By Professor Lorna Woods
There has been lots of discussion about press regulation and self regulation of late, with the PCC clearly in need of reform [see Leveson recommendations]. There are still voices arguing that self-regulation can work and often the ASA/CAP system is paraded of one such system of self-regulation that works. Certainly, the ASA is an effective organisation, but it is questionable whether it is true self-regulation. It works on the basis that the ASA sanctions have bite as its various members will restrict advertisers’ access to advertising space when advertisers do not comply with the code. It has a further backstop: the ASA may refer matters to the OFT under the Consumer Protection Regulations or the Business Protection Regulations. To date, reliance on the backstop powers of the OFT has been very much the exception. Are things changing, however?
Looking at the decisions of the ASA, a sub strand of cases is appearing. Many of the complained of advertisements appeared on the internet, including quite a number on companies’ own websites. This raises questions about the ASA (co) regulatory system. It has been very successful to date, but it has been based on an industry that had effectively a small audience, the media outlets and advertising agencies acting to a large degree as a funnel for the regulatory process, being a relatively small group that allowed ASA rules and rulings to reach out to the advertisers more generally. Essentially, this was a professional audience. That has changed: the internet has increased the number of outlets available and introduced the age of the amateur.
alexkantoniou
citycljj
Jamie Thunder
jtownend
admin
Natalie
oliverocallaghancity
sammc123
Law, Justice and Journalism 