How far do changes to the regulation of

media reflect broader social changes?

How far do changes to the regulation of

media reflect broader social changes?

Analyse the question: what does it mean? what needs explaining? what do I need to answer?

How far do changes to the regulation of media reflect broader social

changes?

This means, by the end, I need to say how far this is true – a lot, a bit, not at all?

how regulation alters

How media is controlled by either banning content from all people (censorship) or by restricting certain content to certain audiences (classification)

Mirror, copy, respond to, show

How society changes outside of the media

So, this essay is asking you how far you would say that any alterations to the way media is controlled is linked to bigger changes that are taking place in the wider world beyond the media.

PLAN:

What would the main sections of your essay be?

1. Introduction2. Do changes to film regulation link to

changes in society?3. Do changes in internet regulation link to

changes in society?4. Do changes ever not reflect social

change?5. Reflection – how far does change in

regulation seem to link to change in society and is this a good or a bad thing?

6. Conclusion

INTRODUCTION:

What would you include?

• Explain what media regulation is

• Explain what the question is asking you about regulation in your own words

• Identify the two media that you will use to answer this question

PART 1: DOES FILM REGULATION CHANGE OVER TIME AND CAN THIS BE LINKED TO CHANGES IN SOCIETY?

What sort of ideas and evidence can you think of that might fit in here?

PART 1: DOES FILM REGULATION CHANGE OVER TIME AND CAN THIS BE LINKED TO CHANGES IN SOCIETY?

• The criteria used have shifted to reflect the moral standards of the time

e.g. T P O’Connor’s 43 Reasons for Deletion v BBFC’s current standards (add specific examples)

e.g. the banning of Potemkin in the 30s reflected fears then about communism and revolution. The strictness of films in the 50s over depictions of ‘unruly’ teen behaviour (which films?) reflected contemporary moral panic over teens, just as the introduction of the VRA in 1984 reflected the then moral panic over video nasties and their potentially negative impact on children; a more recent moral panic? Concerns over overtly sexual material – Black Swan? Banning of The Bunny Game and Grotesque…..

• The way a film is assessed now reflects context as well as content, as society has become more aware of being fair to all parties, audiences and film-makers (equality and diversity)

• there has been a shift in approach from censorship to classification to reflect changes of perception that audiences are more active than passive

e.g. the way films like Team America, Tormented and The King’s Speech have been given a lower rating than maybe expected due to context (offer specific examples). In the past the approach was much more rigid and inflexible.

e.g. offer some evidence for this?

• The openness of the regulation process has altered:

• The platforms/ technologies the BBFC now regulate for has altered

• the composition of the decision-making body (the BBFC) has altered, as we have become a society that is trying to become more egalitarian and less dominated by an aristocratic elitee.g. how has it altered? How is this a good thing and what might it prevent?

E.g. how is the process now more transparent and how does this reflect changes in society?

e.g. what new technologies does the BBFC cater for and how are these regulated by the BBFC?

PART 2: DOES INTERNET REGULATION CHANGE OVER TIME AND CAN THIS BE LINKED TO CHANGES IN SOCIETY?

What sort of ideas and evidence can you think of that might fit in here?

PART 2: DOES INTERNET REGULATION CHANGE OVER TIME AND CAN THIS BE LINKED TO CHANGES IN SOCIETY?

• This is harder to evaluate as it is still a relatively new media – only really taken off since the mid-80s. However, it is still possible to see some correlation between attempts to regulate the Net and social change/ concerns.

• We can see that the focus of new initiatives clearly reflects areas of current concern in the world outside the media:

e.g. the CEOP panic button reflects concerns in society about paedophilia, grooming, trolling and cyberbullying (resulting in death/ suicide/ emotional upset)

e.g. calls for SNS like YouTube to adopt tighter controls reflects concerns about real life harm e.g. planking/ car surfing deaths

e.g. the work of police units like SOCA and PCeU to combat the ‘dark web’ (sale of guns/ drugs/ false passports etc)

e.g. laws like the DEA reflect growing concern in society about intellectual property theft

e.g. calls for ISPs to block access to pornography reflects a heightened concern at how easy it is to access this and potential harm to children.

• there has been a shift from no official regulation to more official regulation, as the usership has grown and the Net has been used for more and more purposes. Regulation has changed to reflect changes in the way society uses the medium:E.g. what was the Net’s original form and why did this need virtually no regulation? What more formal regulation do we now have for the internet?

e.g. some countries have adopted a very strict regulatory approach – can you name one or two and comment on how they control the Net and why

There has been a shift from more traditional top-down regulation to a more bottom-up individual self-regulation approach, as society realises that the Net cannot be regulated 100% and people need to play their own part in keeping themselves protected online. This also acknowledges that audiences are more active than passive:

e.g. what approaches have been initiated that allow/ encourage the user to regulate for themselves or for their families/ those they are responsible for?

It could be worth noting recent initiatives suggest the government are starting to take a more interventionist role – ISPs to block porn, unless user makes a positive request for porn, the imposition of the DEA and attempts in the USA with SOPA and PIPA, a proposed bill to make ISPs store email and texts and allow government access…. May reflect a political change in society from previous laissez-faire attitude to the Internet to a more paternalistic approach?

PART 3: ANY WAY REGULATION DOES NOT REFLECT SOCIETY?

If something reflects society, this suggests that it copies or responds to something that has already happened.

However, can regulation change without a societal change initiating it?

I can’t think of any instances of regulation changing totally without a link to society... Maybe because any change has to be justified.

However, can changes be made to regulation to try and initiate change in society rather than to reflect it – to cause it rather than to reflect and respond to it.

• some of the BBFC decisions on language in Sweet 16? Trying to enforce certain standards/ views on suitable and unsuitable language?• BBFC banning films seeking to enforce views

about moral suitability of certain things?• China seeking to censor the Internet to try and

enforce certain political views• the DEA and ACTA – trying to alter how people

obtain music and films online

Does this work?

• Not usually – people often find ways round this, if it is not what they agree with – at the very least, they reluctant to comply.

PART 4: REFLECTION

Does regulation reflect society?

Yes – it does seem to – seems to be quite a strong link between what is happening in society – changes to regulation often reflect broader social changes e.g. changes in attitudes, moral values, politics, technology, views about the nature of media influence, moral panics and perceived threats…..

Is this a good or bad thing for regulation that it responds to social change?GOOD:

If it reflects a majority change – pluralist model of society says that changes should reflect the majority view – society is democratic. It’s what the people want.

This makes regulation a flexible tool that can alter to remain relevant and to retain the public’s support.

It can alter quickly to respond to protect people from current moral scares, leading to a sense of security which is what the public want – to feel safe.

BAD:Not so good if changes in regulation do not follow changes in society but, instead seeks to drive or impose change from the top down – hegemonic model of society. This can be seen, to some extent, in how China has sought to regulate the Net and Egypt, briefly, during the Arab Spring. It can also be seen possibly in the way the BBFC have sough to impose ideas about language in Sweet Sixteen?

However, if regulation is imposed and not wanted/ deemed necessary by the people, such regulations are often got around – Chinese people could access forbidden information via proxies, YouTube age verification can easily be got around…..

So, on balance, the fact regulation changes to mirror social change is probably a good thing.

CONCLUSION:

A straight forward summing up – offer an answer to the question – how far do changes in regulation of the media reflect changes to society?