BSC Code of Guidance
Revisions 2003
In December 2002 the
Broadcasting Standards Commission invited mediawatch-uk to comment on final
revision to their Code of Guidance. Our detailed response sent on 28 January is
set out below:
Introduction
1. The BSC refers to the right of broadcasters to experiment and to
challenge conventions by presenting controversial work. This right seems to
have been unofficially granted by broadcasting regulators rather than the
general public. Therefore, care should be exercised to ensure that such work is
not used as an excuse for presenting programmes that contain offensive and/or
obscene material such as swearing, explicit sexual material or scenes of
violence. Similar care should be taken when striking a balance between creative
freedom and responsibility to diverse audiences. At the present time, after the
Watershed, there is little consideration given for people not wishing to be
confronted by swearing, explicit sexual material or scenes of violence.
2. The BSC states that the purpose of the Code is to provide guidance on
how to strike the correct balance. However, it should be noted that the
Broadcasting Act should be observed for all channels and that the BBC is
required in the Agreement associated with its Charter not to broadcast
programmes which 'includes anything which offends against good taste or
decency'. The BSC also states that the Code is based on extensive independent
research by the BSC into audience views and expectations and ways in which
these shift over time. It should be noted that the present Code does not
adequately reflect the public's dislike for swearing, and for the words that
cause the most offence. It should be further noted that the words that cause
the most offence have not changed significantly over the years.
3. Past experience has shown that broadcasters do not always appear to
reflect the general effect of the BSC's Code in their own codes or guidelines.
Therefore, in an effort to reduce the ever-increasing number of complaints and,
thereby, reduce the possibility of time being wasted unnecessarily by
regulators, it is recommended that broadcasters file a copy of their own codes
with the BSC for inspection, approval and as evidence that the appropriate
requirements have been fully understood.
4. It is noted that the BSC states that it is the responsibility of the
programme-makers and broadcasters to explain their policies clearly for the
audience and that the most frequent reason for offence being caused is when
expectations have been flouted. Research, however, does not support such
statements. It has been ascertained that expectation does not mean approval and
it has been clarified that swearing is not alright even when broadcast
on a subscription channel simply because of content awareness. Furthermore,
although it is stated that programme-makers and broadcasters should explain
their policies it should be remembered that in the report 'Platforms and
Channels' it is stated that the same rules about programme content carried
in the BSC's Code, the ITC Programme Code and the BBC's Producer's Guidelines
apply across all channels, regardless of delivery platform. This should be
firmly emphasised in the BSC's revised Code.
5. As noted in the previous paragraph, media literacy certainly does not
give broadcasters the right to broadcast offensive material and as
mentioned in the previous paragraph, research has indicated that swearing is not
alright even on a subscription channel just because of content awareness.
Furthermore, broadcasters and regulators should guard against what research has
described as 'negative empowerment' where there is only a choice of what
not to view. This could lead to people not wishing to experience
explicit sex scenes, swearing and acts of violence having to switch off their
television sets every night at 9.00pm. The BSC's Code should protect the public
from ensuring that the provision of pre-broadcast warnings do not exclude
people from being able to view any programmes especially after the commencement
of the Watershed.
Scheduling
7. The BSC's proposed Code states that research shows that the majority
of parents accept that they are expected to take greater control over the
choice of their children's viewing after the watershed. However, it should be
noted that research has revealed that 50% of respondents have indicated
that they were strongly against unrestricted broadcasts with parents
controlling their children's viewing. This view indicates that a shared
responsibility with all relevant parties should be taken into account within
this latest revision of the Code, in the same way as it is society's
responsibility to deal with disruptive children within the community as opposed
to just being a police responsibility. It is either naïve to believe that,
under the present arrangements, children are not being exposed to totally
unsuitable and corruptive material that is currently being broadcast on a daily
basis - or merely just a convenient omission.
The Watershed
The BSC's comments are noted in respect of broadcasters having a clear
duty to inform. However, research shows that a significant number of parents do
not wish to be the sole controller of restricting their children's viewing
and broadcasters need to take this into account both before and after the
Watershed. Account should also be taken of the research that has revealed that
respondents were of the opinion that programmes shown after the
watershed should not automatically be unsuitable for children and it was
acknowledged that children would still be viewing up to 10.00pm.
Consideration should also be given to the research indicating that 76% of
respondents felt that television should demonstrate a greater regard for taste
and decency. Furthermore, broadcasters should not view the provision of
pre-broadcast warnings as an excuse to broadcast offensive or obscene material.
Here, it should be noted that research has indicated that a majority 55%
has stated that swearing and offensive language was not alright when
broadcast even on a subscription channel simply because there was content
awareness.
10. No comments in addition to what has already been noted above.
11. It should be clearly noted that research has indicated that children
will still be in the audience up to 10.00pm and this must be
considered by broadcasters. Furthermore, during school holidays and especially
during the Christmas and New Year holiday period bad language, explicit sexual
scenes and scenes of violence should be avoided at all times.
