Statutory Underpinning, the Leveson compromise

JUNE 2014: The consensus seemed to be that a new press self-regulator would be established, like the BBC, through a royal charter, NOT legisltaion (statutory), BUT that Parliament could intervene to change the terms of the regulator, its rules, if 2/3 of MPs and Lords voted in favour of this. Its that possible 2/3 vote that provided the 'underpinning'.

When reading about Leveson's recommendations you'll encounter the term STATUTORY UNDERPINNING frequently. So, what does this mean?

There's no precise answer as Leveson left the precise form of this open to debate among politicians. The principle, though, is clear enough: its a compromise between continuing self-regulation and introducing statutory regulation. It may mean that the press regulator is created through an Act of Parliament (so, has a legal status) rather than being created by voluntary agreement amongst newspaper owners. It may also mean that a review body is set up by Act of Parliament to regularly (probably annually) check that the press regulator is functioning as it should.

The idea also carries the possible threat of calling time in the last chance saloon: some politicians favour using statutory underpinning to give (essentially) self-regulation one final chance, BUT with the explicit reserve power passed at the same time which will see a more statutory body launched if this regulator fails as its predecessors have.

Statutory underpinning may also see a legally enforceable fining system introduced (also discussed is the idea of tax breaks for any companies to sign up to the new regulator, withdrawn from any companies - like Northern + Shell currently - who refuse to).

A few useful links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9711769/Lord-Justice-Leveson-insists-statutory-underpinning-does-not-amount-to-state-control.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-fenton/leveson-statutory-underpi_b_2237834.html;
http://hackinginquiry.org/debunking/six-degrees-of-regulation/;
http://www.mediareform.org.uk/featured/labour-promises-to-vote-on-statutory-underpinning;
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polislevesonblog/2012/11/26/arguments-for-statutory-underpinning-of-regulation/;
BBC report on different ways to regulate press;

Cynicism of press reaction to Leveson

I'll maybe use this post to gather together various resources on this point at a later stage, but for now some comments by Harold Evans (editor of the Sunday Times as Murdoch took it over, and author of some classic books on the press) caught my eye (and Roy Greenslade's). If you haven't already, note the key term thats emerging from Leveson: STATUTORY UNDERPINNING
 
Here's a couple of snippets:

"As depressing as exposure of the dark arts has been, it is deepened by the cynicism and arrogance of much of the reaction to Leveson, coming from figures in the press who did nothing to penetrate – indeed whose inertia assisted – the cover-up conducted into oblivion by News International, a cover-up which would have continued, but for the skill of [Guardian journalist] Nick Davies and the courage of his editor [Alan Rusbridger]," Evans said, delivering the Cudlipp lecture at the London College of Communications.
He added: "A certain rowdiness [in the press] is a given, but the misrepresentation of Leveson's main proposal is staggering. To portray his careful construct for statutory underpinning as state control is a gross distortion."
...
He concluded: "I regard the Leveson plan, with the exceptions mentioned, as I regard the proposals on statutory underpinning – as an opportunity, not as a threat. What further might the British press do if it were free of internal and external restraints inimical to excellence? If the intellectual analysis of the heavies' tremendous flair in tabloid journalism were bent to more positive outcomes – such as Hugh Cudlipp dreamt in his youth and achieved so well in his prime?"
Cudlipp edited the Daily Mirror in the 1950s and 1960s and is regarded as one of the greatest British newspaper executives of the 20th century.

[Source]

Burchill trans column: PCC + 3rd party complaints

Burchill's column attracted 1000s of comments + complaints. Pic source.

NB: The Observer was bought by The Guardian Media Group in 1993, and so is what you'd term its Sunday sister paper.

[Scroll to the bottom for an update, March 26th]

The PCC may have announced it was disbanding itself ... but it continues until such times as a post-Leveson successor body is set up. They've stepped into the row about Julie Burchill's Observer column, now removed from its website (a highly unusual step), which was seen to widely insult transgendered people.

