Don’t boost the BBC. Regulate the algorithm
Opinion
The Government has proposed pushing traditional broadcasters in social media feeds to boost trusted content. Dan Gee argues that such an artificial move isn’t the answer.
The Government’s media green paper has identified a real problem. But one proposed solution risks addressing the symptom rather than the cause.
As audience behaviour slowly migrates from broadcast television towards streaming platforms, YouTube, TikTok and myriad other platforms, ministers are considering ways to ensure public service media remains prominent and discoverable within those environments. The instinct is understandable. The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and others operate within a highly regulated system, while an increasing proportion of what Britain watches is distributed through opaque recommendation algorithms.
But I’d argue that artificially pushing the BBC further up the feed is the wrong answer. It won’t close the trust gap, and risks further reinforcing the idea that regulated broadcasters are part of an inner circle of manipulative power structures.
Creators have good reason to object. The Guardian reports a growing backlash from YouTubers who argue that broadcasters should win audiences by making content people want, rather than receiving preferential treatment from government. Angel investor and social media influencer, Simon Squibb argues that trust has to be earned. On that narrow point, he is right. If the BBC wants to succeed on YouTube, it should make brilliant YouTube content.
But there is something slightly absurd about the wider framing of this debate: plucky independent creators standing up to the overreach of the mighty state.
Creators may be independent. But their distribution infrastructure emphatically isn’t
Behind social media creators sit YouTube, Meta and TikTok: some of the most powerful companies and communications systems ever created. Ofcom estimates that Alphabet and Meta alone accounted for 51% of all time UK adults spent online in May 2025.
Against that, the idea of an all-powerful British state bearing down on a cottage industry starts to look rather quaint. In the media environment at least, the state has never been less mighty. A growing proportion of British cultural and political life is now mediated through privately owned recommendation systems whose rules are determined elsewhere and changed largely without public scrutiny.
That power imbalance is worth worrying about.
It is also why the language of consumer “choice” needs interrogation. People clearly choose creators they like. Creators build communities, earn loyalty and make programmes audiences actively seek out. But discovery and distribution are not simply the aggregate expression of millions of independent choices.
They are shaped continuously by algorithms.
Behavioural scientist Lea Karam has argued that algorithmically recommended media should be “designed in a human way”, creating safer environments and greater diversity of thought. She has explicitly talked about minimising risk and redesigning algorithms.
The important word is ‘designed’
A feed is an environment somebody has constructed. Platforms decide which behavioural signals matter, what gets recommended, how frequently it appears and what characteristics successful content is rewarded for exhibiting.
That doesn’t diminish what creators have achieved, but it should make us very cautious about treating their audience growth as evidence that trust and credibility have naturally transferred from established media institutions to a new creator class.
Reach is not trust. A view isn’t a vote of confidence. An algorithmic recommendation certainly isn’t.
Ofcom’s research makes the distinction clear. Online news consumption continues to rise, but traditional providers remain more highly rated for trust, accuracy and impartiality. Among people regularly getting news through social media, 44% rate it highly for trustworthiness and 43% for accuracy. Search engines and aggregators score 60% on both measures. Ofcom also finds traditional television, radio and newspaper news consistently performing strongly on these measures.
That matters because traditional media operates within a system of accountability. Broadcasters are subject to rules on harm, children and, in news, due accuracy and impartiality. People can complain. Regulators can investigate and impose fines and more. The system is imperfect, but responsibility ultimately resides somewhere.
The Media Leader columnist Omar Oakes has made a related argument: trust is becoming increasingly valuable as AI makes fakery and information overload easier. In an environment flooded with synthetic content, he argues that integrity, verification and human judgement become more important, not less.
This is where the creator-versus-broadcaster argument misses the point. It isn’t David versus Goliath. It is David, the BBC and everybody else competing for attention on Goliath’s platform, according to rules Goliath writes, changes and largely keeps to itself.
The answer should not be to put the Government’s thumb on the scales and decide that BBC content deserves greater reach. Public service broadcasters should compete. Creators should be free to democratise and diversify our entertainment and information ecosystem. New entrants should be able to displace incumbents.
That competition needs a playing field
Rather than artificially boosting particular institutions, regulation should follow function, reach and power. Platforms exercising enormous control over media distribution should face proportionate obligations around transparency, harmful amplification, children, advertising disclosure and meaningful routes to accountability.
The green paper is right to recognise that regulation designed around the distinction between “broadcast” and “online” is becoming obsolete. The next step is to follow that logic through.
Don’t rig the feed in favour of the BBC. Regulate the algorithm.
Dan Gee is co-founder and chief strategy officer at media agency MFM