Explain which forms of media

regulation are the most effective, which

are not so, and your reasons for both.

All media content in the UK, including films and video games, is regulated through non-
governmental organisations that classify and censor material, depending upon its suitability to
particular audiences. Though the regulation is effective through some gatekeeper systems at
cinemas and retailers, the increasing use of the internet as a means of consuming content is
making the regulation less effective. The growth of the internet has led to the regulatory
organisations having less impact upon preventing audiences from viewing inappropriate
content as access to this content is far easier than in the past, and can be consumed by
children.

The BBFC is a non-governmental organisation that is responsible for the national

classification and censorship of films exhibited at cinemas and video works released on
physical media within the UK, funded through charged fees meaning that it cannot be
influenced. Initially, there were two certificates (U and A) and didn’t have any written rules
or codes of practice. Instead, the ratings reflected public attitudes. In contrast, now, the BBFC
operates under a series of published guidelines, which are flexible are take context into
account.  

The shifts in standards by the BBFC are due to external changes, such as new legislation,
developments in technology, the social and historical climate of the period, and the
accompanying changes in social attitudes. More regulation was introduced during the 1950s
due to the emergence of ‘youth’ as a group with a defined identity and as a target for
consumer goods. Following a moral panic in which the press blamed teenage criminality on
films targeted towards teenagers, controversial material was restricted to younger audiences
through its classification under an X rating. 

During the 1980s, following the moral panic surrounding ‘video nasties’, the BBFC began to
regulate home videos as well as cinema releases. There had been no legal requirement for
videos to be rated and so unregulated films, some of which contained scenes that contravened
UK laws on animal cruelty and obscenity, were able to be viewed by children of any age. One
major issue with viewing scenes of a film at home is that scenes can be viewed out of the
context and as many times as the viewer chooses. This issue sparked outrage and resulted in
Parliament passing the Video Recordings Act in 1984, requiring all video works to be rated,
cut, or rejected by the BBFC. This made media regulation more effective in that it made it
illegal for children to be supplied with inappropriate material.

In 1999, the BBFC underwent the process of gauging public opinion before compiling new
guidelines for their age ratings. This found that the depiction of drugs and drug use was the
cause of greatest concern to parents at the time, while the sexual activity caused less
However, the portrayal of sexual activity caused less concern than before. This research
allowed the BBFC to adjust the age ratings according to the social climate, meaning that the
material depicted in film is always correctly regulated depending upon the time in which it is
released. In 2009, 82% of the general public felt that the BBFC was ‘effective’, meaning that
UK audiences are generally content with the way in which the BBFC regulates films.
Media content in cinemas are effectively regulated as films require a BBFC certificate in
order to be shown. Furthermore, through the face-to-face interaction in cinemas, there is a
physical gatekeeper that upholds the system and prevents younger audiences from viewing
films for older audiences. With that being said, this form of regulation isn’t completely
effective as the 12a rating allows for under 12s to view the film if accompanied by an adult.
Therefore, it relies upon the responsibility of the parents and less so on the cinema, meaning it
is less effective at regulating who views the particular content. In addition, there is sometimes
a margin of error with this gatekeeper system as it is up to the discretion of the cinema and so
some may misjudge the age of somebody and let somebody who is 13, for instance, view a 15
rated film.

Hate Crime (James Bressack, 2012) is an example of a film that was effectively regulated as it
was refused classification by the BBFC and therefore couldn’t be shown in cinemas. This
meant that the British audience was unable to view this content, meaning that the
controversial material had been effectively regulated and censored. ‘Hate Crime’ centres
around a Jewish family whose home is invaded by neo-Nazi lunatics during their youngest
son’s birthday celebrations. The film was refused classification in the UK by the BBFC after
they felt that because “Hate Crime focuses on physical and sexual abuse, aggravated by racist
invective, [it] means that to issue a classification to this work, even if confined to adults,
would be inconsistent with the Board’s Guidelines, would risk potential harm, and would be
unacceptable to broad public opinion.” The BBFC’s concerns with the film could not be dealt
with through cuts of particular shots or scenes as the “unacceptable content runs throughout
the work”, meaning that cuts would not be a viable option. Therefore, the film had to be
refused classification, meaning that it was unable to receive a theatrical exhibition or be sold
on home video. Although it is still possible to view the film through some online sites, the
film did not get to receive a widespread viewing from UK audiences and so, to a large extent,
the regulatory process of the BBFC was successful.

