The chief executive of Ofcom tells the Oxford Media Convention that the regulator does not want to become a 'super regulator' but future regulation should adapt to the 'more fluid boundaries' of digital media
This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.
There used to be something here that couldn't be migrated - please contact us at info@journalism.co.uk if you'd like to see this updated!
A "core set of principals" could be established between the Press Complaints Commission, the BBC and Ofcom, requiring video on demand to comply with a joint code with rules on accuracy, privacy, protecting young people, and not glamorising crime, it was suggested today.
In a keynote speech to the Oxford Media Convention today Ed Richards, chief executive of broadcast regulator Ofcom, set out his "initial thoughts on the future of media regulation", including the core principals suggestion.
But he said he does not believe in one "super regulator" due to fundamental differences between print and broadcast media.
Richards spoke of some of the challenges of regulation and the protection of audiences when compared with those of the "pre-internet world".
"Converged or connected TVs, which incorporate broadcast, video on demand and open internet services, are considered to be closer to a TV-like experience," Richards said. "Audiences therefore expect content over these devices to be more regulated than internet content accessed through PCs and laptops."
He added that "for future regulation to work", it will have to be capable of adapting to "the more fluid boundaries" of digital media "in contrast to the relatively fixed and separate silos of printing presses, TV transmitters and telecoms networks".
"While the transmitters and presses will be with us in some form and to some degree for many years to come, it is the digital environment that presents us with the future and therefore the questions we must answer."
He presented four suggestions to the conference, firstly that "we should avoid tinkering with the established regulation around broadcast TV", secondly that "we should strive to preserve the spirit of the open internet" and thirdly, that the "government, regulators and industry" should be asked to provide "clear information, education and a framework of personal responsibility through which individuals and families can exercise informed choice".
His fourth suggestion was for a system which lies "in between the twin poles of linear TV and the open internet".
"When something looks, feels and acts like TV, but is delivered over the internet and into people’s living rooms, we need something that meets audiences' expectations and provides the right degree of reassurance," he added.
"It seems undesirable for these services to be subject to full broadcasting style regulation – by and large they belong to a different form of service and come from a very different context. But we do need to consider whether to develop the approach in relation to existing co-regulation for video on demand to offer greater assurance and to ensure there is public trust in the approach to regulation as these services become more and more pervasive and significant."
He explained that Ofcom takes an "interest in the debate" because "the difference between video on demand content and that of increasingly video rich digital 'newspapers' may well diminish".
"There is a need for a coherent overall approach to digital media, covering linear broadcast at one end and internet publishing at the other."
Referring to the Leveson inquiry , he added: "Press regulation is under scrutiny at a time when newspapers are rapidly expanding the scale and scope of their digital services.
"A coherent approach will anticipate this world, in which the rigid boundaries defined by traditional means of delivery will be gone."
