This document discusses arguments for and against regulation of different types of media in the UK by organizations such as OFCOM (broadcast media), BBFC (film), PEGI (video games), and PCC/IPSO (print media). The main points made are that media regulation aims to protect audiences, especially vulnerable groups, from inappropriate, exploitative, or misleading content, but can also be seen as restricting freedom of expression or becoming less effective in the modern media landscape where content is easily accessible online.

1. CTK – A2 Media: Unit G325 Critical Perspectives In Media: Contemporary Media Regulation
Arguments FOR & AGAINST - Media Regulation:
You must consider: New technologies – Social Changes – Legislations/Laws
 The main argument in favour of regulation is that it protects vulnerable members of society from being misled or being exposed to inappropriate content.
 Regulation protects audiences from being exploited through illegal or dishonest business practices.
 Regulation protects audiences and institutions access to media and communication.
 Regulation protects small media companies to ensure they can also compete in the marketplace.
 Regulators should work with parents to ensure they are fully aware of age restrictions and advise how to monitor and support their children’s media intake.
OFCOM
Arguments For & Against
FOR AGAINST
OFCOM protects children (vulnerable members of society) from being exposed to
TV content that maybe inappropriate for their age, such as swearing, adult themes,
violence or drug taking.
OFCOM are a re-active body, so therefore possible harmful content could already
become public access and cause offence, if the company has not abided by their
code of conduct.
OFCOM are a ‘super regulator’ due to being a statutory organisation. It is well-
funded by the government and follow all governmental laws.
OFCOM have also been accused of not being strict enough, and often being too
slow to act, so consumers can be misled for a long period of time.
OFCOM have the power to fine, resulting in strict action for any organisation that
breaks the broadcasting code. They also have the power to remove a broadcaster’s
licence to broadcast.
Due to the rise of ‘On-Demand’ TV, the role of OFCOM has become less important,
due to easy public access. Scheduled programming to be played after the
watershed and banned clips can easily be accessed online.
OFCOM are now responsible for product placement. This is important, as the public
may not realise that a product is being advertised in exchange for payable rights.
OFCOM regulation can restrict freedom of expression for TV programme makers.
OFCOM ensures that media companies do not engage in unprofessional business
practices by lying about programme content. OFCOM stops companies becoming
more successful by limiting the amount of media any one organisation can own.
OFCOM are unable to deal with companies/channels which deliberately break their
codes because they know that this will result in their product or organisation being
in the news, resulting in greater publicity.
OFCOM aims to protect the public from media owners forming monopolies and
restricting the variety of voices and opinionsexpressed in the media.
OFCOM can do nothing if a parent or older friend allows a younger audience
member to watch a TV programme that is not age suitable.
BBFC
Arguments For & Against

