Back in April 2019 I wrote a comment for the Media Reform Coalition, stating that Ofcom is not fit for purpose as the media and communications regulator in the UK. In my comment I stated that “Ofcom should be broken up,” and that “Ofcom is not fit for purpose.” My concern is still valid, and now that the Media Bill 2024 is about to get Royal Assent, it seems clear that the warning that Ofcom has become too mighty and cumbersome have gone unheeded.
My argument back in 2019 was that Ofcom is compromised because it tries to play three roles which are in conflict. One of the main problems with Ofcom’s regulatory role is that it encompasses three different and often conflicting aspects: economic matters, platform and technical matters, and content and licencing matters. By trying to balance these three aspects, Ofcom fails to prioritise the concerns of the citizen and the public interest. For example, Ofcom may favour market competition over media diversity, or platform neutrality over content quality. Ofcom’s triple role creates a tension between its function as a regulator and its function as a promoter of media reform.
This is how I put it in 2019:
[Ofcom’s] essential role is as an economic regulator that manages resources and technical platforms. Ofcom plays only a cursory role in promoting media pluralism, media literacies, creative diversity and social inclusivity. Quite why we need a national media content regulator is beyond me? Ofcom is effectively a central committee worthy of a Soviet-Bloc state in the 1970s. It is ridiculous that Ofcom can decide what music is played on a radio station in Bedford or Glasgow. Let local people make these decisions in their own interests, not some technocratic managers in London.
The Media Bill 2024 is the culmination of a free-market, laissez-faire approach to media regulation that the Conservative Government has pushed during their time in power. While the Bill is reported to be necessary to reduce the regulatory burden on media companies, and thereby allow them more freedom for media companies to operate across different platforms and markets, the Bill also weakens the public service obligations of broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4 and opens up the possibility of foreign ownership of UK media outlets.
The Bill has faced no principled or pragmatic opposition from the Labour Party, who may form the new government on July 5th. The Labour Party has largely accepted the Conservative narrative of media deregulation and globalised innovation, without offering a clear alternative vision of media reform and democracy. This has left the media landscape vulnerable to further concentration, commercialisation, and politicisation, with little regard for the interests and needs of the public.
Back in 2019 I was keen to kick-start a conversation about the importance of local and community radio, emphasising the importance of media that fosters community engagement and public service reform. I argued that the polarising nature of current mainstream media, exacerbated by political tensions such as Brexit, highlighted the urgent need for media reform. I criticised the state of media regulation at the time, particularly targeting Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator.
These points are still valid. There are several principal problems with Ofcom being an economic, platform, and content regulator, which have been exacerbated following the Covid-19 pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis:
Economic Focus Over Social Needs: Ofcom’s primary role as an economic regulator prioritises managing resources and technical platforms over promoting media pluralism, literacy, creative diversity, and social inclusivity. This economic focus often overlooks the social and civic needs of media consumers and producers. The result is a condensed market where radio frequencies and capacity is ‘land-banked’ in a protectionist racket that prevents independent new comers from entering the market.
Centralised Control: Ofcom’s centralised control is clearly inappropriate for addressing the specific needs of local communities. I remain critical of the idea that decisions about local media content, such as what music is played on radio stations in different cities, should be made by technocratic managers based in London, or simply thrown out in an unregulated market, rather than by local people, as they address their needs and concerns.
Inadequate Support for Media Pluralism: I argued as well that Ofcom plays only a cursory role in promoting media pluralism. As a result, the regulatory environment does not sufficiently encourage the diversity of media voices and outlets that reflect the varied interests and needs of different communities. Ofcom does not commission research, nor does Ofcom support the development of independent organisations who can foster credible data. Too Often Ofcom simply absorbs the claims of industry lobbies and trade associations and doesn’t treat their interests critically.
Failure to Support Community Media: I also highlighted that community radio in the UK, which is regulated on the grounds of social value and public education, lacks adequate financial support. This underfunding hampers the potential of community media organisations to thrive and serve as valuable social assets. There is no government leadership or sense of purpose for community media in the UK, which has been abandoned by the ministers and civil servants who should be nurturing a robust and independent citizen-focussed alternative to the commercial market and the public service media corporations.
Outdated Regulatory Approach: I also argues that Ofcom’s approach is more suited to the mass-media systems of the twentieth century rather than the dispersed, decentralised media landscape of the twenty-first century. I likened Ofcom’s structure to a “central committee worthy of a Soviet-Bloc state in the 1970s,” implying that it is overly bureaucratic and not responsive to contemporary media dynamics.
Technocratic Decision-Making: A strong criticism of Ofcom’s processes that Ofcom’s policy development and regulatory processes are technocratic in nature. Much of Ofcom’s decision-making processes are seen as disconnected from the grassroots realities and creative potential of local media practitioners and community members. Ofcom does not meaningfully engage with civil society organisations and those engaged in service provision supporting the renewal of UK communities. Do we know if media devolution will be part of Labour’s agenda, because it wasn’t part of the Levelling-Up agenda that the last government sought to promote?
Main Arguments for Breaking Up and Restructuring Ofcom:
I still believe that Ofcom’s current structure and priorities are misaligned with the needs for a more pluralistic, locally responsive, and socially focused media regulatory environment.
