A film blog for students of my classes at Santa Clara University. Use this blog to discuss the films we are studying, classic films, current releases or production issues you encounter while making your own films.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Regulation
Do you think the US government does a good job regulating media industries?
I think the US government does a relatively good job at regulating the media and largely abides by the First Amendment and freedom of the press. Newspapers and magazines are unregulated, which I think is very important because I think it vital that people have access to all information and opinions about national and worldwide events.
In addition, the internet is largely unregulated although congress has tried to control some of the obscene material that is made available to all users.
The only media that the government does regulate is broadcasting. The FCC police manage airwaves for material that is obscene or profane. This is mostly to protect children who could be watching and therefore is more harshly regulated at certain times. If networks violate these decency terms then they can be fined or even removed.
Overall, the US government does as much regulation as they can without violating First Amendment rights and allowing freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I personally do not believe that media is the place where the government should have a role and should take on a more laissez-faire role.
I think that the US government regulates media industries to the best of its ability, as its regulations are heavily influenced and constrained by the First Amendment, as Lizzie stated. Our government doesn’t seem to need to heavily regulate the media industries in regards to content because the industries already intensively self-regulate, and the public seems to do an excellent job of regulating the media industries as we choose what to watch, ultimately determining what is profitable.
I also feel that the US government needs to do more in regards to securing net neutrality in order to prevent an even more significant digital divide and a rift between the affluent and the poor in regards to internet access. Also in regards to the internet, I agree with Lizzie’s comment that the internet is greatly unregulated, as it seems only extremely illegal things are brought down such as The Silk Road. There’s an enormous amount of obscenity and indecency on the internet, with children and youth generally being able to access this content as long as there aren’t parental control settings.
Finally, while I believe that the US government regulates adequately enough, society is shifting towards a greater acceptance of the prevalence of more risqué and graphic depictions of violence and sexuality in media texts, which is encouraging networks and producers to continue creating those types of texts. It’s interesting to me that for networks like AMC and its original series The Walking Dead, it’s acceptable to portray extremely graphic violence but the “f-word” still can’t be said.
I agree with all the comments that: when the government does regulate they do a good job. But I also I feel the media industries do an even better job self-regulating. After reading the chapter and talking in class I realized how preventative the industries are in their self-regulating and was really amazed that they work together so well. The government regulates as much as it can with first amendment being in the way, but media industries regulate even better so they can keep their profits. I think the media industries really do fear more government control, which would mean more government regulations. The media industries came together to create family hour, when they fear being fined they up their regulations, and try as best they can to obey the few obscenity laws the FCC has in place. I’ll give the government credit where it is due, but the industries themselves I feel deserve more of the credit. Saying that, I do not think the government needs to regulate them more, the industries deserve their freedom especially if they are moderating themselves so well.
I disagree with the above comments because the F.C.C. is not clear with their regulations which draw millions of complaints from stations objecting the rulings of the F.C.C. Television stations have to do a lot of self-regulation in order to avoid costly fines or potentially losing their license over the content that is released in their broadcasts. This form of self-regulation is good to keep the television companies together, but puts creative limits on what is broadcasted. Furthermore, I don’t think the government does a good job regulating media industries because a few years ago, the chairman of the F.C.C. had to dismiss millions of objections of F.C.C. rulings because the F.C.C. had received an overwhelming amount of complaints.
I think the US government does an okay job at regulating the media Industry. I agree with Mckenzie in the sense that I believe many of the problems with the governments regulation is not necessarily within their control. I also think the First Amendment keeps the government from trying to extend more control. I believe the government regulation and studio self regulation has reached a workable balance. I believe most industry executives believe that just because they have the right to say and do what they want, it doesn't necessarily mean that they should.
I agree with Coren's comments in regards to the shortcomings of the FCC. Overall, I find there is a general lack of consistency with the FCC and its decision, which is partly due to the frequent changing of FCC cabinet members. I think the subjectivity that comes with media also makes it hard to be totally consistent with regulation.
I feel like the US government does a decent job at regulating the media, but media companies are better at self-regulating. I feel like they all know what is okay to broadcast and what is not. For example, considering the US culture, networks (by which I mean cable networks that people pay every month for) that broadcast to a lot of people know that the American public is okay with seeing violence, but are not as keen on nudity. Even cartoon violence is considered okay to broadcast to kids, as long as there isn't blood or excessive damage shown. These same networks know that it is more acceptable to broadcast more adult content later in the evening than in the morning or afternoon.
