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.

Panorama Tabloid Hacks Exposed

1 rogue reporter - fired and went to prison

Subject to pressure to get a story

"public interest"

secret cameras/recorders - legal

method - access without authority is wrong and illegal

southern investigations - private surveillance company - selling information to press

computer hacking just as bad and unlawful - trojan emails

works anywhere in the world

"private investigators" access any

Jonathan Rees - hired investigators to get the information for NOW - got caught and imprisoned but then hired once again when he was released

Further PCC Information

PCC stands for the Press Complaints Commission. It is the institution that tries to ensure that the press is kept on its toes by allowing people to complain to them and they will look into the issues raised. The Codes of Practice: accuracy, the opportunity for reply, respect for privacy, harassment, intrusion into shock or grief, the interests of children, the protection of children in sex cases, entry into hospitals, the reporting of crime, the use of clandestine devices and subterfuge, the protection of victims of sexual assault, discrimination, financial journalism, the protection of confidential sources, payment for information relating to criminal trials and payments to criminals. It acts once a complaint has been made, however they are selective upon the complaints to take action on. In reaction, they can pass on the information to people who can help i.e. the local police force (usually via the press office); the Coroner or Coroner’s Officer (or the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland); the MP or other elected representative; the hospital(s) and/or NHS authorities dealing with the injured; a solicitor or agent, if one is named; the local religious or other community leader(s); any other representative whose name has been made public. They will also get the offense-causing party to issue a public apology/resolution to the problem.

An example of a case:
COMPLAINANT NAME: Mr John Cleese
CLAUSES NOTED: 1
PUBLICATION: The People
COMPLAINT: Mr John Cleese of Santa Barbara, California, complained that an article gave the misleading impression that he had consulted the Indian ‘laughter guru’ Dr Madan Kataria for personal reasons.
RESOLUTION: The newspaper published a letter of reply from the complainant which clarified that he had not suffered from depression for over twenty years.
REPORT: 55

I think that the PCC is slightly under-performing, however I believe that they would need to have some significant power in order to regulate and call the press into account efficiently. For me, the PCC is also far too closely linked to the media itself, with many of the key figures of the membership working at high positions in areas of the print and broadcasting media.

Statistics Around Regulation

The PCC received 4,340 complaints in 2007 - an increase of 31% on 2006 and the highest number ever received.

Of the complaints that were specified under the terms of the Code of Practice, approximately two in three were about accuracy in reporting and approximately one in five related to intrusion into privacy of some sort.

The top three complaints involved the Daily Mirror, Heat magazine and the Daily Mail.

An Ipsos MORI poll commissioned by the PCC in March 2008 revealed that 42% of web users aged 16-24 knew someone who had been embarrassed by information uploaded on to the internet without their consent. And 78% of the entire adult online population would change information they publish about themselves online if they thought the material would later be reproduced in the mainstream media. In addition, 89% of web users thought there should be clear guidelines about the type of personal information that can be published online so that they can complain if the material is wrong or intrusive.

Controversies in Regulation

The PCC has been widely criticised for being ineffective and failing to keep the press in check. It can be argued that because it is funded by the newspaper industry, it will never be able to fulfill it's purpose properly at all. Another controversy of the PCC is that although complaints are free and simple to make, they can only be done once the damage has been done. They also only look properly into a small proportion of complaints, for example in 2002 - only 36 out of 2360 were looked into. A further fault that people find with the PCC is that is has a significant lack of power in giving out penalties, as it can only demand that the offending party offers a publicised apology.

The PCC and Power

The Press Complaints Commission has responsibilities for maintaining the Editorial Code of Practice and ensuring investigation into perceived breaches in the Code. From June 2004, the Code consists of 16 clauses, on accuracy, the opportunity for reply, respect for privacy, harassment, intrusion into shock or grief, the interests of children, the protection of children in sex cases, entry into hospitals, the reporting of crime, the use of clandestine devices and subterfuge, the protection of victims of sexual assault, discrimination, financial journalism, the protection of confidential sources, payment for information relating to criminal trials and payments to criminals. Broadcast media, are already subject to extensive statutory regulations. Today, these are largely set out in the Communications Act 2003 and enforced by OFCOM. The BBC is regulated by its Royal Charter obligations.

The Emergence of Regulation

Following the Second World War, the modern way of press regulation was established. A Royal Commission on the Press was set up in 1947, and in 1949 they recommended the creation of a General Council of the Press to govern the behaviour and actions of the print media. This didn't happen straight away, and it was in 1953 when the General Council was established, although it was funded by newspaper proprietors. The Second Royal Commission of the Press demanded a reform to the General Council. which it heavily criticised for the weaknesses. Reform occurred and it was renamed the Press Council, becoming more authoritative over freedoms of the press and produced some guidelines. However, due to lack of improvement, the Press Complaints Commission was formed to deal with the Code.

Early Days of Press Regulation

Early publications during the 17th century told news and rumours. News periodicals started to be produced to provide news periodically (i.e. once a week, twice a week, daily). At the start of the of the 1600s, the right to print was strictly controlled in England. The first newspaper in the english language was printed in Amsterdam by Joris Veselser around 1620. The demand for news increased around The Civil War - but the publications generally supported one side or the other.