Welcome To This Blog Please Enjoy And Have Fun!!! =^o^=

If you have any request or anything to say please speak your thoughts honestly! :)

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

Regulatory Issues-Taste and decency

Taste and decency is referring to the fact that TV should not broadcast anything that may cause an offence in anyway. Such as offending disable people, age, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation.
For example South Park, it makes fun of all kind of people in all possible way that is possible, yet they still get away with it. For example a while ago South Park was going to do about Tom Cruise being in the closet, but their lawyer told them that Tom Cruise can sue them for defamation. In order to get away with it, the creator of South Park did an animation of Tom Cruise in the closet, refusing to come out. Interpreting that Tom Cruise is gay.
Another situation that offended the public in general was the fact that South Park made fun of ginger people. This caused a large hate and bullying to ginger people. However a ginger kid made a YouTube video about him being ginger and how South Park hurts his feeling. Along people don’t know him therefore they should not judge him. It gained over 1000 views which made South Park reply to it, by making an animation version.   
The people who watch South Park will get still the reference. Even though this program is offensive people still enjoy it and have a large fan group, especially appealing to the younger generation such as around the age 18.  
But due to the fact that people have the freedom of speech, this made South Park gets away with it. Along with the fact that it has a large audience so it is making a lot of money. The good thing about South Park is that it makes people laugh and manages to make fun of people in a smart twisted way. In the style where the audience can easily figure out what they trying to say or where they got the reference from.
However the bad side about South Park is that it offends people and may encourage people to do bad things. As they see it on TV and see’s it that it’s fine and they can get away with it when they truly don’t in real life.
Overall within a program there is always something to offend someone, there is never a perfect program. Along nowadays, people sense of humor has changed.

-Made the kid famous
-Knows boundaries by not pushing it even more

-Emotionally hurt that kid
-Made the kid known world wide
-Made fun of him in public

In my opinion South Park should be not be allowed to be shown as it teaches kids to behave badly. For example if they copy a scene from a episode they will find it funny and so will their friends. Since they know where their friend got the reference from, but the victim will not find it funny and it may mentally scar them from life. Such as losing confidence or be scared for a period of time, which may prevent them from doing something. Such as this episode where it makes fun of gingers, gingers kids in school will get bullied for it. It can get out of hand, to the point where they may self harm or have depression and hate themselves for being born ginger.
From this action from Family guy, the consequences could be that child would have been emotionally hurt and may consider suicide. Or he could take action and sue Family guy. Which in my opinion, it is better than him trying to kill himself.


Regulatory Issues-Consumer Choice

Consumer choice is where the public gets to choose what they want from a company. The company allows the customer to choose in order to gain more business and to show that they care and listen to what their consumer wants.
For example ASDA, “chosen by you section”. Andy Clarke said “We’re empowering our customers in a  way that no UK retailer ever has. From today  ‘our’ own brand becomes ‘your’ own brand,”
 Referring to the fact that the public gets to vote for the products that they like and thinks it deserves to be on the list. For a product to be on the Chosen by you list, over 200,000 UK customers get to taste test the product and bench market it.  But this shows that ASDA cares and listen to their customers, to the point where their product became their customer’s product.
The good point about Chosen by you section is that other ASDA buyers/ consumers will appeal to it and it shows that they have a say in what they want and think. Along the price is reasonable, so they can easily afford it.
They will also trust other buyer’s decision and think the product is worth buying as it will be “good”. Along the product self advertise, as the Chosen by you section makes consumers believe that all the products on the Chosen by you section has nothing to do with the company, the public controls it. While the company simply listen to what the public has to say and put the product on the list.  But truly we all know deep down it does not work like that and there is a large profit being made out of it.
The downside of Chosen by you, people said that they replace old product and higher up the price on the new and old remaining products. Making people struggle to buy it when they are limited to how much they can spend on their food shopping.
Overall the public are given the right to speak up for what they want and think, while a variety of products are being erase and replaced with higher price products.

-Help people with little money
-Public get a say in what they want

-Other company may copy 
-Not all customers say get through
-Some products get replaced or stop producing without notice

In my opinion this brand Chosen by you is not very trustworthy, as each product it does not tell you how many people vote Yes for it. Along it does not tell you when the vote was done, so there are chances that the product vote is out of date. If it's out of date it will need renewing since people taste may change as the year goes on. Along what is the point in have Chosen by you section product if they plan on erasing products and replace them with new ones in a period of time. If a product is in the Chosen by you section, then surely they should keep the product instead of erasing it and replacing it with others. Since the public may dislike it and send in complaints, asking for the old product back or no longer buy as much product from ASDA any more. If ASDA ignore what their customer say even when they state that their customer opinion matter, the consequences will be that they would lose their customers to another shop. Such as to their worst enemy, Morrison.  

Regulatory Issues-Censorship and Ownership

Censorship is where the audience are limited to knowing how much about a certain topic. This is dictatorship, found within the 20th Century through examinations of books, play, TV, news and any other form of communication techniques. This is to control information to prevent certain information being offensive to others.
As for ownership, a person has the full rights to the possession of something, such as copyrights or items.

