Media Language

Horror films use established signs and codes in their conventions to signify deeper meaning. In my A2 Horror Trailer there is a close up camera shot of a girl on the floor screaming, this technical code connotes weakness of females and how this female character is inferior to the zombies. We used a closeup to highlight this as she was the main focus for the audience.

At the end of the trailer, there are bloody hand prints on the door window. This connotes death, how the zombies are murdering the humans and how the zombies are undead. This icon is shown by moving the camera down as the bloody hands are moving across the window.

Regulation Essay Plan

Question	How well does contemporary media regulation protect the public?
Identify key words
Associate key words/key theories and debates
Introduction Answer the question	Summarise: Why is regulation necessary to protect the public Regulation is needed because not all content shown in films and on tv is appropriate for all ages to watch.
	Who regulates, - there is no 1 regulator but different institutions, what types and what are the regulatory practices (reactive, proactive, statutory, self-regulating) BBFC(film)- non-statutory, pro-active OFCOM(TV + Radio) - statutory, re-active
	What are SOME of the debates (freedom of individual or controlling population, protection, who’s responsibility – parents, media industry or government, conservative view of upholding moral standards, we have become desensitised so regulation is more liberal?) Parents responsibility- they know what is appropriate for their children Media industry- parents are stricter than others so the media industry know the guidelines for each film and they know how the films have changed in society
	Summarise: What is your opinion: Which is more effective stat or non, pro or reactive? Having different regulators? Should the public be protected – who? Who should regulate? I think that the non statutory is more effective because they show a balanced opinion they don't influence all of the audience to have the same opinion as them. Pro active is more effective because it is reviewed before the audience see it so if they want to make any difference to the regulation, they can do this before it is released to the audience as it can prevent them from getting complaints and from the show being cancelled or from the film getting bad reviews.
Paragraph 2: The Past
Point 1: Historic debates about the need for regulation	How well has it protected the public in the past? It wasn’t protecting the public very well in the past because the BBFC used to be called the “British Board of Film Censors” and they only has the two certificates, U and A.
	What are the past debates about the need to regulate The content in the films were becoming more complex so they needed more age certificates. The video nasties were seen as a scapegoat for some violent cases.
	What is your opinion? Are you Active Audience or Passive? Should there be appointed people in society who regulate* and is this elitism (‘class-ist’)? I think the people who regulate should be from different races, ages, and genders as this would be a better judgement as they would think about how some children are more mature than others and not all of them would have a parental view.
Example 1 Case Study	BBFC 1980s Video Nasties, 1945 BBF Censors to uphold moral standards, “for the masses by the few*”, Mary Whitehouse, Video Recordings Act (based on false research and theory) The video nasties were films in the 1980’s and they were sold in corner shops so they were easy for children to get as there were no age restrictions so it was very liberal. After a moral campaign with Mary Whitehouse who wanted to protect the children, and the Video Recordings Act was made in 1984 meaning the films needed to have an age certification by the BBFC before being sold.
Explanation Theory	What theories support your response? Active Audience or Passive? Cultivation theory- passive, more teenagers watched the video nasties so it is easy for the younger people to not tell the difference between what happens in reality and what doesn’t.
	What theories go against - do you need to argue against? Desensitisation- however the more video nasties that people watched, the more desensitised they were to violence so the age ratings wouldn’t matter as they would get used to the type of violence.
Conclusion	Compare how does this relate to contemporary current regulation – stricter or liberal in the past and was it effective It was more liberal in the past and the regulation wasn’t as effective as it is today.
Paragraph 3: Contemporary Film Regulation
Point 2: BBFC	COMPARE - How effective/well does it protect the public now? How does the BBFC regulate – regulatory practices? In the past, the name used to be the “British Board of Film Censors” and the “censors” changed to “classification” so that films could be seen by specific audiences. BBFC uses age certificates so only certain ages can watch the films.
	What are the debates about the need to regulate Film content (be specific here: sex, violence, horror, imitable behaviour, discrimination, controversial content – access to films illegally over the internet, parental responsibility?) Films need to be regulated as some content including sex and violence are inappropriate for the younger audience to watch,
	What is your opinion? I think that film regulation is important because the younger children shouldn’t be allowed to watch it as it is inappropriate for their age.
Example 2 Case Study	Either: Hatred, Blue is the Warmest Colour, Hunger Games or your own recent example What is your view on this film – are you liberal or conservative/ Active Audience or Passive? Blue is the Warmest Colour
Explanation Theory	What theories support your response? Uses and Gratifications- the audience use the film for their own personal needs, this could be relationship issues, or learning about their sexuality.
	What theories go against - do you need to argue against?
