Regulation

 Task One: Media Magazine article and questions

Read the Media Magazine article: From Local Press to National Regulator in MM56 (p55). You'll find the article in our Media Magazine archive here. Once you've read the article, answer the following questions:

1) Keith Perch used to edit the Leicester Mercury. How many staff did it have at its peak and where does Perch see the paper in 10 years' time?

They had 130 employees at its peak. Perch suggests that in ten years: if it is still print, it will be weekly, extremely expensive and have a very small circulation. However, if it is online, it will be unlikely to make money and so would only have 5-6 employees. 

2) How does Perch view the phone hacking scandal?

Perch is against the phone hacking scandal and suggests that "a small section of the press behaved in a totally unacceptable way" and how it "should have been delt with legally",  but doesn't think that regulation is needed.

3) What does IPSO stand for and how does it work?

IPSO - Independent Press Standards Organisation - a newspaper has 28 days to deal with a complaints, and if it has not been resolved then you can take this up with the IPSO Complaints committee which will see if the editors code of practice has been broken. 

4) What is Perch's view of newspaper ownership?

He is not against it as he is saying that whoever has bought or owns the paper has the right to say what they feel like just as anyone else is, and that people have the ability to choose what newspapers they consume.

5) Do you agree with his view that broadcast news should have less regulation so that TV channels can support particular political parties or people?

Yes I agree with this view as, as stated in the article there are many more news broadcasting channels for audiences to pick and choose so they are not exposed to only one political viewpoint and can make there on decision and go elsewhere. 


Task Two: Newspaper regulation exam question

Write an answer on your blog answering the following exam question:

What are the arguments for and against statutory regulation of the newspaper industry? [20 marks]

Aim to write an answer of around 400-500 words featuring at least three detailed paragraphs. Make sure you cover both sides of the debate. This topic could well be our 20-mark essay at the end of Paper 1, Section B so it's great preparation for the summer exams.

In my opinion, I don't think there should be statutory regulation enforced on newspapers. This is where the government decides and pick and chooses what we as an audience are allowed to view and what we aren't. 

I think Investigative journalism is useful in some ways, and by having statutory regulation, this would take the right away from us as audiences and citizens to obtain useful information. For example, investigative journalism has lead us to know of the fact that the British government decided to have a party during the covid lockdown when they shouldn't have, even though they imposed those strict regulations to not have gatherings. Therefore we were able to actually see what the people who rule and dictate our day to day lives actually do, and even people who represent our country. So, if statutory regulation had been involved, this story might have been hidden or covered, or even altered so they didn't look evil in the public eye, meaning that statutory regulation is useless for us.

However, I do believe that sometimes statutory regulation is useful. For example in some cases of investigative journalism have involved digging into people private lives which could ruin the life of that person or others involved in some way. For example, when Matt Hancock cheated on his wife, the news and footage of his affair was leaked showing him kissing another women. In some ways i agree with the fact the news did leak this as again it showed government officials who we are meant to trust and represent out country, breaking rules that they had imposed. But as this was much more of a personal matter, this couldve affected the lives of his wife and his young children who must've seen the clip numerous number of times as it was posted and published everywhere my media cooperation's and the newspaper industry. So in this case, I disagree with it as it is not fair in his family to have to see the footage and news of that as it would detrimentally effect them, so statutory regulation would've been seen as useful for the sake of letting him privately discuss that matter with his family, rather than his family having to suffer by seeing that news story everywhere.

However, I think it is also seen as useless as Statutory regulation takes away the right of "freedom of speech". By having news stories regulated so newspapers are only allowed to say certain things becomes a political dictatorship as everyone with money who is corrupt or allied with the government is protected even though if they have done wrong, which doesn't do justice to the audiences and citizens as it could be some sort of moral or techno panics (Stanley Cohen).

Overall, I disagree with statutory regulation as it is useless and constrictive so doesn't let audience know about certain events and details about people 

Extension task: The role of media in democracies

Read this excellent article from the Constitution Unit on why media plays such an important role in democracies - and how regulation and affect this. Does this change your opinion on whether the newspaper industry should face statutory regulation? 

My opinion is still balanced and central as on one hand, the media and newspapers do help me doing investigative journalism as they can leak out information from the government that they are hiding from us e.g. stories like the lockdown party and the USA Watergate scandal. However, they don't need to dig into celebrities lives and release news about their personal lives e.g. news about them cheating on their spouse, as it could even damage the personal wellbeing of the spouse.