Media Regulation
What is new media?
To comprehend media regulation, we must first comprehend new media. New media refers to communication technologies that enable or enhance user interaction as well as user interaction with content. Online video or music streaming services, email, blogs, social media sites, and podcasts are all examples of new media. New media is widely available on the internet and has grown in popularity since its inception. People's behavior is changing as a result of these new media technologies, which allow them to interact online, form online communities, and become socially engaged. Thus, it can be argued that audience/user/individual engagement is critical in new media technology communication.
What is mass media regulation?
Importance of media regulator
A regulatory authority is an important component of broadcasting and plays an important role in ensuring media freedom. However, that safeguard necessitates a commitment to impartiality, independence, and transparency.
For instance, Ofcom is very clear as to its complaint and inquiry processes. It's own Broadcasting Code specifies requirements for tv and radio, and complaints are cross-referenced with the Order to guarantee their validity. In addition, the regulator follows clear statutory rules, allowing for a transparent decision-making process. For example, Ofcom maintains that political bodies cannot control license holders.
Media regulators in the UK
In the United Kingdom, there are several organizations that regulate the media, including IPSO for audio, OFCOM for television, and the ASA for advertising.
Another way the media is regulated is through watershed. One of Ofcom's most important responsibilities is to protect children from harmful content on television and radio. They're Broadcasting Code establishes standards for television and radio shows, and broadcasters must abide by its provisions. There are strict guidelines for what can and cannot be shown on television before the 9 p.m. watershed. But what exactly is a watershed, and how does it function? The watershed refers to the point at which television programs that may be inappropriate for children can be broadcast. These media regulators believe that, on average, children would've been asleep by 9 p.m., and that if children view any material then after, it is not the fault of the content being distributed by the tv, but rather the parent's negligence for not abiding by the watershed schedule.
ASA in particular + case studies
A video by ASA on how the ASA works and how they educate consumers on their practices
Case Study 1 : Wild Cosmetics LTD
The above advertisement is for a deodorant commercial that will be released on September 5th, 2022, and features a woman who has fallen asleep. Underneath the bedsheets, the woman appeared to be masturbating while trying to watch the screen. She was disrupted by a polar bear, who then joined her in bed and began a conversation on "dirty talk."
The issue here was that there was a parent who filed a complaint with the asa, whose ten-year-old son saw the ad and questioned how it could be imprudently targeted since it appeared prior to actually Minecraft videos that have been likely to appeal to children. On January 11, 2023, the ASA issued an upheld response in response to the complaint. Wild Cosmetics Ltd stated that they took precautions to avoid showing the advertisement to a younger audience. They claimed that they intended to target their Ads on youtube according to user best interest, such as health and beauty, and that an individual regarded a potential customer was most likely logged into the YouTube account at the time the ad was shown. They claimed that they had no control over which videos their ads were shown in; this was determined by an algorithm.
In their assessment, the ASA concluded that the advertiser had targeted the ads based on the interests of potential customers and had excluded some channels. However, those exclusions were inadequate to keep the ad from appearing in videos from Minecraft channels and channels that appeals to kids alike. It confirmed in its ruling that the ad was irresponsibly targeted and violated CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3. (Responsible advertising). The ASA took action by notifying Wild Cosmetics Ltd of the need to ensure that their advertisements were appropriately targeted and that ads that were inappropriate for children to view did not appear in media that was likely to appeal to children.
Case Study 2 : Kick Ash Vapes LTD
There were two specific issues with the company kick ash vapes that involved asa rulings. First, a product listing for "Guava Rubicana by Frooti Tooti 120ML" was seen on the website www.kickashvapes.co.uk in March 2022. The description stated, "It features a sweet and sharp taste of energizing guava that fills your mouth with fruity juice in combination with fizzy sparks you must try a truly tropical vape juice!" and "2x Nicotine Shots Included. Second, in February 2022, a post on the Kick Ash Cleethorpes Facebook page was seen.
