Episodic manifestations of power

There remains a place in the scheme of things for manifestations of power that are more episodic or intense. Indeed, it is probably correct to say that one of the most compelling characteristics of a disciplinary regime of power is that through its ongoing operation it establishes the conditions for just such manifestations-for, in the words of the white paper that gave us Ofcom, "tough action when necessary." Industry participants are required and expected to be cautious and correct, and no doubt Ofcom's arsenal of reviews and consultations raises the prospect that they will be; but deviations from acceptable practice inevitably will still occur, and Ofcom can fall back on "tough action" in just such circumstances.

Recent years have seen plenty of opportunities to take action of this form, especially with the emergence in 2007 of an extraordinary spate of cases of alleged deception and abuse of consumer trust in connection with broadcasters' premiumrate phone-in competitions. Thus ITV was handed Ofcom's largest ever fine against a broadcaster in May 2008, £5.7m, for "serious breaches of its code regarding misconduct in viewer competitions and votings." And more severe measures are certainly within Ofcom's jurisdiction: a growing number of broadcasters have had their licences revoked. Moreover, if Ofcom can periodically resort to these more tangible manifestations of power, it is also the case that it is itself the creation of one such "sovereign" (government) intervention. Thus Ofcom does not in any way stand "apart" from and separate to sovereign power, even if it is nominally "independent" of government as well as of industry.

Ofcom is fully accountable to Parliament through various Parliamentary Committees and the National Audit Office. Indeed if Ofcom, as a disciplinary regime, fails to deliver adequate "performance" and demonstrate acceptable standards against its various duties and regulatory principles, then it is quite feasible for the government to intervene and to establish a new disciplinary regime-with, undoubtedly, its own alternative experts and truths. Hence Richard Collins's pertinent observation that where the UK media sector is concerned, "much power still resides with government." Nevertheless, if our goal is to try to understand the nature of the power relations that structure the relationships between Ofcom and the bodies it regulates, "disciplinary" seems to me the best available moniker. Ofcom is an ever-present supervisor. Its presence and background procedures lessen the likelihood of the need for conspicuous intervention precisely because those being reviewed, monitored and analyzed know that they are, and are therefore inclined to act accordingly.

It is of course this self-knowledge that allows Ofcom to govern, to the public eye at any rate, with, to use Collins's word, "discretion." Hesmondhalgh is clearly right to speak of Ofcom and greater industry self-regulation; and the extent of such self-regulation is in fact likely to further increase in the years ahead, with Ofcom actively exploring opportunities to broaden the application of this modality of governance. But Hesmondhalgh's intimation that such self-regulation represents a form of deregulation, or a relaxing of powers, seems wrong. It is in fact just a different (and arguably magnified) form of regulation, in which the disciplinary nature of power further shifts the burden of control and supervision from the regulator to those being regulated. My argument is that the materialization of this type of power can and should be coupled to the mapping of the creative industries and to the ways in which this enframing has made those industries available to knowledge and discipline.

Episodic manifestations of power

Legal Disclaimer

Related Articles