Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Copy of Media Regulation Essay Plan
Transcript of Copy of Media Regulation Essay Plan
Shouldn't it be to an unchangeable standard to be fair?
If it changes, is this good or bad?
What 2 media will you focus on? Compare features from TP O'Connor's list to what we see in Tormented - standards have shifted
Harder to assess the Internet but could cite the reduction IWF has effected regarding child abuse images - control of this area has got stricter
what other changes could you suggest as evidence regulation has changed? Some views , in line with Gramsci's ideas about hegemony model, would see changes in regulation as trying to manipulate or force change in society, not reflect it. Trying to prevent certain trends or encourage others . For example:
the suppression of Battleship Potemkin in the 1930s by the BBFC to stop UK citizens from coming into contact with ideas about political revolution; the desire in the Video Nasty scare to prevent moral contamination
how China and Iran have sought to suppress political dissent through heavy control of the Internet This is seen as possible because a small group with an agenda control the media/ regulatory body and use this to promote their own ideas only and suppress those of others. Supposes a PASSIVE AUDIENCE Many would view this hegemonic exercise of power by regulatory bodies to be unhealthy and opposed to the Human Rights Act and its guarantee of human freedoms. The notion of trying to change society through censorship is not very effective generally. It may be harder to try and change society this way now:
the BBFC is fairer and more transparent in its systems and more varied in its membership
the internet transcends national boundaries and can easily be got around e.g. proxies, the way Twitter broadcast news of Iranian protests and the re-routing of Google via Hong Kong. In this sense it is less effective because it is stretched. But with more to contend with and the controlling nature of regulation according to Hegmonic POV, perhaps it is effective. What examples of effective regluation do we know? What ineffective examples do we know? Others would take a more pluralist view - the media exists to reflect public views and concerns and this is also true of regulation. As society changes, it is little wonder then that regulatory practices should alter over time too! The BBFC's regular surveys and reviews are a long way from Trevelyan's denial of accountability to the public; the Internet is Web 2.0, the people's media with its citizen journalist's and blogosphere. This means that regulation changes to reflect what people think. Changes in regulation relate to deeper changes in society, as it reflects things that we want to be protected from and, over the years, these change:
1930s - BBFC sought to protect us from revolutionary politics (Potemkin)
1950s - BBFC sought to protect us from rebellious teens (The Wild One, Rebel)
1970s - the BBFC seeks to expurgate excessive sex and violence from the screen]
2000s- the BBFC gets hot under the collar about knife crime (Dark Knight), revenge (Severance) and language (Sweet Sixteen) In the online world, we see this too.
The recent death of Ashleigh Hall, murdered by a rapist posing as a teenage admirer on facebook has led to a renewed call for the CEOP Panic Button to be installed on every social networking page. This shows a clear link between a call for a change in regulation and a wider contemporary danger: the online groomer.
It is a far cry from the early days of the Internet when it was a small scale academic-military network (ARPANET). Is this pluralist idea that regulation reflects rather than drives social change a good idea? Yes! Regulation needs to be relevant to be trusted and for people to accept it and abide by it. It needs to be flexible to be effective - it needs to respond to new threats and content/ uses of the media that can harm. it needs to be able to new technology - just as the BBFC had to adapt to new platforms for film - the video and online streaming with the VRA and BBFC online. Regulation has to follow social change to be effective and to reassure people and make them feel safe and this is one of its biggest roles. After all, if it didn't change, would regulation be better if we still only had T P O'Connor's list to apply to cinematic releases? And what if the Internet was still run on the lines of its predecessor, ARPANET - a mere gentleman's agreement to be fair and above board? Would we be safe from online predators and terrorist networks?
Advanced Research Projects Agency Network
"Therefore a paradox emerges due to the technological and cultural changes that emerged from the Internet. There was a decentralization of the Internet. It was the first time in United States history that the government and military did not attempt to regulate a new type of media. However, all of the media that the Internet uses to transmit data, such as radio, satellite and telephone were all regulated at some point. Although, at the same time the military tried to impose regulations initially on ARPANET, but once it branched off onto a separate network that quickly ended. The one law that could have imposed regulations on the Internet and the World Wide Web did not. The Telecommunication Act of 1996 did not design any regulations imposing on the Internet or even account for future growth. The focus of the legal framework revolved around wired telephony, much like its predecessor in 1934. (Aufderheide, 61-62)" Cohen's idea here is that the press often amplify a threat to society and whip us all up into a panic about it. Something is seen to cause a threat to society and turned into a folk devil. Often it is films that are blamed for glorifying this negative behaviour and promoting it Films may desensitise us to violence (Tormented? aggressive happyslapping videos on Youtube) or they may lead to copycat behaviour (Severance and the Simon Everitt murder/ pro-ana and suicide pact sites). The behaviour and the films and web sites that carry them often become folk devils The public often want reassurance and a sense that something is being done to protect us and so regulation may be changed to eliminate or control the problem - whether this is for more banning and cutting (Tormented), tighter classification (Sweet 16) or more education campaigns (Zip It, Block It, Flag It) or more filtering and rating. In this sense, it doesn't matter whether changes in regulation make the media safer for us, what matters as much is that the media gives the public the illusion of safety, that something is being done. As threats and harm evolve with the times, it is only right that regulation does so too. In this sense, changes in regulation may follow changes in society and be effective in making us feel safer from harm but some such regulatory changes may be disproportionate in the long run. For example, The Wild One went from banned to a PG years later when released on DVD. It shows that regulation is only relevant within its social context - when society and its values change, then regulation also needs to change. Changes in regulation do reflect social changes but can rarely be used to drive them, therefore the question of whether it is more or less effective then previously is impossible to answer as regluation moves with the media and the ever changing times. This is a good thing, as society is ever changing and what threatens and is seen to be danger to one generation is superseded a few years later by a new threat or new technology. If regulation stayed the same, it would not be able to deal with new threats to society and would fail in its purpose to be a meaningful agent for protection. The recent revelations concerning NOTW and the heavy criticism that the PCC has come under is an example of regulation changing. Therefore, it is only right that regulation should be flexible and continue to evolve to meet the demands of the future. The End! The question is how or why does it change? Introduction to essay What is a hegemonic viewpoint?
What is a pluralist's point of view?
What is a moral Panic?
What the censor saw.
Michael Joseph, 1973. - 276p. plates. index
Trevelyan is a major figure of British film censorship. He was the secretary of the BBFC between 1958 and 1971, and this book is a unique account of film censorship from the censor’s point of view, in a period when Britain was going through a process of liberalisation. Trevelyan, whose principles were.”the love of films and the dis- approval of censorship in princi- ple”, initiated a more liberal view on censorship in the 1960s although, as some commentators pointed out, the changes remained limited. Concern – There must be awareness that the behaviour of the group or category in question is likely to have a negative impact on society.
Hostility – Hostility towards the group in question increases, and they become "folk devils". A clear division forms between "them" and "us".
Consensus – Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the "moral entrepreneurs" are vocal and the "folk devils" appear weak and disorganised.
Disproportionality – The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group.
Volatility – Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared due to a wane in public interest or news reports changing to another topic