06-02-2023, 06:55 PM
(06-02-2023, 06:34 PM)gottago Wrote:I think that’s basically what it means. He explains it here’s at about 20 mins in. www.steynonline.com(06-02-2023, 06:16 PM)AllanTheScot Wrote: The channel would still have been responsible as far as Ofcom are concerned as its the channels responsibility to ensure it doesn't fall foul of the rules.
Yes it's odd isn't it. Though I wonder if it's more that he would've been financially responsible in the event of his show causing the channel to receive an Ofcom fine rather than just slap on the wrists.
It does sound like he doesn’t believe in any regulation at all.
(06-02-2023, 06:50 PM)KrazyKei Wrote: Check this out from Press Gazette:It’s hard to see any ambition in that, it’s all about cost-cutting. Which of course they need to do to be profitable but I can’t see any ambitions for the content mentioned in that article.
pressgazette.co.uk
Can't fault the CEO of being ambitious.