 The next item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 13064, in the name of Jean Urquhart on media, society and democracy. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would invite those members who wish to take part in the debate press, the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. Before I call Jean Urquhart, I would remind members that they should not make any references to on-going live cases during their contributions. Mr Urquhart, seven minutes if you are ready please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We live in a society which relies on the quick flow of information, and we live in a time when analysis and opinion of the latest developments are consumed by an awakening general public. That awakening is down in large part to the referendum debate, through which there was widespread discussion, not just of the constitutional question, but of wider social issues, and indeed the media coverage of this historic event. There is a changing relationship between the people of Scotland and power. The democratic revival that we are experiencing is marked by the surge in interest in politics. That means where we get our news, and indeed in whose interests the media is run, is of renewed importance and must be under intensified scrutiny. On 29 April, the Scottish Government rightly so had a debate on TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. In my short experience in this place, I have not seen the public gallery packed as it was. I think I would be right in saying that the issue was raised through social media that brought the public's attention to an item of real interest and real concern. If social media can do that, let's have more of that. We have to discuss ways in which we can support journalism in Scotland. Local newspapers provide an often invaluable service, and certainly in the Highlands and Islands we have a healthy distribution of local press. The new wave of citizen-led coverage and comment is an important development that must be registered. I am pleased to note, and I did not know this until recently, that this is actually local newspaper week. We need to think in an interconnected way about investment into journalism and print media while recognising the surge in social and new media. But we must take this debate much further. We need to apply scrutiny to the way particular media institutions have covered recent social and political affairs. For example, we might question and expose the myth mongering pushed by broad sections of the press on the question of immigration. We might also note the widespread problem that the BBC now has in Scotland, where in recent years staff cuts and reduced resources have had a negative impact on the service that we need and want. Would change to the BBC Charter make it possible for responsibility to rest with Holyrood instead of Westminster? That, of course, should also be the subject of a debate. In many profound ways, we live in a media-managed democracy. We know the hold that a tiny minority of media owners can have over the outcome and framing of political events in the public mind. For so long, this has been impenetrable. However, as Democrats who have a view on the need for balanced and critical debate, perhaps now more than ever we have a chance to challenge the vested interests and corporate power that lies behind sections of the mass media. Now more than ever we have an electorate who have begun the process of grappling with this question. People are becoming shrewder about what information they digest, with many using the internet to do their own more considered research into the issues of the day—domestic and international. As elected representatives of the people, we have a particular responsibility to uphold when it comes to how our actions are covered. More than that, we have a duty to ensure that coverage of the big debates that are currently polarising society is not left to the media barons. It is time, is it not, for a new look at our media, a proper assessment of new media and a willingness to explore how we can support journalism as a trade and a hugely important profession in Scotland. At a time when we see a resurgence in people sensing the power of their opinion and their vote, it is crucial that we express our desire to support those who can articulate and record their considered opinion for the benefit of increasing our knowledge and challenging how we think. This debate could not be happening at a more important moment in the development of our democracy and our society as a whole. I think that it is time for even bigger debate in Scotland as to how we discover more about our country, as we learn more about each other, as we learn more and more about the possibilities and raise the ability for us to take action and raise our game. I think that this debate is relevant today. I thank you for the ability to be able to voice my concern. Thank you very much. I now call on Graham Day to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Presiding Officer, thank you. I begin by congratulating Jean Urquhart for bringing this matter to the chamber. I apologise to you and other members for not being able to remain for the entire debate owing to a meeting that I am hosting shortly. There is a danger when you reach a certain age of viewing the past through rose-tinted spectacles harking back to the good old days, so that we will be clear whilst the bulk of the 30 years that I spent in my previous career were enjoyable, the last few were anything but. I like to field the journalism in November 2010, grateful to Escape and Industry already sailing into very difficult waters. I am now the best part of five years on. I generally fear for where the print media is headed, both in terms of practices and viability, and I have a good deal of sympathy for many of those who make their living in that field. In no particular order, let me expand on