Lo1: Presenting a Debate

Public Service Broadcasting VS Private OwnershipBy Jack Tanner

Public Service Broadcasting

Public service broadcasting is something that many people are familiar with although they may not know it, the most famous public service broadcaster in Britain is the BBC. A public service broadcaster is paid for by the public with the money from buying a TV license which means they do not need funding in the way that privately owned broadcaster by advertisement, with that money companies like the BBC creates Programming that must appeal to wide audiences as that is the brief a public service broadcaster must follow.

Pro’s of public service broadcasting

0Public service broadcasters do not show adverts, because they are paid for with tax payer money they do not need adverts to fund their station

0They have shows for all different audiences because they must follow a rule given to them by the government which means that they must have programming for all types of people

Con’s

0Tax payers must pay £145 per year just for the BBC under a TV license and the full license is £360 per year

0Government control – public service broadcasting is funded by the government, so they have a say on what it shown on their channels meaning they are nt independant

Cross media ownership

Cross-media ownership: Concentration of media ownership (also known as media consolidation or media convergence) is a process whereby progressively fewer individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the mass media. Contemporary research demonstrates increasing levels of consolidation, with many media industries already highly concentrated and dominated by a very small number of firms

Date Acquiring firm Acquired firm (New name in brackets)

Price (US $ billions) Strategic motivation

1994 Viacom Paramount communication 8.0 Conglomeration across publishing, film broadcasting and cable theme parks.

1994 Viacom Blockbuster 8.5 Distribution control.

1995 Disney Capital cities/ABC 19 Vertical integration and control of content creation.

1995 Time warner Turner broadcasting 7.4 Vertical integration and conglomeration/synergy.

1995 Seagram MCA (universal) 5.7 General conglomerate moves into diversified media

1995 Westinghouse CBS 5.4 General conglomerate moves into broadcasting.

1999 Carlton* United* 8.0** Merger of European media groups.

1998 Seagram PolyGram 10.6 Recording market share plus European film interests.

1999 Viacom CBS 22 Media conglomerate consolidates broadcasting power.

2000 Vivendi Seagram/universal 35 Very diversified European leisure conglomerate diversifies further.

1998 AT&T* TCI 48** Telecoms and media convergence.

2000 AOL* Time warner 128** Internet service provider merges with media conglomerate.

2002 Comcast AT&T broadcasting 47.5 Cable company expands via acquisition.

2003 General electric/ NBC Vivendi universal 5.5 A merging between two media giants.

2003 Sony BMG Music arms of two majors merge.

2004-5 Sony MGM 4.9 Massive acquisition of back catalogue.

2006 Disney Pixar 7.4 Studio buys production company with strong affiliations to it.

Vertical Integration

Vertical integration – when a company buys another company is the distribution chain, for example in “The Golden age of Hollywood” large film companies such as paramount also owned the film distributors and cinema outlets in order to distribute their films in a cheap and easy way.

Horizontal integration

Horizontal Integration – This occurs when a firm is being taken over by or merging with another firm which is in the same industry and in the same stage of production as the merged firm. For example a car manufacturer merging with another car manufacturer. In this case both the companies are in the same stage of production and also in the same industry. This process is also known as a "buy out" or "take-over". The goal of horizontal integration is to consolidate like companies and monopolize an industry.

Multinationals and Conglomerates

0 A conglomerate is a corporation formed by the combination of several diverse companies under the same ownership. A good example of a conglomerate is Unilever who own many different companies from Pot Noodle, to lynx body spray and many more. A conglomerate may or may not be a multinational.

0 A multinational company operates or has subsidiary companies in multiple countries. For example Mcdonalds is active in many countries making it a multinational. A multinational may or may not be a conglomerate.

Product Diversity and Profitability.

“Risk derives from the fact that audiences use cultural commodities in highly volatile and unpredictable ways, often in order to express that they are different from each other” - Garnham

Stats0 Nearly 30,000 albums were released in the USA in 1998, of which fewer than 2 per cent

sold more than 50,000 copies

0 88 hits in 1999 -0, 03 per cent of releases accounted for a quarter of US record sales.

0 In publishing it has been said that 80% of the income derives from 20% of published product.

0 Of the 350 or so films released each year in the USA in 1996, only 10 will be box office hits.  0 In 1993 Driver and Gillespie reported that one third to one half of UK magazines break

even and only 25% Make a profit.

