sources.
We also discussed the restrictions on data training and the need to avoid AI
‘eating its own tail’. Scale AI executives outlined the difficulties in using synthetic
data. We heard there may be better prospects of success in some cases (perhaps
in science, maths and coding) and limited likelihood in others (notably creativity
and cultural awareness). The prospects for synthetic video and audio material
would be an area of future research.
SmartNews
We met with SmartNews executives including Rich Jaroslovsky, Adviser to the
CEO at SmartNews, a news aggregation app available in the US and Japan.
SmartNews executives discussed their focus on the value of news to democracy.
One example was the news app’s algorithms being designed in ways that promote
unexpected content that may not necessarily align with the user’s political
outlook. We heard that news aggregators could seek to engage younger audiences
by offering them a range of articles that enabled them to test different ideas and
viewpoints easily.
We heard that SmartNews was selective in its news partners, using a set of criteria
to confirm whether media outlets met its guidelines. Partners entered into a
commercial arrangement and worked with an in-house team of former journalists
on story selection.
We heard criticism of tech firms offering short-term or ad-hoc payments to

publishers. SmartNews argued that a successful approach required long-term
licensing deals that accurately reflect the cost and value of the news content. They
suggested that the most viable long-term proposition involved aligning the interests
of AI firms and publishers, not treating the latter as a temporary engagement
partner.
Reddit
We met with Ben Lee, Chief Legal Officer.
Reddit discussed its position as one of the world’s largest repositories of publicly
available human-generated content.
Reddit expressed concern about AI firms obtaining this content for AI training
without permission, and outlined the copyright and privacy implications for the
users posting in the network. They suggested that unauthorised crawling risked
becoming a disincentive for people to engage in the open internet, and raised
concerns about the resulting trend towards information and communication
moving into ‘walled gardens’ in private apps.
Reddit further discussed the value of human-led content moderation, while noting
that AI could also help users apply the rules of engagement established by user
communities.
Mozilla
We met with Masayo Nobe, Vice President of Legal and Michael Feldman,
Managing Counsel, Product and Privacy.
Mozilla spoke about the need for policy and regulation to be developed in a way
which allow AI to be developed for public benefit. Mozilla discussed the steps this
might involve, including options for standards and regulations to encourage the
development of openly accessible low-cost models that could be used by many
people and institutions in society.
Mozilla discussed several public policy gaps. One example was ‘open washing’,
which referred to the misapplication of the term ‘open source’ to AI development.
We heard that this enabled companies to reap benefits attached to the concept
without providing sufficient openness and transparency. Mozilla suggested that
better definitions would be helpful.
We also heard about the risks of consolidation between tech firms and limited
availability of compute, which in turn underscored the value of competition
legislation. Mozilla suggested new rules could be introduced to allow for an amount
of compute to be publicly available, or to promote open-access development.
San Francisco Chronicle

We met with Bill Nagel, Publisher and Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, Editor in Chief.
We discussed the continued evolution of news business models in the face of
technological and behavioural change. This included changing audience habits
and the implications for the presentation of news content. We heard that some US
media organisations were considering hiring influencers to promote news among
younger audiences. We discussed the challenges of this regarding the retention
of influencers and alignment of values. The Chronicle noted that the delivery
mechanisms for news may change but the core substance and principles of quality
journalism must be preserved.
We further heard that some publishers were driving readers to closed environments
(i.e. in applications or paywalled content) in order to build revenue streams that
did not rely on intermediaries. The shift towards moving content off the open web
might also have been linked to concerns about unauthorised use by AI firms.
We discussed concerns about the relationship between tech firms and news
publishers, noting in particular challenges that had arisen in the past from the rise
of social media and other online intermediaries. We further discussed uncertainty
around the types of deals being struck with AI firms and how these may unfold
in future, alongside the issues raised by legal challenges to tech firms’ practices.
Journalism roundtable
We met with a number of journalists and local news providers including Lance
Knobel, CEO and co-founder, Cityside Journalism; Neil Chase, CEO, CalMatters;
Soo Oh, Editor and data journalist, The Markup; and Shirin Ghaffary, Reporter,
Bloomberg.
We heard about the impact of declining local journalism on democracy. For
example, we were told that the lack of reporting on local institutions and public
interest matters was becoming economically unviable. We also heard that it was
important for local news organisations to appeal to a broad demographic, and
address criticisms that local news had previously catered largely to older and
wealthier groups.
We discussed the challenges facing local news organisations and the need for
organisations to adapt and experiment with new business models, alongside other
considerations around the rise of non-profit news providers, and the trade-offs
around receiving government funding. Participants discussed suggestions about
adopting lessons from influencer culture, and the difficulties involved for a
news brand in relying on individual journalists as influencers to attract younger
audiences.
We heard about AI being used to generate news sites to promote special interests
and ‘clickbait’ outlets. Some participants were optimistic about the opportunities
for publishers to use AI for journalism and distribution.
Financial Times
We met with Cristina Criddle, Technology Reporter at the Financial Times.
We discussed trends in the work of tech platforms, alongside wider issues that
other stakeholders had raised relating to market competition and the level of
influence tech firms had over access to information. Other topics discussed
included developments in AI, including its uses in the newsroom and relationships
between publishers and platforms.
Andreessen Horowitz (a16z)

