Resources and analysis on the topic of media regulation, particularly for the A2 Media exam, Section B. Major case studies include the film industry, music video and the press, with major players such as Murdoch, OfCom and the government considered. If using materials from this blog, please credit the source - Dave Burrowes, Media Studies @ St George's School
Rupert Murdoch has been officially informed by Scotland Yard that
detectives want to interview him as a suspect as part of their inquiry
into allegations of crime at his British newspapers. (source)
Rupert, and indeed James, Murdoch may have edged a step closer to facing criminal trial themselves, though there remain considerable barriers before such a remarkable event could come about.
The verdict on Coulson increases the possibility that Murdoch's UK
company, News UK (formerly News International) could be charged as a
corporation, which in turn could potentially lead to the prosecution of
members of the UK company's former board of directors, potentially
including Rupert and James Murdoch.
The press is obviously awash with news of the Hackgate trial outcome, which I'll come to in time, but here's a very succinct (taking just the 1st paragraph quoted below) view on why IPSO is just yet another figleaf for press business as usual by veteran journalist Joan Smith:
The grandly named Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) is
just the discredited Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in a new guise.
We have been round this course many times, going back several decades,
following a nearly identical trajectory: scandalous behaviour by
sections of the press, public outrage, the announcement of an inquiry,
followed by a new regulator which looks very much like the old.
Roy Greenslade notes, in typically dry fashion*, that the Daily Mail continues to show just how much (ie, seemingly not a lot!) it respects the PCC. Both it and the Telegraph were found guilty of the same Clause 1 (Accuracy) breach, falsely accusing the BBC of extravagant hotel spending (they actually got a £59 rate, half the standard rate).
I'll come back to this, but just wanted to make sure there are easy to find links/materials on various Morris creations which are useful for showing up issues with both broadcast regulation (and the moral panic concept/process with the press) and film regulation.
Here's the controversial Brass Eye Special, "Paedogeddon", that got labelled filth and sick ("the sickest show ever") by a frothingly furious press, who of course demand freedom of the press from any government interference, but equally insist on government interference for the content (not the ownership!) of other media, in full so you can judge for yourselves.
REMEMBER, any celebrities or politicians seen pontificating in these shows aren't in on the joke; they consider their contribution to be worthy. Morris is deconstructing how the news media lazily rely on cliches and sensationalism to report on important issues, relegating accuracy, reflection or context to a lesser consideration.
This is a topic I've frequently blogged on - use the tag cloud to find previous posts.
There are two ways to view the issue of privacy as it applies to media law and regulation:
There should be tougher, tighter restrictions on the media's ability to invade our privacy, as tabloid newspapers in particular persist in doing so on flimsy grounds
We urgently need to liberalise privacy law in favour of the media, as it is becoming increasingly difficult for UK media to publish information about the rich and powerful (those with access to expensive lawyers)
As ever, there are overlapping issues with digitisation:
UK-only privacy regulation/law is made absurd by the easy access to global online resources
As most of us permit websites and apps to track huge amounts of personal information about us, we increasingly undermine the argument that we have a right to privacy
There are cases from the press, TV and film that we can consider, but there is a further point we swiftly encounter, for example through the Max Mosley case:
Media regulation of single industries makes no sense, and is ineffective, when there is so much cross-media ownership
There are various terms used below: fourth estate, public sphere, superinjunction, statutory regulation, concentration of ownership, liberal pluralism, Marxist critique: (Chomsky's) propaganda model, hegemonic, free market, web 2.0.
The media are regulated because (a) they are seen as having profound influence on social psychology, values and attitudes and (b) because they are seen as a basic, fundamental part of a functioning democracy. Of course, the democratic function leads some to argue that we shouldn't regulate the media - or, more specifically, that the government shouldn't have a role in this; this is a key argument used against tougher, statutory regulation of the press.
June 2014 sees news emerging of a criminal trial which the media were originally banned from reporting on, including on its very existence. The very concept of a fourth estate (or free press, where press doesn't just mean newspapers) is based on the idea that the media will hold governments and big business to account, and expose any corruption, improper or antidemocratic practices.
Based on a single complaint, the ad for Rogue, a perfume line, featuring a naked Rihanna has been given a 'restricted placing' order by the ASA. It is only permitted to be placed anywhere where children are unlikely to encounter it.
You can judge for yourself (NB: deemed unsuitable for under-15s) by clicking read more below, or here to read the Guardian article on this.
OfCom 2012 complaints overview: issues of child protection and watershed featured prominently - many detailed case studies you can use in this post, + wider analysis
OfCom: some fundamentals. A detailed post which tells you much of what you need to know about the regulation of commercial TV, alongside some comparison with BBC regulation - and how the two overlap.
OfCom future: can't sanction ITV/C5? A new term entered the lexicon after ITV threatened to walk away from its PSB commitments entirely, arguing they cost too much while in a digital age the PSB benefits were gone: (license) handback. This post looks at the possibility of ITV/C5 simply ceasing to follow OfCom's PSB requirements.
Arguments against 'impartial' news/current affairs. Robert Fisk argues that the legal requirement for UK broadcast news/current affairs to be 'impartial' (similar to the 'fair and balanced' US doctrine ... though Fox News, with a blatant pro-Republican bias, faces no issues there [and OfCom granted it a license here, so long as it remains a US news station]) actually creates bias
There have been several important stories/events recently tied to PSB issues, so here's a summary of PSB, and how current events suggest a possible future direction.
PSB: Public Service Broadcasting. Sky, and the vast bulk of digital/cable channels are not legally considered as PSBs, it is only the BBC/ITV/C4/C5 that are PSB. These have a legal duty to reflect public needs for news and information; regional programming; and to ensure certain programme categories are included in their schedules (eg religious, children's). This reflects their privileged status: in the analogue era when you bought a TV these channels were automatically accessible, while in the digital era they are all free through Freeview and are still required to be listed at the top of EPGs (Electronic Programme Guide).