Another example of effective regulation is ‘The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)’ (Tom
Six, 2011). The film was refused classification by the BBFC because the main character of
the film recreates an experiment from the first film, suggesting that that sort of behaviour is
imitable by watching the first film. After most of the most objectionable content was
removed, the BBFC passed the film with an 18 rating. This was effective regulation by the
BBFC as it prevented potentially harmful content from reaching audiences.

Retail purchases are generally fairly effective at regulating who is able to purchase certain
films and video games. Retailers have a physical gatekeeper at point of purchase which
prevents younger people from purchasing mature content. However, once the DVD/Blu Ray
has left the shop, it becomes unregulated as it can freely be watched by people of any age.
After the film or video game has been purchased, the effectiveness of the regulation relies
upon the person purchasing it to be responsible and not let young audiences watch it.
Moreover, with regard to video games, parents may not feel as strict about preventing
children from playing more mature content as they may be naïve to advancements in gaming
over the past decade and may still perceive games to be just for children, unaware of the
realistic graphic content. This naivety on the part of the parents makes the regulation of video
games less effective.
The form of regulation that exists for digital streaming, VOD and digital purchase is
ineffective as the only proof of age is credit or debit card and so the person with the card may
not be the one consuming it. For example, the child may use parents’ card to make
transactions. Other times, the proof of age when purchasing digital media may simply just be
asking for a date of birth, which is a very ineffective form of regulation as a child can easily
just say that they are 18 years old and access mature content.
Internet piracy is a serious problem in terms of people of any ages being able to access mature
content. Through sites such as ‘Putlocker’, audiences are able to freely view content of any
age rating for free without any form of regulation. As a result, the regulatory process that the
BBFC carries out becomes ineffective once it is made available online through piracy
sites. Although these sites are constantly closing and reappearing under new names, young
audiences may still access these sites without too much trouble, leaving them open to a vast
selection of unregulated media.
In the UK, video games are regulated through PEGI, an age rating system that was established
in order to help parents make informed decisions on buying video games. PEGI is of great
importance in the UK as 37% of the population aged between 16 and 49 describe themselves
as ‘active gamers’. The rating on a game confirms that it is suitable for players over a certain
age. The PEGI labels provide a reliable indication of the suitability of the game content in
terms of protection of minors and ensures that parents are made aware of the type of content
they may be allowing their children to play. Because there is no form of regulation, besides
the responsibility of the parents, after purchasing the video game, it is of great importance that
the age rating is made clear so that parents are aware of the content within the game. Not only
does PEGI provide an age rating, but it briefly summarises the type of content within the
game, such as ‘violence’ or ‘discrimination’, allowing parents to make even more of an
informed choice.
However, it is far harder to regulate video games than it is to regulate films as they allow the
player to decide what to do and so can be consumed in a variety of ways. For example, some
people may choose to play Grand Theft Auto V in a more leisurely manner and just drive
around and customise their character, while others may take advantage of the game’s
mechanics and kill innocent civilians. Another example is Anders Breivik who used Call of
Duty: Modern Warfare 2 as a training simulation before killing 77 people in Norway in 2011.
It is difficult for PEGI to anticipate how players will consume the video games, especially
given the amount of freedom available in more recent sandbox games, and so it is more
difficult for such regulatory bodies to give age ratings.
Furthermore, given the sheer sixe of modern video games, it is impossibly for PEGI to
feasibly view every single facet of each and every game in order to provide a rating, and so
they are limited to just viewing the cinematic cut-scenes and several hours of video footage of
the gameplay. Therefore, PEGI relies upon the game developers to flag up areas of the game
that may not be found during the examination but may be consumed by players after the game
has been released. One example of this was in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas with the ‘Hot
Coffee Mod’. Developers of the game had created a mini-game in which the character is able
to have sex. Although later disabled by the developers, it was still within the game upon its
release and so players were able to use video game hacking tools to enable the content,
sparking controversy regarding whether the game should receive a higher rating. This meant
that PEGI’s system of regulation was ineffective, to some degree, as they were unable to
