Mediawatch-UK Response to Draft BBC Editorial Guidelines Consultation
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Mediawatch-UK Response to Draft BBC Editorial Guidelines Consultation Mediawatch-UK welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation reviewing the Draft BBC Editorial Guidelines. Strong Language We consider swearing on television to be unnecessary. The omission of strong language is rarely noticeable but when it is included it is offensive, grating and annoying. The drama Spooks is a case is in point: it is ‘gritty’, very popular and has sold well across international markets yet it contains hardly any bad language and clearly has not suffered as a result. Whilst there may be a (questionable) justification for strong language in drama, this is very different to casual swearing in talk shows, panel shows and comedy shows such as The Graham Norton Show and Mock the Week which is totally gratuitous. We do not think strong language should be used at all before the watershed or in programmes likely to appeal to children. We are concerned that because the guidelines do not specifically prohibit this it will continue to occur such as in the episode of ‘family friendly’ Miranda of 23th November 2009, broadcast at 8.30pm, in which the main character said ‘I will shit on your towels’. We believe the strongest swearwords (fuck, motherfucker, cunt) should be barred at all times. Can there ever be a justification for using them? Are there really no other words which would suffice? Without a prohibition there will always be the temptation to push the boundaries of acceptable language for emphasis, controversy or effect.
We believe a stronger definition of ‘editorially justified’ is needed in relation to strong language. This catch-all term is so vague as to be meaningless. Survey after survey (Ofcom Communications Market Report, Radio Times survey May 2008, Mediawatch-UK ComRes poll May 2009) shows that more than half the audience believe there is too much swearing on television so clearly the current ‘woolly’ application of editorial justification is not in step with viewers’ wishes and expectations. We do not agree that strong language is integral to content and think it should be edited or bleeped out. We welcome the guideline which requires that strong language is not made obvious by visible mouth movements. Aggressive Behaviour We agree with the proposed guidelines on aggressive behaviour: humiliating, intrusive, aggressive or derogatory remarks must not be celebrated for the purposes of entertainment. However, the phrase ‘proportionate to their target’ is totally subjective and we feel this needs further clarification. Overall Clarity of the Guidelines A definition of the phrase ‘generally accepted standards’ is needed. In important guidelines ambiguous phrases such as ‘audiences’ expectations’, ‘unnecessarily offensive’ and ‘generally accepted standards’ can mean what anyone wants them to mean. Because standards vary from person to person a transparent and workable definition is needed in order to avoid confusion and inconsistency. The guidelines note that generally accepted standards will evolve over time, which raises the question: does television reflect society or provide a forum which normalises questionable behaviour which is then reflected in society? A clear and regularly updated definition of ‘generally accepted standards’ would clear up any confusion. This would certainly be in the public interest and would assist audiences and producers in understanding and judging the application of the Editorial Guidelines. Further Comments Using a post-watershed signposting system to flag up the use of questionable content is laudable but we question whether it is really workable; not everyone bases their viewing choices on listings guides and people often begin watching programmes a few minutes after they have started thus missing broadcast warnings. Such warnings are too easy to miss and we would argue that they serve as a convenient ‘get out of jail free’ card for broadcasters to transmit harmful and offensive material.
We have some concern about content labelling on demand. We welcome the use of the ‘G for Guidance’ system but are concerned that all that stands between this content and children being able to view it is a tick box asking them to verify their age. Parental access controls are not widely publicised and Ofcom’s research tells us that the majority of parents do not use them. We are concerned that unsuitable content is easily accessible to children contrary to the 2009 AVMS regulations. A system where online viewers have to ‘opt in’ to view post-watershed content rather than ‘opt out’ is urgently needed. The guidelines define a child as a being under the age of 15. Given this definition we believe the current watershed of 9pm is unrealistically early and it must be accepted that there will be a significant proportion of children and younger people watching after this time. We would argue that 10pm is a much more realistic time for such a watershed although we are concerned that describing a programme as ‘post watershed’ is a convenient defence for broadcasters to transmit harmful and offensive material. We note with approval that the guidelines stress the importance of interacting with the audience, the accountability of the BBC to the audience and the necessity to deal ‘fairly and openly’ with them. We receive letters and calls from Mediawatch-UK members and members of the public on a daily basis, all of whom are frustrated with the BBC complaints process and do not believe their concerns are being heard and taken seriously. We believe it is absolutely essential that the BBC makes known the criteria it uses to assess complaints and its application of ‘generally accepted standards’ and ‘unnecessarily offensive’. We also consider that the Chairman of the BBC Trust and the Director General should use BBC TV and Radio programmes, such as The Media Show and Feedback on Radio 4 and The Culture Show on BBC 2 to explain their policies to Licence Fee payers and, above all, be available to answer questions from the general public. In this way they would become, and be seen to be, more open and accountable. Vivienne Pattison Director Mediawatch-UK 3 Willow House Kennington Road Ashford Kent TN24 0NR
Mediawatch-UK Response to Draft BBC Editorial Guidelines Consultation Mediawatch-UK welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation reviewing the Draft BBC Editorial Guidelines. Strong Language We consider swearing on television to be unnecessary. The omission of strong language is rarely noticeable but when it is included it is offensive, grating and annoying. The drama Spooks is a case is in point: it is ‘gritty’, very popular and has sold well across international markets yet it contains hardly any bad language and clearly has not suffered as a result. Whilst there may be a (questionable) justification for strong language in drama, this is very different to casual swearing in talk shows, panel shows and comedy shows such as The Graham Norton Show and Mock the Week which is totally gratuitous. We do not think strong language should be used at all before the watershed or in programmes likely to appeal to children. We are concerned that because the guidelines do not specifically prohibit this it will continue to occur such as in the episode of ‘family friendly’ Miranda of 23th November 2009, broadcast at 8.30pm, in which the main character said ‘I will shit on your towels’. We believe the strongest swearwords (fuck, motherfucker, cunt) should be barred at all times. Can there ever be a justification for using them? Are there really no other words which would suffice? Without a prohibition there will always be the temptation to push the boundaries of acceptable language for emphasis, controversy or effect.