We met with Anjney Midha, General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz (a16z).
We discussed the different approaches to developing large language models in
the US and Europe. There had been suggestions that the US market tended to
focus on increasing the capacity of models (larger and more capable), whereas
the European market had focused more on efficiency (smaller and nimbler). We
discussed the possibility that capability and efficiency may become the two main
fronts of AI research.
We further discussed the actions needed from countries seeking to become centres
for AI development. Key points included access to low cost energy computing
capacity (compute) and forward-looking regulation to attract researchers and
developers. Further ideas included making it easier for companies to list in the
UK to compensate for the lack of UK growth venture capital funding. We also
heard about initiatives in France and Canada that provided access to compute and
allowed for closer partnerships between academia and industry.
We discussed developments in the debate about open or closed model development,
and heard that open source models can generate revenue by adopting an ‘open
core’ model, which requires licensing for commercial development.
Finally we discussed the value of live journalism to generative AI search products
which require accurate and authoritative information.
Investor Roundtable on AI growth opportunities

We met with members of GBx, a community of British founders and investors
based in San Francisco. Attendees include Tom Blomfield, Group Partner at Y
Combinator and co-founder of Monzo; Alastair Paterson, CEO and co-founder
of Harmonic Security; Morgan Beller, General Partner at NFX; Doug Bewsher,
investor and former CMO at Salesforce and Skype; and Julian Green, entrepreneur
and former Director at Google X.
The discussion focused on AI growth opportunities and challenges in the UK,
which were examined in our large language models report. The roundtable was
also intended to inform our inquiry on scaling up AI and creative tech companies.
Participants were broadly positive about some elements of the business landscape
in the UK, including talent and pro-innovation financial policies such as the
Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme and research and development tax credits.
However, they identified six key factors which limited the opportunities for AI
growth in the UK: entrepreneurial talent; a small domestic market; lack of local
expertise; limited links between universities and industry; limited government
procurement opportunities; and limited support or incentives to launch an initial
public offering (IPO) in the UK.
Talent
We heard that the UK had a significant amount of technical talent, and that many
companies kept their engineering teams based in the UK even if other parts of the
business moved to the US to access a larger market and greater funding. Some
attendees suggested that the ambition of many British-founded companies was
geared towards eventual acquisition by a US company, rather than competition and
market share. We discussed potential solutions to this issue within the education
system and the availability of successful entrepreneur role models.
Smaller domestic market

