The TV industry is host to a list of professional job roles, but in order to work in the TV industry in order to succeed you need to be resourceful and use your initiative consistently, and have the will to go the extra mile, when opportunities arise. There are a range of important roles in the TV industry, all important in their own respective sectors which are:
creative
editorial
technical
managerial
financial
administrative
Every role plays an imperative part in creating and producing TV network programming. Broadcasters as employers employ predominantly on a short-term or freelance basis, more so than the economy as a whole. There are around 850 independent producers in the TV industry. Just under two thirds of these are based in London, except the BBC's most recent edition to the industry Media City, which was a move intended to stimulate growth in this particular part of the industry in the North of England.
At the moment the TV industry is in a state of change due to the internet and cable providers providing on online service 24 hours a day, for example BBC's iPlayer or Channel 4's 4oD and more recently streaming media services that hook up to your modem such as Netflix and Lovefilm. These all act as competitors for TV producers and the industry today. Researchers in a recent study founded the theory of 'Content is King' in which the viewer scouts for content rather than channels and programme schedules, this may be a fair representation, with the rise of the internet, there has been a rise in consumer choice, all though advertisments still function, people tend to spend time finding things they like, especially if it is a leisure interest of theirs, for example they may research film noir as a genre, with the internet they can discover more independent content from independent sources. Recent statistics show the average British TV viewer watches around 20 hours of television a week. Those who operate in the TV industry are highly qualified with around two thirds of them holding degrees. Those who wish to employ within a media sector that wishes to compete globally will look to employ individuals with good entrepreneurial skills and commercial knowledge.
Making your way into the TV industry...
Making your way into the industry is widely recognised as the hardest part of qualifying for a career in TV. This is due to the exciting possibilities that await those in the field, the competitive nature that exists in the business and the need to be qualified, consistent, devoted and hardworking, you must be passionate about what you do in order to conceive this.
A key factor to gaining experience once you have your degree is to volunteer and while doing so devote as much of your time as you possibly can to the employer, remember it producing media, so there's always work to be done. During your time volunteering you should be inquisitive try and learn as much as possible, it is common to start out as a runner, then make your way to camera operator so on and so forth. Television is the biggest employer of runners throughout the creative media sector. Employers say ""When we meet people - often through work experience - we particularly look for some INTEREST and idea about which way they hope to develop, but people just say 'I'd like to work in television.". Doing so will demonstrate your skills and potential to possible employers and while doing so you will gain more experience and skills than you previously had. Research your institution, get to know as much as you possibly can about their approach and style to producing their programmes. Depending on the scope for opportunity, they may offer you an internship, which would act as crucial work experience that you could then include in your curriculum vitae, and references to attach to it to!
Networking is also very important in the industry, not in the social media sense but in a face to face environment, it's important to branch out and meet as many useful and helpful contacts as you can, use your time with them effectively by asking them advice on the tools of the trade, learn from their experiences and what routes you should take in order to get the job you want in the industry. You can start networking before even securing an interview, if you don't know anyone first-hand try attending events and functions, research the organisations and sponsors that back the functions before attending such events. Some people also share their material and discuss by subscribing as a members of an online media community or a number of them, here you are updated on job opportunities and can also communicate with professionals who could point you in the right direction.
Here are a few things you should consider after obtaining your professional degree...
Apply for jobs advertised, check various national publications
Approach independent companies “cold” as many jobs are simply not advertised. It may depend upon being in the right place at the right time. Research the company’s record before contacting them, to avoid any irregularities.
Use your ideas and creativity by getting involved in projects (funded or non-funded) and generally demonstrate that you are a TV person who is prepared to go the extra mile in order to work in an industry you feel passionate about in this case TV.
Review current skill shortages within the UK television industry, this may give you a leg-up in the event of an interview, by having skills that other applicants lack.
Attend trade fairs, seek advice from sector skills councils i.e. skillset
Creating a showreel can also help to showcase your work, this acts as a visual counterpart.
Rather than providing pages of writing that transcribes your work experience you have images that if organised and presented properly will leave a picture in your employer's mind of what you're about.
This will help your work to stand out. In order to do this properly you should research material the company has previously produced and tailor your showreel to meet the standards expected by the company. Most of those who begin working in TV production will often start out as a runner, depending on the career they wish to pursue in the industry. You could also include a business card with an web address for your own personal portfolio/homepage. This shows you are interactive and up to date. If you're successful this usually acts as the first step towards a career in the industry, from here you can work out your strengths and improve on your skills, once you have demonstrated your skills and qualities you can access more opportunities to work to the role you wish to secure.
For example if you wish to work as a broadcast reporter, you would first complete your degree then apply for researcher roles within the industry. Researchers often go on to become journalists or broadcasters, research plays a pivotal role in any form of media production, it is important to go to great lengths to gather extensive research both primary and secondary. You have to do this to make a programme or film seem more authentic and believeable, you must use your initiative to conduct thorough research, it is important to engage with several sources when fact finding, in order to establish the strength of the information given to you. It differs with each creative role, but no matter what role there is always room for promotion.
Overall there are 50,100 people working within the television industry in the UK. Around 62% of the industry's workforce are based in London around 28% of those people are employed on a freelance basis.
Professional Development
Professional development starts after education and some hands on training is acquired. The first thing to do would be to look for an internship with an organisation, then volunteer, then if successful gain a fixed term contract or a permanent contract within that organisation. The payment schemes for work in the TV industry are as follows...
Freelance
Full-time
Part-time
Temporary
Volunteer
Shiftwork
Multi-skilled
Permanent
However some of these contracts for wages are not always consistent, 38% of those working in Television in the United Kingdom have worked without pay at some point in their careers, however this is seen as investment for long term prospects in the future, you may need to hold down two jobs in order to work your way into the industry. When working shift-work you may have to wait for a period of time before receiving your pay. before you can begin to secure your placement, you need to apply the right attitude to your work ethics. You should be prepared to face some brutal assessments from your employer, however take it in your stride, behavioural criticism will come to help you deal with any issues that could be problematic in your line of work. Finding someone available to advise and mentor you would also help to shape your professionalism and help you understand the business and attitudes that exist within this part of the creative media industry and what solutions would help you to overcome obstacles if they occur again. This way you can gain foresight and achieve things easily without any hitches to slow you down.
There are resources for those who work freelance in the television industry, the not-for-profit training charity the Indie Training Fund created by Skillset. This allows freelance workers in the industry gain fees for training sessions, these are usually measured by the day, training criteria includes, development, production, cross-platform, people skills, legal, finance and business. This will help to shape your attitude for the rest of your career.
Professional Behaviours
The first step towards shaping your own professional behaviour is to remain reliable. Your sense of reliability will reflect your punctuality and attendance, your self-presentation and your efficiency in the role you operate in. Although these are common sense skills that everyone serious and committed to a career in this industry would apply to themselves, there are skills you have to continuously improve and expand on such as software and appliance skills which can be obtained through intense course training.
It is important to be courteous even if you're in a position where you may not necessarily feel like being polite, it is important to project the right attitude when working as part of a team.
Within the media industry there are several governmental regulatory bodies at work, they regulate key issues in the industry, protecting consumer choice and unethical practises. Ofcom are considered a key regulatory body of the creative media sector, they regulate plurality in cross media ownership, ensuring the public have access to a wide range of news resources and other information involving a differing of ideologies. Ofcom addressed a letter to the secretary of state in 2009, calling for further legislation on stakeholders wishing to purchase Channel 3 property. The 2003 legislation introduced further restrictions on the Broadcasting Act of 1990. However consequences of the Broadcasting Act were mostly for the greater good, with the act came the introduction of the ITC (independent television comission) which aided the television industry in the UK to be more independent. As a result more independent channels were launched and co-production deals were struck with already established British broadcasters. Perhaps most impressive of all changes due to this act were the improvements made to employment prospects in the industry. Broadcasters were more likely to employ people on a freelance or fixed term contract basis.
The PCC (Press Complaints Commission) regulate the legal and ethical conduct of the press, it was created independently by the publishing industry itself in 1991. This was provoked due to claims that some members of the press were breaking the code of practise and even the law by invading people's privacy. The bodies role is to uphold the 1993 code of practise. Libel law was already statutory to members of the press, but the PCC do regulate anyone's right to reply, this is not legally enforceable, but if proven untrue, could result in a trial where damages would be paid to the victim. The BBC's editorial guidelines state the following
"When our output makes allegations of wrongdoing, iniquity or incompetence or lays out a strong and damaging critique of an individual or institution the presumption is that those criticised should be given a "right of reply", that is, given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.". In Brazil their constitution guarantees the right to reply. Other issues concerning the PCC are chequebook journalism cases of those who are bribed to sell information for print.
The ASA stipulate that all advertising should be honest, legal, truthful and of taste. Ofcom and the BBFC all protect children from violent and sexualised imagery that are featured in television, radio and video games the ASA formed an organisation with other regulators named ParentPort. This website regularly updates parents on how they can take action and also features statistics, tips on how they can prevent their children accessing such material and internet links to other regulators, protecting those under the of 18.