that if I may. I begin with highlighting an experience suffered by a constituent of mine who had posted something on his personal Facebook page relating to the pain of losing his daughter someone's earlier, being stoked again by the receipt of a piece of mail for her and criticising the organisation, understandably so, which had sent it. The following morning, my constituent took a call from a journalist seeking a quote to include in a story that they were running on the situation. The man was horrified to learn that they sourced the planned article through a routine trawl of social media and had every intention of running with it, despite his making it clear. He had received an apology, the matter was at an end, and he felt that it would be utterly inappropriate for him to include in what he concerned a private matter. He told me that he had to spend the day negotiating with the paper to ensure that his family was not subjected to publicity that they simply did not want. They remain shocked that a newspaper would stoop to trawling Facebook in this way and be resistant to rolling back once the family made clear their position. Presiding Officer, such are the demands that are being made on the staff cutbacks. Journalists on some titles routinely sit in offices sourcing copy directly from social media, including quotes. I highlight this example as an illustration of the kind of practices now being employed in parts of our media that would never have behaved like this before, practices that the public are experiencing first hand and balking at, with the reputational consequences that this has. However, that said, let us also recognise absolutely the pressures that some journalists are having to contend with. Newspapers are trapped in a downward spiral that they seem incapable of escaping, as circulation falls so they embark on cost cutting and making further demands on the moralised staff, which in turn leads to diminishing quality of product, which in turn seems circulation collapsed off further and so it goes on. As a former journalist, I hear tales which genuinely sadden me. The newspaper, with the longest-serving reporter, had been with him just 11 months. The young reporter handed a phone number by his editor for a Scott who had been caught up in the tragedy in Nepal, along with a list of questions, and who had two questions into the interview had the phone put down in him with the interviewee branding him an ambulance chaser, such was the nature of the tat that he had been instructed to take. The phasing out of sub-editors were the implications that that can have for quality control and presentation, the doing away with staff photographers, with picture duties given to reporters and freelancers who have to submit pics on spec and for their relative pittons. That is the reality for many journalists nowadays. Morale is rock bottom because of that. That is the erosion of terms and conditions of employment and the wider cuts agenda. One respected weekly paper editor told me recently that financial restraints have become so bad that he had the public wondering into his office to check that it was still open, as the refusal of the proprietors to meet the cost of window cleaning had left the premises looking like they were closed. Print media might well be headed online. We may only be a few years away from that happening, but I personally still hope that there is and can be a future for newspapers. I believe that a thriving written press, which in a considered way without fear or favour, holds those in authority to account, is vital in any democracy. At a community level, I particularly hope that we can somehow save the weekly paper sector, because at the risk of sounding old-fashioned, both are surely to be valued. I now call on Malcolm Tism to be followed by Jamie McGregor. I am sorry, but I congratulate Jeane Mackert on bringing forward this important motion. If I can start with the least controversial bit of it, perhaps, I think that we would all agree about the importance of local media. I would like to pay tribute today to the great work over many years of the North Edinburgh news in my constituency and also Greener Leith. Regrettably, the former lost its regular council funding three or four years ago and the mass distribution of hard copies of the newspaper that were possible as a result of that, but it is still a great source of news online, as is Greener Leith. I should also point out that Greener Leith runs a social website, which is an interactive forum for raising awareness of local concern. I think that we all value the local media that we have in our constituencies. I move on, however, to the more controversial issue of media ownership, although perhaps it was not so controversial three or four years ago. Speaking in the House of Commons just days after the hacking scandal broke in 2011, David Cameron was explicit about the need for action. I quote, The challenge is how we address the vexed issue of media power. We need competition policy to be properly enforced. We need a sensible look at the relevance of plurality and cross-media ownership. Never again should we let a media group get too powerful. To address that problem, the Labour Party pledged in its manifesto for the recent election that no media company should have so much power that those who run it believe themselves above the rule of law. If we had been elected last week, we as a party would have looked to adopt the proposals that are endorsed by campaigners limiting national newspaper ownership to 30 per cent of the market. Such a law could have led to the break-up of news core in the UK, which currently publishes 32 per cent of the national daily newspapers, and 34.5 per cent of the Sunday market with its sun times and sunday times titles. Many of the members in this chamber, and indeed in Westminster, will give testament to the enormous shift from the dominance of traditional media that