How well is BBC content regulation serving us?

Good parents don’t bring up their children well by just telling them off when the neighbour knocks on the door and complains about them.

Regulating by complaint only - as Ofcom largely does - is a peculiar way to regulate BBC content. Not least because you have to be bloody persistent to get it to entertain a complaint in the first place.

If you have an issue with the BBC, you have to complain to the BBC first and clamber over three hefty It's a Knockout hurdles before you actually get someone to really consider the merit of your angry words.

From my experience, the final stage - The Executive Complaints Unit - is the only one when the BBC’s goal genuinely becomes about ascertaining right and wrong. Until then, they just seem to fob you off and apologise for delays.  

Most sane people would give up long before that.  Between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024 Ofcom received 2,709 complaints about BBC content. Of these, only 153 had completed the BBC’s complaints process first and the remainder were referred back to the BBC.  There is clear evidence that the public at large feel Ofcom is the appropriate home for their concerns.

By contrast, if one person complained about the radio stations I have ever run, Ofcom can investigate immediately and publish its response. It cannot be right for the commercial sector to be held to account more than the publicly-funded BBC.

Ofcom has many strengths in all manner of challenging areas – and it was lumbered with more BBC regulation less than ten years ago.  At that time, the BBC Trust was exterminated and the BBC Board (as distinct from the Exec) was supposed to serve as a part-watchdog over BBC activities. However, no matter how conscientiously that Board behaves, it is still the BBC. That is not to say that individuals on the Board necessarily have the sort of motives the press now impugn – but purely because they are ‘the BBC’.  Any judgment it reaches will still be that of the BBC and not seen by the general public to be necessarily a fair evaluation of any concern.

Some people have observed that Ofcom has not investigated the Panorama issue because no one complained. 

I’m not sure that is an excuse. Ofcom does have a responsibility for BBC content, which stretches rightly far beyond complaint handling*. Although the agreements do set out how Ofcom should handle BBC complaints, they certainly do not imply that the complaints process satisfies all Ofcom's statutory duties. Indeed, as we’ve found, complaints don’t tell the whole story.

I’m not sure if Ofcom was privy to the commissioning of the Prescott report or its outcomes. In its report on the BBC last year, Ofcom stated “Since our June 2022 review, the BBC has been reporting potential serious editorial breaches across its content to Ofcom. By alerting Ofcom to these breaches at an early stage, we are able to assess whether there are any exceptional circumstances which would cause us to intervene in the complaint". I’m unsure if the BBC did or did not do that in this case.

The BBC has been under unprecedented attack in the last few years. It is often groundless - from those who feel that hearing a view other than theirs is evidence of a wrong.  But in some areas, it has erred – as broadcasters do. Has Ofcom done all it can to reassure us that the BBC overall is equipped to be duly impartial?

Ofcom has investigated some complaints about BBC impartiality in recent years and notably found the BBC in breach for a World at One broadcast in 2022 and the Gaza documentary in October 2025.

In its 23/24 annual report on the BBC (another is due imminently), Ofcom referred to attitude trackers and noted that “Perceptions of impartiality fell this year, driven by multiple factors including many which do not directly relate to the BBC’s news and current affairs output. It has continued to implement its impartiality recommendations following the Serota review”.

Incidentally, the Serota Review following the Bashir affair, highlighted BBC remedial steps: “Programme teams, including Panorama, are (now) less isolated and autonomous with closer supervision and support.” The BBC’s ensuing action plan stated that: “serious breaches of editorial standards require (ing) an investigation involving or led by a non-BBC figure”.

Ofcom's 23/24 report also highlighted that:  “Complaint volumes received by Ofcom about the due impartiality of the BBC’s content increased from 918 complaints last year to 1,785 complaints over 2023/24, driven in part by the Israel-Gaza conflict, though no complaints were assessed as raising issues which warranted investigation”. 

Was that Ofcom saying it believed that the BBC was actually in a decent state - or not? What's its current view?  I am surprised that it has not commented on the current issue overall given its statutory responsibility.  In times like these, a regulator to lean on can be quite useful for a broadcaster. Mind you, if I were still a regulator I’d prefer to keep well away too.

Ofcom rightly observed: “impartiality remains an important aspect of the BBC‘s performance for which we continue to monitor audience perception”.

Ofcom’s familiar assertion about ‘monitoring’ tends to mean they look at a few graphs – and report what the BBC has told them it has done. But, of course, monitoring trends in levels of complaints to Ofcom about the BBC relies of the determination of individuals to spend their lives going through the BBC complaints processes first.

In the word of the regulator in an FOI letter:  “Ofcom does not monitor ITV or the media as a mass, either in general or for the specific topic of impartiality. From time to time, we carry out specific monitoring of services selected, but we do not have a schedule for doing this”.

Maybe it should.

The highest quality of independent media regulation is now more important than ever. It is essential for a fully-functioning democracy.

I’m not persuaded that the 'BBC First' complaints process and Ofcom’s subjugated and general role meets the requirements of today's complex world.

------------------------------------

Ofcom duties:

Under article 46 of the Charter, Ofcom must set an Operating Framework and issue an Operating Licence for the BBC’s UK public service output; in doing so it must set regulatory conditions “appropriate for requiring the BBC … “to secure the observance of standards in the content in the relevant UK Public Services … In consequence, Ofcom is responsible for regulating the BBC’s content standards (including the “due impartiality” requirement) via its Broadcasting Code (specifically Section 5: Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy).

Section 319(2)(c) and (d) of the Communications Act: Standards objectives — gives Ofcom the duty to set standards code “which appear to it best calculated to secure” that news is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality; and that persons providing programmes preserve due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and current public policy. Section 320 of the Act: Further rules about “due impartiality” in other programming (matters of political or industrial controversy or current public policy) (when taken together with s.319.

Operating Framework: Ofcom must secure content standards for the BBC so that the BBC’s viewers and listeners are appropriately protected. Under the Charter and Agreement, Ofcom has regulatory responsibility for all areas of BBC content standards including, for the first time, for the accuracy and impartiality of news, and the impartiality of any programme covering matters of political or industrial controversy and issues relating to current public policy.