BBC controversies: Real Lives 1985

There's a useful Wiki on BBC controversies.
You can see a 4min BBC News report from the time here.
The BBC bowed to gov pressure and banned it; BBC staff then walked out on a one-day strike; the BBC announced it would be screened some time later, with several cuts made.
Poor contrast with the IBA, who stood up to very similar pressure over the DoTR doc and broadcast it uncut.
Archive material has been released under the FoI Act, after a Guardian application, in this blog.

TV reg basics

As used and talked around in 1st June revision session.
TV Reg Basics
...

Free market ideas and broadcast regulation

Free market ideology centres on the belief that state interference in (ie regulation of) business and 'the markets' is negative and will harm business interests and economic growth. This is central to the right-wing ideology, though all three of our major parties today, including the supposedly left-wing Labour, follow this ideology.

This is also the dominant ideology of our press: 6 of the 9 main national dailies are right-wing.
The classic narrative or history of press regulation centres on one key point: that we only gained a free press when free market conditions were introduced; the ending of the stamp duty, in creating a free market, finally meant that the press were truly independent from government and politicians, and could now fulfil the central democratic role of a 'fourth estate' holding politicians and governments to account.

Curran and Seaton (and Chomsky and Herman, with their propaganda model) argue this is an intentional misreading of what actually happened - and what was intended to happen. They argue that this supposed 'free market' was explicitly designed to favour right-wing views, quoting from parliamentary debate to evidence this (politicians of the time were explicit in their aims to prevent or discourage the poor/working class from reading or publishing newspapers, and doing everything possible to stymie the then-healthy and strong radical, leftist press). Advertisers became the de facto regulators of this 'free market', and remain so today, with rising production costs meaning that only the wealthy could aspire to publish a newspaper (today, it would cost close to £100m to launch and fund a new national daily paper for a year).

Despite this, broadcasting regulation was initially very strict: after the BBC's monopoly was broken with the creation of ITV, the scheduling and programming of ITV was very, very tightly controlled by the regulators (ITA, then IBA) who had a hands-on role that is scarcely imaginable today. The regulators acted like channel managers would today, intervening if they didn't like the scheduling or mix of programmes.

Although Thatcher would famously rig the free market to punish an ITV company (Thames) that dared to defy her and introduce strict censorship laws over the issue of coverage of Northern Ireland (the 1988 Broadcasting Ban), her election in 1979 marked the start of a gradual dregulation. Thatcherism centred on free market beliefs, and piece by piece, continued by Labour, broadcasting regulations would be relaxed, and the restrictions on ITV companies (their ability to merge, plus PSB requirements) were relaxed. The ITC would be launched as a 'light touch' regulator, and OfCom was explicitly introduced with a core aim written into its own regulations of deregulation. In both cases, the idea of creating a 'national champion' capable of competing with US conglomerates was cited as a key factor.

There have been a few bumps along the road, however: much to the outrage of the Tories in Opposition (ie when Labour were in government), OfCom expanded its role to launch its own investigations and suggest new legislation on a wide range of media issues, while the 1986 Peacock Report famously shocked Thatcher by failing to recommend privatisation of the BBC, or scrapping the license fee in favour of ads.

OfCom research/presentation task

I'd like two groups to organise themselves and research either arguments FOR or AGAINST the statement that 'OfCom is an example of an effective regulator'.

You have several key resources for this:

1. Use the Word docs embedded in the post at http://mediareg.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/ofcomitc-key-docs.html;
2. OfCom's own website;
3. Links lists on this blog (for speed, I've copied/pasted these below: just click on 'read more');
4. OfComWatch website;
5. Guardian's OfCom page (you can see latest 5 stories on the news gadget on this blog)
6. Daily Mail (you could google 'daily mail' and 'ofcom');

I'd like each group to ensure that any one article is being read + annotated by ONE person only. You'll have this lesson and the 1st 10mins of tomorrow to piece this together into a digestible form, and prepare for a debate. Discuss your findings and identify each distinct argument, attaching appropriate evidence/sources. Both sides of the argument will be presented tomorrow, with some time for debate/to challenge the other side's points.
What kind of points might you address?

•  comparisons to the PCC...
• ...and ITA/IBA/ITC (its predecessors)
• (in)dependence from government
• any major cases/rulings/controversies that illustrate the above
• does it do anything more than react to complaints?
• has this changed since the Tory-led coalition took over in 2010?
• why were/are the Tories so hostile towards OfCom?
• look at the 2003 Communications Act that launched it - was this strangely favourable to any media conglomerates?
• is OfCom a super-regulator? does it oversee too much/is it too powerful?
• you may find googling 'new zealand media super regulator' (or australia) useful: are other countries seeking to bring media regulation under a single body?
• what powers does it have, and what examples are there of it using these - look for examples that might back your case!
• does it have too much/little regulatory oversight over the BBC?
• what are its operating costs (the PCC make much of this), who pays for the running of OfCom, and how has its budget changed since Jeremy Hunt became Culture Secretary?
• do the press think it does a good job?
• how has it performed over Hackgate and the scandal over Murdoch's power? has it independently launched any inquiries of its own?
• has OfCom coped with the challenges of convergence, one of the reasons for its creation?

