FLUSHING THE FILTERS. CONVERGENCE enables counter-hegemonic media

Such a good example (there's multiple in the article) of how convergence enables alternative media by creating low-cost distribution especially (don't over-focus on the production factor!) AND enabling flexible subscription models instead of reliance on corporate advertising ... one of Chomsky's five filters of course...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/14/means-tv-streaming-service-leftist-worker-owned

IPSO does not cover taste, decency. Lightshade lover ruling

An odd case, but certainly illuminating on the limited purview of IPSO. An interesting contrast with BBFC here, which quite explicitly does judge taste (annual reviews of public opinion on swear words etc) and decency (it refuses an 18 if it judges a film work to be without artistic merit and obscene, thus breaching the archaic, shamefully undemocratic Obscene Publications Act, as it did with Human Centipede II).

The complaints panel at the press regulator sided with the newspaper, saying that they acknowledged that the article was considered to be “offensive and upsetting” by Liberty but that Ipso do not cover issues of taste and decency.

Woman's attraction to chandeliers not a sexual orientation, ruling says.

OFCOM smashes nuts ignores mountains. unregulated social media

Brilliant stat to exemplify the grotesque imbalance between the tight regulation of broadcast media and the laissez fairs, minimal often secretive self-regulation of online content ... which often attracts a much bigger audience!

OfCom has warned broadcasters against giving coverage (seen as publicity) to the 5G telephone mast conspiracy theory. That's interesting enough as the likes of the BBC have given climate change denial extremists and corporate mouthpieces huge amounts of airtime, and built the career of far-right figurehead Nigel Garage with his frequent BBC appearances. Their interpretation of 'balancing points of view'.

Here's the killer quote from https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/09/london-live-sparks-inquiry-david-icke-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories

The juxtaposition between regulation of online and broadcast media is stark. According to figures provided by overnights.tv, a peak audience of about 80,000 people watched Wednesday night’s edited David Icke interview on London Live, which has attracted comment from cabinet ministers and potential regulatory intervention.

By comparison, 5.2m viewers watched the original unedited interview on YouTube without any government intervention or media questions.

OFCOM swearing and representations values changing

For flips sake...

The BBFC undertake regular research into social attitudes on issues like swearing and use of sexual and violent material - and the broadcast/web/telephony super-regulator OfCom has just published the results of their own latest polling.

There could be significant implications for the still comparatively minimal regulation of social media and the blurred lines over much of the converged media content.

YouTube especially emerged as a key concern for the British public - they were relaxed about explicit content on subscription services like Netflix, rationalising that clear, conscious choices are made, but concerned that this can be unexpectedly encountered on YouTube and that it isn't effectively regulated.

It also seems Britain's social attitudes are, ironically, moving closer to more liberal European standards, with declining concerns over a range of terms - 'shit' is given as an example which no longer causes upset when heard on daytime broadcasts. 

The British are also much less easily shocked or concerned with explicit sexual and violent content than in the past.

Will this very clear research outcome, and it's evidence of much more liberal attitudes lead to specific changes in how the watershed for example is policed by OfCom?

My own view is - for the most part, no.

The intertwined pressures of the Daily Mail-led right-wing press, always vigilant for a potential moral panic, and (very) right-wing Tory government (with its barely concealed anti-BBC/anti-PSB agenda) will raise an almighty stink if OfCom loosen the watershed regulations. It's also not so long ago that OfCom wrote to all broadcasters to remind them of their responsibilities to maintain watershed policies.

If OfCom did there's a decent chance they'll suffer the fate of the last two broadcast regulators to sufficiently upset a right-wing government: scrapped and replaced under new legislation with a new regulator with its rules and leaders more favourable to government ideology. The BBC are already facing yet another assault on their independence with the expected government imposition of a new chief executive hostile to their continued existence.

The BBFC would likewise face an intense backlash if they adjusted significant chunks of the 15 rating restrictions down to the 12 rating (or 18 to 15) by the 'moral guardians' of the right-wing press and their political allies.

Nonetheless, media regulation has continued to evolve to at least partially reflect changing, liberalising (plus 'politically correct') values. Just sit down to watch The Exorcist or The Last House on the Left if in doubt - films banned for decades in the UK but now awarded 18 ratings.

Of course, don't sit down to watch the Postman Pat or Paddington movies, or, whatever you, Watership Down, or you'll experience the full force of conservative, censorial Britain. If that strikes you as a bewildering statement look for my detailed post on these 3 films... Or ... sod off?!

Keeping it PG!

See: British public no longer give a fig about on-air swearing, Ofcom says.