OCR G325 - SECTION B

This article aims to cover all of the areas of study taught as part of A2 OCR Media Studies G325, Section B topic – Contemporary Media Regulation. The following are examples of past questions from 2010-2011 papers:

Evaluate arguments for and against stronger regulation of the media.
To what extent can the media be regulated in the digital age?
To what extent are contemporary media regulated adequately?
Why is the regulation of media so complex?
How far do changes to the regulation of the media reflect broader social changes?
To what extent is contemporary media regulation more or less effective than in previous times?
Discuss the need for media regulation.

The concept of regulation is at times complex but fundamentally simplistic in its aims and objectives – regulation of the media seeks to protect vulnerable elements within society who may be ‘victim’ to passive consumption, primarily the younger generation. This however, in turn suggests that there is a need for a ‘nanny state’ to keep citizens safe from evil media corporations and their wicked intentions; both true and not true. There is a strong argument in the interactive digital age to 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 and who has the right to censor?

Along with contemporary media regulation, freedom of information has also been a developing global concept pioneered in part since 2006 by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks who seek to challenge notions of institution and how governments have sought to limit information from the public and public domain.

State Censorship and State Media Censorship, as in North Korea and China would be considered as the binary opposite of deregulation and moves towards deregulation in many ‘western’ countries including Europe and North America but if you drill down to what regulation is trying to achieve there is an argument there will always be a need for it – moral panics are celebrated by the right wing press and commonplace in regards to potential media effects but the fact remains that psychologically a child can be seriously affected by exposure to graphic scenes of violence, sexual activity and bad language but crucially is more likely to be affected if there is a lack of understanding. Understanding and the ability to process information are the first steps towards a more sophisticated, active consumption of media representations while an inability to understand what you see and hear can have damaging effects.

Deregulation is made possible by Desensitisation. Deregulation would be considered to be defined as more liberal approaches to media regulation and the relaxation of for example, film certification.

Regulatory bodies such as Ofcom, BBFC, ASA and the PCC have responded to shifting trends in society, a more media literate generation and the removal of some government restrictions on broadcasting for example and broadcasting ownership. Without doubt progression within society means a more open culture, wider access to media, more diversification and choice and a digital revolution which has changed what is even understood by the term, ‘media’. The internet has revolutionised culture and the exchange of culture and regulatory bodieshave had to respond. Unregulated content is commonplace, global and easy to find at the click of a mouse – ‘traditional’ media including films, television, newspapers, radio and magazines are readily available along with a raft of new media. The concept of regulation has been laid bare and open to question in terms of the idea of gatekeeping mechanisms. Changes in society and moves towards a more liberal culture has trusted the younger generation more with learning about the media via accessing the media and engaging in more interactive consumption. Just like traditional media though new media helps to develop a worldview and a virtual understanding of the world we live in. Mediated culturehas replaced objectivity and much of the information we know about the world we live in is via media representations. Right wing, pro regulation campaigners have always stated that parental control should work in conjunction with regulation of the media to create a safer environment – this concept is changing with the march of technology.

Audiences who are desensitised have been exposed to a wide range and continuous bombardment of media representations to the point that they are no longer affected by what they see and hear – an example of this could be Horror Films.

Saw is a horror franchise that has sought to develop the historical and familiar genre conventions by offering it own unique selling point (USP), the idea of self harm. Often a way of ‘pushing the envelope’ in terms of what audiences are subject to involves pushing against the boundaries and codesset down by regulatory bodies. Audiences who have significant cultural capital in terms of consumption of violent and graphic horror films are far less likely to be passively affected by the representations in Saw including having to saw off your own leg to escape certain death and gouge out your own eye to find the key that will enable you to escape and live. They are desensitised. Audiences who are less familiar with the genre however are more likely to be passively affected. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has awarded Sawfilms an 18 certificate reflecting the graphic representations but would not have give the film a certificate 20 years ago – deregulation as a result of desensitisation and cultural change.

The problem of desensitisation is a complex one – it would be naive to suggest that audiences who are desensitised are automatically active consumers of the media; arguably they have been passively affected because they are desensitised and in terms of audience expectations would be disappointed if they experienced a Saw film without the gore, violence and psychological terror. Too much exposure to shocking media representations can potentially be as damaging.

Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) directed by Tom Six in 2011 was originally banned in the UK for its ‘revolting content’ but eventually was given and 18 certificate after 32 cuts. The initial banning of the film only served to increase the publicity and viral hype about the film and sent audiences to the internet as an unregulated medium in search of it. It is incredulous to many people that a film about connecting humans by their mouth and alimentary canal can be shown in cinemas and as in the original Human Centipede, on television but again this clearly reflects desensitisation and deregulation. Human Centipede is regularly shown on niche television channels like Syfy in the UK, albeit post watershed but again with Video on Demand (VOD) and Sky + for examples audiences can watch television content whenever they want.

