Regulators and legislators have many problems in effectively regulating each individual ‘section’ of television broadcasters, simply because each serves the public in different ways. As already stated the BBC, as a public broadcasting company, and the company which receives the license fee that the British public pays, is indebted to give wide ranging broadcasting, a variety of programmes and unbiased news coverage. While Sky has no such constraints on it’s programming or content to the same degree it, although having to follow particular standards cannot be told what it ahs to broadcast. The press in this way has no real constraint, being mainly self-regulated.
While the press are allowed to print biased, opinionated stories, Television reporters and companies are not so fortunate. Due to the television act, which demands unopinonated news bulletins current affairs programme showing no opportunity to express opinions. It is prohibited for any leading articles or editorial view on British television. “The BBC and Independent television companies are specifically forbidden to voice their own views” (Macmillan, 1972 p25). This is in the terms of the BBC’s licence and the Television act.
The ITC was set up in 1990, a blend of, and replacing the IBA and cable authority. The government makes appointments to the ITC from the industry itself, not from the sphere of politics, as many ITC appointments have traditionally come from ITV companies. The third channel has often been critically seen as self-regulating. However with the introduction of Channel five and more independence being granted to Channel four, this view has changed to a degree. The ITC essentially regulates commercial television (not BBC 1, 2 or S4c, the Welsh fourth channel), setting out a code of practice, which contains strict rules on taste and decency; impartiality in the news and factual programmes; and misleadingness, offence and harm in advertising. Special attention is given to the protection of children. They also maintain, competition levels looking closely to see whether broadcasting will be affected through mergers etc. Other aspects of the ITC’s role are to monitor technical standards, including service reception. Although the ITC has the ability to enforce its rulings on the companies it regulates. It does not, like the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) have the entitlement to vet programmes before they are shown to the general public. This raises several issues about the theory of regulation. The ITC has specific standards that programmers must follow and stick to. However in principle these lack, if a programme is already shown and all the ITC can do is make the company publish an official apology. A loophole seems to appear. In the case on Channel 4 and the programme Brass eye that was shown in 2000/2001, which was a comedy about paedophiles. The programme had already done damage and suggested specific things, before the ITC could actually condemn anything. A withdrawal could not be made, because simply the programme, which was a one off had already been show. Theoretically although perhaps not the case, this example suggests that a broadcaster could show whatever they like, because action can only be taken after the programme has been broadcasted.
Let us not forgot however, that the government appoint the members of this regulatory authority, one could argue with itself in mind (representaing a particular political view) and that close links remain with the two groups (ITC and Government).
Perhaps the reason that Television is constrained in many ways therefore is because unlike the press it is linked with ‘officialdom’ namely that it relies on the government in order to obtain a license and therefore needs to keep a good opinion with it. And also that the government has close links with the regulators as stated above.An example is the United States television companies – where although t.v broadcasters have freedom to report and add opinion to their stories they use this freedom sparingly, perhaps to maintain good favour with governing bodies of the time.
A comparison can often be made with the other sections of the media. The press (newspapers) aren’t dependant on officials for there existence, more opinionated editorial is expected and much easier to deliver, Often being critical of governmental principles, legislation and behaviour, unlike the typically impartial broadcasts of t.v companies. We find that regulation has set down these particular differences between the press and the broadcasting media, however is this due to the regulatory measures or other factors.
Regulation in itself apart from regulatory bodies and legislation affects television in perhaps a stronger way simply because of the way western society/countries work. Namely that because licences are needed to be able to broadcast, keeping a government/ leadership happy, seems to give a more positive result than breaking regulation and broadcasting outrageous stories hoping to gain high ratings and then losing the license you need to broadcast. So essentially the argument that you can broadcast whatever you like and just get a slap on the wrist, eventually faces more problems and becomes shadowed with keeping government favour. The issue of ‘Gate keeping’ and agenda setting therefore arrives into this argument. Is rejecting impartiality a small price to pay when trying to keep the government in favour. Can anyone or anything be truly impartial when stories and ways of reporting have huge impact; i.e. does the BBC report everything in a truly unbiased way when dealing with issues to do with the government. Does one often see stories that damage the government a manner that is irreparable, during war’s and conflicts does one see both sides of the coin or is there an element of favouritism towards our country and government. (Is one told the horrors that our army is committing, or is one just informed of the crisis our side is facing). Can one even prove this, Companies will deny this and essentially one has no way of finding out stories that never were reported, supposedly. The conspiracy theory is laid to rest when we return to the split in regulation between the press and the broadcasting media. If the press has ‘free reign’ to an extent then an impartial media (broadcasting) cannot be seen to not report lead stories that are in the papers.
BBC –
1996 broadcasting act.
To an extent this act has given broadcasting media more independence from the heavy regulations of past times. Not only giving channel four more independence it began to loosen ownership restrictions. Cross over media regulations were relaxed, with a number of key admissions, national newspapers with less than 20% market share were allowed to own one private broadcaster (radio, television or satellite) and have full control of non-domestic satellite broadcasters. A publisher could now also own up to three local radio licences if it had less than 20% of local circulation (subject to terms). If a local newspaper had between 20 and 50% of local circulation it could now only own one local FM radio station and one AM station. If a local newspaper had over 50% of local circulation it could only own one local radio station (subject to a terms again). Terrestrial broadcasters could now own up to 20% stake in national newspapers and non-domestic satellite licences. While Regional publishers were now allowed to own one regional broadcaster, as long as there was no major overlap between the licensed area and the paper's circulation area.
However although the act enabled in affect a loosening on ownership, new measurements were brought in to maintain the strict rigour of regulation. Market measurements were introduced to limit audience share to 15%. Therefore there is no limited on ownership, as long as your company ownership and licence holding does not exceed 15%. One would say from this that regulation is still strict in the UK, however when we compare it to the many instances of rule breaking, and the almost minuscule punishment is associated, one has to question the validity of a regulatory bodies within the U.K.
It has been suggested in public debate in the 1990’s that far from being an effective regulatory system within the UK, it is very much lacking, described as an uncohesive, muddled system by which to control broadcasters and telecommunications. A comparison has been set up looking at our transatlantic counterparts, particularly that of the United States and Canada. Within these countries there is one body, which regulates all broadcasting, and telecommunications whereby no overlap between regulation occurs and loopholes appear. (USA has the Federal communications commission, Canada having the Canadian radio-television and telecommunications commission)
Brass eye special – comedy on paedophilia