Broadcasting: Recent developments in the UK

Approximate read time: 45 minutes

The House of Lords is scheduled to debate the following motion on 8 January 2026:

Lord Fowler (Crossbench) to move that this House takes note of recent developments in relation to broadcasting in the United Kingdom.

Lord Fowler is a journalist and has chaired two regional newspaper groups.^[1] He also chaired the House of Lords BBC Charter Review Committee in the 2005–06 session and the House of Lords Communications Committee between 2007 and 2010.^[2]

1. Broadcasting landscape

1.1 Television

There is a mix of public service and non-public service television broadcasting in the UK. The BBC, ITV, STV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and S4C are all public service broadcasters (PSBs) but they have different operating models:^[3]

• The BBC is principally funded through the licence fee but also earns income from its commercial subsidiaries BBC Studios and BBC Studioworks.^[4] All of the BBC’s output—except its commercial operations—is covered by its PSB remit.^[5] Under its current BBC Royal Charter and Agreement, the BBC is required to meet five public purposes and its overarching mission “to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain”.^[6]
• ITV and STV are commercial companies that hold the licences issued by the communications regulator Ofcom for broadcasting on channel 3.^[7] There are 15 national and three regional channel 3 licences, and one licence for the UK-wide breakfast time service. ITV also runs free-to-air commercial ‘linear’ television channels and ITVX, an advertiser-funded streaming service.^[8] STV also runs STV Player, an advertiser-funded streaming service.^[9]
• Channel 4 is a publicly owned, non-profit organisation that invests its income back into commissioning content.^[10] It receives no public money and is funded entirely through its commercial activity. The Media Act 2024 removed restrictions that prevented Channel 4 from making its own content. Previously it could only commission content from external production companies.^[11] Channel 4 has said the opportunity to “produce and monetise its own intellectual property for the first time” forms part of its “broader ambition to diversify Channel 4’s revenue base”.^[12]
• Channel 5 is wholly owned by Viacom International Media Networks, a division of the US company Paramount Global.^[13] Paramount/Viacom also run non-PSB channels in the UK, such as Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon.^[14]
• S4C is a Welsh language channel. Independent production companies produce most of its programmes, with some content also made by the BBC.^[15] It is funded through a mix of public funding from the licence fee and commercial revenue from advertising and programme sponsorship.^[16] The Media Act 2024 updated S4C’s public service remit, provided greater clarity on its ability to invest and generate commercial revenue, and enabled new arrangements for the BBC to provide support to S4C rather than a fixed 10 hours of programming a week.^[17]

All BBC television channels are public service channels, but only the main channels of the other broadcasters have this status.^[18]

PSBs collectively have a responsibility to contribute to fulfilling the purposes of public service broadcasting in the UK, as set out in the Communications Act 2003.^[19] There are also specific obligations for individual PSBs. Ofcom oversees the BBC’s performance in delivering the mission and public purposes set out in the BBC Royal Charter and Agreement.^[20] Channel 3 services and Channel 5 must provide a “range of high quality and diverse” programming and audiovisual content, while Channel 4 must provide a “broad range of high quality and diverse” programming and audiovisual content.^[21] Ofcom monitors how PSBs are meeting their obligations, including quotas for:^[22]

• network programming: original productions, independent productions, news, current affairs and (Channel 4 only) schools programming
• regional production: network programmes made in the UK but outside London
• regional programming: programming made for the nations and regions (for channel 3 and BBC)

Other broadcasters must also obtain a licence from Ofcom to provide commercial television services in the UK.^[23] Programme content, advertising and transmission technical standards are all regulated as part of the licensing agreement. All broadcast programmes must abide by Ofcom’s broadcasting code which covers standards in programmes, sponsorship, product placement in television programmes, fairness and privacy.^[24]

In 2024, there were over 250 non-PSB television channels available in the UK.^[25]

1.2 Radio

Radio broadcasts in the UK are provided by the BBC, commercial and community radio services. According to research by the Media Reform Coalition, while the BBC provides a range of national and local radio services, and accounts for more than half of radio expenditure, the commercial sector consists of almost 10 times as many stations.^[26] Two-thirds of the 67 nationwide commercial stations are controlled by two companies, Global (25 stations, including Capital, Heart, Classic FM and LBC) and Bauer (20 stations, including Absolute, Greatest Hits and Hits Radio).^[27] Bauer and Global are also big players in the local radio market, with a combined share of just over a third (36.2%) of local commercial digital audio broadcasting (DAB) licences and just under two-thirds (63.2%) of local analogue licences.^[28]

Table 1 shows how the radio market is split between DAB and analogue stations, BBC and commercial stations, and national and local, regional and community stations.