I think that the media industry just has so many unknown variables. It is always growing and changing because technology and culture are always growing and changing.Change is always one of the few constants no matter how slowly the industry responds and reacts to that change. Because of this I think that at least into the near future the U.S government will never be totally on top of its regulation. Because of this I think that the industry's self-regulation allows for more flexibility as the world changes. Self-regulating under the threat of government regulation provides a checks and balances. I feel this way specifically about content, but if the government were to have more of a hand in anything, I think that it would need impact structure more. I think working indirectly applies to most situations, but with the issue of Net Neutrality cropping up and the danger of slow-lanes and fast lanes for ISPs, right know I am inclined to want the FCC stepping in.
Personally, I think that the FCC could do a far better job at regulating the media. I agree a lot with many of the points that Coren raised in his comment. I think the last sentence sums things up perfectly. If the FCC is receiving so many complaints that they have to dismiss all of them due to not being able to keep up, they should be rethinking their system of media regulation.
I agree that the internet is probably the FCC's biggest problem. I think self-regulation is more important in the industry than government regulation. I wonder if networks are more afraid of the FCC and getting fined or if they are motivated purely by keeping viewers. The Bachelor was brought up as an example in class. Did they censor that girl's butt because they were afraid of being fined or were they just trying to avoid negative feedback and keep their viewers?
When the government actually does regulate, they do a good job regulating while still, as Lizzie said, abiding by the First Amendment.
The FCC does the best job at regulating broadcasting. Obscenity laws are for the most part upheld to protect children from being exposed to things that are inappropriate. Networks are subject to fines or license removal if laws are not adhered to. The only problem is the obscenity laws are subjective because different states and counties even have different laws as to what is considered obscene and what isn't.
Film, music and video games do not really require formal government regulation because those companies already self-regulate themselves. Music with profanities are sold with the [explicit] label next to the title of the song. Film and video games have ratings that are not legally required to warn parents and children of the content of the material.
The Internet is pretty much not regulated, but I believe that it's not really possible to regulate the Internet in terms of content because information is available and accessible to anyone. Even on sites like Facebook, where you used to have to prove you're 13 to join, children would fudge their age to create their profile and no one would know. The same idea can be applied to computer games, porn sites, etc. Congress has "tried" to control some of the obscenities the Internet, but I don't think they have had much effect on Internet regulation.
I think that US government does a great job to regulate media industries both directly and indirectly. However, US government has to work for media industries more because of the advent of many kinds of technology. The existence of government has invisible huge power and right to regulate media industries. In direct way, government unifies nations including media industries in many ways such as the digital transition. In indirect way, existence of government makes media industries work not to get governmental direction such as self -regulation. However, I also think that governmental power is not only crucial power to control it because there is other power such as power of media consumers which is one of the reasons why media industries self-regulates by themselves not to get complained and not to get image down. Meanwhile, I also think that the advent of many kinds of device of media outlets in the world issue to regulations. Regulations cannot observe and solve every media any more. For example, as problems of copy right, many people around the world download products, which have copy right, illegally. I think that how to handle those many kinds of media outlet is a new task for media industries, government, and even ourselves in today’s society, which is focusing on technology.
I agree with what Paris stated. Technology, especially the internet, is making it difficult for the FCC to regulate all aspects of the media industry. The industry is evolving at a rate the FCC cannot keep up with. I think the FCC is reacting to situations it encounters rather than planning ahead.
I think the government does a fairly good job a regulating media industries, but there is definitely room for improvement. I think what we talked about in class about the FCC having unclear guidelines in terms of what is allowed to be shown is a prime example of an area where they need to improve. This leads content creators to be somewhat in the dark on things that may be on the fence about being appropriate or not, which can limit them creatively since they will most likely try to be extra cautious to avoid fines. As many people have already said, there is a bit of an issue with the unknown, both in changes of technology and in what people think is acceptable as the culture evolves.
I think that the way that the FCC regulates right now has both pros and cons. With self- regulation, the FCC doesn't have to intervene as much, because the industries do it on their own. I do agree with previous comments and think that many companies only self-regulate out of the fear of fines and the government intervening. Even though this might restrict the content, I think that having these rules are necessary so the content isn’t inappropriate and breaks boundaries. However, I think that the FCC needs to take more measures to get the public involved. There needs to be more awareness about the regulation of media, I don’t think majority of people even know how the FCC functions and how they are affecting the media that they consume. Although they try to represent the best interests of the people, it is difficult to make changes.
