Censorship, effects, and moral panics: what do the media do to people?

For the fourth lecture of this semester, we looked at media regulation and censorship, along with moral panics (and folk devils). We looked at theorists such as (Stanley Cohen: 1972) also mentioned in (Long and Wall: 2012, 291) in which his book Folk Devils and Moral Panics is referenced to. (Bignell: 2004) suggests a preferred reading, and how different aspects of societies reading may differ for this, giving this as only one of the reasons for policies being in place. Other reasons include sex and sexuality, children included (Bignell: 2004,235).

The journal article that I chose to look at in relation to the regulations of television is a journal article from (Hardy: 2012) in which we look solely at the regulations of commercial and public broadcasting within the UK only. This proves similar to Long and Wall's (2012) eighth chapter in which we focus purely on television broadcasting, including news broadcasting and propaganda within this. Regulations mentioned within the article from Hardy (2010, 521) include those from Ofcom. Specifically focusing on The Communication Act 2003, liberalising media ownership, removing the bar on single ownership of ITV. Additionally, a modification made was 'to add the advancement of citizens' interests to the primary duty of Ofcom, which, under the bill was "to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets'' (Hardy: 2012, 521). From this, we can see that issues of concern were derived during Ofcom's reviews of public service (which took place every five years) that market conditions were deteriorating for commercial broadcasting. recommendations were then made to put BBC at the heart of public service, with ITV and Channel 5 to become commercial with only little public service commitment.

The journal also looks through a timeline of policies between 2000 and 2012 after firstly looking at initial policies from the twentieth century. Hardy (2012, 521) mentions The Broadcasting Act of 1990 and 1996 doing 'little to change how broadcasting was regulated', with new arrangements created thereafter. (Bignell: 2004, 233) however mentions that "the commission draws up a code on the portrayal of sex and violence and standards of taste and decency". A matter of opinion may be discussed here, due to the fact that Bignell's argument emphasises aspects, making them seem of importance, whereas Hardy's argument states that it did little for broadcasting regulation. Hardy uses primary sources, more specifically the UK Broadcasters' Audience Share: 1990-2009 (Source: Adapted from BARB Audience data 2011. C4 share in 2009 includes C4+1).

From this, a research investigation could be made looking at whether the Broadcasting Act (of 1990 or 1996) was of significance in changing the regulating of broadcasting. To do so, I would investigate the Act in more depth, and then examine the difference between television before or after (through archives) in order to detect any potential change.

Bibliography;

LONG, P and WALL, T (2012) ‘Producing audiences: what do media do to people?’ IN Media Studies: Texts, Production, Context (2nd Edition), London: Pearson. pp 274-299 (Access 26th February 2015)

BIGNELL, JONATHAN (2004) An Introduction to Television Studies, London: Routledge. pp 229-252 (Accessed 26th February 2015)

NELMES, JILL (1999) An Introduction to Film Studies, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge. pp. 48-53 (Accessed 26th February 2015)

HARDY, JONATHAN (2012) UK Television Policy and Regulation, 2000 - 2010 IN Journal of British Cinema and Television. Volume 9, Issue : October. (Accessed 26th February 2015)