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.