In order to establish if UK media regulations are fit for purpose, my research will first examine the principal rationales for regulation. If regulation is there to 'protect' the readers, viewers and listeners (referred to herein as 'audience'), is it effective? Given the multitude of media platforms and different regulatory requirements for these platforms, can this be done effectively whilst still protecting freedom of expression and the audience's right to receive information and ideas without interference by a public authority? It will compare UK media regulations across broadcast (including aspects of audio visual media on the internet), press and political advertising to establish the similarities and differences of the regulatory rules to find inconsistencies. In addition it will examine the influence that media providers' in-house editorial policies have and if these go above and beyond regulatory requirements. This paper will discuss scholarly theories of free speech to examine how regulation might both protect the rationales of free speech whilst still adhering to the principles of protecting the audience. It will include empirical research with media professionals; writers, performers, decision makers and regulators. This will explore their attitudes to statutory regulation, self-regulation and in-house editorial policy and discuss how this might affect editorial decisions. It will seek to establish if these attitudes could lead to a chilling effect on content producers. The interviewees will be asked about their interpretation and implementation of their in-house editorial policies and approach to freedom of expression rights when considering censorship decisions. They will also be asked if commercial factors and 'brand protection' come into play when they censor content. This should illustrate how much the interests of the writer and audience are taken into account when editorial decisions are made. Censorship and a chilling effect could negatively impact on the audience's right to receive information and thus their ability to effectively participate in democracy. The research should help illustrate if the current regulatory framework and editorial policy across platforms is contradictory and if (mis)interpretation of the guidelines and in-house editorial policy might lead to a more restrictive broadcasting environment than is necessary to comply with regulations. Ethical approval will be sought. The interviews will be recorded and a manuscript provided for interviewees to sign off before inclusion within the body of work. Consent forms will be signed by all interviewees. A democracy needs an informed electorate in order to properly function. The various media outlets are there to 'educate, inform and entertain'. If the media distort the facts and misinform their readers/audience, should they not be held accountable? If editorially responsible individuals restrict content within news and entertainment programming subjectively or due to commercial pressures, then are they not failing in their duty to protect the audience's right to receive information? Would this not also have the effect of restricting informed public debate and the public's ability to truly participate in democracy?
Given the recent referendum, new press regulatory bodies and a current proposal to rethink audio visual regulation across the European Union, this research is topical and timely. This proposed research will seek to establish if there are 'cracks' in the regulatory system which could have a detrimental effect on the audience's rights and suggest, if necessary, how these 'cracks' might be filled.