Regulating Media Content - Term Paper Example

Regulating Media Content Currently, the government is trying to regulate media content especially for children citing it poses adverse effects. This act however faces controversy on whether media should regulate its content or not. The government feels children are innocent and they cannot differentiate the evil from good. Through its respective authorities contend media is capable of manipulating minds of minors. Hence, instituting certain policies intended to protect children from gaining access to unnecessary content, which is not under any restriction. Based on the proponents of this government’s move, these regulations make children feel protected as well as secure yet that is not the case in reality. Children are living in dynamic world with moral indecency, corruption, greed, as well as advanced technology. A social danger lurks in these aspects whereby children ought to learn how they can adequately protect themselves against these social hazards. If children are not given chance to seek as much knowledge as they want, they will not be innovative; hence the society will be slow to evolve. Regulating the media content will not help much because it is just one amongst many other channels, which children get exposed to evil in societal settings. The government should not regulate media content because it will create a false sense of security in the children. The government regulates marketing, media, and the first amendment in the constitution as it aims to protect children from media content that may be harmful to them. Regulated media include radio and television broadcast media. Print media and internet can go without regulation. The media shows scenes of violence and sex in the movies, video games, music videos as well as other television program. Advertisements and product positioning of selling junk food to kids or advertisements that go against regulations and sell alcohol to kids do not attract a big controversy compared to marketing of products that show scenes of sex and violence. Being a multicultural nation, stand concerning sex is quite rooted in varied cultural and religious beliefs (Erick & Steven 1). Different religions hold onto varied interpretations of sins leading to a confusion of what sin is all about and especially that encompasses to sexual misconduct. As much as these religions may agree on some aspects about sin, they disagree when it comes to sex. They consider it as a confidential matter whereby children are too young to learn about it (Erick & Steven 1). They protect children from such media content creating false security in them. This is evident because there is exposure through other sources like the internet. The government should therefore not regulate media content because the children are to learn the realities of the society instead of living in illusions. Since, this is what prompts them to indulge into promiscuity. The government should instead ensure health campaign about sex education in schools instead of censoring the media. Those who support that the false sense of security is right advocate for the regulation of media content. The representatives of this group are mainly extreme conservatives and religious leaders whose actions are detrimental to the minors because they lead to their ignorance of the utter realities. They dwell on universal morality and God failing to agree on many aspects entailed in the bill of rights such as freedom of speech (Erick & Steven 1). This group contends that things concerning youth violence and teen pregnancies as well as sex education in school should not concern the government. They are the exact opposite of those who advocate regulating media will create a false sense of security. Media regulatory measures on its content fails by associating its rating with age, parents, educators, and other professional have unsuccessfully tried to ask the industry to change it mode of ratting. They claim using a descriptive term that leans more on content that age prevents a false sense of insecurity among children. Using age ratings creates a false sense of security in the minds of the kids. Kids grow up believing that maturity is associated with embracing violence as well as other acts of promiscuity. This makes them look forward to growing up so that they can tolerate seeing people get hurt on the televisions as well as indulging in other actions, which parents or the government through its respective authorities are against. The fact that such ratings have the label "mature audience,” adolescents want to identify with this group of people, hence arouses their curiosity to watch these programmes even more. Violence marketing is so intense until parents find themselves at cross roads. In this book, the author gives an account of “One mother of a thirteen year old finally decided that her child could buy video games that involved killing fantasy creatures but no games that involved violence against humans (Erick & Steve 3).” Hence, she was unable in controlling videos, which other neighbouring together with her child. These regulations have created a false sense of security in the kids. The children believe that at some point in their lives, violence will be right. In the case of the thirteen year old, as much as playing games that involve killing people, are out of bounds at home, he will still play them elsewhere. Here, it shows that regulation is the definitely not the way out. . A false sense of security can also be good in another point of view. According to a research done in Kansas State University using brain-imaging techniques, showed how media violence influenced the minds of the children. According to the images, the children respond to media violence as real life events and they store the information like post-traumatic stress memory. Children with a history of engaging in violence behaviours respond differently to media violence. Creation of the Family Friendly Programming Forum as a form of media content regulation was Major advertisers such as Coca Cola, Mc Donald’s, Kellogg and General Millers sponsor these programmes (Erick & Steven 4). This aim at getting rid of programmes containing violence scenes during prime hours. One of the programs was the Gilmore Girls, which was convenient since it had no sexual or violent scene. Kellogg was one of the sponsors of Gilmore Girls hence the phrase “Guess what Gilmore girls ate for breakfast? Kellogg’s Pop Tarts”. The creation of this Forum encouraged the kids to eat junk and was family friendly as it purported because it led to the epidemic in obesity amongst children (Erick & Steven 4). This direct marketing to children gave them a false sense of security from harsh media content that resulted in obesity on the long run. This forum also started sponsoring scriptwriters to study filming in New York. This way, they were able to take part indirectly in the creation of media programming hence shaping it to their favour. It is therefore evident that anyone with major concerns on free speeches should take control of the media as well as the