I remember having discussions like these when I was at the Radio Authority in the late 1990s, so it’s nice to see the issue pop up again. Personally, I’d remove all regulatory requirements for news. Let the market decide what’s viable – and let news be the preserve of those broadcasters willing and able to do it well.

Incidentally, I’d personally be wary of comparisons with the US. Our geography, history, politics, media law and culture have virtually nothing in common with theirs – I think we should look elsewhere for more relevant parallels.

I’m not sure I follow, James – you say that BBC News is the market leader, but then argue that if the commercial sector didn’t have to be balanced in their coverage it would win more audience?

Personally, I think the problem is more in a lack of quality journalism in the commercial sector.

Commercial radio is very good at reacting to the news agenda, but very often fails to set it. Local stations too often put out news bulletins which are eighty percent rip ‘n’ read from IRN, ten per cent press releases from the local bowls club, perhaps with a ten second phone-quality clip, and ten percent ripped from the local paper. That doesn’t give any incentive to listen, it’s just three generic minutes at the top of the hour that I could get from any other station.

Phone-ins – where commercial radio presenters can and do argue a point of view – are too often reactive not pro-active. Again, the driving force is usually what’s in the newspaper. What does that say about the state of commercial radio news – in an era when we’re talking about print struggling to survive!

I accept that reductions in the journalistic workforce at many stations will have had an impact on the amount of original journalism. But maybe that’s an argument for saying that everybody at the station needs to be more focussed on the local news agenda – presenters in particular, too many of whom view news as an interruption rather than a valuable audience-grabber.

I’m firmly of the opinion that if you can garner a reputation for original, timely and accurate content you’re on to a winner. At the moment I wouldn’t even consider tuning to my local commercial station if there was something going on outside my window, because I know they’d just be banging out today’s best mix and reading stories out of the Sun, oblivious.

Regulation – or a lack of – won’t fix that. It’s a programming/leadership issue.

I’m not sure that ‘ratings winner’ really explains why US TV networks (and others) invest so much money in their local news operations. It’s more that this gives them LOCAL personalities and a way of connecting to LOCAL communities which helps create the appearance of them actually being local rather than a network. If it wasn’t for news, most stations would have no local out put other than the ads. Of course by trying to localise themselves they are aiming for higher ratings, but I’m not sure it’s the news itself that’s winning those, it’s the aura of respectability that having it generates.

(Making yourself seem local is, of course, not unique to America. We’ve all heard “Borestshire businesses are being asked…” as a lead in to a story based on a national survey that Borset FM is trying to make local.)

I always come down on the side of less regulation in cases like this. Not because I don’t want a proper news service from the radio stations I listen to, but instead that stations should be allowed to try whatever they like and allow the public to choose the best.