Ofcom broadcasting code review: pick the low hanging fruit

Continuing this summer’s non-linear approach to Ofcom-themed blogging, I finally got around to reviewing Ofcom’s proposed changes to the broadcasting code.  You have until 4 Sept 09 to respond to Ofcom.  You can submit comments here.

Let’s start with the basics: Most of the broadcasting code is ridiculous.  With a code of some sort required by the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom doesn’t have much choice — Parliament essentially created a two-tiered system with heavy content controls (reflected in the broadcasting code) on television and radio, with virtually none (other than the general criminal laws) covering the internet.  The result?  We citizens and consumers are now thought to desire/demand certain types of protection on television and radio that we have come not to expect for the internet.  Unsurprisingly, therefore, Ofcom’s document only mentions the “internet” once — and only in passing.

So don’t expect a rational system of media policy for content regulation in the UK.

Anyway… so back to the Ofcom consultation.  I thought the interesting aspect of the consultation is that it is targeted to four areas where Ofcom thinks updates are warranted.  Ofcom is willing to consider other areas for change, but only insofar as it will tee them up for future consultation.

I have a few suggestions.  Five juicy pieces of low hanging fruit Ofcom can pluck off the tree of regulation…

Rules 2.6-2.9. Folks, check these out! They relate to protecting viewers and listeners from depictions of exorcisms, the paranormal and hypnosis.  It’s like when you first saw The Matrix and it blew your mind.  Only Ofcom is there to make sure you don’t actually think The Matrix is real.

Rule 4.5. Certain religious programmes (excepting radio) cannot seek new recruits.  I thought that was the whole point of religious activities?  Helpfully Ofcom tells us that seeking new recruits means appealing for people to join.  So why is this rule in effect only for television, not for radio and not for the internet?

Rule 4.7. This rule regulates programmes in which a living person is claimed to have special powers.  LOL.

* * *

Don’t you agree that these are completely weird rules?  It’s as if Ofcom thinks that these five rules separate reality versus fantasy for UK listeners and viewers.  Without them, we would be lost … joining the wrong religions, believing in false demi-gods, and falling prey to the power of wizards.  On Freeview.

I suppose one can justify almost any regulation in that each of these in some sense could possibly protect a vulnerable person.  But these rules don’t really relate to any social problem that occurs on a regular enough basis to merit regulation.

There are many other portions of the broadcast code that are equally silly.  I recall the one episode where Ofcom adjudicated a Swedish language broadcast about the Swedish general election.  Classic.

I suppose all in all it’s just very hard to take much of this seriously.  Aside from the frauds associated with competitions — which Ofcom unfortunately did not pursue down the criminal route — these rules are often enforced with a hand slap at most.  With the steady rise of the internet some of these rules, particularly the ones aimed at regulation of news and current affairs, are already quaint.