How effectively can contemporary media be regulated? In the media of today, regulation is necessary to restrict the media from being overly powerful. Two key media areas that need regulation in order to function and appear legitimate are the film industry and the press. The film industry is regulated in the UK by the BBFC (the British Board of Film Classification) and has been done so for 100 years. The press in the UK is regulated by the PCC (the Press Complaints Commission). In most countries, such as the UK and USA, the right to a free press is one of the key civil rights. This is not the case in countries like China and North Korea. Regulation of the press is difficult to be done, without conflicting with the freedom of the press. In the UK, we have an institution called the PCC which was established in order to regulate the press, and hold it accountable. However, in practice, does it have the power and resources to do so? Many people would say no in response to this question. This is because, the PCC does not want to infringe on the freedom of the press. Yet, some would say that it is their job to do just that. Despite not necessarily having the power to discipline the press, they can force print media to print apologies to those who have been mistreated by the media. This ability to arguably ‘resolve’ inaccuracies and misleading printed information. An example of a resolution is to when The People printed some misleading information about comic actor Mr John Cleese – as a response received an apology letter and a small note in a later edition of The People. It is important to consider, that if someone wants more than just a forced apology, then they can always go down the legal action route; beyond the PCC. This route will be quite expensive though, and the PCC option will rectify the problem – through getting a clarifying apology printed – without expense. It can take a long time to get a resolution, if a resolution can be reached at all. In 2010, the PCC received over 7000 complaints and responded to just less than 1700 – about 24% of the cases. This really, is not good enough. On the board of the PCC, which look at the cases, there are 15 members. The people in these positions have certain expertise and experience in the media – with many of them still holding high-up jobs from within the press. This could be seen as a conflict of interests for them, as they would not be able to give an impartial ruling on a case that may affect one of their associates or employees. Despite this, the fact that the members of the PCC have a great deal of experience within the press can be seen as a good thing, with them being able to judge with a subjective view. Some would argue that this sort of regulation is a matter of right and wrong, and a more objective viewpoint would be more useful and autonomous – which would be especially important considering that the PCC is supposed to be an independent institution. A question to ponder is – can the PCC be an independent institution whilst members of it concurrently hold positions from within the field that it is supposed to be regulating? Personally, I would say no, and that more objective view is needed, even if it means compromising with the levels of expertise and experience currently held by the current board. One situation that has seen the PCC be seriously discredited has been the phone hacking scandal. The phone hacking scandal was not something that PCC did anything about at the time. The scandal has seen the closure of the News of the World (mentioned hereafter as NOTW) and the whole affair has resulted in there being an inquiry set up by government to look into it. The Leveson Inquiry has seen Lord Justice Leveson look at the accounts made by journalists (and people of the press), public figures (celebrities and people who have been in the news) and will in the very near future politicians and all other remaining people of importance. As a result of this inquiry, even before the report has been written, the PCC has announced that it will dissolve and Lord Justice Leveson’s report is likely to recommend a new regulating body that has more power and can regulate the press in a more effective way. This reformation of regulating the press could be seen as a step in the right direction, in order to tighten regulations, keep the press legitimate and becoming better organised to deal with a vast amount of complaints. The BBFC can be considered to be more effective at regulating the film industry, than the PCC is/was at regulating the press. The BBFC provides classifications to films before they enter cinemas. They also do the same for the DVD releases and they also handle certain game releases. There are 7 official classifications that the BBFC can classify a production with; U, PG, 12, 12a, 15, 18 and R18. There is also an E symbol, which stands for Exempt – the production is of a nature that does not require classification (for example sports DVDs) but this is not an official BBFC rating. Effectively, these classifications are guidelines to films. Cinemas are those who enforce these rating because failure to do so will potentially result in the cinema losing its licence. In contrast to the PCC, the BBFC will look at all of the films/products that are sent to them, that will be released in the UK. However, it can ban films completely (if they are so extreme as to not warrant an 18 certificate) or recommend scenes that will need to be cut or altered in order to fulfil a lower classification. In 2010, the BBFC had 654 works to look at, and had to request 9 be cut. In 2011, there were 710, of which 7 required cuts. For 2012, so far, 181 productions have been looked at, and 4 have been required to be cut. From the previous years, I can foresee that there will be more productions that the BBFC will have to look at, and there are likely to be fewer cuts in total. The BBFC are bound by the UK law. Laws such as The Protection of Children Act 1978, The Obscene Publications Act 1959 and 1964, The Video Recordings Act 1984 and The Cinematograph Films (of Animals) Act 1937, are all laws that the BBFC need to consider in order to make a classification. If it conflicts with law, then the film is likely to be banned or required to be cut significantly. The institution itself is 100 years old and with that comes experience and a certain trust – the decision that they make will be accepted by the public as a guideline to who should be allowed to see the film. The classification is there to help parents to decide what is appropriate to their children. It is easier for the BBFC’s classification to be enforced in cinemas, than for the sale of DVDs and games in shops. ID is required generally, however there is nothing to stop someone older from buying the product for a younger person. In cinemas, every viewer that is suggested to be under the age restriction, will be checked before they enter the screening and/or when the purchase the ticket. This can be argued that the BBFC is very effective with its influence in this respect. Another effective aspect that the BBFC has is the power to amend their decision, with any changes to law or any social developments in culture. This allows for the BBFC to revise rulings and react to how the public respond. An example of this is the banning to The Human Centipede 2 in 2011, where the film was initially banned due to its grotesque content, however the BBFC revised this ruling when it became accessible from the internet and they looked at the film from within its context. They then concluded that it would be able to have an 18 certificate. In conclusion, it is important for media to be regulated. This is because if it had freedom to do anything – it could become filled with lies and slander (the press) and offensive and inappropriate material (the film industry). It is important to note that sometimes it is easier to regulate some industries than others. Regulating the press can be difficult to do because of the power of the freedom of the press. Yet in contrast, the film industry can regulate and classify films more effectively. Matt, a good range of examples used with some detailed analysis. In your essay you could explain how the media could or should be regulated in the future. This is particularly relevant in relation to the internet which is largely unregulated. Remember to also include media theory to support your points. Explanation/analysis/argument – 14 Level 3 Use of examples – 12 Level 3 Use of terminology – 6 Level 3 /blockquote>