Censorship
Censorship in the media is something that is increasingly being influenced by the agenda of media tycoons and those in government. Calls for censorship are a regular occurrence in the public sphere. This is often more than not because the material is of an offensive nature. Some legislative acts in the United Kingdom that define the breaches of law would be The Obscene Publications Act of 1964, The Broadcasting Act of 1990, The Official Secrets Act of 1989 the Racial and Religious Hatred act of 2006, also any material that insights terrorism will be censored, however this can sometimes conflict with The Human Rights act of 1998. All of these acts in particular explain the breaches of such laws and that in a court of law any defendant could receive serious criminal convictions. These acts define the moral and ethical lines, and in the event these lines are crossed it will become a legal matter. But who does censorship benefit? the board of classification? government? parents? censorship is often encouraged with propaganda, and right-wing politics that exist in new media. Blasphemy used to contain an unwritten 'blasphemous libel' law but after the common law case of 'White House v Lemon' after an apparent blasphemous poem made it into an issue of Gay News after the trial in 1977 Lord Scarman concluded with the following statement: "Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible, or the formularies of the Church of England as by law established. It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language." this sent a clear message that blasphemy laws were something of the past, especially regarding material that retains artistic merit or for the benefit of entertainment. In entertainment films like 'Life of Brian' was faced with social uproar by religious believers and still is not just in the UK but overseas to. In 1980, 68 of the councils that scrutinized the film, upheld the regulator British Board of Film Censors AA certificate, 28 enforced a local X rating and 11 banned it outright.
More recently the play 'Jerry Springer: The Opera' of 2005 written by comedian Stewart Lee and musician/comedian Richard Thomas was subject to controversy due to elements of blasphemy. The programme is a satirical musical and a pastiche on 21st century popular culture and religion in the 21st century judeo-christian world. The musical offended followers of the Christian Voice who threatened to picket the performances which in turn lead to Arts Council England pulling out on their bid for funding. The programme did gain some support from the BBC in 2006 the same year it toured, which resulted in members of Christian Voice picketing the BBC's facilities, this further led to the Christian Institute attempting to prosecute the BBC. Protests continued at venues to varied degrees throughout its 2006 UK tour. The programme is a satirical musical and a pastiche on 21st century popular culture. Its use of profanity was incorrectly reported in the press. Claims made by both The Daily Mail and The Sun stated the show used "3,168 mentions of the word f*ck and 297 of the word c*nt". In an interview with The Observer Stewart Lee revealed there are in fact 174 swear words in all.
BBC Three animated black comedy 'Monkey Dust' set in an exaggerated dystopian Great Britain aired from 2003 until 2005. The show used animation and satirical humour in a sketch show format. The programme received some considerable praise for its originality and critique and now receives a modest cult following on the internet. but after the London atrocities of July 7th 2005, the show stopped appearing on the BBC Three schedule. This is speculated because of the content and humour that appears in Monkey Dust. In particular characters such the Peadofinder General (a kind of grim reaper-esque executioner of pedophiles) Omar, Abdul and Shafiq who are incompetent suicide bombers and Abu the illegal immigrant.These characters may not have been ethically viable to air during that time, but eight years on and there is no sign of Monkey Dust appearing on BBC Three's schedule. Of course this is all speculation a spokeswoman for comedy at the BBC commented on the state of Monkey Dust, since its exemption explaining "it was absolutely not the content of the programme that resulted it in being shelved, it went through a typical broadcast pattern, first airing on BBC Three, then BBC2 then it was pulled from programming". Furthermore there were all in all three series, only the first series was released on DVD the second and third containing material featuring Omar, Abdul, Shafiq and Abu the illegal immigrant. The official explanation to why the remaining two series never made it to DVD was due to the untimely death of Monkey Dust creator Harry Thompson. I would speculate that it may be down to marketing with BBC Three executives. Although at the time it gained a good reception, it may not have been credible to some advertising and marketing officials, there may be a fear that members of the public would be offended with Monkey Dust's dark but hilarious humour.
Taste and Decency
In the press taste and decency must be to a professional standard, it is important especially as a journalist, to consider the sensitive nature of a subject or story. If the story is obscuring or demonizing in a condemning fashion, a person or subject, then it will not correspond with what serves the public interest.
Most recently a high court found Guardian journalist Sally Bercow guilty of breaching
libel law, after she published a tweet on her
twitter account that claimed Conservative MP Lord McAlpine was involved in organised pedophilic activity during the 1980s. BBC's Newsnight special that aired on November 2nd 2012, wrongly linked an anonymous Thatcher-era politician to be involved in a child abuse cover up, regarding a Wrexham care home in Wales during the 1970s and the 1980s. This was an issue of current affairs and many of Bercow's peers and twitter followers took an interest in such issues. In the midst of all the media attention, just days after the botched newsnight special aired, Sally Bercow tweeted "Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*".
Lord McAlpine was angered by the claims and lashed out at BBC executives for green lighting the special, which in turn controversy followed, his reputation and livelyhood was troubled by such serious accusations. The BBC apologised to McAlpine reservedly and settled a defamation claim of £185,000 to McAlpine personally. Sally Bercow approached McAlpine twice in January of 2013 with offers for compensation., McAlpine rejected both offers, instead favouring formal justice, the undisclosed damages will have to be paid by Bercow directly to McAlpine, it is stipulated this is more than what she bargained for. Judge Justice Tugendhat dismissed Mrs Bercow's argument that the question she had posed was entirely neutral. Her inclusion of the words "innocent face" revealed that the question was "ironical" the judge ruled.
Justice Tugendhat denounced Bercow's claim that the tweet was entirely neutral and was meant to be a conservational statement. Bercow stated "I did not tweet this with malice, and I did not intend to libel Lord McAlpine. I was being conversational and mischievous, as was so often my style on Twitter." She commented further "I very much regret my tweet, and I promptly apologised publicly and privately to Lord McAlpine for the distress I caused him. I also made two offers of compensation". Lord McAlpine's attorney further stated "With knowledge of the judgment, I am pleased to be able to say that Mrs Bercow has finally seen sense and has accepted an offer of settlement, which Lord McAlpine made back in January".
On the 24th of May 2013, Sally Bercow was found guilty of libelous accusations of child abuse involving Lord McAlpine. After the ruling, Sally Bercow stated to the press "Lord McAlpine issued proceedings and the last few months have been a nightmare. I am sure he has found it as stressful as I have. Litigation is not a pleasant experience for anyone." Mrs Bercow said she had learned her lesson "the hard way". This has raised awareness for everyone who use social networking websites like Twitter, it was obvious that such an accusation could result in legal action, however this has became the most recent and relevant example of the growing concern to be more vigilant when sharing and publishing on personal social networking web pages.
Taste and decency may also refer to allusions of sexual nature, sexualised nudity, illegal drug use and alcohol abuse. In the press industry, taste and decency is a necessity for journalism, it also follows a visual stigma, some press publications have been known to print unsettling material referring to war, images containing people on fire, limbless, battered or dead, this will also relate to televised news, for example a broadcaster will forewarn their audience with a statement "viewers may find this footage disturbing". Professionals often choose to self-censor their material in post-production, this is a safeguard that is growing in popularity and is being applied to journalists, news anchors, producers, directors and musicians.
This is a process in which they take into account the legal and ethical constraints that apply, they will also take into account any form of misconduct that could threaten or weaken their social capital. Motives for this would be to satisfy shareholders and/or advertisers, and to avoid sanction or punishment from government bodies or regulators that would otherwise threaten the longevity of a career in that particular part of the industry. Many political and social commentators have shared their concerns on the growing power harnessed by media moguls and multi-national conglomerates. Noam Chomsky I thought digressed into this topic accurately.
"The major media particularly, the elite media that set the agenda that others generally follow-are corporations “selling” privileged audiences to other businesses. It would hardly come as a surprise if the picture of the world they present were to reflect the perspectives and interests of the sellers, the buyers, and the product. Concentration of ownership of the media is high and increasing. Furthermore, those who occupy managerial positions in the media, or gain status within them as commentators, belong to the same privileged elites, and might be expected to share the perceptions, aspirations, and attitudes of their associates, reflecting their own class interests as well" - Noam Chomsky on media conglomerates.
Intrusion
The regulatory body PCC (press complaints commission) are an independent self-regulator, over the last four years controversy has surrounded the department, and people have questioned the authenticity of their role as a regulator. First their was the News of The World phone hacking scandal, which after a long trial featuring high profile witnesses who testified against the ethics of the press, Lord Justice Leveson concluded in his report that they introduce a new independent regulator, that would be less concentrated and completely independent. In recent news, the controversial far right paper The Daily Mail, had printed a story on a transgender school teacher Lucy Meadows, after months of harrasment and invasion of her privacy from the press, resulted in her ultimately taking her own life. Lucy Meadows previously known as Nathan Upton taught at Mary Magdalen's Primary School in Accrington, Lancashire. The story arrupted into national news when the press learnt parents were upset and confused when Meadows' transition was announced in a school newsletter notifying parents and guardians of staff changes, it read: "Mr Upton has recently made a significant change in his life and will be transitioning to live as a woman. After the Christmas break, she will return to work as Miss Meadows." The story was covered in a mostly negative fashion by various publications but perhaps the most damning and convicting was an article that appeared in Richard Littlejohn's article for The Daily Mail, the piece headline' was "He's not only in the wrong body… he's in the wrong job" the polemicist asked whether anyone had thought of "the devastating effect" on the pupils of Meadows' change in gender.