	Conclude how does this answer the question on contemporary current regulation is there a need to protect the public and is the BBFC effective with reasons why
Paragraph 4: Contemporary Broadcast Regulation
Point 2: OFCOM	COMPARE - How effective/well does it protect the public compared to BBFC? How does OFCOM regulate – regulatory practices? Watershed Compared to the BBFC, OFCOM isn’t as effective because even though it has the watershed that has more mature programmes on after 9pm, some young people still watch the TV after 9pm.
	What are the debates about the need to regulate TV content (be specific here and PICK 2: violence, imitable behaviour, class discrimination, controversial content – access to TV on catch up or Youtube, parental responsibility, Twitter hate?) Not all programmes have a security pin code so the children can still watch the programme.
	What is your opinion? I think that the news channels shouldn’t be regulated as it is reality and if it was regulated, you can still watch it on YouTube and online where you can find the news stories.
Example 2 Case Study	Either: Benefits Street or Woolwich Terrorist Attack or Big Brother Homophobia your own recent example What is your view on this film – are you liberal or conservative/ Active Audience or Passive? Woolwich attack- I think that I am a passive audience for this example as seeing the weapon and the body is more effective to see than to listen to what he has to say as it is a shock.
Explanation Theory	What theories support your response? Reception theory/moral panic- The Woolwich attack created a moral panic for the audience because it has made them realise that it has just happened and somewhere in public that people know. The reception theory that this example shows is the preferred response of the audience being scared of what they see, and the oppositional is listening and understanding why he killed him.
	What theories go against - do you need to argue against? Desensitisation- the video was played on a loop on the news so the more times that the audience watched the video, the more desensitised they would have become and watching the video would have affected them less as they are used to seeing the footage.
	Conclude how does this answer the question on contemporary current regulation is there a need to protect the public and is OFCOM effective with reasons why I think that OFCOM were effective as it waa
Paragraph 4: Contemporary Film Regulation 2
Point 2: BBFC	COMPARE - How effective/well does it protect the public compared to OFCOM from: PICK 2 sex, violence, horror, imitable behaviour, discrimination, controversial content – access to TV on catch up or Youtube, parental responsibility?)
	What are the debates about the need to regulate Film content (be specific here: sex, violence, horror, imitable behaviour, discrimination, controversial content – access to films illegally over the internet, parental responsibility?)
	What is your opinion?
Example 2 Case Study	Either: Hatred, Blue is the Warmest Colour, Hunger Games or your own recent example What is your view on this film – are you liberal or conservative/ Active Audience or Passive? Hunger Games
Explanation Theory	What theories support your response? Catharsis- the film looks quite realistic and the younger people might not understand and will confuse the film with reality
	What theories go against - do you need to argue against? Suspension of disbelief- it seem realistic when you think of it as a film but you know that what is happening in the film, wouldn’t happen in real life.
	Conclude how does this answer the question on contemporary current regulation is there a need to protect the public and is the BBFC effective with reasons why The BBFC should protect the public as the violence can be seen as gory for younger children to watch and I think that the age certificate, 12A is right for this film as it is then the parents responsibility whether their child of under 12 years old can watch the film or not.
Paragraph 5: Contemporary Broadcast Regulation 2
Point 2: OFCOM	COMPARE - How effective/well does it protect the public against ……. compared to BBFC? OFCOM is not as effective as the BBFC because you can still watch programmes on demand online and they are not very strict as they only ask you a question whether you are over 18 years old or not.
	What are the debates about the need to regulate TV content (be specific here: PICK 2 violence, imitable behaviour, class discrimination, controversial content – access to TV on catch up or YouTube, parental responsibility, Twitter hate?) the people that featured on the programme, had twitter hate about them and there was class discrimination as the show was portraying them negatively. The children on Benefits Street could have been bullied by being lower class but OFCOM stated that they are only responsible for their wellbeing during the production process.
	What is your opinion? What are we actually protecting people from?
Example 2 Case Study	Either: Benefits Street or Woolwich Terrorist Attack or Big Brother Homophobia your own recent example What is your view on this film – are you liberal or conservative/ Active Audience or Passive? Benefits street
Explanation Theory	What theories support your response? Copycat- passive audience, the programme shows some people shoplifting and some of the audience could shoplift after watching the programme.
	What theories go against - do you need to argue against? Hypodermic needle- the view of Benefits Street is mostly a conservative view and they are trying to make the audience have the same opinion as them so they show the footage of the people on benefits negatively
Conclusion	Conclude how does this answer the question on contemporary/current regulation What do we need to protect the public from and is OFCOM effective with reasons why from your points about OFCOM are quite effective as they cut some footage out so that the audience that might try to copy, won’t shoplift successfully.