0 According to figures cited by Moran about 80% of the 50,000 book titles published in the USA each year in the mid-1980s were financial failures.

In the light of recent events does the BBC have a future as a public sector broadcaster funded by the license payer, and if

so how is this fair on those dependant on chasing ratings and advertising?

In recent months the BBC have been exposed as covering up Jimmi Saville’s illegal activities involving under age children, they have also been accused of hiding other paedophiles even more recently with allegations against Lord McAlpine which have yet to be confirmed, these allegations are very damaging to such a huge publicly funded industry especially as the BBC more or less set the social standards. Although these are very serious allegation and are being investigated, usually by this time a private company facing the same accusations would be disintegrated and crippled due to losing investors and general public attitude would go way down hill leading in boycotts and eventual administration. I believe due to the importance of the BBC in our society, these allegations will barely scratch the BBC, people will definitely get fired or even go to prison but in the long run the BBC itself will be fine. This is unfair for the private sector companies that rely on view and advertisement because something like covering up a paedophiles activities would ruin them, they would lose adverts, shareholders and credibility which would probably lead to going bust where as a huge publicly funded company like the BBC wouldn’t be affected.

Lo3 regulatory bodies

Law

The Broadcasting Act 1990 

0 This broadcasting act has to some extent been superseded by the Government's White Paper on Communications, because anything taken from that paper will be turned into a new Act of Parliament. However, this Act began the first steps to deregulation in British Broadcasting and reversed restrictions imposed on ownership of ITV franchises. The main points of the 1990 Act were:

0 This act required all ITV franchises to be put up for sale and to be awarded partly on financial grounds.0 New ITV regional franchises mandated to give 25% of their production to independent producers.0 ITV network centre established to commission programmes from the franchise holders on to the national ITV

network.0 Independent Television Commission set up to regulate all TV services in the UK, with the exception of the BBC.0 For first time Channel4 to sell own advertising and ITV monopoly on advertising sales was lost.0 Channel 5 was last conventional terrestrial TV channel to set up in 1997 before digital explosion, to provide

same strand of programming at the same time every day, each week.0 TV licence is a tax on all owners of a TV set. Fee set by government and to be renewed by an Act of Parliament.0 Corporation's right to be funded by licence fee renewed, but situation insecure.0 BBC set up internal market as Producer Choice, where producers must also be managers and shop around for

cheapest facilities rather than accept those providing by corporation itself.0 Discusses different ways of paying for TV viewing as things are changing, ie. pay per view and subscription.

0 The Broadcasting Act 1990 is a law of the British parliament, often regarded by both its supporters and its critics as a quintessential example of Thatcherism. The aim of the Act was to reform the entire structure of British broadcasting; British television, in particular, had earlier been described by Margaret Thatcher as "the last bastion of restrictive practices". The act come about after the finding from the Peacock Committee.

0 It led directly to the abolition of the Independent Broadcasting Authority and its replacement with the Independent Television Commission and Radio Authority (both themselves now replaced by Ofcom), which were given the remit of regulating with a "lighter touch" and did not have such strong powers as the IBA; some referred to this as "deregulation". The ITC also began regulating non-terrestrial channels, whereas the IBA had only regulated ITV, Channel 4 and the ill-fated British Satellite Broadcasting; the ITC thus took over the responsibilities of the Cable Authority which had regulated the early non-terrestrial channels, which were only available to a very small audience in the 1980s.

0 An effect of this Act was that, in the letter of the law, the television or radio companies rather than the regulator became the broadcasters, as had been the case in the early (1955-1964) era of the Independent Television Authority when it had fewer regulatory powers than it would later assume.

0 In television, the Act allowed for the creation of a fifth analogue terrestrial television channel in the UK, which turned out to be Channel 5, and the growth of multichannel satellite television. It also stipulated that the BBC, which had previously produced the vast majority of its television programming in-house, was now obliged to source at least 25% of its output from independent production companies.

0 The Broadcasting Act 1990 established a new framework for the regulation of independent television and radio services, and the satellite and cable television under the act, the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) and the Cable Authority were dissolved and replaced by the Independent Television Commission. The Radio Authority was established in respect of independent radio services. The Broadcasting Standards Council was made a statutory body and the Act also contains provisions relating to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Besides reorganising Independent broadcasting, the Act provided for the formation of a separate company with responsibility for affecting the technical arrangements relating to independent television broadcasting - National Transcommunications Ltd - as a first step towards the privatisation of the former IBA's transmission functions.

