E - Correctly describe points of social change relevant to Case Study examples of changes in regulation using correct terminology (conservatism, moral panic, liberalism, unregulated, discrimination etc)
D - Compare the debates surrounding regulation - conservative vs liberal - and BBFC vs OFCOM to discuss how they apply to the Case Studies referencing some theory
C - Examine and discuss debates and social/political/moral points to synthesise and present a thesis using theory to support points
B - Analyse Case Study points to present an argument, referring to social changes (desensitisation, moral panic, liberalism, conservative values to poverty, discrinmination, terrorism, etc) and apply theory to these examples to support your argument.
A - Judge the extent that regulation reflects desensitisation and discrimination, Justifying your argument with comparing points from the Case studies and using theory
Resources
Thesis generator: https://awc.ashford.edu/writing-tools-thesis-generator.html
Essay Map: http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/interactives/essaymap/
Exemplar response: http://ctkmediaa2horror.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/thursday-28-may-2015-exams-grade-essay.html
"How far do changes to the regulation of media reflect broader social changes?"
Introduction
1. Purposes of regulation - to protect vulnerable or to uphold Moral Standards? Control vs protection
Outline how Film, Tv or Games regulation has changed over the years - stricter or more liberal with society - how do the forms compare?
2. Is all media considered equal & regulated as liberally/strict? Which? Should all regulators have a set standard across all media - does that mean 1 single regulator?
*Consider the debates over desensitization, Individual Freedom, scapegoating, technology and access
3. Thesis Statement *Answer the question - your position in relation to regulation of the media: should there be a set moral standard that does not change across time/Is it the duty of statutory regulators to uphold/enforce moral standards/
What role does the individuals responsibility?Is regulation even possible in an increasingly online culture.
Para 2: BBFC introduction - history and key moments in responding to moral panics
Para 4: Social Change - terrorism and showing disturbing images before watershed
Case Study 1: Woolwich Terrorist Attack - debate surrounding regulation overshadowed the terrorist event?
Case Study 2: Benefits Street
Answer the question (you may want to consider)
Para 2: BBFC introduction - history and key moments in responding to moral panics
- Refer to Case Study on 1980s Video Nasties (Evil Dead or Texas Chainsaw Massacre) & Media Effects theories (Imitable Behaviour, Copy Cat, Moral Panic)- 1984 Video Recordings Act,
- Liberalisation over the years - 'censorship' to 'classification'
- Many of these films being remade and released with 15 or 18 certificates in 2013-2015
- Using age ratings - not banned a film since 2011 (until 2015 Hate Crime)
- Past: Regulation to uphold moral standards - "By the few for the masses"
- Debates surrounding increasing liberalisation from Moral standards to individual freedom to choose at 18
- Protecting children and upholding Moral Standards to just protecting children. 1980s banned list of films = video nasties due to access to unregulated films through home video - imilar to internet?
- VRA 1984 brought in based on questionable research and conservative government agenda - only considered the Effects/Hypodermic Needle approach
Para 3: Introduce & compare OFCOM and history, aims etc
- What changes have happened - SUPER-regulator 2003, what existed previously ineffective?
- Statutory relation with the current government (conservative)
- What are their aims?
- Reactive to public complaints - effected by social changes and attitudes - via social media?
- Compare with BBFC their aims (protect vulnerable, respect right of individual to choose at 18)
- Compare with BBFC their effectiveness - liberal vs strict, statutory vs self regulated, reactive vs proactive)
- Influenced by political changes?
Case Study 1: Woolwich Terrorist Attack - debate surrounding regulation overshadowed the terrorist event?
- Bloody hands, knife and beheading - protecting children?
- Editorial Justified or Media Sensationalism/Moral Panic - "we could all be terrorists"
- Impact of technology in this case study and social change - desensitized to the violence using a phone, or to the existence of terrorism?
- Is the watershed effective?
- Is the reactive nature effective?
- How did their (less-strict) decision reflect the public interest in terrorism?
Case Study 2: Benefits Street
- Class discrimination and Conservative government propaganda/legitimizing benefit cuts?
- Response to question - criminalisation/demonisation/stereotyping of vulnerable/mentally ill/underclass/disadvantaged people.
- Complains - protecting the vulnerable, showing criminal behaviour, protecting children in the show
- Media Effects Theories that could apply - Hegemony and Class Scapegoating
- Debates Surrounding Regulation - who is regulating us? Statutory influence from a Conservative government?
- Was this effective - reactive?
- Answer the question
Answer the question (you may want to consider)
Which regulator is stricter and why - Future prediction for regulation
How has regulation changed to reflect social changes - technology, morality, desentisation?
Which form has had changed most?
Should there not be a set Moral value not ever changing keeping up with society - guardians of morality?
What will media regulation look like in 15-20 years?
I think that if any person goes with information provided by you, he will be able to prepare exam as well as essay in a best way without losing attention to study.
ReplyDeleteBuy dissertations online