Representation of
gender in the media
When you watch TV, male and females are shown in the same
way in advertisements TV shows and films; you could call it a TV stereotype of
genders and how they act, this doesn’t seem to be an issue in the TV industry
as everyone does it, the effects of stereotypes on young people are an issue,
small children watch stereotyped version of male and female, how they act, for
example you get sexism in TV, if a kid watched that type of program then he or
she will have pre thoughts on what a female or male should do, or do. This
would become an issue as sexism is not socially acceptable.
Representation of
religious beliefs in the media
In the media certain religious beliefs are shown as negative
or positive, for example eastern religious beliefs like Islam are shown to be
very negative this is because only the bad things about people who believe in
this religion are broadcast on TV, when a TV producer decides to make a program
on say everything bad about Islam then this would not be allowed especially if
it was on the BBC as they would have to show both sides not just the negative,
also constraints on the media depend on what is socially acceptable, if the
mass thought it was ok to show Islam in a very negative way then it would be
acceptable to put on TV.
Linguistic usages
When making a program that uses people who are speaking in a
different languages for example a program about that was broadcast in the UK
and had people talking in Chinese you would have to use sub titles or if it was
a documentary then there would be a translator in the video, if you had sub
titles you can’t put something different from what they are actually saying as
this would be taking advantage of people who don’t know the language and would
be unacceptable to a person who speaks that language as it would be taking away
their right to freedom of speech.
Legal
Legal: content, interpretation and application of laws
relating to media
The broadcast act 1990 got of Independent broadcasting authority
and independent television commission and replaced them with Ofcom, it enabled
franchise to take over other companies, it allowed for a fifth channel which
was channel 5, the BBC was now required “to source at least 25% of output from independent production
companies” it made TV more
commercialised.
http://www.eradar.eu/2011/05/broadcasting-act-19
Official Secrets Act
1989,
This act stopped the allowance of confidential government material to be released by
employees and is seen as a criminal offence if you do, this also applies to
journalist if they repeat any disclosures, it replaced section 2 1911, being
prosecuted under criminal law is now put aside for information or material that
the government considers harmful to national security. This means that the
media wouldn’t be able to report on certain things that are covered by the act.
http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0011381.html
Obscene Publications
Act 1959 (and later amendments)
This act made it an offense to publish any obscene articles
which will “deprave or corrupt” anyone who hears, sees and reads the article,
this would include acts of rape, torture and necrophilia for example a Chinese
film in 2009 was not allowed to be published in the UK as the BBFC wouldn’t
give it a certificate .
Recordings Act 1984
The Video recording act was introduced to stop small
companies from producing video material onto tapes that went against Obscene
publications act, there were films like snuff, SS experiment, and Cannibal
Holocaust, these sorts of films did not have to be certified by the BBFC until
1984 as there was no previous government legislation, now that the act was in
place, which was the recording act, it made it so that any video that was to be
released to the public was compulsory for it to be given a age certificate U PG
12 (1994) 15 18 R18, if any of these were sold to anyone under the certificates
age it would be counted as a criminal offence.
Race Relations Act
1976 (and later amendments),
This Act made discrimination in any way a criminal offence;
this includes race, ethnicity, colour, nationality and religious. In 2000 the
act was amended, it required all public institutions to “promote equality of
opportunity, good relations between people of different racial groups”, this
act is mostly abided by except in certain employment places that still would
choose someone who is white over someone who is black, this act did not affect
how people made films and portrayed characters as being racist as it was not
reality.
http://www.emmainteractive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9895&Itemid=3288
Human Rights Act 1998
The human rights act 1998 gave every person everywhere no
matter what colour, ethnicity, nationality, criminal or ordinary person the
rights to freedom of speech, life, privacy, protection against slavery,
protection of property and a few others. Human rights are universal, inalienable
and indivisible.
http://www.pfc.org.uk/HumanRightsAct1998.html
Licensing Act 2003
(and later amendments);
This act replaced six independant licence regimes and joins
them all up into one The Licensing Act 2003; it concentrates on 4 main points,
1. Prevention of crime and disorder
2. Promotion of
public safety
3. Prevention
of public nuisance
4. Protection
of children from harm
- It licenses 4 different activates these are
- The
sale by retail of alcohol
- The
supply of alcohol by clubs
- the
provision of regulated
entertainment
- the
provision of late night
refreshment
http://www.northdevon.gov.uk/index/lgcl_business/lgcl_business_and_street_trading_licences/nonlgcl_licensing_act_2003.htm
A few examples of licensing with provisional entertainment
are companies like PRS MCPS and PPL
PRS is a non profit making company.
Their aim is to get “fair value for copyright music in the face of
changing technology and legislation”
PRS are the same company but they “collect and distribute license
fees for public performance and broadcast musical works” MCPS and PRS are a
collecting society because its major role is to collect royalties from music
users in the worldwide, either people who have bought music from a online store
like iTunes or music that is being used in public performance or broadcasting,
on radio and television. Royalties for broadcast are usually charged on a
yearly basis. Major companies that use PRS would be the BBC, they have to give
in depth reports on the music that they use.
MCPS is a society of people who song writer, publish music and
compose it, organisations go to them for a licence to play music on a radio
show like radio 1 or kerrang, the royalties that they pay is then distributed
back to the artists evenly and quickly. They” promote and protect the value of
copyright” the mechanical part is when a artists music gets used the royalties
are automaticly given to the artist.
