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>