Abstract
Neoliberalism is the defining trajectory of modern communications policy making and a fruitful area of study for media policy scholars – especially, when it involves interrogating neoliberalism’s compatibility with modern democratic politics. These inquiries are often framed by the tenets of political economy, management theory, or some flavor of comparative regulatory analysis. Lunt and Livingstone bring a unique approach to this arena by weighing the efficacy of media policy making in terms of its deliberative functionality.
Some context, that is, media regulation in the United Kingdom has undergone a structural transformation in the last decade and a half. The New Labour government that came to power in 1997 roundly instilled marketplace principles at the core of its governance philosophy but took several years to rework regulatory institutions to reflect this priority. The year 2003 was a watershed year with the passage of the Communications Act, which spun off many aspects of media regulation to the Office of Communications, or Ofcom, a quasi-governmental body formally divorced from ministerial government. Complicating this transition was the regionalization of governance illustrated by the growing remit of pan-European regulatory agencies. The election of a coalition (conservative/liberal democrat) government in 2010 signals yet another transformational moment for British media regulation. Thus, Lunt and Livingstone’s work stands strongest as a snapshot of how UK media policy has been made in the first decade of the 21st century.
The analytical framework of Media Regulation is loosely configured around latter-day Habermasian conceptions of the public sphere, specifically, that not a single unified public sphere exists and that quasi-governmental institutions can and should play a role in facilitating the deliberative fora necessary for aspirationally democratic media regulation. The authors seek to illuminate just how Ofcom engaged with and/or facilitated notions of the public sphere in the context of policy development. Has the separation from ministerial government provided new latitude with regard to policy investigation and discussion? Are the means and metrics by which Ofcom envisions and engages ‘the public’ relevant and appropriate? Is there any reflexivity in these processes?
These ambitious questions are explored in the first half of the book through an examination of the discourse behind Ofcom’s enabling document, the Communications Act 2003, and the Office’s own institutional policies that derive from it. It makes for a strange mix, that is, Ofcom is established along corporate organizational lines and by charge favors actions that foster marketplace competition whenever possible, yet it also seeks to function as a facilitator of information and stakeholder engagement in the policy process. Key tensions revolve around conceptions of the public as citizens versus consumers, which is emblematic of larger tensions that exist between the compatibility of markets and democracy. The authors vividly illustrate how Ofcom’s own utilization of these terms is fuzzy and relativistic.
The second half of the book is devoted to four case studies that illustrate these contradictions. Ofcom’s public service broadcasting inquiries and establishment of a new community radio service most clearly reflect regulation with a citizen prerogative but its charge to ‘promote competition’ interferes with these efforts in many important ways. In consumer-centric policy efforts, such as banning junk food advertising in children’s programs and exploring the potential of media literacy, Ofcom built strong evidentiary and discursive foundations for regulation, though the outcomes were similarly weakened.
Although the authors are quite explicit in stating that their evaluative objectives focus on the deliberative qualities of policy making, a relative tone of disappointment manages to seep through. They do believe that Ofcom has done much to cultivate opportunities for and means of civic consultation, but it has failed to articulate its regulatory rationales: in terms of reasoned consensus among the views that come before it, proactive and agonistic deliberation among the views that exist in society, or merely the public expression of interests in advance of an expert process of decision making undertaken in private. (p. 190)
Such a qualified conclusion is appropriate, for the book is essentially an amalgam of prior research projects conducted by the authors woven together with an extensive literature review. Media Regulation makes an important historical contribution to the story of media policy making in the United Kingdom and raises many important questions that all scholars working at the intersection of media policy and democratic politics would be wise to take to heart.