An inquiry into the role of media research in contributing the idea of

public sphere and study of an organisation in controversy: A case study

of Media Standards Trust

The first press is the ever-present vigilant eye of the peoples spirit, the
embodiment of a peoples trust in itself, the communication link that
binds the individual with the state and the world. ( Splichal 2002:118).
July 4, 2011 is a red letter day in the history of UK press. On this day The
Guardian published a story which not only shocked the entire nation but
also rocked the citadel of a media mogul sitting across the Atlantic. The
story which revealed that Rupert Murdochs News of the World hacked into
the voicemail of a missing child named Milly Dowler shook this media
magnets

global

empire

and

this

later

came

Murdochgate in some circles (Bernstein 2011).

to

be

known

as

In the wake of the

hacking scandal, British Prime Minister David Cameron set up an inquiry

into the culture, practice and ethics of the press in Britain headed by Lord
Justice Leveson which turned out to be a cathartic moment in the
countrys public life (Brock 2012: 519).
In the following weeks, media outlets of all hues and colours fiercely
debated what public interest is, what the limits of free speech are, what
constitutes right to privacy and so on and it turned into a highly polarised
public issue. The rhetoric became so charged that it became another you
are either with us or against us battle with some decrying the end of
press freedom and some clamouring for an end of self-regulation by UK
press. Questions were raised on whether the institutional rights of press
align with an acceptance of press freedom as a matter of economic
interests (Corner 2004:895). It is reminiscent of the critique by Marx of
those who seemed to defend freedom of the press but in fact only
advanced the freedom of ownership (Splichal 2002:124). In the midst of
these developments, one organisation called Media Standards Trust (MST)

took a prominent role in public campaigning for a more open and

accountable press.
There is no denying that media accountability is a major issue in the era of
tabloidisation of news and there is strong evidence to suggest that the
threat the media now pose to the democratic institutions...is ironically at
its greatest when the media are apparently at their most fearless (Lloyd
2004:13-17). Pritchard (2002:2) defines media accountability as the
process by which media organisations may be expected or obliged to
render an account of their activities to their constituents. He further
emphasises the fact that media accountability is a process which mainly
consists of naming, blaming and claiming (2002:3). MST assumes
significance

in

this

background

with

its

campaign

for

quality,

transparency and accountability in news and the prominent role it played

during the course of Leveson inquiry.1
As a part of the Masters programme in Development and Rights at
Goldsmiths, I interned at MST from 10 February, 2013 to 10 April, 2013.
During this period the organisation was in full public limelight and the
ruling

government

had

tough

time

in

deliberating

on

the

recommendations of the Leveson inquiry, in which MST was an indirect

participant. The national media was eagerly following the developments of
the inquiry as it had serious ramifications for the future functioning of the
UK press. As an intern, I conducted an ethnographic study of this
organisation during that time and also participated in one of their projects
on press reform by preparing data, reviewing reports and publishing
timeline pages. This paper will not only focus on my experience with MST
but will also critically analyse MSTs role in the public debate around press
reform.
It must be admitted at this stage that many in the corporate media
aggressively attacked MST for its campaign on press reform and scores of
news articles appeared where present and past associates of this
organisation were severely criticised. My paper will look into these aspects
1

http://mediastandardstrust.org/

and will argue that media research and development contribute to the
idea of public sphere where democracy can be expressed and civic
engagement practiced (Meer et al 2010: 217). It will also assess how the
challenges faced by one organisation in a highly polarised atmosphere
influence its functioning and campaign strategies. The power dynamics
that MST shares with its associated institutions will also be looked into as
it may help us understand the model which would require the
establishment of a clear and stronger public interest defence for
journalism (Moore 2011:548).