BBFC Legislation

1. The Cinematograph Act (1909) gave local authorities the power to give or void licenses for the local cinemas.
2. In 1912, the British Board of Film Censors is created by a burgeoning film industry as a means of ensuring uniformity for film classification decisions.
3. The 'H' certificate was introduced - film has a horror theme and is unsuitable for children (1932).
4. In 1952, from changes to the Cinematograph Act, the 'X' certificate was introduced - no children under the age of 16 could watch these films.
5. The first famous trial using the Obscene Publications Act, D H Lawrence's 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' becomes available for the first time in 32 years.

The 1990s in terms of the BBFC

Key acts from the 90s are the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and amendments to the Video Recordings Act. At this time, the BBFC had lots of extremely violent and drug-filled films to classify. The BBFC waited for the Bill to become an Act, before coming to decisions on Reservoir Dogs, True Romance, Bad Lieutenant, Dirty Weekend and Menace II Society. Because of new rules, there were more cuts than there would have been before.

Controversial film Kids (Larry Clark, 1995) was a film that was criticised for being 'child pornography' by reviewers. The BBFC looked into the proof of age for the actors. Some scenes were minorly cut based around the Protection of Children Act as they were deemed 'indecent'.

In 1997 the BBFC's President Lord Harewood, stepped down after 12 years in the job. His replacement, Andreas Whittam Smith, announced his intention to steer the BBFC towards a greater 'openness and accountability'. This included the publication of the BBFC's first set of classification guidelines in 1998, following a series of public 'roadshows' in which public views were canvassed and the launching of a BBFC website.

Chequebook Journalism

This is the practice of obtaining stories through making payments to an involved person. Generally seen as a negative form of journalism, compared to legitimate and traditional investigations. Can bypass moral implications in order to get the story. Professionals need to get paid (doctors, politicians etc.) as the 'official source' to will give their professional (and therefore respectable) opinion on an issue.

Ban the practice?
+ can influence outcomes of trials
+ can be biased
+ effectively bribing people to disclose information
- can be a legitimate way to reimburse someone for exclusivity
- 'better' stories, therefore sells more newspapers

Freedom of Information Act/Official Secrets Act

Official Secrets Act 1989:

No reports allowed for secret government information. There have been no further reforms to this Act since 1989, possibly because of the increased prominence of the internet, and a wider spread of information. This could have lead towards the Freedom of Information Act (2000). An example: Richard Tomlinson - Former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson was sentenced to a year in prison in 1997 for passing secrets to an Australian publisher. He was released after six months and went to his native New Zealand. In 1998, he was arrested in Paris with David Shayler, but was released because of insufficient evidence. An injunction was placed on Tomlinson preventing him from further breaching the Act.

Freedom of Information Act 2000:

The public are entitled to access information surrounding statistics and salaries. This came about in order to gain more of a transparency - particularly from the government's point of view. From John Major's government in the early 90's, politicians had been losing a lot of face, and been portrayed as sneaky (and very sleazy as well). Labour planned to clean up this opinion with the freedom of information, in a bid to be honest and open with the public - things that are of public interest are available for them to obtain. This of course has backfired with the expenses scandal of 2007 exposing things that were very much in the public interest.

Enforcement -A person who has made a request for information may apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether the request has been dealt with according to the Act. In response, the Information Commissioner may serve a decision notice on the public authority and applicant, setting out any steps that are required for compliance with the Act. The Commissioner also has the power to serve information notices and enforcement notices on public authorities. In certain circumstances, the Information Commissioner may issue a decision or enforcement notice requiring disclosure of information in the public interest. If it feels that the Commissioner has erred, the public authority then has 20 days from receipt of the notice to obtain a signed certificate from a Cabinet Minister overriding the Information Commissioner's notice (Executive override). There is no right of appeal against the Ministerial certificate. All notices may be appealed to the independent Information Tribunal.

Statutory Law

In relation to media, the laws that everyone should adhere to - written laws produced in the legislature. These in particular should be looked into through media processes - as a form of transparency to encourage a legitimacy to the press.

These laws will follow the legislation process of parliament, to become an Act of Parliament - law.

An important piece of legislation that can be important within the press is The Official Secrets Act, which condemns spying.

Leveson Inquiry Incite

Who guards the guardians?

From the phone hacking scandal, the Leveson Inquiry has been set up in order to look into regulations of the press and media. Currently the PCC (the Press Complaints Committee) is in charge of the rules and code of conduct for the editors and producers in the media. As a direct result of the scandal (which has been destroying the credibility of the investigative journalism side to the press), many questions have been raised over reform for the PCC and also regulations to clean up the press (in particular the newspaper industry) are being looked into.

Ian Hislop, editor for Private Eye and also team captain on Have I Got News For You, was summoned to the Inquiry and suggested that the regulations are already in place, but they just need to be enforced.