Local journalism: a story not to be told?

In this episode of our Committee Corridor podcast, host Catherine McKinnell MP (Chair of the House of Commons Petitions Committee) speaks with Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, Director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. They recently published a report surveying more than 93,000 online news consumers in 46 countries covering half the world's population.

We're also joined by the Chair of the Justice Select Committee, Sir Bob Neill MP. The Committee has called on the court system to embrace technology and welcome media and the public into court proceedings. They say that the decline of local papers makes the business of justice less visible to the public, and the digital media hasn't filled the gap.

Listen and subscribe

Committee Corridor is available wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe directly by selecting the relevant channel below, or by using the RSS feed. 

Spotify
Apple Podcasts
Amazon Music
Google Podcasts
Audible
Subscribe via the RSS feed

Transcript

Speakers: Catherine McKinnell, Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, & Sir Bob Neill

Catherine: Hello, and welcome to Committee Corridor. A global study of our news habits has recently been published with some concerning revelations.

There are falling levels of trust in news, growing numbers of people who are actively avoiding news stories, and a sharp decline in the number of people who take a strong interest in news coverage.

That's the big picture, but today, we're looking at what it means for one particular angle, which is under real threat. Local newspapers and broadcast services are disappearing due to cuts, centralisation, and mergers.

And that raises questions: how do we hold local Government and public services to account for the decisions that affect our everyday lives? And what does it mean for our understanding of institutions like the courts if we don't engage with coverage?

I'm Catherine McKinnell, and I chair the Petitions Committee. I’m also Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North. I'm delighted to be joining Committee Corridor, along with the chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes.

The latest Reuters Digital News Report surveyed more than 93,000 online news consumers in 46 countries covering half the world's population. It tells us, the audience for TV and newspapers continues to fall, and that our online and social media consumption of news isn't making up the gap.

However, public service media brands are among those with the highest levels of trust, and that will be critical for future success with younger listeners and watchers.

Later, I'll be hearing from the Chair of the Justice Select Committee whose concern about local journalism prompted MPs to look deeper into this issue and publish a report.

But first, Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen is the Director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, which published the report. He is Professor of Political Communication at the University of Oxford, and has written widely about media and civic engagement, he joins me now.

Professor Nielsen, Rasmus, thank you for joining. The War in Ukraine, the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, it's not been the easiest of times. So, should we be surprised by your findings that people are being turned off the news?

Rasmus: Many of these really difficult things happening in our societies clearly merit news coverage.

And sometimes, people can feel that they know what they need to know when they are aware of the general issue, and that they may not want to read another hundred articles that fills in further details on the exact ways in which things are terrible or how they're terrible in a slightly different way today from yesterday.

But I would hesitate to attribute our findings to events. I think it's about some parts of the public feeling that the news isn't really helping them achieve what they want in their lives and finding that they have many other ways to stay oriented in society.

Catherine: So, where do you think the audience has gone? What are people interested [in] and is it the issues that people are changing in terms of what they tap into and engage with? Or is it the medium by which they receive that news?

Rasmus: I mean, I think it's both in a way. And again, it's important to stress that different people want different things from the news. And we do have a sizable minority of people who are very engaged with existing forms of news and journalism.

So, we operate with a typology in our work between what we call news lovers. These are people who check in with the news several times a day and say they're very or extremely interested in the news. In the UK, that's about 16% of the adult population, so a sizable minority.

Then we have people that we call daily briefers who check the news at least once a day but aren't as interested in the news as the news lovers. This is about half of the population, 55%.

And then we've got 28% who are more casual users, who use the news less than once a day, and aren't that interested in the news.

So, it's just really important, I think, to remember that the last group, while a minority 28%, is still far larger than the news lovers, and I think often when one is highly engaged with these things, we see the world through the lens of the kinds of people who are on Twitter, who read the Times of London, or The Guardian who may be listening to podcasts and engaging with the BBC News app and whatnot. And we just need to remember this is a small and unusual minority of the public.