But before delving into these issues, it

would be useful to have an overview of the organisation, focussing on the

projects it is involved with.
About Media Standards Trust
MST is often called as think-and-do-tank which according to the
organisation isnt a bad description (though its not a particularly elegant
one either).3 MST is involved in a range of activities: conducting research
on press self-regulation and local news, engaging in web development
work related to media, and running the Orwell prize for political writing.
MST was founded in 2006. However the idea of it goes back to 2003, when
during a discussion on the state of media, led by Sir David Bell (then
Chairman of Financial Times), seniors members of police, law, business,
medicine and the media engaged in a heated exchange of views. People
outside the media raised serious apprehensions about the opaque and
unaccountable practices of the media which they thought have become
too powerful in the modern society. On the other hand, people within
media thought that outsiders rarely understand the functioning of the
media and that news is undergoing revolution. However, both sides
contended that in the present times media organisations have to be more
open and accountable to the public if it aims to survive.
The website of MST describes its aim as such:

2
3

Martin Moore is the Director of Media Standards Trust.

http://mediastandardstrust.org/about/faqs/

...to foster high standards in news media, promoting quality,

accountability and transparency. We reward quality through the
Orwell Prize, hope to make journalism more accountable via
Journalisted and our work on self-regulation, and encourage
transparency through the Transparency Initiative. We also try to
stimulate debate on media issues.4
Though it considers itself as a campaigning organisation for higher
standards of journalism and reform in press self-regulation, it denies
categorising its activity as lobbying. Nevertheless, we do seek to
influence policy through our research and will try to talk to senior figures
in politics, the media and civil society about our work, its website states. 5
MST claims to be completely independent and not related to any media or
political organisation. It further asserts that due to the nature of its work,
it engages with a range of media outlets and political parties across the
spectrum to encourage debate on issues afflicting the press today.
The projects administered by the MST which give us an insight into its
working.
Orwell prize is said to be the Britains most famous prize for political
writing. Every year MST organises this award to reward the work of an
author, a journalist and a blogger (since 2009) in consonance with George
Orwells aim to make political writing into an art. 6 Besides running the
Orwell prize, it also claims to stimulate interest among the people about
good political writing and thinking by arranging events all over Britain.
Orwell prize in its present form was started by Professor Sir Bernard Crick
in 1994 in association with both the Orwell Trust and Political Quarterly.
However, MST took over the charge of Orwell prize as a major partner in
2008 as a result of a meeting between the then Chair of Orwell prize
Professor Jean Seaton and Martin Moore, director of MST which was
considering establishing a prize to reward good journalism at this time. 7
4
5
6
7

Ibid
Ibid
http://mediastandardstrust.org/projects/the-orwell-prize/
http://theorwellprize.co.uk/the-orwell-prize/about-the-prize/a-brief-history/

So after becoming associated with Orwell prize, today MST employs a staf
member as operational manager of the Orwell prize.
This prize ran into controversy in 2011 when the award was given to The
Independent journalist Johann Hari for an article which was allegedly
plagiarised.8 Hari later returned the award and Orwell prize committee
issued a statement saying that they have no independent capacity to
research the work that is submitted. It relies on the integrity of authors
and of their publishers editorial practices.9 Also Telegraph commentator
Toby Young wrote an article this year criticising the involvement of MST
with Orwell prize arguing that because MST started the Hacked Of
campaign it is an enemy of press freedom and enemies of press freedom
should stop handing out prizes in the name of George Orwell.10
MST runs two websites related to journalism practices in the UK. The
website Journalisted automatically searches UK national newspaper
websites for articles, picks out bylines and indexes the links by
journalist.11 It helps people to find information about media persons and
the kind of articles they write all in one place. The second website is
Churnalism whose churn engine will tell you what percentage of an
article has been cut and pasted from a given press release. 12 As per
MST, this website aims to increase the standard of public reporting and
enable people to distinguish between churnalism (articles which are in
essence press releases with nothing new added) and journalism.
MST in another web development project called Transparency initiative,
launched in association with Sir Tim Burners Lees Web Science Trust,
develops useful software in order to look at ways of making the
provenance of news more transparent online, particularly through the use
of metadata.13 As part of the project, MST along with Associated Press
8

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/14/johann-hari-apologises-orwell-prize
http://theorwellprize.co.uk/news/the-orwell-prize-and-johann-hari/
10
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100197296/the-enemies-of-pressfreedom-should-stop-handing-out-prizes-in-the-name-of-george-orwell/
11
http://journalisted.com/
12
http://churnalism.com/
13
http://mediastandardstrust.org/projects/transparency-initiative/
9

