PAST MEDIA REG Qs

JAN 2010 How effectively can contemporary media be regulated? How far do changes to the regulation of media reflect broader social changes? JUNE 2010 To what extent is contemporary media regulation more or less effective than in previous times? Discuss the need for media regulation. JAN 2011 Evaluate the arguments for and against stronger regulation of the media. To what extent can media be regulated in the media age? JUNE 2011 To what extent are contemporary media regulated adequately? Why is the regulation of media so complex? JAN 2012

JUNE 2012

1: To what extent are contemporary media regulated adequately?

[June 2011 sample]
There are many arguments from the public, psychologists and the media industry itself as to whether contemporary media is being regulated adequately. Changes in technology, social values and legislation has affected both film and press regulation, but overall I believe that both areas are being regulated well. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) regulates DVDs, cinema releases and video games, although soon they will not be classifying the latter. As an independent body made up of laymen from different backgrounds they represent society and therefore current values and beliefs. The BBFC publish their guidelines every five years, making amends as necessary. Recently the discrimination area was added, improving the ability of the BBFC

to adapt to current beliefs. The C in BBFC used to stand for Censorship, so in moving to Classification, this represents a more liberal approach than in recent times. The BBFC acknowledges overriding principals of context, time, and release format. Tangled (2010, Greno) was rated PG since the BBGC realised that although there was fighting, the fantasy setting would be obvious to children as a prince was fighting a nurse, which is unrealistic. However, new technology like CGI and 3G animation blurs the lines between fantasy and reality so maybe the principle will not be withheld in the future. Negative effects research treats children as vulnerable, which isnt necessarily the case. In 1993 the murder of James Bulger was linked to Childs Play 3 (Bender, 1991) as psychologists like Elizabeth Newson inferred that violent murder was a direct result of the film. The BBFC then updated the Video Recordings Act to include the harm test. Martin Barker argues that films like Childs Play 3 are often targeted because they address political issues and David Gauntlett agrees, as negative effects research treat children as inadequate. In 2008, Batman (Nolan) caused uproar as parents complained that it was rated at 12A when it should have been much higher. Obviously everyone has a different idea of what harm is so the BBFC are not as effective as they could be if their guidelines are underpinned by flawed logic. However, since the BBFC work with legislation, it could be seen that they are regulating adequately. Hip Hip Hora aka The Ketchup Effect (Fabik, 2004) was investigated for child nudity so that it didnt breach the Protection of Children Act. This shows effectiveness from the BBFC as legal matters are considered, so the government dont need to intervene. With that said, the Human Centipede 2 (2011, Tam Six) was banned this month due to sexual violence as it breached the Obscene Publications Act. Director, Six, argued that the film is a work of art and merely actors playing roles not real life, yet context isnt taken into account. Just because a film is creepy or distasteful doesnt mean that it should be banned. This begs to argue the issue of taste and decency as the BBFC are not being objective. Even though the film has been banned it is most likely that people will watch it online, since websites like magavideo and The PirateBay allow anyone to access anything online. Even many cinemas dont check for identification, yet providers like Sky TV require a password to watch rated films before the watershed. Perhaps regulation needs to be a two-way process; between individuals and regulators. The PCC (Press Complaints Commission) is an independent regulatory body that was created to replace the the Press Council in regulating newspapers and magazines. Previously the PCC were secretive and didnt put their code of conduct online, but now it is available to the public, which shows better communication. The Code of Conduct is drawn up by a board of editors made up of people from the press industry itself so the experts from the industry are in control. The PCC is relatively new, so there are bound to be kinks in the system that need to be improved. In the 1990s the PCC was created to uphold standards that had diminished during the use of the celebrity and death of Princess Diana. Furthermore, the issues with the McCanns prompted the formation of the Select

