After brief mention today of the decline in UK news coverage in the decades since the 1990s (from
@Elektronaut and
@Thande), I've found myself wondering of the consequences of no Broadcasting Act 1990.
No Channel Five, of course, but that is of little consequence. No requirement for the BBC and others to source 25% of their output from independent production companies. The rules for awarding ITV franchises would not be changed and mergers would not become the norm from 1994, so we might not now be in the situation where, aside from last bastions of freedom STV and UTV, ITV has become exactly what it was designed not to be. The Independent Broadcasting Authority would not be replaced with the toothless Independent Television Commission. Channel 4 would not have lost its original remit to providing an alternative to ITV and provisioning for programming aimed towards minority interests.
I seem to recall the IBA were also opposed to the merger of Sky Television and British Sky Broadcasting, so that has the potential to become a major issue. It does beg the question of how much the 1990 Broadcasting Act was an enabling force for the rise of Murdoch or how much was it just a formality for the way the wind was blowing anyway. Perhaps the only way to prevent the broad changes put into law by the Act is to prevent Murdoch getting a foothold of respectability in the UK with the purchase of The Times.