The Links Lists:

OfCom/ITC key docs

Most of what you need to know is contained in the 3 docs below, though we'll be looking at more examples and how to apply these in lessons

1: TIMELINE

You don't need to know all of this, but this will help with your revision materials as an easy reference guide.
Timeline of Tv Regulation

2: ITC/IBA: OFCOM's PREDECESSORS

Case studies + info on the pre-2003 regulators
ITC Overview

3: OFCOM: ARGUMENTS FOR/AGAINST

Go to page 11 for a detailed breakdown of OfCom
OfCom for Against2

OfCom: some fundamentals

Set up in 2002, when it initially shadowed the work of the ITC and other regulators, it assumed full power for the regulation of the broadcast and telecoms industries on 29th Dec 2003, under the Communications Act 2003
It was (and is) widely referred to as a 'super regulator', in recognition of it subsuming FIVE previous regulators:

• the Broadcasting Standards Commission,
• the Independent Television Commission,
• the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel),
• the Radio Authority, and
• the Radiocommunications Agency.

So, it took over regulation of TV and radio (the broadcast industries) and telecoms (provision and operation of telephone/web [ISPs], including pricing and access to the national cable network laid by BT)
Labour had made much of the growing importance of the digital economy, and argued that the processes of digitisation and convergence made a cross-media regulator necessary. This seems a reasonable argument ... indeed, so good one has to wonder why advertising, the press and film were permitted to continue with their self-regulators (ASA, PCC, BBFC)! There are some contradictory but useful arguments here:

• a super reguator made sense in the context of convergence (with the likes of Sky and Virgin offering their own TV services, the telecoms/TV distinction was growing blurred - triple play is now offered by several companies: TV, phone, broadband/web)
• note though that OfCom was quickly shown to be a regulator with a fairly deregulatory ethos (eg it has continually loosened the requirements on ITV especially as a public service broadcaster to broadcast children's and regional programming, and permitted the timing of main news bulletins to be altered, plus allowed the previously independent ITV franchise companies to merge)
• Labour, especially Chancellor Gordon Brown, talked up the importance of the creative industries and the digital economy, and saw OfCom as one means of helping to encourage the growth of this wired Britain - again, whilst it has more powers than the PCC, it was not set up to constantly interfere in the operations and functioning of the media industries!
• Labour argued the UK needed large media companies, so permitted a degree of monopoly in ITV
• BUT, if convergence made such a strong case for a super regulator, why not also bring in the ASA, BBFC and PCC (ad'g, film, press)?
• there is a reasonable argument here: although the DCMS effectively oversees all media regulation, bringing ALL media regulation under one roof would raise fears of government interference. As our political system usually presents a left-wing Labour or right-wing Conservative (not coalition as at present) government, this would be seen as a risk
• so the Tories right now are complaining loudly about the BBC referring to spending CUTS, insisting they should refer instead to SAVINGS
• furthermore, wouldn't they be penalising the PCC etc for no apparent reason? (Labour praised the PCC repeatedly!)
• perhaps a complicated system maintaining some self-regulated parts and some statutory is actually the best solution?
• there is also the historical context: the telecoms and broadcast industries initially developed as state monopolies with strict licensing systems in place as private provision developed; there isn't the same free market history as for the press. Furthermore, given the extreme importance of media pluralism (a multiplicity of voices and views) within any functioning democracy, the broadcast media had to be tightly regulated as spectrum scarcity historically made this impossible (we only have to go back 30 years for a 3-channel UK TV system, C4 not being launched until 1982). To summarise: the broadcast media developed as state-owned monopolies, NOT as a pluralist free market, so self-regulation wasn't a straightforward proposition
• a very complex set of regulations grew up around commercial TV (ITV), though the BBC was (and mostly remains) largely a self-regulator. Nonetheless, as the government sets its funding every ten years (less, under the current hostile Tory government!), there is clear scope to influence it, and the BBC is widely percieved to have been bullied and influenced by the current government (who still seem to think of the Beeb as the British Bolshevik Corporation [the 80s Thatcher government frequently labelled the BBC thus])
• the broadcast media have traditionally been viewed as more powerful, more likely to influence its consumers, than the press. Indeed, much of the early effects theories arose from reactions to the way the Nazis used film, TV and radio for propaganda purposes in the 1920s to 1940s (leading to the creation of influential groups such as the Frankfurt School)
• events such as Orson Welles' radio broadcast of his "War of the Worlds" causing some panic in 1938 reinforced notions such as the hypodermic syringe model of audience (in which the audience is weak and passive, the media all-powerful) effects

