Laboratorios curriculares: materiales, equipo y desarrollo de prácticas

While ITV1 advertising rates are not officially publicised, from data that is available (for example, TV Agency 2013; Guerillascope 2015), it appears that a single 30-second advertisement on ITV1 during the “late peak” 8pm-11pm costs between

£35,000 and £50,000. Of the 101 commerical breaks identified in 2014, 84 were single advertisment breaks all featuring only Barclays, one of the banks dominating financial sector coverage. Therefore, by a conservative estimate, Barclays spent at least £3 million on these advertisements in 2014, aside from any additional premiums to secure exclusivity within the advertising break. Consequently, these

161 | P a g e Barclays advertisements presented a potential dilemma for editors when deciding

how stories should be presented. Establishing the tone and content of Barclays stories within 2014 offers some insight into the commercial channel’s willingness to adopt an uninhibited approach to reporting the corporate workings (but more often

“problems”) of their sponsors.

This combative approach taken by ITV1 towards Barclays predates 2014. In 2012 for example, Barclays experienced shareholder dissent, and in an examination of how this dissent was reported on BBC, ITV and SKY, ITV1 anchor Alastair Stewart refers to

“remarkable” barracking”, “shareholder fury” and “bumper pay” (Thomas 2016, p.105). These are all lexical selections indicating that the remuneration in question is high, even in the context of executive pay. Reporter Laura Kuenssberg describes boos and derision at the Barclays meeting, and of the three reports, only ITV1 mentioned that Barclays prevented the attendance of news cameras and protestors. The tone and framing of the ITV1 report is notably critical, and challenges any notion that the channel takes a mild approach to corporate affairs (for a detailed analysis, see Thomas 2016).

Table 6.6 shows all Barclays stories on ITV1 in 2014, and how these corresponded to the pattern of advertising breaks immediately before and after each bulletin in question. The term “Barclays only” refers to breaks that feature only Barclays advertising messages:

Table 6.6 Barclays stories and advert breaks in 2014 on ITV1.

From Table 6.6, the report on 3/2/14 is not especially noteworthy, since it lasts only 11 seconds and simply explains that CEO Anthony Jenkins had refused his bonus. On 11/2/14 and 24/4/14, there were no Barclays adverts punctuating the ITV1 bulletins, but there were adverts on adjacent days, meaning that news and commentary about Barclays was in close proximity (the day before and day after) to the bank’s advertising messages. The report on 11/2/14 has already been described in detail

162 | P a g e (see Figure 6.19). It featured an adversarial approach by Richard Edgar who

interrupted Anthony Jenkins, expressed incredulity, and presented a strong contrast with a bank that was apparently performing better. Figure 6.22 describes a Barclays story on 24/4/14, reporting a dissenting vote at their AGM. It was introduced by Julie Etchingham:

Figure 6.22 ITV1’s report about Barclays on 24/4/14.

The report is continued by Joel Hills, who comments over a small vignette performed by protestors outside the meeting, where one “banker” is handed a handful of banknotes:

Hills asks some Barclays shareholders whether they are “happy with the way the bank is being run” and receives various responses:

163 | P a g e After explaining that while profits have decreased and bonus payments have

increased, Hills continues his commentary:

The report cuts to a contribution from Dr Roger Barker from the Institute of Directors, who responds to Hills’ question whether “it is enough to avoid government intervention - to avoid legislation?”:

164 | P a g e The critical tone of this report is established at an early stage, with Julie Etchingham’s

visceral description of a “Barclays bonus backlash” and shareholders being “fed up”.

Joel Hills continues by reminding viewers that criticism of Barclays is not new.

Further, the leitmotif of conflict is constructed through the vox populis, the first of which highlights excess. By way of balance and showing a plurality of views, the second vox populis refers to the dangers of not paying bonuses (staff retention). The female shareholder explains she has no choice but to trust the management, though her words hardly represent an endorsement. Hills makes the rhetorical and metaphorical contrast between Manchester United and Colchester United, which many viewers would recogonise as comparing a successful and famous football team with one that is neither. All three shareholder discourses therefore, are critical.

Furthermore, the event is described as “embarrassing” for Barclays, intensified by emphasising that Vince Cable had specifically referred to the bank when talking about remuneration excess.

