Media Concepts & Contexts…game

4 Concepts

The Spec says…”The AS & A Level Media Studies course is developed around the four key concepts of Language, Representation, Industry and Audience. Candidates should be prepared to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of these across all components.”

Task / Game

PRINT CONTEXT CARDS

Print in A3

Rules

  1. Teams of three, teacher is a team of one.
  2. Deal out seven cards to each team.
  3. Starting with the teacher, place a CONTEXT card within one of the FOUR KEY CONCEPTS on the board.
    • Explain / analyse the significance for or impact of that CONTEXT TO THAT KEY CONCEPT.
      • If you can make a clear argument that all the class agree with, then you can play your card.
      • If you can’t or there is a agreed COUNTER ARGUEMENT, then you have to pick up another CONTEXT card from the pile.
    • If you can give a clear example or case study of this CONTEXT in process or action, then you can give one of your remaining CONTEXT cards to another group.
  4. The first team to run out of CONTEXT cards is the winner.
  5. YAY!

Best of Luck

So much luck to be thrown your way for tomorrow. We are absolutely convinced that you are going to smash it.

  • Remember:  Component 2: Paper 2: Thursday 4 May – TOMORROW either 1.30pm or 2.00pm at the Lecture Theatre – bring 2 pens!

We will then focus over the remaining few lessons (about 6 for each class) starting on Friday with 2 lessons on PMM, 2 lessons on MR and 2 lessons on Ecology.

Once again, over the long weekend, practise some essays and I am sure your teachers will find time to give you some feedback.

Final, official (but optional) revision sessions are:

  • Monday 22 May: 1 – 3pm PMM and MR with Mrs C
  • Tuesday 23 May: 1 – 3pm Ecology with Mr G

Component 4: Paper 2:  Wednesday 24th May PM


You can all do this. We have absolute faith that you will all try your best and after all, that is all that matters.

Best of luck and we hope you can look back on your Media Studies with a smile and a fondness for the fun and laughter we have had. You might hopefully have learnt a thing or two along the way.

Love ya’ – mean it!

Mrs C and Mr G

Visual Learners – Media Regulation

Loading...

Loading…

Loading...

Loading…

Online regulation – UK ONLINE SAFETY BILL

The UK Online Safety Bill

This bill has been in the making for several years and its publication and passing in Parliament keeps being pushed back, as every week, another new area needs to be addressed. It is now going before the House of Lords for final approval.

Generally, the bill places a duty of care on all firms to protect adult users from illegal content such as child sexual abuse images, revenge pornography, threats to kill, selling firearms and terrorist material. Tech platforms have to proactively prevent that material from reaching users. Firms must also ensure that any content that could be accessed by children but is not illegal, such as content related to self-harm, is age-appropriate.

It aims to PROTECT CHILDREN – new procedures for registering for accounts re age etc. will be enforced.

Under the terms of the act, Ofcom has the power to fine companies up to £18m or 10% of worldwide turnover (that would be more than $10bn in the case of Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta), or even to block sites in extreme cases.

However, LEGAL, BUT HARMFUL content could still be allowed. However, if the platforms say they don’t allow it and it appears (i.e. eating disorders, some forms of racist or sexist abuse) then they could face criminal prosecution.

So banned: downblousing, upskirting, deepfakes, cyberflashing.

Reactive regulation is illustrated by this Bill. Trying to play catch up all the time.

These are some of the stories that have been important behind its implementation

In theory Online Tech giants could go to jail – but one wonders if that could actually happen.

Online Tech giants could go to jail

As you can see, amendments come thick and fast as the instances of online harm and safety come to light.

Latest amendments

As users of social media and probably occasional audiences for Reality TV, you have probably been aware of this latest case of Revenge Porn.

Georgia Harrison documentary – revenge porn is in the bill

This is Georgia talking about the UK Online Safety Bill and why it is necessary.

 


 

 

 

 

Online Regulation

NEIL POSTMAN: WE SHAPE OUR TOOLS AND THEREAFTER OUR TOOLS SHAPE US. 

A great quote by Media theorist, Neil Postman which explains how most media regulation is REACTIVE to technology and the society that it belongs to.


News is expensive! And people expect it for free!

News broadcasters and papers have, like the music industry before them, lost control of their distribution!

The responsibility of social media to the media environment and science.

Here is our last case study.

Social Media regulation…but in this case there is no regulatory body!

Except the social media platforms themselves!

The problem stems from one significant difference between social media and our previous case studies. Social media companies are global organisations. So, whilst it’s relatively easy to regulate adverts and news within the borders of a country, global regulation is highly problematic.

The other essential issue which prevents social media companies from being regulated is, are they a publisher or are they a platform?

Section 230 and the freedom to be a platform.

It is impossible to regulate these American companies who have the protection offered by Section 230 of the American Communications and Decency Act 1996, which states platforms cannot be prosecuted for content posted by their users.

What has been the impact of this?

Fake news? Hate speech? Racism? A divided society and weakened democracies?

BIG THINKING

Here is an opinion piece from Jennifer Cobbe in The Guardian, in which she explains how Facebook and other players in the, “surveillance economy”  have challenged the democracy we take for granted. It suggests:

“We need to confront their surveillance business models, their increasingly central position in digital society, and the power they now hold as a result.”

“As a result, some platforms’ algorithms systematically recommend disinformation, conspiracy theories white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.”

“At a minimum, behavioural advertising should be banned; other, less damaging forms of advertising are available. The algorithms platforms use to recommend content should be heavily regulated.”