As the PCC's rules dictate, the commission were able to act when Meadows herself complained on the 4th of January 2013 a PCC complaints officer sent an email to all UK media addressing her concerns to them. Right through the christmas period into the new year, she was chastized and harrased by the press she had made several statements one made just before christmas read ""I am grateful to governors and colleagues at St Mary Magdalen's for their support. I'd now ask for my privacy to be respected so that I can continue with my job, which I'm committed to and which I enjoy very much." On the 19th of March 2013 Lucy Meadows was found dead in her Accrington home, from carbon monoxide poisoning. This had caused outrage and several responses to the case, have ousted The Daily Mail, and their infamous approach to covering personal, and confidential stories that do not serve in the public interest. In the inquest to her death Coroner Michael Singleton
said he planned to write to Conservative MP Maria Miller, Secretary of State
for Culture, Media and Sport, to warn that "unless action is taken it could
leave to further fatality". Mr Singleton further stated: "I will be writing to the government to consider now implementing in
full the recommendations of the Leveson Report in order to seek to ensure that
other people in the same position as Lucy Meadows are not faced with the same
ill-informed bigotry as seems to be displayed in the case of Lucy." When addressing the media at the conclusion of the inquest he said: "And to you,
the press, I say shame - shame on all of you."
Freedom of Information
The Freedom of Information act of 2000 was a bill that was passed in parliament in order to "create a public right of access to information, held by public authorities." The act dictates that the public have a right of access to current and historic information the government had previously held. The act was described at the time as "the act that is almost too good to be true." the white paper was originally named "Your right to know" written by Dr David Clark created in 1998. This was a commitment contained in the Labour Party manifesto running up to the 1997 general election, the act was officially implemented in 2000, previously to this there had been no right to access information in the UK, merely a limited voluntary framework for sharing information. There are absoloute exemptions to be made regarding the act for example information contained in court records, where disclosure of information would infringe parliamentary priviledge and information provided in confidence.
In America their level of information made accessible to the public is heavily regulated, it has recently been reported that the US Federal Government have been keeping highly personal data stored on a huge database, containing personal information from the public's personal social networking accounts, mobile phone records, video call records, file saves companies like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook have denied giving the US and UK governments access to their servers. Obama and his administration insist that this will help them counteract extremism and the war on terror. It is a very high-brow topic our most basic of rights, our right to privacy and personal data is being monitored and fed to a federal database, these are alarming facts to recognise, some of today's biggest firms and companies are hardly regulated and are even given tax breaks in the UK and the United States of America. As long as they are holding all the aces it seems that there is no indication to how integrated these companies are with their shareholders and business associates, the financial sector and secret services are working on a whole other plain.
The leaderless "Hacktivist" group Anonymous who have been active since 2003, strongly oppose internet censorship, concentrated media ownership, homophobia, US government, Israel, Syria and secret societies Scientology in particular. They are the subject of scaremongering in numerous countries primarily America and the United Kingdom. Their infamous viral fame over the past two years have increased, the mass media have represented them as "terrorists" in particular Murdoch's network Fox brandished them as "domestic terrorists" and threats to "bomb stadiums". It is clear that new media are pushing a propagandist agenda against the group. The group work as a global brain, a statement by Trent Peacock 'the face' of Anonymous stated the following; "We [Anonymous] just happen to be a group of people on the internet who need—just kind of an outlet to do as we wish, that we wouldn't be able to do in regular society. ...That's more or less the point of it. Do as you wish. ... There's a common phrase: 'we are doing it for the lulz'". This antagonistic approach is not the most logical of options and would hardly prove to inspire change. Although I oppose censorship, I believe this is ethically unjust and ultimately benefits no one, resulting in a cover-story to boost the egos of these "hacktivists". Although they raise a many valid points, its not something that can be open for debate in such a medium. It is a movement that has more in common with sci-fi fantasy and technology itself rather than a genuine shared philosophy.
Media Ownership and its Key Issues...
The issues that exist today with media ownership are caused by the mass privatisation and deregulation of the market, under Margaret Thatcher Conservative Prime Minister of the 1980s. She claimed "the freer the market, the freer the people" but its not hard to work out who's benefiting, the financial sector, time and time again, not the people. During the 1980s governments in the western world were turning a blind eye to a set of mergers and takeovers. In a globalized society, control is integral to its
Growing concerns in media ownership is increasingly apparent in recent years, mass media is becoming more and more concentrated by less and less transnational multimedia conglomerates. A product of globalization, This is a growing concern due to the decreasing involvement the public sphere have within the industry. Some social commentators and academics both liberalist and Marxist have expressed their concerns that increased concentration would only call for a democratic debate on the issues regarding closely-knit and controlled global capitalism. Convergence of media ownership doesn't necessarily mean consumers have better consumer choice, after all these conglomerates are more powerful than some of the countries they exploit both economically and politically. This is a media oligopoly, an oligopoly is where few media firms control a market, large (usually global) scale media companies then buy out the smaller media firms in the market in turn making them more powerful. This is a key contributor to eliminating their competitors they do this by buying out or forcing them out due to a lack of finances for production values, this is all capable because of deregulation from government. Media oligopolies continue to be ultra-powerful and their priorities correspond with the interests of their sponsors, shareholders and government. Those who oppose deregulation say it is rapidly reducing diversity in approach to how information is fed to us, often pushing a bias agender. Furthermore they argue with the growth of concentrated media comes more legally enforced thought censorship, for example some of these conglomerates have substantial control over internet usage, giving them the option to demonstrate biased media from their standpoint. They can also restrict conflicting information that is politically and socially opposing.
The rise of capitalism and the endless will to promote capitalism through advertising, sponsorship, and product placement is proof of the redefinition of the audience as consumers rather than citizens. The audience is constantly bombarded with bias suggestion, favouring a middle class lifestyle or stereotype, or gaining credibility or instant attraction to the opposite sex by purchasing a product. In both America and Great Britain it is often the upper working working class and lower middle class who are misrepresented and sometimes disregarded by the media. Integration and control over goods, services and labour is progressively being governed by media conglomerates, this limits our consumer choice. It is questionable that these transnational media conglomerates are democratic at all and with advancement in technology and the personal information institutions can access on an individual are worrying to say the least. It appears our basic freedoms are being infringed on. Decades ago many of the 'press barons' worked in the interests of the capitalist class. But now the majority of privately owned media companies are now controlled by the six big multimedia conglomerates. These media giants have huge economic and political power, they generate massive revenues which is shared out to their primary owner and shareholders. While no company is safe from collapse the fact is more media production and cultural distribution are being controlled by a small number of privately owned companies, meaning fewer players and more money circulating through less hands. Their ideology is vested in two things, surplus revenue and upholding the values and beliefs of capitalism.
Key factors that continue to boost media imperialism and cultural homogenization are:
The emergence and merging of fewer global media conglomerates.
An increasingly deregulated environment in which these organizations operate.
An uneven flow of information and communication from the public to their products distributed over the global system and the different levels of access that global citizens have to global networks of communications.
The promotion of consumerism, which is therefore a bias counterpart to the capitalist agenda.
The fact that these media conglomerates own control and have substantial interests in both media and non-media companies.
The shrinkage of mass media's public sphere role due largely to concentration and conglomeration.
It is important that we can differentiate from state-owned media to community (not-for-profit) media and privately owned media that doesn't serve in the best interests of their advertisers, shareholders and C.E.O.s Community based media is budgeted modestly, and aim to serve the needs of the community and its inhabitants. For example the town University and its students, or a disparate group of people with niche interests. The public media spectrum will focus on impartial news and free, innovative media sharing. Private owned media will focus on synergy and other forms of vertical and horizontal integration, in order to generate huge turnovers so both the owner and the shareholder can maximise their profit and control. This increasingly limits our consumer choice in all aspects of the media i.e. television, radio, telecommunications and publications industry. However with with the internet and other technology we have been able to express whatever we like to whoever we like in the world. We can share many different types of online media, music, art, animation and film, so long as its legally acquired and shared. The web also acts as forum to comment on anything we like, voicing our individual opinions on politics, war, media, economics, culture and social and geopolitical issues.
Consumer Choice Ltd.
