mediawatch-uk responds to an important Office of Communications
Consultation
|
I |
n
July 2000 the Independent Television Commission conducted a consultation on
this subject and in January 2001 the findings were published in an ITC Research
Publication entitled 'Public Service
Broadcasting: What Viewers Want'.
This ITC consultation established
that there was broad public agreement that Public Service Broadcasting should
include: diversity, high quality, education, innovation, entertainment,
information, original productions, pluralism and accessibility. The vast majority of respondents believed
that the key principles of PSB were still valid in the multi channel age.
The
consensus across all respondents was that PSB requirements were pre-requisites
for good, quality television and that without them certain strands of
programming would disappear altogether and that quality itself would
diminish. Few were confident that
market forces alone could deliver diversity, high quality or innovative
programming.
There was widespread public support
for regulation and common across all regions were complaints about bad language,
sex and violence on television.
mediawatch-uk position
|
m |
ediawatch-uk agrees with
the sentiments outlined above expressed by those who contributed to the
consultation.
We
also believe that in a mature democracy it is essential that the system of
broadcasting in operation provide information, education and entertainment in
which a passion for excellence is the obvious and overriding
consideration. We recognise, however,
that excellence is achieved at a price and adequate funding is necessary if
these objectives are to be achieved and maintained.
However, it is difficult
to see how this ideal can be sustained indefinitely in a competitive
environment where audiences are steadily fragmenting as more and more
households opt for multi channel packages.
The danger we envisage is that the high price of excellence will be
difficult to justify if audiences are small.
|
A |
s
the ITC research showed, viewers and listeners expect Public Service
Broadcasting to provide a diversity of quality programming of a high standard
that does not assault the senses and insult intelligence. This is especially so in respect of the BBC
because of the obligatory licence fee method of funding and the reputation the
corporation enjoys. Accordingly, public
expectations of the BBC are higher than for other broadcasters. We believe that the unique position of the
BBC as began to be undermined in the 1950s when Independent Television was
permitted. It was further undermined by
the deregulation that occurred in the 1990s when other providers were given
access to Britain via cable and satellite networks. The extension of choice in terms of broadcasting providers has
given rise to a legitimate grievance about paying for BBC services that are not
a priority in some households. Choice
in this regard is uniquely lacking. The
availability of pre-recorded videos and DVDs adds to this grievance, as does
the coverage of important national and international events, for which the BBC
rightly has a renowned reputation, by commercial TV and radio competitors.
It is evident from
ratings and the latest figures for audience share published by the ITC, that
the main Public Service Broadcasters in Britain are losing viewers to
specialist, or niche, channels not bound by public service requirements but
which nevertheless provide programming that people want. This drift is an inevitable consequence of a
much greater choice of channels made possible by technical innovation and
political deregulation.
|
D |
espite
launching a public consultation the Culture Secretary has made it clear that
the BBC's future remains secure because it is a Public Service Broadcaster 'par excellence'. However, the question is whether the Government can realistically continue
indefinitely to support a system of funding for one broadcaster, however
important and good it may be, whilst at the same time it has allowed competing
providers access to the same viewers and listeners who are increasingly
choosing programming that they want and are prepared to pay more to receive.
There
is no doubt that the BBC has been part of the fabric of Britain for many
years. Increasingly, however, the
loyalty the corporation has been able to count upon in previous years is waning
especially among those who are growing up in the multi channel
environment. This process has been
accelerated by the BBC's emphasis on ratings and competing with the commercial
sector. This has led to a rather
undignified scramble for audience share and the production and transmission of
programming that other channels also provide.
Viewers
and listeners do expect high standards from the BBC not only in technical
quality but also in programme content too.
In our experience people resent paying, through the licence fee, for
programmes that include violence, sexual conduct and obscene or profane
language. This is rightly regarded as a
misuse of funds especially in the light of obligations, set out in the Licence
and Agreement with the Government, not to offend public feeling.