Our research suggests that most people are quite curious about the world beyond personal experience, that also includes matters of public affairs. But that the appetite for the kinds of news that often loom large on the top of conventional news apps, heavy focus on blow-by-blow accounts of things happening in Parliament or in international affairs, can seem very remote from the point of view of much of the public.

Catherine: That’s very interesting. And I think it does put into context when some of the drama, for example, is unfolding in Parliament and people are living in five-minute news bulletins to see what latest drama’s developed that actually it's the minority of people that are following it at that level. So, that's very useful to get that insight.

In terms of public service journalism, is that any different? Has it fared any better in what you've seen through your report?

Rasmus: I mean, the UK is one of a small number of countries that have widely used and highly and broadly trusted public service media organisations, of which, of course, the BBC is the most prominent, but Channel 4 and ITV News are very important as well for many people.

There are some other countries in Europe who have similar kinds of media organisations, but of course, many of the ones that we look at have nothing like this or have media that claim to be public service media, but really, are state broadcasters beholden to the Government of the day.

And these organisations do tend to stand out and be distinct from their private sector peers in those countries where they are genuinely independent of the government of the day, they tend to be more widely used.

And they tend to be highly and broadly trusted across the political spectrum and across many differences in society, which is quite unusual in an environment where otherwise, people can have a tendency to divide into tribes.

But for example, in the UK, both BBC and ITV is highly trusted both by people who identify as being politically on the right and by people who identify as being politically in the centre or on the left, which is quite unusual.

Catherine: The Justice Committee in Parliament has recently found in a report that the public's perception of how courts work has been damaged by the decline in local journalism. How have you seen that play out in that or in other areas of public life?

Have you got some insight into local journalism and how it fits with this broader picture?

Rasmus: I mean, I think it's a very concerning development in our societies.

For people who are interested in the background of why this is happening, I think it's worth remembering that historically, local newspapers in particular, were the most important to editorial operations across the country.

They had more journalists than local and regional broadcasters had, and they were the ones who made an effort to cover events going on in local communities, not just the national event, not just the big cities but local communities.

The business model of those newspapers was that they were heavily, heavily reliant on advertising from local businesses who had no other ways of selling things to citizens in that community.

What has changed is that today, those local businesses are spending their advertising money with Google, with Facebook, with other large digital platform companies that can deliver very targeted advertising at very low rates. And quite sensibly, the businesses are moving their advertising budgets where they see the biggest investment.

This has then [the] very clear negative and frankly, unintended consequence that lots of journals have been laid off in local communities across the country. And that the editorial muscle of many local newspapers is greatly reduced in some cases, really a shadow of what they once were.

But the challenging thing, I mean, if one turns from diagnosing the problem to thinking about, what might be done about it and what does distinct value adding local news look like in a digital environment, is that on the side of the public, we are seeing very few people really engage with local news online.

It saddens me to say, this is not a criticism of the work of the journalists, but just a recognition that when we look at how people actually spend their time on the internet, not just as news, a small part of the time that people spend online in this country, something like 3%, all local news providers combined is a very small subset of that 3%, namely a 10th.

So, it's about 0.3% of the time that people spend online is spent with local news. Why is that? In our analysis, it's because many of the reasons that people had to go to local newspapers in the past no longer exist.

People would pick up the local paper perhaps in part because they wanted journalism about local civic institutions, but probably, also in large part because they wanted to know how the local football team had done. They wanted to know what the weather was going to be like. They wanted to know what events were going on in their community. They wanted to know what movies were showing at the local cinema.

All this utility information and service information, [is]now very easily accessible at the click of a button or a swipe of a finger on a smart screen. And in a sense, people have fewer and fewer reasons to go to local news sites.

And I think we are seeing that reflected in the very small amount of attention that people actually paying to local news providers. And of course, that makes it very difficult to build the sustainable business around local news.

Catherine: And I guess the issue there is what the consequences of that are, which obviously the Justice Committee have identified that people are starting to lose that understanding of what's going on in their local courts.