The few and big media monopolies' stronghold over what we choose is becoming stronger, minimising opportunities for other sources to dispatch information to us. As the number of broadcasters and record companies multiply it may appear as if consumer choice is increasing when in fact it is reducing, as media monopolies takeover semi-successful independents, and exploit its previous innovations under a new, bigger budget guise. This is very concerning in all aspects of the media, when competitors are wiped out or taken over, our consumer choice is further limited, we have to look to independent and more impartial sources to source more credible information. In the publishing industry popular newspapers typically cover celebrity gossip, sexualised images of women and possibly libel tabloid rumours. This is how they continue to "dumb down" their audience with rehashed programming, celebrating mediocrity and regressive cultural ideals and push bias political agendas. This is because their company directors, editors and shareholders have generalised the readers, and this is how the audience is stereotyped. Readers have to be identified through socio-economic profiling from any offset, market research is imperative but limiting choice, limits happiness. It is important to consider the multi-cultural class and further still identify sub-cultures, in a time where convergence is everywhere, we are constantly discovering new ways of communicating with each other more choice creates more opportunity. Global media producers show no signs of slowing down as they continue to feed into social stereotypes which are proving to alienate the general public, especially those who fall into the NRS social grades C1 (lower middle class) and C2(skilled working class). This has acted as a catalyst for the educated but ill informed and in turn people from ages 18-36 are finding new ways to avoid bias and outdated information. People are looking to the internet, independent newspaper subscriptions, publishers, social networks, online blogs and independent publications some that are largely described as "niche" music and culture magazines.
Consumer choice in the United Kingdom is protected under a series of legal mandates which are; the Consumer Credit Act of 1974, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. These acts were introduced to enforce and bar any individual or organisation from exploiting consumers for their own financial gain. In the UK Ofcom continue to regulate these errors seriously and effectively.
The purprose of a regulatory body is to require restrictions, impose conditions and set standards as an organisation and enforcing such regulations where needed. Some regulatory bodies are self regulating in the creative media sector for instance the free press in the United Kingdom and the British Board of Film Censors are both self regulating bodies adhering to their own set of standards, use of ethics and legislation. It is imperitive for these regulatory bodies to bring a legal mandate to a profession in order to enforce legal constraints against those who wish to breach media and property laws. However not all regulatory functions work in the interests of those with regulated professions such as a recording artist or an author. There are government regulatory bodies that provide services for sole registered traders in businesses and limited companies. Futhermore there are regulatory bodies for unregulated professions such as charted surveyors (RICS).
PCC as a
Regulatory Body
The Press Complaints Commission are a self-regulatory body, that has been operating as the Britishing free press for over 50 years. The body first existed as the voluntary Press Council in 1953 with an aim to promote and maintain high ethical standards for journalism in this country. However by the 1980's publications had failed to work to their code of practise, abandoning even basic ethics for journalism. Parliament hadn't let this gone unnoted, many members of the press were said to have lost confidence in the Press Council. Some members of the press believed a better solution would be to introduce new privacy laws. After these serious implications the government proposed a Departmental Committee under David Calcutt QC, his objective was to “to consider what measures (whether legislative or otherwise) are needed to give further protection to individual privacy from the activities of the press and improve recourse against the press for the individual citizen”. David Calcutt published a report in 1990 calling for a new Press Complaints Commission in place of the Press Council and instead of further statutary controls.
The press responded enthusiastically to the report and the Press Complaints Commission was an official legally enforced act by early 1991. For the first time in journalistic history ,a group of highly experienced regional and national editors composed a code of practise for the PCC to publish. The code included 16 clauses covering accuracy, discrimination and the right to privacy. Ammendments were later made throughout the nineties and the 2000's most notably the definition of private property, child protection in cases of abuse and any breaches of the code will require a full adjudicaition from the publisher. This adjudicaition would include a detailed explanation as to why they breached the code with intentions to serve in the public interest and with how and whom they made breaches to the code of practise. However the PCC have since received heavy criticism from well known authority figures, media personalities and politicians particularly leader of the opposition Ed Milliband due to its petty attempt at handling the News of the World phone hacking scandal. Christopher Meyer was the chairman of the PCC at the time however the PCC do not have legal power to prosecute any member of the press or press officials who are guilty of any legal or ethical misconduct in the press. The conclusion of the Leveson inquiry lead to Lord Justice Leveson calling for an independent press watchdog that would tighten the restrictions and reduce the chances of anything like the phone hacking scandal happening again. Prime Minister David Cameron recently announced that there had been a breakdown in communication between the three main political parties, Cameron ultimately deciding to pull the plug on cross-party talks to come to a conclusion on new independent press regulation. However it is said that Cameron is grandstanding on the subject, as he has stated to both deputy prime minister Nick Clegg and labour leader Ed Milliband he wishes to implicate no press laws on the current free press.
Key Issues the PCC regulate...
Provides a free and accessible 24 hour helpline to the public
Providing a code of practise for the publishing press to follow correctly
BBFC as a
Regulatory Body
The BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) is a non-governmental organisation funded by the film industry, they specialise in cencorship it enforces statutary requirements to classify the age certificates/ratings for cinema, videos, DVDs and a portion of video games.
The BBFC were first established in 1912 by the film industry as an indepdent regulatory body, the organisation's main goal is to manage censorship and to unite the classification of film nationally. Statutory powers do remain with local councils which have the power to overrule any of the BBFC's decisions passing films they reject, banning films they have passed, and even waiving cuts, instituting new ones, or altering categories for films exhibited under their own licensing jurisdiction. However after the introduction of the Licensing Act of 2003 proprieters are responsible for what is shown in their venue. This independent body helps to regulate the classification of films and some video game media. Studies show that more money is being invested in video game animation and consumer demand for more and more videogames continues to increase. This shows that films are proving less popular in the 21st century.
Their classification for a theatrical film release, is dictated by a group of atleast two examiners who will rate a film according to the BBFC guidelines which are often ammended accordingly. The final decision is made by a Senior Examiner, but if a decision can't be met or if policy issues arise, the film that is to be certified will be seen by other members of the board including the board of Director and the presidential team. They will often correspond with external legal advisors for any specialist advice for the legal acceptability of film content. Examiners will examine the theme and behaviour of a film, the language used, nudity, sex, violence and sexual violence.
The BBFC will rate films under the following categories, depending on the film's content and target audience, U (all ages) PG (Parental Guidance) 12A (Accompanied by an Adult) 15, 18, Restricted 18 (Adult Films) and finally the E (exempt) classification, these are films with no formal legal obligation.
Key Issues the BBFC regulate...
Film Classification
Video Game Classification
Mechanical Copyright Protection
Society as a
Regulatory Body
The Mechanical Copyright Protection Society was first established in 1924, it is a non-profit organisation its purpose was to collect royalties from the gramophone companies at the time and pay them to their clients who were registered musicians under Phonographic Performance Limited. Some years later the MCPS merged with the long established Perfoming Rights Society merging their collective efforts as one organisation.
Key Issues the MCPS regulate...
Regulating piracy
Issuing registered clients/musicians with royalties under the The Copyright Designs & Patents Act, 1988
PRS as a
Regulatory Body
PRS (performing rights society) is a self regulatory body that protects the rights and copyright ownership of recording artists, songwriters, classical composers, TV and film score composers and library music creators. Members of their organisation exist all over the world from well known and distributed musicians to those who provide music in advertising, TV, film, fashion and the video games industry. Their current membership capacity consists a total of 95,000 members. The PRS ensure their members receive royalties for their music that has or is being used by a media producer or in advertising.
The organisation was first ebstablished as the Performing Rights Society in 1914 its first purpose was to collect money from those who were performing live from sheet music, this became popular with composers in particular, for example Edward Elgar, Ray Davies, Elton John, Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are all members.
The body works as a switchboard for companies or venues that wish to use a musicians music for specific events, or global event organisers. This way PRS make it easier for both parties, the musicians don't get inundated with requests from organisations or venues to use the desired music, and the organisers don't have to contact the musician directly which could result in numerous discrepencies between recording artist and the proprieter.
The PRS deal with a number of daily complaints their is a code of conduct established by Ombudsman concerning members of the PRS and licensees they have a number of teams on hand to answer queries and resolve any issues before they become a major problem.
When joining PRS a members rights are transferred to them, these rights are:
the right to perform the music in the public (concerts, pubs, shops etc)
to communicate the music to the public (including broadcasting, broadcasting on demand and use of music on the Internet interactive services, including satellite and cable transmissions)
Key Issues the PRS regulate...
Copywright issues with owner and media producer
Forging alliances to legislate copywright administration in the UK and overseas
ASA as a
Regulatory Body
ASA (advertising standards authority) is a relf regulatory body it is not supported by the government of the United Kingdom but in fact supported by a levy in the advertising industry. It does not have the power to make legislation however its code of advertising practise clearly reflects legislation they work to investigate false advertising (of all media), offensive material, breaches of data protection, internet advertisements and banner links (that apply to their remit) falsified sales promotions etcetera.
Their website seems to promote themselves as an organisation bound on values and principles, they seem to be in touch and up to date promoting their twitter account. Their goal is to regulate the content of advertising, sales promotions and direct marketing successfully. Their values are instilled on reliability and providing a fair and ethical, accessible and helpful, open and accountable service to the public.