12. The abrupt viewing change should be viewed more seriously than at
the present time and this point should be emphasised more forcefully in the
revised Code.
14. It should be clearly emphasised that in respect of bad language
research has revealed that expectation does not mean approval. As
outlined above, a majority 55% of respondents stated that swearing and
offensive language was not alright when broadcast even on a
subscription channel simply because there was content awareness.
15. This point should be further emphasised by ensuring that caution is
exercised at all times due to the ease at which radio can be tuned into and,
therefore, accessed by children.
16. In addition to the point mentioned, special care should be taken in
the scheduling of evening radio programmes, which can be accessed easily by
children.
Programme repeats, trails and advertisements
19. In addition to the proposals, it should be remembered that there
should be nothing broadcast that is offensive or in bad taste.
Informing and warning
20. Whilst pre-broadcast information and warnings may be helpful, it
should not be used as an excuse to broadcast increasingly offensive programmes.
Therefore, such warnings in reality would be rare as these warnings may be
merely an indication that the requirements of the Broadcasting Act are about to
be breached. Furthermore, the following points should also be carefully
observed:
(1) As previously indicated, research has revealed that bad language is
not alright on a subscription channel simply because there is pre-broadcast
information available;
(2) Informing and warning does not prevent the desensitising, corrupting
or exploiting of audiences; and
(3) There is no need to prevent 'negative empowerment' where the
viewer is left only with the decision of what not to watch - or even
whether to watch!
Respect and Dignity
21. The proposal to include the following words should be excluded:
'Challenging or deliberately flouting the boundaries of taste in drama and
comedy is a time-honoured tradition'. This statement can only serve to send out
the wrong signals to broadcasters and, in any event, regulators should not be
in the business of providing encouragement to broadcasters to show offensive or
otherwise unsuitable material.
23. Broadcasters should not broadcast material which may cause viewers
and/or listeners to feel verbally abused. This can occur when viewers/listeners
hear swearing against their wishes or against their beliefs.
Swearing and Offensive Language
30. Research has indicated the words which provide the greatest concerns.
Research has also shown that these words do not significantly change
over the years. There is a list of these words available and the top fifteen or
so words are found to be severe swear words by over 50% of respondents in
research and should, therefore, be considered the strongest swear words. These
words should be avoided. Furthermore, research has revealed that swearing is not
even accepted even when used in a light-hearted manner and that it did not
make any difference if such words were used literally.
32. The comment included in the proposed revision in respect of research
indicating that swearing and offensive language is preferred at a later
transmission time rather than editing should be viewed with extreme caution.
It must be made perfectly clear that the research related to films only
and that there was still a significant number of respondents in disagreement.
In fact, 46% of respondents over 55 years of age disagreed with this
view. This is a significant point as it is the over 55s who view television more
than any other age group. This is an extremely good example of the BSC
seizing and emphasising an area of research, which appears to benefit the
broadcaster, whilst ignoring other research such as a majority vote for the
non-acceptance of swearing in serious drama. There should, therefore, be no
special case made for the inclusion of swearing in films, which would seem to
benefit the broadcasters and filmmakers in reducing the extra work and costs
involved in ensuring the exclusion of offensive material.
33. The research in respect of children should be respected and is as
follows:
89% of
respondents were against watching a programme containing bad language
with children present;
71% of
respondents were strongly in favour of all programmes before the
Watershed being suitable for children. Research also revealed that
respondents did not expect chidren's programmes to contain any bad
language and were of the opinion that programmes shown after the Watershed
should not automatically be unsuitable for children. Furthermore, whilst
respondents were aware that programme content became progressively less
suitable for children across the evening it was acknowledged that children
would still be viewing up to 10.00pm and that the later hour did not condone
the use of offensive language;
50% of
respondents were strongly against unrestricted broadcasts with parents
controlling their children's viewing; and 75% of respondents indicated
that bad language in documentaries about a role model broadcast after the
Watershed should be toned down.
34 - 35. Research has shown that swearing is not wanted at all before
the Watershed and this should be respected. Furthermore, swearing found to be
severe by a significant number of respondents should be avoided at all times.
Offences against Religious Sensibilities
38. Holy names should never be used as expletives or linked with
any swear words.
Lyrics and Music Videos
39. The content should conform to all other regulatory broadcasting
requirements.
People with Disabilities or Mental Health Problems
44 - 45. No further amendments except that there should be no ridiculing
of disabilities or mental health problems or towards the sufferers of such
conditions.
Sterotypes
Ethnicity and Race
46 - 47. No further amendments except that broadcasters should recognise
the ethnic view in respect of swearing and offensive language. For example,
research has indicated that respondents from an Asian background are extremely
concerned at their children and the female members of their family being
exposed to swearing on the television.
Portrayal of Violence
Under the present arrangements, such a section is a complete waste of
time when consideration is given to the serious amounts of violence shown in
many films that have been broadcast in recent years. Such excesses appear to be
increasing in frequency and in the graphic depictions of violence shown. Any
revision in the Code should deal adequately with this most serious of problems.
