Draft Code of Guidance
A
response to the BROADCASTING STANDARDS COMMISSION consultation by mediawatch-uk
S |
tephen Whittle,
the Director of the Broadcasting Standards Council, was a studio guest on the
Channel 4 programme 'Right to Reply' 28th March 1998. When discussing taste and
decency issues he said that the Commission is an advisory body and when pressed
on standards said that such matters are:
"difficult
and, from time to time, extremely subjective judgements about which there is
general disagreement in the community. I think what the BSC is saying to
broadcasters at that point (when a complaint is upheld) is 'this is where we
believe at this moment the line runs .... now, the line keeps moving'".
T |
he National
Viewers' and Listeners' Association believes that this non-interventionist
attitude is completely at variance with the whole purpose of the Commission and
out of step with Parliament's intentions when setting up the Broadcasting
Standards Council originally. It was certainly not the ideal that inspired
those who fought for so long to establish an independent forum for dealing
properly with complaints about programme standards from the public. Before the
BSC was established it was self evident, from dealings with those in the
broadcasting industry, that public criticism about taste and decency issues was
not being taken seriously. It was hoped that an independent body would take
such criticism seriously and bring about a restoration of "good taste and
decency" thus representing the public interest in a meaningful way against
the powerful media interest.
The task, set by
Parliament, to draw up a Code of Practice was of critical importance. Such a
Code was seen to be the means through which programmes could be judged and the
broadcasters taken to task if necessary over breaches of the Code. In order to
do this a well defined Code of Practice is essential.
In setting up the
Council in 1988 the Government of the day called it a Broadcasting Standards
Council clearly implying, by the choice of title, that there are
"standards" and that there was a need to maintain
"standards" or bring about an improvement in "standards"
that were deteriorating. It is evident from the results of the BSC's annual
public surveys that there remains, despite the functioning of the Commission,
widespread public concern about broadcasting standards. The 5th annual
monitoring report of public opinion, published in September 1997, revealed that
64% of respondents believe that there is too much violence on television, 55%
too much sex and 41% too much bad language. As such the Commission, and the
Council before it, is plainly not having the desired effect.
Analysis by this
Association of complaints upheld and not upheld shows that there is a general
inconsistency and that the outcome of making a complaint to the Commission is
akin to a form of lottery. Complaints about brutal violence or obscene or
profane language in one programme may be upheld whilst the same or similar
material in another programme is not upheld and is excused on a range of
grounds not related to the concerns of complainant.
In correspondence
with the Chairman of the BSC in November 1995 on this critical matter Lady Howe
described how members of the Council make their judgements:
"They do so
on the basis of their own experience, their own knowledge of the world, the
evidence of the Council's research, and such factors as the time of the
broadcast, the nature of the programme, the Channel concerned and the amount of
advance information available to the audience so that an informed choice can be
made".
Curiously, the BSC
Code of Practice was not a factor taken into account.
In July 1996 the
BSC published its Annual Report for 1995/96. This showed that in the previous
two years the number of complaints to the Council had risen by 45%. This Annual
Report nowhere referred to the use of the Code of Practice nor was there any
assessment of the broadcasters' compliance with it. The monthly Bulletins
issued by the Council/Commission rarely, if ever, refer to the Code either.
This Association
sought clarification from the then Secretary of State for National Heritage as
to the purpose and status of the Code of Practice.
In his response
Lord Inglewood, the Minister of State, said
"Section
154 of the (Broadcasting) Act requires the Council to take into account 'any
relevant provisions of the Code' in considering a complaint. The Code,
therefore, serves two main purposes: acting as an input into broadcasting
regulation, and as an aid to the Council in reaching findings on
complaints."
The Code of
Practice, therefore, should play a significant role in determining standards
and it should, accordingly, be well defined and well understood by broadcasters
and, above all, the public who the Commission is meant to be of service.
The Concise Oxford
Dictionary defines 'Code' as meaning a
"systematic
collection of statutes, body of laws so arranged as to avoid inconsistency...."
'Standard' is
defined as meaning "weight or measure to which others conform or by which
the accuracy of others is judged" and "degree of excellence etc.
required for particular purpose".
Comments on the
Draft Code
General
A |
s with the First
and Second editions of the Code of Practice it is evident that it lacks
definition and as such fails to meet the purpose of a Code and, therefore,
fails to meet the required need to establish standards. The new Code, rather
than setting out to establish "standards", pushes the Commission
further into the quagmire of imprecision and subjective judgement that is a
long way short of public expectation. The public, which after all pays for the
Commission, has a right to expect value for money and a discernible improvement
in programme standards as a result of the Commission's existence. Not the
opposite. From the numerous findings so far published since the
Council/Commission was established it is difficult not to conclude that it is
the broadcasters' interest that is being best served rather than the public
interest.