A COUNTER ARGUMENT

As with news regulation, this is not a cut and dried argument. After all should we be allowing our governments to decide what ‘Truth’ should be available to us online?

The video below offers a counter argument to those demanding online regulation and quotes 17th century poet John Milton:

“Truth and understand are not such wares as to be monopolized and traded by tickets or statute, better to let truth and falsehood grapple”

He is suggesting we should not muzzle what we believe to be false or fake news, but allow argument and debate to flourish and in that process truth and greater understanding will come out.

ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) REGULATION:

Yesterday (29th March 2023) This…read the article.

HERE’S A MAD LOOKING MR GREGSON DURING LOCKDOWN TRYING TO EXPLAIN.

 

The Press & Freedom of Expression.

Discussion: “Why is freedom of speech considered to be a fundamental human right?”

To answer that we have to go back to The Enlightenment and the birth of America…

You need to remember that many of the early American settlers (The Founding Fathers) were refugees, who were fleeing from religious persecution and tyrannical monarchies.

They were looking for a very different system of government, that was, according to the American Constitution;

‘Government By The People, For The People and Of the People.’

So they started to codify these beliefs in a Bill of Rights, which was then amended a number of times. These amendments were designed to state, in law, the fundamental freedoms of the American people.

The very first amendment was to protect freedom of speech and freedom of expression, because after all, if you are a tyrannical church or monarch, the best way to oppress your subjects is to ban different point of view and kill those who hold them.

So the first amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

So, freedom of expression , in it’s purest form, is about protecting the freedoms of the citizen, it’s about the right to hold the powerful to account and is essential in any enlightened democracy!

The question we need to ask in Media regulation is:

Should there be limits to freedom of expression if that freedom cause harm to the individual?

Because, whilst it’s all very well to hold politicians to account so that we can vote with full knowledge of the facts, should my freedom of expression extend to saying what I like, about who I like? After all, we do all  love celebrity gossip and the popular tabloid press makes money because it gives us what we love…

Here is a cartoon from Private Eye which draws attention to our collective hypocrisy in the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana in a high speed car crash in Paris, when she and her new boyfriend were trying to escape the paparazzi (press photographers) chasing them on motorbikes.

Then there was The News of The World, Milly Dowler and the Leveson Inquiry

Watch this video, from the BBC, which explains the story of how journalists from News of The World hacked the phone of a missing school girl, Milly Dowler, and in doing so broke the law and invaded the privacy of Milly’s grieving parents.

This sort of law breaking was a new low in press ethical standards and there was an outcry for more regulation of the press and the actions of journalists, who would do anything to get a story. So the government launched an inquiry, a debate, in front of a judge (Lord Leveson), who needed to advise the government on a new law to regulate the press.

Click for video

So, where does this leave us?

Should we demand that freedom of the press to uncover stories should have limits when their methods cause harm to grieving families?

Many editors and journalists go back to that principle at the top of this post, that an entirely free press is essential for enlightened democracy.

They argue that if  we limit journalists from uncovering genuine news stories, such as The Panama Papers or the scandal of The Catholic Church coving up the behaviour of priests who were molesting children. 

More recently:

What about Party Gate, when it was revealed by a journalist at The Mirror, that Boris Johnson was having parties in Number 10, after he’d banned social gatherings because of the dangers of Covid 19?

Or, Matt Hancock’s leaked WhatsApp messages that revealed he was more concerned with the government’s reputation than he was about care home testing or amending lockdown rules.

Press Regulatory Bodies – Old and New

The British Government at the time did introduce a new regulatory body. They ditched the regulator  the Press Complaints Commission, a model whereby the papers regulated themselves. And introduced our next case study…  IPSO, who introduced a new Code or Practice for editors, which is enforceable in law if they break it.

Here is the last video. Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, who refused to sign up to IPSO, explaining what this now means for freedom of the press in the UK, which he asserts has now been eroded and the dangers of that for our democracy and the ability of journalists to hold the powerful to account.

“In Britain, we have a free press; it’s not a pretty press, but it’s free!”

Task

Edit the Padlet.

  • Above the line are examples of when journalists exposed stories in the public interest.
  • Below the line are examples of when newspaper were found to cause harm to members of the public.

Summarise the article, in what ways was this a victory for the press? In what ways was this an example of the press causing harm? First come, first served.

Weave in some theory, big ideas, concepts (representation, audience, industry, media language as appropriate) and key terms.

ADVERTISING – The ASA

Who are the ASA?

THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY MISSION STATEMENT:

  • Legal, Decent, Honest, Truthful
  • What the Advertising Codes say (in summary):
    • No advertisement should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.
    • Marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied that are capable of objective substantiation.
    • Marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such.

Notes on its history.

Listen to this presentation & make notes

Task 2:  Take the quizlets x 2

Examine these banned adverts from last year.

Look through the following ads and consider why the ASA banned them where they:

  • Misleading?
  • Offensive?
  • Harmful?

Task 3:  Summative Task: 500 word submission

Please submit your response via classroom.

Media Regulation – the background

An Introduction to Media Regulation

These are some basic key terms and big ideas that you need to start using and applying to your case studies.

Communication is an inherent part of being human – this is how mass communication has developed – and given that it is now such a diverse, integrated and complicated landscape – regulating it is important.

But as societies and cultures develop and differ from place to place and time to time, so must regulation change – it is constantly adapting. 

Loading...

Loading…

Task 1

Who are the main British regulators?

Complete this worksheet in classroom and assign the correct mission statement to the correct regulator. They are mixed up in the document.

 


 

Skip to toolbar