The Relationship between Broadcasters in the UK and Turkey - Coursework Example

Compare the Relationship between Broadcasters in the UK and Turkey Student Name: Student Number: Course Code: Instructor: 20th April, 2013 Introduction Broadcasting is the transmission of content rich in information to a specified audience. The material that is broadcasted ranges from audio content on radio to audio-visual content also referred to as video on television. Currently, the internet also hosts a number of media content which may be broadcast via online radio or television. The digital or online version of broadcast can be done in podcasts, which, simply put, are online content downloaded via websites. The purposes of broadcasting vary: it may be used to pass important information like news and to educate the masses on various aspects of life. On the other hand, it comes in handy as a form of entertaining audiences across several cultural, age and gender divides. The content intended for audiences is more often than not regulated to fit a certain aspect. For instance, while broadcasting content, it is prudent to watch out for the kind of audience for whom specific material is meant for. It is good to control content so that any offending material does not air when a sensitive audience is watching. In doing so, every audience gets to enjoy the nature of material being passed on. In this regard, it is standard practise for most countries to regulate the kind of content allowed in their broadcasting stations. Broadcasting stations equally take it upon themselves to regulate the time when specified content is aired. For instance, material with adult content may be aired when children are not likely to be watching or listening, especially at night. There are channels, specifically in the cable networks, that regulate their content through use of passwords and so on so that specific channels that air adult content can be locked to those considered as under age. Websites may regulate content through use of age restrictions. Whether or not these methods of regulating viewership work, it should be noted that an attempt at regulating viewership is done. Radio shows, on the other hand, structure their shows so that a period when adult content is aired coincides with time when underage listeners have their attention elsewhere. Most countries are wont to follow the internationally accepted freedoms granted to organizations that are responsible for the broadcasting of information. Among them are the rules that govern the extent to which journalists are allowed to go in fetching news. A few other countries are not exactly keen on following these rules and do not generally allow journalists to cover certain aspects of news in their countries of location. For instance, Brooten (2013) states that Burma does not allow most of its broadcasting stations to air political news that may seem to paint the “democracy” offered by its ruling class in bad light. In short, the media in Burma is gagged. Other countries whose political class have kept the media from broadcasting information that is important to the masses include Somali, Iran, Iraq and so on. In many other countries, the degree of freedom among media stations that seem to go against the grain is regulated. In essence, they do not allow the media to broadcast certain material. Unlike the aforementioned countries, however, their leadership does not execute journalists and other stakeholders involved in dissemination of information. Broadcast of information relies heavily on technology. Before the current age of globalization, broadcasters used to pass information to a restricted audience due to boundaries that were created by limitations in technological advancements. However, with time, the discovery of equipment to cover wider areas has enabled broadcasts to be made live and beamed across continents at the same time. Satellites have greatly enhanced digital interaction to an extent that we can now safely call the world a digital village as we can broadcast information to the remotest of parts of any continent. Professor Obaidat (2013) recognises the place of the internet as important tools for broadcast as primary in the battle to further make broadcasting as simple and faster as can be. Broadcasting in the UK The United Kingdom ranks among countries with the most free of media stations. This is itself is a great thing as more people are able to access information that is important to them without much restriction. This does not imply that the media is totally free to behave in a manner to suggest that critical information may be handled in a careless way or generally a manner that may cause a breach of peace. For instance, during elections, Principle 29 of the Article 19 allows broadcasters to keep voters and the country at large informed on the progress in election periodically. It clearly states in item II that profound care should be taken so that any broadcast does not end up creating impressions that may cause the disturbance of peace. With several local and international channels, the UK broadcasting industry is seen as among the most liberal in the world. In the battle to have an industry that is as diverse as can be and caters for all of the available market segments, international channels from nearly all continents ranging from Europe to Asia and Africa have been allowed to venture into the UK market. This is due to the existence of people from diverse cultures right within, who would like to keep up with information from their respective continents of origin. Hitchens (2006) clearly states that the state law that allows for foreign stations to set business in the UK have to not only follow international media law