Specific
The Introduction
of the Code, in Section 1.1, refers to "respect for the audience".
This is clearly the prime consideration for all who work in the broadcasting
industry.
In Section 2.1 it
states "There is an implied contract between the viewer, the listener and
the broadcaster about the terms of admission to the home".
What is the nature
of an "implied contract" and what is an "expectation of that
contract"? Using terms like this suggest that there is a "contract"
which everyone understands and is familiar with.
In Section 2.3 the
duty, set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990 and BBC's Royal Charter, upon
broadcasters not to offend "good taste or decency" or "offend
public feeling" is strangely omitted. The onus in the Code to provide
"enough information about the nature of programmes" is insufficient.
Anything can be justified by the clause as presently formulated.
In Section 2.5 the
Commission seems to accept, without question, the concept of the
"Watershed" despite mounting evidence that it is failing in its
efficacy. The Commission's own research, published in October 1997, concluded
that the number of sex scenes in 'soaps' had trebled in three years and that
parents are worried about the amount of sex, bad language and violence shown
before the 9pm Watershed.
In Section 2.16,
'Labelling and Warnings', the Commission again seems to side with the
broadcasters rather than with the public. If "warnings" about
programmes are to be used at all it is important that they convey the true
nature of what is to follow in the programme.
Examination of the
"warnings" currently in use are inconsistent and the rationale for
prefacing some programmes and not others is obscure. Phrases such as "hard
hitting" or "gritty action" or "tough mood" or
"disturbing" lack definition and seem contrived to convey very little
of the true nature of what follows. More often than not they serve to attract
viewers rather than the opposite. In any event the inclusion of a
"warning" before a programme should not be used by the Broadcasting
Standards Commission as a reason for not upholding a complaint.
Trials conducted
in America of programme ratings systems suggest that viewers are critical
because such schemes have not been specific enough. Indeed parent's groups are
demanding content-based ratings that will indicate profanity, sex or violence.
Vague and inadequate or misleading warnings are clearly not sufficient.
This clause itself
lacks sufficient definition. For example, what is "bad" language? Is
that different from "strong" language as referred to in 'Bad Language
- What are the Limits?'
Why is a later
transmission time for programmes containing "bad" language a more
acceptable tool than editing? And what is a "later" transmission
time? How late is late? 9.05pm, 10.00pm, midnight? The wrong assumption here is
that "bad" language becomes less "bad" simply if it is
transmitted "late". It is not clear what "standard" is
being established in this clause.
In Section 3 -
Taste and Decency
3.1 Why should
"challenging or deliberately flouting the boundaries of good taste and
decency" have a "rightful place in broadcasting". Parliament, in
enacting legislation on these matters, has made no provision for this approach
and it is, therefore, inappropriate that a "Standards" Commission
should encode such a notion.
3.2 Why should
comedy have a "special freedom to confront boundaries of good taste
...."? Who has granted such a "freedom" and when? What
"standards" are being applied here?
3.4 What is a
"breach of decency"? How does anyone know what is a breach if it is
not first defined in the Code? And more especially if "the line keeps
moving". Why talk of a "breach"?
3.5 The assumption
here is that 'signalling and editorial context' are the primary considerations
of the broadcasters rather than the expectations of the audience. These
priorities are the wrong way round.
3.6 Since it is
well known, from the BSC's own research, 'A Matter of Manners',
that some words cause considerable offence to some people in some areas, is it
not sensible to avoid "offending public feeling" by not transmitting
offensive words at all?
Surely the
Commission ought to set "standards" rather than attempt to minimise
their coarsening effect on language. Broadcasting, as presently arranged, takes
little account of different parts of the country, different generations or
tones of voice. This clause in the Code could be used to justify any use of
"bad" language.
3.7 This clause
would seem to indicate understanding of how deep offence is caused and provides
an adequate reason for omitting all language which is "bad". Why not
set a "standard" here?
3.10 This clause
refers to "conventions". It would be helpful to know what these are
and how they are defined. Since 86% of respondents are said to
"dislike" repetitive use of bad language this surely is sufficient
reason for the Code of Practice to state that such usage should not be
permitted.
3.11 This clause
would seem to be a further argument for disallowing the repetitive use of
"bad language". If so, why not say so? And, more importantly, why
does the Commission not uphold complaints about programmes which do contain the
repetitive use of "bad language"? Like, for example, the film 'TRAINSPOTTING'
screened on Channel 4, 26.11.97, (BSC Bulletin 9).
3.12 This clause
states that the Commission does not lay down rigid rules or a list of banned
words. Surely the Commission, which has the word "standards" in its
title, ought to do precisely that?