we have seen over recent years. The ability of papers and broadcasters to steer the course of political dialogue is still a prevalent aspect of contemporary politics, but the use of social media to shape political debate and allow a more dynamic, instantaneous and reciprocal news source now offers the public the chance to become the creator of content with direct access to politicians. Carole Mill, research director of the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media, gave an account after the general election of the importance played by social media in the success and failure of campaigns. On the holy was largely positive about Twitter, as a medium through which a more representative politics could be forged. Twitter is broadly representative of the UK, he said, now much more than in 2010. In 2010 about 34 per cent of people in the UK were on social media, now well over half are. This is reflected in the sheer level of political content that passes through Twitter feeds every day. During the election campaign alone, there were an estimated seven million tweets to any politician or candidate. As he points out, that is an enormous chaotic morass of lots of things. What drives Twitter usage is converting likes and tweets and favourites into things that matter, volunteers, donations and ultimately votes. It also offers a direct, instantaneous source of news, often much faster than traditional media. As many in the chamber will have witnessed, mediums such as Twitter and Facebook have the ability to generate crowd-source reaction to key political developments. As a result of that direct user-generated content, citizens feel more able to have direct contact with MPs and MSPs, and that will undoubtedly have some impact in the long-term on broader expectations of politicians. In conclusion, I welcome the debate today. It is a timely one and it poses many questions that are simply too complex to answer in one short debate. However, the mere fact that we are able to speak those words, broadcast them to the media, write them on our parliamentary website and tweet them to our followers shows that we have come very far since the days of the penny dreadfuls, the early yellow-top gossip papers. Let's hope that this journey towards a more transparent, engaging system continues. I support the motion and congratulate Jean Urquhart on introducing it. Thank you very much. I now call on Jimi McGregor to be followed by John Finnie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I too congratulate Jean Urquhart on securing today's debate and there's much in Jean Urquhart's motion I can agree with, especially the belief that critical and well-supported journalism is essential to a thriving democracy. A strong media plays an important role in making politicians and government at all levels accountable and that's how it should be. The motion notes the importance of the local media and press in my region of the Highlands and Islands and I completely agree with this. The Highlands and Islands are fortunate to have a wide range of fantastic local newspapers of which there are far too many to mention individually today. I would want to take this opportunity to commend the journalists and editors who work so hard to cover local news stories in my region. Many of these newspapers, as well as reporting on local stories and performing the important task of scrutinising the performance and decisions of local government in Scotland, can also help effect change by supporting local campaigns. I think, for example, of the recent and successful campaign to establish a new dialysis unit in Campbelltown hospital, which was backed with great support by the Campbelltown courier. Jean Urquhart is right to mention the development of news through the internet and social media, but she did mention T-Tip and on that issue I would agree. I received upwards of 500 emails railing against T-Tip and only one or two pro, but it was quite obvious that the 500 were generated from one source and, while during the inquiry conducted by the European Committee into T-Tip, the majority of the witnesses were in favour of it. I do not always think that social media can be used. I am very grateful for the member taking intervention at that point. The vast majority, over 90 per cent, were corporate lobbyists. Do you think that those are reflective of the general public of the European Union? Before you respond, Mr Greger, I do not want this debate to descend into a T-Tip debate. This is about social media, please. I will take your advice on that and carry on in that case. As I said, many of our local newspapers have developed first-class websites, while in Argyll and Bute the news website forargyle.com has developed a well-deserved reputation for its extensive and comprehensive coverage of all the key stories in the area. It is insightful analysis. Linda Henderson and her team at Forargyle work extremely hard, and their success is reflected in the many thousands of page impressions they receive each and every day, and the site's lively comments. Jeane Irker has talked about trust in the media. All of us can agree that the events that led to the Leveson inquiry shocked many of our constituents. The UK Government, however, I think got the balance right in its response to Leveson in terms of seeking to preserve the freedom of the press, while at the same time ensuring bad practice in journalism can be challenged. I think that we need now to monitor the effectiveness of the new independent press standards organisation, Ipsale, which replaced the press complaints commission and assess its performance before considering any further changes in press regulation. While Leveson saw focus on bad journalism, we should also recognise that the vast majority of journalists and others in the media worked at very high standards. The BBC remains an institution which is respected worldwide, and we must cherish the expertise