11: Regulation of print and broadcast media
Shouldn’t there be complete freedom for print, broadcast and online news media to ensure freedom of expression and independence, the free flow of information and opinion?
Not really. These media are a powerful tool and with power comes responsibility. There are also many stakeholders involved – content producers, owners, consumers – as well as legal, professional, economic and other issues. So there needs to be regulation of some sort. Of course, there can be ‘good’ regulations and ‘bad’ ones – depending on who exercises regulatory control and to what purpose.
The basic principle
Any rules imposing restrictions on media freedom should be exceptional, and not be so excessive as to undercut the basic right of expression. International law prescribes that all limitations on freedom of expression and access to information must:
- be justifiably necessary and proportional – meaning the least intrusive measure possible in order to protect other basic rights,
- serve a legitimate purpose according to international standards,
- be codified in written laws and regulations and exclude subjective interpretations and applications.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS
Effective regulation can achieve a number of positive impacts. It can protect and promote media pluralism, for example by putting limits on ownership concentration to avoid monopolies or by providing active support to minority media, like community radios. It can promote diversity of content by setting requirements on educational programming for children or quotas on local content and languages, to make sure that all sections of society are represented and heard in the media.
Good regulation, and in particular effective self-regulation, can also help to improve and professionalise journalistic outputs and news media performance in general. Self-regulation can ensure that basic standards of fair and factual reporting are set, and are seen to be met, and that errors will be corrected. Overall, there need to be safeguards that editorial independence from government is guaranteed and practised.
Good regulation will also establish mechanisms for members of the public to raise complaints about media content or conduct, and seek redress when their rights were violated. All of this will help to build media credibility, which is the currency of the professional news enterprises.
Bad regulation, in particular regulation imposed by governments, does the opposite in all these respects. And ‘bad’, in this context, means regulation that does not set out to enable the practice of press freedom and freedom of expression, but is – instead – designed specifically to narrow the scope of possible dissent and to rein in news media. This is either through cumbersome over-regulation – or through the imposition of punitive measures to curtail and stifle journalism and the voicing of critical opinions.
MECHANISMS OF REGULATION
There is statutory regulation (by legislation with a state-appointed oversight body, for example selected by parliament), self-regulation (by the industry itself – which may often also involve civil society personnel in media councils), and co-regulation (a hybrid of state and industry self-regulation).
Here’s what the African Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information has to say:
“States shall encourage media self-regulation which shall be impartial, expeditious, cost-effective, and promote high standards in the media.
Co-regulation may also be encouraged by states as a complement to self-regulation, founded on informed collaboration between stakeholders including the public regulatory authority, media and civil society.”
All forms of regulation are under continuous contestation. Sometimes, it is governments seeking greater control, sometimes it is the industry or other vested interests seeking specific arrangements and/or results. The important issue is designing regulatory arrangements to be sufficiently robust and transparent to avoid permanent capture by a single power.
SELF-REGULATION
For news media institutions, the preferred option in democratic countries worldwide is self-regulation. The first step to such control by the industry itself is the development of a Code of Conduct which follows this principle of the Declaration:
“Codes of ethics and conduct shall be developed by the media through transparent and participatory processes and shall be effectively implemented to ensure the observance of the highest standards of professionalism by the media.“
Such codes contain, for example, rules on professional standards such as truthfulness, accuracy and fairness, protection of confidential sources of information, public apologies or retraction of wrong stories, and respect for the right to privacy.
There is debate whether codes should have additional regulations for online news media, such as regarding ‘user-generated content’ or comments from users. Usually there is no editorialand professional control of such contributions. Should there be? Some media codes state expressly that online news media are not obliged to monitor and moderate such content or to remove inappropriate or offensive contributions. Other codes make such processes obligatory.
Moderation of comments by online news media is advised by many experts because it protects the image or mission of the publication. Smaller journalistic projects may find this difficult to do, because they cannot afford to have moderators on their staff. They often encourage users to report content which they believe is not appropriate, but that still needs will and capacity to address such reports.
Self-regulatory bodies
Once a common code of ethics has been agreed, the media industry establishes institutional self-regulatory bodies to monitor and enforce compliance with these standards. The purpose of such media councils or Ombudspersons is to show that the media are truly accountable to the public for upholding professional standards, as well as to protect journalists against outside interference from state or business interests.
A media council or Ombudsperson also acts as a complaints body. Any member of the public who feels aggrieved by a published story, or who thinks that the responsible journalist (or editor) did not comply with the requirements of the code of conduct or ethics, can take his or her complaint to the council. Decisions on such matters should then be published or broadcast, corrections implemented, and possibly sanctions imposed on media that do not comply.
There are two different approaches to setting up media councils: One is to appoint representatives of journalists and publishers only – self-regulation in the narrow sense. The other is to have members of the general public actively involved in order to increase the mechanism’s credibility and acceptance.
Self-regulation won’t really work, however, if it just happens quietly and largely out of the public view. All participating media need to spread the message and publish the necessary information continuously – which is their core business anyway and should not be difficult to do.
STATUTORY REGULATION
The state regulates broadcasting. This is necessary for broadcast radio and some TV because the frequency spectrum band allows only a limited number of services to operate at any one time and free of interference. Therefore, it makes sense to establish a system or an authority to distribute frequencies fairly and openly by issuing licences.
In the case of digital television with a multitude of available channels, the spectrum still remains public property that must be regulated to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to broadcasting. If there was no public oversight over the spectrum and the free market reigned supreme, private companies might give access to their programmes only to those households able to pay for their services, and free-to-air television could be a thing of the past. Hybrid models exist where digital television companies may offer tiers of both paid and free access.
Statutory licensing is meant to guarantee fair competition, diversity of services and control of ownership to prevent media concentration. This may include limitations on cross-media ownership, for example on companies operating both print and broadcast media outlets, as well as on the number of radio or TV stations a single broadcaster may control.
Content can also be broadly covered by statutory regulation, with the emphasis on ‘broadly’. This may include the requirement to offer news bulletins, local content and music, content in various languages spoken in the country, broadcasting of sports and other events of national interest. Limits may be set on advertising and infomercials as well as regulations on the timing of “watershed” periods for broadcast content not suitable for children (typically in the evening).
In 2025, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights initiated consultations on what constitutes public interest content in today’s communications system, and how this can be promoted on all platforms.
Regulatory bodies for broadcasting
The crucial question in regard to statutory regulation is who is going to exercise it. Here again, the Declaration on Principles of Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa gives guidance:
“A public regulatory authority that exercises powers in the areas of broadcast, telecommunications or internet infrastructure shall be independent and adequately protected against interference of a political, commercial or other nature. The appointment process for members of a public regulatory body overseeing broadcast, telecommunications or internet infrastructure shall be dependent and adequately protected against interference.”
IN SUMMARY
There is no one-size-fits-all model regulation for media in general and news media in particular. Individual states and societies need to work out what will best suit their specific circumstances and requirements, aligned to international and African standards on freedom of expression and access to information.
This debate must include all stakeholders, take account of international and local experiences, and rest on the basis of one common premise: The key overarching goal of regulation is the protection and deepening of the media’s role in support of all citizens’ rights of freedom of expression and access to information. A current question is how media (and not just traditional newspapers and broadcasters) should – or should not – be regulated in digital space. And whether conditions applied to them should also be prescribed to enterprises like YouTube, TikTok and Netflix.
For information on the regulation of the Internet please read here
This INFO BITE is selected from the online course on Media
and Digital Policy in Africa, offered by Stellenbosch University
in association with Namibia Media Trust.
There are free and paid options available for the full course.
Explore more BITES on a number of related topics
