MissRepresentation was an excellent documentary. Before watching it, I was already aware of many of the problems with the representation of women in media which it illuminates, but I was still impressed at how comprehensive and powerful its argument was. However, I disagree with the film on one major point: I do not think that media content should be further regulated by the government or any other organization, even with the purpose of reducing the objectification of women. To see why this kind of regulation could be so problematic, it is helpful to look at the history of media censorship in the United States.
From 1930 to 1968, almost all American movies were produced under the Motion Picture Production Code, a set of rules governing what could be shown onscreen. The rules were intended to safeguard public virtue by eliminating immoral content from the media and were created by the film industry itself to preempt government regulation. While the idea of such a code may seem like a good one at first, a closer look at the rules reveals how it was misused. Notably, it prohibited the depiction of sexual relationships between blacks and whites, along with stipulating that sex hygiene and STDs could not be mentioned in a movie. Later, the Comics Code of 1954 imposed even more strict rules on what could be depicted in comic books. These included stipulations that "Government officials and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority," "Special precautions to avoid references to physical afflictions or deformities shall be taken," and "Divorce shall not be treated humorously nor represented as desirable."
These examples demonstrate that rules designed to eliminate negative media messages can easily be used to restrict criticism of authority and promote intolerant political agendas. I have no trust in the media industry to regulate itself, but having an outside entity do so would be even worse. Somehow I don't think our current government would make the best decisions if given the ability to censor media. For example, imagine that a law was enacting restricting sexual content on television. The Trump administration could then use such a rule to prevent the broadcast of a documentary about the prevalence of sexual assault and how it can be addressed. In short, the potential dangers of giving anyone the ability to restrict the media's content greatly outweigh the risks.
From 1930 to 1968, almost all American movies were produced under the Motion Picture Production Code, a set of rules governing what could be shown onscreen. The rules were intended to safeguard public virtue by eliminating immoral content from the media and were created by the film industry itself to preempt government regulation. While the idea of such a code may seem like a good one at first, a closer look at the rules reveals how it was misused. Notably, it prohibited the depiction of sexual relationships between blacks and whites, along with stipulating that sex hygiene and STDs could not be mentioned in a movie. Later, the Comics Code of 1954 imposed even more strict rules on what could be depicted in comic books. These included stipulations that "Government officials and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority," "Special precautions to avoid references to physical afflictions or deformities shall be taken," and "Divorce shall not be treated humorously nor represented as desirable."
These examples demonstrate that rules designed to eliminate negative media messages can easily be used to restrict criticism of authority and promote intolerant political agendas. I have no trust in the media industry to regulate itself, but having an outside entity do so would be even worse. Somehow I don't think our current government would make the best decisions if given the ability to censor media. For example, imagine that a law was enacting restricting sexual content on television. The Trump administration could then use such a rule to prevent the broadcast of a documentary about the prevalence of sexual assault and how it can be addressed. In short, the potential dangers of giving anyone the ability to restrict the media's content greatly outweigh the risks.
I think you make a valid and important point about Miss Representation, but I have a few questions.
ReplyDelete1. Is their any empirical evidence of a single reform creating the sort of slippery slope you seem to be discussing in terms of the Trump administration?
2. If not through institutional change, and if we do not trust the media to regulate itself, what alterations should be made to patriarchal media structures in order to make them less violent?
1. I'm not sure what you mean by "empirical evidence." I've given examples of how attempts to restrict media have gone awry in the past, and I doubt you disagree that Donald Trump's administration wouldn't exercise good judgement in this matter. My fear is that any regulation designed to address the patriarchal media structure sets precedent for future restrictions and could be interpreted by the current administration to serve its own goals.
Delete2. We, the consumers, have significant power to change the status quo. If we choose not to consume media which reinforces sexism, the industry will have no choice but to change. In fact, I would argue that to some degree this is already happening.
DeleteI personally do not believe the media should be regulated because that would be sort of a dictatorship and people would have very little say. So I think the current form of media is more democratic because instead of a single power deciding what is good and bad the general online public get to determine that. While many people argue that the internet community is a very harsh environment, I believe it is good because people do not actually have the power to get rid of content but they can create backlash which will hopefully make people learn from it.
ReplyDeleteI did not get the same message that media should be regulated, but currently isn't it regulated directly by social norms? Yes, there isn't a criminal punishment for those who break societal norms, but at the same time stereotypes that are perpetuated by the media are what seem to dictate our content. Unlike a concrete law this regulation is constantly evolving, to include more, and even exclude. I agree that the media shouldn't be regulated by anyone, but right now it is. It's dictated by tradition, and those who influence the societal norms are the mega corporations. These evils already have limitless power, so the solution is to somehow salvage our media freedom from their controlling grip.
ReplyDelete