The society in which we live in is heavily influenced and manipulated by the media and, in an effort to control this, there are various governing bodies across media outlets that govern what the general public are exposed to.

There are a variety of different types of censorship within the media, and subsequently a vast array of reasons behind such suppression. Perhaps the most notorious form of censorship is the age rating for films, television programs, and games. In the UK, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is responsible for the national classification and censorship of films and it is their statutory requirement to classify videos, DVDs, and some video games beneath the Video Recordings Act of 2010. BBFC ratings are legally binding and British law imposes penalties on retailers who sell to under-aged customers. These age ratings are there to protect people below certain ages from being exposed to certain violence, sexual references, drug references, and other taboo topics. This is important because, often, children can struggle with differentiating between fiction and reality. If exposed to the likes of violence at too early an age, they may consider such behaviour to be "normal" or "socially acceptable" and adopt it.

A similar concept to age classification from the BBFC is the "watershed" which is a time period on live television in which programs displaying "explicit content" - for example, violence and sexual references -  can be shown. Currently, from 9pm onwards, films and television programs that are classified as suitable for 15 year olds can be shown. From 10pm onwards, this changes to films and television programs that are suitable for 18 year olds.



Just as certain things are restricted from being exposed to impressionable children, the representation of certain groups of people within society is something that has caused controversy within the general public, specifically in regards to what children are introduced to. A prime example of public back lash following the representation of a group of people is after Cerrie Burnell was introduced as a new presenter of CBeebies, a BBC brand.

Cerrie Burnell, third in from the left.

When Burnell joined CBeebies in 2009 as a regular presenter, the BBC received complaints from parents worried that Burnell's missing right hand and forearm would prove "frightening" to their children and beg questions that would be difficult for them to answer to their children. Despite these worried parents, there were no records of children actually being scared of the presenter and, six years later, she is still a regular presenter on the children's television channel. It seems, rather, that the parents were worried more of the questions their children may ask and the "difference" now displayed within popular culture than they were that their children might respond negatively.

I believe that the exposure of such disability, however, is actually a positive and should not be censored in fear that children may react badly. If children are not exposed to the diversities within society then these "differences" will never cease to be just differences and will never be normalised within society. Children are arguably the least judgmental generation, to corrupt them with negative attitudes towards people with disabilities or people who differ from the majority would be the greatest crime. Alienating groups of people is not the right, ethical thing to do in any circumstance and encouraging the younger generation to be more accepting and understanding of minorities is the key to creating a society with equal rights and equal attitudes, regardless of a person's race, sexuality, gender, disability, class, etc. Likewise, by exposing children to minorities, they are likely to feel more comfortable within themselves should they come across a person that they can relate to, boosting self-esteem.

Cerrie Burnell

However, the classification of entertainment products such as films and games and the representation of certain demographics are not the only ways in which the media we consume on a daily basis is controlled or censored. Often, the Government will regulate the information that we are exposed to through forms of media such as television news. A key example of this media censorship was during the anti-austerity protests of May 2015, following a General Election in the UK that saw a party with just 36% of the votes win. For over twenty four hours, one of the country's leading news broadcasters - BBC News - failed to cover the story. When they finally did, it was reported that there were "100 people" attending the march when, in reality, hundreds of people marched in force up and down Downing Street and around London.

Other mainstream media channels also failed to report the events until later that day, post-protest, or the next day yet European news stations were providing in depth coverage during the course of the day. Likewise, after the protests were exposed on social media, the Twitter hashtag #ToriesOutNow became a trending hashtag. Within hours, the hashtag had disappeared, which led to various conspiracies regarding the censorship of the media we consume by our Government.



This type of "media blackout" is not uncommon during situations where there are protests or riots for a number of reasons. Alerting citizens of the nearby area that there is a riot or protest may cause further damage that authorities become unable to control with more people arriving, for example. Likewise, if there is a situation that reflects badly on the state, the Government, or the authorities - such as in this case - it is unlikely that the state would be willing to raise awareness of this.

However, whilst there may be a variety of reasons that this type of censorship might occur, it is important to notice that this is a key example of how the media is constructed. The media that we consume is carefully controlled. If someone with a position of authority does not want the general public to be made aware of an event or happening, they possess the power to restrict any teachings of it through media such as television, print media, and social media. This is evidence that the media presents biased and skewed perceptions of events, poorly representing reality.

In my personal opinion, whilst I understand that much of the censorship within the media is related to public protection, I believe that information that may put the public in danger should not be an issue of discretion and should be disclosed to the public regardless of other factors. Whilst this may risk causing public chaos and panic, it is immoral to have such control over a person's life that they are restricted information that affects them; frankly, it's a breach of one's freedom to make choices for themselves.


There are various issues surrounding the concept of censorship. Whilst it can be useful to prevent inciting masses from turning on the state, among other groups and individuals, and it is important to protect people from being exposed from the likes of violence when they are not at an age that they can recognise fiction from reality, it is not ethical to restrict the information that audiences consume and manipulate them into states of ignorance, just as regulating the opinions and ideas of a person is a breach of the Freedom of Speech. It is not an issue that has a clear answer: to prevent censorship or encourage it? Largely, it is an issue that is dependent on specific situations and circumstances and, just like most politics, it is unlikely that any "solution" to such question will please the masses for opinions are so greatly divided.