government. Initially, televisions and radio could broadcast for free as long as they had the public interests as a priority. Over the years, things have changed and the “public interest” now means abiding by the rules of Federal Communications Commission (Erick & Steven 5). These regulations have however been diminishing over years. It is clear that public interest do not matter anymore because it is not in the interest of the people, that children face exposure to violent and sexual scenes. It is not in the public interest of people that the industry marketing products in a way to take advantage of the innocence of the children. It is however questionable, if the broadcast media should take the blame of this problem. According to the book, if the broadcasters were to be pay for using the digital spectrum, the government could earn 2-$5billion annually (Erick & Steven 5). Using this income, the government could create a programming for commercials only and a programming for children as well. As much as the court ruled out that marketing speech needs protection by the First Amendment act, marketing to children seeks an exception from this protection (Erick & Steve 3). Promotions that entails toys, fast foods restaurants and food companies should also be exempted from the protection because they take advantage of the vulnerability of children .The society recognizes children to be far from adults; the judgement bases on the physical, emotional, and social development of the children. The society therefore believes that they are prone to exploitation and many regulations are in place to protect them. It is however intriguing that other than pornography; the regulations term the other content as “Harmful” and do not explain the type of harm or extent of harm that it causes. One thing to note is that many factors including environmental and biological functions contribute to ones attitude toward violence (Erick & Steven 6). It is important to note that media content is one of these factors but is not the core factor. Therefore protecting children from media content in the name of protecting them from violence is just instilling a sense of false security in them because other stronger factors are out there. A study that would prove that media violence was the sole cause of violence among children is not possible because it is unethical to use human beings for study experiments. Such as tidy would however been like “Two groups of children matched by gender, socio economic status and risk of violence were divided and locked into two separate rooms for an extended period of time. One fed on a diet of media violence whereas the other fed on the other kind of media diet and the third one left to play. The three were studied for a period of many years” such as study will go beyond the limits of ethics. (Erick & Steven 6) Violation of the first amendment leads to instilling a sense of false security, the law provides that artist and media have the right to speech. They need to practice their right just any other institutions. Introducing of the Replay TV is violation of this right because by skipping commercials, the industry will not have their right to speech as they market products (Erick & Steven 7). Not many parents take advantage of this application but those who use it instil a sense of false security in their children. These parents avoid the major issue concerning public and corporate responsibility to children. Many contradicting theories on the issue of a false sense of security have come up. They argue that a false sense of security to the kids is good. It is better that the kids have a positive outlook than be affected by the realities of life. They support the usage of the V chip and the Replay TV. Television executives introduced a rating system in 1996.That was after the telecommunications act demanded that every television set have a V chip that allows parents to block scenes that they felt not suitable for their children. The industry introduced rating for shows after the threat of government involvement. The V chip however did not become popular, only a third of those who own televisions with V chips use them. This is because the advertisement was minimal, it was hard to set it up, and that the ratings that came tagged along with it were inadequate and complicated. The V chip allows the parents to screen some shows and the Replay TVs enable parents skip the commercials, to avoid violent or sexual scenes in the commercials. Replay TV lap partner with Coca Cola and during commercial breaks, coca cola adverts are shown (Erick & Steven 7). Many parents ignore such applications and its usage is not rampant but it is a solution to sensitive parents. Its relief to many because it will take time to completely regulate media content. The media is reluctant to teach people on the usage of the chips because they want to maximize profits. In such times when internet is combining with the broadcast media, the government has to step in to regulate because the media cannot put the children’s interest beyond their profits (Erick & Steven 7) The government should not regulate the media content because it is evident that it will create a false sense of security. By regulating what the children watch, they will a different perspective of the world they live in. When the child grows up, they will have difficulties in adapting because e\ they did not know the world had many challenges. Exposure is necessary and this is not attainable through regulating the media content. Through exposure, the children will know about corruption in the society, immorality, and greed. Parents should take advantage of such situations to educate their children about the hazards of life. This way, they will grow to be responsible and they will know how to stand for themselves when encountered with difficult situations. By avoiding such scenes, parents will be avoiding on of their key roles. Introducing sex education in school is also important because some parents cannot talk to their children about it. It will be upon the teachers to teach them basic life skills. On the other hand, it is necessary that some of the media content be censored. Some children will grow up to be law offenders because of what they learnt from the television. Media content include sexual acts and if the children are not guided, they may grow to be have an irresponsible sexual behaviour which is not right .Violent scenes can also teach children to be criminals or be violent. Vulgar language spreads through social media as well as usage of harmful drugs. It will therefore be reasonable to conclude that as much as media content may have negative impacts on the minds of the children, it is upon the parents to guide their children during their upbringing. That is essential because regulating media content is not the right move, considering the dynamics of the current world. Doing this to children will give them a false dense of security which is bound to affect their future lives. Work Cited Erick, Carl & Steven, Frye. Crosscurrents: Reading in the discipline. Upper Saddle River: New Jersey, 2013. Read More