I agree with Coren that the FCC has difficulty enforcing its regulations. However, I think that for this reason the government should stop trying to regulate content. I think that is were issues arise because it is such a subjective matter. For instance, in regards to the Janet Jackson nipple fiasco we should think about why that is such a huge deal? It is really because we are worried about protecting children who are viewing the game and deserve the right to not be exposed to such "indecency"? I think if this were to have happened in another country it would have been much less dramatic because sexuality is shown much more freely. It isn't seen as a horrific thing that poisons children's minds. Because it is more regularly shown in the media it is much more normalized in their society. I think that honestly the best way of regulating the media would be to have no content regulations. I think that is is important that their is a diversity of voices in the media and that none of them are restricted. As we discussed in class media industries will always self-regulate themselves because they are a for profit industry so they will only give the public what they think will sell. However, I think that there will always be one or two daring souls that will push the boundaries and create different shows and movies. I think structural regulation is much more important so that the government can ensure that everyone has access to getting their voice heard and everyone has access to viewing these different voices. Parents should be the ones governing media content for their children. If they are willing to take their child to the game where they can see janet's nipple or let them walk around the street guess what sometimes people will indecently expose themselves. I think that when you turn the TV on you should understand that there is going to be all sorts of content on there and its the parents job to regulate. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be children's shows it just means that maybe certain channels should be designated to that. I don't know the best way to achieve this but basically less content regulation is best in my opinion. This actually makes me think of something from the movie nymphomaniac vol 2
At one point, Jo, the nymphomaniac is describing her sexual experience with some African men and calls them negroes. She says, " Each time a word becomes prohibited, you remove a stone from the Democratic foundation. Society demonstrates its impotence in the face of a concrete problem by removing words from the language. And I say that society is as cowardly as the people in it, who in my opinion are also too stupid for democracy." I agree that when the government tries to regulate media content they are detracting from democracy. Some argue they are trying to protect the minorities but Joe points out something about the human nature which I think is similar to the FCC. "The human qualities can be expressed in one word: Hypocrisy. We elevate those who say "right" but mean "wrong" and mock those who say "wrong" but mean "right." How do you measure intentions? Why is sex sometimes art and sometimes despicable? Its not the governments job to regulate morality through media content regulations that influence culture in an indiscrete way.
I honestly don't think the US government does much to regulate the media. Much of it is outside their control due to self regulation of stations, and I think this a good thing. Television stations self regulate partly because they don't want the government controlling their content, but mostly because they want their content to be liked by the public so they only show what is appropriate and what the public will be okay with seeing/hearing.
The only regulation that really involves the government is the F.C.C.'s rules and regulations pertaining to children's television. They require 3 hours of E/I programming per week and police the stations that claim to abide by this. I think they do a fine job with this, and I think that these regulations are necessary.
Outside of that though, there isn't much policing from the government. It is more so just people (mothers, church groups, etc.) complaining and the F.C.C. looking into their complaints. I suppose this is a good way of doing it considering it is all about the audience and what they are comfortable with.
I think the government regulates what they can while taking into consideration First Amendment rights. I think that they do with they can without causing up roar and backlash. A decent current example of that were the issues surrounding The Interview. Sony pulling the film had people upset about basic amendment rights, had the government asked for the film to be pulled that would have been even worse. However, in many forms of media the government does not need to regulate because the companies self regulate. Film has the ratings system, music warns an audience by using an explicit label and theaters offer “suggestions” on what ages can or should see certain movies. While these two areas are relatively clear I think the FCC is an issue when it comes to regulation. In Broadcasting, the people creating the content are approaching their ideas very cautiously because they are unsure of the actual guidelines- they guidelines are so blurry that they are unsure of what could have consequences and fines and what is okay. I think that by creating a set of guidelines that are clear, creators would have the ability to be much more creative
I think the US government does a decent job regulating the media industry, but I also agree that the F.C.C. has its faults. It's interesting that companies choose to self regulate through informal and formal regulation in order to avoid government regulation. Like we learned in class, those working in TV and film have been really proactive to keep regulation within tv/film specifically to keep the government out of it. It seems like companies do what they can to make regulation work for them, and the government responds when formal regulation is needed (with the First Amendment in mind). I really like Jamie's comment about having a set of guidelines in Broadcasting in order to allow creators to have more freedom in their artistic creations. I love the idea of giving people more creative freedom, especially in media industries.
