Public Interest Journalism Working Group minutes: 25 August 2021

Attendees and apologies

• Allan Rennie, University of Stirling (AR)
• Rachel Hamada, Bureau of Investigative Journalism (RH)
• Frances Rafferty, NUJ (FR)
• John Toner, NUJ (JT)
• Denise West, media consultant (DW)
• Hans Marter, Shetland News (HM)
• Jonathan Heawood, Executive Director, Public Interest News Foundation (JH)
• Rob Edwards, The Ferret (RE)
• Richard Bogie, News Scotland (RB)
• Joyce McMillan, independent journalist (JMcM)
• John McLellan, Scottish Newspaper Society (JMcM)
• Hazel Parkinson, Scottish Government (HP) (chair) 
• India Divers, Scottish Government (ID) (secretariat)

Items and actions

Agenda item 1 - welcome 

The meeting was chaired by HP as SCK was on leave. The list of attendees can be found in Annex A.

Apologies were noted from Stuart Birkett. 

HP noted that if the group felt another meeting was required then officials were happy to facilitate setting this up. The format of the meeting would be to go through the suggested amendments to the report and then to set up a new drafting group to integrate the amendments. The report could be finalised by correspondence or at a future meeting. 

Once the report was finalised, it would be sent to Ministers to get their view on what can be taken forward. If Ministers agreed to take forward any of the recommendations then it would be recommended that the working group could act as an advisory group to help develop the detail and take them forward.

Agenda item 2 and 3 – present and discuss recommendations

The group offered congratulations to the drafting sub group, noting that it was an excellent piece of work. The group agreed that it was not necessary to present the report in the meeting as everyone had read it. 

It was proposed that the primary set of recommendations should be moved into an executive summary at the beginning of the document as some readers of the document may not read the whole report. The set of recommendations should be expanded slightly into micro-paragraphs to provide some narrative. It was important that this section was concise but it was also important that the publication of the report was not delayed due to the need to continuously redraft.

The question was raised on whether there was a particular structure the Scottish Government expected from reports.

Action:

• HP to find out if there was a set Scottish Government structure for reports and let the group know

It was agreed that in Section 2, Background, that the paragraph at the bottom of page 3 sold the digital news sector short and that it deserved a more positive definition. This paragraph would be redrafted.

The background section introduced the Cairncross Review without any context, it was agreed a sentence or two was needed to explain what this is.

It was agreed in Section 3 of the report that JH amended definition should be used to define public interest journalism. It was raised that there was a need to include sole traders who may not have a company or business address in the definition as they still have high, professional standards. It was noted that the membership criteria of ICNN included sole traders and that this could be used as a model for how the group resolves the issue. It was agreed the final definition should be JH’s definition with an additional criteria to include sole traders. It was noted that it was important to get the balance right to ensure the criteria was inclusive and to ensure that there was a way to evidence that journalists meeting the criteria were of a high professional standard. 

Action:

• drafting group to speak to EM to find out how ICNN include sole traders and freelancers in their membership criteria

RH had circulated proposed adjustments to the Public Interest Journalism Institute recommendation. It was raised that it was important to get the tone of the recommendation right as to not to exclude established players in industry. The group wanted existing publishers to be involved in the institute even if it was primarily for new entrants. Some points in the redraft were really strong so it was important to know which points exactly in the revised document needed to be amended.

Action:

• JMcL to contact group by correspondence to communicate which points of the redraft needed amended

It was raised that the tone in the section of the report about the Cairncross Review in the introduction needed to be amended to be more positive. It was proposed that the group add a sentence about PINF being established on an independent basis and saying that they believe there is an exciting opportunity for Scotland to do something in this area. The group agreed on this amendment.

It was requested that “if resources permit” be taken out of point 9. It was proposed that the group increase the funding they were asking for from £3 million over 3 years to £4 million a year over three years, totalling £12 million. Some felt it was better to go with a higher figure so that they were in a bargaining position. Others argued that a lower figure would be more enticing to government. It was noted that the figure that was put in the report did not have to be the number that Ministers would commit to as they would want to see a cost breakdown. The group agreed that they would look at the Dutch and New Zealand model and work out per capita what they are spending to find the benchmark.