2. CTK – A2 Media: Unit G325 Critical Perspectives In Media: Contemporary Media Regulation
FOR AGAINST
BBFC are a pro-active body which inspects all film content before classification and
release. This protects the general public from any harmful or offensive material,
and reduces any chance of influencing the vulnerable.
BBFC struggles with the free nature of the internet as it undermines their code of
conduct as a regulatory body (The majority of banned/cut films can be easily found
online – which has loose age restriction guidelines in place or none at all).
BBFC (although pro-active) can also be re-active if they receive complaints about a
classified film upon its release.
BBFC have been heavily influenced by desensitisation, having to re-classify past
films and being made to be more flexible with extreme content (Ratings creep).
BBFC helps parents and guardians by specifying the content of each film with each
age classification certificate.
BBFC place as an organisation is at threat, due to the struggles of regulating online
film viewing. This is mainly due to illegal downloading and sharing content.
BBFC are able to adapt with societies demands by adjusting film classifications if
required over a period of time (Ratings creep). They are versatile body.
BBFC’s regulation of films prevent parents from making their own decisions based
on their own knowledge of their children.
BBFC have the power to cut or ban film releases. This ensures that they protect the
film makers as well as the public.
BBFC make generalised decisions for everyone, without considering the public as
individuals (e.g. suggesting all 15 year olds have the same maturity levels).
BBFC protects children from seeing film content that is inappropriate for their age,
such as swearing, adult themes, violence or drug taking- through age certificates.
BBFC have not banned a film for almost three years. This could demonstrate a
changing in society where they become redundant as a body.
BBFC currently only regulate film, having also regulated gaming until 2008. The UK
film industry is extremely large and power, so it requires one specific body.
BBFC as a self-regulated body could prevent people from taking individual
responsibility for their actions.
BBFC aims to support film makers through respecting and considering any appeals
process. The BBFC also always aim to get a film released through classification.
BBFC regulation can restrict freedom of expression for film makers.
BBFC introduced the 12A demonstrating that they are not power hungry, but in fact
want to help and support parents in ensuring their children are protected.
BBFC can do nothing if a parent or older friend purchases and allows a younger
audience member to watch a film that is not age suitable.
BBFC introduced ‘Parent Port’ as an online website used to educate parents about
the film content that their children maybe consuming.
BBFC are self-regulated and financed by the film studios/industry. This ensures they
are not biased in their practice as a regulatory organisation.
PEGI
Arguments For & Against
FOR AGAINST
PEGI have a range of age certificates that allow them to specifically target certain
age groups with their game content.
PEGI can do nothing if a parent or older friend purchases and allows a younger
audience member to play a video game that is not age suitable.
PEGI have ‘descriptors’ for a range of possible offences (drugs, violence,
discrimination, sex etc.) to help parents understand what their children are playing.
PEGI make generalised decisions for everyone, without considering the public as
individuals (e.g. suggesting all 16 year olds have the same maturity levels).
PEGI are a pro-active body which inspects all game content before classification PEGI is a European regulatory organisation. Therefore its code of conduct will be

3. CTK – A2 Media: Unit G325 Critical Perspectives In Media: Contemporary Media Regulation
and release. This protects the general public from any harmful or offensive
material, and reduces any chance of influencing the vulnerable.
the same for many different EU countries. This does not take in to account
differences in culture and society for each individual country.
PEGI (although pro-active) can also be re-active if they receive complaints about a
classified game upon its release.
PEGI have never banned a video game. This could demonstrate a changing in
society where they become redundant as a body.
PEGI online protects children from playing game content that is inappropriate for
their age, such as swearing, violence or drug taking- through age certificates.
PEGI have been heavily influenced by desensitisation, having to allow more
controversial content in their video games.
PEGI are self-regulated and financed by the gaming companies. This ensures they
are not biased in their practice as a regulatory organisation.
PEGI as a self-regulated body could prevent people from taking individual
responsibility for their actions.
PEGI have the power to cut or ban gaming releases. This ensures that they protect
the game manufacturers as well as the public.
PEGI regulation can restrict freedom of expression for video game makers.
PCC/IPSO
Arguments For & Against
FOR AGAINST
PCC enables them to be the Fourth Estate, bridging the gap between the judiciary,
politicians, and the Royal family and the public. The PCC are in place to ensure that
these three powers to do not abuse their position of authority.
PCC are undermined by legal super injunctions which stop their ability to act as a
fourth estate, which means that people with lots of money and power can make
use of laws outside of the regulation process to keep personal indiscretions secret.
PCC as a self-regulated body ensures that we protect ‘freedom of speech’. If the
body became statutory regulated we would lose our press rights as a democracy.
PCC has been accused of ‘being in bed’ with politicians, with their relationships
being too close. They may not take responsibility for their actions.
PCC is predominantly made up of newspaper editors, who are therefore best placed
and experienced to know how to regulate the UK’s press the best it can.
PCC have been accused of sensationalising stories in order to sell newspapers. This
has impacted on the personal wellbeing of the public.
PCC is funded by newspapers and run by editors – the very people the body was set
up to regulate. Therefore there is no objectivity in how the PCC operates.
PPC regulation is argued that it blocks freedom of speech, and that it is not possible
to be statutory regulated – which is more effective.
PCC had good intentions, but they failed to deliver the type of regulation they
promised (Phone Hacking Scandal). They are a weak, self-regulated organisation.
PCC effectiveness is made difficult due to; different opinions, sensitivity, decency
etc. They cannot please everyone. How can they possibly regulate an opinion?