Woolwich terror attack

The Woolwich terror attack was a crime of which showed the reality of terrorism and who does it. OFCOM allowed new publishers such as ITV, BBC and channel 4 to broadcast the footage filmed by a witness on television pre-watershed. The content being aired caused much controversy and OFCOM received over 700 complaints about the video. The video contained blood, a dead body and a weapon alongside the murderers giving an explanation for their act.

OFCOM allowed the video to be published due to many reason. The person who filmed the murderer had done so on their mobile phone and thus if it had not been published it most likely would have been easily accessed online. Furthermore, OFCOM allowed it to be shown for public interest. They state that it was important for the audiences to see the video in order to understand that terrorism shouldn't be scapegoated onto people from other countries, it can easily be people who have lived down the road from you for years and been friends with you. The reason behind the company airing it is controversial in itself. OFCOM is a government organisation part of making the UK a nanny state.  OFCOM is influenced by the political government of which is of right wing conservative views. This means that the company works alongside the government and deciphers what to regulate through them. The regulators might have stated that it was allowed to be broadcasted due to societal and public  interest however they might have just wanted to create a moral panic so that people of the U.K. would tell the authorities of any hints of people being radicalised.

In comparison to the film regulatory body BBFC, OFCOM can be seen as lie isn't. This is illustrated through this case study. OFCOM rely on their authorities guidelines (nanny state status) to keep channel's within their license however BBFC ensure to check the film's and give a certificate so people at 'risk' cannot access the content. It can be argued whether it was really necessary for the regulatory body to allow children etc to watch it as the only regulation procedure is the watershed and it was put out beforehand.

In conclusion this case study shows that OFCOM is a regulator that is not completely moral. This can be concluded from the fact that they use the excuse of public interest for the interest of their views informed by the government.