that we have, for example in the BBC World Service. The broadcast media's coverage of the recent general election was balanced and robust despite the polls. ITN and Channel 4 also offer some of the best international news coverage and analysis to be found, I think, anywhere in the world. To conclude, Presiding Officer, I welcome today's debate and agree that it's important that we support a strong media in Scotland and the UK and have an on-going and measured debate about how citizens' society engage with our media and help to ensure that it meets the expectations that we have for fairness and for balance. Thank you very much. I now call on John Finnie, after which I will move the closing speech to the minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I too congratulate my colleague Jean Urquhart on bringing this motion to the chamber. We know that the media, and indeed from the contributions we've heard already, is a matter of great interest to the general public. It's perhaps unfortunate that it's not receiving a bigger attendance in the chamber here. The motion talks about a widespread debate. It talks about the relationship between the media, political power and democracy, and people have talked about the different ranges in the media from the locals, the nationals, the broadcast media, the social media and the internet. The question of who has the power may be important that was touched on by Mr McGregor, and I would venture that at UK level it still rests with a group of elites, the bankers, the public school boys, the military and the like. And of course, they're lobbyists, and of course people will always have concern about the term state broadcaster. We have to… What's the matter with that? Certainly. Mr McGregor. I referred to witnesses we'd had at the European Committee. Is he suggesting that all of those were public school boys? John Finnie. I don't know the committee you're talking about. I don't know, but I'm not suggesting that the exclusive witnesses you've received are public school boys, nor was it a personal dig. The promotion of news is terribly important, but also at the reflection of opinion. I suppose we need to ask what to expect from the media. Do we expect, I think, we want facts, we want opinion, we want analysis, we want a combination of all of these, but if we look for instance, what are facts, who says they are, and based on what, opinions clearly can't be right or wrong, but are they based on facts. An analysis of the facts and opinions will be very challenging for many people in the media, for the very reasons we heard from Graham Day, and it was good to have that particular input from someone from the profession. So people would ask, are there agendas? Well, of course there are agendas, we all have agendas. I'm very supportive of an organisation called Reporters Without Borders, and they want freedom of expression and of information and say that that will always be the most important freedom the world has. They go on to say, if journalists were not free to report the facts, denounce abuses and alert the public, how would we resist the problem of child soldiers to offend women's right or preserve our environment? Now at the moment, they are asking the UN Security Council to refer the situation that their members found themselves in Syria and Iraq to the international criminal court, and we know the situation with Al Jazeera staff. Our media people do not find themselves in these circumstances, and I have to say that by and large we know that there's very good work done. People have mentioned communities, and of course it's not just community broadsheets, the local radios. I think that the community empowerment has led to radio stations as well, and we must sustain and indeed develop, as the motion says, these media outlets. The national corporations, of course, follow an arrow agenda, and I'm not sure how we can deal with that, but there's much to commend outlets like common space, Bella Caledonia. The motion also says that there's trust that's been lost in a range of media institutions. Well, I think that there's trust being lost in a lot of institutions, including politics, and I think that we all must move to a situation where we move away from spinning stories to providing facts on the basis for saying there are facts, so that would allow analysis, and that is a two-way engagement. So, as has been rightly said, the Highlands and Islands is a very vibrant paper section. Long may that continue, they view it as a public service ethos. There must be a separation between our media and party politics. I think that there's much to be positive out for the future. I applaud the work of the National Union of Journalists, encouraging young people into the profession. I commend their code of conduct, and in brief minutes have I said that first and foremost they say, at all times, journalists uphold and defend the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression, and the right of the public to be informed. If we stick to those principles, I don't think that we'll be far wrong. Thank you. We now move the closing speech from the cabinet secretary, Fiona Hyslop. Seven minutes, so thereby please. I congratulate Gina Irkut in securing this debate and, in local newspaper, a week. Can I say that life would not be the same without the weekly read of the Lysgow Gazette. I welcome the chance to speak in this timely member's debate, and for the interesting and informative comments that we've heard. There is a widespread debate in Scotland about the relationship between the media, political power and democracy, and a belief that critical and well-supported journalism is essential to a thriving democracy. That was a point that was made by Jimmy MacGregor. For our part, public engagement with politicians and the critical analysis that is presented of our work both inside and outside the chamber by the media is essential to building