Committee review which suggested tightening up the apology sanction. In the past, editors got away with tiny apologies on back pages but now, they must apologise properly, for example, on the front page. However since the PCC regulates post-publication, once something is printed, the whole world can see it so apologies dont always suffice. Also, the issue of taste and decency is a grey area, which is difficult to regulate effectively. In 2009, Jan Moir wrote an inaccurate and offensive article about Stephen Gately. Twitter was ablaze with people angry at the situation, which caused a record number of complaints to the PCC. However, since Moirs comments were opinions complaints were not upheld. There are many loop holes in the PCCs system. Tesco successfully sued the Guardian over issues of tax avoidance which were accurate but since a few facts werent right, the corporate giant won a huge amount. Furthermore, recently, celebrities like Ryan Giggs have been able to use superinjunctions to scapre articles being written about them. Giggs claimed that his children would be bullied, and this is a common occurrence of the wealthy and powerful. The PCC need to address this issue of grey areas, which they probably will in the future. The internet plays a huge role in regulation as it is outside of regulatory juristriction. Anonymous tweeters reveal secrets about superinjunctions which get re-tweeted nationwide but the PCC cannot prevent this. However, the PCCs first blog ruling was of Rod Liddle who falsely claimed that the overwhelming majority of violence in London was committed by Afro-Caribbean males. Since this post breached the accuracy clause and was on the Spectator website, the PCC could uphold a complaint which shows that the regulatory body is adapting to the changing technology by regulating content online. One may question why the BBFC and PCC have so many rules when unregulated sites online completely undermine them. A video of Neda Soldani, a young Iranian woman, being killed was posted online to YouTube. If this was on print, the PCC would have probably regulated this as it breaches privacy issues as well as intrusion to grief or shock. The internet has resulted in citizen journalism, like that in the Free Tibet Movement in 2008. Here, the effects of web 2.0 were positive as bloggers were able to highlight problems on the trusted western news like the BBC. However, the BBFC faces bigger problems since piracy is rife online and people can watch whatever they like regardless of age. I strongly believe that regulation benefits everyone. It protects the vulnerable (even if it can be patronising at times), but regulation at home and in the cinema needs to be stricter. I worked at a cinema where employees didnt check peoples age, but the BBFC need to ensure this happens. Furthermore, the introduction of the Digital Economy Act should mean that there is less illegal file sharing online, protecting the industries and individuals from watching unsuitable content. In the future, there should be raised awareness of the BBFC and PCC since many people dont know about them. Making the parents site (PBBFC) more known would help parents to make informed decisions. Both regulatory bodies are working to the best of their abilities, especially in

difficult times where there are grey areas, issues with subjectiveness and rising accessibility to technology like the internet.
This is a level 4 response. Its main strength is the range of rich, contemporary and relevant examples and how well they are utilised. These examples are discussed in dialogue with industry practice / regulatory frameworks and effects theories and in such a way that the critical perspective in hand is constantly foregrounded. The candidate understands, and articulates very well, the complexity of the debate. Terminology is the area that could be developed further, as there is room for more theoretical perspectives (eg Gillmor could be cited with regard to citizen journalism). As required in the specification, the majority of the answer deals with contemporary examples.

2: JUNE 2010 SAMPLE: To what extent is contemporary media

regulation more or less effective than in previous times?
Contemporary media regulation has changed over nearly a century of it being put in place. There are several reasons surrounding this including social changes and the vast expansion of new technologies. When looking at contemporary media regulation two of the most important practices to look at pre BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) who classify + give advice + certificates to films as well as the PCC (Press Complaints Commission) who deal with complaints in the press + online press post-publication. It is important to consider although there are problems with regulation, its effectiveness is still high considering its obstacles, and one must look at whether presently it could be done any differently. The BBFCs effectiveness have been put in the spotlight for many years by those such as Adrian Gill who believe that either we as a society dont need regulation, or that the BBC are not regulating in the right way. Previously many of its issues were surrounding passing films at a lower certificate than the public believed it should be. When film was becoming popular with the great British public, content showing social struggle was banned as fears it would lead to unrest such as films like Love on the dole. However this just implements one of the key arguments that is the BBFC regulate by the few and for the masses believing they know what is best. Today things are quite different, with people from different social status representing a broader population. Another issue which came up in the past but is still relevant today is cutting a film to lower a certificate which may in fact change the meaning altogether, making it worse. A classic example of this was Henry which was cut to be passed at 18 but made the context of the situation in the film worse. Twelve of the 13 issues the BBFC look at when regulating a film still stand today from when the BBFC was first set up in 1913. The addition of number 13, discrimination, shows that the BBFC are adapting to a wider social change. However there are still many issues surrounding

