EUROPEAN COMMISSION'S GREEN PAPER ON THE
CONVERGENCE OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECTORS
News Release: 17th April 1998
Full submission follows below.
T |
he National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, now called
mediawatch-uk, in its response to the EC Green Paper on Technological
Convergence, is today calling on the European Commission to set out a well
defined framework of regulation within which those involved in the provision of
television programmes, and other transmitted material, should operate.
"The media industries around the world, and especially in European Union
Member States, should be actively encouraged to reach comprehensive agreement
on content rather than just technologies." The Association says "the
moral, ethical, social and cultural well being of the citizens of Europe should
be the overriding concern of those in the communications industry, in whatever
capacity, who should regard themselves as servants rather than masters."
John Beyer, (right) the Association's Director, said: "Bodies like
the European Commission enjoy a certain degree of public trust that our best
interests will be safeguarded against the vested interests of the powerful
media and information technology industries. It is not apparent in the Green
Paper that this is the primary concern. There is an underlying assumption that
the 'Information Society' is an inevitable consequence of technological
convergence and that progress towards this goal is an undisputed 'Good Thing'.
"Clearly there are a number of beneficiaries of the new technology,
not least those who manufacture telecommunications equipment, computers,
computer software, television sets and video recorders. This being so there is
huge vested interest to ensure that the new technology is taken up globally as
quickly as possible. The rapid establishment of the Internet around the world
and the widespread use of personal computers, demonstrates the commercial
imperative to promote the technology, and the willingness of people to spend
money on it. In addition there is a clear, although not widely appreciated,
political imperative too."
The Association repeats its doubts over the efficacy of technical
devices, such as the "V-Chip", to enable parents or guardians
"to filter out certain programmes". What is needed is a workable
definition, within Article 22 of the EU Directive 97/36/EC, of 'pornography and
gratuitous violence'.
"Unless these terms are defined", said Mr Beyer,
"portrayals of explicit sexual conduct and brutal violence will continue
to dominate the media to the detriment of the societies the media ought to
serve. Failure to deal with these important questions will certainly hinder the
praiseworthy purpose of the technological convergence, expressed in the Green
Paper, that it has 'the potential to substantially improve the quality of life
for Europe's citizens'."
ENDS.
A response to the Department of Culture
Media and Sport on the 31st March 1998.
I |
t should be the objective of the European Commission to set out a
well-defined framework of regulation within which those involved in the
provision of programmes, and other transmitted material, should operate.
The moral, ethical, social and cultural well-being of the citizens of
Europe should be the over-riding concern and those in the communications
industry, in whatever capacity, should regard themselves as servants rather
than masters.
Accordingly, serious matters should always be dealt with responsibly,
without sensationalism, and with a proper and sincere concern for the good of
society and with scrupulous regard for the truth. The media industries around the world, and
especially in European Union Member States, should be actively encouraged by
the European Commission to reach comprehensive agreement on content rather than
just technologies. Family life should be supported rather than be constantly
undermined in order to help bring about social cohesion and a decline in family
breakdown and delinquency.
Bodies like the European Commission enjoy a certain degree of trust from
European citizens that their best interests will be safeguarded against the
vested interests of the powerful media and information technology industries.
It is not apparent in the Green Paper that this is the primary concern.
There is an underlying assumption in the Green Paper that the "Information
Society" is an inevitable consequence of technological convergence and
that progress towards this goal is an undisputed 'Good Thing'.
Clearly there are a number of beneficiaries of the new technology, not
least those who manufacture telecommunications equipment, computers, computer
software and television sets. This being so there is a huge vested interest to
ensure that the new technology is taken up globally as quickly as possible. The
rapid establishment of the Internet around the world and the widespread use of
personal computers demonstrates the commercial imperative to promote the
technology, and a willingness of people to spend money on it. In addition to
the commercial imperative there is a clear, although not widely appreciated,
political imperative too.
The European Commission, in its directive 95/47/EC, states in Article 1:
"Member States shall take appropriate measures to promote the accelerated
development of advanced television services including wide-screen television
services, high definition television services and television services using
fully digital transmission systems. Member States shall see to it that the
transfer of wide-screen television services already in operation to digital
transmission networks open to the public is made easier, in particular pursuant
to Directive 92/38/EEC and Decision 93/424/EEC, in order to protect the
interests of operators and television viewers who have invested to produce or
receive such services."
It further states in Article 6
"Before 1 July 1997, and every two years thereafter, the Commission
shall examine the implementation of this Directive and the development of the
market for digital television services throughout the European Union and submit
a report to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Economic and
Social Committee. This report shall cover market developments, in particular
relating to developments in digital technology and services and also to
technical and commercial market developments on conditional access to digital
television services. If necessary the Commission shall make a proposal to the
Council to adapt this Directive to these developments."
The Green Paper argues that the development of new services could be
hindered by the existence of a range of barriers "including regulatory
barriers".
The "Information Society", then, is of such importance that
it, apparently, must not or cannot be held back and certainly not by
regulations. Moreover, Governments, regional and local authorities "must
lead" by "fully embracing the technologies".