Their policies and areas of interest
PPL
PPL is a music licensing company very similar to MCPS and
PRS, it is a collective society that gives all of its profits and royalties go
to their members who would be famous music artists new artists performers and
so on. PPL licences music to hundreds and thousands of companies all over the
world, these can range from night clubs to universities. PPL licence music to
TV and Radio Broadcasting, stations and channals like heart, channel 4,
absolute radio and sky. PPL ar able to
collect their members royalties from all over the world as they have agreements
with many other companies like PPL.
http://www.ppluk.com/About-Us/What-We-Do/
Privacy law
The privacy law applied to media, stops the broadcast or
show of private information on TV or radio, information like, home addresses,
personal phone numbers, if they happen to be in the background of a film then
the producer would have to ask them if they minded being in the video and if
they do their face can be blurred out.
Copyright and intellectual property law
Intellectual Property also known as IP is something created
by the mind, this could be musical, design, artistic, visual, phrases brands
and other such things, any of these things can be copyright protected, for
example a brand logo from a company like Universal would be copyright
protected, if another company used a logo that was very similar or the same to
promote their product then that would be breaking copyright laws that protects
intellectual property like a logo or trade mark.
Media company’s assets are very important to them these are
thing like, phrases, theme tunes, trademarks, all these would be copyright
protected, a company like the BBC which has very well known assets like it
logo, if a company like ITV was to copy the style and base their logo on the
bbc’s then it would be subject to copyright laws.
Libel law
Libel law stops people writing their own opinion about say
the BBC and then saying that its fact when its actually just an opinion, If
someone went against Libel law then they would be saying an opinion but stating
it as fact say in a newspaper or news broadcast something that would harm the
reputation of a company as many people would hear this so called fact that is
actually an opinion and then they might choose not to buy from that company
their watch their programs.
Films Act 1985
The films act 1985 got rid of and dissolved many companies;
these include the British fund agency which ended the eady levy system from
1951. It got rid of the cinematograph council and the National film finance
Corporation the assets when to the new British screen finance limited. it
brought back certain points from films act 1960 – 1980 also points from the
finance act 1992 and 1994, these were then amended in “1997 by finance acts
1997 no. And 1992 no.2 and 1990”
http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/1051523/
Ethics
Taste – cant show something like 9/11 on tv
Could offend ertain races or cultures
No water shed for radio
Opinions of violence change over time
Media producers always benefit from doing some work on the
ethical presentation ofmatters in relationships to regulatory bodies andcdes of conduct.
Ethics - the moral
principle that define how a person acts.
Ethical isies that affect tv producers.
Trust
Impartiality
Truth
Privacy
Serving the public interest
And many more
Ethical standards that guide the bbc
ethical organization?
BBC exist to serve the public interest
Censorship or Sensitivity?
Recent news reports have criticised the BBC
for both censoring Jimmy Savile from the archive, over his removal from Desert
Island Discs, and for being insufficiently sensitive to his victims by not
erasing a Savile look-a-like from an episode of The Tweenies
1. Producers in the BBC have to
take into consideration views from both sides of an issue or argument when
writing a report or making a TV program that could contain topical issues. They have to think about guidelines that will
determine how they show or represent the subject for example “the
distinction between matters grounded in fact and those which are a matter of
opinion” “how topical the subject is”
“Whether the subjects are
matters of intense debate or importance in a particular nation, region or
discrete area likely to comprise at least a significant part of the audience”
2. How does
the BBC balance access (in the public interest) with privacy?
They make
sure that they follow their privacy guidelines when giving access to
information or video content. For example if the bbc was going to publish a
story about a crime a MP committed they would have to follow the guidelines for
public interest.
-
Exposing or detecting crime
- Exposing significantly anti-social behavior
- Exposing corruption or injustice
- Disclosing significant incompetence or negligence
- Protecting people's health and safety
- Preventing people from being misled by some statement or action
of an individual or organization
- Disclosing information that assists people to better
comprehend or make decisions on matters of public importance.
The BBC does occasionally bend the
rules, only when it is called for, for example when the BBC’s watchdog program
investigated a care home, they used a hidden camera and the people in the video
didn’t know it was there, this is an infringement of their policy and
guidelines, in this case it was allowed “disclosing significant incompetence or
negligence. If you compare this to the news of the world they broke privacy
laws constantly by phone hacking.
1. 3. Does the editorial guidelines / charter
state that producers should be objective or subjective? Why is impartiality
& balance important to producers? Why shouldn’t producers be biased?
The
guidelines say that producers should be objective and only use facts, never be
biased, always make sure the audience can see the difference between a
discussion that uses facts and one that uses opinions. When the researcher is
asked to find out about a subject they have to find both sides of an argument
and not wright their own opinion, only wright facts.
Impartially
and balance makes sure that both sides of a story are seen or heard, the public
will want to hear more than one side of a story, they will want to know facts
of each side and not opinions, in section 3 from the BBC editorial it states
that they must not mislead its audience knowingly.
Producers in
the bbc have to be objective as its in the bbc’s interest to broadcast none
biased factual information to the
public, if they didn’t they would not be as respected as they are.
4. Explain
the role that accuracy has in producing programmes at the BBC.
When they
produce any program they have to be 100% accurate with their information to do
this they check through their info from the source at least five times before
using it, if they don’t have the entire story they say “we will have more in
the next few minutes” or they will say that its not 100% correct and has yet to
be verified. If their program is not accurate then it would not be allowed to
be broadcast to the public as it would break everything they respected for.
5. Does
accuracy relate to truth & trust?
Yes it does,
this is because the bbc would not trust a source if was not accurate and
truthful, If the BBC broadcast something that wasn’t the truth then they would
lose the public’s trust. If the BBC trusted the source then it probably would
be accurate but in the case that it wasn’t they wouldn’t be breaking section 3
of the guidelines which says “you must not knowingly mislead the public”