Moreover, a dissenting vote of “one third of shareholders” might be newsworthy after the revolt of 2012, but such shareholder votes are far from unprecedented, and occurred regularly over the preceding decade (Peston 2012). In short, this was a story that ITV1 might have quite legitimately not reported at all; indeed, the parallel BBC1 bulletin did not do so. That ITV1 ran the story reconfirms notions that newsroom priorities and news values might take precedence over sponsor preferences.

While Barclays themselves are subject to criticism, and even some elements of

“schadenfreude” (Thomas 2016, p.109), the question as to whether intervention is appropriate within a free-market system is not asked. When unhappy with their returns or the behaviour of the companies they own, large shareholders have the choice of “exiting” (selling up), “voicing” (expressing discontent) and “loyalty” where they remain passive (Hirschman 1970). Evidence suggests that institutional shareholders are often passive (Goergen and Renneboog 2001; Faccio and Lasfer 2002; Sheehan 2011), so when Dr Roger Barker suggests that shareholder inaction invites a “regulatory response” and that this was a concern, he apparently sets state intervention as negative. The underlying message is that market forces should be left unimpeded, and Joel Hills does not challenge this mantra.

165 | P a g e There were also single Barclays adverts punctuating bulletins carrying news stories

about the bank on 17/2/14 and 7/5/14. Figure 6.23 describes the entire Barclays story on 17/2, where anchor Nina Hossain reports that three Barclays executives had been charged with conspiracy to defraud:

Figure 6.23 ITV1’s report about Barclays on 17/2/14.

At 16 seconds long, this is a short report (BBC1’s parallel story was 17 seconds long).

Rather than a description of “three former Barclays workers” which anonymises those involved, these executives are specifically named, resonant with the usual protocols associated with the reporting of crime. Furthermore, this story appeared barely two minutes of news time following a Barclays advertisement, which supports the notion that ITV1 takes an abrasive approach towards its sponsors. In the Barclays story reported on 7/5/14 however (Figure 6.24), the story was last in the pre-advert segment, meaning that it segued directly into a Barclays advertisement. Mark Austin explains that Barclays are shedding jobs as part of its programme to reform its workforce and bonus system. The report then cuts to a live two-way with Joel Hills:

Figure 6.24 ITV1’s report about Barclays on 7/5/14.

166 | P a g e Hills appears to suggest that jobs might be sacrificed by the Chief Executive in order

to assert his authority. Moreover, the promise of a “new ethical dawn” implicitly points to the past being unethical. From Hills’ commentary, it seems that job cuts are preferred, for example, to any draconian measures directed towards executive pay.

As before, there is implicit and explicit criticism of Barclays, further amplified since once again, BBC1 did not run this story.

Despite pressures to adhere to the political economy of their news organisations, some editors determinedly profess to be immune from external pressures from advertisers (see Parsons 1989), and ITV1 typify such independence. Indeed, in response to a question about the relationship between the newsroom and the corporations that might also fund the station via advertising, Michael Jermey claims that “I don’t have very much to say because it doesn’t enter my mind”. Furthermore, he asserted:

…journalists cover stories we think our viewers will find interesting and sure, we’re on a commercial channel funded by advertisers… but I don’t know who’s advertising at any given time… (interview with Michael Jermey, 1^st October 2015).

After explaining that “the advertising sales team can put breaks where they want to across the schedule”, he continued:

…I have never had a discussion with the advertising people at any point about those [Barclays] ads - they’ve kept running, and I’ve never had a discussion with the programme editor about what stories they chose to run… so there is a disconnect between the two… (interview with Michael Jermey, 1^st October 2015).

Continuing with the refuting of any wider symbiosis with elite business figures, he asserted that:

Our journalists obviously talk to people in the City. I spend no time whatsoever talking to people in the City… we all have biases and backgrounds but if someone is looking for a power elite (in ITV1) not in touch with the real world, that’s not the case… (interview with Michael Jermey, 1^st October 2015).

167 | P a g e These are perhaps predictable responses, but should be taken at face value.

However, ITV1 are not “charitable to advertisers”, and because of their segueing from critique to advert, they do not apparently create “a buying mood” or moderate any controversy about Barclays (see Baker 2014). Moreover, by attending to the perceptions of ordinary people (such as the shareholders outside the AGM), neither do ITV1 obviously favour high-income groups. In sum, and even aside from Michael Jermey’s explanations, there is no on-screen evidence of any deference to Barclays, even despite the bank’s considerable sponsorship.