Some key details:

• Dealing with clause 12 (discrimination) + 1 (accuracy); the issue of 3rd party complaints; the right to offend; the difference between columns and editorial: there are some links with the Iain Dale case (2010); Jan Moir's Gately column (2009), AA Gill's column on Clare Balding (2010) etc
• Read all of Roy Greenslade's columns on this here
• Burchill wrote a column for The Observer, sister paper to The Guardian;
• She and it were known for featuring controversial views;
• A January 2013 column set out to attack transsexual 'trolls' of her colleague Suzanne Moore, another columnist;
• the column featured strong derogatory terms for describing transsexuals ("screaming mimis", "bed-wetters in bad wigs" and "dicks in chicks' clothing")
• the paper received 1,000s of complaints; there were over 2,000 comments below the article
• the PCC received 800 complaints
• the topic trended on Twitter
• they don't usual respond to 3rd party complaints but did in this case because of the public interest
• PCC Editors' Code clause 12 states:

12	Discrimination
	i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

• The Guardian, exceptionally, removed the article from their website (Greenslade argues this was wrong)
• A (Lib Dem) government minister (Featherstone) called for both her and the editor to be sacked
• An Independent readers poll saw 90% deem the article offensive
• It attracted a protest outside the Guardian offices:

An internal Observer inquiry, conducted by the readers' editor, Stephen Pritchard, accepted that the column had broken the paper's own code, which states that it "should not casually use words that are likely to offend". He said that it was published due to "a collective failure of editing".
Days later, a peaceful protest about the publication was staged outside the offices of The Observer and The Guardian.
The editors of both papers, along with other journalists (including me), have since been invited by a transgender group, On Road, to meet young trans people in order to understand the problems they face. [source]

• The Observer sacked her
• The PCC rejected the complaint; here's Greenslade on the decision:

Clearly, the PCC decided that Burchill's column, despite her colourful choice of language, could not be deemed to be prejudicial. In other words, she had a right to be offensive.
Reading between the lines, I imagine the commission took the view that it was a matter of taste and therefore lay within the editor's prerogative.

(SOME OF) ROY GREENSLADE'S COLUMNS ON THIS
Here's Roy Greenslade covering the PCC's intercession:

Columnist Julie Burchill attracted 1,000s of online comments

The Press Complaints Commission is to launch an inquiry into the publication of Julie Burchill's controversial column in The Observer that caused outrage among transgender people. The commission decided to act after receiving 800 complaints.
Though the PCC does not generally take up what are called third-party complaints, it has done so on occasions when it feels there is sufficient public interest in doing so.
Similarly, although the commission has been reluctant to investigate stories that involve groups of people in which no individual is identified, it has done so in the past.

Times/Murdoch + (non-)Freedom of Press

When Murdoch took over The Times newspaper in 1981 he was forced to guarantee editorial freedom from proprietorial interference (ie, from him). Independent directors were added to the board, and its written into the company's constitution that, for example, an editor can neither be appointed nor fired without their agreement. I'm about half way through the 1,000+ page official history of The Times (the volume covering the 80s; there are 5 or 6 more equally long books covering the earlier history!) in which the takeover features extensively - it has in any case been heavily featured in every book written about the press since the 1980s, as Murdoch's ability to control the editorial line of 'his' papers is seen as the exemplar of owner interference.
This came to mind from reading Roy Greenslade's column (Jan 2013), in which he urges the current independent directors to resign en masse as The Times editor has just resigned, stating Murdoch made it clear he wanted someone else in, but the board weren't consulted. This is a great, contemporary, example that helps evidence the argument that proprietors (owners) do have editorial influence over their papers.
Full article copied in below.

Times independent directors are not independent and should resign

When James Harding "resigned" as editor of The Times a month ago he told the paper's journalists:

"It has been made clear to me that News Corporation would like to appoint a new editor of the Times. I have, therefore, agreed to stand down."

His decision evidently surprised Rupert Murdoch. And it certainly shocked the independent national directors (INDs) of Times Newspapers Holdings. One of them was so upset he told friends he was planning to resign.
Given their remit, as set out in their witness statement to the Leveson inquiry in October 2011, I believe all should have resigned en masse. But there's no dishonour in doing it now.

OfCom 2012 complaints overview

Reality shows, news and docs dominated the top 10 most complained about TV shows of 2012 (see here for a Guardian countdown of the 2011 top 100, here for 2010 (Mail) here for 2009 top 10 (Guardian)). OfCom has some support to take on the PCC as part of its portfolio in 2013, though the Tories are opposed to this so its unlikely to happen, but here's an outline of some major case studies involving OfCom in 2012.

