Media Effects and Censorship essay

Media Effects and Censorship Essay

Should the Media be regulated? Explore this idea with reference to theory and examples.

The development of the media and it being regulated has increased over the years when the video recordings act (1984) was put into place. Before this act, any child could buy any film they wanted, there was no age rating meaning children could purchase films with exceedingly amounts of adult content or violence. There have been court cases about film and television programmes influencing children and adults to perform unlikely murders and injuries to other people, the question is does the media have full responsibility of their actions?

Watershed is the point in which programmes with adult content can be broadcast on television screens, before 1984 there was no time schedule in which adult programmes should be placed, anyone could watch anything at any time which is why it was important that the video recordings act was put into place. (The Obscene Publication Act (1959) is an act that applies to television programmes that covers material which is obscene, this is in place so that if a programme is obscene, it is likely to corrupt, this includes not only sexually explicit material but also material that relates to violence and drug taking. However this act doesn’t follow the same as the video recording act as it is put in place for television programmes only.)

There are theories that films influence behavior, for example the media presented that the film Child play 3 influenced the James Buldger’s killers. “Child's Play 3 contains scenes in which an obsessed doll, Chucky, dies after being splattered with paint and having its face pulped; James Buldger was splashed with paint and battered to death. “[Reference one]. From this you can see that there is evidence that some influential behavior was taken from the film, even though some may disagree, however not all what they did could of happened just because the killers of James Buldger may or may not have watched this particular film. This one traumatic story leads on to other theories known as “Video Nasty’s”; A Video Nasty or Nasty’s refers to a number of films that were criticised for their content. The British Board of Film Classification (more commonly known as the BBFC), have now produced age certificates for films and Television series; this helps to put a stop to children buying or renting films they are not supposed to be watching, this also includes films in the cinema. Although this was produced before the traumatic incident with James Buldger, so somehow the behavior of the killers of this two-year-old boy had either watched snippets or the film Child Play 3 in order to get into an influential mindset. In my opinion I think the BBFC can only do what they can in order to prevent children and under age young people to watch films they are not supposed too, there are always loop holes in which a child can get hold of an unsuitable film, but the BBFC is there to help prevent it from happening, which I agree is the most suitable thing to do and should carry on putting an age certificate on every film and television show, to help prevent incidents like the James Buldger story from happening.

Natural Born Killers was yet another film that drove citizens to go insane, “On the morning of March 6 1995, teen lovers Ben Darras and Sarah Edmondson left their Oklahoma cabin and took the highway east. In Mississippi they came across a local businessman, Bill Savage, and shot him twice in the head with a .38-calibre revolver. They then swung across to Louisiana, where they gunned down convenience-store cashier Patsy Byers, paralysing her from the neck down. Darras and Edmondson were standard American brats who loved their hard drugs and their R-rated movies. After their arrest, it was revealed that they had prepared for the trip by dropping acid and screening Natural Born Killers on a continuous loop throughout the night. “ [Reference 3]. From reference two you can clearly see that that the film Natural Born Killers had influenced Ben Darras and Sarah Edmonson to go on a killing spree after watching the film continuously and were then known as natural born copycats. Although I argue that these teen lovers could have been in a mindset of being murderers before watching this, the film could have simply just pushed them further into pursuing it. I don’t contemplate that Oliver Stone (Director of Natural Born Killers), when creating this film was in the mindset of pursuing young people into killing innocent people, However I do feel that film has extremely violent content, Edmosnson and Darras had performed a traumatic act when killing innocent members of the public with no reason too do but just simply because they wanted too; I can also see that this film isn’t like any other violent film, its peculiar in a way its not like an ordinary film, but I could argue that the majority of films have violent content and sometimes lawyers use this as an excuse as to say if the film wasn’t made then Darras and Edmosnson wouldn’t of killed innocent people, which I disagree with massively. However it wasn’t just Sarah Edmosnon and Ben Darras that followed the steps of the main characters in the film, other young couples some young as 14 had trailed through America looking for innocent people to murder after watching Natural Born Killers, I feel after researching that this film as some blame but shouldn’t take full responsibility of the young peoples actions and mindset, I feel if it wasn’t this particular film it would have been another, either way I think a murderers mentality doesn’t automatically change after watching a film, I feel films can sometimes just push them to pursue it.