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 and crucially what they will be doing when they get to their bedroom – most 12/13 children in the UK have a television and/or computer in their bedroom and many children have unrestricted access to content. This of course is a generalised comment but secondary surveys indicate this and regular primary surveys of students by media teachers confirm this as a fact. Pulp Fiction (1994) was first shown on British television after 9pm and on a Sunday night because it was assumed most children would be in bed on a ‘Monday’ school night. What this schedulingserved to create instead was a guaranteed younger audience for the film as result of the cross media speculation at the time about its screening and scenes of drug taking (the film was cut once for cinema exhibition, again for DVD and again for television which assumed a wider audience. Films on television will invariably be subject to a higher level of regulation as result of the likelihood of a wider target audience. The environment of reception would also be an issue interlinked with regulation – a young person watching Saw in their 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. Much television consumption is interlinked with multi tasking and external stimulus. Tertiary reception remains interesting with radio being the most common media form that is often used as background noise and ambience only. Audiences have often commented on the fact they are more aware of a brand, an item of news or a song due to the subliminal affects of repetition.

George Gerbner in his Cultivation Theory (1968) hypothesised about the effects of television suggesting that long term people that watch too much television live in a ‘television world’, fully believing in the social reality that is unfolding. In a similar way Marshall McLuhan in 1964 suggested that ‘the medium is the message’ simplified means that essentially what was coming out of the television was unimportant, it was the status the television has in the lives and how the message understood is affected by that entertainment medium. The link to regulation here suggests there is an argument that misinformation can be mediated through television, particularly through the medium of News and Documentary genres which restrict the amount of graphic, real life violence and death audiences can access. This is the nanny state. 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. Audiences rarely see ‘live death’ on British television which is not uncommon in other European countries. When Sadaam Hussein was hung on December 30th 2006 broadband connection struggled to cope with the amount of audiences seeking to view this event as television coverage was censored. The fact remains that it was easy to find, as are other hideous images of armed conflict and sensitive material never to be broadcast or published.

The internet is billions of pages of unregulated content, despite The Internet Society and parental software and despite simple requests asking users to confirm they are 18 by just clicking ‘yes’.

It is only DA Notices (formerly D Notices) that have the power to restrict access – governments have the statutory authority, normally in times of war and conflict to prevent editors and broadcasters from publishing content that may compromise national security. In November 2010 the government stood in readiness, drawing editors’ attention to existing DA Notices in relation to sensitive documents about to be released via the website WikiLeaks.

The internet has radically changed what we understand by regulation and whether in fact we need it. Ofcom regularly receives complaints from the public in regards to television content e.g. use of bad language in Outnumbered or Big Brother but arguments about the importance and role of this type of alleged trivial regulation abound. The majority of complaints made to the Press Complaints Commission are about accuracy and not about content again bringing into question the role and future of this organisation which will highly likely have limited longevity post the Leveson Inquiry (July 2011-2012). Regulators like the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) are often subject to similar criticism in relation to their own ineffectiveness and vague codes of practice. Charity and government advertising remains the most unregulated form with content deemed to be ‘in the public interest’. Graphic images are less likely to be subject to cuts of restrictions as they are conveying an important message to the public. Graphic violence for commercial reasons only is more likely to fall on the regulatory sword but again, as with film and print desensitisation has led to deregulation.

In regards to television, channel proliferation and digitisation has had a dramatic affect on regulation. The analogue signal is now finally switched off across the UK with most consumers having access to at least 33 channels via Freeview and hundreds of channels via Virgin and Sky for example. This diversity and choice has not just changed approaches to regulating content but has affected patterns of viewing and channel loyalty. Younger audiences, as with new media seek immediate entertainment at the expense of what Martin Bell, former News and War Correspondent at the BBC described as ‘immediacy without understanding’. Escapist entertainment battles with more realist programming for audiences but each with their issues relating to content. Skins on E4 and Waterloo Road on the BBC are frequently complained about to Ofcom in relation to the ways teenagers are represented and the potential effects on young audiences seeing characters as aspirational role models.

Ofcom (The Office for Communication) regulates television, radio, fixed line content and mobile phones. It is a government funded department that publishes a code of practice that broadcasters have to abide by and also as a secondary role undertakes key research into television and audiences including technology, the internet and audience trends in conjunction with BARB (The Broadcaster’s Audience Research Board).