their effectiveness today. If you look at fimls such as The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan 2008) which was promoted poorly to child friendly places and passed as a 12A but received handfuls of complaints from parents who deemed it too frightening for their young children that they took to see it, this is why the BBFC operate a website for parents giving classification information on every film they have regulated. The introduction of the 12A in 2002 was a very effective move by the BBFC who received complaints when Spiderman (2002, Sam Raimi), a childrens comic, received a 12 certificate they decided to introduce the 12A certificate allowing children under 12 to be accompanied by an adult. However 12A does not apply to home videos. Videos are more easily accessible in the home by young children who could be considered to be impressionable. In 1994 the Video Recordings Act adapted to include the Harm Test after it was said that the murderers of Jamie Bulger in 1993 watched a horror film (Childs Play 3) and copied parts. Whether this is true or not, one must consider whether we can in fact be harmed by something we watch, or are we sensible enough to make a distinction between fiction and reality. The PCC have proved effective over the years in dealing with complaints in the press, however in recent years I believe are less effective. This is partly to do with the nature of post-publication as whether a newspaper apologises or not, the information is still out there. This is clear in one example where the Mail on Sunday printed detailed information about author J.K Rowlings home. They gave the argument that the information they gave was already online for people to see. But by printing it in a Sunday paper, people dont have to look for it, it is there, however this information cannot be taken back. The rise of the celebrity has meant more people are going to the courts rather than going through the PCC. Examples such as John Terry who took out a legal injunction to stop newspapers printing an article about him adultery but the courts believed it was in the publics best interest for the story to be released. The issue of privacy vs public interest is always an issue. An important case to remember is that of the death of Princess Diana who was ambushed by photographers which at one time was believed to be the cause of her death with headlines such as Press killed the Princess. This has led to issues with harrrassment being taken more seriously. The PCC are not wholly effective as they cannot deal with matters of taste + decency. When Jan Moir wrote a fairly distasteful article about Stephen Gately shortly after his death the PCC received more than 20,000 complaints, which was the most that they had received, however could do nothing as it regarded taste issues which arent covered in the PCC code. The biggest issue with effectiveness today is how to regulate the web and the rise of web 2.0. For both film + press this is a new development which the PCC + BBFC are trying to tackle. It is far too hard to police films online with users, no matter what age, having access to almost any films and with downloads at an all time high with films such as Watchmen (2009) receiving over 16,000,000 downloads. This has led to a move by the govt and the

introduction of the Digital Economy Act 2010 which will cut the internet of those illegally downloading. I dont see this an effective method as people will always fins a way around it, or worse have resentment and so stop paying for media altogether. However the BBFC have started to regulate some websites, giving their stamp of approval and even beginning to regulate films which are only put online. The PCC is a harder issue when it comes to the web, with the rise of we media and utilizes journalism which provides user generated content and up to the minute feeds on current events. A key example of this was during the 2009 Iranian Protests, when the death of Neda was captured on video and streamed all around the world. The rise of social networking sites and blogs mean the people no longer need the press, nor do they themselves need regulating. A comment on twitter could be sent out to over 1000 followers who are instantly informed, such as what happened with the Hudson River crash. Although the PCC do regulate press sites I believe it is them, rather than the BBFC who are more in trouble concerning new technology. Overall the effectiveness of both the BBFC and the PCC has stayed relatively the same because for the ways in which it has improved more problems have been presented. The changes reflecting broader social issues has made both more effective as both have had to adapt alongside society. However the rise of web 2.0 looks damaging for regulation as the web is so vast and therefore so hard to control. Evidently people will try and find ways around regulation, as they have done for years and years, and the BBFC and PCC are both doing as good a job as they can considering the circumstances. EAA 15 EG 14 T7 Examiners comments In relation to the mark scheme this candidate achieves the top of level 3 by adapting their learning to the chosen question, making some connections in order to present a coherent argument, utilising well chosen examples and dealing with relevant media policy. The BBFC and PCC are well handled, contrasting case studies and the candidate is able to contextualise both historically (eg the BBFCs adapting of the discrimination criteria in recent times) and with regard to the future (the challenges provided by web 2.0 for regulation). Some relevant textual examples are discussed Dark Knight and Childs Play which is at least qualified by a disclaimer in terms of the validity of this case and not taken as evidence of harm - a common problem with 2 scripts. John Terry and Jan Moir are both dealt with sensibly in relation to the issue at hand. The Digital Economy Act is discussed, providing contemporary policy awareness. For a higher mark, this script would be enhanced by a more explicit engagement with media theory relating to audiences, effects, notions of protection

and responsibility. There are no references to academic writing or research and that undermines the quality and prevents access to the level 4 mark range. In relation to the prompts provided in the specification, which are used as the key drivers for examiners in the marking scheme, this candidate is able to discuss the nature of contemporary media regulation in comparison to previous practices; deal with some of the arguments for and against regulation and the strongest area is the analysis of the relative effectiveness of each example. However, the wider social issues relating to media regulation need to be explored through attention to key media theories and these are absent.

