Pros and Cons of Media Regulation

Hannah Tyne
Pros and Cons of Media Regulation

Regulation is no longer needed to protect audiences. Media regulation is how broadcasting and advertising is overseen and controlled. Media has changed over the last 20 years where films have become more violent or vulgar. The media industry has evolved over time and so there is more on offer for audiences to enjoy. However, businesses are forced to conform because regulation does not allow them to show certain things before the watershed or advertise some of the products they would like to. The public as a whole are split between those who dont care what they see and those who find some viewing inappropriate for their children. People dont like information being kept from them, and so they wish for broadcasters to have freedom of expression but they must also keep some information private to maintain peoples privacy and reputations. Broadcasting originated in the UK in 1920 and 2 years later the BBC was formed. They were the only business to broadcast for 30 years until ITV was formed in the 1950s. The BBC was a monopoly public service provider for over 30 years, so regulation was very brief and only made for them. However, once new television broadcasters were introduced, regulation had to be altered and improved. Margaret Thatcher created the Broadcasting Act of 1990 which allowed a new broadcaster to be introduced, which became Channel 5 as well as the use of independent production companies to be used in the production of BBC programming. This would have allowed for the media industry to expand and encouraged more independent production of programmes. However through this act, advertising was allowed to be shared to Channel 4 rather than ITV the only channel to do so. The act generated more commercial pressure and allowed competition in the industry instead of the monopoly shown in the BBCs broadcasting and ITVs advertising. The Communications Act of 2003 allowed for Ofcom to gain full power and become to main regulation body in the UK. Ofcom continue to regulate and keep distasteful or inappropriate media off the radio and television. Ofcom work to censor any media that has had complaints made from members of the public. They have to power to change or even remove the unsuitable media to allow for audiences to enjoy what is produced. Ofcom came into discussion as the end of the Leveson Inquiry. It was said that newspapers would have to be restricted in their freedom of press because of the ways they acquire their information. It was discussed that an Ofcom-style statutory regulation would have to be put in place, but the Prime Minister and almost all newspaper owners disagreed in the involvement of Ofcom. An example of Ofcom taking action was in 2009 when Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand made inappropriate comments about Andrew Sachs and his granddaughter. It was broadcast on a BBC radio station and so Ofcom fined the BBC 150,000 for its failures and breach of the Broadcasting Code. Film regulation covers a wide spectrum of media. In the production of film, you must consider the Obscene Publications Act making the publishing of obscene material an offence in the interest of the public. However, in the last 20 to 30 years, it has moved away from censorship towards the classification of films. The BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) put an age rating of film and video games by looking at the language, discrimination, horror, nudity and violence of the media. An example of the BBFC at work was when they looked at A Clockwork Orange when it was submitted to them in 1971. It was discussed and received an 18 age rating because of the violence shown and how it may encourage the behaviour to viewers. The film was never rejected by the BBFC, but the director, Stanley Kubrick, decided as an example of self-censorship to withdraw the film from circulation in the UK. Only after his death was the film allowed to be released in the UK. The media industry should be able to be accessed by any independent production company. Media conglomerates do not allow this and so the industry is being held back in its improvement. There
Hannah Tyne should be some kind of restriction in place so that there can be access to those who are not a part of the conglomerates who monopolise the media industry. There should be diversity and the media deserve give everyone the chance to make an impact on the public. Although there are so many choices for the consumer to choose from, it is all made from the same businesses as most other media products. There needs to be access to funding for these independents in the industry. For example, how will people make an influence on others to become the new British talent of film making or radio producing? There should be the funding available for the little guy to be able to get their foot in the door. There should be regulation in place so that indecent things are not aired on the radio or shown on the television, but there needs to be some freedom of expression. People should be able to be truthful about what happens in the world and give this information to the public. However, the water-shed should still be in place as there is no reason for children of a young age to see or hear something that is beyond their years. The BBFC do a good job in rating films giving the public the precaution to let their children see something that is rated for a person older than them. Safety is possibly the most important thing in the media industry. If regulation is taken too far, then the quality of what is produced in this country will be affected. If you dumb-down a film or television series, it will not be considered good viewing compared to something made in America where there is a controlled regulation over what can be produced and broadcast. There should be regulation to maintain the quality of the British made productions. Media should be inspiring not quality controlled. BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) inspire a person to watch films by awarding those who have made something that is considered worth celebrating. Award ceremonies like the BAFTAs are accountable for what is successful in the UK. If awarded, people will go out of their way to watch a film, therefore continuing the ever prosperous media industry. Some politicians believe that Ofcom should be abolished. The Conservative party believe that Ofcom powers should be taken away as well as cutting its funding. David Cameron has said that he would "Give Ofcom, or give a new body, the technical function of handing out the licences and regulating lightly the content that is on the screens." This may save the government money, but it would more than likely cause more problems for media producers. They may not be clear on what is right and what is wrong to make. They will be able to express themselves to a greater extent but Ofcom is needed in this country because they consider what the publics best interests are and control what is considered acceptable to protect audiences. The discussion that regulation is no longer needed will be continued for years to come by politicians, regulators and the public. But a consideration must be made to what would happen to the media produced in this country if regulation is withdrawn.

Pros and Cons of Media Regulation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pros and Cons of Media Regulation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pros and Cons of Media Regulation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hannah Tyne

Pros and Cons of Media Regulation

You might also like