PCC Stands for the ''Press Complaints Commission, and the company is self regulated, the newspapers pay for the commission, meaning that the PCC 'dont want to bite the hand that feeds'.
The Press Complaints Commission is funded by the annual levy which it charges magazines and also newspapers. When a publication breaches the code, the PCC's first attempt to right the wrong is too take adjudication with due prominence.
The publish and be damned policy is that they write whatever they feel like and worry about the consequences later on. The most common complaint to the Press Complaints Commission is the accuracy of what they do.
The code covers lots of different areas, including Discrimination, Harassment, Victims of sexual assault, and also children and children in sex cases. The editors attempt to try and worm their way out of accusations by stating that what they write 'is in the interest of the general public'. The Press Complaints Commission have no legal powers whatsoever.
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Friday, 6 July 2012
AOB 6 Regulation (Music Video)
Discussing the case of the outcome reached on the Rihanna S&M music video by Ofcom.
After studying the points and arguments created by ofcom on the decision as to wether the rihanna s&m video i agree to a certain extent that the decision reached by Ofcom, was the correct decision. There are many factors, for and against their decision, many of which are against the video been shown during the daytime. The Rihanna S&M video contains included themes of bondage, sexual dominance, and sadomasochism. Throughout the music video, there is constant reference to sexual nature, during one part of the scence there is images of Rihanna's face and also her body being restrained by cellophane, also a man is featured in the video, whilst shes walking him on a leash, and also whipping him from behind, also she is seen whipping a man whos dressed as a journalist, with his feet and also his hands tied with tape, adopting many sexual references and also the use of blow up dolls, none of this may contain nudity or such graphic content, however it is completely inappropriate for viewing during the normal hours of the day. I believe that should younger viewers have come across this music video, it would be extremely inappropriate for them, they may not know what most of the content is about however, it does not set a good example for the younger generation, and also parents would not be happy should they come home and find their children watching such sexual nature on television. In the end Ofcom reached the decision that the video wasn't appropriate to be shown and any time during the day, and also that the video contained too much sexualized nature of the content and theme, and the at times inappropriate and potentially dangerous and imitable behaviour shown in this video, this material exceeded the likely expectations of the audience for this channel during daytime.
So overall, i completely agree to the decision made by ofcom, i feel the video is completely unsuitable for a younger audience during daytime television, the sexual nature of the video pointed me to reach this decision, and i feel that the video should only be shown to viewers past the watershed time, which is around 9pm and before around am, therefore younger viewers will be less likely to be watch the video, and it would also make parents aware that during 9-5am that content like this shall be displayed, therefore they can ensure that their children do not watch videos past the watershed time.
WTF TV broadcast a music video by Rihanna for the song “S&M”, at 11:25 on 10 March, the video received various complaints stating that the music video was complete unsuitable for daytime television. Ofcom had to study many rules, such as rule 1.3, which states children must be protected by the appropriate scheduling of material that is completely unnecessary for younger viewers. Ofcom hopes that all music channels consider younger viewers, and also hope they carry a responsibility toward younger audiences, especially during the daytime.
After studying the points and arguments created by ofcom on the decision as to wether the rihanna s&m video i agree to a certain extent that the decision reached by Ofcom, was the correct decision. There are many factors, for and against their decision, many of which are against the video been shown during the daytime. The Rihanna S&M video contains included themes of bondage, sexual dominance, and sadomasochism. Throughout the music video, there is constant reference to sexual nature, during one part of the scence there is images of Rihanna's face and also her body being restrained by cellophane, also a man is featured in the video, whilst shes walking him on a leash, and also whipping him from behind, also she is seen whipping a man whos dressed as a journalist, with his feet and also his hands tied with tape, adopting many sexual references and also the use of blow up dolls, none of this may contain nudity or such graphic content, however it is completely inappropriate for viewing during the normal hours of the day. I believe that should younger viewers have come across this music video, it would be extremely inappropriate for them, they may not know what most of the content is about however, it does not set a good example for the younger generation, and also parents would not be happy should they come home and find their children watching such sexual nature on television. In the end Ofcom reached the decision that the video wasn't appropriate to be shown and any time during the day, and also that the video contained too much sexualized nature of the content and theme, and the at times inappropriate and potentially dangerous and imitable behaviour shown in this video, this material exceeded the likely expectations of the audience for this channel during daytime.
So overall, i completely agree to the decision made by ofcom, i feel the video is completely unsuitable for a younger audience during daytime television, the sexual nature of the video pointed me to reach this decision, and i feel that the video should only be shown to viewers past the watershed time, which is around 9pm and before around am, therefore younger viewers will be less likely to be watch the video, and it would also make parents aware that during 9-5am that content like this shall be displayed, therefore they can ensure that their children do not watch videos past the watershed time.
Thursday, 5 July 2012
.png)
Wednesday, 4 July 2012
AOB 4 Music Press Presentation
The Stephen Gately article, isn't a great one, the article questions the singers death, lifestyle, and many other factors of the stars life. The article was wrote by Jan Moir, a writer for the Daily Mail, an article which sparked huge complaints. The article explains how Stephen Gately's lifestyle, and his sexuality played a part in his death, which upto this point, the cause wasnt known. The article uses such depressive, quite rather, lazy, woeful wording, and rather outrages hateful comments aimed at the 33 year old. The article caused a lot of hatred towards to the writer, a lot of companys who advertised in the Daily Mail had pulled out, such as Marks and Spencers, the comment 'There was nothing natural about his death' was the main reason which provoked thousands to express their anger at the writer. Charlie Brooker, a writer for the guardian wrote an article not long after Jan Moir had released hers, he explained the pure disgust of what she had written, he wrote 'It has been 20 minutes since I've read her now-notorious column, and I'm still struggling to absorb the sheer scope of its hateful idiocy. It's like gazing through a horrid little window into an awesome universe of pure blockheaded spite.'' Not only did Charlie feel this way, as did thousands who read her ridiculous article. The guardian newspaper is the complete oposite to that of the daily mails, their article a rather gentle, and very 'anti Jan Moir one'. I think you can tell the way the audience is shaped for both newspapers, the Daily Mail's article being rather informal, using repulsive words to try and draw new readers in and a rather disrespectful tone to accompany that. The guardian on the other hand, writes much more formal, more respectful in its manner, you can tell the difference in class between the two newspapers. The fact that the daily mail newspaper is cheaper than the guardian, shows the divide in class, the daily mail writes more 'cheap, and ludicrous' articles, rather than the 'intelligent, more understanding' articles from the Guardian. I think this effects the way articles are written in both, as shown in the Jan Moir article for the daily mail, and then the Charlie Brooker article for the guardian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)