Action:

• group to look at Dutch and New Zealand models to work out how much funding they should request for the institute

In order to support the idea that media literacy should be a standard part of the education curriculum, it was suggested that the group add a line “to promote and argue for the teaching of media literacy in schools” to the media literacy section. Media literacy was a big issue and it was important to present it as something which was essential, not just nice to have. Including media literacy in the role of the institute would show that its purpose was about wider societal benefit.

It was raised that the recommendation on charitable status should go further to give the possibility for the government to set up a new type of charitable organisation that publishers could be part of which would not have the same restrictions on campaigning. The group agreed to add in the line “including the possibility of a special type of charitable status that will only apply to news organisations to give them the benefit of charitable status with the flexibility they might need.”

The group wanted to include a sentence on the role of the institute in having conversations with Ofcom and tech giants to combat fake news and promote media literacy. The group also wanted to add in a sentence referencing the desirability of media literacy being on the school curriculum. 

The group agreed that in the community ownership recommendation that paragraphs 5 and 6 should be deleted because they are too negative. More specific and positive sounding amendments were needed.

It was noted that the group needed to decide on an acronym for the institute and whether to keep SPIJI.

Action:

• group to discuss the acronym for the institute at a later date

It was raised that there were updated figures available that should be used in the public sector advertising recommendation. It was felt the group should be specific in their ask and stronger in their demands, avoiding the word “if”. Some group members felt that the group should increase the percentage of funding they were asking but the group decided to keep it at 25%. 

The group agreed that sections 5 and 6 should be merged to be in line with the summary of recommendations.

In previous meetings, the group had discussed the possibility of recommending that the Scottish Government offer support to business through an advertising voucher scheme. The group decided to move this recommendation into the tax incentives section and to rename the section “business advertising incentives”.

It was raised that the group needed to be specific about how they were defining Scottish Government advertising. For example, whether it included agencies or overseas spending.

The recommendation on the BBC split the opinion of the group so it was decided that this recommendation would be taken out of the report. Instead, the group decided to add in a line to the report acknowledging the BBC Local Democracy Reporting Scheme.

RE emailed an amendment to the big tech recommendation suggesting that the paragraph about brand flattening should be deleted and instead they should make more specific recommendations on what they government should say in discussions with big tech. It was suggesting that the point about brand flattening was important. The group decided to merge the two so that the points about brand flattening were kept and RE’s amendments added.

The group agreed that the tax incentive recommendation title should be changed to “SME Business Advertising Incentives” and include mention of the voucher scheme for small advertisers. This was important as it included an action for the Scottish Government other than lobbying the UK Government to change legislation.

The group suggested that they may want to include relevant reports, slides and papers that the group have referenced throughout their discussions in the appendices.

The group agreed that it did not matter whether the public interest journalism definition went in a section at the beginning or in the appendices. The important part was that the definition could be referred to.

Agenda item 4 – set a deadline for finalising the report

 JH volunteered to edit the redraft with the suggested amendments and DW volunteered to help with the advertising sections. 

It was noted that the report could be signed off by correspondence and then officials could submit it with Ministers when it was ready. It was hoped the group would be able to have a meeting with Ministers to discuss the report.

The deadline of Friday 10 September was set to have a final draft of the report circulated with the wider group. 

The question of how the report would be promoted once published was raised.

Action: secretariat to speak to Scottish Government communications team regarding promoting the report

Summary of actions

• HP to find out if there was a set Scottish Government structure for reports and let the group know
• drafting group to speak to EM to find out how ICNN include sole traders and freelancers in their membership criteria
• JMcL to contact group by correspondence to communicate which points of the redraft needed amended
• group to look at Dutch and New Zealand models to work out how much funding they should request for the institute
• group to discuss the acronym for the institute at a later date
• secretariat to speak to Scottish Government communications team regarding promoting the report