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
Reference two
Reference
three
Reference
4
Media
and Audience research/Moral Audience research booklet
Word count: 1734
