Identify the methods used in the regulation and self-regulation of the media in the UK
Regulation is a compulsory part of modern media. It sets clear instructions on the content and conduct of things that are being shown to the general public. Self-regulation is when the media are independent from the state in that they regulate their own material, and decide what viewers should see and not see.
How is the media regulated?
Here in the UK, the government has absolutely no power over what the media publish. From 1990 to 2014, media was regulated by the Press Complaints Commission, which was replaced by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. These bodies are entirely independent from the government. This is one of the messages on the homepage of the IPSO:
"IPSO is committed to working with the newspaper and magazine industry to maintain and enhance the freedom and authority of the press through effective, independent regulation."
When an independent organisation regulates the media, bias is not so much of an issue as it would be otherwise. Standards are set by the regulating body, and media outlets have the obligation as part of the media, to cooperate and follow them. When a company breaches the standards that have been set, the IPSO will conduct it's own independent investigation into whether the allegation is true.
The IPSO works on democracy; the majority of newspapers and other media outlets support it, so therefore there is no resistance to it's successful operation. An organisation that is entirely independent from the government is what the majority agree with. However, there have been several cases in the past decade when a company has not complied with the standards set by the IPSO, and has faced subsequent consequences.
The first example I am going to talk about is probably the most well-known, the phone hacking scandal. This spanned 8 years and involved hundreds of people associated with the newspaper News of the World. It started in 2006 when Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, employees of News of the World, were jailed for intercepting voicemail messages left for royal aires. They were jailed because it is a criminal offence under Section One of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act 2000 to intercept private voicemails. The newspaper released a statement after the trials, insisting that the pair had acted alone, but suspicion had been raised and more investigations were launched. The Guardian newspaper reported in 2008 that News International (News of the World) had made confidential settlements of over £1m to alleged victims of hacking. This heightened suspicions even further and in 2011 the Metropolitan Police launched Operation Weeting, which aimed to investigate whether phones were actually being hacked. Soon afterwards, they released a statement saying that they had identified more hacking victims and were in the process of informing more people that were potentially involved.
On the 11th of July 2011, Andy Coulson, former editor of News of the World was arrested by the Met police and charged with conspiracy to intercept voicemails. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison, but served under 5 months of the sentence before being released.
This scandal demonstrates how the media do not always respect the privacy of individuals. Information is sometimes more important to a media outlet than basic morals, and they will go to any lengths to gather front page stories to publish.
Evaluate the independence of the media from owners, revenue generators and politicians
People have an obsession with news and gossip, and always want to know what's going on in the world. Celebrities, sports, politicians, all come under the scrutiny of the news camera. But there is significant doubt in the eyes of a lot of people about how trustworthy the news actually is. Maybe we are just reading the opinion of one newspaper's owner wanting to share his thoughts with the rest of the nation, subtly injecting his views into each story unnoticed.
One would like to think that journalists speak the truth in their articles and reports. But without the financial backing from major news giants, they are completely powerless. This means that by their very nature, journalists are vulnerable to having their stories altered and influenced by the big companies.
When it comes to analysing the independence that media companies have from their revenue generators, the story appears pretty much the same; people with large amounts of money can manipulate anything that they want, or don't want the public to see. Rupert Murdoch's media giant, News Corporation brings in $32.2 billion per year, which mainly comes from:
Advertisers, who give TV channels and the papers money to advertise products
Revenue from public purchasing the papers, watching television and going on the internet
The government, who charge a fee for a TV licence which allows non-commercial (no adverts) television to be constantly broadcasted. It can be rather difficult to properly evaluate the independence that media companies have from owners. This is because different media outlets have developed unique characteristics that make them all different from one another. Newspapers like The Sun will write intentionally controversial things, such as when they accused Liverpool fans of urinating on and looting dead bodies after the Hillsborough disaster. Higher-class papers like The Guardian and The Independent will focus more on writing about the factual side of stories and highlight the main points, not just the ones that will sell. Every paper has a particular style and stance.
Style- A newspapers style is basically what I talked about in the last paragraph. It is the audience that the paper's stories are aimed at (I.e lower class, upper class).
Stance- is the political views that a newspaper has, I.e left wing or right wing.
Owners can alter the style and stance of their media outlets to make more profit or express certain opinions to their audience. This sort of influence on parts of the media is seen by many as a bad thing, undermining the fundamental aspects of free speech, increasing subjectivity and distorting the news.