HALF TERM ESSAY - REGULATION

"HOW WELL DOES CONTEMPORARY MEDIA REGULATION PROTECT THE PUBLIC?"


I will be analysing and comparing the BBFC, PEGI and OFCOM. I will be analysing whether they fully protect the public by comparing theories and if not how/why through case studies. The BBFC (British Board of Film Censors) came to be made as beforehand local authorities had the power to impose their own censorship standards this meaning each film had a different certificate depending on location. At this point there were only 2 certificates: U and A. In 1982 PG, 15, 18 and R18 were introduced and in 1984 BBFC changed their name meaning to British Board of Classification. They did so as it was more practical in communicating the content f a film to their audiences. BBFC used to give certificates to games but the industry was expanding so PEGI was established in 2003. PEGI (Pan European Game Information) was set up to protect online gamers in 2007. They fully took over from BBFC in 2012 as they were seen as a lot stricter. The main TV and radio regulators are OFCOM (Office of Communications), they were set up in 2003 and they inherited the duties from the previous five regulators of which included OFTEL (Office of Telecommunications).  They were all seem as too ‘light’ when giving certificates however OFCOM were conceived as a ‘super-regulator’. They have a code to ensure broadcasting agents comply with the licence given by OFCOM and if not the licence can be revoked.

The regulatory bodies are put in place to protect the public from the media. The BBFC was made to help regulate and stop violence. They aim to provide the highest standard of customer service by giving age certificates based upon the content of the film being issued. They provide age rating and content advice for theatrical releases under the licensing act 2003 and provide ratings for Blu-Ray's and DVD under the video recordings act 1984. They state that their ‘mission’ is to protect the public, especially children, from possible harmful content in films. They seek to empower the public, mainly parents, to make informed viewing choices for them and others and seek to change social attitudes or happenings that the media content could cause. However, their aim is to stop violence with ratings but this fails as it still takes place. This is shown in the case study of Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 as student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people before committing suicide. This shooting occurred regardless of the regulatory bodies in the US thus showing that they're not 100% effective and is thought to have links to the film Oldboy (2003).

Also, O Davey states that violence is a vital part of our every day lives and violence therefore cannot be disguised from film as we can't distinguish it in life. Although, audiences are also shown to be more concerned about drugs and violence instead of sex however Linda Williams, Anti-censorship campaigner, finds it ridiculous as BBFC ignores their audiences lack of concern regarding sex and they place 18 ratings on films with explicit sex scenes such as Ai No Corrida (1976) and The Pornographer (2001). Sex has also become less of a stigma in society and is hinted at through television of which is shown in the day before the watershed and even is discussed on day time television. This shows that the high ratings on films featuring sexually explicit scenes and no other form of ‘harmful’ content is unnecessary as it does not protect the public from anything as it is accessible on other forms of media (TV and reading materials like newspapers).

OFCOM is a regulatory company for television. They aim to provide adequate protection for the public by securing them against offensive or harmful materials in television or radio, they deal with complaints and then act upon them after the text has been aired. They act as a parent and thus makes the UK a nanny state. This works by overshadowing the media thus making their authoritative power known over the companies as if they breach license they will be fined and if a substantial amount of times it is done the licence is taken away, this acts as a deterrent. In 2009 they banned the Keira Knightley ‘women's ad’ as it featured domestic violence. The ad included her getting punched and violently kicked, it was banned for being ‘brutal’ and was ‘too shocking for the small-screen’. OFCOM received complaints after the X-Factor show of which was pre-watershed which included sexual dance routines of which included semi-naked singers and dancers. However OFCOM stated it was clear as it was ‘at the very margin of acceptability’. As a government body, OFCOM has many powers over communication industries. They can ban media products and work to help audiences and the media distributor meet through being of service to stop something which is of concern. This includes what is shown on television and also ‘rigged’ competitions and shows. For example, there was a fix ‘scandal’ as Ant and Dec were wrongly honoured with the people’s choice award instead of Catherine Tate. It was found that ITV were fined £5.67 million for cheating viewers out of millions of pounds as they charged at a premium rate for each phone call in.

PEGI works as a company that helps decide what is appropriate for the audience to consume and that which is deemed to have the potential to cause harm. We as an audience place trust in the organisations and rely on them to make the correct decisions whether we should be subjected to the content the media product contains. Video games are portrayed frequently in a ‘bad light’ in the media press as they suggest that video games are the result of harm to younger generations. However, Douglas Gentile states that there's a range of scientific proof that antisocial and dangerous behaviour increased due to violent games thus regulations help lower young people from playing and being influenced by violent games of which then stunts their growth into a violent person. In comparison, the Byron review (2008) found no evidence of desensitisation from playing video games and regulation should be in the hands of the institution e.g. in parental control within the institution of the home.

PEGI, OFCOM and BBFC all cannot protect the public, especially children, as in the private institution of a home. Parents can buy games or films for their children and also many children and young teens have their own televisions in their rooms allowing them to watch whatever they want, whenever they want.

In conclusion, I think that overall contemporary media regulation protects the public to an extent. Due to new technological devices and the growth in the use of them people now have more access to media products. This means that children have access to iPads, their own televisions, phones etc which they can play games or download films on, even watch tv by asking an older sibling or parent for their email to prove they are of age. This then shows that the regulatory bodies are trying to protect the public however it is not necessarily working as there are ways that people ‘get around’ it. Not only at home but also young teenagers regularly pretend to be older or buy tickets online to avoid being questioned about their age when going to watch a higher rated certificate than their age at cinemas or ‘theatre houses’. I believe that this will persist and carry on in the future, children are now open to a lot more than in centuries before and thus are desensitised. This means that ratings may be, in the future, lesser in the harshness of application than now or even branded as unnecessary.