We believe a stronger definition of ‘editorially justified’ is needed in relation to strong language. This catch-all term is so vague as to be meaningless. Survey after survey (Ofcom Communications Market Report, Radio Times survey May 2008, Mediawatch-UK ComRes poll May 2009) shows that more than half the audience believe there is too much swearing on television so clearly the current ‘woolly’ application of editorial justification is not in step with viewers’ wishes and expectations. We do not agree that strong language is integral to content and think it should be edited or bleeped out. We welcome the guideline which requires that strong language is not made obvious by visible mouth movements. Aggressive Behaviour We agree with the proposed guidelines on aggressive behaviour: humiliating, intrusive, aggressive or derogatory remarks must not be celebrated for the purposes of entertainment. However, the phrase ‘proportionate to their target’ is totally subjective and we feel this needs further clarification. Overall Clarity of the Guidelines A definition of the phrase ‘generally accepted standards’ is needed. In important guidelines ambiguous phrases such as ‘audiences’ expectations’, ‘unnecessarily offensive’ and ‘generally accepted standards’ can mean what anyone wants them to mean. Because standards vary from person to person a transparent and workable definition is needed in order to avoid confusion and inconsistency. The guidelines note that generally accepted standards will evolve over time, which raises the question: does television reflect society or provide a forum which normalises questionable behaviour which is then reflected in society? A clear and regularly updated definition of ‘generally accepted standards’ would clear up any confusion. This would certainly be in the public interest and would assist audiences and producers in understanding and judging the application of the Editorial Guidelines. Further Comments Using a post-watershed signposting system to flag up the use of questionable content is laudable but we question whether it is really workable; not everyone bases their viewing choices on listings guides and people often begin watching programmes a few minutes after they have started thus missing broadcast warnings. Such warnings are too easy to miss and we would argue that they serve as a convenient ‘get out of jail free’ card for broadcasters to transmit harmful and offensive material.
We have some concern about content labelling on demand. We welcome the use of the ‘G for Guidance’ system but are concerned that all that stands between this content and children being able to view it is a tick box asking them to verify their age. Parental access controls are not widely publicised and Ofcom’s research tells us that the majority of parents do not use them. We are concerned that unsuitable content is easily accessible to children contrary to the 2009 AVMS regulations. A system where online viewers have to ‘opt in’ to view post-watershed content rather than ‘opt out’ is urgently needed. The guidelines define a child as a being under the age of 15. Given this definition we believe the current watershed of 9pm is unrealistically early and it must be accepted that there will be a significant proportion of children and younger people watching after this time. We would argue that 10pm is a much more realistic time for such a watershed although we are concerned that describing a programme as ‘post watershed’ is a convenient defence for broadcasters to transmit harmful and offensive material. We note with approval that the guidelines stress the importance of interacting with the audience, the accountability of the BBC to the audience and the necessity to deal ‘fairly and openly’ with them. We receive letters and calls from Mediawatch-UK members and members of the public on a daily basis, all of whom are frustrated with the BBC complaints process and do not believe their concerns are being heard and taken seriously. We believe it is absolutely essential that the BBC makes known the criteria it uses to assess complaints and its application of ‘generally accepted standards’ and ‘unnecessarily offensive’. We also consider that the Chairman of the BBC Trust and the Director General should use BBC TV and Radio programmes, such as The Media Show and Feedback on Radio 4 and The Culture Show on BBC 2 to explain their policies to Licence Fee payers and, above all, be available to answer questions from the general public. In this way they would become, and be seen to be, more open and accountable. Vivienne Pattison Director Mediawatch-UK 3 Willow House Kennington Road Ashford Kent TN24 0NR
Mediawatch-UK Response to Draft BBC Editorial Guidelines Consultation Mediawatch-UK welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation reviewing the Draft BBC Editorial Guidelines. Strong Language We consider swearing on television to be unnecessary. The omission of strong language is rarely noticeable but when it is included it is offensive, grating and annoying. The drama Spooks is a case is in point: it is ‘gritty’, very popular and has sold well across international markets yet it contains hardly any bad language and clearly has not suffered as a result. Whilst there may be a (questionable) justification for strong language in drama, this is very different to casual swearing in talk shows, panel shows and comedy shows such as The Graham Norton Show and Mock the Week which is totally gratuitous. We do not think strong language should be used at all before the watershed or in programmes likely to appeal to children. We are concerned that because the guidelines do not specifically prohibit this it will continue to occur such as in the episode of ‘family friendly’ Miranda of 23th November 2009, broadcast at 8.30pm, in which the main character said ‘I will shit on your towels’. We believe the strongest swearwords (fuck, motherfucker, cunt) should be barred at all times. Can there ever be a justification for using them? Are there really no other words which would suffice? Without a prohibition there will always be the temptation to push the boundaries of acceptable language for emphasis, controversy or effect.