“Television, computer games, food additives, music and the lack of role models are all cited as reasons for a supposed breakdown in society, and an increased tendency towards violence.” [Reference three]. This statement taken from an article states that by listening, lack of role models and observing violent behavior on screen can increase the chance of children growing up to become violent. Scientists and physiologists say that children can be influenced and imitate what they see on screen, an experiment in 1961 was pursued under the name “The Bobo Doll Experiment” to see if it worked. Several young children were asked to watch a video, the man on the the clip was seen to be beating a life size Bobo doll repeatedly with his hands and other props that were in the room with him; as the children watched this and once the clip had finished they were asked separately to go into a room where they recognized the Bobo doll and other props, exactly like the video. The children were preschoolers and were divided into three groups: one group observed aggressive adult behavior models; another group observed non-aggressive behavior models; and the third group was not exposed to any behavior models. The final result ended that the boys aggression towards the Bobo doll were more aggressive than the girls; although I think that this experiment was important to test human behavior and that they learned through social imitation and mimicking, rather than inherited genetic factors, I do believe that we learn from watching so I agree with this however I feel that when the experiment was in tact, the result was predicted because I believe that children will mimic what they watch, so any clip that was shown the children would have copied it whether that being beating up the Bobo doll repeatedly or if there was another clip shown, I feel the children would of copied anything that was shown. David Buckingham from the Institute of Education launched an experiment interviewing 72 children and recorded their preferences for certain programmes and films. The result they gathered was that they found that preventing children from watching unsuitable material was becoming increasingly impossible and that “technology is beyond regulation.” This study came up with a final result and some of the recommendations they stated to help prevent children from watching unsuitable material for tv and film were: “that parents needed more information, the BBFC should be clearer about why it classifies material, the 18 certificate is old fashioned. Most children from 13 should be free to make their own decisions.” [Reference 4] Although I agree with the first two statements I feel that last statement isn’t quite accurate. I feel that it is up to the parents to make this decision, I feel the 18 certificates should stay put because any child from 13 could purchase an unsuitable film, if the parents become the real regulators I feel it is then their own responsibility to decide what their child can and cannot watch.

In conclusion I feel that children can be influenced by behavior they see on screen however I don’t think that TV programmes and films are all to blame. I feel that children, teens and adults are already in the mindset of doing something traumatic, and I believe that films and programmes simply just help pursue what they want to do. The BBFC are right into putting age certificates on films to help prevent under age viewers from watching a film they shouldn’t and the Obscene Publications Act are right into restricting television programmes with violent and sexual content being shown after a certain time, where younger viewers are more unlikely to watch. I feel this act and th BBFC are doing what they can to help prevent certain audiences from watching something with unsuitable material, and parents should be careful into what their child and teen can watch. In summary the result of some teens and children that kill innocent people are already in the mindset before watching any film or tv programme, and I feel lawyers can sometimes blame films for their actions; in my opinion I think the mind of a criminal is already there so I do not agree that media has full responsibility of a murderers action, I do agree that it can sometimes push them to pursue it but I do not think the media is fully responsible.

Bibliography

Reference one

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/video-link-to-bulger-murder-disputed-1506766.html

Reference two

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2002/dec/20/artsfeatures1

Reference three

https://explorable.com/bobo-doll-experiment

Reference 4

Media and Audience research/Moral Audience research booklet

Word count: 1734

Advertisment Analysis

John Lewis, Fire kills: Advertisement analysis

Megan Duffield

Structure

The first advertisement is approximately a 2 minute long advert for John Lewis; screened specifically for Christmas in 2014. The advertisement starts with the young boy and what appears to be Pingu, an arctic specific programme for children which was on the television in what appears to be the young boys bedroom; with the young boy sitting on the bed with a very well computer generated animation of Monty the Penguin sitting beside him watching it. Within 10 seconds of this advertisement, there is a straight cut to a scene in which the two are playing hide and seek in the garden showing it is summer/spring time, suggesting a predicted time estimate for this short narrative to show the bond between the boy and the penguin over a yearlong period. From this I can see the two share a special friendship with them bonding more and more as the advertisement progresses; from making Lego to then jumping on a trampoline. By 22 seconds of the advert, what I notice is a hidden message, at this point the young boy and Monty the penguin are both hiding away under a table in what appears to be an old fashioned kitchen as the lyric from the soundtrack states “forgotten dreams”. (Maybe intentional to show why the boy bonds with the penguin, because he feels alone, or because he is an only child and wants a friend; There is also no other child in this family home, as by the end he is alone on what appears to be Christmas morning with a short camera shot of his parents, so this thought is likely.) As of this point in the advertisement, we can already see the special friendship between the young boy and the penguin, we can see at 26 seconds that the two are in public in a park, the penguin is surrounded by different types of birds and ducklings, the use of CGI in this particular sequence is striking, as the penguin reaches out the water and jumps onto the gray pavement, an immediate reaction from the other pigeons are scared away, which I think looks extremely realistic and has been done so very impressively.  From the first minute, you can see that the penguin is starting to become lonely, and you can see this as the young boy looks confused as to what is up with his friend; you can see when “it’s a wonderful life” is introduced on the television in the living room, it shows Monty the penguins reaction as if he wants to find something just like it. Later in the advertisement, the penguin sees a real life human couple, so from this you can see that penguin wants to find love. (You can also see this when the penguin notices and old couple kissing on the park bench, and looks sad because he knows he can’t find it). Near the end of the advertisement, it appears to be Christmas morning, the young boy wakes Monty the Penguin and takes him down stairs; to the penguins surprise he seems happier to know that he has woken up to another penguin, the boy sits with the two as it snap shots to the mothers reaction; from this the camera shoots back to the young boy with the two penguins, although they are now toy penguins with no CGI realistic features. The advertisement shows what imagination can come from just one toy penguin, making this advert a successful one and John Lewis persuades the audience how enjoyable their gifts can be to children like this one.

