Media Regulation Discussion

 1. Should media companies be in charge of regulating their own content, or should the government have a bigger role in this, and why?

Is it more appropriate for media firms to independently to regulate their own content as they know in-depth on their target audience. This allows them to tailor contents suit to their own preferences and sensibilities. This familiarity increases the likelihood of producing content that resonates with audiences while adhering to ethical and cultural norms. Secondly, media companies are more flexible and literate to on going trends. This flexibility leads into timely response to emerging issues and allows content to remain relevant and engaging to audiences. Allowing media companies to self-regulate can be seen as safeguarding the principle of freedom of expression. By allowing diverse voices to express themselves, it prevents undue government censorship which could delay the open exchange of ideas. The show called Friends where issued because of the same sex relationship behaviour where Chinese government decided to delete the footage of Joey Kissing Chandler. The fans were angried and released the hastag #friendscensor

2. How does government regulation affect what we see and hear in the media? Can too much regulation stifle creativity and free speech or is it necessary for protecting the public

An excessive number of regulations may discourage smaller or unconventional media platforms from participating in the field because of the financial implications and administrative responsibilities involved. This situation could lead to a media environment controlled primarily by major corporations that possess the capability to maneuver through intricate regulatory systems with greater ease. As a consequence, this could restrict the variety of viewpoints and opinions accessible to the general audience.