The first ad violated the Code by promoting unlicensed nicotine-containing e-liquids and their components in online media; and the second ad violated the Code by promoting unlicensed nicotine-containing e-liquids and their components in online media.According to Kick Ash Vapes Ltd, the majority of their product descriptions came directly from the manufacturers or distributors. They stated that the Frooti Tooti shortfill products in ad (2) did not contain nicotine, and that none of the flavors shown had a nicotine-containing variant. Kick Ash Vapes Ltd stated that the brand Frooti Tooti did produce a nicotine salt 10ML E-liquid in a variety of flavors, but they really do not supply it in their store. They also stated that they had removed ad (1) from their website and ad (2)) from their social media platform since being notified of both the complaint, and that they'd completely stopped to stock some of these particular products.
However, the ASA upheld both rulings in its assessment. The ASA noted that the ad stated "2x Nicotine Shots Included" in the product listings for both the guava and lychee flavors, and that there did not appear to be an option to purchase those listed products without the nicotine shots. "a sweet and sharp taste of lychee juice that tingles on your taste buds with each puff" went beyond simple factual claims and constituted descriptive, promotional language prohibited by the Code. We concluded that ad (1), which contained promotional claims and directly promoted unlicensed nicotine-containing e-liquids in unpermitted online media, violated the CAP Code. On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 22. 12 (Electronic cigarettes). The second ad appeared in the newsfeeds of Facebook users who had 'followed' the Kick Ash Cleethorpes public Facebook page and was distributed by appearing in the newsfeeds of Facebook users who had 'followed' that account. The basis of the exception to the rule was because consumers had to specifically seek out that factual information by visiting the website, as set out in CAP guidance on "Electronic cigarette advertising prohibitions". It also stated that in theory, the position relating to factual claims being acceptable on marketers' websites could apply to some social media activity. A social media page or account could be analogous to a website and capable of making factual claims if only those actively seeking it could find it. As they also featured e-liquids sold with nicotine-containing components, the ASA considered that the ad indirectly promoted nicotine-containing products.
The ASA responded by stating that the ads in the form complained about would not appear again. We advised Kick Ash Vapes Ltd that in the future, marketing communications with the either direct or indirect effect of promoting nicotine-containing e-cigarettes and their components that have not been licensed as medicines should not be made on their website or from a public Facebook account, unless they had taken steps to ensure they would only be distributed to those who followed their account and would not be seen by other users.
Media regulators in the USA
The government is prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution from restricting free speech or the press. However, there are some exceptional cases to free speech. There are rules that govern public broadcasters, such as the Federal Communications Commission's prohibition on broadcasting "indecent" material over public airwaves. In the United States, the FCC and the FTC are the primary media regulators. While the FCC has traditionally regulated the telecom industry, the FTC is responsible for consumer protection in all industries.
FTC in particular + case study
The FTC is responsible for enforcing federal consumer protection laws that prohibit fraud, deception, and unfair business practices. In addition, the Commission enforces federal antitrust laws that prohibit anticompetitive mergers and other business practices that may result in higher prices, fewer choices, or less innovation. FTC activities involve fraud and false advertising investigations, congressional inquiries, and pre-merger notification. The FTC also investigates scams and unfair or deceptive business practices.
Case Study : L'oreal
Everything posted here is as stated by the post uploaded by the FTC website. L'Oréal USA, Inc. agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges of deceptive advertising about its Lancôme Génifique and L'Oréal Paris Youth Code skincare products in 2014. The FTC complaint alleges that L'Oréal made false and unsubstantiated claims about its Génifique and Youth Code products providing anti-aging benefits by targeting users' genes.
According to the suggested administrative settlement, L'Oréal is forbidden from implying that just about any Lancôme or L'Oréal Paris brand facial skincare product primary target or enhances gene activity to cause skin appear or behave younger, or responds five times more quickly to attackers such as stress, fatigue, and aging, unless the company has competent and reliable scientific evidence substantiating such claims. The settlement also precludes claims that only certain Lancôme and L'Oréal Paris products impact genes unless supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. Finally, L'Oréal is not allowed to make claims about these products that misinterpret the outcomes of any test or study.
The Commission voted 4-0-1 to accept the consent agreement package, which included the proposed consent order for public comment. The agreement will be open for public comment for 30 days, until July 30, 2014, at which point the Commission will decide whether or not to make the proposed consent order final.
Comments
Post a Comment