review each and every possibility in the game to classify it with an appropriate age rating.
With that being said, there are fines for developers who fail to flag up areas of controversy to
PEGI which encourages them to more accurately rate the content and regulate who is able to
consume it.
Grand Theft Auto V is an open world action-adventure video game which, since its release in
September 2013, has received huge criticism for various aspects of gameplay, primarily
regarding its depiction of women. As a result of the games inclusion of extreme violence,
motiveless killing, violence towards defenceless people, and strong language, PEGI
gave Grand Theft Auto V an 18 rating, meaning that nobody under the age of 18 can purchase
game. However, Grand Theft Auto V is an example of a video game that, although given an
18 rating, is ineffectively regulated. A significant proportion of the game’s players are
between the ages of around 13 and 18, and the game is deliberately targeted towards that age
range despite the age rating they are given. The developers are aware that younger audiences
will still be consuming the content despite PEGI’s regulation as parents ignore the warnings
given by PEGI and purchase the game for their children anyway.
The game has generated several controversies related to its violence and depiction of women.
A mission that requires players to use torture equipment in a hostage interrogation polarised
reviewers and received criticism from politicians and anti-torture charity groups. Many have
also raised concerns over the fact that the game is set in a high crime, poverty and gang
violence area, making it easier for teenage players from such areas to relate to the actions in
the game, thus meaning it may be more imitable. Some may claim that their in-game
behaviour dictates how they behave in real life, meaning that the violence depicted in the
game may encourage real life violence. Many may claim that, although the game has been
reviewed and given an appropriate age rating, there is not enough regulation by parents and so
the potentially harmful content may still be affecting young children.
South Park: The Stick of Truth is a 2014 role-playing video game, based on the American
adult animated television series South Park. The game, much the same as the TV series, is
adult-orientated and caters to existing fans who know what to expect when choosing to play
it. However, Ubisoft removed scenes from the game that depict anal probing by aliens and the
player performing an abortion. In their place, the game explicitly describes the events that
were depicted in the scene, meaning that the most objectionable and controversial material
was removed from the game. This censorship allowed the game to receive an 18 rating from
PEGI. As PEGI may feel that reasonably minded adults may be offended by those two scenes,
then it could be argued that they effectively regulated the game by preventing such content
from being available to them.
In the future, it is possible that the regulation of digital media may become more effective as,
currently children of any age are able to consume mature films and video games through
inadequate means of verifying age. As digital purchases become more popular, more and
more children could access mature content and so the BBFC’s regulation would be less
effective at preventing people from viewing certain types of content. This is similar to the
moral panic surrounding children’s’ ability to purchase ‘video nasties’ in the 1980s, which
was followed by a stricter regulation and new legislature. If, in a similar way, there is a moral
panic surrounding the ease at which children can access adult content through digital
mediums then regulation could be made more strict, possibly through more thorough age
verification checks. However, this relies upon the prevailing attitude of the time to be that
children are vulnerable and need to be prevented from seeing mature content. If this attitude
changes over time and parents no longer see children as vulnerable and easily influenced then
there could be a loosening of regulation in the future, making mature content more accessible
to younger audiences. Another possibility for the future is that societal attitudes become more
liberalised and so content that would currently receive an 18 certificate may in the future
receive a 15 certificate, much the same as how films from the past have had age ratings
lowered over time. This may largely come as a result of the everyday exposure to adult
material that people may receive through the growth of the internet, making things such as
sex more acceptable and common within films.
With regard to video games, there is no doubt that they will continue to get more realistic and
the capabilities of the games will continue to expand over time. This means that in the future,
franchises such as ‘Grand Theft Auto’ may be releasing games that look and feel more
realistic, making actions within games, such as murder, to be more problematic. Another area
of gaming that is currently advancing is virtual reality, making the gamer more immersed in
the world of the game. As this technology develops, actions within the game will look and
feel more reality, potentially desensitising gamers more easily than now. This would lead to
tighter regulation of video games as it would become more important that younger children
aren’t becoming desensitised to violence.