Participants suggested that most AI companies seeking to scale up would need
to enter the US market at some point, often as soon as possible. We heard that
the UK’s medium-sized market meant that founders focusing on UK growth
risked missing opportunities in the US because they had moved too late. Some
participants suggested that the UK needed to take steps to reposition itself as the
gateway to the European market, which could open access to a wider market closer
to the UK, and potentially encourage more international start-up companies to set
up as UK limited companies.
Capital
We heard mixed opinions on the availability of growth capital in the UK. Some
argued that the arrival of US venture capital funds had injected sufficient
investment in growth, and that foreign and domestic capital sources were effectively
interchangeable at later stages. Others suggested that domestic patient capital—
in pension funds, for example—was not being targeted at growth companies as
an asset class. We also heard that a lack of ambition detered US venture capital
investors, who were looking for higher return multiples than UK founders
suggested they would be able to achieve.
Networks
Participants said that even if capital was available in the UK, some founders
moved to San Francisco to benefit from the community of previous founders and
investors who had experience of building and scaling up companies. Some noted
that this issue was not unique to the UK–founders moved to the Bay Area from
elsewhere in the US as well as other countries. We heard that the Government
could do more to incentivise successful British founders to return to the UK and
incubate a similar environment domestically.
Universities
While participants agreed that the UK’s top universities were producing high
quality talent, we heard that they still struggled to commercialise research. Imperial
College London was cited as a market leader in this respect. Attendees said that
other universities had historically taken large equity stakes in spinout companies,
but suggested that this was starting to improve. They further suggested that more
could be done to deploy university resources and assets, including endowments,
to support start-up companies. Participants highlighted California’s lack of non-
competition laws as a key driver of local spinout success, and advocated for the
UK to make it easier for academics to move between research and industry.
Procurement
We heard that other countries, including Denmark, the Netherlands and the US
had better initiatives to help start-up companies demonstrate proof of concept and
engage in contracts with government.
Public markets
Participants noted that fewer UK companies were choosing to list on the London
Stock exchange. Higher valuations were available elsewhere, particularly in the
US. We heard mixed opinions on whether it mattered where a company launched
its IPO, if its headquarters and engineering talent remained in the UK.
Some participants suggested that the capital and compute-intense race to build
foundation models may ultimately lead to a situation where a small group of
providers offered base models which effectively acted as commodities. Some
participants suggested that the UK should therefore focus on innovation at
the application layer of AI, rather than try to compete with US tech giants in
developing foundation models. Participants suggested that the UK’s existing
success in financial services, gaming, media and advertising could form the basis
for the growth of smaller AI models designed to solve specific issues in these
industries.

39

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

39

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

39

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HOUSE OF LORDS

Communications and Digital Committee

1st Report of Session 2024–25

The future of news

Ordered to be printed 12 November 2024 and published 25 November 2024

Published by the Authority of the House of Lords

X (formerly known as Twitter)

Evidence is published online at https://committees.parliament.uk/

Q in footnotes refers to a question in oral evidence.

The Government’s role in supporting the future of news is complex. It must

• Strike a balance: There is good scope for structural changes that

• Support local media: tax breaks for hiring local journalists,

• Encourage innovation: the UK has good accelerator schemes to

• Champion responsible AI: the unauthorised use of news content to

• Take competition issues seriously: the Competition and Markets

• Public service broadcasters: the Government should use the

• Remain proportionate on mis/disinformation: measures to

• Tackle SLAPPs: investigative journalists continue to face legal

• Chapter 2 examines the case for action and limits of appropriate

• Chapter 3 examines financial sustainability and options to help the

• Chapter 4 examines the impact of technology platforms and the

• Chapter 5 examines generative AI in more detail, focusing on

• Chapter 6 examines the adequacy of service provision and trust,

• Chapter 7 examines responses to mis/disinformation and the tensions

7 Q 2. See also Q 10 (Paul Lee), Q 146 (Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen)

Chapter 2: THE CASE FOR ACTION AND ITS LIMITS

The value of news

9 A.G. Sulzberger, ‘Journalism’s Essential Value’ (24 May 2023): https://www.nytco.com/press/

The role of Government: don’t be evil

16 Reporters Without Borders, ‘2024 World Press Freedom Index’: https://rsf.org/en/2024-world-press-

23. Supporting trust in news is another minefield. We found little consensus on

Chapter 3: FINANCIAL HEALTH

Figure 1: Main platforms used for news

Television Online Social Media Radio Newspapers

Table 1: UK advertising expenditure

Source: AA/WARC, ‘Expenditure Report’ (April 2024), p 7: https://www.warc.com/about-media/expenditure-

Figure 2: Facebook referrals since 2018

type of innovation needed to adapt.56 Local TV has also faced challenges as

41. Stephanie Peacock MP acknowledged the “huge challenges” facing the

Public sector advertising

91 Q 164 (Stephanie Peacock)

are ineligible to host them, because public notices must be published in a

49. The Government should consult on changing the definition of

Training and recruitment

120 Q 141 (Robert Colvile)

the Government to fund it given other pressures on UK licence fee payers.131

organisations. Any major projects of this nature would need to

Chapter 4: TECH PLATFORMS

The world that was

148 Q 49 (Jonathan Paterson), Q 37 (David Dinsmore), Q 70 (Louisa Compton), Q 51 (Joshi Herrmann)

Senate considered legislation to this effect.158 Canada negotiated financial

Journalism Trust Initiative already exist.168 Google told us that it already

Limiting legitimate content

attention to grey areas where content is not blocked but subtly

176 Q 158 (Dame Melanie Dawes)

Chapter 5: GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Fear not for the future?

Distribution and consumption

Google we discussed the proliferation of AI-summary tools, like those that

do not value”.203 Generic content is likely to become less useful to AI firms