Media regulation

This article reviews the history of press self-regulation in Britain, from the 1947 Ross Commission to the 2012 Leveson Inquiry Commission. It considers the history of the Press Council and the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), analysing the ways they developed, their work, and how they have reached their current non-status. It is argued that the existing situation in Britain is far from satisfactory, and that the press should advance more elaborate mechanisms of self-control, establishing a new regulatory body called the Public and Press Council that will be anchored in law, empowering the new regulator with greater and unprecedented authority, and equipping it with substantive sanctioning abilities. The Public and Press Council should be independent and effective, with transparent policies, processes and responsibilities. Its adjudication should be made in accordance with a written, detailed Code of Practice.

Este ensayo hace una reflexión sobre las diferentes teorías desarrolladas en torno a la relación de los medios de comunicación con la sociedad y los diversos sistemas de comunicación propuestos.  Posteriormente analiza, desde la perspectiva socio-política, las iniciativas gubernamentales de mayor regulación.  Esta revisión sirve de respaldo para el objeto de estudio de esta propuesta: El concepto de sistema de comunicación en la Ley de comunicación recientemente aprobada en el Ecuador.  Se concluye que la falta de reflexión teórica impide ampliar el análisis de un verdadero sistema de comunicación como espacio de deliberación y representación que debería ser el pilar en el que se fundamente el esfuerzo de regulación en política pública de comunicación.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the nine years since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, ownership of our nation's broadcast radio and television stations has become increasingly concentrated. For radio, the Act eliminated nationwide station ownership limits and relaxed local market limits. As a result, in the five years after the Act's passage, the number of owners of radio stations decreased by 33 percent despite a 5 percent increase in the number of stations.

Paid-for product placement was permitted for the first time on commercial TV in the UK by media regulator Ofcom in February 2011. At the time of writing, 12 months later, estimates suggest there have been fewer than 20 paid placement deals, amounting to revenue perhaps less than 2% of the £150 million optimists estimated the industry to be worth. In this commentary we draw on confidential and informal interviews with industry insiders to set previous academic research in the field within the UK’s unique regulatory context, and we highlight problems inherent in the new industry. Foremost among these is the reluctance of the broadcasters and Ofcom to acknowledge that the free prop supply system that has provided branded scene props to UK productions, including the BBC, for some 30 years, has been and continues to be a de facto product placement industry. Given that, even in a mature paid-for placement market such as the USA, an estimated 80% of brands on TV are not paid for, we argue that unpaid product placement, also known as free prop supply, is the elephant in the room in regulation and academic research. We make suggestions as to how the impasse in the UK TV product placement industry might be resolved, and we outline ways in which academic research might play a supporting role.                 

"The purpose of this paper is to better understand the world-view of cultural consumers who download and share copyrighted content for free. By utilizing a critical discourse analysis of the arguments given by file-sharers in online forums and in interviews (focusing on the arguments which arise for justifying certain everyday uses, and contrasting these with their material and structural conditions) a critical approach is sought, inquiring on the validity of certain tropes. Particularity was achieved by making a geographically delimited case study. The case study helps to conceptualize online sociality, with wider application than this geographical setting only. As BitTorrent technology makes every downloader share his/her files while downloading, file-sharing is found to accommodate individual opportunism, and a world-view that puts the consumer at the centre of agency, in turn reinforcing the civic idea of cultural access and diversity as a human right.
My conclusions prompt a recommendation for industrialist actors and regulators: Firstly, not to use overt anti-piracy rhetoric, as it seems to alienate media audiences. Secondly, not to assume that all file sharers have criminal intent or even anti-copyright sentiments. Some of the file sharers actually do agree on remuneration to authors, and similar concepts enshrined in copyright law. The civic approach suggests that file-sharers can reconcile with individual authors or artists, as long as these are found to have precarious economic conditions, and not be affiliated with an industrial mode of reasoning. Cultural producers that are seen to adhere to a civic (amateur- or fan-like) mode of reasoning – rather than an industrial (professional) one – are met with more sympathy among consumers."