Their complaints procedure requires that you give your personal details in correspondence the Data Protection Act of 1998 these details are never disclosed, they are only disclosed if a consumer complains about no receival of goods or wishing to be removed from a company database. If the complaint comes from a rival competetor they require the company to be named, this helps limit the number of reactionary or petty claims made to the ASA. To make a complaint a member of the public may address one online via their website under the 'consumers' section of their webpage:
They also publish rulings and cover bad publicity of their sanctions towards advertising, marketing and falsified sales promotions. A company can appeal successfully against the ASA if there is any flaws in the ASA's investigation. A company may also file for appeal under the grounds of any probable explanations to a lack of evidence on the company's part during an investigation, as long as the ASA are met with the correct evidence. However this will be reviewed by an indepedent reviewer and such appeals against a adjudication must be 21 days within that adjudication. The ASA regulate under a contract with Ofcom and are funded by advertisers from an "arm's length arrangement" to certify their indendence they have a seperate funding mechanism so the ASA are unaware of which advertisers are funding them and the ammount they contribute. This anonymity helps stimulate independence and encourages a will to remain bias when regulating the advertising industry.
Key Issues the ASA regulate...
Protecting Consumer Choice
Formally investigating any legal or ethical breaches of the UK's Advertising Code
OFCOM as a
Regulatory Body
OFCOM (the office of communications) is a government approved regulatory body that monitors the ethics and practises of the broadcasting, postal service and telecommunication industries and also operate wireless device companies.
This office of communications was established first in 2002 and received full authority after its establishment from the Communications Act 2003.
After this act was established Ofcom could now make use of their powers to step in and take action in order to benefit citizens and consumers. They make use of their powers by encouraging competition or resolving disputes between communications providers and their consumers.
This was quoted from their website:
'We also enforce comsumer proction law, protect and manage the radio spectrum and encure viewers and listeners are prottected from offensive and harmful material and treated fairly they have three enforcement teams that deal with complaints from the general public.'
The consequences for not adhering to content standards in television and radio Ofcom will prepare a preliminary view provide it to the broadcaster and request representations in 10 working days once Ofcom receive the broadcasters’ representations on the preliminary view Ofcom will reach a final decision and inform the decision. Before Ofcom publish their decision they will send a copy to the broadcaster in breach of content standards, they will then publish the decision.
Depending on the severity of the misconduct they may decide to issue a statutory sanction against the broadcaster "Procedures for the consideration of statutory sanctions in breaches of broadcast licenses" will apply. They also have the ability and financial resources to fine you in a court of law for not adhering to the content standards or any breaches of The Broadcasting Act of 1990.
Key Issues Ofcom regulate...
Protecting the under 18's (under section 1 of the Broadcasting Code)
Harm and Offence (Section Two)
Crime (Section Three)
Religion (Section Four)
Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions (Section Five)
Elections and Referendums (Section Six)
Commercial References in Television Programming (Section Nine)
Commercial Communications in Radio Programming (Section Ten)
The Leveson inquiry is a
judge-lead campaign that was launched by David Cameron in the wake of the
phone-hacking scandal at the Murdoch owned News of The World newspaper. The paper was closed down through the harsh criticism and distaste of the ethical misconduct the paper was under.
In light of this exposed scandal Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry was to "look into the culture, practices and ethics of the press heard from 184 witnesses
and accepted 42 written submissions in more than six months of hearings."
David Cameron was also criticized in the press for his apparent close relationship with chief editor of The News of The World and News International Executive Rebekah Brooks. It has also been revealed as of December 2012 that Brooks has received $11,000,000 in compensation, this is bound to aggravate the British public, there seems to be no punishment for a women who had no standards or morals and acted so unethically it suggests that now is a time for change, but to legislate on free speech could be very dangerous. These investigative journalists already broke the law, why should we legislate another one?
Events leading up to the inquiry...
In January 2011, after allegations of phone hacking from a number of prominent public figures came forward with information. The police launched an investigation named 'Operation Weeting' after actress Sienna Miller, Bob Crow and MP George Galloway claim their phones were hacked by the tabloid. In June of 2011 News Corp enclose a formal apology to Sienna Miller and she receives £100,000 for damages and legal costs, in the same month footballer Andy Pundit also receives £20,000 compensation from the same organisation.
On July the 5th 2011 the Metropolitan Police reveal they have been in touch with the parents of the Soham Murder victims of 2002 following further suspicions that their phones were also hacked. News International confess they have given more information to the police referring these allegations. This information contained payments made to the police by Newscorp which were said to be authorised by the then UK press chief Andy Coulson. The list of victims included those of the 7/7 bombings of 2005 and the family spokeswomen of missing child Madeline McCann.
But perhaps of all shocking was the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone after she was murdered. Prime Minister David Cameron calls it "a truly dreadful act".
On July 7th of 2011 News Corporation announces it will close fown The News of The World, July 10th 2011 being its last issue.
On July 8th of 2011 David Cameron releases two inquiries one to lead the phone hacking scandal and one to revaluate and introduce new regulations for the British press.
Victims of the Leveson Inquiry…
Anne Diamond Anne Diamond a british radio/television presenter and journalist had been constantly harassed by journalists from Murdoch’s publications. She was telephoned by journalists asking questions regarding her personal life, pregnancy and even her mortgage. The Sun ran a front page article exclaiming “Anne Diamond Killed My Father” the publication paid Diamond’s former nanny a substantial sum of £30,000 in exchange for a story that involved her late father and Anne Diamond in a car crash some time ago.The article made Anne Diamond out to cold blooded and evasive. She commented during the Leveson Inquiry’s witness testimonials.
Diamond told the inquiry she put tough questions to
Murdoch when she interviewed him in the 1980s. "I did put the point to Mr
Murdoch that his newspapers were intent, or seemed to be intent on ruining some
people's lives and how did he feel about that, and how could he sleep at night
knowing that that was going on," she said. Diamond
believes that Murdoch targeted her personally after this particular encounter.
Sienna Miller
Sienna Miller the actress/celebrity was compensated for £100,000 in damages from News International. Miller who lashed out at family and friends and accused them of selling information on her personal life to the press was victim to the phone hacking scandal as investigative journalists from News of The World hacked several of her mobile phones.
She gave evidence at the witness testimonials of journalists following her down dark alley ways and during daylight hours they would deliberately goad her with facts from her personal life prompting for an abusive reaction for photo-journalists. The intrusion of the press into her personal life left Miss Miller startled and very anxious and paranoid. The Mirror once printed a picture of her claiming she was drunk when she was in fact caring for sick children. She said since she has had to "fight tooth and nail" to maintain her privacy and now enjoys her freedom from such berating, antagonising members of the press. She gave evidence saying she was followed almost daily by 10-15 members of the press and was on one occasion spat at.
Hugh Grant
Hugh Grant's personal life was made a skeptical of by publications of News International he himself fronted an investigative documentary into the ethics and morals of Murdoch's press. Which included blackmail, bribery, phone hacking and the attitude of the journalists behind such breaches of the law.
The documentary focuses on his argument for a new regulatory system and his work in support of the campaign named 'Hacked Off'. This particular campaign was created to bring about an independent regulatory system in place of the self-regulating system the free press of the United Kingdom continue to operate under. Their website http://hackinginquiry.org/ list important facts about the free press there is a £200m annual profit that Murdoch gains from his publications. There representatives argue that newspapers should not be satisfying their shareholders by publishing slanderous articles allowing newspaper proprieters to print and sell whichever stories they wish by whichever illegal means necessary to cover these stories.
JK Rowling
Discovered a letter in her daughter's school bag addressed from a journalist, which is evidence of invasion of privacy and the well-being of her children. Photos of her daughter in her bathing suit were also taken by a photo-journalist during a holiday-trip these were published in a tabloid magazine. Also pictures were published in 2004 of her pushing her son David in a buggy in Edinburgh in 2004. She was granted an appeal at the Court of Appeal in reference to banning the photos from publication Judge Sir Anthony Clarke said of this incident "If a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent".
Milly Dowler
Perhaps the most appalling crime of all the phone-hacking scandal was the hacking of Milly Dowler's mobile phone by News of The World journalists days after her murder in 2002. Journalists listened to atleast four voice mails to extract highly personal information from messages left from her family and close friends pleading for her return. They also paid for and hired a private investigator to gather information on close friends and family of the Dowlers.
Conclusion of inquiry...
Lord Justice Leveson addressed his reccommendations on the 29th of November closing the inquiry with his belief that there should be an indendent self regulatory body put in place backed up with new legislation.
He went on to comment: "In any event the power of laws enforcement are significantly limited because of the priviledges the law provides to the press including the protection of its sources, that is specifically in order that it can provide its role in the public interest. What is needed therefore is a genuinely independent and effective sytem of self regulation of standards, with obligations to the public interest. At the very start of the inquiry and throughout I have encouraged the industry to work out a method of independent self regulation that would work for them and that would work for the public" - Lord Justice Leveson
The key points in his letter of reccomendation to the PM were as follows:
An independent regulatory body for the press should be
established.