set by universally accepted mechanisms, but also UK media laws as stated in policy regulations provided in UK. The UK is considered as a Western European country: in the strict sense, it is considered the mother of western cultures. Western cultures are observed to be more liberal in granting the masses more rights to information, and to a large extent, the right to expression. It is in this that we find a more liberal broadcasting industry that may be free to air more than what an average conservative society would agree to. Foreign radio stations in the UK also get to gain lots of revenue as a result of being allowed to broadcast in UK. For instance, Radio-Canada gains up to 32% of public broadcasting revenue in the UK according to Nordic (2011). Broadcasting in Turkey Turkey is a country with many achievements as concerns broadcasting. The first broadcast signal in radio was done in 1927. It is great to note that during that time; very few countries had such technological advancements. Broadcast was majorly done among countries considered as front-runners in championing for media freedom. Then, more countries considered broadcast of political news as a tool mainly left for propaganda. As a conservative Arabian and largely Islamic nation, Turkish authorities did not deem it fit to use broadcast for anything other than as a tool for governance. With time, this has improved to include most of what is offered in any liberal country with freedoms in media broadcasting. The year 1968 saw the introduction of a television channel by the government-owned TRT. These advancements are milestones when Turkey is pitted against its contemporaries in matters development. What may not resonate well with the universally accepted media laws are the freedoms accorded to broadcasters. For a start, Kurban and Sozeri (2011) describe government regulation of policies to support media freedoms as mere paperwork that may not be implemented or followed to the letter and spirit of the Turkish constitution. In short, whatever legislation that is passed by relevant authorities may not exactly be used as a means to grant journalists and other responsible parties that are tasked with the duty to broadcast news. In addition to the mentioned bottlenecks that restrict media freedoms, the society in Turkey is a widely conservative one. It may not be very conservative currently, but history has shown a culture of its people shunning what is considered as western. To this end, Turkish authorities would frequently restrict broadcast of content perceived to be western in nature. As a largely Islamic nation, Turkey should be credited with not largely adopting what is perceived as to be Islamist laws that would otherwise persecute those deemed not to toe what is considered as law. It is in effect a country that has managed to avoid a trend that is seen as universal in Islamic states. Comparisons between Turkish and UK Broadcasters Freedoms The freedom to broadcast news and entertainment is the single most important aspect of broadcasting which most broadcasting stations strive to achieve. It goes without saying that when a station is associated with openness and a forthright way of tackling the issues that afflict a society through dissemination of news on the ills within, more of the populace associate and identify with it. It is in this light that broadcasters assign more resources in covering developing stories and breaking news that occur at any one moment. Broadcasters in the UK enjoy a relatively free press as compared to their Turkish counterparts. This is evident in the availability of sections of media that are dedicated in gaining access to the personal lives of the VIP in UK at whatever costs. This is not an indication that Turkish tabloids do not attack the privacy of VIP. The death of Princess Diana, which happened in Paris, France, exposed a side of the UK media that was hitherto unheard of. Broadcasters stand accused, to date, of attacking the personal lives of relatives of those who were directly affected. Not only were very personal details of the lives of various members of the Royal Family revealed, but they were also put through unprecedented pain in the process of trying to create news out of the incident. Such incidences are wont to negate the freedoms accorded to media. A further incident may not stem from freedoms accorded to media, but it does in a way relate to a media that has become arrogant as a result of having been accorded too much freedom. The recent spate of phone hacking scandals associated with top media houses and newspapers in the UK has shaken the world to the core. Turvill (2013) allocates the number of journalists brought to book over such incidences to 59 as at the 20th March, 2013. The matter at hand reports of journalists hacking into the phones of unsuspecting famous personalities and later on using them for own gain in generating news items about their private lives. Incidences trailing back to the 1990s show irresponsible media houses like News Corp. and Mirror having journalists who source for news in unorthodox ways. The above-mentioned case may not directly involve the broadcast media, but with time, it does influence what is finally aired on television and radio. As seen later, the cases generated much heat that led to a heavy broadcasting of related incidences. It was found that broadcasters may have also been a little too enthusiastic in applying overhand tactics to gain information for news items. As such, a new Royal Charter was likely to curtail further freedoms enjoyed by media. To a large extent, David Cameron, UK Prime Minister, sought help from a wide range of stakeholders involved, opposition politicians included, in trying to hammer