X FACTOR STILL A COMPLAINTS HIT

Life is Bliss for Lorna, but not ITV

C5's Big Brother may have topped the OfCom list, but the X Factor (2nd on the 2012 list), which generally manages to feature high up on this annual list, remained high on the radar. It was widely accused of a fix, a complaint rejected by OfCom in November 2012 (remember, there was a huge 2008 scandal over TV phone-in competitions being fixed, leading to large OfCom fines and the BBC banning all competitions with prizes after being hit with a £400k fine [see also]). There was also the by now traditional complaints over saucy pre-watershed performances (this one, about a Britney impersonator Lorna Bliss, sparked 35 complaints - rejected as OfCom deemed it obviously comical). As I'll note below, the X Factor was also drawn into the major controversy that emerged late in 2012 over child protection issues.
Back in March it was guilty of pre-watershed swearing (Frankie Corcozza), and January saw controversy over Tulisa's on-arm advertising.

CHILD PROTECTION ISSUES HIGHLIGHTED
Child protection issues, which make for a great exam case study as this is such a pertinent issue for TV and press alike, with plentiful historical and contemporary cases (touching on the Royals too), were highlighted by OfCom as an issue requiring meetings with broadcasters to remind them of their responsibilities.

Broadcasters have been summoned to a meeting with media regulator Ofcom over concerns about the exploitation of children in programmes including I'm A Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!.
All of the major broadcasters, including the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and BSkyB, have been called to a meeting in the new year to discuss their duty of care to under-18s as part of the rules under which they all broadcast.
The regulator will also carry out a programme of "spot check monitoring" of broadcasters' output to monitor that they are complying by the rules, it said. [from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/17/ofcom-summons-broadcasters-child-exploitation]

BBC CENSURED FOR 13-YEAR-OLD IN LINE OF DUTY ... and DICK + DOM!
The BBC was censured for featuring a 13-year-old actor in violent, distressing scenes in its (excellent!) drama Line of Duty:

The BBC was guilty of a "serious lapse" in its duty of care for a 13-year-old actor who appeared in violent scenes in BBC2 drama Line of Duty, media regulator Ofcom has ruled.
Ofcom said programme-makers did not do enough to protect the child actor, who appeared in scenes in which he was headbutted and attempted to sever a policeman's fingers with pair of bolt-cutters.
The BBC said it was in "constant dialogue" with the teenager's parents who were content that he could cope with the emotional demands of the drama despite it being his first acting role.
But Ofcom, acting on a single complaint from a viewer, said the programme had breached broadcasting rules requiring that "due care must be taken over the physical and emotional welfare and the dignity of people under 18".
The regulator said 13-year-old Gregory Piper, who played character Ryan Pilkington, a child-runner for a violent criminal gang, had appeared in scenes which were "of a particularly violent nature and included sexually explicit language". [from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/17/bbc-line-of-duty-child-actor]

There was hoopla over Dick + Dom

The BBC were also investigated over an eating contest in kids' TV show Dick and Dom, in which a young participant retched, which came close on the heels of 35 complaints over an X Factor audition which featured footage of two teens clearly mortified at the terrible audition by their mother:

Ofcom is also investigating the show to see whether the competition may have broken rules relating to generally accepted content standards.
Under this rule Ofcom will investigate whether the show may have caused offence on grounds such as distress, humiliation and violation of human dignity.
In September Ofcom launched an investigation on similar grounds into The X Factor performance of Alison Brunton, who delivered an embarassingly bad rendition of Lady Gaga's hit The Edge of Glory.
Brunton's children – a 14-year-old girl and 16-year-old boy – were repeatedly shown looking horrified and humiliated by their mother's appearance on the show. Guest judge Mel B described the audition as "horrific". [from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/04/ofcom-investigate-bbc-child-eating]

You could usefully contrast this stance with the OfCom ruling over Sky News' notorious Kay Burley, previously accused of explicit political bias in her reporting, cleared of causing distress in a report over a missing person. 

WILL SAVILLEGATE SEE OfCom TAKE ON BBC IN 2013?

