Tag Archives: regulation

Has the time come to consider changing the law on British broadcasting? Ofcom seems to think so.

Posted on by
Reply

For 22 years the Communications Act has been the law of the land on all things broadcasting. This week the regulator created by that act, Ofcom, announced it was starting a process that may lead to changes in the law. If this comes as news to you it may because you’ve had better things to do during July 2025 but it could also be the absence of news coverage. What regulation and legislation does Ofcom think needs changing and does the review have any impact on Ofcom’s disputes with GB News? Here’s my take:

1.What was the Ofcom announcement ? 

On 21st July 2025 Ofcom issued a press release headlined ‘Public Service content should be findable on YouTube’. The introduction said ‘Urgent steps must be taken to ensure that public service media content is easy to find and discover on third-party platforms, under new Ofcom recommendations to secure the system’s survival’. YouTube was the ‘third-party platform’ highlighted as being particularly important.

2. What were these Ofcom recommendations?

Of the regulator’s six recommendations the first four were about the future of PSBs (public service broadcasters such as BBC, Channel Four, ITV and Channel Five) and PSMs (public service media which Ofcom defines as mostly but not uniquely PSBs). Recommendation five was about the importance of media literacy. Sixth on the list of recommendations was ‘Streamlined regulation to strip away any undated and unnecessary restrictions’.

3.What kind of restrictions does Ofcom want to ‘strip away’.

No examples were given but the overall language in the press release was bold: ‘We are launching a fundamental review of our regulation of broadcast TV and radio’ and ‘this may involve legislative change as well as changes to our regulation’. In the body of the report there was no mention of ‘launching’ any ‘fundamental review’ but a lower key commitment: ‘we will review the regulation across linear and online services to determine if greater consistency is needed to protect audiences from harm no matter what they are watching and listening’. 

4. So what, as they say in the regulatory jargon, is ‘in scope’ for this review?  

I put that question to the Ofcom Media Relations Team and got this quote from an Ofcom spokesperson; ‘On the scope of this – we will look at what regulation needs to change to reflect market conditions and continue to protect and support audiences wherever they are. We’ll have more to say by the end of the year.’.

5. Any other clues? 

It’s worth listening to an interview which Cristina Nicolotti Squires, Ofcom’s Group Director of Broadcast and Media, gave to Matt Deegan of the Media Club podcast. At 17′ 30″ into the podcast Deegan put a direct question, was the review “about trying to change some of those rules” such as those which have caused regulatory and legal disputes with GB News. He didn’t get a direct answer, he was told that the review was about “making sure our regulation is fit for now”. It was “kind of like looking at it all really”. But some issues did get a passing specific mention from Nicolotti Squires: TV advertising, product placement, the future of the TV licence, and one piece of thinking aloud: instead of the separate content codes for broadcasting and video-on-demand “should there just be one code?”

6. What happens next?

Look out for Ofcom having ‘more to say by the end of the year’. There will also be ‘a comprehensive call for evidence this autumn’ and Ofcom will ‘seek input from stakeholders’. One moment in the podcast underlines that this process is nowhere near ready for launch. When Matt Deegan asked how his listeners could send in their views, the Ofcom executive seemed surprised: “that’s a good point” , but on reflection she reassured him: “everything is on our website”.In fact nothing about that particular process is on the website. 

7. How does all this connect with Ofcom’s problems with GB News?

Clearly Ofcom is going to be cautious saying anything while it considers the responses to its consultation on a tweak to the rules . The submission by Chris Banatvala and myself opposing that tweak and arguing for the enforcement of the existing rules is on this website. But a longer term review of the Broadcast Code and the legal framework could offer the regulator the opportunity to ask parliament to either tighten the rules on impartiality, relax them or abolish them for channels such as GB News.

8.Why did this announcement get tacked on as the last recommendation in a press release about PSB and the last page in a 65 page report when it potentially affects so much more ?

  • It includes all the required political buzzphrases such as ‘strip away regulation’ and ‘encouraging growth and innovation’.
  • Ofcom wants to get on the record the words ‘We are committing to update our regulation of broadcast TV and radio’ but isn’t actually ready to start. 
  • Should Ofcom ever need an ‘off ramp’ from its GB News problems the review could provide one.

Finally, here’s what my former Ofcom colleague Chris Banatvala of Bear Consultancy Ltd thinks:

‘Ofcom has always prided itself on regulating only where necessary and certainly no more than the law requires. Nevertheless, there appear to be 3 possible options on the table. First, it may think that it needs to tighten up the rules to make sure all broadcasters follow them in the same way. Second, it may consider there’s room to be more liberal with the rules but within the current statutory framework. Or perhaps, third, it believes that the current legislation is just too out of date, and it believes now is the time for a root and branch review of the law and wants to make recommendations to the Government (for example, removing the universal requirement for due impartiality on all broadcasters). Given that the UK is no longer a member of the EU, it doesn’t have to comply with its Directives – and this could result in greater flexibility in areas like the number of advertising minutes per hour, also sponsorship and product placement. But a decision to no longer follow these European rules could have consequences elsewhere.