Table 1. UK radio—national and local/regional services, April 2025

(Media Reform Coalition, ‘Who owns the UK media?’, 2025, p 26)

Ofcom licences analogue, digital and community radio stations.^[29] As with television broadcasting, licensed radio broadcasts must abide by Ofcom’s broadcasting code.^[30] Ofcom does not regulate online-only radio services (also known as ‘internet radio’).^[31]

1.3 Shifting viewing patterns

Developments in technology are changing the way people consume content. The House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee noted in a 2019 report that “since at least 2007, when the BBC launched its iPlayer, many have anticipated the death of linear television”.^[32] ‘Linear’ television is content that is broadcast according to a schedule.^[33] Alongside linear television, viewers are increasingly watching video on-demand (VoD) services and content from video-sharing platforms, such as YouTube. There are several different models of VoD provision:^[34]

• Broadcast video on-demand (BVoD): VoD services provided by linear television channels, such as iPlayer and My5. Such services typically include programmes previously broadcast on linear services and, increasingly, programming that has not yet been broadcast or is only intended for the BVoD service.
• Subscription video on-demand (SVoD): On-demand/streaming services that are only available on a paid subscription basis, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+.
• Advertising-supported video on-demand (AVoD): On-demand/streaming services that include advertising and are not affiliated with broadcast TV channels.

In 2024, broadcaster content (linear television plus BVoD services) still accounted for most of the video content that viewers watched at home, but broadcasters’ share of viewing time is declining. Ofcom reported that in 2024, individuals (everyone aged over four) spent on average 4 hours 30 minutes per day watching video content at home across all devices.^[35] Broadcaster content made up 56% of this viewing (102 minutes of live TV, 23 minutes of recorded playback and 25 minutes of BVoD) on average. BVoD viewing increased by five minutes compared to 2023, but this did not compensate for the larger decline in watching linear television (live and recorded playback), which was nine minutes less per viewer per day than in 2023. SVoD and AVoD accounted for 15% of total in-home viewing in 2024 (40 minutes per day on average). This was an increase of 4% compared to 2023, but the rate of growth had slowed. This is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1. Average daily minutes of in-home video viewing across all devices, all individuals, 2024

Viewing trends show differences between different age groups. Ofcom found that less than a quarter of 16 to 24-year-olds’ in-home viewing is content from broadcasters, compared to 90% for those aged 75+.^[36] All age groups except those aged 75+ watched less broadcast TV and BVoD in 2024 than they did in 2023, but the sharpest fall was among 25 to 34-year-olds (14% decrease).^[37]

The rate of take-up of SVoD services has plateaued since about 2021, with around two-thirds of households (68%) subscribing to at least one service in 2025.^[38] This represents a large increase over the last decade: only 20% of UK households subscribed to an SVoD service in 2015. Ofcom found that SVoD is the platform children and young adults are most likely to select first when turning on the television.^[39] In contrast, the majority of over-55s (83%) are likely to turn to a linear channel first.

1.4 Market trends

Alongside developments in technology and changes in viewing patterns, there have been changes in the television industry. Ofcom noted in its 2025 ‘Media nations’ report that the UK television and video industry, which includes traditional broadcasters, pay-TV providers and online video services, “continues to experience significant change, driven by the growth of streaming services”.^[40] It noted that broadcasters “face ongoing pressures, managing digital transition while sustaining content availability and traditional broadcast models”. It said the online video market continued to grow, shaped by broadcasters’ digital strategies, the shift by global SVoD platforms into “hybrid monetisation models” and “the increasing influence” of video sharing platforms.

Ofcom said the UK commercial TV and online video sector recorded “modest growth” in 2024, with revenues reaching £17.1bn, an increase of 3.3% compared to the previous year.^[41] However, this masked “significant divergences between platforms and traditional broadcasting services”. The overall revenue growth of commercial public sector broadcasters was “constrained by ongoing macroeconomic uncertainty and increasingly fragmented viewing habits”. However, the BVoD revenues of commercial public sector broadcasters and multichannel broadcasters rose by 15% to £1.1bn in 2024, “highlighting their increasing importance as a driver of commercial sustainability for UK broadcasters”.

Although pay-TV platform operators, such as Sky, Virgin Media and BT, make up the largest single share of the market with combined revenues of around 35% of commercial TV broadcast and online revenue, their subscriber numbers are falling.^[42] In 2016, 54% of UK households subscribed to a pay-TV platform, but this had fallen to 37% by 2024. Overall, Ofcom noted market shifts towards online were causing “a substantial rebalancing in industry revenues”.^[43] Online sectors such as SVoD, BVoD, connected TV advertising (targeted advertising delivered through devices such as smart TVs, streaming sticks and games consoles) and transactional online video collectively accounted for 42% of commercial TV broadcast and online revenue in 2024.

Ofcom noted that although pay-TV and SVoD platforms were once seen as direct competitors, they now have an “increasingly interdependent” relationship. SVoD providers have struck deals with established pay-TV platforms to “expand their reach and distribution, particularly as they roll out advertising tiers to monetise beyond subscriptions, combining both subscriber and advertising revenues”.^[44] For example, under a deal between Sky and Warner Bros Discovery, the latter’s HBO Max SVoD service will be available in the UK through Sky Media from January 2026. Sky already offers access to other third-party SVoD platforms, such as Netflix, Disney+ and Apple TV through its pay-TV user interface. Similarly, BT offers packages that include access to SVoD services such as Netflix, Discovery+ and Amazon Prime Video. Ofcom concluded that “consolidation, bundling, and cross-platform partnerships are becoming central to long-term strategies on both sides of the pay-TV/SVoD divide”.^[45]

