Regulation of Pop Culture

Melanie Atkins—2/12/03

Regulators of media have the ability to censor and outlaw violence and harmful content in the media. Gillespie basically says that politicians regulate what we should or shouldn’t watch. Some go as far as to say that media should present material that is the equivalent of a Sunday school lesson (Gillespie 2). We all know that regulating religion is just as controversial as flashing violent scenes on television.
Actors and producers in the industry twist the argument around, viewing the government (broadcasters and bureaucrats) as the regulator in deciding what gets media attention or not. Not to stereotype, but most actors and producers just want to create art and make a living in the process. Their main focus is not the morality or ethics revealed by their work, although, they would like us to interpret it a certain way. Actors have a choice as to what kind of storyline they act, just as writers have a choice as to what genre of story they write. Neither is forced to act out the part of a mass-murderer or write a steamy sex scene.
Viewers of media are assumed to be passive when receiving messages. But, if these messages become part of our popular culture, then would it not be the viewers that made that possible? Programs stay on the air because consumers watch them. If consumers did not like them they would be taken off the air. The Nielsen rating system was created to serve this purpose.
But, let’s assume consumers are passive. If the government were to get involved with regulation of media, it would probably work something like this. The government would set the standards for moral and ethical plots for media. A framework would be created for producers, writers, and directors. The resulting creations would lack a lot of creativity and uniqueness, thus destroying the purpose of art.
One might also argue for the sake of the economy to gain support from the government. Media is the largest money-maker in our country. Being our biggest export, media adds to a thriving economy (or not so thriving currently). Putting great restrictions on media might hurt the economy more than anything else.
Pop culture regulators assume that if immoral concepts are presented within a “moral” framework, viewers will absorb that and act accordingly (2). This is unrealistic. No two people will have the same interpretation of a program. Gillespie admits that “the most relevant interpretive context is not the producer’s but the consumer’s” (3).
Frustration might originate from regulators trying to entertain a never satisfied audience. While the audience continually argues for stronger morals, they contradict themselves by watching the current programming. The biggest problem is the stereotypes that are presented. They promote untruthful ideas that people easily accept. Violence and sex can be more easily regulated by using the rating system, blocking programs from your television, or by simply not watching. Many would probably say that the same could be done to avoid watching stereotypes, but it really isn’t that easy. Take the Disney classic Pochohantas. It is doubtful that any parent would consider this a program necessary to steer their children away from. But in reality, it presents a misleading tale of how Native Americans felt about white America. It is an easily believed storyline.
Another argument might lay in the fact that almost all media is labeled as fiction, which people are not asked to believe. The only requirement is that they be captivated for the 30 seconds, 30 minutes, or two hours that the program lasts. The problem occurs when a story evolves into a template, told over and over, differing little each time. The story begins to stick in peoples’ minds and translate to truth—the equivalent of a bad rumor.
Jewell might say that those in charge create current images of pop culture and society. If we were to put politicians or directors in charge of what was delivered to society by way of media, society would only see the dominant group’s interpretation of morals and relevant beliefs. Usually white, educated, upper-class males form the upper, more superior crust, while minorities, including women, are silently disqualified. Jewell says that “the ability of those in power to maintain their power advantage by gaining the masses acceptance of why society is stratified” only further contributes to the problem (Jewell 25). If the majority dominated and chose what we watched, then our perceptions of the nation would be even more false and less diversified.