It should take an active role in promoting high standards,
including having the power to investigate serious breaches and sanction
newspapers.
The new body should be backed by legislation designed to
assess whether it is doing its job properly.
The legislation would enshrine, for the first time, a legal duty on
the government to protect the freedom of the press.
An arbitration system should be created through which people
who say they have been victims of the press can seek redress without having to
go through the courts.
The body should be independent of current journalists, the
government and commercial concerns, and not include any serving editors,
government members or MPs.
The body should consider encouraging the press to be as transparent as
possible in relation to sources for its stories, if the
information is in the public domain.
A whistle-blowing hotline should be established for
journalists who feel under pressure to do unethical things in order to write a story.
British Prime Minister David Cameron opposes the idea backed by his cabinet and even the mayor of London Boris Johnson. However Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Leader of the opposition Ed Miliband backs the idea of a new independent regulatory press.
It seems without more successful campaigning and support from important public figures and politicians no such legislation will be introduced or practised in this particular industry.
Government legislations are put into place to help control the creative media sector, ethical constraints also apply. A question of ethics can get difficult when It is important to maintain responsibility while having the power to influence public opinion. The following are laws that promote order in the media industry and have otherwise changed broadcasting and publishing permanently. The following legislations are:
·Broadcasting Act of 1990*
·Official Secrets Act 1989*
·Obscene Publications Act (Est) 1959
·Race Relations Act (Est) 1976
·Human Rights Act 1998*
·Privacy Law*
·Copywright and Intellectual Property Law* and last but not least...
·Libel Law*
Each one of these legislations was created to regulate or deregulate in order to bring about a change in approach and discourage unlawful practises in the media industry.
Breaches of this legislation will usually lead to an inquest or subsequential trial and/or fine as a penalty for such ethical misconduct. Victims of such libel misconduct will usually be entitled to some sort of compensation for any upset/damage caused by the media. This usually is either an agreed legal settlement i.e. penalty/fine or a out of court settlement that both parties will agree on, if the sum is sufficient compensation.
The Broadcasting Act of 1990
The broadcasting act of 1990 was a reformation of television and radio licensing which led to the reinstatement of two regulatory bodies. The act is seen as a key factor of Thatcherism as the legislation incorporated market ideology into British broadcasting. This has effected television production permanently. The two reinstated regulatory bodies are The Independent Television Committee and the Radio Authority. This act required all ITV franchises to be put up for sale and to be awarded partly on financial grounds. The Independent Television Commission set up to regulate all TV services in the UK, with the exception of the BBC and eventually Channel Four.
Also introduction of programme sponsorship was established and continental companies were allowed to bid for licenses or take over license-holders. Companies were allowed to own more than own license.
Some rules in the act were introduced on cross-media holdings to prevent ownership being concentrated in too few hands. The main downfall with cross-media ownership is objectivity journalists and their publications are supposed to counteract corruption and deceit that could pollute our basic rights and freedom. However this is difficult to regulate when the same publications are owned by media conglomerates who are causing such devastation to people's lives, this is a controversial subject as they have objected and covered up such unlawful practises especially those surrounding the phone hacking scandal at the News of The World. A new independent free press would probably be the only solution to avoid such unethical practises again.
National newspaper owners were prevented from holding more than a 20% stake in TV companies, with similar restrictions on cross-ownership between commercial TV satellite TV and national radio stations. A loophole in this section of the act controversially protected Rupert Murdoch on the basis that Sky was defined as a non-UK service.
The Official Secrets Act of 1989
The Official Secrets Act of 1989 was first introduced to ensure people who are or had been enlisted to work in security or intelligence agencies don't mishandle or leak any disclosed information to the public, such failure to adhere to the act would result in a fixed jail sentence no longer than six months or a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the standard scale. In section 8 of the act it identifies safeguarding obligations
"Section 8 - Safeguarding of information
This section makes it a crime for a crown servant or government contractor to retain information beyond their official need for it, and obligates them to properly protect secret information from accidental disclosure."
In section 15 it also includes any provisions abroad
"Section 15(1)(a) provides that any act done by a British citizens or crown servant, which would be an offence under any provision of the Act other than sections 8(1) or 8(4) or 8(5) if done by him in the United Kingdom, is an offence under that provision.
This is intended to cover espionage (where someone travels to a foreign country and discloses secret information to a foreign power) and cases where someone travels to a foreign country and discloses secret information, perhaps to a newspaper.
Section 15(1)(b) provides that any act done by any person in any of the Channel Islands, or in the Isle of Man, or in any colony, which would be an offence under any provision of the Act other than sections 8(1) or 8(4) or 8(5) if done by him in the United Kingdom, is an offence under that provision. Section 15(3) confers a power on the Queen to extend, by Order in Council, any provision of the Act, subject to any exceptions, adaptations or modifications specified in the Order, to any of the Channel Islands, or to the Isle of Man, or to any colony."
This ensures no breach of such legislation such as leaks to foreign publications or organisations that could endanger our national security.
This law mostly applies to secret serviceman or figures of authority who are aware of highly confidential information. A famous case of a breach in the law regarding the Official Secrets Act of 1989 was the trial and arrest of Richard Tomlinson the New Zealand born former British Secret Intelligence Service agent (MI6) in 1997. His book revelling secret information during his service at MI6 'The Big Breach' was published in Moscow in 2001. The chief prosecution witness John Scarlett claimed that Richard Tomlinson "had put agents’ lives at risk" and had "gravely damaged national security". Tomlinson also revealed that MI6 did previously plot to assassinate Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic by using a powerful strobe light to blind the driver; he suggested that MI6 could have used this plot to kill Diana Princess of Wales and Dodi in 1997.
Obscene Publications Act (Est) 1959
The Obscene Publications Act of 1959 was first established in 1959 further legislation was added in 1964 to strengthen obscenity laws prohibiting obscene material to appear in articles and programming. Obscenity laws were originally governed by the Hicklin test, which had a zero tolerance on obscenity and would authorize the destruction of obscene books regardless of its artistic or literary merit. The act was introduced to parliament after being made viable by Roy Jenkins and was given the Royal Assent in July of 1959. New legislations gave police powers to obtain material from the offender and act further where necessary. The legislation was to protect the public from any immoral pollution the act would allow banning any texts, programmes or films that had the "tendency to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences"
In 1960 Penguin books were taken to trial in the United Kingdom for its publication of DH Lawrence's novel 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' the trial was a milestone in censorship law and was a major public event receiving mass press coverage. The term "there is no such thing as bad publicity" did apply to this trial, even if most press reports were condemning the book, over a period of three months the novel sold 3 million copies proving that such controversy in the public sphere only leads to interest within the public sphere. The trial held witness to E.M. Forster, Richard Hoggart, Helen Gardner and Raymond Williams the prosecution called for Rudyard Kipling in the event that the magistrate would need an expert to persuade him to "keep the empire" pure. The prosecution were ridiculed in the press for being too subjective and extreme moralists and were ridiculed in the press for being "out of touch". Whereas the defence had a more logical and liberal outlook the verdict the literary English scholars refuted the prosecution's suggestion that the work was no more than a string of sexual encounters and defended Lawrence's use of four letter words, adding that it was integral to the novel's literary effect. On November 2nd 1960 after a period of three hours the jurors returned with a verdict of 'not guilty' leading the way to legalising the distribution of the novel, claiming the book was in the 'public good'. This has become a staple point in British Society ending the taboo on sexual displays where art and entertainment is concerned.
Provisions in the Obscene Publications act of 1959 detail:
Subject as hereinafter provided, any person who, whether for gain or not, publishes an obscene article or who has an obscene article for publication for gain (whether gain to himself or gain to another)] shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months;
on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or both.
(b)
Police Powers legislation included n the Obscene Publications act of 1959:
Powers of search and seizure.
(1) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that, in any premises in the petty sessions area for which he acts, or on any stall or vehicle in that area, being premises or a stall or vehicle specified in the information, obscene articles are, or are from time to time, kept for publication for gain, the justice may issue a warrant under his hand empowering any constable to enter (if need be by force) and search the premises, or to search the stall or vehicle and to seize and remove any articles found therein or thereon which the constable has reason to believe to be obscene articles and to be kept for publication for gain.
(2) A warrant under the foregoing subsection shall, if any obscene articles are seized under the warrant, also empower the seizure and removal of any documents found in the premises or, as the case may be, on the stall or vehicle which relate to a trade or business carried on at the premises or from the stall or vehicle.
