Regulating the second screen?

blog posts |

Posted by Patricia Holland

---

Pat Holland teaches at  Bournemouth University and is Vice-chair of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom

---

The multitude of screens of all sizes -not just second, but third and even more- which now surround the ‘first screen’ of the television set, clearly pose problems for regulation. Speakers at the Forum had plenty of data to demonstrate that the use of both supplementary and alternative media is rapidly increasing. The eyes of the 21st century audience flick up and down, from TV to smart phone and back (this is not split attention, argued Don Biddle, it’s double attention). But there was a sense that the enormity of this change is still finding everyone unprepared.

In particular where does it leave the regulator?

Sir Roger Gale, chairing the session on regulation, was concerned. He began by noting the fears brought by unlimited access to this deluge of unregulated material, in particular content such as pornography and terrorism. But the mood of the session was that regulation was not only increasingly difficult, but increasingly undesirable. Regulation is old fashioned (although the term was not used). It’s out of step with technology;  it’s still based on telecoms. “Telecoms are an economic bottleneck" declared Julian Ashworth from British... er...  BT (is there an irony there?).

So can Ofcom protect UK users from undesirable content in this dynamic new world - in particular, can they protect children? The answer as David Mahoney made clear, is that it is increasingly difficult. Instead Ofcom puts stress on “consumer awareness" of what media are regulated and what are not. (In the case of children this means an emphasis on media literacy and advice to parents).

However, although protection is clearly an important issue, in my view it is not the key issue. I would argue that to reduce regulation to child protection, as John Enser of Olswang suggested, is a way of distracting from the central purpose of a regulator. It avoids Ofcom’s central commitment to serve “citizens" as well as “consumers". When Ofcom was first set up there was a vocal campaign to ensure that “citizens" were in there alongside “consumers" - and they have hung on with increasing difficulty.  

It’s clear that Ofcom’s jurisdiction is limited: the vast majority of available online material is not originated in the UK - hence not subject to UK regulation.  Nevertheless an open and explicit commitment to the public service aspects of all media, balancing those that come under UK jurisdiction with those that do not, would mean a significant change of emphasis. It would move the emphasis away from regulation seen as limiting, towards regulation seen as enabling.  That means putting the interests of citizens first, and ensuring that spaces are there for material which may not win the largest audiences, but which are nevertheless valuable and contribute to a diversity of output.

The work which Ofcom have done in promoting children’s programmes as an essential part of a pubic service commitment is a good example of this. David Mahoney suggested that there’s a case for “modernising” Ofcom’s priorities.  I would suggest that a truly modern approach would put the rights of citizens at the heart of regulation.

The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom was founded in 1979 and campaigns for a diverse, democratic and accountable media. It’s most recent publication is 'Big media and the internet titans', edited by Granville Williams (CPBF 2014), and is available here.

DATELINE: 6 January, 2015

Share

---