Regulation of Media Content

In Lesson 4 we examined regulation through the lens of Livingstone and Lunt's citizen/consumer framework. In this lesson we go deeper into the practice of content regulation: who regulates what, how, with what powers, and with what controversies. This lesson maps the regulatory ecosystem in detail and examines the Leveson Inquiry and its aftermath. By the end, you should be able to write precisely about Ofcom's powers (including the Online Safety Act), the press regulation split, film and games classification, advertising standards, and the politics of post-Leveson regulation.

The UK Regulatory Landscape

The UK media regulatory landscape is a patchwork. Different sectors are regulated by different bodies with different powers and different legal foundations. Memorising this accurately is essential.

Regulator	Sector	Legal Basis	Enforcement
Ofcom	Broadcasting, telecoms, online safety	Statute (Communications Act 2003; Online Safety Act 2023)	Fines, licence revocation
IPSO	Most national press	Industry self-regulation	Complaints handling; cannot fine (mostly)
IMPRESS	Smaller press outlets	Royal Charter compliant	Fines, binding arbitration
BBFC	Film and video classification	Statute (Video Recordings Act); DVD/cinema licensing	Classifications; cinemas/shops legally required to enforce
VSC / PEGI	Video games	Statute (VRA amended)	Legally enforceable ratings since 2012
ASA	Advertising	Industry self-regulation; back-stopped by Ofcom and trading standards	Ruling publication, referral
CMA	Competition / mergers	Statute	Blocking mergers, fines
ICO	Data / privacy	Statute (UK GDPR)	Fines up to 4% turnover

Livingstone and Lunt (Lesson 4) remind us that this patchwork embodies citizen/consumer tensions at every level.

Ofcom: The Converged Regulator

Ofcom is the UK's most powerful media regulator. Its remit includes:

Broadcasting

Ofcom regulates UK-licensed TV and radio through the Broadcasting Code, covering:

• Impartiality (rules on news and political content).
• Harm and offence (protection from harmful or offensive content).
• Protecting under-18s (watershed, scheduling).
• Accuracy (especially in news).
• Privacy (in programme-making).
• Fairness (to contributors).
• Commercial communications (product placement, sponsorship).

Breaches can result in:

• Findings and published rulings (public shaming).
• Fines (up to 5% of relevant revenue for serious breaches).
• Sanctions including licence variations.
• Revocation of licence (the "nuclear option", rarely used).

High-profile Ofcom cases in recent years include breaches by GB News (impartiality rulings in 2023–24), rulings on Good Morning Britain, and investigations into specific news items.

Telecommunications

Ofcom ensures telecoms (BT, Virgin, Sky, mobile operators) compete fairly, protect consumers, and maintain universal service. Spectrum auctions are a major Ofcom function.

Online Safety (since 2023)

The Online Safety Act 2023 radically expanded Ofcom's remit. It must now:

• Regulate user-to-user services (social media) and search engines.
• Enforce duties to address illegal content, content harmful to children, and certain other harms.
• Require risk assessments and transparency reports.
• Fine platforms up to £18 million or 10% of global turnover.
• Potentially block access to services in extreme cases.

This represents a major extension of regulatory reach. Critics worry about free-expression implications, encryption debates, and overreach. Supporters argue it addresses a long-standing gap.

flowchart TD
    A[Ofcom Remit] --> B[Broadcasting]
    A --> C[Telecoms]
    A --> D[Spectrum]
    A --> E[Postal]
    A --> F[Online Safety<br/>since 2023]
    A --> G[Video-Sharing<br/>Platforms]
    B --> B1[Code enforcement]
    B --> B2[Fines]
    B --> B3[Licence decisions]
    F --> F1[Platform duties]
    F --> F2[Risk assessments]
    F --> F3[Major fines]

What Ofcom Does NOT Regulate

For the exam, it is crucial to know what Ofcom does NOT do:

• Does NOT regulate UK national newspapers (IPSO / IMPRESS do).
• Does NOT classify films or games (BBFC / PEGI do).
• Does NOT regulate advertising content directly (ASA does).
• Did NOT regulate most online content before 2023 (major gap).

Press Regulation: IPSO and IMPRESS

UK press regulation is controversial. After the phone-hacking scandal and Leveson Inquiry (2011–12), the UK was left with a split system:

IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation)

• Established 2014 after the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) collapsed.
• Regulates most national newspapers (The Sun, Daily Mail, Times, Telegraph, Mirror, Express, and many regional titles).
• NOT Leveson-compliant (does not meet the Royal Charter criteria fully, not recognised by the Press Recognition Panel).
• Can require corrections; rarely fines (though it has a standing investigations unit).
• Industry-funded through the Regulatory Funding Company.

IMPRESS

• Established 2016 by Max Mosley-funded trust (controversial).
• Leveson-compliant; recognised by the Press Recognition Panel.
• Regulates smaller outlets and specialist publishers (around 200 publications).
• Can fine; has binding arbitration.
• Seen by critics as too small and politically associated.

The Guardian and FT: Neither

Notably, The Guardian and the Financial Times are members of neither IPSO nor IMPRESS. They operate under their own internal complaints systems (e.g. The Guardian's Readers' Editor). This reflects a tradition in quality press of prefering internal accountability to industry regulation.

The Leveson Inquiry

The Leveson Inquiry (2011–12) arose from the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World. Revelations that journalists had hacked the phones of celebrities, politicians, and — critically — murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler produced a political crisis. Lord Justice Leveson chaired a judicial inquiry into press standards.

Key findings:

• Systemic failures at some titles.
• Regulatory failure of the PCC.
• Unhealthy relationships between press, politicians, and police.
• Recommendation for a new regulatory system with statutory underpinning (not government control, but a legal backstop to enforce independence).

The 2013 cross-party Royal Charter set up the Press Recognition Panel to certify regulators. Only IMPRESS sought and received recognition. The main industry rejected the Charter and created IPSO outside it.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was designed to incentivise publishers to join a recognised regulator by making non-members liable for both sides' legal costs even if they won. Section 40 was never fully commenced, and was repealed by the Media Act 2024. This effectively killed the Leveson-compliance incentive.