Race Relations Act 1976
The Race Relations Act of 1976 was an act established in the United Kingdom under James Callaghan's Labour government. The act was originally established as The Race Relations Act of 1965. However the original bill did not include provisions on healthcare, education and social security on the grounds for discrimination. The new act was introduced to re-establish and enforce further legislation. And encourage equal opportunities and tackle discrimination. These acts also lead to establish the non-departmental affiliated body, the Commission for Racial Equality. Its purpose was to promote better inter-ethnic relations and racial equality in Great Britain. They also obtained legal powers from the relations act using them to combat further discrimination in a court of law. Its first chairman was Conservative MP David Lane who fronted the organisation from 1977-1982. Consequences for breaching this law where employment is concerned could result in an employment tribunal after any unsuccessful mediation in the victim's workplace. The act has helped promote good ethics and morals for culture and the community this has been recognised through film, radio and television. As a result of police brutality at the Brixton 1981 riots, after alot of bad publicity and a long inquiry, the police complaints committee was formed.
More recently on August 4th 2009 an article was published on the BBC's website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8181486.stm the tagline for the article was 'Migrant Workers Face Rental Block'. The story uncovered a disturbing level of discrimination against migrant workers from letting agency representatives and private landlords in the UK. It gained it sources and information using methods of investigative journalism. The article even includes a short excerpt of undercover footage cementing their judgements furthering provisions to house migrants.
The Human Rights Act 1998
The Human Rights Act of 1998 first derived from the European Convention of Human Rights which was first established in 1953. However amendments needed to be made due to the fact that a victim breached of their human rights waited on average of five years for a trial to commence. And it cost on average £30,000 of the tax payers money to trial these cases.
In 1997 Labour home secretary Jack Straw put forward a draft on a bill "The Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill". The bill was successfully negotiated at both the Commons and the Lords as The Human Rights Act 1998 and was enforced legally on the 2nd of August 2000.
The bill makes it illegal for any public body to act on anything that is incompatible with the Convention. Some articles in the bill include: the right to education, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, monitoring and surveillance (privacy laws) freedom of right, freedom of expression, free assembly and association, freedom of thought conscience and religion.
The act has since become controversial and has been criticized by senior Labour politicians as well as due to its incompatibility for the fight against terrorism a key factor to such criticism of the bill would be the '2006 Afghan hijackers' case. On the 6th of February 2000 nine members of the Taliban hijacked an Arianha Afghan Airlines plane that contained 180 passengers and seven crew members. After making various stops one of which was in Moscow. The hijackers scheduled their destination by landing the plane at Stansted Airport in Essex, United Kingdom. The hijacking lasted a period of four days with the siege ending on the 10th of February 2000.
The nine hijackers were originally charged with false imprisonment and hijacking in 2001 and were sentenced to five years imprisonment but such convictions were overturned when the court of appeal worked in their favour in 2003. This was due to breaches in The Human Rights act of 1998, the judge was said to have misled the jury, acting under duress.
In July of 2004 adjudicators claim that returning the nine men to Afghanistan as they risk being attacked or even killed by the Taliban. David Blunkett MP was quoted on this instance calling the division "mind boggling". This allows them certain British freedoms such as short-term employment and maybe even benefits under the 1971 immigration act. In 2006 Labour home secretary John Reid goes to the court of appeal to fight the ruling but the home office's appeal is dismissed.
This has been seen as a key flaw in the human rights act where terrorism or any future threats are concerned in the UK. However further legislation has been published such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which was ousted by a number of Human Rights advocate groups. The act restricts any terrorism involved individual the use of their mobile phone(s), restriction of internet access, detaining the individual's passport and more prohibitions are included. It’s also believed that the Identity Cards Act of 2006 in the United Kingdom may contradict article 8 of the Convention in regards to respecting privacy of the individual.
Other suspected breaches of this act feature in high profile court cases with public figures like Naomi Campbell Sienna Miller, the murder of Phillip Lawrence and independently regulated journalism (Murdoch's press, not complying with article 8 of the Convention).
In November of 2011 the BBC investigated claims that carers for the elderly from both public and private agencies had been breaching the human rights act. These issues were brought forward after the home care review stated around 50% of the people who had given evidence had been satisfied with their care however a substantial ammount of complaints were becoming increasingly common. These complaints featured cases of neglect, financial abuse (money taken over a period of time) disregard for privacy or dignity, patronising behaviour, verbal and violent physical abuse towards elderly individuals. The problem seemed to be a lack of common sense from some carers and compassion to. Although local councils are covered under the human rights act, it is unclear how efficient care is to the elderly, one in three councils at this point had already cut back on care for the elderly a further one in five are planning to. The solution would be to invest more money in care for the elderly and provide better training for care agency staff.
Privacy Law is legislated to protect the informal privacy of citizens in the United Kingdom and the unauthorized disclosure of any such information belongs to the individual. Privacy law has been criticized in the UK, leader of the opposition Ed Milliband MP had called for tighter restraints on Britain's free press, and the introduction for a new regulatory, independent press regulation. There are many notable supporters of a new independent press regulator, after the News of the World phone hacking scandal Hugh Grant launched the 'Hacked Off' campaign this is to protest the unethical practises of investigative journalists and a press medium that continues to regulate itself so freely. However Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten defended the right to a free press "I concluded that however awful it may be, it's better to have a press which can expose MPs' private lives because it means we have a free press… it means we can expose corruption." EU bosses are also set to crackdown on Google since they are failing to comply with privacy laws; they were warned in October of 2012 to revise their new confidentiality policy, after a year of investigation no action has been taken by the internet firm.
Nick Pickles the director of privacy and civil liberties group Big Brother Watch quoted "'After a year of investigation it seems consumers are no closer to seeing any action taken against Google, despite regulators deeming its privacy policy to undermine their rights".
Copyright and Intellectual Property Law
The Statute of Anne was the world's first step in copyright law, an act passed by British parliament in 1710, the Statute of Anne laid the foundations for the United States Copyright Act of 1790. Amendments were made so universities could copyright their books for educational purposes. However the Statute only concerned the publication of books, and no other forms of intellectual property. Intellectual property law gives the rights to an individual or group or organisation (brand names, original designs) they secure the rights to the owner and any unlawful and unauthorised use of copyright such materials are lawfully prohibited.
The IPR work as a legal monopoly any patents that register will be backed for a period of 20 years these are most common with technological inventions and innovations. The PRS are a regulatory that works in the interests of musicians and performers obtaining and enforcing any royalties for the use of their material. The intellectual property office is the official government body who examine, issuing or rejecting patens including those in business, media and sport in the UK. In the event rights to a patent are infringed the IPO can take action alongside the patent which could result in penalties. Copyright infringement is also covered as well as original designs and trademarks. They do advise mediation this is where both parties come to a verbal agreement or an out of court settlement, if an agreement is not met by either party the case will often be taken to trial.
There are many famous cases of copyright infringement such dating back to the case of Isaac Newton v Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz did Newton really create the mathematical science of fluxions? Or was this a coincidence? Nowadays with copyright infringement the penalties are costly with damaged reputations in music there was the case of A & M Records v Napster (2001) Mattel Inc. v MGM Entertainment Inc. (2008) Dowling v United States (1985) and Adidas America Inc. v Payless Shoesource Inc (1994) the latter of which concluded in Addidas being awarded a multi-million dollar pay-out from Payless Shoesource Inc.
Libel Law
Libel Law or English defamation law was first founded by the British it is stipulated legislated action for damages date back to as early as Edward the I's reign (1272-1307) was the law has now been adapted into the Commonwealth nations including the republic of Ireland and the United States of America. This law ensures no one can print or publish statements that defames or discredits an individual often in the event of this the defendant could lose their trade and could damage their personal lives and cause a reasonable person to think less of him or her. Journalists in particular need to make precautions as it could cost them their career, when an unjustified article or broadcast is made public, their would be serious consequences that would follow. In October 2012 controversial comedian Frankie Boyle was compensated £54,650 in damages after the high court found The Daily Mail had libeled his act by brandishing him a "racist comedian". It has since become a taboo subject in our society, but if a joke is told correctly and has the ability to entertain its not malicious. In 2008 The Sunday Mirror awarded damages of an undisclosed five figure sum to Kerry Katona, after printing a libel article claiming she worked as a prostitute before she found success in Atomic Kitten the Sunday Mirror went on to print an apology after the incident.
ETHICAL CONSTRAINTS
The media are responsible for maintaining a reputation to the public and such reputations may be tarnished if a producer fails to comply to the code of practise. It is also important in news coverage to report the journalistic truth as anything other than the journalistic truth is largely considered deceptive and unsavoury and could break libel laws. When working within the TV industry it is essential that you have a good understanding of the ethical and legal issues surrounding your programme. If your programme touches on sensitive issues such as race discrimination, discrimination against those with physical and/or mental disabilities and homophobia in a negative context or in a distasteful fashion, it can not only cause social uproar but could cost you your career. This is due to the fact that the public are a broad spectrum, full of differing cultures and personalities although marketing departments will generalise the target audience as a disparate group of people, it is important to consider the sensitive nature of these issues and avoid such consequences by using a correct code of ethics. Public figures and celebrities can face scandal when faced with such misconduct. An example of this would be the Robert Kilroy-Silk scandal. Kilroy-Silk quit after 17 years of presenting his talk show at the BBC after an article of his slating "Arabs" simply entitled "We Owe Arabs Nothing" was published in the Sunday Express in January 2004. This resulted in the BBC pulling the plug on his show and from that day forward Kilroy-Silk was no longer a representative of the BBC.
