Week 4: Censorship, Effects and Moral Panics

In the lecture this week, we focused on how and why Film and TV are regulated and censored. The key readings talked about what regulations are in place, who decides what classification these works should get, how these standards have changed over time and the reasons why they exist, such as moral panics (Cohen,1998). In the key reading, Bignell discusses various regulation theories. One Marxist theory observed that cable and satellite networks feature more nudity and obscenities because they are less regulated, and they know that consumers will pay to watch this content because it is normalised through narration, genre and form to justify its use (Bignell, 2004:243). This in turn means that audiences who can’t pay for this content are limited to the carefully regulated content which is decided by an authority who have a say over what is acceptable or what can be seen by whom - a way for dominant groups to maintain control over less powerful groups. However I disagree that this holds true in contemporary media, as it is easier and cheaper than ever to stream shows and films online which makes them accessible to considerably more people. Even without streaming, Game of Thrones is a series that includes sexual scenes, gore and nudity but is the most pirated show in history. Alternatively, my found reading explains that regulation has ‘altered its emphasis from the acceptability of the text to the question of the potential upon the spectator’ (Cronin, 2009). The example used, Murder Set Pieces (2004), which was considered “torture porn”, was rejected by the BBFC specifically because of media research, stating that ‘scenes of violence with the potential to trigger sexual arousal may encourage a harmful association between violence and sexual gratification’. This film was not banned because of its explicit nature but because of the fear of its effect on the audience.The key reading focuses on how regulating bodies have justified the use of ‘inappropriate content’ such as artistic intention (Bignell, 2004:245) but the found reading argues that the visuals are no longer regulated, but it is the meanings that the audience take from it that matters. For my own research, I would investigate the extent to which regulation and censorship for children’s TV has changed since the early 20th Century. Certain topics will most likely always be off limits, such as the sexualisation of children, but ideas like effeminacy in male characters and same sex couples have not made much progress. I would explore this using a content analysis to see how frequently LGBTQ+ people are mentioned or represented.

---

Bignell, J (2004) An Introduction to Television Studies, London: Routledge. pp 229-252

Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics. London: MacGibbon and Kee.

Cronin, T. (2009). Media Effects and the Subjectification of Film Regulation. The Velvet Light Trap, 63(1), pp.3-21.

Week 3: Is Film/TV a language?

This weeks readings by Nowell-Smith (2000) and Ellis (1982) question whether Film and TV is a language. Both texts discuss how messages are communicated to the audience through these mediums, such as semiotics and narration, but Nowell-Smith also talks about why things have meaning in films specifically, and how representation and meaning differ (i.e. the way something is shown on-screen does not inevitably result in its intended meaning, but also depends on how the viewer makes sense of what they see). Alternatively, Ellis contrasts the ways that film creates meaning with the various techniques used in broadcast TV to give the viewer information (for instance, the use of segments to lead the narration). Nowell-Smith talks about the difference between an artistic language - like reading music - and a natural language, like Spanish or French. Cinema presents many examples of artistic language that can be easily understood by the audience, e.g. a montage of different locations with the same characters communicates the passage of time. If ‘in language there are only differences’, then this would show the difference between standard narrative editing and a cinematic code to convey information (Nowell-Smith, 2000: 12). This idea of language codes links to Ellis' ideas about repetition. In cinema it is normal to see these codes used repetitively because it helps us to understand their use. However, he prefers the consistent use of codes in Television over cinema because in TV it is necessary to form a ‘groundbase’ for each episode of a series, but in film - where there is more opportunity for experimental and abstract techniques to be used - it creates a kind of standard form that films all take on (Ellis, 1982:147). This can be seen in genre conventions such as the absence of music before jump scares in horrors. These readings reinforce the idea that film and TV are not just natural reflections of reality, they are constructed representations of it, which most viewers do not think about when enjoying these mediums. Thinking of film and TV as a language is an effective way of showing that their significance doesn’t end when they have been produced, but they are a method of communication between the intended meaning of the creator and how the viewer makes sense of it. For my own research, I would want to look at how many different language codes that can be used to convey one piece of information in a film. For example, ‘What techniques are used to show fear in the film Arrival (2016) ?’, using a textual analysis to identify the methods being used and how often they occur.

