I'm far from convinced that it is sensible to go too far in "controlling media bias" and "party political propaganda", who is the arbiter of what is or is not biased? What is or isn't propaganda? That being said I do think that we need to look quite seriously at better press regulation, in general, and the relationships between the media and politicians (it doesn't seem quite right that sitting MPs also have current affairs programmes on TV or radio) as well as press ownership itself.
Some changes I would be keen to introduce, across all forms of news media be that TV, radio, newspaper and, at least for UK based, website would be to toughen up on corrections. If the Daily Express publishes a front page headline that "KEIR STARMER SAYS THAT SKY IS ORANGE" then when they run the correction that must also appear on the front page with exactly the same prominence. If Sky News run their lead story on their main 5pm show saying that "RISHI SUNAK TODAY ANNOUCED THAT ALL LABOUR MPs ARE TRAITORS" then when they run the correction it must be the lead story on the next 5pm show. No tucking corrections away on page 94, they get exactly the same prominence as the original false story.
I do think we need to look again at Press Regulation, IPSO has always felt a little bit too close to the media and a little bit too toothless. I don't want a Government (or quasi-Government) regulator that ways like the death of a free press but it feels like IPSO (or something similar like IMPRESS which is considerably smaller but appears to be more potent) needs some more teeth giving to it.
Finally I do think that ownership is an issue. The Press Gazette have interesting figures based on published circulation and, for those papers that stopped publishing their circulation, some guesstimated circulation figures about just how dominant some media groups are in the daily newspaper market.
A DMGT purchase of The Telegraph would put the Daily Mail publisher near majority market control, according to Press Gazette analysis.
pressgazette.co.uk
DMGT (the group behind the Daily Mail, Metro, The i and others) owned by Lord Rothermere have just shy of 50% of the daily circulation, News UK (The Sun, The Times and others) owned by Murdoch is around 20% whilst the Telegraph Media Group (funnily enough the publisher of the Telegraph) until recently owned by the Barclay brothers but currently owned by Lloyds Bank with future TBC (with some reports that an Abu-Dhabi backed bid could win, or the DMGT might try and buy it) is around 5%. So 75% of the daily circulation of newspapers are owned, or could be owned, by three groups (perhaps two if the DMGT bid was to win). The proprietors of which are not exactly renowned for their centrist views and lack of outside agenda!
I'm not sure I want to go around insisting that DMGT and News UK must now go around selling off titles willy nilly but it feels somewhat unhealthy for quite so much of our newspaper circulation to be in the hands of quite so few people. It certainly seems like we need to have a broader conversation about who owns newspapers and how much of the market they can own at one time. Seems to me that DMGT and News UK should be automatically disqualified from buying any more national newspapers at the very least!
Whilst daily circulation is not the be all and end all it is worth noting that of course the newspapers have an outsize influence. BBC and Sky have programs everyday covering the next days front pages, social media amplifies the stories they run (to the benefit of the Guardian in particular to be fair whose circulation is tiny
), the MailOnline (the Daily Mail website) is big in the UK and even has significant international reach, etc etc. When newspapers try and make something a story before too long the rest of the media are almost bounced into covering as a result.
The influence of newspapers can be overstated, I'm not especially convinced that the Sun rowing in behind Blair won him the 1997 election and the Sun switching back to the Tories lost Brown the 2010 election. But certainly they can help set a tone and a mood and that power being in the hands of so few, whilst having quite a weak regulator does not seem a health position to be in.