Post digitisation crucially Ofcom also has the responsibility of granting licenses to broadcasters as well as regulating content. In regards to content they are a ‘post transmission regulator’ which means like the ASA who only investigate complaints after the advert is broadcast, uploaded or published Ofcom will only investigate complaints made after the programme has been broadcast. The trigger for an investigation to be made is 10 complaints and Ofcom seek to resolve the issue within six weeks writing to the complainants stating whether their complaint has been ‘upheld’ or ‘not upheld’. Certain genres of programming are more subject to complaints than others with Reality TV Soap Operas as two of the most complained about. An increase in voyeuristic, popular culture entertainment has challenged and pushed the boundaries of the codes of practice particularly considering the relevance or non relevance of the watershed as identified earlier – real life violence and soft porn are now common on British television in the guise of programmes like Jeremy Kyle, Jerry Springer, Bang Babes and Babestation. Jerry Springer’s producer was once quoted as saying if he could get away with a live execution on television he would.

Ofcom have the power to fine broadcasters and occasionally do, albeit as a token gesture – after Jonathon Ross and Russell Brands’ lewd comments about Andrew Sachs’ granddaughter in 2009 on BBC Radio 2 the BBC was fined £150,000 which was seen as a hollow sanctionconsidering the amount of revenue the BBC receive.

Interestingly both presenters ultimately also benefitted from the publicity with Ross leaving the BBC and developing a lucrative contract with ITV while Brand laid low for a few months, went to America and appeared in a number of high production value, high profile Hollywood films. Ofcom on the other hand continues to regulate broadcast and telecommunications content on behalf of the British public with their effectiveness as a regulator open to interpretation.

The BBFC are a longstanding historical organisation who regulate films, DVDs, Digital Games, Trailers and Advertisements in UK cinemas. Established in 1912 they are unlike Ofcom an independent, non governmental body funded by levied charges to every production or distribution company who submits a piece of work for classification – the longer the work the more they can charge. What is less widely known is that they classify films on behalf of local authorities who retain the rights to not show a film in their cinemas despite having received a certificate by the BBFC – an example of this would be David Cronenburg’s Crash in 1996 which received an 18 certificate from the BBFC but which was refused exhibition in the London Borough of Westminster and Lanarkshire. The BBFC have to consider major legislation when certificating a film including the Protection of Children Act (1978), Race Relations Act (1976), Human Rights Act (1998) and the Video Recordings Act of 1984. Prior to this date films on video did not require a certificate. In their complex set of criteria which determines the classification a film should receive (UC, U, 12, 12a, PG, 18) the BBFC also need to consider cultural and legal issues including libel and blasphemy which currently only refers to the Christian faith. The internet and media convergence in particular has been slowly creating problems for classification with films like The Last House on the Left (1972) receiving 31 cuts from the BBFC for DVD release with the production company getting round this problem by putting an ‘Easter Egg’ on the DVD which gives you a cope to go online and access deleted scenes.

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.

The BBFC classify between 600 and 650 films a year, 16,000 DVDs, over 400 computer/video games (with 200 classified at 15 and 18) and over 2500 trailers. It is rare for the BBFC to reject any work with preference normally given to asking the production company to reframe or reshoot a scene, remove certain dialogue of accept the cuts imposed with the inevitable problems affecting narrative continuity (cuts normally mean reedit). With this workload in mind there are 30 full/part time examiners, 10 specialist computer/video games examiners, Cantonese and South Asian language examiners that work in four teams viewing over 5 ½ hours of work a day, in pairs in the BBFC’s own mini cinema. A tick box clipboard determines the certificate and if agreed passes up the chain to a senior examiner for checking before a report on each piece is filed. The BBFC have their own student website.

The treatment and style of the work is sometimes as important as the content itself with artistic or educational merit considered – Saving Private Ryan was deemed a historical record of an actual event and as such was leniently dealt with during the classification process. Cartoon or animated violence can be one way around the regulator while still retaining the message and themes; again creating debate on whether audiences are more likely to be passively affected by realist representations rather than hyper real, non realist texts like GTA V and Duke Nukem. Key issues the BBFC often consider involve violence, sex, language, sexual references, sexual violence, drugs, criminal activity, weapons, imitable techniques, narrative themes and inevitably legal issues. The glamorisation of violence remains a controversial issue with films like Kidulthood and Football Factory open to significant debate as to whether the representation of violence is critical or potentially aspirational to young target audiences. Examiner themselves can only classify films for four years being at risk themselves of becoming desensitised. Examiners have to have a history of working with children either in teaching, youth work or social work and have to have a proven knowledge of film and film history at degree level.