I do think the US government does a good enough job regulating media industries. To make it better and perhaps there could be an enforcement have more consistency. Not necessarily stricter regulation, but more consistent on regulation, guidelines and eventually punishments, fines, etc. I personally don't know of any examples where the regulatory issues have become a huge problem.
I think for the most part, the media in our country is largely unregulated. The FCC does their part to assure that television has certain restrictions and will enact fines to enforce them. However, like many people have mentioned, because of the first amendment, we really do have a lot of freedom. I think that most of the regulation is internal, coming from organizations like the MPAA and such that really enable the media sources to censor themselves so the government doesn't have to become involved. I feel like the internet especially is very unregulated and the government really doesn't have much control over the content that people can put online.
For the most part I think the U.S. government does a pretty good job regulating the media industries. It isn’t a perfect system, but when dealing with media industries as large as ours, the perfect system for regulation is, more or less, a fairytale. Especially when all media industries within the U.S. are protected by the 1st amendment. This gives them all free speech, and makes it difficult for the government to condemn them. Although the U.S. government has also shown throughout history that when structure or content has become too powerful or mature, they have the power to step in and make changes. For example, the Paramount Decree. Overall, their regulation is very minimal, but I think that is appropriate in the U.S. given what we stand for.
I disagree with what a lot of my classmates are saying on this topic, I think the US government has a lot of progress to do in this area. A big reason I think this is because of the politics involved with organizations like the FCC and elected officials in general. Because of the heaps of revenue they bring in every year, companies in the tv/film industries can support politicians and back them financially, in a way that will sway their involvement away from the FCC and more towards the tv/film companies themselves. The FCC gets pushed around, and although it does a good job of keeping some very broad guidelines in check, they are not given the funding, authority or respect that they need to in order to implement actual guidelines that could be beneficial for us the viewer. When bigger things are going on in the world that involve the United States, things like the FCC take the back burner. I think our country needs a solid 5-10 years of solid funding and authority by the FCC in order to set a precedence for the future and hopefully actually make a change down the road.
24 comments:
I think the US government does a relatively good job at regulating the media and largely abides by the First Amendment and freedom of the press. Newspapers and magazines are unregulated, which I think is very important because I think it vital that people have access to all information and opinions about national and worldwide events.
In addition, the internet is largely unregulated although congress has tried to control some of the obscene material that is made available to all users.
The only media that the government does regulate is broadcasting. The FCC police manage airwaves for material that is obscene or profane. This is mostly to protect children who could be watching and therefore is more harshly regulated at certain times. If networks violate these decency terms then they can be fined or even removed.
Overall, the US government does as much regulation as they can without violating First Amendment rights and allowing freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I personally do not believe that media is the place where the government should have a role and should take on a more laissez-faire role.
I think that the US government regulates media industries to the best of its ability, as its regulations are heavily influenced and constrained by the First Amendment, as Lizzie stated. Our government doesn’t seem to need to heavily regulate the media industries in regards to content because the industries already intensively self-regulate, and the public seems to do an excellent job of regulating the media industries as we choose what to watch, ultimately determining what is profitable.
I also feel that the US government needs to do more in regards to securing net neutrality in order to prevent an even more significant digital divide and a rift between the affluent and the poor in regards to internet access. Also in regards to the internet, I agree with Lizzie’s comment that the internet is greatly unregulated, as it seems only extremely illegal things are brought down such as The Silk Road. There’s an enormous amount of obscenity and indecency on the internet, with children and youth generally being able to access this content as long as there aren’t parental control settings.
Finally, while I believe that the US government regulates adequately enough, society is shifting towards a greater acceptance of the prevalence of more risqué and graphic depictions of violence and sexuality in media texts, which is encouraging networks and producers to continue creating those types of texts. It’s interesting to me that for networks like AMC and its original series The Walking Dead, it’s acceptable to portray extremely graphic violence but the “f-word” still can’t be said.