Commenting on recent market trends, the government said in June 2025 that:

The television market is transforming, leading to consolidation. The way we watch and listen is changing, with different forms of video and audio consumption converging, while global technology companies are now the gatekeepers to audiences. These trends have led broadcasters in many countries to cut costs and pursue consolidation to increase economies of scale.^[46]

Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+ accounted for more than three-quarters of all SVoD subscriptions, and Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV and YouTube were the three largest VoD services by revenue in the UK in 2024.^[47]

Further consolidation in the international market could possibly be in the pipeline. On 5 December 2025, Netflix announced it had entered into an agreement to acquire Warner Bros., including its film and television studios, its television network HBO, and HBO Max.^[48] Warner Bros. Discovery’s global networks division, Discovery Global, would be separated into a new publicly traded company. However, US President Donald Trump expressed concerns that Netflix already had a “big market share” and the combined size of the companies “could be a problem”.^[49] President Trump said he would be involved in reviewing the deal. On 8 December 2025, Paramount launched a hostile bid to buy the whole of Warner Bros. Discovery, including all its cable networks as well as its studio and streaming businesses.^[50]

Consolidation within the UK market has also been mooted. ITV confirmed in November 2025 that it was in early stage talks to sell its terrestrial TV channels and its BVoD platform ITVX to Comcast, the parent company of Sky.^[51] ITV Studios, the ITV plc’s production arm, would not be included in the sale. Media research service Enders Analysis suggested the rationale for such a deal would be that “with a larger audience footprint, better tech and a broader range of British content […] the merged entity would be better placed to compete with global streaming giants”.^[52]

2. Policy and regulatory developments

2.1 Creative industries sector plan

The government has identified the creative industries as one of eight “growth-driving” economic sectors that it wants to prioritise as part of its industrial strategy.^[53] The government published its ‘Creative industries sector plan’ in June 2025. One strand of this is “boosting growth in our highest potential subsectors”, including film and TV.^[54] The government said it wanted the UK to “be the best place in the world to make film and TV, staying at the cutting edge of content creation”.^[55] It identified a particular role for PSBs in this, arguing that the PSB commissioning model “drive[s] growth and investment in the television sector”.

PSBs are required to use independent producers for at least a defined minimum volume of their annual commissioning activities.^[56] PSBs are also subject to ‘terms of trade’ that set out principles they must apply when commissioning independent productions. The terms of trade allow independent producers to retain the intellectual property rights to the programmes they make; this means independent producers can then also generate secondary revenue from selling their programmes. In contrast, when streaming platforms commission content from independent producers, it is usually in exchange for a one-off ‘cost-plus’ fee, with the streaming platform acquiring the rights.^[57]

The government said in the sector plan it intended to take steps to ensure UK broadcasters could adapt to changes in the television market globally and could continue to support independent producers of all sizes so that intellectual property would remain in the UK.^[58] It noted that “the financial sustainability of our PSBs is under pressure as they compete for content and advertising revenues with global media and technology companies”. It said higher production costs were making it harder for PSBs to make “the distinctively British dramas they are known for around the world”.^[59] The government set out several specific “interventions” in the sector plan intended to support PSBs and preserve what it called the UK’s “mixed ecology” of PSBs alongside an independent production sector. It said:^[60]

• We will build on the Media Act [2024] and Ofcom’s public service media review by taking action to support public service media and the wider television ecosystem. We will update the policy and regulatory framework to respond to the changing market and promote a more level playing field, while maintaining universal access to distinctive and trusted public service content. This work will complement the BBC charter review.
• We will launch the BBC charter review. It will ensure the BBC is empowered to continue to deliver a vital public service funded in a sustainable way, delivering a BBC that can maintain the trust and support of the public in difficult times, support the wider ecosystem, and that is set up to drive growth in every part of the United Kingdom.
• We will explore how BBC Commercial’s activity could support the BBC to do even more to invest and grow, develop and promote UK IP [intellectual property] internationally, and unlock wider benefits to the UK screen and TV production sector.
• We will shortly ask the CMA [Competition and Markets Authority], supported by Ofcom, to set out how changes in the sector—such as the convergence of broadcast, on-demand and video sharing—could be taken into account as part of any future assessment of television and advertising markets. This would include when considering any potential closer, strategic partnerships or possible consolidation between broadcasters which may benefit their financial sustainability and audiences. In the context of a fragmented and highly competitive TV landscape, we want to ensure that domestic companies are able to compete effectively, ensuring that they are not held back from funding and producing the distinctly British content that brings benefit to audiences.

PSBs themselves have supported the idea of more joint working. The chief executives of the PSBs put out a joint statement in September 2025 in which they acknowledged they “need to work together to compete globally”.^[61] They said that meant “removing unnecessary barriers so that public service broadcasters can form strategic partnerships with each other as well as non-PSBs” and regulating in a way that allows for growth and innovation.

However, they have also argued this should not necessarily be through formal consolidation of PSBs. Dame Carolyn McCall, chief executive of ITV, said she thought the government envisaged greater collaboration rather than consolidation between PSBs.^[62] She noted that the PSBs have different operating models. For example, as a plc, ITV had responsibilities to its shareholders as well as its audiences. She suggested that ITV consolidating with another PSB could mean the government having to buy out ITV’s shareholders. Tim Davie, director-general of the BBC, said he did not believe merging completely would be “good for the ‘UK ecosystem’”.^[63] Sarah Rose, president of Channel 5 and UK regional lead at Paramount, suggested PSBs could share some delivery costs, but argued that having “plurality” in the “brand, the editorial, the audience focus” of PSBs was what made the UK ecosystem “special”.^[64]

As in the creative industries sector plan, the role of PSBs in supporting production also featured in the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recent inquiry into British film and high-end television. The committee concluded that the business practices of streaming platforms were putting the UK’s “mixed production ecology” of PSBs and independent production companies “at risk”.^[65] It recommended measures to address this, such as ensuring that any increase in high-end television tax relief should specifically benefit PSBs and independent producers (not just incentivise streaming platforms to spend more in the UK) and requiring SVoD platforms to pay a levy on their UK subscriber revenue to support domestic high-end television production.^[66]

In response, the government said it had no plans to introduce a levy on SVoD services, but it would continue to engage with the major SVoD services, the independent production sector and PSBs “on how best to ensure mutually beneficial conditions for all parties”.^[67] The government also emphasised that maintaining inward investment from SVoD services was one way to support a strong PSB landscape, which in turn supports domestic film and high-end television production. In light of this, it said it wanted to see more successful co-productions between SVoD services and UK PSBs.

2.2 Ofcom review of public service media

In July 2025, Ofcom published recommendations for supporting public service media, building on work with stakeholders and the outcome of its most recent periodic assessment of public service broadcasters, published in December 2024.^[68] It said “seismic shifts” in the UK media landscape were under way, with “traditional broadcasters […] in a fierce battle for audience attention, while global tech giants flood the market with an ever-growing range of content”.^[69] It concluded “the next few years will be critical in determining the future of UK broadcasting”.

Ofcom called for “urgent action” to “strengthen and maintain public service media (PSM) content which provides trusted and accurate news, tells UK stories and represents the diversity of the nations and regions of the UK”. It set out six key recommendations for action:^[70]

• “Prominence and discoverability for PSM content on the third-party platforms that audiences increasingly turn to”. Ofcom said it was “critical that the PSBs and YouTube work together to ensure that PSB content is prominent on its service and on fair commercial terms”. It said this was important for ensuring that news and children’s programming could “continue to connect with all audiences”. It recommended the government should consider whether this needed to be underpinned by legislation. It also urged PSBs to work with video-sharing platforms and other social media platforms to ensure their content was available and easily discoverable.
• “Stable and adequate funding to sustain a broad range of PSM content”. Ofcom said it would be for the government to consider measures such as levies or tax credits to fund specific PSM genres, and to lead work on the BBC’s future funding.
• “Urgent clarity on how TV will be distributed in future”.^[71] Ofcom explained that PSBs are required to be universally available. As viewers move increasingly online, PSBs have to broadcast over digital terrestrial television (DTT, commonly referred to as Freeview) while also investing in distribution across multiple platforms. Ofcom said delivering content over DTT represented a “significant cost” to PSBs. It had previously recommended the government needed to make a decision by 2026 about the future of DTT and whether to invest in a more efficient service, reduce it down to a core service, or move towards switching it off over the 2030s.^[72]
• “More ambitious partnerships amongst the PSBs”. Ofcom said the PSBs and other UK providers would need to pursue new strategic partnerships in technology and how they reach audiences. It said regulators, including itself, would need to assess any mergers or partnerships “in the context of an up-to-date assessment of market conditions, recognising there continues to be fundamental change in the sector”.
• “Investment in media literacy is vital for everyone’s ability to use digital services and to understand and critically engage with news and content”. Ofcom said the emergence of new technologies, including new forms of AI, would make the media landscape “more complex and personalised”, and broadcasters had a role to play in supporting audiences to “distinguish fact from fiction”. It recommended broadcasters should “invest and contribute to media literacy”, and broadcasters and online platforms (including social media and video-sharing platforms) should enable media literacy by design.
• “Streamlined regulation which strips away any outdated unnecessary restrictions”. Ofcom said existing regulation needed a fundamental review, as it had been designed for a linear world. It said it was already implementing provisions in the Media Act 2024 and would work with the government on the BBC charter review. It was also planning to review its regulation of broadcast TV and radio.