When, if ever, is
reference made to "the most senior levels of management"? Can the
Commission name instances of this and describe the outcome?
3.13 What is
"the most offensive language"? And why is it acceptable after the
"Watershed"? And why should the rule be broken at all?
3.14 Perhaps it is
time to introduce a "Watershed" on Radio.
3.16 Broadcasters
are required not to offend public feeling. If it is known that "the casual
use of names, words or symbols regarded as sacred" causes hurt as well as
offence why sanction it? Why does the Commission not urge that such language
not be used at all?
3.19 The portrayal
of illegal drug abuse in fictional drama and film is something which has
increased in recent years. If "nothing should be done to encourage"
such behaviour why not set a standard which excludes such portrayals?
In Section 4.1 the
Codes states: "For the last six years two thirds of respondents, when
asked to comment upon the amount of violence on television, have said there is
"too much"".
This, regrettably,
demonstrates how ineffective the Council/Commission has been in alleviating
public concern. It also demonstrates how determined the broadcasters are to
continue to broadcast violent material. This reinforces the public's
perception, identified by the Commission, that the media has "its own
agenda".
This Section
fails, adequately, to distinguish between violence portrayed in fictional
programmes and violence portrayed in news and current affairs programmes.
Clarification is needed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.
In 4.3 why should
a "particular director" make so much difference. This, again, excuses
violent material for the wrong reason and other more objective tests ought to
apply rather than just a "particular director". Any violence, no
matter how brutal or sadistic, can be excused on these grounds. And who is to
make the necessary choices over which directors are 'in' and which are 'out'?
In Section 4.11 it
is stated that "the moment of death itself" should be shown only in
the "rarest circumstances". What are "rarest
circumstances"? These should be defined.
4.12. Why show
hanging or judicial executions at all? What is to be gained by showing them
even after the "Watershed"?
4.31 Whilst it may
be true that "violence is a legitimate ingredient of drama" why
qualify this by "but should seldom be an end in itself"? What is
"seldom"? And who determines whether violence is an "end in
itself"? Who is to make such sophisticated judgements? Many films
monitored by this Association include explicit violent imagery of a cruel and
brutal nature. That it may not be an "end in itself" does not alter
the nature of the imagery transmitted. And what are the "conventions"
that audiences have an ability to appreciate? Since such
"conventions" "will be key" should they not be defined?
4.35 Why should
violence in "genre" films be acceptable? What is the difference
between the portrayal of violence in a 'genre' movie and a 'non-genre' movie?
Who decides what is a 'genre' movie and what is not? Is this, in future, to be
part of the "information" provided to audiences?
4.36 What are the
"unacceptable limits of violence" and when are these breached? This
needs clarification and definition.
4.41 Instead of
the use of weapons "readily available in the home" being
"carefully considered" why not set a standard and state that such
should not be portrayed at all?
In Section 5,
Portrayal of Sexual Conduct, it is stated, without verification, that
"audiences in Britain have generally become more liberal and relaxed about
the portrayal of sex..."
As an Association
we believe that the sex act, or the simulation of sexual activity, is a private
matter and not one for a mass medium. In our monitoring of programmes we have
identified a trend for the editing points of such scenes to be further and
further delayed. There is no provision in the draft Code for broadcasters to be
held to account when programmes go beyond "the universal climate of tolerance".
Clearly the Commission, again, could set a standard in these matters and at
least attempt some definition of what is meant in, Clause 5.5, by
"reference to a set of moral values".
5.4 refers to
"the law relating to hard-core pornography and obscenity" and that
its depiction being "bound" by it. This Association, along with
others, believes that the Obscene Publications Act 1959 is itself in need of
radical overhaul and strengthening. Whilst we acknowledge that it is not the
role of the Commission to effect a change in this law it is nevertheless a
pivotal factor in determining what is legal and illegal in this field. A weak
and ineffective law will permit the most obscene material which will,
inevitably, affect broadcasting standards.
Dependency upon
this Act to fulfil a role in setting a limit on the transmission of sexually
explicit material is misplaced. Indeed the Independent Television Commission,
which has licensed a number of so-called "soft" pornography channels,
recently recommended that a proscription order be issued by the Secretary of
State against the satellite channel 'Eros TV'. The ITC stated that "The
output of this channel consists almost entirely of unacceptable pornography".
The "law relating to hard-core pornography and obscenity" was not
invoked neither was it stated why the pornography was "unacceptable".
This implies that the ITC regards some pornography as acceptable.
The Commission
could, again, set an objective standard in this section too.
Click here for extract from the BSC
Code of Guidance in 'Monitoring: Helpful Hints'.
Click here for mediawatch-uk
Directory
Click here for Joining Form