Essay Structure, Regulation

1. General definition, information
2. Specific points/debates
3. Thesis statement
4. Point
5. Evidence/Case Study Example
6. Analysis/Argument
7. Theory
8. Historical Context
9. Future Prediction

The BBFC and PEGI are the two organisations who certificate and rate media products. The BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) was set up in 1912 to protect the public from media material that may present harm risk. Originally the BBFC only classified cinema films until the Video Recordings Act was passed in 1984 when it started regulating videos/DVDs. In 1984 the BBFC began to regulate video games as well. From 2003 the responsibility of regulating video games was passed from the BBFC to PEGI (Pan European Game Information). However, the BBFC will continue to classify all games that feature strong pornographic content and ancillary games attached to a wider, primary linear submission.

The BBFC are an non-government regulatory body to which films are submitted for classification based on their content. They aim to protect the public by providing them with information that allows them to make a more educated decision when selecting a media products. The BBFC also provide verification for as to why they have awarded media products the certificate that they have. Like with the BBFC video games are submitted to PEGI to be given appropriate age ratings. These age ratings are in place to give guidance to the video game customers, particularly parents. The age ratings given to video games are awarded based on their content and suitability, not their difficulty. PEGI used descriptors that are placed on the back of the video games packaging. These descriptors explain the main reason behind why games have been given a particular age rating.

Although these regulatory bodies are in place there are problems with the systems that prevent them from being used as a means of protection, for the public, from the media. For example, it is not illegal for a person who is of age to buy a particular media product for a person who is under the age certificate of a product and allow them to view it. In this respect organisations such as PEGI and BBFC are carrying out the service that they hope to provide by informing the buyer of the content and the potential harm that such products may cause to a consumer who is not of suitable age to be subjected to the media product.

The BBFC and PEGI aim to work as  gatekeepers (Kurt Lewin 1890-1947) between the media that is appropriate for us to consume and that which is deemed to have the potential to cause harm. However this role means that we have to place our trust in these organisations as we, the audience, rely upon them to make the decision of what we should and shouldn’t be subjected to in media products. Problems are faced by these gatekeepers when it comes to media that they are unable to regulate. For example, media platforms such as YouTube are unregulated due to the excessive quantity of videos submitted to this platform. Also piracy of video games and films cause major problems for these gatekeeping organisation. Piracy is a prime example where an advance in technology has posed a threat to regulatory companies aim to protect the public.

A Serbian film is a prime example of a film where by the BBFC have taken precautionary measures in an attempt to prevent the public from being exposed to potentially harmful media content. The film, directed by Srdan Spasojevic, was eventually passed after four months of negotiation with the BBFC for release on the 10th December 2010. The BBFC required forty-nine individual cuts, across eleven scenes, before classifying it ’18’ for very strong sexual violence, sex and violence. Cuts were required to remove elements of sexual violence that tend to eroticise or endorse sexual violence. However, even after cuts the film was still seen to be disturbing, offensive and shocking to some adult audience members.

The Woman In Black was passed by the BBFC with a 12A classification following cuts and was later released uncut on DVD with a 15 age certificate. The film was directed by James Watkins and was released on the 10th February 2012. The BBFC received 134 letters of complaint following the cinema viewing. This was as a result of the film being aged at a young age group to attract audience members who would watch the film as a result of it being Daniel Radcliffe’s first post Harry Potter film. The film was cut by 6 seconds in order to secure a 12A rating on release. This was as a result of the film being said to hare been “too scary” for the 12A certificate in its first-submitted form. In an attempt to satisfy both the audience members and the film producers the BBFC suggested the cuts in an attempt to release the film with a certificate that would be deemed appropriate by both parties and to prevent causing offence and harm to the younger audience members and their parents. However, the letters of complaint that were received suggest that the audience members and their parents did not feel that the BBFC did a sufficient in preventing the film for potentially causing harm.

In the case of video games there is a huge amount of moral panic that is endorsed by the press in an attempt to show them in a bad light and suggest that they are causing a great deal of harm to younger generations. This view points the finger at the regulatory bodies of this industry to suggest that they are not doing a sufficient job in protecting the public from video games that have potential to cause harm.

Hatred is a game that has not yet been released has already stimulated moral panic simply based on the release of its trailer. In Hatred you play an anti-hero whose sole aim is to put as many “human worms” into the grave as he can. Hatred was given an “Adults Only” (AO) rating by the ESRB for extreme violence rather than sexual content. Effectively preventing any mainstream distribution of the game at retail or on video game consoles. However, PEGI have not yet rated the game and have said that they will not award the game a rating based dimly on the trailer. Until a PEGI rating has been awarded to the game it is hard to criticise the extent to which the regulators have gone to protect the public. Although,  fans of Hatred have demanded developer Destructive Creations include even MORE violence in the stomach-churning title. Such comments may alarm organisations such as PEGI and affect their view of the video game during the classification process.

Dark Souls II is another example of a video game that has evoked moral panic amongst the public. Dark Souls II is an action role-playing video game. PEGI rated the video game with a 16+ for the violence that was in the game. It was suggested that ‘Dark Souls II is truly the most controversial game this generation’. One of the main controversial factors related to the video game Dark Souls II was the crime that followed that was later blamed partially on the criminal having played the violent game, including Dark Souls II,  in which he was able to virtually perform that acts that he later carried out in person. In November 2014, months after the release of Dark Souls II, Ann Maguire a Spanish teacher at Corpus Christi Catholic College in Leeds was stabbed seven times by Will Cornick (a 16-year-old student) and died as a consequence of the school boys actions.  The age rating given to the video game by PEGI meant that Cornick was seen to be of an appropriate age to be playing such games as Dark Souls II. In this case it could be suggested that the regulators failed in their job and should have taken stricter precautions in an attempt to prevent such crimes.

Both the producers of film and video games are attempting to push the boundaries to see what they are able to get away with. This is making the role of regulators to protect the public even harder. The regulatory bodies are only ably to regulate for the ‘normal’ person and have to make a decision on media products as they see appropriate. There is never going to be full protection of the public from media but the regulators work to do the job to the best of their ability. Content is always going to be available on formats that aren’t able to be regulated and therefore the extent to which the public can be protected is limited.