Media is supposed to be fun, which is why it is worrying when politicians get involved. Surely creative and commercial freedom are two sides of the same coin — if you support one you should believe in the other (although conventional thinking on the left and right is just the reverse of this). Media is at the intersection of art and commerce, which means it gets whacked on both sides.

Over the next couple of weeks, politicians in both Europe and the UK have an opportunity to make a mess.

In Europe, MEPs will begin thrashing out revisions to Television Without Frontiers. The new directive aims to keep up with changes in technology, setting minimum standards in regulation across the EU.

This is a well-meaning objective but it is flawed. Each country should concentrate on its own TV regulations, but this is not where the argument is going. Product placement should be a reasonable alternative to spot advertising, but the Germans don’t like it. That’s OK, but why inflict that on Europe? One justification for pan-European rules is that broadcasters can bypass the rules of other countries. Don’t get the Swedes started about Viasat, the UK-based Swedish satellite broadcaster, which is able to carry ads targeted at the under-12s (banned in Sweden) because it operates under looser British rules.

The trouble is that pan-European regulations won’t solve this. Product placement is legal in the US and because some of the best shows air here, companies such as BMW can target Desperate Housewives in the knowledge that they will get publicity in Europe too.

The new directive also wants to regulate online broadcasters. Private blogs are excluded, as is anybody not primarily in the moving image business (such as a newspaper website) — but any internet TV site with money-making aspirations gets caught. That includes a Euro YouTube.

MEPs will debate an amendment next week to exclude sites that do not exercise editorial control, which would take out sites such as YouTube, but leave in the actual creator. The idea is to create regulations to protect minors, provide a right of reply and prevent racism. That sounds reasonable but, as Ofcom, the British regulator, says, this is mostly covered by criminal law already.

All that can be hoped is that Europe opts for restraint. Television on the internet does not need clunky regulation, while advertising restrictions should be left to individual countries too. It is tempting to introduce more rules in changing times; the problem is that technological change makes enforcement harder too.

• Back in Blighty, Ed Richards, Ofcom’s new chief executive, who made his name working at No 10, faces his first big test. He has to decide how far to face down the anti-obesity lobby, which is utterly convinced that banning all “junk food” advertising before 9pm is a good thing.

  Such a move would be disproportionate and probably do nothing much to reduce obesity. For every child who watches Coronation Street, 25 adults tune in, making a ban outside kids’ television highly inefficient. A sensible compromise is to restrict junk food advertising in programmes aimed at children — but the political temperature is rising.

  Tony Blair was applauded at the Labour Party conference in September when he threatened to legislate if the food industry could not work out voluntary restrictions. And only last month Gordon Brown advocated a “self-denying ordinance” for the advertising of junk food on television “during the programmes that children watch”, a phrase that could encompass a broad ban.

  A decision is due next week. So far Ofcom has resisted, a line that Mr Richards should hold. It would be a bad way for the regulator to start: caving in to his former boss.

• Owning newspapers has its privileges, but requires an open chequebook too. Last year Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay’s holding company, which owns the Telegraph titles, received a cash injection of £25 million in December at the end of the financial year. Eye up the cashflow statement and it shows why: £26.7 million of income was offset by £29.6 million of interest payments, on the £260 million of borrowings taken on to buy the titles.

  Profits were depressed in part by a £13.6 million charge after 90 redundancies made last year; another 133 went this year, during a year in which the ad market was again tough. The Telegraphs are not in any trouble, but it may not be a mystery why its owners also offloaded The Scotsman and, more recently, handbag.com.

Times Recommends

• C&G axed - 1,660 jobs to be lost
• UK house prices rise 1.1% as buyers return
• Mixed reaction to US banks repaying bailouts