(AP) came out with hNews, a draft microformat for news which would help
people to find and access news stories on the web with clear idea of its
authority and credibility. For this project MST was awarded the prestigious
Knight New Challenge award of 180,000 along with Web Science Trust
and today not only AP but also 500 US news sites have adopted hNews in
their operations.14
MST also organises series of talks, seminars and group discussions under
the project Why Journalism Matters to promote the critical values of
journalism among the public with the belief that real values of journalism
are not universally understood or acknowledged.15
The other two projects initiated by MST are Press Reform and Hacked Of
campaign which can be termed as sibling projects because both of them
are targeted against the unfair practices within media and the nonresponsiveness of the present system. Though Hacked Of is independent
of MST today and registered as a separate non-profit company with its
own Board of Directors, its motto of pressing for substantial form of press
regulation bears similarity with the Press Reform projects stated aim to
press for further reform in British media.16
Public sphere and Media Standards Trust
To understand the entire media spectacle around Leveson inquiry today
and the role of a media research organisation like MST, we will have to go
back to the theory of public sphere most famously forwarded by German
philosopher Jurgen Habermas. Immanuel Kant also discussed on the idea
of such a space in his essay on enlightenment. 17 In his most influential
book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Habermas (2004)
discusses the formation of bourgeois public sphere

in the 18 th century

Europe, mainly Britain and France. He argues that in old cofee houses
14

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/tim-berners-lee-and-media-standards-trust-win-newschallenge-grant/s2/a531594/
15
http://martinjemoore.com/why-journalism-matters-introduction/
16
http://mediastandardstrust.org/projects/hacked-of/ and
http://mediastandardstrust.org/projects/press-self-regulation/
17
http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html

then, middle class people could sit with the aristocrats and present their
opinion on any matter of the day. And as a result of this the bourgeois
found its voice in the transition from feudalism to capitalism and this was
represented in the press and other forms of public communication
(McGuigan 2005:427).
While discussing this sphere in the 20th century, Habermas laments that
commercial interests and public relations severely damaged the press
freedom and open debate in our society. In the present context, this
observation becomes very significant and for our analysis we will have to
consider the concept of public sphere as mutually dependent prospective
of a communicative and institutional space (Dahlgren 1991). Habermas
(2004) idea of public sphere refers to such an arena that can be inside and
outside of civil society simultaneously. And the possible reason for this is
because it is not a direct function of the state yet is open to debate on
the nature of public issues on which state policy might be exercised
(Meer et al 2010: 217). He therefore views it as:
...a sphere which mediates between society and state, in which
public organises itself as the bearer of public opinion, accords with
the principle of public sphere - that principle of public information
which once had to be fought for against the arcane politics of
monarchies and which since that time has made possible the
democratic control of state activities. (Habermas 2004:351).
Calhoun (2000)

points

to the diference

that Habermas account

establishes between the normative functions of private interest and forms

of private life on the one hand and those of the public sphere based upon
the notion of public good on the other. Scholars like Fraser (1995) and
Cassonova (1994) criticise Habermas theory arguing that confining public
debate to a single overarching sphere is not at all desirable and Habermas
ignored the fact that many aspects of both private and public life, for
example religion, traditionally play a crucial role in forming public beliefs.
In either case, it is relevant to note how the mass media have become
central to most formulations of the public sphere because of the ways
7

media distribute information to citizens, and at least in theory, facilitate

public debate - even while this relationship is subject to a variety of well
established

and

compelling

critical

readings

(Meer

et

al

2010:

218).Curran (1991) and Nightingale & Rose (2003) have also discussed
the medias role in shaping up this public sphere at length.
Now MST, as a body formed by people associated with media world with
an aim to make the UK press more accountable and open to the public,
engage with this public sphere in a critical way.

