2) To what extent are contemporary media regulated adequately?
There are many arguments from the public, psychologists and the media industry itself as to whether contemporary media is being regulated adequately. Changes in technology, social values and legislation has affected both film and press regulation, but overall I believe that both areas are being regulated well.
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) regulates DVDs, cinema releases and video games, although soon they will not be classifying the latter. As an independent body made up of laymen from different backgrounds they represent society and therefore current values and beliefs. The BBFC publish their guidelines every five years, making amends as necessary. Recently the ‘discrimination’ area was added, improving the ability of the BBFC to adapt to current beliefs. The ‘C’ in BBFC used to stand for Censorship, so in moving to Classification, this represents a more liberal approach than in recent times. The BBFC acknowledges overriding principals of context, time, and release format. Tangled (2010, Greno) was rated PG since the BBGC realised that although there was fighting, the fantasy setting would be obvious to children as a prince was fighting a nurse, which is unrealistic. However, new technology like CGI and 3G animation blurs the lines between fantasy and reality so maybe the principle will not be withheld in the future.
Negative effects research treats children as vulnerable, which isn’t necessarily the case. In 1993 the murder of James Bulger was linked to Child’s Play 3 (Bender, 1991) as psychologists like Elizabeth Newson inferred that violent murder was a direct result of the film. The BBFC then updated the Video Recordings Act to include the ‘harm test’. Martin Barker argues that films like Childs Play 3 are often targeted because they ‘address political issues’ and David Gauntlett agrees, as negative effects research ‘treat children as inadequate’. In 2008, Batman (Nolan) caused uproar as parents complained that it was rated at 12A when it should have been much higher. Obviously everyone has a different idea of what ‘harm’ is so the BBFC are not as effective as they could be if their guidelines are underpinned by flawed logic.
However, since the BBFC work with legislation, it could be seen that they are regulating adequately. Hip Hip Hora aka The Ketchup Effect (Fabik, 2004) was investigated for child nudity so that it didn’t breach the Protection of Children Act. This shows effectiveness from the BBFC as legal matters are considered, so the government don’t need to intervene. With that said, the Human Centipede 2 (2011, Tam Six) was banned this month due to ‘sexual violence’ as it breached the Obscene Publications Act. Director, Six, argued that the film is a work of art and merely actors playing roles – not real life, yet context isn’t taken into account. Just because a film is creepy or distasteful doesn’t mean that it should be banned. This begs to argue the issue of taste and decency as the BBFC are not being objective. Even though the film has been banned it is most likely that people will watch it online, since websites like magavideo and The PirateBay allow anyone to access anything online. Even many cinemas don’t check for identification, yet providers like Sky TV require a password to watch rated films before the watershed. Perhaps regulation needs to be a two-way process; between individuals and regulators.
The PCC (Press Complaints Commission) is an independent regulatory body that was created to replace the the Press Council in regulating newspapers and magazines.
Previously the PCC were secretive and didn’t put their code of conduct online, but now it is available to the public, which shows better communication. The Code of Conduct is drawn up by a board of editors made up of people from the press industry itself – so the experts from the industry are in control. The PCC is relatively new, so there are bound to be kinks in the system that need to be improved. In the 1990s the PCC was created to ‘uphold standards’ that had diminished during the use of the celebrity and death of Princess Diana. Furthermore, the issues with the McCann’s prompted the formation of the Select Committee review which suggested tightening up the apology sanction. In the past, editors got away with tiny apologies on back pages but now, they must apologise properly, for example, on the front page. However since the PCC regulates post-publication, once something is printed, the whole world can see it so apologies don’t always suffice.
Also, the issue of taste and decency is a grey area, which is difficult to regulate effectively. In 2009, Jan Moir wrote an inaccurate and offensive article about Stephen Gately. Twitter was ablaze with people angry at the situation, which caused a record number of complaints to the PCC. However, since Moir’s comments were “opinions” complaints were not upheld. There are many loop holes in the PCC’s system. Tesco successfully sued the Guardian over issues of tax avoidance which were accurate but since a few facts weren’t right, the corporate giant won a huge amount. Furthermore, recently, celebrities like Ryan Giggs have been able to use superinjunctions to scapre articles being written about them. Giggs claimed that his children “would be bullied,” and this is a common occurrence of the wealthy and powerful. The PCC need to address this issue of ‘grey areas’, which they probably will in the future.
The internet plays a huge role in regulation as it is outside of regulatory juristriction. Anonymous ‘tweeters’ reveal secrets about superinjunctions which get re-tweeted nationwide but the PCC cannot prevent this. However, the PCC’s first blog ruling was of Rod Liddle who falsely claimed that the “overwhelming majority” of violence in London was committed by Afro-Caribbean males. Since this post breached the accuracy clause and was on the Spectator website, the PCC could uphold a complaint which shows that the regulatory body is adapting to the changing technology by regulating content online.
One may question why the BBFC and PCC have so many rules when unregulated sites online completely undermine them. A video of Neda Soldani, a young Iranian woman, being killed was posted online to YouTube. If this was on print, the PCC would have probably regulated this as it breaches privacy issues as well as ‘intrusion to grief or shock’. The internet has resulted in citizen journalism, like that in the Free Tibet Movement in 2008. Here, the effects of web 2.0 were positive as bloggers were able to highlight problems on the trusted western news like the BBC. However, the BBFC faces bigger problems since piracy is rife online and people can watch whatever they like regardless of age.
I strongly believe that regulation benefits everyone. It protects the vulnerable (even if it can be patronising at times), but regulation at home and in the cinema needs to be stricter. I worked at a cinema where employees didn’t check people’s age, but the BBFC need to ensure this happens. Furthermore, the introduction of the Digital Economy Act should mean that there is less illegal file sharing online, protecting the industries and individuals from watching unsuitable content. In the future, there
should be raised awareness of the BBFC and PCC since many people don’t know about them. Making the parents site (PBBFC) more known would help parents to make informed decisions. Both regulatory bodies are working to the best of their abilities, especially in difficult times where there are grey areas, issues with subjectiveness and rising accessibility to technology like the internet.
This is a level 4 response. Its main strength is the range of rich, contemporary and relevant examples and how well they are utilised. These examples are discussed in dialogue with industry practice / regulatory frameworks and effects theories and in such a way that the critical perspective in hand is constantly foregrounded. The candidate understands, and articulates very well, the complexity of the debate. Terminology is the area that could be developed further, as there is room for more theoretical perspectives (eg Gillmor could be cited with regard to citizen journalism). As required in the specification, the majority of the answer deals with contemporary examples.