As a public service
broadcaster the notion of 'service' seems not to apply on taste and decency
issues about which viewers and listeners feel particularly keenly. Many people also feel that although the BBC
and Commercial TV and Radio producers have Public Service obligations they are
largely unaccountable, not only in terms of expenditure, but also in terms of
the programmes commissioned and transmitted.
In our experience 'Public Service' should imply greater accountability
to the people who are the subject of the service - just like any other
industry.
|
E |
xperience
indicates that the BBC, through its television and radio channels, certainly
provides a broad range of quality programming.
All these and more are expected within a public service framework.
Domestic Public Service Broadcasting is not immune from the influence of other
providers whose agenda may be different and whose vested and other interests
are not always for the common good. We
highlight a relevant observation made by Will Wyatt in his autobiography
entitled 'The Fun Factory'. The BBC's job, he said, is to deliver a wide
range of good programmes to audiences. The programmes are an end in themselves,
whereas ITV's job is to deliver audiences to advertisers by means of
programmes. Whilst this is true,
Parliament has given Commercial Television public service requirements too but
these seem not to be the highest priority because advertisers expect maximum
exposure for their goods and services and this inevitably delivers programming,
where quality is often compromised in favour of mass appeal.
In
summary, says John Beyer (left),
our members raise a number of issues that spoil their viewing:
Strong
language/blasphemy/swearing, poor diction, general coarseness,
nudity/pornography/over explicit imagery, voyeurism, violence/uncivilised
behaviour, human relationships/wife swapping, too many repeats of repeats,
pornography channels, background music.
Our members show concern about
perceived harmful influences on our children and young people and on society
generally. They also show that they are
discerning and discriminating viewers and listeners who take great care over
their choices. No one wishes the
concept of Public Service Broadcasting to be abandoned because all recognise
the benefits in the range and quality of programming.
With
certain exceptions the range and quality of programmes available on BBC, ITV,
Channel 4 and Five is good. However, it
is evident that the commercial channels, if they discover a ratings success,
exploit this to the full. Formats such
as 'Big Brother', 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here', 'Shattered' are regurgitated ad
infinitum despite falling audience ratings.
All
channels suffer from audience fatigue or 'jaded palates' and originality and
innovation are becoming ever more illusive and difficult to achieve. BBC1
recently screened 'Big Cat Week'
which demonstrated that the risk of showing such programmes on consecutive
evenings did work. Wild life programmes
are generally appreciated, as are animal welfare series like 'Animal Hospital' and 'Vets in Practice'. BBC wildlife series like 'Life in the Freezer' and 'The Blue Planet' are technically
brilliant, spellbinding and widely appreciated.
Drama,
such as 'Shameless' on Channel 4,
sets the worst possible example by normalising dysfunction. Costume dramas like 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'The
Mayor of Casterbridge' were widely appreciated as are one-off dramas like 'Mr Tom', 'The Railway Children' and 'Carrie's
War'.
Feature films on television are
appreciated but our monitoring shows that they are frequently vehicles for the
worst violence, language and sexual conduct.
As such many people simply avoid this genre of programming. 'Natural
Born Killers', 'Reservoir Dogs', 'Pulp Fiction', 'Once upon a time in America' and 'Goodfellas' are typical examples of films which in our opinion
cannot be reconciled with the codes and guidelines and so should have no place
on television.
Lifestyle
programmes like, 'No going back', 'Grand Designs' and 'Location, Location' are also appreciated but there is an over
emphasis on cookery, gardening and DIY programmes. These are no longer original or innovative.
We
also believe that there is currently an over emphasis on continuous drama or
'soaps'. These have become a battle
ground for ratings and audience share.
By showing them almost every evening and repeating at weekends we
believe choice is narrowed and creativity stifled.
