Every day we watch media, whether it be in the cinema, on
the TV or online. Have you ever thought of how it’s regulated? I didn’t until
it was unveiled to me by my tutor for my college course, Events Management.
There are four main regulatory bodies, that have created
a set of rules that advertising, films, television programmes and newspapers
have to all abide to so that its fit for all purposes of the public. Listed
below are the regulators:
ASA –
investigate complaints about advertising.
Ofcom
– Regulates television, radio and mobile phones.
BBFC –
National classification of films, video games and adverts.
PCC –
Deals with complaints received about newspapers, tabloids and magazines.
The UK and the US remain the harshest regulators of film
and television reflecting a form of cultural regulation – in France, Germany,
Italy, Spain and many other European countries. Images on television news
programmes of violence in war torn countries are far more graphic and less
censored at source by the broadcaster reflecting government restrictions. An
example of this is when bin laden was killed most countries were shown live
footage of this but the UK and this is because of the regulation in place, it
ensures that all possible viewers can’t be affected of what is shown.
Regulation is
becoming weaker and isn’t as strongly monitored as it used to be. Due to recent
changes in the rules from the BBFC, 15 certificate films in
recent years have received certificates that ten years ago would have been
classified as 18 – films like Fish Tank (2009) and Precious (2009) both contained hard
hitting scenes of incest, under age sex and rape and also excessive, repeated
swearing but were classified as 15. 18 films as well now contain content which
would not have received a certificate historically but if the BBFC are to be
believed U and UC criteria has
been tightened up. This is more effective as films that only 18 and above
public would be able to view but now it enables 15 year olds to view the say
content but at a much more immature age.
There are many arguments for and against regulating the
press and television in the UK. The font in green
is for more regulation, and the font in pink
is against more regulation.
Control on what is said on
air via radio and television – e.g. Jonathon Ross and Russell Brands’
lewd comments about Andrew Sachs’ granddaughter in 2009 on BBC Radio 2 the BBC
was fined £150,000
The environment of reception
would also be an issue interlinked with regulation – a young person watching
Saw in the bedroom at 1am alone in the house is far more likely to be affected
than if they were watching the film with a group of friends at 1pm. In a
similar way modes of reception are also an issue with primary reception
(cinemas) suggesting a more focused, engaged audience while secondary reception
(television, DVD, interactive) suggests that if audiences have more control
over the way they access media then there are likely to be less issues. The
concept of the watershed is arguably irrelevant not just because of this but
also because of the naivety that children will be in bed by 9pm.
As technology becomes increasingly easier to access it
becomes harder to regulate as most news are now posted via the internet. There
is a strong argument that suggest that contemporary media audiences
are much more sophisticated, active
consumers of the media and media representations and are less in need of
protection via censorship and regulation but to what degree and who censors the
information. A method to regulate this would be ‘nanny state’ which keeps consumers
safe from evil media corporations; it is where the state has control over what
is published.
I think that regulation in the media will
always be an ongoing argument between the government and the public. I
personally think that as a country we need to be regulated on what we see, hear
and read every day to protect all ages, personalities and people in the public
so that no one gets offended or affected by what they see.
Written by: Kathryn Wolff
.jpg)