But I think other issues might be that local issues, political issues might not get the same level of scrutiny that they may once have had. And what the consequences of that are for democracy.

Rasmus: It's very concerning. There's some research in the UK but more in the United States, and we should always be cautious with just generalising these findings.

But many of them, I think are relevant in the UK context too, that the presence of a genuine local news title help people understand the positions of their own elected officials, not just the position of the party that he or she represents.

It helps them vote on the basis of the merits of how that individual represents their community, and not just on the basis of their ideological preferences or their views on national politics.

Local news helps people engage in their community, stay connected with fellow citizens. Local news helps enhance participation in local politics through turnout in voting in local elections and in local consultations about planning decisions and the like.

So, there are lots of things that come with engaging with local news. And I think we have every reason to be concerned that the dearth of local coverage, and frankly, the dearth of public interest in the coverage that exists is going to be quite challenging in terms of how our local democracy works in the future.

Catherine: And does it also in some way, add to that sense of feeling overwhelmed by the news? Because when everything's national, everything's international, and you lose that connection with how this impacts locally, then it can start to feel like you are a very small fish in an enormous pond, and your ability to actually influence these things feels diminished as well.

Do you think there's an aspect of that?

Rasmus: I mean, there is definitely an aspect of that. This is the kind of thing that comes out very clearly in the parts of our research that are not about surveys, but where we interview people in depth.

We are sort of confirmed by the news that we consume that the things we care about matter and our views about them are worth having, but many people feel quite alienated from this.

They feel they're being sort of pressed to engage with things that they feel are very remote, that they recognise ultimately, they probably won't be asked to really influence what's going to happen in the South China Sea or at a global level how we respond to climate change.

And they feel that the things they do care about are often things that they don't really see the news engaged with. Sometimes this is very unfair, I have to stress. I mean, sometimes there actually is very good journalism, many of the more local concerns that people have.

But if people don't see that journalism, they may underestimate the ways in which journalism potentially could help them also engage with things that are closer to home or which they couldn't exercise influence, and about which they care more than remote issues of what does the landing zone look like for the war in Ukraine.

This is not something that most citizens in Coulee will be asked to form a view on. But these are things that people who engage with the lead media will be reading a lot about. And it's frankly just a different way of thinking about the relationship between oneself as a citizen and what news is.

And people are more interested in things that are closer to home, and they don't really see that reflected in the news that they are aware of.

Catherine: So, as a member of parliament, we are very much elected by our constituency. And I know from my own post box, which generally is emails these days, very much gets full of people concerned about local issues.

And then from the parliamentary perspective, I chair the Petitions Committee and we see those petitions that are signed by people right around the country, but they're often inspired by a local experience that people have had that then makes them concerned enough to go and sign a petition about it.

So, do we talk enough about these local issues in the news? Do we need to do more to encourage the national media to focus on some of these localised issues? Or is that just a role that needs to be undertaken by MPs themselves in their local area?

Rasmus: I have to say, I think it's a stretch to get national media to engage in a serious and systematic fashion with local news. It's difficult for them to do it well.

They often don't have the context and expertise and experience in the community, and they will also often have every reason to cover the story through the lens of what it might mean for a national audience.

And the risk there of course, can be that it loses the granularity and the context of what makes this precisely a local issue.

So, I think in that sense, discussions benefit from being sort of happening amongst the people who are most directly concerned, and that will be in the community when it's a local issue.

I suspect that an issue that you will be very keenly familiar with as a member of parliament and that your fellow elected officials will be very familiar with, is the sort of the curious dynamics of how political debate plays out in a digital environment that has made it much easier for citizens to express their views, both by email to their MP, but also on social media sometimes in quite sort of strongly word and very unpleasant language.

But even though in principle now everyone can speak up, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that actually few do.

We see in our research that it's only about a fifth of citizens who ever actively discuss the news by posting or commenting or in other ways, raising their voice online about the news.

And that importantly, it's not just that it's about a fifth of the public who does so, it's a very particular part of the public. They are people who have much more partisan political views. They're much more likely to identify as being very right wing or very left wing.