Another very useful to look at this is to consider the example of News Corporation. The concept of a super-regulator means that its telecoms (Sky's telephone and ISP) operations come under the auspices of OfCom. Its TV holdings (Sky) also comes under OfCom's wings (although, as its not a public service broadcaster [PSB], it is not as tightly regulated as ITV, BBC, C4, C5). That is surely a good thing; the regulator is able to take into consideration its cross-media holdings and operations when called upon to consider cases involving Sky, and can also consider this when reviewing the structure of these media industries, including its reviews into pricing and monopolies.
But what about the other three main media regulators? As it happens, each of the ASA, PCC and BBFC also regulate subsidiaries of the global conglomerate that is News Corporation. Sky in particular is a major advertiser, spending 100s of £millions each year on marketing (ASA). The News International subsidiary runs the UK's leading tabloid (S*n/NoTW) and broadsheet (Times/Sunday Times) [PCC], while the company also owns 20th Century Fox [BBFC], producer of Avatar. Indeed, the marketing for Avatar to some extent involved all forms of media! News Corporation is not shy of exploiting its cross-media holdings for the synergies offered by horizontal integration, in one notorious case publishing no fewer than 13 articles on Avatar or 3D in one edition of The S*n! Then of course there is the ongoing matter of News Corporation's intentions to buy the remaining 60% of the shares in BSkyB. This was seen as a matter for OfCom - but why not the PCC? Surely the issue here is not so much about this notorious right-wing zealot Murdoch operating a TV network, but about this same gentleman (behind the lovely Fox News lets not forget; biased domestic news remains illegal in the UK, but give it time...) also having a dominant share of the press too? Don't we need an all-media regulator to effectively regulate such cross-media giants? A true super-regulator for such super-media conglomerates?!
We could make some similar points about Richard Desmond's media holdings which, in addition to his porn channels/publications, includes Channel5, The Star and the Daily/Sunday Express. He's already used his tabloid to heavily hype up C5's signing of the show Big Brother.


OfCom is very different to the PCC...

1. It is a statutory regulator
2. It has real powers (to fine, ban and even withdraw broadcast licenses, which it has done with several porn TV stations, but also to intervene in the markets/pricing of telephony/ISPs)
3. It is not simply the regulator for ONE industry
4. Its budget reflects all these points: £121.6m, compared to the PCC's £2m (unchanged for many years). £76m comes from the Dept for Business, Innovation and Skills, £600k from the DCMS, and the £55.1m remainder from the broadcast/telecoms industries 
5. There is a schism at its heart: whilst its plainly trying to take over the regulation of the BBC from its BBC Trust, OfCom only regulates small parts of the BBC's operations in 2011

Under Labour, OfCom was very high profile and thrived, undertaking a rapid expansion with a series of in-depth investigations and reports which effectively set the agenda for government policy. The Conservatives are ideologically opposed to this, and de-regulation of all business, no matter what ties it may have to culture or public opinion, is a core Tory value. Cameron and his Media spokesman, now Culture, Media and Sport Secretary at the DCMS, Jeremy Hunt, were clear and vociferous in their opposition to OfCom exerting such power, and it was Tory policy to clip OfCom's wings.

Which they swiftly have done as part of the current coalition government...
28.2% of OfCom's budget is to be cut. While there are widespread public spending cuts under way, this is more than most (and amounts to 170 jobs, effectively ending OfCom's reign as supreme creator of media policy!). They have fared better than organisations such as the UKFilm Council though (not a regulator), which has been scrapped as part of the much heralded 'bonfire of the quangos'.

Even so, as the Conservatives have traditionally been hostile to the BBC, OfCom may yet be handed regulation of the Beeb...

The Peacocok Ctee (1985), set up to review financing of the BBC, was expected by thatcher to recommend its privitisation. The 1986 Peacock Report DID suggest selling off Radios 1 + 2, BUT explicitly backed the publicly-owned BBC as a necessary evil to maintain general broadcasting standards, recognising that privatising it would lead to a rapid tabloidisation or dumbing down of TV in general.

The government has, though, already made some changes to the way OfCom operates:

The government is to merge independent communications regulator Ofcom with its postal service counterpart Postcomm as part of the quango cull announced today.
Ofcom is also to lose powers relating to policy setting, which are to be returned to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and will no longer control decisions related to independent ownership of television franchises, such as ITV and Channel 5, but all its core communications functions will remain.
It will, however, now be allowed to charge fees for satellite filings when made to the International Telecommunications Union.
Speculation had surrounded the future of Ofcom since before the election, and many had anticipated the quango would be cut altogether in today's announcement.
The coalition today published the Postal Services Bill which will provide for the transfer of Postcomm's functions to Ofcom, maintaining its focus on securing a "universal postal service".

quick summary of the thinking behind deregulation...
The current coalition government have launched a 'Red Tape Challenge', seeking to identify legislation (laws) that can be scrapped. They, and papers such as the Mail, habitually refer to regulation as 'red tape' or 'bureaucracy', overlooking the context in which such rules emerged (often in response to some crisis). Regulation is seen as a barrier to entrepreneurialism, and to business in generel; in theory, the less there is of this the freer businessmen are to grow businesses and create jobs. This goes against traditional left-wing values, which sees the power of the state as a necessary brake on the free market to protect the poor and vulnerable (see this eg), though such are our contemporary politics that Labour has also attacked red tape!