I agree with all the comments that: when the government does regulate they do a good job. But I also I feel the media industries do an even better job self-regulating. After reading the chapter and talking in class I realized how preventative the industries are in their self-regulating and was really amazed that they work together so well. The government regulates as much as it can with first amendment being in the way, but media industries regulate even better so they can keep their profits. I think the media industries really do fear more government control, which would mean more government regulations. The media industries came together to create family hour, when they fear being fined they up their regulations, and try as best they can to obey the few obscenity laws the FCC has in place. I’ll give the government credit where it is due, but the industries themselves I feel deserve more of the credit. Saying that, I do not think the government needs to regulate them more, the industries deserve their freedom especially if they are moderating themselves so well.
I disagree with the above comments because the F.C.C. is not clear with their regulations which draw millions of complaints from stations objecting the rulings of the F.C.C. Television stations have to do a lot of self-regulation in order to avoid costly fines or potentially losing their license over the content that is released in their broadcasts. This form of self-regulation is good to keep the television companies together, but puts creative limits on what is broadcasted. Furthermore, I don’t think the government does a good job regulating media industries because a few years ago, the chairman of the F.C.C. had to dismiss millions of objections of F.C.C. rulings because the F.C.C. had received an overwhelming amount of complaints.
I think the US government does an okay job at regulating the media Industry. I agree with Mckenzie in the sense that I believe many of the problems with the governments regulation is not necessarily within their control. I also think the First Amendment keeps the government from trying to extend more control. I believe the government regulation and studio self regulation has reached a workable balance. I believe most industry executives believe that just because they have the right to say and do what they want, it doesn't necessarily mean that they should.
I agree with Coren's comments in regards to the shortcomings of the FCC. Overall, I find there is a general lack of consistency with the FCC and its decision, which is partly due to the frequent changing of FCC cabinet members. I think the subjectivity that comes with media also makes it hard to be totally consistent with regulation.
I feel like the US government does a decent job at regulating the media, but media companies are better at self-regulating. I feel like they all know what is okay to broadcast and what is not. For example, considering the US culture, networks (by which I mean cable networks that people pay every month for) that broadcast to a lot of people know that the American public is okay with seeing violence, but are not as keen on nudity. Even cartoon violence is considered okay to broadcast to kids, as long as there isn't blood or excessive damage shown. These same networks know that it is more acceptable to broadcast more adult content later in the evening than in the morning or afternoon.
I think that the media industry just has so many unknown variables. It is always growing and changing because technology and culture are always growing and changing.Change is always one of the few constants no matter how slowly the industry responds and reacts to that change. Because of this I think that at least into the near future the U.S government will never be totally on top of its regulation. Because of this I think that the industry's self-regulation allows for more flexibility as the world changes. Self-regulating under the threat of government regulation provides a checks and balances. I feel this way specifically about content, but if the government were to have more of a hand in anything, I think that it would need impact structure more. I think working indirectly applies to most situations, but with the issue of Net Neutrality cropping up and the danger of slow-lanes and fast lanes for ISPs, right know I am inclined to want the FCC stepping in.
Personally, I think that the FCC could do a far better job at regulating the media. I agree a lot with many of the points that Coren raised in his comment. I think the last sentence sums things up perfectly. If the FCC is receiving so many complaints that they have to dismiss all of them due to not being able to keep up, they should be rethinking their system of media regulation.
I agree that the internet is probably the FCC's biggest problem. I think self-regulation is more important in the industry than government regulation. I wonder if networks are more afraid of the FCC and getting fined or if they are motivated purely by keeping viewers. The Bachelor was brought up as an example in class. Did they censor that girl's butt because they were afraid of being fined or were they just trying to avoid negative feedback and keep their viewers?
When the government actually does regulate, they do a good job regulating while still, as Lizzie said, abiding by the First Amendment.
The FCC does the best job at regulating broadcasting. Obscenity laws are for the most part upheld to protect children from being exposed to things that are inappropriate. Networks are subject to fines or license removal if laws are not adhered to. The only problem is the obscenity laws are subjective because different states and counties even have different laws as to what is considered obscene and what isn't.
Film, music and video games do not really require formal government regulation because those companies already self-regulate themselves. Music with profanities are sold with the [explicit] label next to the title of the song. Film and video games have ratings that are not legally required to warn parents and children of the content of the material.
The Internet is pretty much not regulated, but I believe that it's not really possible to regulate the Internet in terms of content because information is available and accessible to anyone. Even on sites like Facebook, where you used to have to prove you're 13 to join, children would fudge their age to create their profile and no one would know. The same idea can be applied to computer games, porn sites, etc. Congress has "tried" to control some of the obscenities the Internet, but I don't think they have had much effect on Internet regulation.