MST under the Press

Reform project created a storm in 2009 when it published a report A More

Accountable Press in consultation with a group of 12 senior figures from
journalism and civil society criticising the functioning of the Press
Complaints Commission (PCC).18 This well argued report concluded that
the existing system of press regulation is not sustainable in its present
form (Media Standards Trust 2009:44). It also played on the result of an
international poll which claimed UK press is the least trusted in the
world and therefore needs some urgent redressal mechanisms.19
This serious attempt by MST to campaign for more press accountability
was welcomed but not sans criticism. Seymore-ure (2009) argued that the
reports language suggested that MST is thinking at a higher level without
touching the niceties of the issues involved. He further asks, The Trust
fears the press is on steroids and has Goliath tendencies. Can they find a
way of suppressing these without creating a new and diferent set of risks
to press freedom? (2009: 419) In 2010, MST came out with another
report Can Independent self-regulation keep standards high and preserve
press freedom and submitted it to the PCCs review of governance where
it suggested 28 recommendations for reform. In this report it conceded
that statutory regulation of the press represents a significant threat to a
fair and democratic society and therefore it strongly presented its case
for an independent self-regulator (Media Standards Trust 2010:36).

18
19

http://mediastandardstrust.org/projects/press-self-regulation/a-more-accountable-press/
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/article/876893/Trust-UK-media-falls-new-low/

And then came the hacking scandal which swung the public view towards
the press who largely agreed that scandals show the dangers to
democracy in allowing powerful media conglomerates...to use their power
without

regulatory

constraint

to

promote

their

own

corporate

interests...and thus producing a crisis for democracy(Kellner 2012:1193).

At this critical juncture, the role of MST becomes very significant and it
emerges as a powerful player in the whole afair around the Leveson
inquiry.
The MSTs submission to the Leveson inquiry demanded a new press
regulation system underpinned by statute (which is a shift from their
earlier stand) on the grounds that voluntary self-regulation has failed
beyond question (Bertrand 2003). The abuse of power by big media
houses time and again appeared in their submission entitled A Free and
Accountable Media.20 The position taken by the MST during this period
has strong resonance with the demand for further institutionalisation for
greater social stability and cohesion in the public sphere. It is akin to what
Habermas (2006:67) argues:
Institutions make purposeless yet obligatory action possible.
Unless strong institutions intervene to fill the need for regulation left
by the absence of instinctual drives, humans succumb to the
pressure of their drifting drives and fall into the state of chronic
ego-consciousness and the self-satisfaction of subjectivity.
Hacked Off and MST: Ethnography of a campaign
MST started another project called Hacked Of campaign after the Milly
Dowler phone hacking scandal. I interviewed Martin Moore as part of my
research.21 In the interview, Martin admitted that he had prior experience
of only research and not campaigning, but with Hacked Of, MST tried to
expose the illegal practices of the press and demanded full public inquiry
into the hacking scandal by adopting perfect campaign strategies. He
20

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-MediaStandards-Trust.pdf
21
https://soundcloud.com/adil-hossain-1/interview-with-mst-director

confessed that it was a new experience for them to tread this territory but
it was very much the need of the moment. He is credited as the founder
of Hacked Of on its website.22
At this stage, celebrities like Hugh Grant got associated with this
campaign and became its public face which, in a way, made it into a high
profile cause. It is interesting to note here that participation of celebrities
in advocating specific policy provisions is on the rise and people have
begun to question the impact of celebrities on public opinion (Thrall et al
2008; Jackson & Darrow 2005; Pease & Brewer 2008; Wood & Herbst
2007). Hacked Of, which became increasingly political in nature, was later
detached from MST. The explanation can be found in Martins insistence
that he does not wish MST, a charity organisation, to be known as a lobby
group as it creates confusion and raises questions on their nature of their
work among the public.
However, when inquired whether MST doesnt already perform the
function of lobbying by publishing reports and demanding changes in
public policies, Martin ofered an interesting explanation:
We never wished to be a lobbying group per se. We have always
wanted informed public debate on issues afecting media today.
However, its difficult to know these days where your charity role
ends and where your role as lobbying group begins. In fact, lot of
charities are lobby group now. Big charities, environmental ones, the
ones that deal with children, disability they often have considerable
campaigning and public afairs arms.
Indeed lobbying by charity organisations is well recognised (Gulland 2012;
Wood 2003) though it is generally perceived that charities may engage in
lobbying as long as it does not constitute a substantial pan of their total
activities (Fiore 2006:80). Dunn (2008), on the other hand, argues that
given the lack of public faith in contemporary political climate today,