Picture of Richard Kilroy Silk after 'Islamic' attack for his convictions on Islam
His article condemned "Arabs" and other ethnicities in the Middle East for their hatred towards white British members of the public. And furthermore the article seemed to be motivated by anger, convicting Islam, such strong statements can be misunderstood and do appear to intentionally whip up racial tensions whether Kilroy-Silk realised this or not, it was completely unethical for a man of his stature. Faisal Bodi a columnist for The Guardian called for him to be prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred. A bucket of manure was also emptied on Kilroy-Silk in December 2004 when he was slated to appear on BBC Four's radio programme 'Any Questions?' such public uproar is apparent and now he works mainly as a novelist enjoying little Television or Radio airtime.
Other notable incidents are Ron Atkinson a sports commentator for ITV after a racial slur referring to footballer Marcel Desailly was broadcast on air resulting in his media career coming to an abrupt end. Andy Gray yet again another sports commentator fraught with controversy after his sexist comments criticising female football official Sian Massey during a Wolverhampton Wanderers' match. And also Richard Bacon's contract being terminated by Lorraine Heggessey (head of BBC Children's programming) after News of The World published a report detailing Bacon's cocaine and cannabis use (at the time he was 22 years old). However Bacon did make a comeback and as a result retained his media career as a broadcaster he currently presents his own show on BBC Radio Five Live.
The depiction of violent and sexual acts is often regulated and under persistent scrutiny and any such materials in entertainment media are subject to rating systems and supervision from institutions and agencies. In the press room it’s more likely to discuss whether something is legal rather than ethical, but there are standards to follow to remain a dependable source for reading, watching or listening.
Racial discrimination is protected under the Race Relations Act it is important however to realise that stereotypes in the media industry are of constant debate. It can be a highly sensitive subject however in the entertainment industry satirical comedy can sometimes play on otherwise controversial subject matter such as racism, homophobia, paedophilia and drug use by parodying this in a questionably amusing tongue-in-cheek fashion. Brass Eye, Chris Morris's satirical comedy series for Channel Four, received a number of complaints from viewers during its television debut due to its direct satirical humour and its bizarre dramatizations on what some would consider sensitive topics. Although I am a big fan of Chris Morris I can realise how some people may feel estranged or even offended when watching programmes like The Day Today, Brass Eye and Jam.
However he is praised by his peers, Charlie Brooker and Steve Coogan in particular and comic critics alike for his brilliant satirical style, and his parodies on media and political personalities. One occasion that fuelled moral outrage in middle England was Brass Eye's 'Paedogeddon' special, the feature was blatantly a parody on paedophilia in Britain, during and after its broadcast more than 1,500 complaints were made by members of the public thereafter the Independent Television Committee (ITC) took action and ordered Channel 4 to make a public apology. Despite such an apology Channel Four stood by its decision to screen the programme, and said it raised some "valuable points around the sensationalism surrounding the issue of paedophilia in Great Britain". Channel Four had to set up a special complaints line to cope with the inundation of caller complaints to the institution.
Photo of Phil Collins from the programme who was "tricked" into believing the programme was in fact factual
Ricky Gervais also garnered controversy from his latest solo effort writing/directing producing and starring in his own comedy Channel Four comedy Derek. The character Gervais plays appears to be learning disabled and works as a care home assistant. His candid use of words like "retard" "spaz" and "mong" via twitter has cemented this and Nicola Clark a disability rights campaigner called for Ricky to stop using these slang words on Twitter and wrote an article explaining her dissapointment for The Gaurdian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/oct/19/ricky-gervais-mong-twitter
Another example of ethical misconduct in the media would be the prank calls made by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross on BBC Radio 2 following the pre-recorded Russell Brand Show on the 18th of October 2008. The incident is alternatively reffered to as 'Sachsgate' Andrew Sachs was victim of the incident, Sachs is probably best known as Manuel from classic British sitcom 'Faulty Towers'. Russell Brand was previously dating Sachs granddaughter Georgina Baillie which the messages were concerning. The duo left a total of four inappropriate messages on Sachs personal mobile phone, while Brand was reminding Sachs about the time he and Brand appeared in an episode of The Bill, Jonathan Ross shouted obscenely "he f*cked your granddaughter!" the pair continued to make calls trying to apologise for Ross's outburst but then only went back on it by singing mischievous jabs at his granddaughter. A large number of complaints followed from the general public and members of parliament including Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The media's reaction was a negative one, in a letter to The Chairman of the Lords Select Comittee on Communication, Lord Fowler stated "there were fundamental flaws in the ways the BBC were regulating and governing the situation" at time the time both the BBC Trust and Ofcom were dealing with a number of complaints, but the public were unsure who to detial their complaints to and which regulatory body had precedence over the other. As a result of the incident Jonathan Ross was suspended for a total of 12 weeks without pay The Daily Mail estimated that Ross lost around £1,344,000 in wages during this period. Although many agreed that the incident was unecessary they thought that members of parliament were being too critical of the scandal and at that time there were far more important political matters to address. The BBC were fined a total of £150,000 by Ofcom as result of the material being aired to the public.
Multi-million dollar american comedian and actor Charlie Sheen probably best known as Charlie in hit televiison sitcom Two and A Half Men underwent a heavily publicised meltdown in 2011. After a series of violent incidents involving his ex wife and current wife with the authorities and several health scares, Charlie Sheen enrolled into a substance rehabilitation programme in an attempt to curb his addiction to crack cocaine. His afflictions for drugs and alcohol had previously been reported in the tabloid press. This was his third attempt at rehabilitation in a year. A month later american television network CBS announced its cancellation of the four remaining episodes of the eight series of Two and Half Men, after a number of derogatory comments were made by Sheen concerning writer/director and creator of the show Chuck Lorre. This is due to a case of bad ethics and bad publicity, if it wasn't for Sheen's aggressive, egotistical and erratic behaviour he may still star in the show today. There are consequences no matter what fame or sallary you gain, the executive directors and producers hate a 'loose cannon' and deter from any involvement with anyone who reputes to be a liability.
Charlie Sheen retaliated calling his co-stars and producer 'trolls' he later uploaded video rants on youtube and claimed he was intent on suing both CBS and Warnerbros. The media continued to cover stories on Sheen's meltdown daily, he did make a comeback after starring in 'Anger Management' a TV series based on the 2003 film of the same name starring Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler. It gained a mixed reception but its television debut holds the record for the most watched television series debut in american history.
One could argue that these characteristics prove entertaining to consumers, but also tragic, as there is a underlining truth to most of the statements Sheen made to the media, concerning personal life struggles, alcoholism, drugs and infidelity. The american media is so saturated, some network television is bias and unforgiving upholding middle class morality and scaremongering with anything that continues to threaten american civil liberties or pollute america's youth. Meanwhhile other networks or community/independent programmes objectify Sheen as a entertainer and a free-thinker.
Good Ethics...
Good ethics will always be detrimental to any part of creative media production, failing to follow the code of practise would only hamper an institutions potential and would fail to produce anything the public would deem reliable and worth subscribing to. The BBC are an open and honest medium often publishing all their terms and conditions that apply with programming online, via the BBC's website under the commissioning tab the following ethical guidelines read as follows...
Professional Body Codes of Practise - The BBC's Commissioning Guidelines
12.1 The BBC is an equal opportunity employer and seeks to ensure that all the independent producers we work with take seriously their responsibilities with regard to Equal Opportunities and in addition Health and Safety during the course of commissions. The BBC therefore requires that all independent producers comply with all current anti-discrimination legislation, and Health and Safety legislation and the respective Codes of Practice related to such legislation. The BBC may request a written statement of the independent producers own equal opportunities and Health and Safety policies and relevant details of how the policy is implemented in practice.
This is an agreement that an independent producer must adhere to in order for the programming to be established and produced successfully. By doing so commissioning will pose no significant problems, it also agrees that if any objections should be made within reason, so there will be.
12.2 We expect independent producers to apply the highest professional and ethical standards in their dealings with BBC staff. In return, BBC staff will apply the same ethical standards of objectivity, integrity, confidentiality, fairness and honesty in dealing with independent producers.
12.3 Alliance for the Protection of Copyright Code - the BBC is a signatory to the APC Code and all independent producers commissioned to make programmes for the BBC need to abide by the principles set out in that code for as long as the BBC remains a signatory.
12.4 The BBC supports comprehensive training across the industry.
This statement to the public referring to the BBC's code of practise reads as follows:
'Our Code of Practice sets out our principles as Trustees. We are committed to the highest standards of integrity, impartiality and objectivity. We promise to be open, responsive and accountable to licence fee payers.'
This is an agreement that assures the BBC's devotion to remaining objective and existing as a truthful source.