They're much more likely to be men. They're much more likely to have high level of formal education. And in that sense, while they are citizens who deserve an equal hearing like everybody else, they are in no way, shape or form, representative of the public at large.

No matter how many of them there are, they are not representative of the public at large. They are an unusual and engaged minority.

Catherine: So, in the spirit of not just being bad news, what can we actually do about this positively? How do we change this? If we accept that we need local news and it's important, what are the suggestions for how we improve this?

Rasmus: I always stress that I think the researchers have no right to tell other people how to live their lives or make their decisions in their companies or what policies serve everybody.

These are decisions for each of us to make as citizens, for every organisation to make on their own behalf and for elected officials like yourself to form a view on behalf of those you represent.

That said, I think there are some things that are clearly actionable. We can start with the citizenry. I think it's quite encouraging to see in our research that many people have a sense of unease about the news that they come across.

They fear that it may not be that trustworthy. They fear they're missing out on important information or challenging point of view, and actually, expressing interest and trying to get something slightly better..

So, I think that sense of disappointment in fact is an opportunity. It suggests that there is an appetite for something that perhaps serves a slightly broader public than currently existing forms of news and perhaps does so in ways that people will find more relatable and more satisfying.

When we turn next to news organisation, journalists, again, I stress it's up to each news organisation, every journalist to make their own decisions about what they feel is right.

But the fact that so many people in our research say that they find that the news is relentlessly negative, depressing, and irrelevant, and that they say they have an appetite for things that help explain things more, that help identify not just problems, but also solutions that help document things that work in the world and not just those things in the world that do not work …

I do think gives journalists and a news organisation something to ponder in terms of whether they might consider adding things or changing things in terms of how they practise their craft.

Finally, in terms of public policy, there are many policy tools available. If elected officials believe that society needs local journalism, there are tools available to provide direct or indirect forms of support to create a more enabling environment for local journalism.

These things are in place in some other countries in Europe, and it's a completely political question, whether parliament unbalanced believes that this is something that's appropriate in the UK. And scholars like myself can advise on that, but obviously, it's up to the public and their representatives to decide which public policies we should pursue.

Catherine: So, that's very much a job for us as policymakers and politicians, and it's really, really helpful to have your insights into understanding how important that is but also having an informed view of where that can be influenced.

I just wanted to touch on fake news because I know this idea that was introduced to us about the idea of fake news, and too often, it can just be news I don't want to hear or news I don't agree with.

But how can we improve on that level of trust in the news and how can we be sure about what we're being told?

Rasmus: Citizens have every reason to be cautious about the information that they come across. When we think about that caution in our research, I think it's important to recognise that while many journalists and politicians huge to the term of “fake news,” people's concerns about the information that they see are much, much broader than that.

When we defined in the past, asked citizens in the UK and other countries to explain to us what the term “fake news” means to them, they would offer as examples political propaganda from domestic politicians.

They would offer us examples what they saw as poor examples of journalism, superficial sensationalist, click bait or highly hyperpartisan content from news organisations. They would give us examples what they saw as misleading forms of advertising.

So, from the point of view of the public concerns about misinformation are much, much broader than identified examples of false or fabricated information spread by clearly bad actors, whether from abroad or domestically.

So, these concerns I think are really quite societal in a way. A lot of the public have a very dim view of elites and of established institutions, and they frankly recognise very clearly that misinformation often comes from the top.

And in that sense, what they're expecting more than anything is that institutions hold themselves to account, for example, over whether prominent politicians are deliberately misleading the public and parliament, which we've seen, of course, an example of very recently here in the UK.

And I think we've seen an appreciation of the kind of work that, for example, Full Fact done in the UK that really orients scrutiny towards examples of Government officials and members of parliament making misleading statements. This is very much the way that the public thinks about these issues.

When we turn next to the role of news organisations and others, I think there are also some reasons to be cautiously optimistic about the world in which we live when it comes to misinformation.