- Economic Focus: Ofcom primarily functions as an economic regulator, focusing on managing resources and technical platforms rather than promoting media pluralism, literacy, creative diversity, and social inclusivity.
- Centralisation Issues: Ofcom’s centralised control over media content decisions, such as music played on local radio stations, is seen as outdated and inappropriate for local needs.
- Lack of Support for Community Media: The current regulatory framework does not adequately support community media, which operates on principles of social value and public education. More funding and regulatory support are needed to sustain these community-driven initiatives.
- Need for Decentralisation: Advocates for a decentralised media regulatory system that empowers local communities to make their own media decisions, fostering a more pluralistic and responsive media ecosystem.
We clearly need a new approach to media engagement that supports dispersed, creative, accessible, and participatory forms of media, emphasising the importance of local and community media in achieving these goals. If we break Ofcom into three separate and independent regulators then we can better serve the needs of community media and support media reform.
The main reasons include:
- Enhanced Accountability: A more specialised and focused regulatory body could better address the specific needs of community radio and other local media outlets, ensuring their voices are heard and supported.
- Improved Representation: By restructuring Ofcom, there can be a more inclusive approach to media regulation, representing a wider range of interests, especially those of smaller, community-based media organisations that are often overshadowed by larger corporate entities.
- Promotion of Media Diversity: A restructured Ofcom could foster a more diverse media landscape, encouraging the growth of independent and community media that serve different segments of the population, thus enriching public discourse and democracy.
- Local Empowerment: Community radio and other local media play a crucial role in empowering local communities, providing them with a platform to discuss issues that directly affect them. A dedicated regulatory body could offer more targeted support and resources to these entities.
Fundamentally, then, we need three seperate and entirely new media and communications regulators:
- Content and Public Purpose: We need a new regulator who’s sole mission is to act on behalf of the citizen and define the content regulations purely in terms of the public purpose and the greater good of meeting the demands of social change and civic renewal. We need to stop seeing media as seperate from our social aims, and see it as integral to the fostering of civic freedom, cultural democracy and social resiliance.
- Platform and Technology Regulation: We need a new regulator who can seperate out and prepare the ground for innovation, diversity and creativity in the use and development of platforms and technology that delivers new services to citizens of the UK.
- Economic and Business Regulation: We need a new regulator that can push-back against protectionist practices, diversify the market supply, and prioritise the needs of the UK economy, rather than playing second-fiddle to the globalised value-extractors who see the UK as a cash-cow, and who fail to invest in home-grown content and talent.
For a detailed and precise argument, I recommend accessing the blog directly or checking other resources provided by the Media Reform Coalition.
Background
Ofcom is the independent regulator for the communications industry in the UK, with a broad role in regulating media and communication services. Its key responsibilities include:
- Licensing and regulating television and radio broadcasters by enforcing broadcasting codes on standards, fairness, privacy, and impartiality. Ofcom has the power to revoke licenses if broadcasters breach these codes, as seen with the revocation of RT’s license in 2022 over impartiality concerns.[i]
- Overseeing competition and consumer protection in the telecommunications, postal services, and wireless communications sectors.[ii]
Under the Media Bill[iii], Ofcom’s role will expand to include:
- Regulating major streaming platforms like Netflix and Disney+ through a new video-on-demand code covering standards and accessibility requirements similar to broadcast TV.
- Ensuring prominence and easy access to public service content on connected TV platforms and voice assistants.
- Updating regulation of commercial radio to remove outdated burdens while protecting local news provision.[iv]
Ofcom aims to implement the new Media Bill duties through a fair, proportionate, and evidence-based approach, consulting openly and securing the best outcomes for UK audiences across all platforms.[v]
Ofcom enforces regulations on broadcasters and telecoms companies through various mechanisms:
For broadcasters, Ofcom issues licenses with conditions that must be followed.[vi] It has the power to revoke licenses if broadcasters breach the broadcasting code covering standards, fairness, privacy, and impartiality.[vii] Recent examples include revoking RT’s license in 2022 over impartiality concerns regarding the Ukraine conflict and investigating “misogynistic” comments on GB News that breached the code.
Ofcom handles complaints about BBC content standards and can conduct investigations and impose sanctions if the BBC breaches requirements set out in its governing Agreement. It has published procedures for handling such complaints, investigations, and enforcement action against the BBC.
For telecoms companies, Ofcom investigates compliance with regulatory requirements and can take enforcement action under its Enforcement Guidelines.[viii] This covers areas like consumer protection, competition law, and conditions in telecoms licenses.
Ofcom’s principal duty is to further citizens interests regarding communications matters. It aims to implement regulation proportionately through open consultation to secure the best outcomes for UK audiences and consumers across platforms.[ix]
[i] https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/regulation-of-news-broadcasting-companies/
[ii] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofcom
[iii] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2024/what-is-the-media-bill-and-what-does-it-mean-for-ofcom
[iv] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/media-bill-roadmap-to-regulation
[v] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/278625/Media-Bill-Roadmap.pdf
[vi] https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/regulation-of-news-broadcasting-companies/
[vii] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/bbc/enforcement
[viii] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-2/ofcoms-approach-to-enforcement
[ix] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofcom