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.