The first of which is to say that when we look at the information people actually engage with, the vast majority of it comes from established news organisations that are regarded as trustworthy by the kinds of people who rate these things.

And it's a very small subset of the information people engage with that comes from sources that are classified as untrustworthy or even as routinely publishing false content.

Furthermore, that small subset is highly concentrated amongst a small number of people who are very, very engaged users of these sites. So, we should not exaggerate the volume of identified misinformation that people engage with.

Furthermore, we can show in our research that people who engage with news from professional journalists working for news organisations are much more resilient to misinformation when they come across it. Because they are better informed and thus, less susceptible to being misled when they hear statements, whether those statements are made by politicians or commercial actors, or various overseas operators because they're better informed.

And in that sense, a genuinely popular journalism that reaches the whole public is arguably one of the strongest safeguards against the threats of misinformation that we face in our societies.

Catherine: Gosh, this is such a huge subject that I think — I mean, you've said so much there that I could happily unpick for a very long time to try and understand not just the diagnosis of the problem, but also, how we solve it as a society because it is a huge problem.

I guess just one last question I had was on people's experience of politics, because I know there was a big issue at one point where nationally, the NHS was an issue of significant concern.

But then the polling showed if you asked people about their own personal experience locally of their NHS, they would rate it extremely high and say, “My local NHS is amazing, but nationally, there's a big problem.”

And how does the news play a role in presenting not just that national sense of something, but that local reality as well? Is that something we need to try and get the news to reflect better?

Rasmus: It's such an important point, Catherine. I mean, I think there is a popular saying that familiarity breeds contempt. If anything, I think the opposite is often the case when it comes to civic institutions, to news media and indeed politics.

So, often, people who take a very dim view of politicians in general may have a more nuanced view of their local MP or the challenger that may run against their local MP.

Often, people who may feel that society at large is falling apart, may feel that their local communities’ perhaps not such a bad place at all. Often people who may feel that people in general are not to be trusted, may find that fellow citizens of the local community are not such bad sorts after all.

And similarly, with news, even though they don't always engage with it, people often have a higher opinion of local journalism than they do of national journalism, which is seen as partisan, it's seen as remote, it's seen as distant from people's lived experience.

Whereas, when they engage with media that have true roots in the community, are seen as part of that community and often regarded more positively.

Catherine: And I guess that's part of the explanation for why people are choosing to change how they take their news and switching off from as much of the national picture and perhaps trying to focus on things that they can truly relate to on a local level.

Concern about reductions to our local news services has prompted two House of Commons select committees to conduct inquiries. The Justice Committee has called on the court system to embrace technology and welcome media and the public into court proceedings.

They say that the decline of local papers makes the business of justice less visible to the public, and the digital media hasn't filled the gap.

And in a report on the sustainability of local journalism, MPs on the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee called for Government support for local news. They say a reduction in local news can cause damage to democracy.

So, I'm delighted to welcome Sir Bob Neill, Conservative Chair of the Justice Select Committee.

And could I start by just asking you about the challenges that we've seen for local journalism over the last few years, is that what has prompted your inquiry on the Justice Select Committee?

Bob: It is one of the key factors, but there's also been, I think, a concern about public understanding of things like sentencing and so on, and how that is explained. But the decline of journalism is an important factor because traditionally, that was the way in which proceedings in courts got reported and got conveyed to the public.

And of course, because the business model of many papers has changed, the move away from print, the pressures I think on advertising revenues because most advertisers can go elsewhere now — we've seen a shrinkage of local papers, and we've seen very often a massive reduction in the number of journalists employed by those papers who remain.

So, the days of the regular court reporter that I can remember at Crown Court, someone like that, who was there pretty much every day and did a link then for the Press Association and the others, those are gone. And so, there's a gap in communication of what happens in the courts to the public.

Catherine: And why does that sound a warning bell for the Justice Committee?   

Bob: Because openness of justice is a fundamental part of the rule of law. There's the old adage, isn't there? That justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

And that obviously means that it must be seen to be done by the parties, but it needs to be done and seen to be done by society as a whole because the courts are administering justice on behalf of the community, on behalf of society.

