How well does contemporary media regulation protect the public?

The two media regulators I will be using to answer this question are OFCOM and BBFC. OFCOM is a statutory regulator responsible for regulating content broadcast on British television and radio. OFCOM  stands for Office of Communication and has been regulating British television and radio since 2003. As a statutory regulator, OFCOM must consider the rules and regulations of the Government when making decisions on what they will and will not allow to be broadcasted to the public. This means that the political party in power will have a profound affect on the content that OFCOM allow to be broadcasted on television and radio. In contrast, the BBFC is the British Board of Film Classification which is a film regulator that is an independent, non-statutory body which means it is not under government ownership and therefore self-regulates all of the content in films. The BBFC has exercised responsibilities over cinema for a hundred years and subsequently over video and DVD since 1985 after the Video Recordings Act was introduced. The BBFC was first introduced in 1912 and was initially called the British Board of Film Censorship however this was changed as they believed the term "censorship" seemed to restricting which highlights there more liberal viewpoint in comparison to OFCOM who have a more "right wing", conservative approach to regulation.

It could be argued that the BBFC is effective at protecting the public, for example, the human centipede 2 was banned in 2011 after containing content that was deemed as posing "a real risk of harm" if viewed by the public, however the BBFC later granted the film an 18 rating after 32 cuts were made. However, it could also be argued that the public has become desensitised over the years as the gruesome and graphic content in the human centipede 2 greatly surpasses the content in films such as "The Evil Dead" which sparked a moral panic in the 1980's when 'video nasties' were being blamed for violent behaviour in children. The controversial case of Jamie Bulger, the film 'child's play 3' was linked to the brutal murder of the 2 year old by two 10 year old boys. It was assumed the boys had accessed the film rated 18 and had imitated the behaviour displayed in the video. This then created a moral panic as the public were concerned about the effectiveness of regulations which led to the introduction of the Video Recordings Act 1984. This links to Mary Cover Jones' theory of desensitisation which suggests that the more violence and horror viewers are exposed to in the media over a period of time, the less sensitive they become to it. This can be evidenced by films such 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' which was banned in 1974 but is now available to be viewed due to social change. If Texas Chainsaw Massacre was released in the present day it is very unlikely that it would be banned which shows that the BBFC has become more lenient with regulation due to social change and audience becoming less sensitive to violence and gore.

It could also be argued that OFCOM is effective at protecting the public, for example, the BBC was fined a total of £150,000 in 2008 after an incident on 'The Russell Brand Show' which aired on BBC radio 2. On the episode, Brand and Ross called Sachs as a guest to interview on-air; when Sachs failed to answer the telephone, they are heard leaving a series of offensive messages on his answering machine, including comments about Brand's relationship with Sachs' granddaughter, Georgina Baillie. The incident escalated into a media and political storm, the two presenters were criticised by a number of members of Parliament, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown who said "this is clearly inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour, as is now widely recognised,". Following the complaints, Brand was suspended from the BBC without pay for being offensive and lewd and also invading Sachs privacy. OFCOM then fined the BBC £150,000 for six underlying flaws about the case, one of which was the BBC having a lack of clarity about who at the BBC had editorial oversight of the series. This proves that OFCOM does take appropriate action to protect the public from harmful content.

Despite these regulators being put in place to ensure that consistent censorship and classification standards are imposed on Television, Radio and Film in order to protect the public, especially children from being exposed to unsuitable content which could have a harmful effect on them; some people argue that these regulators are becoming less effective due to the rapid development of modern technology which allows unlimited access to restricted or censored content without parental permission or age verification.

For example, the use of online media sites such as YouTube makes it difficult for regulators to successfully prevent the public from viewing inappropriate content. For example, On May 22nd 2013, British Army solider Lee Rigby was brutally murdered by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale in Woolwich, South East London. The attackers claim that they killed the solider to avenge the killings of innocent Muslim's by the British armed forces. One of the passers-by managed to interview one of the attackers, Micheal Adebowale in a video recording in which he has the blood of the victim on his hands and is also holding the weapon he used in the attack. This video was then posted on YouTube for the public to access for free, with no age restrictions. OFCOM are unable to regulate this as they are not responsible for regulating sites such as YouTube, which made it all the more difficult when the footage was broadcasted to the public on ITV new at 6:30pm, it was then broadcast on several other news channels such as BBC news, Channel 4 news and Sky News. OFCOM who is responsible for regulating content broadcasted on television and radio received over 700 complaints as they believed the graphic footage was unsuitable to be broadcasted before the 9pm watershed. This case was particularly difficult for OFCOM to regulate as not only was there a debate on whether the footage was in the pubic interest but also the fact that the footage was free to access online therefore even if the footage was no longer allowed to be broadcasted on television, it would still be available for children to access online.