26 years ago today...

The Broadcasting Act 1990 is a law of the British parliament, often regarded by both its supporters and its critics as a quintessential example of Thatcherism. The aim of the Act was to reform the entire structure of British broadcasting; British television, in particular, had earlier been described by Margaret Thatcher as "the last bastion of restrictive practices". The act came about after the finding from the Peacock Committee.

It led directly to the abolition of the Independent Broadcasting Authority and its replacement with the Independent Television Commission and Radio Authority (both themselves now replaced by Ofcom), which were given the remit of regulating with a "lighter touch" and did not have such strong powers as the IBA; some referred to this as "deregulation". The ITC also began regulating non-terrestrial channels, whereas the IBA had only regulated ITV, Channel 4 and British Satellite Broadcasting; the ITC thus took over the responsibilities of the Cable Authority which had regulated the early non-terrestrial channels, which were only available to a very small audience in the 1980s.

I personally believe that the Act did more harm than good to the television industry, and this has led to the situation we are in today. An over-saturated, thinly spread market with broadcasting standards gone out the window for the sake of cheap reality television.

The act has sometimes been described, both as praise and as criticism, as a key enabling force for Rupert Murdoch's ambitions in Britain. It reformed the system of awarding ITV franchises, which proved controversial when Thames Television was replaced by Carlton Television, for what some felt were political reasons (see Death on the Rock), and when TV-am, admired by Mrs Thatcher for its management's defiance of the trade unions, lost its franchise to GMTV (the now-former Prime Minister personally apologised to the senior TV-am executive Bruce Gyngell). It also allowed companies holding ITV franchises to merge with each other starting in 1994, beginning the process which eventually led to all franchises in England and Wales coming under the control of ITV plc in 2004.

And the point of copying and pasting the Wikipedia article is?...

To prove how ITV has changed in 25 years?

Thatcher destroyed everything didn't she. It's not so much the destruction of the regions which annoys me but the destruction of the regional television industries. It wouldn't be so much of an issue if all the regions were ITV Plc owned and operated if they still did something other than local news in each area and were actually capable of nurturing local talent to be the big ITV stars of the future or offering a genuine route for local companies to provide shows on both a local and national basis.

Thames should have won, Thames and LWT should have become the big ITV companies NOT granada, but this is very old ground.

I mentioned this previously so rather than typing all this out again:






Excuse me?
Show me where in all 308 pages of the 1990 Act there is any mention of "cheap reality television".

Also I beg to differ that over-saturation of TV channels was a consequence of the 1990 Act or any of its follow-up Acts. It just became far more practical to launch a few satellites into the sky, upload the signals and then if you wanted Sky Television you just stuck a dish on the side of the house and pointed it in the right direction. In the old days you bought a television and had to tune it in to one of the four or five UHF patterns depending on where you were in the country.



First of all, Death on the Rock was made by Thames but it was the IBA who approved it for broadcast despite what the government wanted, and the IBA itself ended up being disbanded, and Thames lost its licence at the end of 1992. It was never proved that the 1990 act was a result of Death on the Rock, as some of the principles of it came through the Peacock Commission, itself published in 1985.

If Thames had won, would it have evaded being absorbed into ITV plc? I'm not so sure about that. The consolidation would've taken longer though, due to Central and London Weekdays not having the same owner.

Absolutely not. Carlton had been circling Thames for ages. In the end, they realised they had a chance to effectively snub EMI/BET (who owned Thames), and have a pop for the franchise themselves, thereby not having to acquire any of the legacy stuff (not least Thames' pension book).


Had Thames have retained the franchise, I reckon Carlton would have taken ownership before the new franchise came in to effect.

Actually there was talk Carlton was going to buy Thames in 1990.

Of course If Carlton was allowed to buy 25% of Thames in mid 80s in the first place..........

As you say, we've had this debate very recently, and I'll say the same as I said before...

Thames may have had a good track record of programming, but so did Granada and to imply Thames wouldn't have behaved just as ruthlessly as them is a very rose tinted way of looking at things.

I think, for me, the key issue regards the loss of Thames, as a broadcaster on ITV, was that it held up very high standards in what should be broadcast. As an example, Rainbow. When it was made by Thames, and when they also were a broadcaster, it was a kids show that both entertained, through the antics of Zippy Bungle and George, along with Geoffrey, but also educated. Some episodes are on youtube, and some include the gang learning about Mail Order, Music, even a mystery tour. Thames took programming very seriously.

Without the influence of Thames as a broadcaster, standards did slip a little. Yes, I know the reality shows that are on ITV, in some cases, are made by Talkback Thames, but, they weren't commissioned by Thames, and whilst they have large viewing figures (sometimes), standards aren't always there.

By contrast, a high standard of programming made by Thames for another broadcaster, the BBC, that informs and entertains, is Michael Portillo Railway Journeys. That high standard of programming is what Thames was renowned for. If Thames had still been an ITV franchise holder post 1993, I think a lot of the stuff made for ITV wouldn't exist. Also, I do believe that if the IBA was still there, it too would demand a more diverse schedule, and high standards.

You could argue the ending of the IBA is another reason.

No, Thames, who were indeed on a par with Granada, would have gone the same way in the race to the bottom. You make some valid points about some of their contemporary programmes, but equally don't forget
they're also involved with populist nonsense such as The Apprentice and X Factor ?