Looking at the review, itself, it’s difficult to interpret what direction Ofcom is going in’

Ofcom made key decisions about GB News at a time when its CEO expected Paul Dacre to be her new boss.

Posted on by
Reply

The announcement of a General Election on 4 July makes it an appropriate time to look back at how the connection between politics and regulation may have been a factor in Ofcom’s attitude to GB News at the time of the channel’s launch in June 2021.

The relevant sequence of events began in 2018:

2018 Lord Burns was appointed as Chair of Ofcom for a 4 year term. The appointment was made while Theresa May was Prime Minister.

June 2019 It was announced that the CEO of Ofcom, Sharon White, would be stepping down to become the Chair of the John Lewis Partnership. Lord Burns soon began the search for a replacement for his CEO.

July 2019 Boris Johnson became Prime Minister and focused, among other things, on getting the ‘right people’ into important public appointments.

2020 Lord Burns resigned as Chair after only 2 years and Melanie Dawes was appointed CEO. This was an unusual combination of events, normally Ofcom chairs like to be around to settle in a new CEO. It led to speculation that Melanie Dawes was Terry Burns’s preferred candidate for CEO but that Boris Johnson had insisted that Burns departure was the price of her appointment. The Guardian reported; ‘Burns is believed to have tussled with the prime minister over the appointment of a new Ofcom chief executive. Eventually he agreed to leave in order to get his own choice of Melanie Dawes’. The deputy Chair Maggie Carver became the acting Chair while the Government set about installing Paul Dacre, former Editor of the Daily Mail, as the new Chair..

May 2021 Paul Dacre’s application for the post of Chair appeared to fall at the first fence when a panel considering it rejected him. However Boris Johnson’s Government refused to accept this as the final word and set about re-running the selection process in a different way to ensure Dacre’s appointment.

June 2021 GB News launched and after only one week Ofcom executive Kevin Bakhurst told a Media Society event that he saw nothing wrong with the content. This was another unusual event. Normally Ofcom executives would not give an instant judgement on a new channel especially when it was clear there were going to be complaints which Ofcom would have to consider.

Nov 2021 Paul Dacre pulled out of the contest to become Chair and questioned whether Melanie Dawes was up to the job. The Guardian reported: ‘Dacre said the prime minister had given him the go-ahead to sack the existing Ofcom chief executive, Melanie Dawes, and appoint a fresh figure’ .

The bottom line: at the very moment GB News was launching and Ofcom was considering whether it breached the due impartiality rules the regulator’s CEO was aware that the Government was determined to install Paul Dacre as her new boss.

If these circumstances led Ofcom to make a decision about GB News’s compliance or otherwise with the due impartiality regulations because of the likely views of the man they expected the Government to appoint as their new Chair that would be unprecedented and it would be wrong.

What we told their Lordships about Ofcom and due impartiality.

Posted on by
Reply

This is a summary written by my former Ofcom colleague Chris Banatvala of the written evidence which we provided to the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee’s inquiry into ‘The future of News’. Our full evidence is at https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/130308/html

Stewart Purvis and Chris Banatvala’s concerns focus on two areas:

1) The manner in which Ofcom is now regulating due impartiality.

2) The use of ‘politicians’ to present current affairs programmes (especially at election time) and Ofcom’s use of its recent research into the area.

1) The manner in which Ofcom is now regulating due impartiality.

• Ofcom is not investigating cases which warrant investigation.

• Ofcom is not publishing some ‘not-upheld’ decisions where there is a public interest in doing so. 

• News and controversial matters (which appear in current affairs programmes) must both, according to the law, be treated with due impartiality. 

• There is no lower test e.g. for current affairs programmes. So why can politicians present current affairs programmes(interviewing colleagues from the same party)?

• There is no basis for treating smaller channels differently from e.g. PSBs.

2) The use of active politicians to present current affairs programmes and Ofcom’s research.

Ofcom recently published research (157 participants) on public attitudes to politicians presenting current affairs (they are not allowed to present news). 

​

• While the research was underway, Ofcom Chair, Lord Grade in a Q&A session stated “I don’t think it’s very difficult what is a news programme and a current affairs programme, I don’t think that’s difficult at all, we all know the difference between Panorama and News at Ten”. When challenged that new genres make it confusing, he responded “It’s not confusing, not confusing at all.”

• However, the Ofcom research proved the exact opposite.

• IPSOS said that viewers “struggled to consistently [tell the difference] in practice”. 

• The conclusion from the research firm was “Although there was concern about politicians presenting current affairs content, there was no consensus for preventing them from doing so”.

• Ofcom uses the research to claim that viewers do not want to ban politicians as presenters of current affairs programmes.

• However, given that the public cannot tell the difference between news and current affairs programmes and the “most prevalent opinion…was feeling unconformable with politicians presenting”, the research raises more issues than it resolves.

Recommendations:

• Ofcom should launch a public consultation on the use of politicians in programmes (especially current affairs).

• Parliament should ensure that Ofcom fulfils its statutory duty with respect to due impartiality on all channels.

• Parliament should consider amending the legislation to make it clear that the same level of due impartiality applies to current affairs programmes (dealing with controversial matters) as news.