3: JAN 2010 SAMPLE: How far do changes to the regulation

of media reflect broader social changes?
The British Board of Film Classification have been certifying films since 1912. regulating films means that content is monitored but audience is still being targeted. However the video recording Acts (1913) meant that all films being released had to be reclassified before release. A criticism to this however is if the BBFC certify & regulate films in the cinema then those underage are protected from the content which is why it was certified in the first place. But if the BBFC then release the film to home viewing then the film must be re classified. If the film is given the same rating as cinema release or higher than those younger and unable to see the film will still be protected. If the BBFC classify the film lower then what is the justification for the original regulated certificate? Content in the film is still the same as original. However regulation can be seen as effective as if the film gets a lower classification then cuts and edits must be made for the release. This allows those underage to now view the film legally rather than encouraging them to break the law. If the film released on dvd is a high certificate there is a chance underage people may view it in their own home (with parents). This means that children are not being protected by the BBFC anymore but by their parents. It is parents decision to enforce the BBFCs regulation onto their children. When a film is being released in the cinema then trailers are used to advertise the film which the BBFC also regulate. However if the content is lower than the film certificate itself then the trailer will receive a low certificate. Effectively then the BBFC are allowing those to young an audience to see the film advertised and then want to see it illegally. Is there any justification for advertising a film with a high certificate in the cinema to then receive a low certificate trailer. The BBFC are allowing film production companies to attract outside their target audience which is then harming those underage viewers.

The BBFC are not effectively regulating media as they are controdicting their certificates and laws by allowing those underage to be forced to break the laws they set in the first place. The BBFC originally regulated video games before the PEGI company certified video games. The PEGIs certificates are 3, 7, 12, 18. These certificates are different to the BBFCs original guidlines so in infact who is able to say what content is appropriate for viewers. Shouldnt the people viewing the content be able to decide for themselves? How is a group of people able to decide what is appropriate compared to PEGIs regulators. Everyone has different perspectives on what is sufficient depending on age, gender and status. There are individual differences amongst everybody so everyone is unique. It could also be argued that every viewer of media is different. Some may be mature others not. What may harm some people of one age may not effect an other. However with the BBFC regulation the audience are now able to see what content is in some certificates. This gives people of that age to decide for themselves. Overall the BBFC regulation of contemporary media can be argued for an against. However the BBFC effectively regulates films to protect those going to see it but the BBFC does not take into account individual differences and maturity rates. It could also be argued that the BBFC contradicts itself by enforcing laws on films but allowing trailers to be advertised to those under the age of the certificate. This encourages the breaking of regulation which they enforced originally so the BBFC could be seen as ineffective of regulating contemporary media in Film and Video Games. EXAM BOARD MARKING: lacking connections between regulatory issues discussed and theories of effects / audiences wider social issues foregrounded in the spec but ignored here.
EAA 10 EG 8 TERM TOTAL 3 21

4: JAN 2010 SAMPLE: How far do changes to the regulation of

media reflect broader social changes?
Contemporary media can be regulated well by the BBFC or PEGI but times are changing and so is society; Pegi rates games based on the language used, blood and gore and weapons etc but just because they rate a game 18 it doesnt mean a twelve year old isnt going to play it somehow, even if it means getting a parent to buy it or a friend/stranger or they may just download it. I think that games, films are rated fairly by the BBFC and PEGI and I feel that a lot of people would agree with that but kids/teenagers of today will always find a way to play or watch something which is not for their eyes to see because of the content involved for example

the film shrooms is rated an 18 as it contains drug use, strong language, blood & gore and because it is rated so highly and contains a high amount of content a kid between the ages of 13-15 will want to see it because it sounds cool however when and if they did see the film they could be disturbed as they are not mature enough to handle what they have just seen and the BBFC and Pegi will get the blame even though they have rated is correctly and everyone can clearly see the 18 certificate. I think that the BBFC and Pegi rate and regulate all their items correctly but it is the society who struggle to understand as to why a rating is there; it wont be till after that they find out why.
EAA EG TERM TOTAL