Once revered now reviled

Lets not forget either that this was the year in which the BBC was severely rocked (to the joy of its right-wing foes, who managed to overlook their own failure on this very issue) by the appearance of blocking a Newsnight report into accusations that Jimmy Saville was a serial paedophile to safeguard a celebratory show already completed (the £2m [13,000 license fees!] Pollard Report found this wasn't the case). Here's a timeline. Roy Greenslade links to many of the press articles on this - even the cenre-left press weren't impressed with the BBC, the Mirror slamming it as a shambles. The Guardian was also scathing. Public opinion was little different: a poll reported that 49% of the public trusted the BBC less as a result of the scandal. This could be a major story still in 2013 as the poor handling of it by the BBC has reinforced calls for OfCom or some other regulator to take over complete responsibility for regulation of the BBC (OfCom currently oversees issues of taste and decency).

 OfCom REMIND BROADCASTERS ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY TO U-18s
Note the stark contrast with the PCC here: not only had the actor's parents not complained, they'd actually made clear they had no issue with this - as did the actor - yet OfCom still acted after a single third-party complaint. OfCom's December 2012 bulletin carries the detailed ruling, plus a section headed Note to Broadcasters: The involvement of people under eighteen in proigrammes. As they reminded broadcasters:

Section one of the Ofcom broadcasting code states that "due care must be taken over the physical and emotional welfare of people under 18 ... irrespective of any consent given by the participant or by a parent, guardian or other person".
It goes on to state that people under 18 "must not be caused unnecessary distress or anxiety by their involvement in programmes or by the broadcast of those programmes".
The regulator said in a statement on Monday: "Ofcom reminds all broadcasters very strongly that, not only must they have robust procedures in place to ensure their compliance with rules 1.28 and 1.29 of the code, but they must also ensure that those procedures are adherred to at all times." [quoted from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/17/ofcom-summons-broadcasters-child-exploitation]

OTHER PRE-WATERSHED OfCom RULINGS/FINES: E! ENTERTAINMENT + PORN AGAIN
It wasn't just the major terrestrial broadcasters under fire for their lax policies on protecting children in 2012, other digital channels also came under fire, such as this NBC-Universal subsidiary:

Ofcom has fined NBC Universal-owned channel E! Entertainment £40,000 for broadcasting episodes of Girls of the Playboy Mansion when children were likely to be watching TV.
The media regulator has decided to fine the channel in part because it has previously broken the UK broadcasting code for airing two other programmes during the day that were unsuitable for showing before the 9pm watershed.
In the latest case E! Entertainment aired consecutive episodes of Girls of the Playboy Mansion during the day on 27 December, the festive season when children and families are on holiday and frequently watch daytime TV.
Ofcom said the Christmas holiday period is also a time when a lot of children watch TV alone, making the scheduling of the episodes a breach of rule 1.3 of the broadcasting code, which aims to protect children from inappropriate content.
The media regulator took a dim view of the breach, given that it follows a previous sanction over two shows that used "the most offensive language" being broadcast before the watershed. [from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/16/ofcom-fines-e-entertainment]

Love Shaft: judged unsuited for T4's youth audience

C4 was also censured for repeating Love Shaft during its morning T4 youth strand in November.
Porn was raised as an issue - again (4 channels were closed in 2010 for making material accessible to children). What is also noteworthy here is the international aspect: the stations in question in 2012 were Dutch-owned and operated, and so OfCom turned to the Dutch regulators for help on content viewed by UK children:

Ofcom has complained to the Dutch media regulator about the content of adult chat channels Babestation and Smile TV, which are licensed in the Netherlands but broadcast to millions of Freeview households in the UK overnight and can be easily accessed by children in their bedrooms.
The UK media regulator said that " this is an important issue, and active discussions are under way" with Commissariaat voor de Media (Dutch media authority), the country's content licensing body, to see how British audiences can be protected from scenes of near naked women massaging each other's breasts, masturbating and faking orgasms.
Babestation and Smile TV broadcast free to air on digital terrestrial TV service Freeview between 10pm and 6am. Adult channels feature in two blocks on the Freeview electronic programme guide, 93-98 and 190-198.
Ofcom has previously revoked the broadcast licences of adult pay-TV channels including Tease Me for repeatedly airing material that was too sexually explicit for pre-watershed hours. [from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/07/freeview-porn-ofcom-action]

2012 OFCOM COMPLAINTS TOP 10
Here's the 2012 top 10 (from the Mail):

TOP TEN MOST COMPLAINED ABOUT TV SHOWS IN 2012

1. Big Brother (2,088)
2. The X Factor Results (1,488)
3. This Morning (811)
4. True Stories: Gypsy Blood (509)
5. Live: The Silent Ascent (378)
6. Sky News (364)
7. The X Factor (305)
8. Islam: The Untold Story (293)
9. Citizen Khan (256)
10. Keith Lemon's LemonAid (246)
Total complaints throughout the year: 16,666

SCHOFIELD'S RED LETTER DAY + LORD McALPINE SUES THE WORLD

Does regulation ignoring social media make sense anymore?