Ofcom provided further details about measures in the Media Act 2024 it was implementing to help maintain and strengthen public service media:

• Prominence on connected TVs: new rules to help people find PSM content and ensure it is available, accessible and findable on popular connected TV platforms, such as smart TVs (which are being brought into regulation for the first time). We are in the process of establishing new codes, guidance and dispute resolution processes designed to ensure a fair and sustainable system that serves audiences.
• Modernising the PSB framework: updates the regulatory framework for PSBs set out in the Communications Act 2003 and provides them with greater flexibility as to where and how they deliver their remits and requirements. The aim of the change is to help ensure all audiences are well served, wherever they choose to consume content. One of the effects is that PSBs may, for the first time, use their on-demand services to deliver their obligations. We have so far published consultations updating our guidance on PSBs’ statements of programme policy, quotas and revised guidance for the PSBs on their commissioning code of practice.
• Radio: The Media Act [2024] removes some of the requirements for commercial radio such as the ‘character of service’ of each service (including the types of music they play) and the provision of local material, including locally made programming. Alongside these deregulatory changes, the Media Act [2024] also safeguards the provision of local news and information by introducing new requirements regarding the broadcasting of local news and information on local analogue commercial radio stations. In addition, it introduces requirements on voice assistants to ensure that users can access UK radio services.^[73]

The chief executives of the PSBs welcomed Ofcom’s report.^[74] They set out their own recommendations to “safeguard” and “enhance” public service broadcasting, several of which overlapped with Ofcom’s. The PSBs agreed that their content needed to be prominent on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube, on fair commercial terms. They also stressed the importance of securing deals with social media companies to promote accurate reporting and combat misinformation, to enable “trusted, independent journalism to thrive”. They also called for tax credits “for homegrown stories to nurture the UK’s deep talent pool”, sustainable funding settlements for the PSBs that receive public money and “proportionate regulation” for the commercially funded PSBs.

On the future of digital terrestrial television, where Ofcom had simply called on the government to reach a decision, the PSBs argued the government and industry should “prepare for a switchover to internet delivered television”, whilst ensuring support for those who are not yet connected to the internet. Stephanie Peacock, parliamentary under secretary of state at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), said in September 2025 that “TV distribution is a complex challenge with no easy answers”.^[75] The current service is guaranteed until 2034.^[76] Ms Peacock said the DCMS was currently leading a major project on the future of TV distribution, which was assessing the costs and trade-offs of different distribution methods.^[77] The government would “carefully consider the challenges for public service broadcasters and, importantly, the impact on loyal daily viewers, especially those who rely on digital terrestrial services” before making any final decision. Ms Peacock also said any decision would need to “encourage a competitive TV sector for public sector broadcasters and commercial channels” so that, within reason any channel could be shown. At the same time, she explained the decision needed to be brought together with the BBC charter review, to ensure that “the BBC continues to provide universal services in a way that is sustainable for the long term”.

Lisa Nandy, secretary of state for culture, media and sport, responded to some of Ofcom’s recommendations in a speech in September 2025.^[78] She agreed that public service media content should be prominent on major video-sharing platforms on fair commercial terms. She said the government would regulate if it had to but would prefer the industry to come together on this issue. She also said the government would ensure regulation was “fit” for an era where “the lines between editorially curated and user-generated content, between content providers and content platforms are no longer clear”. On AI, she said she would work with the secretary of state for science, innovation and technology to “ensure we build a framework that works for our world-class creatives and publishers while supporting responsible innovation and growth in the UK’s AI sector”. Ms Nandy also agreed with the need for more ambitious partnerships between public service media providers and with others in the sector. She also called on broadcasters to take more action to diversity the TV workforce and move commissioning out of London to ensure they would be “relevant, trusted forces that are felt to belong to the whole nation”.

Ofcom’s calls for more investment in media literacy were echoed in a recent report from the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, although the committee found thus far Ofcom and the government had “failed to meet the mounting scale of the challenge”.^[79] The committee recommended embedding media literacy across the national curriculum, imposing a levy on technology companies to fund media literacy efforts, imposing minimum standards on technology companies’ media literacy activity, appointing a minister to drive delivery of media literacy across Whitehall, raising public awareness and targeting support for adults.^[80] The committee noted that public service broadcasters “make a significant contribution to media literacy through their provision of trusted and accurate news”.^[81]

2.3 Updated guidance on politicians as presenters

Ofcom recently updated its guidance on politicians presenting news and current affairs programmes, but it did not change the relevant rules in the broadcasting code as it had previously proposed.

The background to this is that in 2023 and 2024, Ofcom received an increased number of complaints about politicians presenting programmes, including complaints that politicians were presenting news.^[82] Rule 5.3 of Ofcom’s broadcasting code states that:

No politician may be used as a newsreader, interview or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified. In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the audience.^[83]

In February 2025, the High Court found that rule 5.3 applied only to politicians acting as a newsreader, news interviewer or news reporter in “news programmes”.^[84] Politicians acting as a newsreader, news interviewer or news reporter in any other programme, including current affairs programmes, would fall outside rule 5.3, and instead be regulated by rule 5.1. Rule 5.1 states that:

News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.^[85]

The High Court also found that a programme could not be a news programme and a current affairs programme at the same time.^[86] The High Court decision came about as GB News brought a legal challenge against Ofcom’s findings that some GB News programmes had breached these rules.^[87]

Ofcom accepted the court’s guidance on due impartiality and said it would review and consult on a proposed revision to the code to restrict politicians from presenting news in any type of programme, to ensure this was clear for all broadcasters.^[88] In its consultation document, published in May 2025, Ofcom argued making this change would reflect “the reality of the evolving media environment, in which the distinction between news and current affairs programmes has become more blurred and the use of politicians presenting programmes has become more prevalent”.^[89]

In October 2025, Ofcom announced that it would not change the wording of rule 5.3 as it had originally proposed.^[90] It said responses to the consultation had been “polarised, reflecting the broad range of views overall”. However, there had been “a high level of consensus amongst broadcasters in favour of retaining the wording of rule 5.3”. Ofcom said many respondents had been concerned that amending it “would introduce significant practical challenges and operational uncertainty for broadcasters, and that it would inadvertently result in a de facto ban on politicians presenting any kind of programmes”.

