Two incidents show us everything that is wrong with the UK’s broadcast regulator, Ofcom. The first involved a theocratic government obtaining a scripted interview under duress from Maziar Bahari, an Iranian-Canadian journalist imprisoned by the Iranian government in 2009, and using its broadcasting arm to spread misleading information to bolster its own position. The second was Investigation Discovery airing episodes of Deadly Women pre-watershed containing reconstructions, admittedly graphic, but containing no unsimulated harm of murders with added voiceovers. The former caused actual physical harm to an individual, the latter did not. And yet, counterintuitively, both merited the same sanction under Ofcom’s regulations – a £100,000 fine.

What is more, although Press TV, the Iranian state-owned English-language broadcaster, no longer broadcasts in the UK, this is not as a result of the interview with Bahari. Rather, it was down to a technical breach of the Communications Act – the broadcasting licence was not held by the Iranian entity which actually controlled output. As Ofcom noted, had Press TV either transferred editorial control to the UK or correctly licenced the channel from Iran, the revocation of the licence would not have occurred. In fact, bizarrely Ofcom even “offered to assist it” with this process.

Ofcom, as a regulator, aims to influence the actions of television stations through its regulations. Its decision on these two cases, in which the harm of a forcible confession broadcast uncritically on a state network subjected to the same punishment as the unfortunate scheduling of a true crime programme, demonstrates a failure to use resources wisely. Much like how the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) puts most of its resources into the safety of reactors rather than the design of the car parks of power stations, Ofcom’s resources should be dedicated to areas which cause the most harm.

Part of the problem is that, whereas the ONR has specialist inspectors to seek out dangers, Ofcom has to rely on complaints from viewers before it can intervene. For example, in 2023, the same year that The Word Network, the largest African-American religious broadcasting network in the world, was flogging “Miracle Spring Water” which allegedly healed illnesses and promised riches, the most complained-about moments were crass, offensive comments and nudity. There are arguments for restricting output in this way, but when the bulk of Ofcom’s resources are spent on offensive but non-harmful programmes, issues which demonstrably carry risks of actual harm are pushed to the sidelines. Indeed, the decision about Miracle Spring Water was not published until nearly two years after the original broadcast. When compared with the two months it took to give Radio Winchcombe a telling off for not censoring Noah Kahan’s Homesick, the question must be asked as to how Ofcom approaches its role.

Pages and pages of regulations exist to govern what can be shown on television and at what time. For instance, the guide on public attitudes survey on offensive language takes almost 40 pages to say that, yes, the word “fuck” is generally considered offensive. Yet, the most serious breaches of the trust people place in television channels still go unresolved for long periods. Perhaps the reason for this is that it is far easier to judge whether a network has broadcast inappropriate language than to determine if the Miracle Spring Water programme was directly responsible for causing harm. However, the effect of focusing solely on potential regulatory breaches simply because they require less effort, unhelpfully shifts a regulator’s focus to lesser and, perhaps hypothetical, offences. This is not only an example of regulatory overreach but also wastes taxpayers’ money.

Thankfully, there is a readily available solution to such issues.

Indeed, a better model for regulation can be found in how newspapers are regulated. The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the industry’s largest regulator, confines its regulations to preventing actions which cause actual harm to the subjects of stories and readers. IPSO’s Editors’ Code of Practice sets out standards on the accuracy of stories and maintaining the privacy of any sources. Importantly, though, it is accepted that, if a reader sees something they personally find offensive, like a controversial newspaper column, but which does not definitely cause them harm, then they can purchase a different newspaper or complain to the newspaper itself. Through this self-discipline in regulation and trusting the consumer to make their own choices to avoid content they would find objectionable, the regulator’s work and resources remain focused on more important, and genuinely harmful matters, such as protecting the privacy of children.

Ofcom can, and should, adopt a similar approach. Yes, this may cause one or two programmes with distressing scenes to air before the watershed, but by and large, it does not make business sense to put shocking, violent content on screens when families could be watching, as doing so would cause parents to switch over. More importantly, though, such a regulatory regime, could better serve all viewers — directing more resources towards dealing with dangerous content and misleading broadcasts.

Any industry relies on a strong foundation of minimal and enforceable standards. Indeed, it is right that they do so for the protection customers and to create a fairer and more level playing field. Ofcom has a vital role to play in this. Handling licences, spectrum allocations, preventing scams and misleading content; these functions are what should be focused on. Policing the occasional swear word rather than adequately responding to cases of real harm provides little value to consumers. By adopting a framework similar to that of the printed press and trusting that audiences will switch off if they take offence, Ofcom can refocus on its core responsibilities and protect viewers from clear harms.

Alex Elliott is a Member of Bright Blue. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Bright Blue.