I thought one of the more engaging articles in Ofcom’s recent book on pluralism was written by Tim Suter. In his piece Suter questions the notion that rules on due impartiality are coherent and future-proof. He writes in part:

‘The fact that the requirement for impartiality stretches back to the beginning of broadcasting, but not into print journalism, implies that it relates to some specific characteristics of broadcasting. Of these, two are particularly important: the necessity for state intervention to secure access to spectrum and therefore audiences; and, linked to that, the potential of the medium to exert a powerful influence over public opinion.’

Suter then goes on to demonstrate that these two characteristics are now diminishing the rationale for the regulation. He continues:

‘With some 750 or so channels broadcasting under an Ofcom licence, the regulator’s ability to monitor output, even if it wished to, would be severely limited. Furthermore, that output includes a large number of channels, properly licensed by Ofcom but targeting either non-UK audiences or specific linguistic and ethnic communities within the UK.’

Everyone may recall in this respect that Ofcom once adjudicated the impartiality of a Swedish language programme!

Obviously Tim Suter is right here. Basing impartiality rules on public desire for impartial news is a bit like asking the public: Do you value the importance of stable marriages? and then — when 85% of them answer ‘yes’ — use that as support for a measure restricting the rights of women to obtain divorces.

Rules on impartiality are restrictions on the freedom of expression that foster a bland TV news and current affairs landscape. Suter rightly points out that it is nearly impossible to prove this using evidence. In my opinion these policies only increase the vocal power of the establishment.

And we saw the odd, un-converged nature of these policies just recently: In the Guardian Zoe Williams launched a vicious attack on Boris Johnson. Controversial? Sure. But most people accepted it as part of the political cut-and-thrust surrounding elections. At the same time James Whale was sacked from TalkSport radio for openly supporting Johnson. Ofcom presides over a system of rules that single out radio and TV for their influence when everyone knows it is more of a mixed bag. There was 10 times more buzz about what Zoe Williams did.

Most people think for themselves and are not influenced by either Williams or Whale…

So, Tim Suter has sketched out a very interesting argument here. I hope it will taken up by Ofcom or the government but I doubt it. It takes a brave politician like Ronald Reagan (who ended the similar U.S. rules) to jettison rules meant to protect their own interests.