So, public confidence in the way in which justice is administered is critical. And of course, you've got to have transparency and awareness of what's happening to sustain that confidence.

Catherine: I mean, your report quotes written evidence that you received as part of the inquiry, that the media in court acts as the eyes and the ears of the public.

So, what are the risks of us lacking that now in our system?

Bob: Well, I think the risks are that without trained journalists, you don't have an informed presentation and commentary upon news. Not only are there fewer court reporters, there are far fewer legal commentators even in the mainstream media than we had before.

There has to be a means whereby the public find out what's happened in our courts. And if it's not done professionally, there's the risk that you get information purely by social media.

Somebody in the court may have an interest, may have a bias commenting about it. And that of course, risk completely distorting the picture of what's given. And that risk undermining confidence in the system, which is so critical.

Catherine: So, poor reporting or biased reporting could be even worse than no reporting at all, it’s a concern.

Bob: Well, both are bad, and both in their different ways, I'd argue are equally bad.

Catherine: It's encouraging that there is a general principle that media should have access to court proceedings and information, but there’re I'm sure are still hurdles to that. And your report looked into that and some of the hurdles to enabling courts to have that wider access.

Bob: That's right, because although there are areas of good practice, there are some specific problems that we identify .

For example, for any journalist to know what is a newsworthy case, a case that has some public interest and to report whether they're in person or remotely, they need to know what the nature of that case is.

And frequently, the information that's given in the published court lists, a list of all the cases being held in any given court on any day, which is available online, is very sparse.

It's really very difficult for anyone apart from a lawyer — maybe not even a lawyer, to understand really what the case is about, so that needs to be improved.

Secondly, very frequently, the cases will be referring to a lot of documentary evidence and that applies in all types of case.

And so, for anyone to report accurately and fully on what the case is about, they really need to be able to have sight of the same documents that the people in a public court have, and which are being asked questions about.

Now, what we recommend there therefore, is that there should be a specific online portal that any of the published documents that are going to be used in court should be accessible through that portal so that the journalists actually could do a bit of research in advance and understand what the case is all about. Those are two specifics.

Plus of course, the way the single justice procedure works. One lay magistrate sitting in a room often with a legal advisor clerk, but not in a court, not with any public access, dealing with lower-level cases.

Certainly, very often TV, licence evasion, traffic, but also things like COVID regulation offences, which do have a public interest. And very frequently, you wouldn't have any public notice of those being heard. We recommend that that must change, that must always be made available too.

Catherine: So, I mean, we have seen some positive moves in some parts of the justice system. In the family courts, for example, I know there've been really welcomed moves to open that up, obviously in a sensitive way.

Bob: Well, there have been as you rightly say, Catherine, some important steps forward. And the Family Court is noteworthy because that's been led and pioneered by the judges themselves.

The President of the Private Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane gave evidence to our committee, and he has been championing this. Because provided you can make arrangements for example, to keep the identity of children confidential and arrangements of sensitive kind evidence about domestic abuse and so forth, which you wouldn't want in public — a lot of the family courts works, he believes, and his judges believe could be reported publicly, and that would improve confidence in the system.

The other area where there's been real improvement has been initiative in criminal cases where the judges will now broadcast their sentencing remarks particularly in — usually, it's high-profile murder cases or other very serious cases.

As well as obviously, the written remarks being published, really good that we should be able to see that as we have been from judges at the Old Bailey, and I think in Manchester and some other court centres now, giving those remarks live, which people can see on television. We think that should be moved to the default position.

Catherine: And I guess from your post bag, you may have a similar challenge to me, is that general sense of concern amongst the public that issues aren't getting addressed and aren't getting dealt with by the courts.

So, more transparent reporting presumably would help to generate the understanding of how these issues are dealt with, within the criminal justice system.

Bob: I think that's right, and it's in everybody's interest to do that. We often get as you'll know Catherine, lots of email correspondence letters about sentencing in particular cases, or a verdict in a particular case that may seem controversial.