One of the more remarkable stories of the year came from that hotbed of political news ... This Morning, in which presenter Phillip Schofield handed PM Cameron live on air a letter with the name of the supposed Tory paedophile widely circulated on Twitter. This quickly turned out to be a case of mistaken identity at best, and Lord McAlpine, the senior Tory named, has since launched legal proceedings against not just press and broadcasters but also individual Twitter users - including the Speaker's wife, Sally Bercow, one of many 1,000s to name McAlpine online. Here's Roy Greenslade on why he agrees with McAlpine's legal action. The BBC swiftly agreed to pay him £185k in compensation after he was named in a Newsnight broadcast.
This is a great story for showing how regulators face the complexity of ruling on TV stories which are being developed online. Its similar in some regards to the whole issue of superinjunctions (useful Wiki), which have meant that press/broadcasters were initially unable to identify Ryan Giggs, Jeremy Clarkson or BBC political presenter Andrew Marr as having had affairs, even while millions read/shared the names/details online through social network sites. Read more Guardian articles about superinjunctions here.

'SCREEN VIOLENCE WAS WORSE 10 YEARS AGO'
Guardian writer Ben Dowell argued that despite the hype (often generated by the right-wing press, for whom moral panics are a central component of their daily output and the ideology they express), there is less 'horrific' violence on UK TV now than 10 years ago:

What are we to make of August's Ofcom research, gleefully reported in the Mail, that a third of TV viewers believe our screens have too much violence and swearing? Is British TV drama really getting more brutal and vicious? Or has it been ever thus? I believe the latter – and here's why.
Imports are one thing, but in terms of homegrown drama, I'd argue that perhaps the most horrific moment occurred a full 10 years ago when a new BBC1 spy drama exploded into life with the dunking of a woman's head in a fryer full of sizzling chip fat. That tasty scene from the first series of Spooks (it was Lisa Faulkner's administrative officer Helen Flynn, if you recall, who met this unpleasant end) has gone down in legend. Despite thousands of complaints and regulatory intervention, it announced a show that went on to be one of the most successful drama series in BBC history.
...
Other broadcasters do their bit too – C4's The Fear had its near-the-knuckle moments but ITV's bloodiest heyday has long gone. For my money it has never really served up stronger meat than Wire in the Blood, which finished more than five years ago or Taggart, which started in 1983. Home-produced TV from the 1980s and 1990s was if anything, more violent than what we have now.
The BBC's controller of drama commissioning, Ben Stephenson, says that he has not been "shocked in a bad way" by anything he has seen on TV. ... He says that the BBC never discusses how violent a drama should be. "It is always about the integrity of the storytelling and whether what is in the script underscores the emotion."
...
None of the top 10 most complained about programmes to Ofcom in 2012 were dramas (Big Brother was No 1). And when people do complain about dramatic violence it is quite often not when humans are on the receiving end. The most complained about moment in BBC2 thriller The Shadow Line (which had its moments) was the submersion of a cat in a barrel of water. In South Riding, the 2011 period drama, the CGI recreation of a horse falling off a cliff also drew one of the biggest complaint logs of the year.
For my money, perhaps the most shocking thing about our TV drama is what actually seems to shock people. [from http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2012/dec/31/violence-tv-drama-ripper-street]

WRIGHT'S WRONGS, BOYLE BOILS OVER, PRIVACY CASES, CLARKSON, BFGW + EQUALLY BFQuizOfYear...

