The British government is asking social media companies to put more news — real news, produced by public service broadcasters like the BBC — high up in people’s feeds. And if companies refuse, it’ll pass laws to require it.
That’s the main takeaway from a new report issued Tuesday on a host of issues relating to digital media and platforms.
“It is vital that we make sure that people have better access to trusted and accurate news and that our regulated public service media is seen and heard in the fierce battle against mis and disinformation,” culture secretary Lisa Nandy said in a release. She said TV “remains at the heart of our society” and is “key to supporting social cohesion,” so Auntie Beeb must be “protected for generations to come.”
It’s the U.K.’s latest attempt to shape the internet its residents use. Last year, it required porn sites to verify the ages of all visitors, which has prompted criticism over privacy concerns. And just last week, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the government would ban children under age 16 from accessing social media, following Australia’s lead. When implemented early next year, 15-year-olds will be blocked from YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, and Twitter.
In a sense, the BBC (and other established public-service broadcasters like ITV and Channel 4) faces a version of the same fundamental question that’s bedeviled every other 20th-century media institution: How does an incumbent protect its privileged position on a platform where everyone’s a publisher? (I’m sure that if American newspapers had had “pass a law requiring it” as an option, they’ve have pursued it too.) The report doesn’t explicitly list which platforms would be covered by the new policy, but one can assume it’s a similar group to the social media ban list above.
The report cites past instances of social media platforms pushing misinformation during riots or other public disorder. (One needs only to look back a couple weeks to find the latest instance.)
Ah, but what counts as “trustworthy news content”? Well, there’s the BBC and other public service broadcasters. As mentioned, “other news publishers at national and local level” could be included, though there’s no guarantee. That raises the hairy question of Britain’s national newspapers, most of which have an explicit position on the left-right political spectrum, as well as smaller independent operations. The report says the criteria for being “trustworthy news provider” are TBD, but notes as a potential starting point the “Recognised News Publisher” definition in the Online Safety Act 2023, which includes elements like having an established code of standards, a primary purpose to publish news, and a method for dealing with audience complaints. But it also notes that the government-enforced prominence could be “explicitly linked to further responsibilities for news providers…to ensure that only the most trustworthy news sources benefit from prominence.” (One idea it raises: Maybe there are limits on how AI is used by these “prominent” news operations.)
Reaction has been about what you’d expect. Existing public service broadcasters love it. (ITV: “It’s the PSBs that also underpin the wider creative economy, commissioning original British content right across the UK. But the way people watch content has changed radically in recent years and brought challenges to sustaining these investments. We therefore welcome a Green Paper that will help enable PSBs to continue to effectively serve the UK public interest through trusted, high quality, easily accessible content delivered on the platforms and services that people use both now and in future.”)
Publishers think it’s a great idea — so long as their outlets make the cut. (News Media Association: “Trusted journalism is the antidote to the growing problem of misinformation on social platforms, but any prominence regime must support the diverse media environment that we have in the UK — a key part of our democratic framework. So, while we support the government’s intentions in wanting to get people to access trusted news, the method they are proposing here risks obscuring the high-quality, agenda-setting journalism produced everyday by the UK’s independent news publishers and narrowing the range of trusted voices available to people across the country.”)
And platform companies say it’s unfair to force their algorithms to favor some outlets over others. (YouTube: “The UK’s creator economy is a global success story because of one simple idea: on YouTube, viewers decide what they want to watch. Prominence rules seek to distort that — forcing YouTube to prioritise government-picked channels over whatever viewers actually came to watch.”)
The proposal is open to public comment through August. That said, you may have heard that the U.K. will be getting a new prime minister soon, with Starmer announcing his resignation Monday and Andy Burnham expected to replace him shortly. Whether the new PM considers the TikTok algorithm a top priority remains to be seen. (Burnham spent 16 months as U.K. culture secretary under Gordon Brown back in 2008-09, so he may have thoughts.)
