Funferal

Models of broadcast regulation – Ombudsmen v Complaints Commissions

An interesting profile of the CPB ombudsman on Alternet got me thinking of the differences between the ombudsman model and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission we have in Ireland.
Although the CPB ombudsman seems to react in large part to complaints from viewers/listeners, he is free to report on content that he personally finds problematic – that is, he can act proactively, so the objects of his reportage can be expected to reflect the ideology and concerns he brings with him to the task. In contrast, the BCC only investigates specific complaints from members of the public – and is bound to investigate all complaints that are not deemed to be frivolous or vexatious (Section 18B (14) of the 1960 Act, as amended by the 1976 Act). This can facilitate a more programmatic approach by ombudsmen, the value of which depends on the quality of the ombudsmen in question.
The BCC makes its decisions as a board – that is, the BCC as a whole decides on complaints. The CPB Ombudsmen investigate as individuals. When the two Ombudsmen were appointed, one was clearly conservative, with the other, Ken Bode, presumably representing the non-conservative ‘half’ of America (the conservative Ombudsman has now resigned). the idea of liberal and conservative ombudsmen obviously runs against the idea of ombudsmen as fair outside observers. Again, this encourages Ombudsmen to investigate issues of particular interest to them, creating a personal program of work, rather than taking concerns of the public as they arise. Complaints that do not reflect the interests of particular Ombudsmen are unlikely to be properly addressed.
I should not, of course, from my own time on the BCC, that even with several people jointly addressing a complaint it is not necessarily going to be the case that each issue raised by a complainant will get a sympathetic hearing, but the process, whereby members of the commission discuss the complaints with each other, does facilitate such an engagement.
Also from my own experience, when I was on the BCC I was the only member with broadcast production experience. Two members were barristers (one practising, one in academia), one a solicitor, and the fifth member came from ‘civil society.’ That gives a somewhat different approach – perhaps a more cautious approach, better suited to adjudicating on complaints – than media analyst, who is better suited to independent self-directed analysis of the performance of a media organization.
Both the Ombudsman and the BCC are restricted to evaluating programs which have already been aired – restriction or analysis of programming prior to being aired is not permitted, which goes some way to prevent undue, unseen, influence on the production process, though past patterns of enforcement will of course have some impact on future production decisions.
Interestingly, while the BCC is an independent body – now housed with the BCI, but originally completely separate from other regulatory bodies, and even now reporting only to the Houses of Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) and, in the case of particular complaints, to the broadcasters and complainants involved, the CPB Ombudsman is employed by the body that decides on allocation of funding to public broadcasting bodies, and investigates those bodies, such as PBS and NPR. I wonder whether the Ombudsman also has a remit to investigate local broadcasters who receive funding from CPB? And would analysis be restricted to those programs that are funded directly from CPB subventions, or would a principle of indirect subvention be invoked?
I’m sure there are other differences, and advantages and disadvantages of each model, but those will do for now…