Regulation Theory - A1

Regulation Theory

Regulation Theory by Livingstone and Lunt suggests that the needs of a citizen are in conflict with the needs of the consumer because protection can limit freedom. They noticed that regulating media to protect citizens from harmful content can limit freedom of expression.

Livingstone and Lunt studied four case studies of the work of Ofcom. Ofcom is serving an audience who may be seen as consumers and/or citizens, with consequences for regulation: consumers have wants and needs, are individuals, seek private benefits from the media, use the language of choice, and require regulation to protect against detriment; citizens have needs, are social, seek public or social benefits from the media, use the language of rights, and require regulation to promote the public interest.

Traditional regulation is being put at risk by increasingly globalised media industries, the rise of digital media, and media convergence.

To what extent would Livingstone and Lunt's theories apply? Consider the demands of the consumer (choice, freedom) versus the demands of the citizen (protection, right to privacy). 

 

Livingstone and Lunt suggested that the needs of a citizen are in conflict with the needs of the consumer since protection can limit freedom. Particularly, regulating media to protect citizens from harmful and inappropriate content can limit consumers’ freedom of choice and right to privacy. The theory can be applied to this particular front cover of The Daily Mail. 

The headline informs the audience about a picture of Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds in a cheesy Mills & Boon scenario. The image shows them sitting and talking happily in their secluded garden, which was taken within close proximity and distance. Considering the citizens’ needs, it can be said that the article is violating Boris and his fiancée's privacy in their own house as their private moments and personal lives are being shown and discussed by the public. According to the Editor’s Code of Practice, the citizens are entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, etc. Newspaper editors are not allowed to intrude into an individual's private life and take photographs of them without permission. Therefore, Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds should be protected from any intrusions of privacy from the media, even if they are in a position that receives a lot of public notice and attention. Nevertheless, the media consumers may want to know what’s behind the curtain, especially when the subject in question is a well-known politician in the UK. As The Daily Mail’s headline doubts the sincerity of these events following a well-publicized domestic incident days before between Boris and his partner, the readers have the freedom and right to make their own decisions, including reading the article and making comments on the matter. They have wanted and searched for private benefits from media products, which means they want to access and ’consume’ exclusive content that they want to see. If the press only takes the citizens’ demands into consideration, the consumers’ demands and freedom would be restricted and limited to a certain range. In this situation, the audience wants to know about the relationship between Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds, whether it is staged or not. However, the politician and his fiancée might feel uncomfortable and violated since their personal conversation is in the public eye and interest.  

In conclusion, press regulation may face barriers due to the clash between the demands of the consumer and the citizen. Consumers have wanted, are individuals, seek private benefits from the media and use the language of choice, whereas citizens have needs, are social, seek public or social benefits from the media and use the language of rights.