Films act 19850 The Films Act 1985 dissolved the British Film Fund Agency, ending the Eady levy

system established in 1951.0 The Act also abolished the Cinematograph Film Council and dissolved the National

Film Finance Corporation, transferring its assets to British Screen Finance Limited.0 The Act repealed the Films Acts 1960-1980 and also repealed certain provisions of the

Finance Acts 1982 and 1984 and substituted new provisions for determining whether or not a film was 'British' film eligible for capital allowances.

0 Under the Finance Acts 1997 (No 2), 1992 (No2) and 1990, these provisions have been further amended to relax the prohibition on using a foreign studio.

0 Finding a distinct cultural product.0 The Eady Levy was a tax on box office receipts,  this pumped excess money back into

the United Kingdoms Film Industry which made it cheaper to produce films. The film act abolished this

0 American company's were claiming there film was British and abused the tax, brought in to protect the British industry

Human rights act0 Act of parliament

0 “give further effect”0 It means you can defend your rights in the uk courts and you must treat everyone equally with fairness, dignity and respect.0 Anyone in England and wales can use the human rights act even if they are a child, a prisoner and are not a British citizen.0 Judges must read and give effect to legislation in a way which is compatible rights0 Unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible0 Human right acts protect

0 The right to life 0 Investigates death

0 No torture or inhuman treatment0 Protection against slavery0 Liberty and freedom0 Right to fair trail and no punishment without law

0 Innocent until proven guilty. 0 Respects privacy, family lives and right to marry.0 Freedom of thought, religion and belief.0 Free speech and peaceful protest.0 No discrimination; everyone is equal0 Protection of property and a right to an education and election.

Libel Law0 There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including

email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken. In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court.

0 For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke that would be. Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the TV licence revelation (he is after all a mass murderer). Of course, his lawyers would still be free to bring the case to court, but it is very unlikely they would succeed. Greg Dyke, on the other hand, runs the BBC, so to say he wilfully doesn't pay his TV licence could have a seriously detrimental effect on his career. He could be fired or his reputation damaged (note: Dyke has now left the BBC). It is not for the judge or jury (at the outset) to decide how damaged he is - they just have to confirm that such accusations are false and damaging. Then the judge and/or jury decide on monetary damages.

0 http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html 0 McLibel case0 A long-running legal case in Britain is an example of the application of food libel principles to existing law. McDonald's

Restaurants versus Morris & Steel (also known as the "McLibel case") was an English lawsuit filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris (often referred to as "The McLibel Two") over a pamphlet critical of the company. The original case lasted ten years, making it the longest-running court action in English history.[9] A feature-length documentary film, McLibel, was created about the case by filmmaker Franny Armstrong.

0 Although McDonald's won two hearings of the case in English court, the partial nature of the victory, the David-vs-Goliath nature of the case, and the drawn-out litigation embarrassed the company. McDonald's announced that it did not plan to collect the £40,000[10] that it was awarded by the courts. Since then, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the trial violated Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) because the defendants had been refused legal aid and had only been represented by volunteer lawyers, and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the Convention on Human Rights, again because the defendants had been refused legal aid, and awarded a judgment of £57,000 against the UK government.[11] (McDonald's itself was not a defendant in this appeal.) On February 15, 2005, the pair's 20-year battle with McDonald's came to an end with this judgment.

0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws 0 The McLibel Trial is the infamous British court case between McDonald's and a former postman & a gardener

from London (Helen Steel and Dave Morris). It ran for two and a half years and became the longest ever English trial. The defendants were denied legal aid and their right to a jury, so the whole trial was heard by a single Judge, Mr Justice Bell. He delivered his verdict in June 1997.

0 The verdict was devastating for McDonald's. The judge ruled that they 'exploit children' with their advertising, produce 'misleading' advertising, are 'culpably responsible' for cruelty to animals, are 'antipathetic' to unionisation and pay their workers low wages. But Helen and Dave failed to prove all the points and so the Judge ruled that they HAD libelled McDonald's and should pay 60,000 pounds damages. They refused and McDonald's knew better than to pursue it. In March 1999 the Court of Appeal made further rulings that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions", and true that "if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease."

