Legal Research

Self Regulation of UK broadcasting? Yes, says Daily Mail man

By scott

I was amused today to read a speech given by the new President of the Society of Editors, the Daily Mail’s executive managing editor Robin Esser, who is very worried about the restrictions on the media in Britain. Libel and privacy laws, Bribery Act, Data Protection Act, Harassment Act etc have all eroded our freedom “Democracy itself is in danger on a local, regional and national level in Britain”.

Hmm, really?

” In Britain there are now many Acts under which journalists can be jailed for doing their job”
I think this translates as ? “In Britain there are now many Acts under which journalists who decide to breach can be jailed for doing, if part of their job remit is to break the law.”

Now leaving aside whether or not he has a point or not ? and typically for someone from the Daily Mail, even if he has he makes it very badly, he then takes aim at regulatory whipping boy ? Ofcom, and broadcast media.

He says that due to the “multiplicity of channels now available” the “case for official regulation of TV in this country has long since gone”. That’s right , now we more TV channels we don’t really need any ‘official’ regulation of them. BskyB, ITV, Bang Media and Playboy TV can sort it all out amongst themselves.

He elaborates: “The UK government could save a lot of taxpayers’ money by abolishing the broadcast regulator, Ofcom, altogether and encouraging a system of self-regulation which the industry itself should pay for.”

So, first off what this shows is that Mr Esser either apparently believes Ofcom is just the broadcast regulator, or that all its other regulator duties are equally unimportant and thus would not be effected by abolishing Ofcom . Secondly, did a man who works in print journalism just recommend self regulation? It seems he did. Indeed he pointed to the saving that could be made: Ofcom ? budget £143m, employing 873 people v Press Complaints Commission (PCC) ? budget under £2m and employ 16 people. [ A bargain: so much so in fact that Governance review of the PCC published last year stated “While the industry has provided a considerable amount of funding to the PCC over the last 20 years the budget has not increased significantly in real terms over that time.”] Added to which with the increase in staff needed to cope with investigating and responding to increased complaints etc that any new self regulatory body would need, the savings would not be quite as impressive as implied.

Also, I think we can all agree that what broadcasting needs in this country is a self regulatory body that is as stunningly effective as the PCC. If ever there was a self regulatory body held high the world over as an example of excellence in self regulation, the PCC must be it. Again, the governance review said it “has heard criticism of the PCC that it is ?toothless? ?the PCC must do more to demonstrate the effectiveness of its current sanctions, and ensure that they are properly exercised and understood.” The PCC essentially smacks wrists. It doesn’t fine anyone. Broadcasters would frankly laugh at any similar ‘broadcast’ body.

Meanwhile back with Ofcom

Mr Esser continues: “Matters of cross ownership, plurality and media domination - such as the Murdoch bid to take total control of Sky - can and should be dealt with by the Competition Commission which was created to investigate just this sort of problem. There is even a European Competition Commission ? how many more bodies do we need at our expense to sort this important matter out?”

No argument from me about the Competition Commission. Love the comment about the EC though. ‘There is even a European Commission’. Really? Is there really? No, you don’t say. Guess what, most of Ofcom’s ‘official regulation’ is a result of EU Directives, such as Audio Visual Media Directive, The Conditional Access Directive and others.

I’m glad Esser is a press man. If was involved in broadcasting I would be very worried, as he seems quite clueless. I’m sure his fellow Editors at the Society of Editors however lapped up the speech: it would have course been exactly what they wanted to hear.

Full post as published by Information Overload on November 17, 2010 (boomark / email).