Paragraph 6: Conclusion
Conclusion	Summarise your point and restate your opinion to answer the question   What will Media Regulation look like in 10 years time? 1.       No regulation at all – the public are educated and trusted to make their own decisions (like the internet and twitter), the internet and all media should be free 2.       Highly strict regulation – invasive ‘Google is watching you’ and watches what you are doing and blocks you, stricter laws for parents that don’t take responsibility, the internet should be policed 3.       There is 1 big regulator of all media 4.       Broadcasters and Film companies and websites are trusted and expected to regulate their own media (so Twitter censors itself)   I think that in the future, the BBFC will become more liberal as more and more people are becoming desensitised to the content because the films are becoming quite repetitive therefore they can lower the age certificates. OFCOM will become stricter being re-active and will review the programme before the episodes are released preventing the programme from getting many complaints and preventing the programme from being cancelled.

 

Question	How well does contemporary media regulation protect the public?
Identify key words
Associate key words/key theories and debates
Introduction Answer the question	Summarise: Why is regulation necessary to protect the public Regulation is needed
	Who regulates, - there is no 1 regulator but different institutions, what types and what are the regulatory practices (reactive, proactive, statutory, self-regulating)
	What are SOME of the debates (freedom of individual or controlling population, protection, who’s responsibility – parents, media industry or government, conservative view of upholding moral standards, we have become desensitised so regulation is more liberal?)
	Summarise: What is your opinion: Which is more effective stat or non, pro or reactive? Having different regulators? Should the public be protected – who? Who should regulate?
Paragraph 2: The Past
Point 1: Historic debates about the need for regulation	How well has it protected the public in the past? It wasn’t protecting the public very well in the past because the BBFC used to be called the “British Board of Film Censors” and they only has the two certificates, U and A.
	What are the past debates about the need to regulate The content in the films were becoming more complex so they needed more age certificates. The video nasties were seen as a scapegoat for some violent cases.
	What is your opinion? Are you Active Audience or Passive? Should there be appointed people in society who regulate* and is this elitism (‘class-ist’)? I think the people who regulate should be from different races, ages, and genders as this would be a better judgement as they would think about how some children are more mature than others and not all of them would have a parental view.
Example 1 Case Study	BBFC 1980s Video Nasties, 1945 BBF Censors to uphold moral standards, “for the masses by the few*”, Mary Whitehouse, Video Recordings Act (based on false research and theory) The video nasties were films in the 1980’s and they were sold in corner shops so they were easy for children to get as there were no age restrictions so it was very liberal. After a moral campaign with Mary Whitehouse who wanted to protect the children, and the Video Recordings Act was made in 1984 meaning the films needed to have an age certification by the BBFC before being sold.
Explanation Theory	What theories support your response? Active Audience or Passive? Cultivation theory- passive, more teenagers watched the video nasties so it is easy for the younger people to not tell the difference between what happens in reality and what doesn’t.
	What theories go against - do you need to argue against? Desensitisation- however the more video nasties that people watched, the more desensitised they were to violence so the age ratings wouldn’t matter as they would get used to the type of violence.
Conclusion	Compare how does this relate to contemporary current regulation – stricter or liberal in the past and was it effective It was more liberal in the past and the regulation wasn’t as effective as it is today.
Paragraph 3: Contemporary Film Regulation
Point 2: BBFC	COMPARE - How effective/well does it protect the public now? How does the BBFC regulate – regulatory practices? In the past, the name used to be the “British Board of Film Censors” and the “censors” changed to “classification” so that films could be seen by specific audiences. BBFC uses age certificates so only certain ages can watch the films.
	What are the debates about the need to regulate Film content (be specific here: sex, violence, horror, imitable behaviour, discrimination, controversial content – access to films illegally over the internet, parental responsibility?) Films need to be regulated as some content including sex and violence are inappropriate for the younger audience to watch,
	What is your opinion? I think that film regulation is important because the younger children shouldn’t be allowed to watch it as it is inappropriate for their age.
Example 2 Case Study	Either: Hatred, Blue is the Warmest Colour, Hunger Games or your own recent example What is your view on this film – are you liberal or conservative/ Active Audience or Passive? Blue is the Warmest Colour
Explanation Theory	What theories support your response? Uses and Gratifications- the audience use the film for their own personal needs, this could be relationship issues, or learning about their sexuality.
	What theories go against - do you need to argue against?
	Conclude how does this answer the question on contemporary current regulation is there a need to protect the public and is the BBFC effective with reasons why
Paragraph 4: Contemporary Broadcast Regulation
Point 2: OFCOM	COMPARE - How effective/well does it protect the public compared to BBFC? How does OFCOM regulate – regulatory practices? Watershed Compared to the BBFC, OFCOM isn’t as effective because even though it has the watershed that has more mature programmes on after 9pm, some young people still watch the TV after 9pm.