out a deal that would see gains in free speech curtailed. Hope and Mason (2013) state that The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has been instrumental in trying to urge the government not to use the scandal as an excuse to curtail already-gained freedoms. The phone hacking scandal is a sure way of showing the wrongs that may result when media freedoms are not taken with the right responsibilities. It is not a contention that this goes a long way in showing how irresponsible the broadcast media in UK may be. Further, cases such as these should be punishable by law and the personalities whose reputations are damaged paid in order to pass a message of commitment to abide by the legislated laws. The media in Turkey is a different set-up altogether. The main reason this is so emanates from the fact that originally, the government used broadcast as a tool for dissemination of policy and propaganda rather than as a tool for diverse news and entertainment to the masses. Since time immemorial, this has not shifted much as the focus is majorly placed in trying to have a mainstream media that is basically controlled by the government. Therefore, the ownership of major media houses lies with the government. In such a situation, any privately-owned organization that would like to establish a broadcasting station may have less control over what it broadcasts as the government is wont to limit the engagement of the other stakeholders, seeing as it is the biggest player. Secondly, Turkish media houses that attempt to gain a good hold on current affairs by going out to cover most issues afflicting the Turkish society encounter different levels of difficulties. For a start, there are fronts upon which difficulties may be encountered: conservative cultures may restrict media from broadcasting what is considered offensive, read foreign to Turkish culture. Another front which seems to be the biggest stumbling block is the freedom to air what is considered to speak against whichever regime is in power at the stated time. To this end, the Turkish government has legislated anti-terror laws, which have become instrumental in hounding journalists and their journalists responsible for collecting information that is important. SEEMO (2013) notes that nearly 70 journalist are currently under arrest for what is deemed as helping terrorist organization in passing information that the government considers as propaganda. Whether important or not, these messages are passed so that perceived terrorists could make the masses aware of what they feel is right or wrong in the Turkish society. As to whether this is moral remains to be judged by the people of Turkey. This is so as Turkey is inhabited by Kurdish people, who are largely considered as dissidents and sponsors of terrorist organizations. In addition to the restrictions placed on Turkish media, online content regulation is regulated. This may result in most broadcasting stations not developing websites where podcasts or content that was aired before on TV and radio is uploaded for a wider reach by a larger audience. Aksoy and Cami (2008) are keen to alert foreigners who would like to invest in Turkish media stations of all regulations as stipulated by the relevant authorities. It is stipulated that any foreigner who would like to own a stake in any media station should only invest up to 25% of shares in a single entity. In effect, foreigners are not allowed to have shares in more than one broadcasting organization. This is not the case in UK, where ownership of broadcasting organizations by foreigners may seem a little relaxed in comparison, but allows for better terms in ownership. The entrance of Turkey into the European Union, coupled with several political factors may have led to a more relaxed environment for broadcasting stations. Frequent disagreements between the political and the military wing of the government could not be allowed to spill over and portray an image that could not auger will with the European Union rules that concern democracy and liberalization of the media. The government has had to ratify its laws on definition of terrorist activities so that broadcasters are not interfered with when their activities are mainly done to inform than incite. This has gone a long way, despite several hiccups, in ensuring that the media gains a stronger foothold in activities deemed as important in trying to pass important information. The final clash between perceived Islamic values and laid-down laws has been anything but liberal. While laws are passed to enable broadcasters to have more freedoms, national values pegged on traditional Islamic cultures, heavily backed by a government eager to suppress passing of important information have been responsible for a slow move towards a truly liberated media. In this respect, abuse of human rights is still rampant through government agencies developed to look into preserving regime interests. Influence of Culture on Media Granted, the UK is a more liberal society. This is not to imply that Turkey is not, but just goes to show that the UK has a more independent media as compared to Turkey. As a country with a more metropolitan outlook than Turkey, it is bound to have a more diverse population laden with people from various backgrounds. In essence, the media in UK is advanced and “Westernised”, so to speak, to an extent prohibited adult content has found its way into the living rooms of citizens. However, as a measure, it is restricted to cable TV, which targeted market can only access through subscription. Mittell (2010) likens the restriction of content to a ready audience as a fact that will die down with time as for every product that is in the market, a