0 As a result of the court case, the Anti-McDonald's campaign mushroomed, the press coverage increased exponentially, this website was born and a feature length documentary was broadcast round the world.

0 The legal controversy continued. The McLibel 2 took the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights to defend the public's right to criticise multinationals, claiming UK libel laws are oppressive and unfair that they were denied a fair trial. The court ruled in favour of Helen and Dave: the case had breached their their rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial.

0 http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/

Licensing act 2003 and LA

0 They licensing act 2003 and LA have been prepared by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in order to assist the reader of the Act. In April 2000 the Government published an act on reforming alcohol and entertainment licensing set out proposals for modernizing and integrating the alcohol, public entertainment, theatre, cinema, night café and late night refreshment house licensing schemes in both England and Wales. Used to reduce crime and disorder, to encourage tourism, to reduce alcohol misuse; and to encourage self-sufficient rural communities. Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In turn, "regulated entertainment" is defined as: A performance of a play, exhibition of a film, sporting event, live music event, playing of music or performance of dance.

0 The Act has four licensing outcomes which must be taken into account when a local authority carries out functions. They are, preventing crime and disorder; public safety; public nuisance; protection of children from harm; and in Scotland there is a fifth licensing agree which is protecting and improvement of public health

0 The new licences don't have to be renewed regularly; it is important that in the Act, at any time, they can be called in for a review if residents or a business nearby make a valid request. If this happens the matter will go before a Licensing Sub-Committee which can vary, suspend or revoke the licence. This is an important change to the old licensing law, which made it much more difficult for residents to force a review of a licence.

0 Licensees must now understand that just because they have been given a licence under the new Act, any permission can be removed or varied. As licensing authority, the Council will be working closely with the police to ensure that the Act is enforced fairly and firmly with everyone.

0 Under the Act, all local councils must draft, consult on and publish a ‘Statement of Licensing Policy’. It also explains how we plan to deal with applications made under the Act. Most importantly it explains how we aim to balance people's desire for entertainment with residents' right to peace.

0 The Council's Licensing Policy is reviewed every three years and will continue to monitor the licensing situation. We believe that the Licensing Act 2003 can benefit residents, businesses and visitors and our Statement of Licensing Policy provides the basis for us all.

PRIVACY LAW0 Privacy in English law is a rapidly developing area of English law that considers in what situations

an individual has a legal right to informational privacy, that is to say the protection of personal (or private) information from misuse or unauthorized disclosure. Privacy law is distinct from those laws such as trespass or assault that are designed to protect physical privacy. Such laws are generally considered as part of criminal law or the law of tort. Historically, English common law has recognized no general right or tort of privacy, and was offered only limited protection through the doctrine of breach of confidence and a "piecemeal" collection of related legislation on topics like harassment and data protection. The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated into English law the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8.1 of the ECHR provided an explicit right to respect for a private life for the first time within English law. The Convention also requires the judiciary to "have regard" to the Convention in developing the common law.

0 The earliest definition of privacy in English law was given by Judge Cooley who defined privacy as "the right to be left alone". In 1972 the Younger Committee, an inquiry into privacy stated that the term could not be defined satisfactorily. Again in 1990 the Calcutt Committee concluded that: "nowhere have we found a wholly satisfactory statutory definition of privacy".

0 Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 was a House of Lords decision regarding human rights and privacy in English law.

0 Well-known model Naomi Campbell was photographed leaving a rehabilitation clinic, following public denials that she was a recovering drug addict. The photographs were published in a publication run by MGN.

0 Campbell sought damages under the English law through her lawyers Schillings who engaged Richard Spearman QC to bring a claim for breach of confidence engaging s. 8 of the Human Rights Act, which required the court to operate compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights. The desired result was a ruling that the English tort action for breach of confidence, subject to the ECHR provisions upholding the right to private and family life, would require the court to recognize the private nature of the information, and hold that there was a breach of her privacy.

0 Rather than challenge the disclosure of the fact she was a drug addict - which, given her previous denials, may be considered merely a rectification of a lie, she challenged the disclosure of information about the location of her Narcotics Meetings. The photographs, she argued, formed part of this information.

