Monday, 26 May 2025

EVALUATION INDUSTRY: LIVINGSTONE AND LUNT

 Livingstone and Lunt argue that media regulation must balance the need to protect citizens with the desire to promote consumer choice. This balance is increasingly difficult to maintain in a globalised and digital media environment, where traditional forms of regulation struggle to keep pace with technological developments. Their theory is particularly relevant to long-form television dramas (LFTVDs), where issues of content regulation, access, and public service obligations intersect with changing modes of distribution.

Stranger Things, as a Netflix original, exists largely outside the scope of traditional UK regulation. Unlike UK broadcasters such as the BBC, Netflix is not regulated by Ofcom and does not follow rules such as the watershed. Content that may be disturbing to younger viewers, such as the graphic death of Benny in episode one, is not restricted by scheduling or enforced age gates. Instead, responsibility is shifted to the account holder through optional parental controls. This illustrates a key challenge identified by Livingstone and Lunt: how regulatory systems based on national borders and broadcast models are undermined by global, on-demand services that fall outside these frameworks.

In contrast, Deutschland 83 was originally broadcast by RTL, a German public service channel, and was therefore subject to stricter regulation regarding violence, language, and representation. As a result, while the show deals with mature political themes, it does so within a regulatory environment that promotes public interest content and cultural specificity. Its later distribution through SundanceTV and other international platforms, however, shows how content can move beyond national regulation once it enters the global streaming ecosystem.

Livingstone and Lunt’s theory also helps explain the regulatory pressures faced by public service broadcasters. Ofcom has expressed concern that global competition and audience fragmentation threaten the ability of UK public service broadcasters to reach younger audiences and sustain high-quality, representative programming. The popularity of global platforms like Netflix, and shows like Stranger Things, puts pressure on UK institutions to adapt or risk irrelevance. This context helps us understand why Ofcom encourages collaboration between UK broadcasters and urges investment in content that reflects UK life, goals tied to the ‘citizen’ side of regulation.

However, the theory has limitations. Livingstone and Lunt focus on institutional regulation and policy but do not account for how ownership structures shape the content being produced (a concern better addressed by Curran and Seaton). For instance, Netflix’s commissioning of Stranger Things may reflect commercial, data-driven priorities more than concerns about public service or cultural representation. Likewise, their theory says little about industrial risk or profit-maximisation strategies, which are key concerns for Hesmondhalgh.

In addition, Livingstone and Lunt do not address audience engagement with content. For example, while Stranger Things may be unregulated in some ways, many viewers actively self-regulate or rely on community discussions and content warnings. The theory also does not fully explore how user autonomy (e.g. through parental controls or personal choice) is increasingly positioned as an alternative to formal regulation in the digital era.

In conclusion, Livingstone and Lunt’s theory is highly useful for understanding the challenges facing media regulators in a digital, globalised context. It helps explain why Netflix, as a platform, can bypass traditional frameworks, and why public broadcasters are under pressure to compete. However, to fully understand the production and reception of LFTVDs like Stranger Things and Deutschland 83, their theory must be combined with approaches that consider ownership, audience behaviour, and the economic logic of the cultural industries.

No comments:

Post a Comment