ready market always waits. He further contends that as a result, more people find themselves influenced by what they see. Broadcasters in the UK are now providing what the masses need, how they need it. Broadcasting stations struggle to curve a niche in provision of certain products as brands. For instance, MTV is a great example of how market segmentation has been realized in the UK. In as much as the product design is influenced by its market, the product too inculcates a cult-like following that goes a long way in shaping trends in those that influence it – the masses. Finally, the culture of serializing and chronologically creating a tell-all kind of series about particular personalities in the name of reality TV has taken root in many a broadcasting station. This is famous with cable TV and satellite television through channels like MTV. Most of what is shown here consists of material that is widely viewed as the lifestyles lived in the Western Europe and parts of Northern America by the affluent people. To a large extent, this is touted as responsible for the changes in culture among various audiences associated with particular age-sets. The most affected age bracket is the teens. While this is so, the reality TV in Turkey may focus on particular points in the lives of participants. Anything that goes beyond what is accepted as normal culture may receive rebuke from the responsible authorities. Turkey has a relatively liberal media when compared to its counterparts in the Arabia. As a result, it produces programs that may appeal as soap opera to fans who like them. Consequently, a recent airing of several episodes of a local drama and soap opera-like series led to a rise in questions among Arab nations that embrace the Islamist culture. Saudi Arabia is among the nations that were first to raise objections to the cultural quality of the material aired. Gumus, the respective series, is said to have gone beyond what was considered fair in values. The political class took this matter seriously and decided to make a turnaround on what had earlier seemed as a stride towards embracing widely circulated regulations in the EU region. The ruling class has further abolished the gains made in the media industry. For instance, before the uprisings in the Islamic nations, the Turkish political class had embraced more diverse media rules and allowed broadcasters to have stations run in Kurdish languages. Christian and secular material would also receive a fair airing as long as it did not offend the larger population. However, after the uprisings, the ruling party decided to implement what it considered legitimate among its counterparts. This included allowing back what the larger Arabia considered as culturally accepted. In doing so, a more Islamic outlook took root, hence ignoring what the other audiences may have found okay. The EU may not be comfortable with any of its members trying to go against its value, and in effect, regulations put across as standard for every member. In this respect, their envoys have had to issue several instructions on what it thought were generally a back-track to agreements signed by the Turkish government when it signed its membership in EU. EU insists on its members states that a free media is critical as told by Idiz (2012). Regulation of Media Curran & Seaton (2009) declare that the place of the internet in the society continues to evolve with every waking day. They claim that the internet, like all other means of broadcast, is now very influential in shaping the thoughts and trends in the media industry. This is rightfully so, but a closer examination of the effects of a powerful medium like the internet reveals the rise of narcissistic broadcast stations. The UK can be confidently singled out as a serious case of a very powerful media that can be quite overbearing when not checked. In this respect, we find that the government may be a little helpless when it comes to regulating the media in the UK. The cases of how Princess Diana’s death and the hacking scandals as told before further puts a dent in the regulatory laws legislated to control media. While it is good to note that the internet is a great place to broadcast content, it might be more important to find a better way of limiting content. Cases of child pornography being circulated on British web-space put to question the extent to which regulations are effective. It goes without saying that other unreported cases like human trafficking may be finding markets in the internet. Authorities responsible for regulating this kind of material may be at crossroads due to limited legislation on how to go about infringing the rights of people to information, but serious cases like child pornography should not go undetected and unpunished. The final input in regulation of content concerns copyrighted material. Several websites in the UK are directly involved in the peddling of material that is guarded under the copyright act. Be as it may, the broadcast of material that is copyrighted needs to be put under serious watch so that the generators of content do not run into losses due to laxity on the part of the UK government. More often than not, when content is copyrighted, only sections of it should be passed specifically for purposes of protecting the livelihood of its owners. The Turkish government ranks high among countries that censor internet content. It is considered ignoble to post content that goes against some specified regulations - Such content as pornography is most noted here. Of note here, the most insisted on is content that seems to “malign” those in power. Of more concern however, is the censorship of sites that pass educational information. For instance, those