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.