 Fire Kills

The second advertisement I will be analysing is an advert persuading and addressing to the audience to check smoke alarms regularly. It starts with a child in a lobby of what looks like a burnt down apartment, he appears to be playing with the remains of  his old toys, he plays with a small toy car, and the ashes on the kitchen table. When the young boy starts speaking, he states the statistics of how many children die each year in house fires, he then stands up of the dirty floor and looks at the camera as if he speaking the audience. He persuades the audience in a way that’s different to any advertisement I have seen before; he starts by stating to the parents watching to make a promise to prevent a fire from happening. This type of persuasion is successful in terms of making parents or homeowners to test their smoke alarm, he says this in such an innocent way that it makes the audience feel sorry for the boy as its quite chilling watching the boy speak in such a strong way surrounded by the remains left in the burnt down apartment. When the boy speaks he leaves spaces between his sentences leaving the audience time to respond to him, as if he speaking to them personally. By 1:48, the advertisement is nearly finished, the boy holds what’s left of an old alarm clock as he speaks “you cant turn back time”. By this time, the boys face changes, he seems paler, with a black nose and lip, he walks away so innocently with the alarm clock in his hands fading into the back of the room, as he reaches towards the window the young boy disappears as if he is a ghost making you think he died in that apartment.

Techniques

The John Lewis advert is specifically targeted at the Christmas period and is would be aired in the run up too and the penultimate few days before Christmas day and therefore the techniques used by the director are strongly linked to that time of year. The advert is based on friendship, with the child protagonist forming a close bond with a toy penguin. In the advert the toy penguin is an anthropomorphism, which the boy is emotionally attached too, which viewers of the advert can relate to as the Christmas period is a time of gift giving and therefore the child’s happiness is charming and will make parents relate to their own kids. The advert could be deemed as emotional in a way as you do not realise until the end of the advert that the penguin isn’t actually real and when he receives the female penguin at the end that is when you realise in fact that the advert is one promoting toys and the way that they can bring so much joy to a child, and obviously John Lewis is promoting their Christmas themed products.

In the second advertisement different techniques are used in different ways, for example this advertisement is used to inform the audience about fire alarms where as the advertisement for John Lewis was created to persuade and promote. One obvious technique was the use of the child actor, the child speaks to the audience in an upset tone, as the child is so young it persuades the audience to check their smoke alarms, when parents watch this it induces them to check or to buy a smoke alarm, if they have children it makes them believe that it’s a possibility that it could happen to them so this a successfully well created advert.

Regulation/Characterisitics of the product or services

Neither of the advertisements that I analysed have any explicit content so can be placed at any time of day. Although the John Lewis advert is created specifically for the Christmas period so would only be aired in the weeks following up to it. However both adverts are distinctive, the advertisement for fire kills wouldn’t have been aired on children’s programmes or placed at anytime where children could be watching it. Fire kills would have been aired at either prime time or during the day where it is unlikely a child would be watching it, on the other hand, the John Lewis advert is a family orientated advert, meaning it can be shown at anytime and is suitable for children to watch it.

The use of brand identity isn’t clearly shown in the two advertisements until the end, for example you wouldn’t know that Monty the Penguin would be one of John lewis products until the very end when the logo for John Lewis appears in the last few seconds. However with the fire kills advert, you can see that it isn’t like any ordinary advert, from the second you watch the video you can see that it is fire related, when the young child speaks about how you should check smoke alarms regularly, this is when it is clear what the advert is informing the audience about.

Audience classification

The target audience for this particular advertisement is clearly aimed at young children as identified by the young boys imagination. The use of brand identity isn’t shown till the very end of the programme and from how the child dresses and to the home he appears to live in seems to be a middle class home. The other obvious target audience is parents. Parents of young children will relate to the advert in a way in which all parents love seeing their kids enjoying themselves and therefore by seeing the way the child protagonist so happy they will feel attracted to John Lewis’ products. The audience classification for the “Fire Kills” advertisement is parents; the child informs them to check their smoke alarm and persuades them to by making a promise. The child is surrounded by ashes and the remains of the apartment, he is playing with what’s left of his toys; this shows the audience as well as keeping safe, by making sure your smoke alarm is fitted and working, all your valuable possessions will stay in tact and wont be lost in a fire.

In conclusion I feel both advertisements were successful, both were informing and persuasive but in two completely different ways. I feel that the first advert succeeded due to the fact you are drawn into the advert by the creation of the make believe penguin; you begin too follow the story of the young boys friendship with Monty the Penguin. As a whole the advert is enjoyable to watch, the young boys imagination with a toy penguin shows how much enjoyment you can get from a John Lewis product and how much enjoyable it can be for children, making this advert successful. Furthermore, the second advertisement in my opinion is suitable for what it is advertising, making this enlightening advert shows the viewer how severe a fire can get and why you should check your smoke alarms, by looking at what a fire can do visually on screen makes you aware of what can happen if a smoke alarm isn’t checked, making this informative advertisement a successful one.

Word Count: 1804