that educates prospective audiences on matters to do with evolution face censorship. Deibert (2010) puts the blame squarely on religious beliefs. All the same, it would be prudent to also look at other diverse reasons that may be responsible for such cases. For instance, assessing the effectiveness of broadcast as a means to teaching the population about other cultures may come in handy in making them understand the power of ideas and diverse cultures. A great number of Turkish citizens have come to believe in what they see in the media. At times, the media is responsible for broadcasting of inflammatory news, while sometimes, the same media is used to pacify the population. The regulations as stipulated in the Turkish situation have ever been evolving, depending on which regime is in power. Every regime finds a suitable way they can regulate the media, thus keep changing the rules to fit the situation. For instance, the current regime only liberalized the media industry when it needed Turkey to be incorporated as a member of the EU. Later, when situations changed during the uprisings in the Arab nations, the regime changed its regulations and tightened them to suit what had hitherto been taken as a conventional modus operandi among the Islamic states. This state, coupled with a media that is largely owned by the government, gives broadcasters in turkey an outlook that can only be termed as submissive. Albarran et al (2006) posit that such an environment cannot be used as a secure one for business. Conclusion Broadcasting is the dissemination of content in audio and video format through several means such as through the radio, on television and lately, the internet. Print media is also a means through which broadcasts can be made, though it has not been accepted as a conventional way of broadcasting content. Organizations that major in print media have incorporated the internet in trying to broaden their reach of prospective market segments. We now find newspapers that are distributed in media portals owned by their respective organizations. All this is done so that more content-rich material can be passed to audiences that are located far away The broadcast and in essence media industry in the UK is more liberal as compared to their counterparts in Turkey. Both the countries seem to have legitimate reasons as to why their broadcasters have adopted to their situations. British broadcasters are seen to be free to engage a wider audience with even a wide array of content to choose from. As a result of this, the regulation of media is becoming too difficult. The phone-hacking scandals that were revealed in the recent past resulted in a situation which painted the British media as too powerful as to engage in unlawful practices. The handling of the drama that surrounded Princess Diana’s death had earlier on proved to be a turning point as several personalities had their private lives attacked. The media in Turkey is afflicted by several factors, strongest among them being the government involvement in trying to shape the people’s thoughts through regulation of content. The government, which has been caught in a web of conflicts with the country’s military since the military rule, seems to be keen on using the media to propagate a certain line of thought. Be as it may, the cultural practises among those in authority seem to equally result in a conservative media. A culture of impunity in prosecuting media houses and journalists only negates the achievements that were made before. The UK media industry is littered with reality television series that basically echo a lifestyle that is common among the affluent in the Western part of Europe and North America. This has become an impediment among the youth as it shifts focus from the native cultures to those that may be foreign and of more concern, harmful. It is not alien to notice that every other teenager would like to ape what they see on MTV. A country with diverse cultures such as the UK should not allow its native cultures to go to waste. Worse still, disappear due to the fusion of so many cultures so that the original ones vanish. On the other reality TV in Turkey is restricted to aspects of life that may be useful to the society. This may be the only way through which the people of turkey may hold onto their culture as content that is deemed as retrogressive may not erode the good culture that was used to set the foundation of Turkey as a country. As concerns the preservation of culture, the Turkish media seems to broadcast content that may be better at trying to continue cultures that are important to the people. However, this does not seem to help in the gaining of freedoms to air what may be considered as more knowledge-enhancing. Websites that contain content considered as not in line with culture are censored. As stated before, content that educates learners on matters evolution have been censored in Turkey. Finally, internet censorship may not be the answer to the problems as experienced in both UK and turkey. While the UK can curb child pornography and human traffic through other means so that the practise stops, Turkey, on the other hand, should encourage the learning of other cultures through the net and education so that its citizens may have the power to discern by themselves on what they think is good or bad. This empowerment is the key to reducing hostilities between Kurds and the other Turkish people. References Aksoy, H & Cami, E 2008, “The Rise of TV Broadcasting in Turkey”, Turkish Media Law – Cable & Satellite Television, pp 37 – 39. Albarran, AB, Chan-Olmsted, SM & Wirth, MO 2006 (eds.), Handbook of Media Management and Economics, Mahwah: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates. Brooten, L 