Amiee Little
To what extent is it becoming more difficult to regulate media, and why?
Regulation can be defined as two main things, conservatives would say it is a form of protection for the vulnerable and liberals would say it is a way to control the public and take away their freedom. I agree with the liberal approach more however still am able to see the benefits of some regulation. In the past regulation was viewed as necessary due to the vulnerability of the public especially after the war. Regulation made sure that the moral standards of society were also upheld in society. Regulation in the contemporary era is more difficult due to the audiences being desensitised, this means that they have seen so much sex, violence, explicit language etc that they are immune to it and therefore need a bigger shock, therefore regulators now have the pressure of deciding to what extent is too shocking for the audiences. In 2015/16, we regulate through three main regulatory bodies: OFCOM; PEGI and BBFC. OFCOM regulates television and radio through licences and fines, BBFC reviews a film and then awards it a certificate of age and PEGI does the same as BBFC for games. The postmodern age is hard to regulate due to technological proliferation over the years and society being more ‘forward thinking’. Many people fought for their rights and freedom in the modern age and it can be seen as being taken away due to other people telling individuals what to watch and when. However the counter argument is that many people in society can be portrayed as vulnerable and unable to regulate the media for themselves and need a regulatory body to do so regardless of how difficult it can be seen to be.
OFCOM were set up in 2003 and took over regulatory practices from several different bodies including OFTEL. They are a reactive, statutory body and thus means they regulate after the content has been released and if they receive complaints they follow the laws made and set out to regulate accordingly. OFCOM use their ‘nanny state status’ meaning they have issued licenses to all programmes and if they breach their license it can be taken away or they are given a fine, this works even in contemporary times as the fear of intervention prevents producers of programmes to go against their contract. However, OFCOM illustrates faults in regulatory practices today. Benefits street is a case study of a which illustrates that regulatory practices such as OFCOM do not always follow their word. OFCOM states it is run to protect the public and work in the interest of the public, however those featured in Benefits Street were part of the public and were not protected at all. This was due to social media. The internet is a medium of which is not regulated and can often be used when a moral panic is happening or can even create a moral panic in itself.. Social media owners were therefore going online and being discriminative towards the people shown on the programme due to what they had seen. They labelled them and even sent death threats in to the show however OFCOM still allowed the programme to continue. This was due to OFCOM being statutory, in the discrimination act there is nothing inclusive of class discrimination and thus OFCOM did not intervene. This case study illustrates that it is difficult to regulate in contemporary society as the term ‘regulation’ has many different meanings and it is difficult to justify it is to protect the vulnerable in the public when certain groups in society are not included in the protection regardless of them being vulnerable.
Regulation is becoming increasingly difficult to regulate due to technologies proliferation in the postmodern era. Children now have access to their own tablets, phones, televisions, radios etc. This is also placed inside their bedrooms where parents have no control over what is being viewed and at what time. OFCOM state that their watershed is effective and I agree it is as personally I have not seen anything explicit before 9pm however, even though the watershed is effective at ensuring children and vulnerable adults do not see anything explicit before a certain time it does not mean they will not see it after. Children can easily watch television in their bedroom and access the explicit content without anyone knowing within their household. Furthermore, the access to the Internet they have means they can easily use their tablets or computers to access television catch up programmes online where they simply lie and tick a box stating they are 18 or over and can watch what they wish when they wish. The same is applicable to the BBFC and their regulatory practices. BBFC watch films and choose a certificate of age rating to award the film with, they also have the power to cut films if they are too explicit or even ban the film. BBFC recently banned the film Hate Crime due to its content including the torture of a Jewish family. The film was not banned because of the rape scenes, nor the language, not even the gore and violence. It was simply due to the fact that in world war 2 the Jews were discriminated against and in this film it was shown to be the same again as the people committing the hate crime in the film were neo-nazis. However, the director was Jewish himself and it could be argued this was an art film and thus BBFC completely missed the point to the film. This illustrates that regulation is becoming more difficult to do as society is changing and reasons behind doing things are changing. The BBFC did not take into account when banning Stuart Halls reception theory, they did not think that people may read the film differently than first appear. Hate Crime was evidently a horror film so it could be argued that the dominant reading would be that neo-nazis are bad and Jewish people are still victims in society and this reading would be the preferred one taken by the majority of people. However, the BBFC followed the copy cat theory and believed that people would think its okay to do what happened in the film or it may spark interest in them so they plan to do become a neo-nazi. The copy cat theory is shown time after time to be an ineffective theory due to its age and it's irrelevance to contemporary society, it therefore is argued that it is becoming harder to regulate but rather than adapting to societal change regulators are following and continuing what they have been doing for the past years and therefore is arguably ineffective.
Regulation is performed by those who work for PEGI BBFC or OFCOM. The majority of the people who make the final decisions are the elite. This in itself is an example as to why regulation is becoming more difficult. Middle class people tend to go to private schools, have private health care, live in areas filled with middle class people and shop in more expensive shops. This therefore illustrates that the middle class or ‘elite’ have a completely different life to the working class in every aspect. They also rarely come into contact with the working class and it is on a rare occasion to be of choice. This shows that it is difficult to regulate for the working class as those regulating are making assumptions. Gramsci’s theory on hegemony is applicable to the regulation industry as the ‘elite’ have the power to withhold information and content from the working class thus keeping them at the bottom of the system and keeping the upper class at the top.
Regulation is difficult to perform as people are more individualistic in contemporary times and therefore want more freedom of choice. It can be argued parents should be able to choose what their children consume and individuals should be able to choose what they consume rather than people who have never met the consumers and do not know what they should be regulated from personally. This links to the uses and gratification theory as different people consume different things depending on what they want to gain. For example some people may want their child to learn about what is going on in the outside world and gain knowledge rather than miss it because OFCOM have placed a watershed and graphic news is aired at 10. Furthermore some people may want to watch horror films that are so gruesome the elite have banned them as they relieve tensions on the consumer and they can escape from everyday life. Therefore regulation is difficult now as individuals do not follow the status quo or norms and values in society and are more individualistic and regulation works by classing everyone as the same and giving them the same boundaries.
Regulation is becoming more difficult as society has changed and developed over time. The family institution has changed from the 50s. The nuclear family was emphasised as the best socialisation for children to grow up in and thus to uphold moral standards families followed this. The children would be ‘seen and bot heard’ and do as they were told. However in contemporary society children are given more independence and family units have changed. The majority of families are made up of mum and children in today's society. This can make regulation more difficult. This is because parents may feel guilty for not providing their children with everything they can so they try their hardest and thus break regulation rules and laws. Single mothers maybe be persuaded by their children to get them an 18 rated game as issued by PEGI. The reason why this group may be easily persuaded is due to guilt as well as not having another adult to assert authority onto her child and thus allowing them to get what they want. Even in families with two parents children have access to games classified as 18 or 17 however they are underage. If parents do not get the children these games, older siblings or older friends do and regardless they have access to games with explicit content. This therefore makes regulation difficult to do as there are loop holes people can find in order to not follow.
In conclusion, regulation is becoming increasingly difficult to regulate as desensitisation has taken place over the years and individuals are no longer effected by classified explicit content. Furthermore regulation is becoming difficult to put into action as many people do not follow it under the impression that they believe they should be able to have personal freedom and pick what media they consume.
We made a survey on surveymonkey.co.uk so the people in the class could give us feedback online. This was to ensure we got a clear overview of the work and the feedback was made into bar charts. This meant we could read the comments in a quick and easy way to see the overall percentages of each questions answers.
