Media: A Case Study

According to Tom Ryall, “what are known as ‘British Films’ are invariably films which have been produced in England rather than Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and by and large, films produced in one quite distinctive region of England-London and its outer suburbs.” (Ryall, 1990) Connected to this view are issues of British film and nationality, and if it is possible to define film in terms of nationality. For the British Film institute, “it is extremely difficult to pin down what exactly invests a film with a sense of Britishness and definitions remain vague and open to interpretation.” (BFI, 2002) They argue that much of the funding for ‘British’ films come from US sources, and that “it is rare for a film to have a 100% British cast and crew.” (BFI, 2002)
Past criticism of British films has centred on the tendency to demonstrate only a small minority of the nation, in both geographical terms and in terms of the portrayal of characters. For John Russell Taylor, a key signifier of a British film is a film “which reflects the British scene and seems vitally connected with observation of the British way of life.” (Taylor, 1974) Box office successes such as Bend it like Beckham and The Full Monty demonstrate that there is a market for British films. However, for Derek Malcolm, president of the International Film Critics Association, the problem with British film is “whether we are indeed part of Europe as far as film is concerned or a somewhat poor relation of America.” Malcolm believes that as British film has to compete with Hollywood, the challenge is to engage audiences with high impact, real stories, rather than high budget action thrillers, to which British film cannot compete.
In light of these theories, it would seem that whilst British films have been successful, in terms of nationality, until we are clearer in our understanding of what it means to be British, we cannot demonstrate this with definite meaning through our film.
Ofcom, according to their website, is “the regulator for the UK communications industries, with responsibilities across television, radio and telecommunications and wireless services.” (Ofcom, 2000) Some of the main areas they cover involve licensing, research, producing codes and policies, answering complaints and investigating competition. Recent examples of Ofcom’s role within society include the airing of Jerry Springer: The Opera, where they determined that despite the high number of complaints, there had been no breach of the broadcasting code, “citing the broadcaster’s right of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” (Wikipedia, 2007) More recently, Ofcom handled the large number of complaints following accusations of racist bullying on Celebrity Big Brother.
In terms of providing a service to society, Ofcom enables television viewers to express their concerns to an impartial body who have the power to make a change. For example, following the incident with Celebrity Big Brother, the power Ofcom has to allow the general public to act when they see something they perceive as wrong was evident. Public reaction meant Big Brother producers had to step in and vocally ask the housemates involved what they meant by their comments. Public complaints to Ofcom also resulted in the Carphone Warehouse withdrawing their sponsorship from the programme.
The Press Association also reported on how Ofcom had been asked by the government to investigate “the public interest issues arising from BskyB’s controversial move to buy a 17.9% stake in ITV in 2006.” (The Press Association, 2007) This is the first time Ofcom have been asked to explore a regulatory merger, or indeed that the government has become involved with the decision; however, highlighting Ofcom’s role in determining levels of competition, this merger meant a stop to NTL’s planned merger with ITV.
From these examples, it has been demonstrated that Ofcom provides a service not only for the public, but one that the public can become involved in themselves.
With the advent of digital radio and with it, a wider range of radio programming, digital radio could progress in the same manner as digital television. For Joan Warner, CEO of Commercial Radio Australia, “digital radio is potentially next to experience phenomenal growth.” (Warner, 2003)
As digital radio grows and offers more channels and more interaction, perhaps it will form even more competition for television media. Warner states, “We still turn to radio when we need instant confirmation of breaking news, or updates during an emergency…It is radio that keeps us company late at night, or while we commute.” (Warner, 2003) Warner also believes that on occasions where regular news updates are vital, radio is both more accessible and quicker and easier to broadcast than television, as none of the viewing elements need to be taken into account.
Technology has also increased the accessibility of digital radio – now you can purchase smaller products in which to access the airwaves, further reaches of society may be interested. For Tuttlebee, it is this lack of product that may have led to radio not being at the forefront of the digital revolution – “Digital radio had been held back by a lack of consumer receivers…high-end consumer products are, however, now beginning to appear in the shops.” (Tuttlebee, 1998)
For Warner, “radio accompanies us through life, rather than diverting us from it -television couldn’t kill off the radio and the Internet hasn’t done it either” (Warner, 2003). Perhaps this is the reason for the increasing popularity in digital radio – not being shown an image requires imagination, thought and allows another task to be performed whilst listening. In increasingly busy lives, perhaps this is a major benefit.
The ‘media effects’ theory centres on the idea that people, the general public, will emulate ideals they see in the media. With the majority of studies concerning television and film violence and its effect on society, for Gormley, “the media effects approach to television violence is simply the most recent manifestation of a tendency to blame communications media for a loosely-defined range of ‘antisocial’ behaviours.” (Gormley, 1998)
In terms of using the media effects theory as a conceptual tool, many studies have explored the effects of the media, especially in audience understanding. The Museum of Broadcast Communications performed much research in this area – “The history of studies of the media audience can be seen as a series of oscillations between perspectives which have stressed the power of the text.” (Morley, 2000) Morley notes how television media, and in fact all media, “seem to have the power to ‘inject’ their audiences with particular ‘messages’, which will cause them to behave in particular ways” (Morley, 2000) In terms of viewer understanding, from this it would suggest that the media can determine the thoughts and actions of audiences.
However, for Gauntlett, “despite many decades of research and hundreds of studies, the connections between people’s consumption of the mass media and their subsequent behaviour have remained persistently elusive.” (Gauntlett, 1998) Gauntlett believes that the direct effect of the media on audiences has yet to be proven, and that there is a possibility that the wrong approach has been taken to the theory of media effects. For Gauntlett, studies regarding violence and negative behaviour taken from media influences, “consistently turn for explanations not to the mass media, but to social factors such as poverty, unemployment, housing, and the behaviour of family and peers.” (Gauntlett, 1998)
To conclude, I feel that the media effects theory is useful in examining audiences, however its effects are not totally proven and therefore more exploration is needed to determine a final outcome.