Instead, Ofcom issued amended guidance which it said would make the relationship between rules 5.1 and 5.3 clearer and “more relevant to the modern news landscape”. It explained the amendments:^[91]

• Made explicit that if an MP presented news in non-news programmes, then their status as an MP would likely be a relevant factor in considering whether that news was presented with due impartiality. Ofcom would also take into account all other relevant factors—including, for example, the nature and subject of the news in question and the MP’s political position on that issue. The new guidance also signposts that where politicians present news in news programmes, rule 5.3 applies.
• Offered further clarification on the meaning of “exceptional circumstances” (in rule 5.3)—defined as those which cannot be controlled or foreseen by the broadcaster. Ofcom said it would expect such situations to be rare and would expect licensees who use politicians as presenters to put appropriate contingency arrangements in place to avoid these situations.
• Updated the definition of “politician” in the guidance, to include a reference to “members of the House of Lords” and “representatives of political parties” and to remove the reference to activists.

The government said it was considering whether it needed to “go further to protect audiences”.^[92] It said it was “deeply concerned about the blurring of news and fact with opinion and polemic in the broadcast media environment”.

2.4 Future reforms to broadcast regulation

Ofcom is currently running a “call for input” to its review of broadcast regulation, asking stakeholders for their views on how regulation needs to evolve in the short and long term.^[93] This follows on from its commitment in its public service media review to look at outdated regulation. Ofcom said it was seeking evidence of regulation that was “no longer appropriate given wider market changes, or where it adversely impacts audiences, innovation, competition or the future provision of PSM”.^[94]

Ofcom is proposing to focus on three broad areas:^[95]

• Licensing. Ofcom said it would consider whether changes to licences are needed to support the future provision of public service media. It believed that in the longer term, the licensing framework would be likely to need “fundamental reform, so that it reflects a wholly digital environment”. Consideration of this would be linked to the government’s decision on the future of TV distribution.
• Advertising. Ofcom said linear advertising funding models have been “significantly disrupted in recent years” and this put pressure on the financial sustainability of commercially funded PSBs and other broadcasters. Different advertising rules currently apply to broadcast and online services in the amount of advertising allowed, how it must be scheduled and how licensees cross-promote their own services. Ofcom said it planned to review this regulation “to see where current rules need updating or stripping out given the differences between linear and online”.
• Content standards. Ofcom said its priority for 2026 was to implement the ‘video on demand’ code under the Media Act 2024. VoD services, other than BBC iPlayer, are not subject to the broadcasting code.^[96] The act gave Ofcom powers to draft and enforce a new VoD code, similar to the broadcasting code. When the act was passed, the then Conservative government said this was “aimed at the largest, most TV-like VoD services to ensure that major services which engage UK audiences at scale are subject to the same or similar obligations as UK broadcasters”.^[97] On content standards over the longer term, Ofcom said it would need to consider the regime as a whole so that rules “apply fairly to content wherever it’s shown” and work alongside the Online Safety Act 2023 regime, without compromising on the existing standards in the broadcasting code.^[98]

3. BBC

3.1 Recent issues raised over editorial standards

The accuracy, impartiality and editorial standards of the BBC have been the focus of particular public scrutiny recently, leading to some apologies and resignations among the BBC’s leadership.

In February 2025, the BBC apologised for “serious flaws” in the making of the programme ‘Gaza: How to survive a war zone’.^[99] It said some of these were made by the BBC and some by the production company. BBC News took “full responsibility for these and the impact that these have had on the corporation’s reputation”. The production company had failed to make the BBC aware that the young boy who narrated the film was the son of a deputy minister in the Hamas government. The BBC had failed to uncover this before airing the documentary.

In July 2025, Samir Shah, the chair of the BBC, apologised “to all our viewers and listeners and particularly the Jewish community for allowing the ‘artist’ Bob Vylan to express unconscionable antisemitic views live on the BBC”.^[100] During a performance at the Glastonbury Festival, which was being livestreamed on BBC iPlayer, a member of the duo recited slogans such as “Free Palestine” and “From the river to the sea”, led the audience in chanting “death, death to the IDF” [Israel Defense Forces] and used what the BBC Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) later described as “abusive terms” and “offensive language” when referring to a record company boss who had expressed support for Israel.^[101]

The BBC had identified Bob Vylan as “high risk” prior to the performance but deemed them as “suitable for live streaming with mitigations”, such as language or content warnings in real time on the live stream.^[102] During the performance, the live stream was monitored in line with the agreed compliance protocols, and warnings appeared on the screen on two occasions. The BBC said its editorial team made “an error” in deciding not to cut the live feed. It said that in future any music performances deemed as high risk would not be broadcast live or streamed live, and it would provide more detailed guidance on the threshold for withdrawing a live stream.