The Mail polices broadcasters/provides outraged readers with such 'stories'

2012 also saw Matthew Wright investigated for anti-handicapped discrimination (he was cleared), Frankie Boyle's Tramadol Nights on C4 raising complaints of racism (Boyle won £54,650 libel damages from the Mirror which had labelled him racist - he/C4 was censured by OfCom in 2011 for jokes broadcast in December 2010 about Katie Price's handicapped son - although as a frothing Mail reported, Price was unhappy and labelled OfCom toothless) [here's Mencap's report] and Big Fat Gypsy Wedding once again accused of racism. It ended not just with the press-hyped Graham Norton 'controversy'/moral panic, but also a press-hyped/manufactured 'outcry' over C4's Big Fat Quiz of the Year, specifically a joke about the queen. This drew a whole 10 complaints 24 hours after it broadcast, swelling to 160 after the Mail made it a front-page splash: Channel 4 and the sick show they call comedy. If you care to follow the link to the Mail's own website, you'll find in no way hypocritical 'stories' on its notorious (but hugely successful in attracting visitors) right-hand column such as Pictured: The moment Sofia Vergera accidentally exposes her breast. C4 is seen as a broadcaster with a liberal or lefty bias, making it another common target of right-wing press 'outrage'.

C4 News turned the tables on MacKenzie

In an amusing case, C4 was cleared by OfCom of breaching one-time Sun editor and still tabloid-cheerleader Kelvin MacKenzie's privacy, treating him to the doorstepping treatment he always declared fine as a tabloid man.  C4's website has a good report on the controversy this stirred up.
Julian Assange lost his complaint against a More4 doc about the Wikileaks founder (as he had with 45 PCC complaints over press articles).
Like Frankie Boyle, Jeremy Clarkson is no stranger to complaints, and he was censured over a joke based on facial disfigurements - note that this was by the BBC Trust, NOT OfCom, making it a useful case.

The BBC Trust has ruled that Jeremy Clarkson's joke comparing a Japanese car to the Elephant Man was offensive to people with facial disfigurements, and criticised Top Gear's production team for a "regrettable lapse of editorial judgment".
Clarkson's comparison of a Prius car/camper van hybrid to "people with growths on their faces", in an edition of BBC2's Top Gear broadcast in February, prompted 137 complaints to the BBC.

Its nice to know that OfCom consider this a worse offence than 'joking' about shooting dead striking teachers in front of their children, in a peak-time pre-watershed family show - back in February Clarkson was cleared by OfCom after 30,000 complaints about his rather vile rant on the One Show.

CLOSING TIME FOR PRAISE TV + PRESS TV: LICENSES REVOKED
October saw religious channel Praise TV lose its license for providing false info about who actually controlled the channel. In the Guardian's comment is free section (ie, not reflecting the paper's editorial line), Geoffrey Alderman argued this was deplorable - and OfCom directly responded in turn. Guardian veteran Peter Preston also argued the case against closure. Back in January Press TV, with its Iranian links, lost its license (OfCom summary). If you scroll down to 2004, when 3 shopping channels were closed, you can find other examples of TV stations whose licenses were revoked by OfCom in this useful Wiki of defunct UK TV stations.
Roy Greenslade called for hyper-local TV stations to be made exempt from OfCom regulation in August, an interesting case that blurs the line between the web and TV. The plans for these new licenses have been mired in confusion, and remain so. The BBC's Freeview broadcast license was extended to 2026, though the main commercial PSB licenses (ITV, C4, C5) which run out in 2014 are still subject to debate over the terms of their 10-year extension.
As mentioned above, there have been previous closures over the issue of children able to access Freeview pay-TV porn stations (4 closed in 2010).

LACKING KLASS: BLURRING EDITORIAL + ADVERTISING CONTENT
C5 was censured in July for breaching the editorial code: The Myleene Klass Show effectively promoted a cereal brand in an advertorial style. C4 had likewise been censured for blurring the lines between editorial and advertising content in May, with its exclusive airing of the Promotheus trailer during an ad-break - but with the C4 logo and with a C4 announcer urging the audience to buy tickets. In a novel ruling, which may become more common, the Twitter tie-in for this was also criticised by OfCom:

Ofcom received a complaint that the promotion totally confused the viewer about whether they were watching an impartial continuity announcement or a paid advertisement.
The regulator agreed, telling Channel 4 it had concerns that the distinct voice of the announcer, the broadcaster's logo and language used in the advert suggested the channel's ownership and endorsement of the material.
"In Ofcom's view, such viewer interaction is more commonly associated with television programmes than with advertising," the regulator said. "We consider that the presentation style of the Prometheus material risked confusing viewers in respect of it status."
With regard to the Twitter element of the campaign, Ofcom concluded that it might have been unclear to viewers whether they were watching a selection of tweets selected for editorial reasons by Channel 4 or for advertising purposes.
Channel 4 defended the promotion, arguing that there was a clear contrast between the channel identification and the start of a commercial break.
However, Ofcom responded that: "Simply because material appears in a break between programmes is not sufficient to identify it as advertising."
Channel 4 said that the campaign had received approval by Clearcast, which pre-vets TV ads to give advice on whether there are likely to be any issues with the advertising code.
The broadcaster added that changes to the broadcast code of advertising practice – the rules which govern TV ads – could lead to possible confusion over what broadcasters needed to do to adequately distinguish between editorial programming and advertising airtime. [from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/22/channel-4-criticised-ofcom-prometheus-promotion; emphasis added]

