Ofcom plays a pivotal role in shaping the landscape of media and communications in the UK. However, the language it employs in its policy reviews and regulatory frameworks remains indeterminate, making it difficult to establish a shared understanding of key concepts across civic society and public sector institutions.
When media regulation operates within a framework that lacks clear, recognised, and socially embedded definitions, it creates barriers to inclusion and engagement, limiting the ability of all citizens to participate in meaningful discussions about the role of media in public life.
The way media is structured, accessed, and regulated is integral to civic society. When regulatory language is ambiguous or inconsistent, it creates an uneven playing field where only those with insider knowledge—typically large industry players—are able to navigate policy discussions effectively.
Public service organisations, local authorities, and community groups find themselves excluded from meaningful engagement, unable to advocate for their needs in a system where definitions are fluid and shaped by those with institutional power.
This absence of a common linguistic frame results in policies that may inadvertently reinforce market-driven priorities rather than responding to the diverse needs of the wider public.
The challenge of indeterminate language is not new, but it has become more pressing as the media landscape has evolved. The shift from Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media, for example, reflects the changing nature of media consumption, but without precise definitions, there is little clarity on what obligations should remain constant and what new responsibilities should emerge.
Similarly, terms such as local media, community media, audiences, and citizens are used interchangeably, often without explicit consideration of how these terms align with broader social policies related to inclusion, democracy, and representation.
Resolving these ambiguities is not simply a matter of bureaucratic tidiness. It is a fundamental requirement for ensuring that media policy serves the interests of all members of society. Language plays a central role in social inclusion, and when key regulatory terms remain unclear, those without the resources to engage in policy interpretation are left on the margins.
The ability to participate in discussions about the future of media should not be restricted to those who can afford legal expertise or policy consultants. Instead, there must be an open and transparent process for refining the language used in media regulation, ensuring that definitions are both socially meaningful and practically applicable.
This process should not be left to regulators and industry stakeholders alone. The government has a responsibility to facilitate an inclusive dialogue that actively incorporates the perspectives of civic society, local government, and public service providers.
Developing clear and agreed-upon terms should be seen as a public good—one that supports social cohesion and enables citizens to engage with media policy on an equal footing. Without this commitment, the risk remains that regulation will continue to favour those with the loudest voices, rather than those with the most to gain from an inclusive and representative media landscape.
A regulatory framework built on clarity and accessibility strengthens social solidarity. It ensures that media policy aligns with the broader objectives of civic participation, local democracy, and public service renewal. By embedding media regulation within the language and practices of social policy, rather than treating it as a separate, industry-led concern, we create the conditions for a more accountable and inclusive approach to public communication.
The challenge now is to make this a priority and to push for a regulatory language that reflects the values of a diverse and democratic society.