The ECU subsequently found that “the performance breached the BBC’s editorial standards in relation to harm and offence by going beyond the limits of what the guidelines refer to as generally accepted standards”.^[103] However, it did not consider the performance breached the guidelines on material likely to encourage or incite violence “because, in the context of a performance at a music festival, the chanting of slogans can be regarded as primarily an invitation to endorse a particular attitude”. It concluded that “the content of this act, taken in the round, can fairly be characterised as antisemitic”. Bob Vylan’s position is that expressing support for Palestinian self-determination and criticising military actions by the IDF is “politically charged but not antisemitic”.^[104]

Tim Davie, the director-general of the BBC, and Deborah Turness, the chief executive of BBC News, both resigned on 9 November 2025.^[105] Their resignations followed press reporting in the previous few days about a memorandum to the BBC Board from Michael Prescott, a former independent advisor to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee (EGSC).^[106] Mr Prescott had raised concerns in the memo about aspects of the BBC’s reporting of the 2024 US presidential election (including in an episode of the ‘Panorama’ programme), racial diversity, trans issues and biological sex and gender, and the Israel-Gaza conflict, drawing on reports prepared for the EGSC by its senior editorial adviser. Mr Prescott stated that in his view there was “inaction by the BBC Executive when issues came to light” and “the executive repeatedly failed to implement measures to resolve highlighted problems, and in many cases simply refused to acknowledge there was an issue at all”.

In his resignation statement, Mr Davie said:

While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision. Overall the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made and as director-general I have to take ultimate responsibility.^[107]

Ms Turness said: “The ongoing controversy around the Panorama on President Trump has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC” and “as the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, the buck stops with me”.^[108] She rejected any suggestion that BBC News was “institutionally biased”.

The ‘Panorama’ documentary in question was one of the cases Mr Prescott raised in his memo. It included clips of President Donald Trump’s speech to his supporters on 6 January 2021, the day of the attack on the Capitol. Mr Prescott said this was edited in a way that “spliced together two clips from separate parts of his speech” and “created the impression that Trump had said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers”. President Trump has threatened to sue the BBC for between $1bn and $5bn in damages over this.^[109] Following the publication of Mr Prescott’s memorandum, the BBC accepted “the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action”.^[110] Samir Shah wrote personally to President Trump to apologise, but the BBC strongly disagrees there is a basis for a defamation claim.^[111] Lord Hall of Birkenhead (Crossbench), former director-general of the BBC, has argued the BBC should never agree to pay licence-fee payers’ money to President Trump.^[112]

Dr Shah told the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee the BBC had taken Mr Prescott’s concerns seriously.^[113] He emphasised that the BBC had not “sought to ‘bury’” any of these issues, explaining “they are precisely the issues that have been considered by the EGSC and the board”. He also said it was “simply not true”, as had been suggested in some coverage of the memorandum, that the BBC had done nothing to tackle the issues. He explained that during the time Mr Prescott was an advisor to the ESGC, the BBC had:

[…] published corrections where we have got things wrong; changed editorial guidance to make the BBC’s position on issues clearer; made changes to leadership where the problems point to underlying issues; and carried out formal disciplinary measures.^[114]

He sought to set the scale of the issues in context, noting that over the same period “the BBC produced thousands of hours of outstanding journalism: on television, radio, online, nationally, regionally and internationally”.^[115] He also argued that Mr Prescott’s memorandum “does not present a full picture of the discussions, decisions and actions that were taken”.

Dr Shah also set out further actions the BBC would be taking. He planned to “broaden the agenda” of the ESGC “to include all BBC output—as all BBC programming, not just its journalism, is bound by editorial guidelines”.^[116] The board would revisit each item raised in Mr Prescott’s memorandum and take further action where appropriate. The BBC would also review measures it had already taken in response to the original ESGC research to check those changes were “making material improvements to the output”. The BBC would update online stories as appropriate, where it had already accepted they fell short of its editorial standards. Alongside this work, a review of the EGSC’s effectiveness is taking place.^[117]

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said that “two resignations are not the answer to the challenges that the BBC has faced, not just over the last week, but in recent months”.^[118] However, she welcomed the steps the BBC had set out it was taking, and said she was in regular contact with the leadership of the BBC “to ensure that where [the highest] standards have not been met, firm, swift and transparent action follows”.^[119]

Ofcom published its annual report on the BBC in November 2025, incorporating its second periodic review of the BBC’s performance. It described recent events as “a significant crisis involving editorial decision-making at the heart of [the BBC’s] news and current affairs output”.^[120] It had found the ‘Gaza: How to survive a war zone’ documentary in breach of the broadcasting code.^[121] Ofcom said the BBC Board and Executive “must take a firmer grip when things go wrong and […] act swiftly and transparently when controversies arise”.^[122] It said this was “critical to upholding and maintaining audience trust and must now be the focus for how the BBC resets to deliver for its audience”. Assessing the BBC’s performance overall, Ofcom found “amid funding pressures, and against the backdrop of a rapidly changing media landscape, the BBC has performed strongly in delivering for audiences over the current charter”.