and maintaining trust in the political process. It is also essential in terms of ensuring the continued participation of people throughout Scotland in shaping our nation's future. Malcolm Chisholm talked in his contribution about the role of social media in elections particularly. A thriving media sector that supports diverse job opportunities, training and development is important, and a press and media environment that values, respects and champions quality journalism is essential to our future. In that regard, we should also note and recognise and appreciate the role of the new publication, The National, in print. The levels of engagement that are seen both in September's referendum and during the UK general election campaign have been rightly celebrated, and it is heartening that so many people feel that they have a voice in the critical decisions that affect us all. However, despite such high levels of engagement, we find ourselves at a time of great change in how the media delivers its content and ensures continued relevance amidst changing perceptions of what constitutes international, national and local. Nowadays, I consume information from a variety of media outlets, with news in many languages and from many perspectives at my fingertips. Such easy access to a plurality of information is a challenge to our traditional modes of consumption and engagement and can have an unsettling effect where what seems to be established fact is quickly challenged by another point of view. I believe that this is very positive for the quality of debate, but it does change our relationship with the media and challenges our ability and appetite to distinguish between opinion and fact, something that may also impact on our levels of trust in media institutions, at least in the short term. To sustain a flourishing democracy in Scotland, we will need diverse and independent voices across the media, yet media concentration is continuing and growing, and a handful of co-operations and individuals have considerable power over our news, cultural life and access to information. That was a focus of John Finnie's contribution. Decisions about the newspaper industry, such as merging titles, de-skilling and laying off good journalists, are often made with scant regard for the impact such decisions will have on the ability of media to support democracy, political engagement and high-quality debate in Scotland. We have seen job cuts throughout the media sector, including, of course, at the BBC. On print journalism, Graham Day warned of the vicious cycle of deteriorating circulation and standards in the media. The move to online is also creating a never more economically challenging environment for the print media. Recent figures for circulation in February show reductions in the last six months across major titles of between 5 and 15 per cent. There is also an enclosure of a range of media organisations, but, of course, there are publications that are moving successfully to online circulation that pays. Such challenging times for print journalism is leading to increased domination of the industry by a smaller number of large media organisations. That is a challenge for industry regulators and one of the reasons for the loss of trust in the media that we have heard about in this debate today. Alternatively, new media platforms have sprung up rapidly in the past few years. Access to local and social media provides many opportunities for voices to be heard in a range of issues. An example of that is, indeed, Gino Akert's own work on xenophobia earlier this year, which made excellent use of exactly those kinds of opportunities. However, the ability of digital intermediaries such as search engines and social media giants to filter information threatens to create new monopolies and undermining those positive developments. As the traditional print media adapts to respond to the digital age, it is critical that local voices are still heard and that high-quality local journalism and media remains vibrant and continues to develop. Of course, the launch of local TV in Edinburgh and Glasgow earlier this year and forthcoming launches in Aberdeen, Aire and Dundee are an interesting development here. The risks and opportunities at this point in time for the media in Scotland must be assessed and we must address the real issues facing us, particularly in those areas where trust has broken down in order to rebuild that relationship with people across Scotland. As a chamber, we know that the Smith commission has made proposals for new powers for Scotland in relation to broadcasting, and the debate is well timed as we enter into that critical period. The continued work to implement proposals around independent press self-regulation is also key to rebuilding trust in our media and helping to address structural issues. I am committed to making sure that we seize the opportunity and promote continued public debate to ensure that we can sustain and develop diverse media outlets that are able to generate positive engagement with politics, the Parliament and the important issues that are facing society, ensuring that everyone has a voice in Scotland's future. I want to see a national debate with politicians, the industry and critically the public to ensure that we fully understand what is the vision for media in Scotland and which are the key issues that we want to address from BBC charter renewal to support for independent producers across Scotland and supporting a vibrant and diverse print and online media. I look forward to a lively and informed discussion and debate on those issues with colleagues across the chamber as we go forward and throughout Scotland. This is a critical agenda, it is one that matters and I am very pleased and grateful that Junarch has brought this agenda to this Parliament. Thank you very much and thank you all very much and I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30.