And that enables the public to understand the sentencing process, what's gone through the judge's mind, and how they've arrived at what the sentence is. Now, we think that's an excellent idea and we think that should be rolled out as a matter of course, in any serious case.

Well, you might be more inclined to agree with it if you understood what the process was. So, there's a part of it. And so, it’s not about criminal matters either.

In civil cases, really important things are done. We talked about family, but also of course, civil proceedings are a really key part. They're very often the way in which many people engage with the justice system.

Possession action, a money claim for somebody who's been ripped off by somebody they purchased goods from or personal injuries case where perhaps the local council's been at fault with payment, something of those kinds. All those are entitled to open justice as well.

And when people complain about delays, we need more information for the public as to why you can't always get that case that's important to you or to your friends and neighbours as quickly as we would like.

So, transparency actually works in the interest of the system.

Catherine: We were all elected by our constituents and the decline in local journalism, many fear that the scrutiny of us on a local level will be diminished.

I know we've got quite a lot of local reporting potentially coming up with all the by-elections that are ongoing. But have you got any thoughts on how important locally media is in campaigns like that and more broadly, generally in holding local democracy to account?

Bob: Well, it is important, and again, it's an indication, isn't it Catherine, of the way things have changed. That when I started in politics, I was a local councillor. And there was always somebody from the paper there at the local council meetings, and their reports were read in the local paper. It was picked up, and we were held to account for that. That happens much less. And if it does, it's often very perfunctory.

Now, there are some sensible things. Some councils webcast for example, their meetings, that's not a bad thing. And of course, one thing we can do, let's make a benefit of technology, is when you have got somebody there who's either following online or in the chamber, then you can be actually tweeting.

And good social media done by good professionals, trained professionals can be very helpful. It's when you get as we said before, that biased and disinformation approach that you've got a problem.

I think it's good for MPs as well to have a local journalist who's actually interested in what we are doing, who's followed a question we asked in the Commons or a speech for an intervention that we made: “Oh, what's that about Bob? Why is this, Catherine?” That improves the scrutiny of our work, and there is sadly less of that.

Catherine: Definitely. I mean, you mentioned misinformation and clearly, the concept of fake news and who people trust and what news is trusted, and there's some really interesting evidence in the Reuters report that actually one of the most trusted sources of news is still the UK public broadcasters.

So, do you have any thoughts on what we can do to strengthen that ability to ensure there are trusted news sources for our constituents?

Bob: Well, I think it is important that we maintain properly funded public broadcasting for a start, I think that's critical. And I think we need to look quite carefully about what the regulatory arrangements are for some of the organisations that try to pass themselves off as news organisations which really aren't.

And all of the issues we've had around the Online Harms Bill, if any other thing, show there's a real challenge around this. And I don't think any of us will pretend that we've got easy answers, but what we can do is support the established and reputable media that includes things like local radio for example.

That includes supporting the objective commentators that we all do run across in some of the major titles, whether we agree with their politics all the time, it doesn't matter. Sometimes their politics don't even come into it. But I think supporting that.

And ourselves, I think, making sure that we are as transparent as we can be with the information that we give out to our constituents as well. Same is in the interest of the courts, is in the interest of MPs and local elected representatives, counsellors, or whatever as well.

Catherine: My thanks to all my guests today. Next time, I'll be talking to Select Committees about the recent local elections and asking about the implementation of voter ID.

Before that, join us next week when my co-host, Caroline Nokes, will be talking about women in sport. Find all our past episodes by searching UK Parliament plus Committee Corridor.

And we'd like to know what you think about our podcast, so leave us a review or check out our survey available from the webpages or show notes. We are really grateful for your feedback.

I'm Catherine McKinnell, MP, and this has been Committee Corridor, thank you for listening.

Further information

• Justice Committee report: Open justice: court reporting in the digital age
• Women and Equalities Committee
• Petitions Committee
• About Parliament: Select committees