3.2 Charter renewal process and funding settlement

The process for renewing the BBC’s royal charter is expected to begin imminently. One reason Tim Davie gave for the timing of his departure as director-general of the BBC was that it would allow the new director-general to “positively shape” the BBC’s next charter.^[123]

The current royal charter came into effect on 1 January 2017 and is due to run until 31 December 2027.^[124] Before a new charter can be granted by the sovereign for the continuance of the BBC, the secretary of state must review the current charter, including consulting the public, the BBC, Ofcom and anyone else the secretary of state considers appropriate.^[125] A draft of the proposed charter and framework agreement must be laid before Parliament and debated by each House (although parliamentary approval is not required). The government said in December 2024 that it would launch the charter review process in 2025.^[126] Lisa Nandy said in November 2025 that the government would publish a green paper and launch a public consultation “shortly” and promised to provide more detail “in the coming weeks”.^[127]

The current royal charter sets out the BBC’s mission and public purposes, the activities it can undertake, its general duties (for instance, engagement with the public and stewardship of public money), and arrangements for things like an annual plan, report and accounts, and regulation of the BBC by Ofcom.^[128] It also provides for there to be framework agreements between the BBC and the secretary of state. The current framework agreement provides further detail on many of the topics outlined in the charter.^[129]

The current royal charter and framework agreement make provision for the BBC to be funded through the licence fee (although the licence fee cannot be used to fund certain activities, such as commercial activity, services for users outside the UK except the BBC World Service, and services funded by advertisements, sponsorship or subscriptions).^[130] There has been discussion about whether this model of funding should continue given the way that broadcasting and television viewing has changed.

In January 2022, the then Conservative government announced the licence fee settlement to the end of the current charter period at the end of 2027.^[131] It decided the licence fee should stay at £159 for two years, before rising in line with inflation from April 2024. It said this would “give the BBC certainty on its funding over the remainder of the charter period”. However, it said the future of the BBC’s funding model needed to be reviewed over the longer term:

[…] the broadcasting sector continues to change rapidly. […T]echnology has revolutionised how, when and where audiences can access and watch content. An increasing number of households are choosing not to hold a TV licence, as fewer people choose to watch live TV or other activities that require a TV licence.

Should this trend continue as expected, there are clear challenges on the horizon to the sustainability of the licence fee. For example, if fewer households are required to hold a TV licence, and there is a desire to maintain the BBC’s current level of funding, then the price of the licence fee would need to increase, potentially significantly, for those households who continue to be required to hold a TV licence.^[132]

The Conservative government also expressed concerns about the enforcement of the licence fee by criminal sanctions, and how this could disproportionately affect older people and women.^[133] It said it needed to consider “the most fair and appropriate funding mechanism” to be introduced at the end of the current charter period to enable the continued sustainability of the BBC. It said it would carry out a review of the licence fee funding model before the end of the current charter period. The review was launched in December 2023, with the aim of building “an evidence-based understanding of alternative models for funding the BBC”.^[134]

However, in November 2024, Lisa Nandy announced the Labour government was disbanding this review.^[135] She said the new government’s position was that “the BBC’s funding and its operation are inseparable” and therefore the review of funding would be taken forward as part of the charter review process. She said the government was “keeping an open mind about the future of the licence fee”, but “firmly believe[d] that the unique obligations placed on the BBC demand continued, sustainable public funding to support its vital work”. Ms Nandy reiterated in November 2025 that the government was “looking at a whole range of options around BBC funding to ensure that it is sustainably funded for many years to come”.^[136]

Speaking about the charter renewal process more broadly, especially in light of recent criticisms of the BBC, Ms Nandy said:

The BBC is facing challenges, including some of its own making, but it is doing so in the context of a revolution in the media landscape that has challenged all broadcasters, and polarised and fragmented our national debate. It is time to grip this with a clarity of vision and purpose that will secure the BBC’s future.

[…] We will imminently begin the charter review process, which will set the terms of the BBC for the next decade. We will imminently begin the charter review, which will set the terms of the BBC for the next decade, and through it, we will collectively write the next chapter of the BBC’s story. Together, we will ensure that it is sustainably funded, commands the public’s trust, and continues to drive growth, good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK. In an era in which trust is fraying and truth is contested across our nation, the charter will ensure that the BBC remains fiercely independent and is genuinely accountable to the public it serves.^[137]

4. Read more

• House of Commons Library, ‘Future of local media’, 1 December 2025
• House of Commons Library, ‘The future of the BBC licence fee’, 17 September 2025
• House of Commons Library, ‘The future of terrestrial television’, 4 September 2025
• House of Commons Library, ‘TV licence fee statistics’, 18 June 2025
• House of Commons Library, ‘The BBC mid-term charter review’, 8 May 2024
• House of Commons Library, ‘The government’s role in upholding the impartiality of BBC news coverage’, 26 February 2024
• House of Lords Library, ‘The future of news: Report by the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee’, 9 April 2025
• House of Lords Library, ‘Creative industries: Growth, jobs and productivity’, 30 January 2025
• House of Lords Library, ‘Regulation of news broadcasting companies’, 11 March 2024

---

Image by Renate Köppel from Pixabay