We believe a stronger definition of ‘editorially justified’ is needed in relation to strong language. This catch-all term is so vague as to be meaningless. Survey after survey (Ofcom Communications Market Report, Radio Times survey May 2008, Mediawatch-UK ComRes poll May 2009) shows that more than half the audience believe there is too much swearing on television so clearly the current ‘woolly’ application of editorial justification is not in step with viewers’ wishes and expectations. We do not agree that strong language is integral to content and think it should be edited or bleeped out. We welcome the guideline which requires that strong language is not made obvious by visible mouth movements. Aggressive Behaviour We agree with the proposed guidelines on aggressive behaviour: humiliating, intrusive, aggressive or derogatory remarks must not be celebrated for the purposes of entertainment. However, the phrase ‘proportionate to their target’ is totally subjective and we feel this needs further clarification. Overall Clarity of the Guidelines A definition of the phrase ‘generally accepted standards’ is needed. In important guidelines ambiguous phrases such as ‘audiences’ expectations’, ‘unnecessarily offensive’ and ‘generally accepted standards’ can mean what anyone wants them to mean. Because standards vary from person to person a transparent and workable definition is needed in order to avoid confusion and inconsistency. The guidelines note that generally accepted standards will evolve over time, which raises the question: does television reflect society or provide a forum which normalises questionable behaviour which is then reflected in society? A clear and regularly updated definition of ‘generally accepted standards’ would clear up any confusion. This would certainly be in the public interest and would assist audiences and producers in understanding and judging the application of the Editorial Guidelines. Further Comments Using a post-watershed signposting system to flag up the use of questionable content is laudable but we question whether it is really workable; not everyone bases their viewing choices on listings guides and people often begin watching programmes a few minutes after they have started thus missing broadcast warnings. Such warnings are too easy to miss and we would argue that they serve as a convenient ‘get out of jail free’ card for broadcasters to transmit harmful and offensive material.
We have some concern about content labelling on demand. We welcome the use of the ‘G for Guidance’ system but are concerned that all that stands between this content and children being able to view it is a tick box asking them to verify their age. Parental access controls are not widely publicised and Ofcom’s research tells us that the majority of parents do not use them. We are concerned that unsuitable content is easily accessible to children contrary to the 2009 AVMS regulations. A system where online viewers have to ‘opt in’ to view post-watershed content rather than ‘opt out’ is urgently needed. The guidelines define a child as a being under the age of 15. Given this definition we believe the current watershed of 9pm is unrealistically early and it must be accepted that there will be a significant proportion of children and younger people watching after this time. We would argue that 10pm is a much more realistic time for such a watershed although we are concerned that describing a programme as ‘post watershed’ is a convenient defence for broadcasters to transmit harmful and offensive material. We note with approval that the guidelines stress the importance of interacting with the audience, the accountability of the BBC to the audience and the necessity to deal ‘fairly and openly’ with them. We receive letters and calls from Mediawatch-UK members and members of the public on a daily basis, all of whom are frustrated with the BBC complaints process and do not believe their concerns are being heard and taken seriously. We believe it is absolutely essential that the BBC makes known the criteria it uses to assess complaints and its application of ‘generally accepted standards’ and ‘unnecessarily offensive’. We also consider that the Chairman of the BBC Trust and the Director General should use BBC TV and Radio programmes, such as The Media Show and Feedback on Radio 4 and The Culture Show on BBC 2 to explain their policies to Licence Fee payers and, above all, be available to answer questions from the general public. In this way they would become, and be seen to be, more open and accountable. Vivienne Pattison Director Mediawatch-UK 3 Willow House Kennington Road Ashford Kent TN24 0NR
You can also read