Mention is made of a regulatory framework although there is little in the Green
Paper which alludes to it.
Regulation, currently, has many facets: the receiving of applications to
run services; the granting (and removal) of licences; the maintenance of
transmission systems; the formulation of technical standards, and so on.
This Association continues to be concerned about the regulation of
content by way of film, video and television programmes. We believe many
consumers share this concern. Most people are concerned about programmes, and
other electronic transmissions that enter their homes, via telephone, Internet,
computer software, and above all, television and video. In this response we
shall concentrate on this area of concern.
T |
he EC Directive 97/36/EC, which, curiously, is confined to no more than
a footnote in the Green Paper, states in Article 22, which we reproduce in full:
1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that
television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include
any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral
development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or
gratuitous violence.
2. The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall also extend to other
programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development
of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast
or by any technical measure, that minors in the area of transmission will not
normally hear or see such broadcasts.
3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded form
Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are
identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration.
28. the following Article shall be inserted:
Article 22a
Member States shall ensure that broadcasts do not contain any incitement
to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality.;
29. the following Article shall be inserted:
Article 22b
1. The Commission shall attach particular importance to application of
this Chapter in the report provided for in Article 26.
2. The Commission shall within one year from the date of publication of
this Directive, in liaison with the competent Member State authorities, carry
out an investigation of the possible advantages and drawbacks of further
measures with a view to facilitating the control exercised by parents or
guardians over the programmes that minors may watch. This study shall consider,
inter alia, the desirability of:
- the requirement for new television sets to be equipped with a
technical device enabling parents or guardians to filter out certain
programmes:
- the setting up of appropriate rating systems,
- encouraging family viewing policies and other educational and
awareness measures,
- taking into account experience gained in this field in Europe and
elsewhere as well as the views of interested parties such as broadcasters,
producers, educationalists, media specialists and relevant associations.
We believe that Article 22 is of critical importance.
In correspondence with Commissioner Oreja in 1996 and 1997 concerning
the transmission of hardcore pornography across Europe, it was stated that it
is up to Member States to determine what is acceptable and what is not with
regard to such transmissions.
In view of the convergence of technology, which does not recognise the
boundaries of Member States, it is, in the light of the Green Paper, strange
that such a subjective approach to this problem be countenanced.
It should be noted that the substance of Article 22 which is concerned
to avoid serious impairment of the physical, mental or moral development of
minors, was significantly amended in 1997 by the addition of minimal
limitations on the transmission of "pornography and gratuitous
violence" in programmes. Technical devices to enable parents or guardians
"to filter out certain programmes" were thought to be sufficient with
the additional qualification that such programming should be transmitted late
at night, only on subscription channels and be encrypted. Thus,
"pornography and gratuitous violence" is acceptable to the European
Commission provided these conditions are met.
Numerous breakdowns in this system have come to light, the most serious
being the transmission to Middle Eastern countries of hardcore pornography by a
French channel instead of children's programmes. Such "accidents" are
occurring with greater frequency with a consequent loss of faith in the
filtering devices and the regulatory systems.
This Association believes that effective law, enacted democratically, is
the only sure answer to stopping "pornography and gratuitous
violence". The key to effective law is that such material is properly
defined in the public interest so that the present 'free reign' enjoyed, in
particular, by the international pornography industry comes to an end.
W |
e note with concern that enterprises such as 'Vivid Video', which
operate in the United States of America, are currently flooding the world with
hardcore pornography and especially the lucrative European cable market. If
the European Commission is to take seriously this threat, measures must be put
in place to outlaw the marketing of such material across Europe. Indeed, it
would not be out of place for the European Commission, acting on behalf of the
citizens of Europe, to make representation to the US Government protesting
about the export from America of hardcore pornography and films containing
gratuitous violence on the grounds that such material is an affront to our
sensibilities and an attack our morals.
There can be no doubt that pornography, by its promotion of distorted
sexuality, threatens family life and a balanced sexuality which would lead to a
more wholesome healthy society. With established links to sexual crime the
absence of pornography would lead to less sex crime, less fear in women and
children arising from sexual abuse and attack.
We offer the following definition of "pornography" to the
European Commission. This formed the basis of a Private Bill presented to the
UK House of Lords by the Earl of Halsbury.
"(1) For the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be
obscene if, in whole or in part, it portrays, deals with or relates to any of
the following matters (whether real or simulated):
(a) human sexual activity or acts of force or restraint associated with
such activity;
(b) human genital organs or human urinary or excretory functions;
(c) any act which would be a sexual offence if carried out in practice;
(d) mutilation or torture of, or other acts of gross violence towards
humans or animals;
in a manner which a reasonable person would regard as grossly
offensive".
The term "gratuitous violence" should also be properly defined
and this Association suggests that violent actions that would constitute a
criminal offence in reality would be a suitable starting point for discussion.
Unless these terms are defined portrayals of explicit sexual conduct and
brutal violence will continue to dominate the media to the detriment of the
societies the media ought to serve. Failure to deal with these important questions
will certainly hinder the praiseworthy purpose of technological convergence
expressed in the Green Paper that it has "the potential to substantially
improve the quality of life for Europe's citizens".