I think that US government does a great job to regulate media industries both directly and indirectly. However, US government has to work for media industries more because of the advent of many kinds of technology. The existence of government has invisible huge power and right to regulate media industries. In direct way, government unifies nations including media industries in many ways such as the digital transition. In indirect way, existence of government makes media industries work not to get governmental direction such as self -regulation. However, I also think that governmental power is not only crucial power to control it because there is other power such as power of media consumers which is one of the reasons why media industries self-regulates by themselves not to get complained and not to get image down. Meanwhile, I also think that the advent of many kinds of device of media outlets in the world issue to regulations. Regulations cannot observe and solve every media any more. For example, as problems of copy right, many people around the world download products, which have copy right, illegally. I think that how to handle those many kinds of media outlet is a new task for media industries, government, and even ourselves in today’s society, which is focusing on technology.
I agree with what Paris stated. Technology, especially the internet, is making it difficult for the FCC to regulate all aspects of the media industry. The industry is evolving at a rate the FCC cannot keep up with. I think the FCC is reacting to situations it encounters rather than planning ahead.
I think the government does a fairly good job a regulating media industries, but there is definitely room for improvement. I think what we talked about in class about the FCC having unclear guidelines in terms of what is allowed to be shown is a prime example of an area where they need to improve. This leads content creators to be somewhat in the dark on things that may be on the fence about being appropriate or not, which can limit them creatively since they will most likely try to be extra cautious to avoid fines. As many people have already said, there is a bit of an issue with the unknown, both in changes of technology and in what people think is acceptable as the culture evolves.
I think that the way that the FCC regulates right now has both pros and cons. With self- regulation, the FCC doesn't have to intervene as much, because the industries do it on their own. I do agree with previous comments and think that many companies only self-regulate out of the fear of fines and the government intervening. Even though this might restrict the content, I think that having these rules are necessary so the content isn’t inappropriate and breaks boundaries. However, I think that the FCC needs to take more measures to get the public involved. There needs to be more awareness about the regulation of media, I don’t think majority of people even know how the FCC functions and how they are affecting the media that they consume. Although they try to represent the best interests of the people, it is difficult to make changes.
I agree with Coren that the FCC has difficulty enforcing its regulations. However, I think that for this reason the government should stop trying to regulate content. I think that is were issues arise because it is such a subjective matter. For instance, in regards to the Janet Jackson nipple fiasco we should think about why that is such a huge deal? It is really because we are worried about protecting children who are viewing the game and deserve the right to not be exposed to such "indecency"? I think if this were to have happened in another country it would have been much less dramatic because sexuality is shown much more freely. It isn't seen as a horrific thing that poisons children's minds. Because it is more regularly shown in the media it is much more normalized in their society. I think that honestly the best way of regulating the media would be to have no content regulations. I think that is is important that their is a diversity of voices in the media and that none of them are restricted. As we discussed in class media industries will always self-regulate themselves because they are a for profit industry so they will only give the public what they think will sell. However, I think that there will always be one or two daring souls that will push the boundaries and create different shows and movies. I think structural regulation is much more important so that the government can ensure that everyone has access to getting their voice heard and everyone has access to viewing these different voices. Parents should be the ones governing media content for their children. If they are willing to take their child to the game where they can see janet's nipple or let them walk around the street guess what sometimes people will indecently expose themselves. I think that when you turn the TV on you should understand that there is going to be all sorts of content on there and its the parents job to regulate. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be children's shows it just means that maybe certain channels should be designated to that. I don't know the best way to achieve this but basically less content regulation is best in my opinion. This actually makes me think of something from the movie nymphomaniac vol 2
At one point, Jo, the nymphomaniac is describing her sexual experience with some African men and calls them negroes. She says, " Each time a word becomes prohibited, you remove a stone from the Democratic foundation. Society demonstrates its impotence in the face of a concrete problem by removing words from the language. And I say that society is as cowardly as the people in it, who in my opinion are also too stupid for democracy." I agree that when the government tries to regulate media content they are detracting from democracy. Some argue they are trying to protect the minorities but Joe points out something about the human nature which I think is similar to the FCC. "The human qualities can be expressed in one word: Hypocrisy. We elevate those who say "right" but mean "wrong" and mock those who say "wrong" but mean "right." How do you measure intentions? Why is sex sometimes art and sometimes despicable? Its not the governments job to regulate morality through media content regulations that influence culture in an indiscrete way.