Back in January the X Factor's Tulisa was found to have also blurred that line (one charge cleared, one found guilty).

LEVESON, HUNT'S MURDOCH LINKS AND JAMES MURDOCH'S FIT + PROPER PERSON TEST
It was of course the year of Leveson, with some commentators wondering why on earth we continued to separate press and broadcast regulation, as Dan Sabbagh does here:

Richard Desmond must be rather bored with everybody else talking about the "Desmond problem", which may be why he is so unimpressed by the topless lese-majesty adopted by his half-owned Irish Daily Star. But as the Leveson debate enters its increasingly testy final phase, what would happen if the pornographer turned media mogul wanted to merge the Daily Express and Star newsrooms with Channel 5's news offerings? Who then would be the regulator – Ofcom or the Leveson-approved Press Complaints Commission (PCC)? Maybe the increasingly efficient journalists would have to remember two sets of rules at once. (No one should be deluded, by the way, that broadcasting is invariably more bureaucratic: anyone who thinks that hasn't been handed an application form for permission to use subterfuge under clause 10 of the editors' code).
Anyway, so much for private grief, the essential point is that in Britain, as Leveson draws to a close and a communications white paper looms, we persist in the belief that newspapers and broadcast news must be regulated separately. And online-only news providers probably ought not to be regulated at all. But what's curious is that in Australia, where they are well ahead of us, they are no longer prepared to accept the traditional distinction. [from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/23/leveson-single-regulator-news]

Even the pro-Tory Telegraph saw Hunt as a Murdoch stooge

In June James Murdoch was declared a fit and proper person to run a TV network - but only just, and OfCom were scathingly critical of him. OfCom also called for regular reviews of media plurality as part of their response to the controversy over Murdoch's attempt to take over the remaining 60% of BSkyB shares - but said Parliament should set a specific limit to cross-media ownership, not OfCom.
I have to say that pre-2010 (election and Tories coming to power committed to scrapping OfCom) I'm certain OfCom would have been much more proactive and confident in how they handled this, a clear sign (I think!) of how OfCom has stepped back from its once highly energetic, proactive stance as a regulator. Back in January 2012 it called for regulators to include all media in their rulings, though took care to avoid the logical conclusion that this means a beefed-up OfCom taking on the PCC's job:

"For the avoidance of doubt, we do not think that Ofcom should regulate the press," Richards added. "Over time, and quite quickly in some cases, the difference between 'video on demand' content and that of increasingly video-rich digital 'newspapers' may well diminish. We might be able to offer some assistance from what we have found to be necessary for regulation to be effective."
He argued that there is a "degree of commonality" between different forms of media that could provide the basis for an over-arching regulatory system in areas such as accuracy, privacy, protecting vulnerable people and crime.
"A set of core principles could be established between the regulators that emerge from the current debate," he said. "They might aim to articulate the minimum standards which we would like to see in the UK." [from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/25/ofcom-regulatory-regime]

Right-wing Guido Fawkes blog's take on Richards

OfCom chief executive Ed Richards was in the running (he was amongst bookies favourite to get the job before Entwistle) to replace the hapless Entwistle as BBC director general, but, as Dan Sabbagh argued, he never stood a chance as (despite, I think, being clearly the best qualified) he has historic links to Labour. OfCom infuriated Sky by arguing its monopoly over films on TV needed challenging. Months before that speculation arose, Jeremy Hunt somehow held on to his job as Culture Secretary despite seemingly damning revelations of his close links with News Corp and the Murdochs, attracting widespread incredulity and criticism. Other broadcasters also cried foul over his department's lack of even-handedness (a legal requirement). There was political division over the issue, with the backbench Culture Select Committee split between Tories voting to block criticisms of the Murdochs, and Labour/Lib Dem MPs voting to include them.
Peter Preston has written a useful article attacking the nature of appointments to regulators, arguing they're consistently linked to political parties and taken from a very, very narrow sphere (the 'great and the good').