22

http://hackinginquiry.org/about-2/about/

10

charities especially should have enough opportunity to engage public with

the political issues of the day and promote participatory democracy.
The functioning of MST cannot be delinked with that of the Hacked Of
campaign as the latter captured the public imagination at a critical
juncture and provided MST access to the corridors of power. This is in itself
crucial for the realisation of the aims and objectives of MST. Moreover,
Martin was among the four people present in the late night deliberations
on March 18, 2013 held by David Cameron (Prime Minister), Nick Clegg
(Deputy Prime Minister) and Ed Miliband (Leader of Opposition) to reach
an agreement on the Royal Charter for the press. And not surprisingly,
according to The Guardian report, he was there in this high profile
meeting as a member of Hacked Of and not representing MST as its
Director.23
Now Martin is aware of the counter campaign launched by newspapers
like Daily Mail, The Telegraph and many others who are against
establishing an independent regulatory body underpinned by law and
acknowledged that they consider MST as leftist authoritarians who are
seeking to dominate media. He termed this as a determined efort to
question your motivation, question your authority and to undermine your
credibility by any means possible. As an insider of the organisation, I
found MST was prepared for such attacks; due to the public mood they
were quite sure of their success as they expected that state appointed
Leveson inquiry would suggest something similar to their stance on media
regulation.
However,

Martin confessed hes

concerned

about the way these

newspapers have chosen to attack not only the Board Members of MST
but also its funders particularly 24 for the reason that he feels that though
such smear campaigns raise your profile but foundations generally avoid
to be associated with political causes as they are worried about bad
23

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/mar/18/leveson-press-regulation-royalcharter
24
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233684/Leveson-Inquiry-Disturbing-questionskey-adviser-Sir-David-Bell.html

11

publicity in the end. But as a silver lining he mentioned a person who

handed over a 1000 donation to MST just because he was so annoyed
with Daily Mail.
Conclusion
In a capitalist democratic society like UK, tensions will always remain with
regard to the locus of power and media. Chomsky (2007) discusses the
recourse to intellectual self- defence to protect ourselves from the
control and manipulation of the forces who struggle to shift this locus of
power. He warns us about the thought control, as conducted through the
agency of the national media and the related elements of the elite
intellectual culture (2007:viii)
To avoid it, pluralism of voices in a democratic society is always desirable
(Corner 2004). And so is the public use of reason as it is politically
foundational (Garnham 2000). It provides us with the bases for
disagreement, a meaningful way for accord and action and it forms new
emancipatory phases of socio-political organisation. MST is a result of
such an approach which through its research and other projects
challenges the normative discourse of the mainstream media. But the
problem arises when we find that in order to present a polarised view or
the simplified version of any crisis media comes out with leftist-rightist
dichotomy today. Because then not only does this block the way to move
forward but also marginalises the reformist voices for whom change is
necessary.
As I earlier argued, MSTs work on media research contributes to further
the democratisation of the public sphere filling the gap left by the big
media. Habermas (2006:9) himself expresses the importance of such an
activity through which opinions can be formed and reformed in the public
sphere:
People can take affirmative or negative positions on issues, and they
do so implicitly all the time. In this way, they contribute to
evaluating competing public opinions, if not their articulation. Public
12

communication acts as a hinge between informal opinion-formation

and the institutionalised processes of will formation - a general
election or a cabinet meeting, for example. For this reason, the
discursive constitution of the public sphere is important.
MST has to take a cautious approach in such a scenario as it cannot
expect itself to be immune from the criticism from those who think that
media accountability is the umbrella term for all the ways for enforcing
the moral obligations (McIntyre 1987:151). The reports published by the
MST withstood public scrutiny, initiated an important debate and got
acknowledged by a judicial commission which is definitely something
praiseworthy. But whether it can become a true reformist voice within the
media will depend upon lot of other factors, one of which is definitely
overcoming its fears of political branding and coming out with a voice of
conviction.

