My name is Megan Saxby and I’m fascinated by all manner of ideas associated with regulation.
I should start by saying what I mean by regulation – which is pretty broad – it is anything that is more or less designed to shape an individual’s behaviour. All sorts of things shape behaviour including laws, social norms and culture. Laws are probably what most people think of when they think of regulation, but laws are often only the tip of the iceberg.
Secondly, I should confess that I work for a government regulator – a job I love, find frustrating, exciting, challenging and complex all at the same time. But because I work for a regulator, and because I want to keep doing so for a long, long time I’m going to limit my ramblings to the theory and ideas about regulation.
Lastly, I want to thank all those people who have patiently listened to my regurgitation of the latest article I read and who have encouraged me to believe that regulation is not boring and that lots of people would be interested in sharing ideas about regulation.
The day I decided to create this blog I tripped over the Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation which gave me hope that people who enjoy participating in blogs might also be interested in regulation. The report recommended the regulation of blogging! It said at page 295:
The second change arises from the fact that there are many newsletter publishers and bloggers, although no longer part of the “lonely pamphleteer” tradition, who offer up-to-date reflections on current affairs. Quite a number have a small audience. There are practical reasons for excluding from the definition of “news media” publishers who do not have a sufficiently large audience. If a publisher distributes more than 3000 copies of print per issue or a news internet site has a minimum of 15000 hits per annum it should be subject to the jurisdiction of the News Media Council, but not otherwise. These numbers are arbitrary, but a line must be drawn somewhere
So lets hope 15000 people are not interested in what I have to say!
regulationramblings 
Hello Megan. You need to write a post!
Thanks Margaret – I finally got round to it – I guess I just wanted my foray into blogging to be impressive – I’ll just have to be satisfied with adequate!
Always interested in what you’ve read, thought, or discovered…. Keep it up, and one day there might be 15000 interested in what your thinking – I’d recommend your blog to others because I know you critically reflect on what can work, what might be possible and why we regulate.. I’m coming back.
Love your post. Good to see that you have put your ideas out there for the world to share. I would be interested in knowing how on earth the media regulator would know that a ‘news site’ gets more than 15000 hits per annum and also where it came up with that figure? I would hazard a guess that there are many sites which have a high number of hits but not necessarily a high number of actual subscribers. Also, how do they define a ‘news site’?
Secondly, I am interested in your definition of regulation. It seems to me that this could also be the definition of advertising. I’m not sure that regulations do shape my behaviour (but perhaps I am just in denial about that). I appreciate that you are not saying that they do, just that this is the intention. Anyway it’s an interesting discussion. Keep it up.
Margaret, thanks for your comments. I don’t know the answers to your first lot of questions – I’ll need to read the actual report rather than just snatching bits to make my blog sound interesting!
Your second question is a little more up my alley, and it will be something I think I will write about in more detail as I get more comfortable talking to the world. Having said that, I think the difference between advertising and regulation is probably the goal – maybe not the techniques though.
Regulation seems to be somehow connected (for me) to a social goal. I think of the regulation of trades – the idea seems to be that it is somehow socially beneficial for me to know that the person I get to fix my doggy wiring has the skills to do the job. In a complex society, its not really realistic for me to know all there is about electricity, so to protect me from my ignorance and make me less vulnerable to physical harm (from being zapped) the electrical profession is regulated.
Yet as you say, advertising is often designed to change my behaviour – I can think of several ads where the goal was social – slip, slop slap for instance (an Australian advertising campaign promoting sun protection). I wonder though, whether the original game that advertising was in, was the game of getting me to buy things. Using advertising for selling social goods seems to be an after thought.
In terms of my view that regulation is pervasive, I think of all sorts of things as regulation. The one I’m reminded of each day as I travel to and from work is the disembodied instruction at the train station that I must travel in the rear four carriages of the train if I want to disembark at my home station. Whilst I could sit anywhere and jump from the train onto the ground, the message acts to get me to self-regulate my behaviour so that I only alight from the train in the acceptable manner. I think this form of self regulation is so insidious that sometimes we don’t even realise we might have the choice to act otherwise.
Maybe I’m just too compliant and so experience regulation more – because I certainly see lots of people with their feet on the seats of the train in total disregard of the sign! Aaahh, to have such freedom!
I travel in the last four carriages because of self interest, not because I was told to. I don’t want to be left at Berowra! it’s an interesting question to think about why some people are much more likely to comply with rules and regulations than others. I assume that this is just social conditioning and not a sign of weakness. Why don’t I fix my own wiring? I probably would if I knew how, but I don’t, so I’ll leave it to the experts.