FROM LEMONAID PUPPIES TO HATE SPEECH 
Forget politics and ideology ... as ever, animal welfare was behind many complaints, as in May with the prize of a dog on ITV's Lemonaid.
Back to politics and ideology, and an unusual case which touches on wider laws around 'hate speech' - I can find no reference at this stage on whether DM Digital has yet been closed (though see its legally challenged previous OfCom censures):

A British TV channel that aired a lecture saying it is acceptable to murder someone who has shown disrespect to the prophet Muhammad is facing a significant fine or potentially even closure by Ofcom.
Ofcom has taken the unprecedented step of ruling that DM Digital, which targets the Asian market with programming in languages including English, Punjabi, Urdu, Kashmiri and Hindi, is the first UK broadcaster to break the broadcasting code for airing material "likely to encourage or incite the commission of a crime or lead to disorder".
Because of the serious nature of the breach of the code Ofcom said that it is now considering imposing a statutory sanction, and the media regulator's sanctions committee will now consider options including fining DM Digital or even revoking the company's broadcast licence. [from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/09/ofcom-close-tv-station-condoning-murder-blasphemy]

Worth mentioning too the slackness of the ITV doc that presented game footage as documentary footage of the IRA (Exposure, broadcast Sept 2011, ruling Jan 2012).
  
Any thoughts or useful links to pass on? Add a comment below.

DMail, ParentsTVCncl + Moral Panic

Simple example of how our press seek on a daily basis to whip up fresh moral panics to keep its (mostly older) readers in a righteous froth over declining moral standards, young people today and all that good stuff. The source here is the satirical Lost in Showbiz blog from The Guardian - a good example of how broadsheets juggle the demands of retaining their reputation for hard news whilst covering celebrity and other soft news that draws in huge numbers online (and often features on the print front page trails too). Just look at how often the X Factor is featured! 

NB: The article below contains some explicit sexual references.

This example shows how the Mail rather preposterously cited "how even the Parents Television Council" took offence at a portion of the Graham Norton Show New Year special, using this as a means of justifying attacking a favourite target of the right-wing press: the BBC, bastion of public service broadcasting and thus a challenge to the dominance of free market ideology through its very existence.

Parents 'fuming' at Kathy Griffin's on-air sexual antics on New Year's Eve

When the US comedian simulated fellatio on her co-host live on CNN, not everyone was amused.

Alexis Petridis, 3.1.13, http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2013/jan/03/parents-fuming-kathy-griffins-sexual

Kathy Griffin, whose simulated oral sex didn’t go down well on US TV. Photograph: Jeffrey Ufberg/WireImage

And so to America, where something of a storm appears to have blown up over CNN's live coverage of events in New York's Times Square on New Year's Eve. The programme was considerably enlivened by comedian Kathy Griffin referring to the fiscal cliff as "the fisting cliff", then repeatedly dropping to her knees and pretending to simulate fellatio on her visibly unamused co-host Anderson Cooper: "I'm going down, you know you want to," she told him. "I'm kissing your sardine."
Lost in Showbiz confesses that, at first, it thought this all sounded pretty funny. Indeed, it ruefully reflected that it sounded substantially more entertaining than anything on British TV on the night of 31 December. How much more interesting would Graham Norton's interview with Mary Berry and Paul Hollywood of The Great British Bake Off have been if the Grande Dame of the pithivier and petits fours had taken a leaf out of Griffin's book, suddenly grasped Hollywood's testicles and announced: "I'm tickling your sac"?
That was, of course, until it read the Daily Mail's take on events and was swiftly forced to reconsider. Keen as ever not to create an unnecessary furore, the Mail reported that "Many failed to see the funny side of her antics and branded her behaviour 'vile' and 'putrid'." To underline the seriousness of the offence, it added: "Even the Parents Television Council got involved and is said to be 'fuming'."
Lost In Showbiz must admit that it had never heard of the Parents Television Council, but it was intrigued – mostly by the use of the word "even" in the Mail's report. This suggested that it must be an organisation renowned for its restraint, which would start "fuming" only when faced with the most unbearable provocation. It definitely is not to be confused with, say, The Arnica Network, which recently orchestrated a campaign against the BBC,