51. To avoid the desensitising of audiences to violence or to the
victims of violence, there should be no scenes which show graphic scenes of
violence. Such scenes should be implied rather than graphically shown.
Violence in News, Current Affairs and Documentary
Programmes
54 - 56. No further amendments except to note that the extra point made
at 51 should be consistently applied.
Explicitness
The following proposed requirement should be deleted:
'Only in the rarest circumstances should broadcasters show moments of
death'
The following, however, should be used to substitute the above deletion:
'Moments of death should never be shown'
Reconstruction of Violent Crimes
60 - 61. No further amendments except that such programmes should also
conform to all other regulatory broadcasting requirements.
Violence in Drama
62 - 63. No further amendments except that such programmes should adhere
to all other regulatory broadcasting requirements.
Rape
Graphic scenes of rape should never be shown.
Incest and Child Abuse
Programmes dealing with this kind of material should not be sufficiently
graphic or explicit to require pre-broadcast warnings. Warnings do not
adequately prevent viewers from being desensitised from such serious and
potentially offensive and corruptive output.
Genre Movies
The notes contained in the draft proposals appear to give special
dispensation for movies to be excluded from other parts of the Code. There
should be no special regard for movies and other parts of the Code should
apply. This is necessary to prevent audiences from being desensitised by being
continually subjected to unsuitable material. Furthermore, trails used before
the Watershed and at other times when children may be expected to be in the
audience should not encourage children to wish to view inappropriate adult
material.
Children and Drama
All programmes should take into account research requirements as
detailed in other parts of the Code. In addition, it should be remembered that 83%
of respondents in research agreed that television should show more
programmes that reflect traditional family values and that 71% of
respondents were strongly in favour of all programmes before the
Watershed being suitable for children. In future, 'soaps' should also conform
to this requirement as at the present time many of the 'soaps' are of an adult
nature and should be shown only after the commencement of the Watershed.
Animals
67. No further amendments except that no acts of cruelty should be shown
or suggested which could be copied. Furthermore, real-life cruelty should not
be encouraged.
Portrayal of Sexual Conduct
69. Research has indicated that expectation does not necessarily
mean approval and, therefore, explicit sexual scenes should be avoided.
Furthermore, bearing in mind the present serious increase in the spread of the
AIDS virus and other STI's, television and radio should not glamorise casual
sex or promote or encourage marital breakdown, such relationships or normalise
such sexual encounters.
70. Normalising casual, sexual acts can occur when famous actors or role
models are seen, albeit only in fictional situations, to view casual sexual
relationships as being expected, desirable and/or part of a glamorous
lifestyle. Such scenes should therefore be avoided. It is most important for
the general public not to be exploited by explicit sexual scenes or sexual
remarks and to guard against the public from being desensitised from the
connection between sexual acts and genuine loving relationships. There is never
a case for explicit sexual acts or the suggestion of sexual acts other than those
relating to loving sexual relationships, bonded by time, being broadcast before
the Watershed. 'Soaps', in particular, should either conform to this
requirement or be broadcast after the Watershed.
71. Clear concise warnings may be helpful but broadcasts should conform
to the above criteria and to the criteria outlined in the section on informing
and warning. Television is not the medium for pornography, including
soft pornography, and there should be no scenes showing sexual penetration of
any kind or the display of aroused sexual genitalia. Furthermore, explicit sex
scenes should not be incorporated into programmes that are not primarily
of a sexual nature. For example, a detective programme about hunting down a
missing person should not suddenly provide the opening for a specific explicit
sex scene. Likewise, where, for instance, a bedroom scene is necessary to a
specific plot, that particular scene should not be unnecessarily drawn out
merely as an excuse for an explicit sex scene.
Factual Programmes
72. Factual programmes should conform to the previous paragraphs and to
the Code in general. Producers should not only ask themselves whether an
explicit representation is justified but should also ensure that any such
representation is not dwelt upon.
Discussion and 'Phone-in Programmes
73. No further amendments except that such programmes should conform to
the aforementioned paragraphs and to all other aspects of the Code.
Fiction
Research showing that all programmes shown before the Watershed should
be suitable for children should be respected and, therefore, there should be no
broadcast of sexually explicit scenes, either visually or verbally before this
time.
Nudity
No further amendments except that broadcasts of the nude human body
should not take place before the Watershed and should only be featured in
programmes dealing with serious medical subjects.
Innuendo
The proposed draft revisions to the Code state that coarse humour and
sexual innuendo may cause offence. Here, it should be clearly noted that under
the Broadcasting Act there should be nothing included in programmes that is
offensive.
28
January 2003
Click here for mediawatch-uk’s
submission on Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code
Click here for submission Being
Media Literate
Click here for A Fair Deal
for Stakeholders
Click here for A Chip Too Far?
Click here
for Parliamentary Briefing on Clause 319 of the Communications Bill
Click here for mediawatch-uk response to
previous revisions to BSC Code of Guidance
Click here for Joining Form
For information on the Broadcasting
Standards Commission visit www.ofcom.org.uk
where there are links to legacy regulators websites.