	What are the debates about the need to regulate TV content (be specific here and PICK 2: violence, imitable behaviour, class discrimination, controversial content – access to TV on catch up or Youtube, parental responsibility, Twitter hate?)
	What is your opinion? I think that the news channels shouldn’t be regulated as it is reality and if it was regulated, you can still watch it on YouTube and online where you can find the news stories.
Example 2 Case Study	Either: Benefits Street or Woolwich Terrorist Attack or Big Brother Homophobia your own recent example What is your view on this film – are you liberal or conservative/ Active Audience or Passive? Woolwich attack- I think that I am a passive audience for this example as seeing the weapon and the body is more effective to see than to listen to what he has to say as it is a shock.
Explanation Theory	What theories support your response? Reception theory/moral panic- The Woolwich attack created a moral panic for the audience because it has made them realise that it has just happened and somewhere in public that people know. The reception theory that this example shows is the preferred response of the audience being scared of what they see, and the oppositional is listening and understanding why he killed him.
	What theories go against - do you need to argue against? Desensitisation- the video was played on a loop on the news so the more times that the audience watched the video, the more desensitised they would have become and watching the video would have affected them less as they are used to seeing the footage.
	Conclude how does this answer the question on contemporary current regulation is there a need to protect the public and is OFCOM effective with reasons why I think that OFCOM were effective as it waa
Paragraph 4: Contemporary Film Regulation 2
Point 2: BBFC	COMPARE - How effective/well does it protect the public compared to OFCOM from: PICK 2 sex, violence, horror, imitable behaviour, discrimination, controversial content – access to TV on catch up or Youtube, parental responsibility?)
	What are the debates about the need to regulate Film content (be specific here: sex, violence, horror, imitable behaviour, discrimination, controversial content – access to films illegally over the internet, parental responsibility?)
	What is your opinion?
Example 2 Case Study	Either: Hatred, Blue is the Warmest Colour, Hunger Games or your own recent example What is your view on this film – are you liberal or conservative/ Active Audience or Passive? Hunger Games
Explanation Theory	What theories support your response? Catharsis- the film looks quite realistic and the younger people might not understand and will confuse the film with reality
	What theories go against - do you need to argue against? Suspension of disbelief- it seem realistic when you think of it as a film but you know that what is happening in the film, wouldn’t happen in real life.
	Conclude how does this answer the question on contemporary current regulation is there a need to protect the public and is the BBFC effective with reasons why The BBFC should protect the public as the violence can be seen as gory for younger children to watch and I think that the age certificate, 12A is right for this film as it is then the parents responsibility whether their child of under 12 years old can watch the film or not.
Paragraph 5: Contemporary Broadcast Regulation 2
Point 2: OFCOM	COMPARE - How effective/well does it protect the public against ……. compared to BBFC? OFCOM is not as effective as the BBFC because you can still watch programmes on demand online and they are not very strict as they only ask you a question whether you are over 18 years old or not.
	What are the debates about the need to regulate TV content (be specific here: PICK 2 violence, imitable behaviour, class discrimination, controversial content – access to TV on catch up or YouTube, parental responsibility, Twitter hate?)
	What is your opinion? What are we actually protecting people from?
Example 2 Case Study	Either: Benefits Street or Woolwich Terrorist Attack or Big Brother Homophobia your own recent example What is your view on this film – are you liberal or conservative/ Active Audience or Passive? Benefits street
Explanation Theory	What theories support your response? Copycat- passive audience, the programme shows some people shoplifting and some of the audience could shoplift after watching the programme.
	What theories go against - do you need to argue against? Hypodermic needle- the view of Benefits Street is mostly a conservative view and they are trying to make the audience have the same opinion as them so they show the footage of the people on benefits negatively.
Conclusion	Conclude how does this answer the question on contemporary/current regulation What do we need to protect the public from and is OFCOM effective with reasons why from your points about OFCOM are quite effective as they cut some footage out so that the audience that might try to copy, won’t shoplift successfully.
Paragraph 6: Conclusion
Conclusion	Summarise your point and restate your opinion to answer the question   What will Media Regulation look like in 10 years time? 1.       No regulation at all – the public are educated and trusted to make their own decisions (like the internet and twitter), the internet and all media should be free 2.       Highly strict regulation – invasive ‘Google is watching you’ and watches what you are doing and blocks you, stricter laws for parents that don’t take responsibility, the internet should be policed 3.       There is 1 big regulator of all media 4.       Broadcasters and Film companies and websites are trusted and expected to regulate their own media (so Twitter censors itself)   I think that in the future, the BBFC will become more liberal as more and more people are becoming desensitised to the content because the films are becoming quite repetitive therefore they can lower the age certificates. OFCOM will become stricter and will review the programme before the episodes are released preventing the programme from getting many complaints and preventing the programme from being cancelled.