---

Ellis, John (1982) Visible Fictions: Cinema, Television, Video, Routledge: London - pp. 127-159

Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey (2000) ‘How films mean, or, from aesthetics to semiotics and half-way back again’ in Gledhill, C and Williams, L. (2000), Reinventing Film Studies. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Week 2: Political Economy

The lecture and readings this week (by Paul Long & Tim Wall and Ien Ang) focused on political economy, which relates to many sides of media institution, such as where the economic value of a media product comes from, who has ownership (and why that matters) and how they are affected by policies and governments/leaders. It is also important to look at who is paying for media at production level, because this often has an impact on the content we consume. This is commonly known as ‘commodity relations’. Long and Wall (2012) explain that large media companies try to balance their forms of income between advertising and cover price or subscription paid by the audience in sales. This can be exemplified in magazines and newspapers, where the cost of production is very high in comparison to cover price. This is to ensure the product reaches more audiences (as they will be more willing to buy a cheap product), which advertisers will pay more for - and this eventually results in profit. In this case, the product’s content would be determined by the types of audience the advertisers want to reach. This is similar to Ien Ang's process of 'textualising', which relates to how TV network ratings determine when and what programmes are scheduled to connect audiences with advertisers (Ang, 1991). For example, many television networks get their income through advertising, but HBO is a subscription cable network and so it has the freedom to broadcast programmes like Game of Thrones, Sex in the City and True Blood, all of which feature nudity, sex, violence and strong language which is uncommon on most broadcast networks - or at least less frequent. The cable network is not restricted by CEOs and board members who are concerned about content driving consumers and advertisers away because its audience is directly paying for the content they make because it is what they want to see. It could be said that these subscription services are more successful forms of marketing and communication because the institutions running them already know they have the audience’s attention. My research question on political economy would be ‘What effect does regulation within subscription TV networks have on the content of their programmes?’, and I could use HBO programmes as case studies for content analysis to see how much ‘inappropriate’ content is broadcast in one day or in one time slot. I could also compare this with the content put out by public service broadcasters like the BBC, and use a content analysis to discuss what kind of ‘informative’ and ‘educational’ programming they show.

---

Chapter 2 ("Audience-as-market and audience-as-public") in Ang, Ien (1991) Desperately Seeking the Audience. London: Routledge.

Long, P and Wall, T (2012) ‘Political Economy of the Media’ IN Media Studies: Texts, Production, Context (2nd Edition), London: Pearson. pp. 172-185

McQuail, D. and Windahl, S. (1987). Communication models. 1st ed. London: Longman.

Week 1: Historiography

This week’s lecture and readings focused on Historiography, the issues of writing media history (Long and Wall, 2012), and the history of Public Service Broadcasting (Creeber, 2003). I also read ‘The History of Television Celebrity: A Discursive Approach’ by Andrew Tolson (2015), who discusses how the term ‘Celebrity’ was used to describe TV personalities during the 50s and 60s. In Glen Creeber’s (2003) work, he gives a chronology of public service broadcasting, including events such as the introduction of commercial television, and the challenge of the BBC to inform and educate while also competing for audiences and avoiding an ‘aerial anarchy’ - similar to the US at that time. This approach to media history could be labelled ‘socio-cultural’, as Creeber displays the ways in which this medium and its ‘form and function are determined by contexts’ (Long and Wall, 2012). However, in Long and Wall’s text they warn that how we understand history is a ‘selective nature’. It is possible to pinpoint areas in the text where facts have been selected to create a specific idea of history. Creeber mentions that Lord Reith had a strict religious background which consciously or not, causes the reader to think of him (and his faith) as the sole cause for regulations on the BBC, when there could be many other factors. He also says that more contemporary listeners could “finally choose to be ‘improved’ rather than ‘having improvement thrust upon her.’” which paints suggests a forceful and oppresive system run under Reith. Choosing that quote from Andrew Crisell (1997) makes the author’s presence known in the supposedly objective account. Andrew Tolson (2015) uses the TV Times magazines from the 50s and 60s to examine how and why the labels of ‘celebrity’, ‘star’ and ‘personality’ were used for TV performers in this period and how its definition has changed. He uses these labels to determine what popular culture considered significant (in that period, the range was from sports legends to musicians). This history is an aesthetic approach to celebrity and popular culture, but an issue with this account is that it does not include enough interpretation. It does not make any reference to social, political, economical or technological contexts, it only gives a partial view of history. I would research why these individuals were considered celebrities back then, but may not be classed as one today. Another way that this historiography is not completely well rounded is because of a lack of sources. Tolson compiled evidence from the TV times, without looking at other platforms of the time. The magazines were sourced from an archive, and I would include more of a range.

---

Creeber, Glen (2003) The Origins of Public Service Broadcasting (British Television Before the War) in Michele Hilmes (ed.) (2003) The Television History Book. London: BFI. Pp.22-26

Crisell, A. (1997). An introductory history of British broadcasting. 1st ed. London: Routledge.

Long, P and Wall, T (2012) ‘Media Histories’ IN Media Studies: Texts, Production, Context (2nd Edition), London: Pearson. pp 448 – 481

Tolson, A. (2015). The history of television celebrity: a discursive approach. Celebrity Studies, 6(3), pp.341-354.