How well does contemporary media regulation protect the public

woolwich terrorist attack micro essay

The case study that will be explored is the 2013 Woolwich terrorist attack. After the horrific scene was aired on multiple news broadcasting station sparked debates which led to controversy. The regulators responsible for this case study are OFCOM as they regulated Television. OFCOM did not react to the 700+ complaints (mainly put forward by concerned parents) who were furious that the clip was broadcasted before the watershed. The watershed is a the time when TV programmes which might be unsuitable for children are shown before 9pm or after 5.30am. In this clip, (recorded by a member of the public’s phone) shown a dead body on the street, then a blood covered teenager walks towards the camera, holding a butchers knife which he allegedly used to behead the soldier he then goes ahead by justifying his act. He said the only reason he killed the solders is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers and ‘remove your government, they don’t care about you’.

 OFCOM being a statutory organisation (Government funded) would be expected to step forward to make a statement due to the regulator power they possess. However, this was not the case, it was argued that the watershed wouldn’t have had an impact because children could watch this news article online. Although it could be argued that children have no interest in the news especially public affairs such as terrorism. However it’s not just children being protected some argued that moral standards needs to be protected too but such arguments are a form of hegemony (the upper class feeding false ideologies) Another issue concerning is case is the idea that the general public now rely on the government to protect even more but eventually the ‘protection’ will lead to a nanny state of social control and deprivation of privacy.

 Accurately, this case gained an overwhelming amount of interest not only for the act of terrorism but it also changes people’s typical profile of a terrorist. During the London bombing the ‘terrorists’ were British born Asian men. Whereas, the Woolwich attackers were African although they were also British born and raised. This case also caused a moral panic of media sensationalism and possibly influencing (hypodermic needle theory) copycat behaviour.

 Regulators such as the BBFC, PEGI and OFCOM often get criticised for not being effective enough by being too lenient or conservative. In this case OFCOM could legitimise the exposure of allowing this content to be aired before the watershed as being ‘editorially justifiable’ which means it was in the public interest for it to be shown as exclusive news. Also, OFCOM has no jurisdiction over newspapers which published graphic images of the attack on their front pages. Therefore In the next 15 years I predict that we would have newspaper regulators, OFCOM will continue its conservative guild lines as it is statutory. PEGI will also become stricter, they might make it illegal for game plays to be uploaded on YouTube.

In conclusion, there’s problematic issues between all regulatory media because too much freedom causes anarchy people would peruse selfish desires without considering the impacts it has on others. Whereas, too much protection leads to control.

how effective is the combination of your main product and ancillary product from celestina_xo

HOW WELL DOES CONTEMPORARY MEDIA REGULATION PROTECT THE PUBLIC

This essay will evaluate regulatory practices of contemporary media such as the BBFC, OFCOM AND PEGI. I will discuss the effectiveness of regulations by arguing contradictory perspectives. This essay will also provide evidence from theory aspects and findings of sources.

The British Board of Film Classification was set up in 1912. Previously known as film censorship, the BBFC was set up as an impartial non-statutory (not funded by the government) body which classifies films for various age groups U, 12A, 12, 15, 18 and R18. The BBFC’s purpose is to protect the public (especially children and vulnerable adults) from content which might raise harm. Therefore, the BBFC is a proactive organisation rather than reactive because they regulate before releasing content to viewers. The BBFC changed its name from The British Board of Censorship to classification. This change suggest that the institution were becoming lenient as individual’s standards on violence, sex and profanity were becoming more liberal than conservative. Moreover, Censorship is an extreme form of regulation as it Prevents something from being seen because it is morally, politically unacceptable.  

As mentioned previously, the BBFC regulate movies to protect children and vulnerable adults, some would argue whether or not we should have media regulators. For example some children have different experiences to their peers and might mature quicker. Therefore, the BBFC is effective to some extent with the use of age ratings. This means that violent or sexual films also known as ‘sex works’ won’t be accessible to children in cinemas. However with the use of the internet in contemporary media arguments suggesting that it is impossible to measure how much gore/torture/violence and sex an audience can take is still very much valid. This means children have wider access to such films on pirate bay websites. Also, the copycat theory suggest that people are likely to copy what they see. For example the James Bulger case implies that children should be protected from violence, if not they will act violently towards others.

On the other hand, the regulation of video games is processed with Pan European Games Information (PEGI) has taken over the responsibility of regulating video games. The Video Standards Council is the UK regulator responsible for rating of video games supplied in the UK (using the PEGI system). OFCOM is a statutory, government funded organisation. PEGI’s code of conduct is to provide parents with guidelines which proves suitable content. Similarly to the BBFC, OFCOM use age ratings to regulate video games. However, PEGI’s role in society could be described as the preventer of anarchy. PEGI is effective because it makes it illegal for children to purchase video games that’s unsuitable for their age, they also place responsibility and make parents aware of the games they purchase for their children Is suitable. If not this is illegal and they would be prosecuted. However, children can get an adult who isn’t a parent to buy these games and they can also access game plays on YouTube.

Finally, the hypodermic needle theory suggests that hat media messages are injected directly into the brains of a passive audience. (Children and vulnerable adults) It suggests that we're all the same and we all respond to media messages in the same way.

The final media regulator I will be analysing is OFCOM, the office of communications was set up in 2003 to regulate television, and it seems to uphold stricter views possibly because television is back to back unlike movies. OFCOM is a reactive organisation because viewers complain after programs have been broadcasted OFCOM’s effectiveness in contemporary media could be seen as poor because it only deals with regulation issues after it occurs. An example is Big Brother 2016. A housemate Winston stated his homophobic and womanising views yet the discussion was allowed to be aired. This led to over 700 complaints which eventually led to a moral panic on what should be allowed on television.

In conclusion to this essay, I believe there’s problematic issues between al regulatory practices. They are all flawed in some ways or the other but I believe that people should be able to regulate themselves by eliminating all statutory or non-statutory bodies. 

Evaluation question 1

Evaluation Question 1 from celestina_xo

How far do changes to the regulation of media reflect broader social changes

Introduction

BBFC is an independent, not for profit and non-governmental body. It was set up in 1912 by the film industry. They regulate film/DVDs and videos to prevent people from buying or watching films which are not suitable for them

 History

Between 1912 – 1949 the BBFC did not have any written rules or code of practice, since 2000 the BBFC has operated under a series of published guidelines

During 1982 there was a review to the category system, an ‘A’ rating was changed to ‘PG’, ‘AA’ was changed to a ‘15’ and ‘X’ became an ‘18’. Also a new category was introduced ‘R18’ this was permitted to more explicit sex films to be shown in members only clubs.

In 1989 the ‘12’ certificate on film, to bridge the huge gap between ‘PG’ and ‘15’. This was extended to video in 1994.  There were calls for stricter standards following the Jamie Bulger case, with the media singling out the film Child’s Play 3 (1991).

Purpose

The BBFC’S mission is to

·         Protect the public (especially children and vulnerable adults) from content which might raise harm

·         To enable the public (especially parents) to make aware and informed of viewing choices

·         Respond to and reflect changing social attitudes towards media content through creating public research.

 Case Studies

·         A clockwork orange

·         Emmanuelle

·         Reservoir dogs

Effectiveness

In terms of effectiveness censorship is still in place, and recently the BBFC has had to deal with a slew of torture based films in which torture is a major plot device or theme in the film such as human centipede 2. However, arguments suggesting that it is impossible to measure how much gore/torture or violence an audience can take it still very much valid. Also there more access to movies than ever before with the use of pirate bay websites.