Turning now to the "technical device" which Directive 97/36/EC
requires to be fitted to all new televisions sets to act as a filter, this
Association published a paper in June 1996, entitled 'A CHIP TOO FAR' in
which the case against the V-Chip is examined.
We understand that a cinema style classification system is currently
being drawn up by the Internet Watch Foundation's policy board. The intention
of this scheme is to allow parents to filter out violent, pornographic and
other unsavoury material that they do not wish their children to access. The
European Commission (despite issuing this Green Paper!) and ratings bodies in
the United States and Australia, are reported to be in favour of such a scheme
which is expected to be available in two years time.
Since national governments have undertaken to connect all schools to the
Internet, as a priority, it is vital that some means of denying access to such
material be established internationally.
This Association, however, has serious doubts about such "filtering
devices", see Appendix, because they pass responsibility from the
broadcaster or provider to the consumer and they give a false legitimacy to the
material from which it is intended to protect minors.
Article 22, above, intends to disallow "pornography" and
"gratuitous violence" from broadcasting and it is our belief that the
Internet should be brought within its scope. Since the Broadcasting Authorities
in Member States are responsible for broadcast material the Service Providers
must henceforth be responsible for the material carried on the Internet. The
European Commission should now direct that this be so and disregard
self-interested protestations from the Service Providers.
With regard to the role of the recipients of transmitted material, by
whatever means, the European Commission should direct that Member States
provide proper means through which the public can make effective representation
to the Broadcasting Authorities, and other providers, who should be required to
give them due regard and adjust policy accordingly.
It is true that parents have an authentic role to play in educating
their children but this should not be undermined by the electronic media.
Children should be helped to understand the media and parents should try to
ensure that they are selective and discriminating consumers of the means of
communication. However those who transmit material have the greater
responsibility. Parents play little or no role in making films and other
programmes nor do they play a role in scheduling or choosing, from what is
available, what to broadcast.
In recent times it is apparent, as the demands of so-called "free
speech" have gained ground, that there has been a constant drift towards
more screen violence, greater use of obscene and profane language and ever more
explicit depictions of intimate sexual activity. Indeed, the Independent
Television Commission, in the United Kingdom, has granted licences to a number
of cable and satellite channels that transmit so-called "soft"
pornography. It is always easier to drive taste in these matters downwards
rather than upwards. Each step may be a small one, by itself, but if nobody
takes responsibility for each incremental movement, the eventual result will be
the decay of public standards of decency to the point where they no longer
exist, without at any time a deliberate decision having been made by society
that this is what it wants.
It is assumed by the Broadcasting Authorities, and others, that the
absence of public protest or complaint is sufficient to assume public consent.
The complaints procedures currently in place do nothing to assure the
public that their concerns are understood or that they are taken seriously.
Over many years this Association has itself sent in innumerable complaints
about a wide range of objectionable programme content. We have been in the
forefront of encouraging the public to "make their voices heard".
This activity, sadly, is regarded by many as a waste of time and effort because
it seems to achieve nothing. Many people perceive that programmes, where
matters of taste and decency and public offence are concerned, get worse rather
than better.
Indeed, nine years after the Broadcasting Standards Council was set up
their annual survey of public attitudes, published in September 1997, showed
that 64% of respondents said there was too much violence on TV, 55% said there
was too much bad language and 41% said there was too much sex on television. It
is not surprising that Lady Howe, the BSC Chairman of the Council, said, in
launching the BSC Report 'Regulating for Changing Values', published in
May 1997, that many people perceive that the media "may have its own
agenda".
This Association sent, to the Governors of the BBC, a detailed complaint
about the constant stream of gratuitous obscene and profane language, a number
of brutal and merciless shootings, scenes of bondage and graphic use of illegal
drugs of the film 'Pulp Fiction' transmitted by BBC2 in November 1997.
This complaint drew a dismissive response from the secretary of the BBC,
Christopher Graham, who explained that "the BBC takes the view that
violence and strong language are part of contemporary society and adult drama
must be free to explore important issues truthfully"! The obligations on
"good taste and decency" set out in the BBC's Royal Charter seemed to
count for nothing. Indeed earlier correspondence with the BBC established that
the Corporation is committed to broadcasting a wide range of programmes which
cater for different tastes.... "The question of what is good taste or
decent is a matter of judgement and the boundaries change over time. Different
people hold different views".
The European Commission, in consulting on converging technology, and
attempting to devise some means of effective regulation, can no longer shirk
from the task of establishing a broad agreement on content. Article 22, of the
EU Directive, is plainly not sufficient as presently formulated. Without
meaningful definition of the material intended to be excluded from being
legitimately transmitted, by whatever means, those who wish to exploit the
system by broadcasting "pornography" and "gratuitous
violence" will continue to do so using all of the modern technological
means to do so. As a consequence of this technology may well turn out to be the
master rather than the servant of the people.
Click here for ‘A Chip Too
Far’
Click here for Joining Form