0 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/22.html0 http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_Mirror_Group_Newspapers_Ltd

The Obscene publications act 1959

0 The term ‘Pornography’ is not generally used in UK law. Therefore in the UK this is called ‘The Obscene Publications Act 1959’ This describes an obscene item as one ‘tending to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the material embodied in it’. This makes it an offence to publish obscene material or to have such material in your possession with the intention of publishing it. It is not an offence if it is for one’s pleasure.

0 The Obscene Publications Act has many similarities to the Protection of Children Act

The official secrets act 1989 

0 The Official Secrets Act is used in the United Kingdom, Ireland, India and Malaysia and formerly in New Zealand and Canada for legislation that provides for the protection of state secrets and official information, mainly related to national security. (In short) People that have worked for the government often need to sign this to insure that secrets relevant to national security of kept save.

0 People working with sensitive information are commonly required to sign a statement to the effect that they agree to abide by the restrictions of the Official Secrets Act. This is popularly referred to as "signing the Official Secrets Act". Signing this has no effect on which actions are legal, as the act is a law, not a contract, and individuals are bound by it whether or not they have signed it. Signing it is intended more as a reminder to the person that they are under such obligations. To this end, it is common to sign this statement both before and after a period of employment that involves access to secrets.

0 Secrets 1 – Security and Intelligence0 An offence of disclosing information, documents or other articles relating to security or intelligence.0 Secrets 2 – Defence0 An offence of disclosing information, documents or other articles relating to defence. This section

applies only to crown servants and government contractors.0 Secrets 3 – International relations

The Race Relations Act 1976

0 The Race Relations Act 1976 was established by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race.

0 Items that are covered include discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic and national origin in the fields of employment, the provision of goods and services, education and public functions.

0 The Act also established the Commission for Racial Equality with a view to review the legislation, which was put in place to make sure the Act rules were followed.

0 The Act incorporates the earlier Race Relations Act 1965 and Race Relations Act 1968 and was later amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, notably including a statutory duty on public bodies to promote race equality, and to demonstrate that procedures to prevent race discrimination are effective.

0 The Act was repealed by the Equality Act 2010, which supersedes and consolidates previous discrimination law in the UK.

0 In 1976, a far tougher Act was passed that made discrimination unlawful in employment, training, education, and the provision of goods and services. It extended discrimination to include victimisation, and replaced the R.R.B. and the C.R.E. with the Commission for Racial Equality, a stronger body with more powers to prosecute.

0 Since 1976, further amendments have been made the Act. The police were specifically excluded from the provisions of the 1968 Act, on the grounds that they had their own disciplinary codes. Racism within the police force was not fully recognised until the 1990s after Black teenager Stephen Lawrence was murdered. The subsequent enquiry into the police’s handling of the case found there was ‘institutional racism’ within the Metropolitan Police.

Video Recordings Act 1984

0 The Video Recordings Act 1984 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that was passed in 1984

0 It states that commercial video recordings offered for sale or for hire within the UK must carry a classification that has been agreed upon by an authority designated by the Home Office

0 The British Board of Film Classification, which had been instrumental in the certification of motion pictures since 1912, was designated as the classifying authority in 1985

0 The British Board of Film Classification was designated as the classifying authority in 1985

0 Works are classified by the BBFC under an age-rated system, it is an offence under the Act to supply video works to individuals who are (or appear to be) under the age of the classification designated.

0 Works that are refused classification cannot, under the Act, be legally sold or supplied to anyone of any age unless it is educational, or to do with a sport, religion or music and does not depict violence, sex or incite a criminal offence. The BBFC may also require cuts to be made, either to receive a certain age rating, or to be allowed a classification at all.

0 In August 2009 it was discovered that the Act was unenforceable as the European Commission was not notified about it. Until this situation was rectified, it was legal to sell and supply unclassified videos and computer games, although many retailers had agreed to observe the regulations voluntarily. Then pending prosecutions under the Act were abandoned, but the government has claimed that past convictions cannot be challenged. In December 2009 the government introduced new legislation, the Video Recordings Act 2010, which repealed and immediately revived the Video Recordings Act 1984, after the required notification was provided to the European Commission in October 2009. This made the legislation enforceable once again, as well as allowing it to be amended by the Digital Economy Act 2010.

End