2013, “The Problem with Human Rights Discourse and Freedom Indices: The Case of Burma/ Myanmar Media”, International Journal of Communication 7, 1932-8036/ 20130005, pp 681 – 700, South Illinois University. Curran, J & Seaton, J 2009, Power without Responsibility: Press, Broadcasting and the Internet in Britain, 7th edition, London: Routledge. Deibert, R 2010 (ed.), Access Controlled: the Shaping of power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace, The MIT Press. Global Campaign for Free Expression 2002, Access to the Airwaves: Principles of Freedom of Expression and Broadcast Regulation, Article 19, International Standards Series, p 13, London. Hitchens, L 2006, Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity: A Comparative Study of Policy and Regulation, Oxford: Hart Publishing. Hope, C & Mason, R 2013, David Cameron’s Leveson Deal is Threat to “Press Freedom”, Says Human Rights Watchdog, The Telegraph, viewed 24th April, 2013, Idiz, S 2012, EU Diplomats Growing Wary of A More Conservative Turkey, Al-Monitor, viewed 25th April, 2013, < http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/contents/articles/politics/2012/06/abrasions-on-turkeys-image.html> Mittell, J 2010, Television and American Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prof. Obaidat, MS 2013, “International Journal of Communication Systems”, Vol. 26, pp 1099 – 1131, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. SEEMO 2013, Press Freedom in the West Balkans and Turkey, viewed 25th April, 2013, Turvill, W 2013, The Accused: At Least 59 UK Journalists Arrested Since April 2011, Press Gazette, viewed 23rd April, 2013, Read More

Most countries are wont to follow the internationally accepted freedoms granted to organizations that are responsible for the broadcasting of information. Among them are the rules that govern the extent to which journalists are allowed to go in fetching news. A few other countries are not exactly keen on following these rules and do not generally allow journalists to cover certain aspects of news in their countries of location. For instance, Brooten (2013) states that Burma does not allow most of its broadcasting stations to air political news that may seem to paint the “democracy” offered by its ruling class in bad light.

In short, the media in Burma is gagged. Other countries whose political class have kept the media from broadcasting information that is important to the masses include Somali, Iran, Iraq and so on. In many other countries, the degree of freedom among media stations that seem to go against the grain is regulated. In essence, they do not allow the media to broadcast certain material. Unlike the aforementioned countries, however, their leadership does not execute journalists and other stakeholders involved in dissemination of information.

Broadcast of information relies heavily on technology. Before the current age of globalization, broadcasters used to pass information to a restricted audience due to boundaries that were created by limitations in technological advancements. However, with time, the discovery of equipment to cover wider areas has enabled broadcasts to be made live and beamed across continents at the same time. Satellites have greatly enhanced digital interaction to an extent that we can now safely call the world a digital village as we can broadcast information to the remotest of parts of any continent.

Professor Obaidat (2013) recognises the place of the internet as important tools for broadcast as primary in the battle to further make broadcasting as simple and faster as can be. Broadcasting in the UK The United Kingdom ranks among countries with the most free of media stations. This is itself is a great thing as more people are able to access information that is important to them without much restriction. This does not imply that the media is totally free to behave in a manner to suggest that critical information may be handled in a careless way or generally a manner that may cause a breach of peace.

For instance, during elections, Principle 29 of the Article 19 allows broadcasters to keep voters and the country at large informed on the progress in election periodically. It clearly states in item II that profound care should be taken so that any broadcast does not end up creating impressions that may cause the disturbance of peace. With several local and international channels, the UK broadcasting industry is seen as among the most liberal in the world. In the battle to have an industry that is as diverse as can be and caters for all of the available market segments, international channels from nearly all continents ranging from Europe to Asia and Africa have been allowed to venture into the UK market.

This is due to the existence of people from diverse cultures right within, who would like to keep up with information from their respective continents of origin. Hitchens (2006) clearly states that the state law that allows for foreign stations to set business in the UK have to not only follow international media law set by universally accepted mechanisms, but also UK media laws as stated in policy regulations provided in UK. The UK is considered as a Western European country: in the strict sense, it is considered the mother of western cultures.

Western cultures are observed to be more liberal in granting the masses more rights to information, and to a large extent, the right to expression. It is in this that we find a more liberal broadcasting industry that may be free to air more than what an average conservative society would agree to. Foreign radio stations in the UK also get to gain lots of revenue as a result of being allowed to broadcast in UK.

Read More