I honestly don't think the US government does much to regulate the media. Much of it is outside their control due to self regulation of stations, and I think this a good thing. Television stations self regulate partly because they don't want the government controlling their content, but mostly because they want their content to be liked by the public so they only show what is appropriate and what the public will be okay with seeing/hearing.
The only regulation that really involves the government is the F.C.C.'s rules and regulations pertaining to children's television. They require 3 hours of E/I programming per week and police the stations that claim to abide by this. I think they do a fine job with this, and I think that these regulations are necessary.
Outside of that though, there isn't much policing from the government. It is more so just people (mothers, church groups, etc.) complaining and the F.C.C. looking into their complaints. I suppose this is a good way of doing it considering it is all about the audience and what they are comfortable with.
I think the government regulates what they can while taking into consideration First Amendment rights. I think that they do with they can without causing up roar and backlash. A decent current example of that were the issues surrounding The Interview. Sony pulling the film had people upset about basic amendment rights, had the government asked for the film to be pulled that would have been even worse.
However, in many forms of media the government does not need to regulate because the companies self regulate. Film has the ratings system, music warns an audience by using an explicit label and theaters offer “suggestions” on what ages can or should see certain movies.
While these two areas are relatively clear I think the FCC is an issue when it comes to regulation. In Broadcasting, the people creating the content are approaching their ideas very cautiously because they are unsure of the actual guidelines- they guidelines are so blurry that they are unsure of what could have consequences and fines and what is okay. I think that by creating a set of guidelines that are clear, creators would have the ability to be much more creative
I think the US government does a decent job regulating the media industry, but I also agree that the F.C.C. has its faults. It's interesting that companies choose to self regulate through informal and formal regulation in order to avoid government regulation. Like we learned in class, those working in TV and film have been really proactive to keep regulation within tv/film specifically to keep the government out of it. It seems like companies do what they can to make regulation work for them, and the government responds when formal regulation is needed (with the First Amendment in mind). I really like Jamie's comment about having a set of guidelines in Broadcasting in order to allow creators to have more freedom in their artistic creations. I love the idea of giving people more creative freedom, especially in media industries.
I do think the US government does a good enough job regulating media industries. To make it better and perhaps there could be an enforcement have more consistency. Not necessarily stricter regulation, but more consistent on regulation, guidelines and eventually punishments, fines, etc. I personally don't know of any examples where the regulatory issues have become a huge problem.
I think for the most part, the media in our country is largely unregulated. The FCC does their part to assure that television has certain restrictions and will enact fines to enforce them. However, like many people have mentioned, because of the first amendment, we really do have a lot of freedom. I think that most of the regulation is internal, coming from organizations like the MPAA and such that really enable the media sources to censor themselves so the government doesn't have to become involved. I feel like the internet especially is very unregulated and the government really doesn't have much control over the content that people can put online.
For the most part I think the U.S. government does a pretty good job regulating the media industries. It isn’t a perfect system, but when dealing with media industries as large as ours, the perfect system for regulation is, more or less, a fairytale. Especially when all media industries within the U.S. are protected by the 1st amendment. This gives them all free speech, and makes it difficult for the government to condemn them. Although the U.S. government has also shown throughout history that when structure or content has become too powerful or mature, they have the power to step in and make changes. For example, the Paramount Decree. Overall, their regulation is very minimal, but I think that is appropriate in the U.S. given what we stand for.
I disagree with what a lot of my classmates are saying on this topic, I think the US government has a lot of progress to do in this area. A big reason I think this is because of the politics involved with organizations like the FCC and elected officials in general. Because of the heaps of revenue they bring in every year, companies in the tv/film industries can support politicians and back them financially, in a way that will sway their involvement away from the FCC and more towards the tv/film companies themselves.
The FCC gets pushed around, and although it does a good job of keeping some very broad guidelines in check, they are not given the funding, authority or respect that they need to in order to implement actual guidelines that could be beneficial for us the viewer.
When bigger things are going on in the world that involve the United States, things like the FCC take the back burner. I think our country needs a solid 5-10 years of solid funding and authority by the FCC in order to set a precedence for the future and hopefully actually make a change down the road.
Post a Comment