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) is potentially the first regulatory body under threat, particularly as a result of the Leveson Inquiry.

For many years regarded as a ‘toothless’ organisation the PCC is crucially a self regulating, non statutory body whose purpose is to consider, decide or conciliate complaints brought against newspapers and periodicals (both hard copy and online) by complainants. For a complaint to be upheld it must contravene an Editor’s Code of Practicewith most members not connected in any way with the press – a minority of members have a connection with the newspaper industry but particularly relevant is that they are funded by a levy raised by the newspaper industry. The PCC has been reluctant in recent years to ‘bite the hand that feeds. The code itself is cloaked with board generalised observations which over the years has led to some criticism e.g. “all members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards”. Freedom of expression is also referred to in terms of ‘interpreting’ the code.

The code itself is simplistic and difficult to apply but when breached with the complaint upheld the publication is asked to publish the adjudication “with due prominence”. Unfortunately this again is a grey area that can be manipulated by publications in regards to what they would consider as “due prominence” – a reported erroneous accusation of rape against a celebrity on the front cover of The Sun will often appear as an apology on page eight as a small column. Newspapers Editors over the years have often adopted a ‘publish and be damned’ philosophy as it sells newspapers with PCC sanctions as a hollow threat. As identified earlier Accuracy is the most common complaint but the downloadable code also covers Opportunity to reply (to accusations), Privacy (often breached but never proven), Harassment (see current News International payouts facilitated NOT by the PCC but by legal rulings which the PCC does not involve themselves in, Intrusion into Grief and Shock (Milly Dowler’s family may have something to say about this), Children and Children in Sex Cases, Hospitals, Clandestine Devices and subterfuge (speaks for itself), Victims of Sexual Assault, Discrimination, Financial Journalism, Confidential sources, Witness payments (so called ‘cheque book journalism) and Payments to Criminals. As always there are clauses where Editors suggest publication is in the public interest but it is uncertain what the private life of Eastenders actors falls into this category. The PCC continues to function with without legal powers and currently heavily criticised for its failure to act under the Leveson Inquiry.

Advertising in the UK is regulated by the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority), again an independent, non statutory self regulatory body – the ASA investigate complaints about advertising after they have been printed, uploaded or broadcast and has a similar process for dealing with enquiries as Ofcom.

Clearcast is the organisation which pre approves scripts and final television advertising copy before audiences see the adverts which is ideally the perfect arrangement; a Copy Group checks and approves , material and a post transmission regulator deals with any further issues from members of the public. Unfortunately, due to the sheer volume of advertising copy in the UK all commercials cannot be fully vetted and pre approved and many slip the net and do not conform to the BCAP Code (the criteria used by Clearcast and the ASA) of taste and decency although the code itself is much more in depth and complex and can be downloaded – for example, one criteria states that “advertising should not encourage consumers to eat or drink before bedtime” which was complained about when Kellogg’s Corn Flakes launched a campaign encouraging exactly that.

The type of advertising the ASA involve themselves with is television, radio, newspapers, leaflets, billboards, internet advertising and magazines – it is difficult to regulate internet advertising on one level due to its non geographical nature. As part of their own interpretation of the BCAP code their mantra states “all adverts have to be legal, honest and truthful” which is another article in its own right. The ASA has the power to ask advertisers to withdraw a commercial or to fine which again when compared to the revenue involved in advertising is a minimal spend. Many advertising agencies like BBH (Bartle, Bogle and Hegarty) at the end of each year have Banned Award Ceremonies as it is considered a marketing victory to gain this type of notoriety and publicity as like everything banned, audiences race to the internet to see what all the fuss is about and then are that little bit closer to buying into the brand or at least brand identity has been established. The role of the ASA may potentially, as with the PCC be subject to investigation itself as the UK moves slowly towards a more European model of deregulation.

Arguably the BBFC remains the most viable regulatory body with cinema attendance still healthy and on the same curve as DVD sales however, as a result of digital technology and improvements in broadband this is being eroded as audiences consume films on different platforms and in different ways. Traditional right wing, often Christian groups will always call for tighter regulation of the media but always battling against social change, desensitisation and the march of technology. As consumers of the declining circulation of print media we await the outcome of the Leveson Inquiry to see whether newspaper regulation will shunt into reverse in comparison with the deregulation of other media as a result of the high impact, high profile News of the World hacking affair, arrests, charges, compensation and vastly expensive year long inquiry.

OCR G325 - SECTION B

Monday 16 April 2018

Media in the Online Age

Monday 19 February 2018

Exemplar article on Section B - Regulation

Thursday 1 June 2017

Contemporary Media Regulation