13

Bibliography

Bernstein, C. (2011) Murdochs Watergate Newsweek. Retrieved from

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/07/10/murdoch-swatergate.html on April 15,2012
Bertrand, C.J.(ed)(2003) An Arsenal For Democracy: Media Accountability
Systems Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press
Brock, George(2012) The Leveson Inquiry: Theres bargain to be struck
over media freedom and regulation Journalism 13(9): 519-528
Calhoun, Craig(2000) Social theory and public sphere In B.S.Turner(Ed)
The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory Oxford, England: Blackwell,
pp.505-544
Cassanova, J(1994) Public Religions in the modern world Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press
Chomsky, Noam(2007) Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic
Societies London: Pluto Press p.viii
Corner, John(2004) Freedom, Rights and Regulation Media, Culture and
Society 26(6):893-899
Curran, J(1991) Rethinking media in public sphere In P.Dahlgren &
C.Sparks(eds.) Communication & Citizenship London, England: Routledge
pp.27-57
Dahlgren, P (1991) Introduction In P.Dahlgren & C.Sparks(eds.)
Communication & Citizenship London, England: Routledge pp.1-24
Dunn, Alison(2008) Charities and Restrictions on Political Activities:
Developments by the Charity Commission for England and Wales in
Determining the Regulatory Barriers The International Journal of Not-forProfit Law 11(1) retrieved from
http://www.icnl.org/research/journal/vol11iss1/special_3.htm

Fiore, Nick.(2006) Lobbying and Political Activities of Public Charities

Journal of Accountancy 80(1):202
Fraser, N.(ed)(1995) Feminist Contentions: A philosophical exchange New
York, NY:Routledge
14

Garnham, N.(2000) Emancipation, the Media and Modernity Oxford,

England: Oxford University Press
Gulland, Anne (2012) Charities lobby EU over access to generic
drugs British medical journal 13 February:344
Habermas, J (2004) The Public Sphere In F.Webster(Ed.) The information
society reader London, England: Routledge (Original work published in
1974) p.351
Habermas, J(2006) Time of Transitions Cambridge: Polity pp.67-200
Jackson, D. & Darrow, T.(2005) The influence of celebrity endorsements
on young adults political opinion Harvard International Journal of
Press/Politics 10(3):80-98
Kellner, Douglas (2012) The Murdoch Media Empire and the Spectacle of
Scandal International Journal of Communication 6:1169-1200
Lloyd J(2004) What Media Are Doing To Our Politics London: Constable
McGuigan, Jim(2005) The Cultural Public Sphere European Journal of
Cultural Studies 8(4):427-444
Media Standards Trust(2009) A More Accountable Press. Part 1: The Need
for Reform. Is Self Regulation Failing the Press and the Public p.44
retrieved online on April 15, 2013 from http://mediastandardstrust.org/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2010/07/A-More-Accountable-Press-Part-1.pdf
Media Standards Trust (2010) Can Independent self-regulation keep
standards high and preserve press freedom p.36 retrieved online on April
15,
2013
from
http://mediastandardstrust.org/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2010/08/Reforming-independent-selfregulation.pdf
Meer, Nasar et al(2010) Beyond Angry Muslims? Reporting Muslim Voices
in British Press Journal of Media and Religion 9: 216-231
Moore, Martin(2011) Reform of Press Self-Regulation The Political
Quarterly 82(4): 543-548
Nightingale, V. & Ross, K. (2003) Critical Readings: Media & Audiences
London, England: Open University Press
Pease,A. & Brewer, P. (2008) The oprah factor: the efects of a celebrity
endorsement in a presidential primary campaign. International Journal of
Press/Politics 13(4): 386-400
15

Pritchard, D (2000) Holding the media accountable. Citizens, ethics and

the law Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press
Seymour-ure, Colin(2009) A More Accountable Press The Political
Quarterly 80(3): 416-419
Splichal, Slavako (2002) Principles of Publicity and Press Freedom
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield pp. 100-200
Thrall et al (2008) Star Power: Celebrity Advocacy and the Evolution of
the Public Sphere International Journal of Press/Politics 13(4): 362-285
Wood, N. & Herbst, K. (2007) Political star power and political parties:
Does celebrity endorsement win first-time votes? Journal of Political
Marketing 6(2/3):141-158
Wood, Dominic. (2003) Animal charity lobbies Adidas to end 'cruelty'
Third Sector 5: 297

16