IMO, a regulator’s primary job should be pretty simple: apply the law and the regulatory framework as intended.
Once regulators start making decisions about jobs, theatrical output, newsroom independence or whether assets should remain separate, beyond what that framework actually requires, I think we are on much less healthy ground.
Those can all be legitimate policy concerns. But if they matter, put them in the rules. Don’t improvise them case by case as conditions for approving a merger.
And wherever you sit politically, recent FCC cases in the US should be a warning. The issue is not only how regulatory power is used, but where that power ends. If a regulator can stretch its mandate and use individual approvals to influence editorial or commercial decisions, we should all be concerned about the precedent.
Fair point. Yet applying regulations (often outdated given how fast things move in our industry) does need a wider look than the pure letter of the law.
IMO, a regulator’s primary job should be pretty simple: apply the law and the regulatory framework as intended.
Once regulators start making decisions about jobs, theatrical output, newsroom independence or whether assets should remain separate, beyond what that framework actually requires, I think we are on much less healthy ground.
Those can all be legitimate policy concerns. But if they matter, put them in the rules. Don’t improvise them case by case as conditions for approving a merger.
And wherever you sit politically, recent FCC cases in the US should be a warning. The issue is not only how regulatory power is used, but where that power ends. If a regulator can stretch its mandate and use individual approvals to influence editorial or commercial decisions, we should all be concerned about the precedent.
Fair point. Yet applying regulations (often outdated given how fast things move in our industry) does need a wider look than the pure letter of the law.