For example in the film The Hunger Games, where Rue skin colour is different. Several fans complained about the fact that she is black, saying how it does not match the book.
 Quoting from the book, “And most hauntingly, a twelve-year-old girl from District 11. She has dark brown skin and eyes, but other than that, she’s very like Prim in size and demeanor.“―Katniss Everdeen, while watching Rue’s reaping”, where it clearly state the fact that she has dark brown skin.  Also the director Gary Ross and author Suzanne Collins, both confirmed that the ethnicity of Rue is that she is African American. Therefore there should be no complaints as the film follows the book. Yet there are people out there who does not understand this simple fact, and even thought Rue would be blonde and white.
The author of the book has the right to choose how Rue would look like, as she created the character. Though if the director Gary Ross did not follow the book, there would be complaints on how the character does not follow the book. Also there would be more chaos as the public can turn the situation around, and say Gary Ross is being racist, such as if he is to turn Rue white with blonde hair.
 In my opinion it does not make sense as the audience are given a large variety of information about the character, through the books and the film. So why are they shocked about the fact that Rue is black and the fact that how she can possibly be white with blonde hair, when Suzanne Collin clearly stated that she has dark brown skin.
Though some audience are offended with the fact that Rue is black, yet in my opinion the ones who should be offended should be Suzanne Collins and Amandla Stenberg. As some audience did not read the book correctly and Amandla Stenberg is simply just an innocent child who playing the role, she does not deserve the abuse from the public. From this situation this may mentally scar her for life or kill her confidence in acting in the future.
Overall the situation that should prevent people from being offended somehow made it offensive.


-It made the film more well known


- Cause unneeded outbreak 
-Harm the actress emotionally
-Ignored the writer opinion and say
 In my opinion this is outrageous! Since I personally do not understand what there is to complain about and worth causing a fuss over. Since the director Gary Ross, followed the book and even the author personally confirmed the fact that Rue is African American. So those people who claim that they read the book and was shocked that Rue is Black, clearly have not read the book properly. More or less I personally believe that it does not matter what skin colour she has as long as she play her character well, which she did. When I was in the cinema watching this film, a woman next to me cried when she died. This proves that she played her role well!

However IF they portrayed Rue differently compare to the book then I would personally understand what all the fuss is about, as it would be the consequence. 
Though they portrayed her just like in the book, therefore at the end the girl who played Rue does not deserve the punishment she gain from the press.


Regulatory Issues-Freedom of Information

Freedom of information act is where a person is given the rights to ask people in public for information about a certain subject and gaining all the information they know about it. However after gaining the information, they must use the information within 20 working days. As the information should not be kept for longer than 20 working days, unless they have a good valid, reasonable reason for it.
For example a situation that happen on Facebook. Where an innocent woman was being targeted and abused. Nicola Brookes posted a supportive comment for Frank Cocozza, on his Facebook page. A normal harmless comment that everyone often see’s and do. However unexpectedly two days later she received abuse for it. Such as people created a Facebook page with her name but under as a Pedophile, with the comment “I am a paedophile and I like underage girls and me and Frankie f**k them together”.  She contacted Facebook and the police but they fail to do anything for her. As they did not do anything about it, Nicola took it further, to High Court on the 30th May. Where it became a success, as Nicola obtain a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO). The NPO made Facebook to hand over details about those who have abused Nicola online. So those people who thought they could get away with it, now should fear as their information has be given away and they will receive what they deserve.
Giving away the IP address of the ones who bullied her is extremely helpful to her and to other future people who gets bullied online. As cyber bullying should be put to an end. Giving away the IP address of others, it gives people the rights to actually do something about it instead of dwelling on it or keep on putting up with the bullying. Giving their IP Address away prevents the bullies from getting away with it and hopefully it prevents people from doing it in the future.
However the downside of this is that, the number of people who try to claim the IP address of others, may rise and some people may abuse it. Such as hacking into others account and taking their personal information. Along that person will lose their privacy and may be able to turn round and sue the person for having their IP address, for invasion of privacy. 
Overall it is not too bad as it give people the rights to take action/fight back from cyber bullies.

-She can fight for herself
-Took it further
-Bullies got caught
-Became world wide news

-News became too well known
-People can go straight to high court with issues
-Shows how powerless the police are 
-Facebook lack of care

Overall in my opinion this is a good idea, she deserves to be able to have the bullies IP address. It proves that bullying someone, there is a chance in catching them out. Along it should create fear for others, preventing them for even considering doing it. 
However what kind of punishment will the bullies receive is a different question, also if they can catch the person who did it. Since one computer can be used by more than one person, along you can also be able to hide your IP address.  
Therefore this story works as a consequences for people who plan on doing cyber bullying in the future. I believe this goes for people who plans to hack other people computers. As it is count as a invasion of privacy.