Consumer
programmes, such as 'Holiday', 'Wish You Were Here', and 'Working Lunch' provide good and useful
information as do other programmes like 'Watchdog'. We particularly commend socially helpful
programmes like 'Crimewatch UK' whose
record in assisting police and the battle against crime is exemplary.
The
provision of news and current affairs is also critical in a democracy. We note that serious programming like 'Panorama' has been pushed to the
margins of the schedules. Programmes
such as Daily Politics are important
and highlights should be shown at peak time.
Such scheduling would assist the task of educating and informing
citizens.
Apart
from the promenade concerts little time is afforded to classical music. Ballet and opera performance is also rare. Many people feel that there is an over
emphasis on pop music in programmes such as 'Pop
Idol', 'Fame Academy', 'Stars in Their Eyes', 'Celebrity Stars in Their Eyes' as well
as 'Top of the Pops' in order to
attract younger viewers.
All
Sport is widely appreciated and is well represented in the schedules.
Science
and Religion are presently under represented and any such programmes tend to be
scheduled awkwardly.
Children's
programmes are well represented and the balance is right. However, concern has been expressed about
behaviour, portrayed in 'Grange Hill'
and in 'Hollyoaks' which has the
occasional 'adult' feature length special.
Regional
programmes like 'Country Ways' and 'Coastal Ways' and 'Inside Out' are also appreciated because they focus on local
matters. In general there is an under
emphasis on programmes made outside London.
Click here for ‘Promoting
a Culture of Violence 2’
Click here for ‘The Daily Grunt Part
2’
Click
here for mediawatch-uk response to ITC consultation
Click
here for Joining Form
For news and information visit: www.ofcom.org.uk
|
T |
he
following comments from mediawatch-uk members show that there is broad
appreciation of good programming and a desire that offensive content, which may
also be socially harmful, is not included in public service broadcasting. Being a 'service' implies being aware of and
avoiding content which people dislike.
Good drama can be spoiled by the inclusion of bad language or violence
or sexual conduct. People do have
imaginations and resent having their intelligence insulted by over explicit
imagery.
Many
people also resent the lack of real choice of programming across numerous
channels offering similar material.
People of the older generation, who have been funding television for
many years, find their choice of programming limited because so much is now
targeted at people under 35. Surveys
show that older people watch more television than younger people and yet more
and more programmes and channels are tailored for younger audiences.
We watch
the 10.00pm news when we are in, which whilst informative we do occasionally
feel is biased. There are some
documentaries which we enjoy, especially those of a scientific nature. Others on more political or social issues
leave us questioning their impartiality, though sometimes there does seem to be
a rightness in their pursuit of the truth of a matter.
With
regard to dramas, we used to enjoy some of the serial dramas, but we rarely
watch these now. The combination of the
ubiquitous presence of background music, poor diction and rapidity of speech
means that we loose the thread of the plot so often that it becomes pointless.
J.W., Loughborough
_____________________
We are increasingly concerned
with the nature and content of many programmes. Fortunately in some guides to
programmes it does indicate that the transmission contains 'strong
language/nudity/violence etc. This should be encouraged, but is their any
justification for programmes of this sort?
What we would like to see is:
1) newspapers carry listings of
programmes include warnings (some do)
2) early warning on schedules
(Teletex, Ceefax)
3) prior to films etc being
shown warnings are clear and unambiguous
Additionally, we believe a
category should be included identifying 'blasphemy'. The use of 'God', '
Christ', 'Jesus', or a compilation of same are frequent. The use of 'my God'
has become a buzzword. Often these names are preceded by the 'f***' word. We
find all this highly offensive It
should be noted that broadcasters do not exclaim 'Allah, Mohammed' or the like
against the Muslim religion. Why is
this? Are programme makers aware of the
outcry that would arise from the latter, but consider the former only reflects
life today? Are they saying that
Christian society will swallow it, so the so-called boundaries can be pushed
out?
Also, the minority grouping of
same gender (homosexual/lesbian) activity, in prolonged kisses (like in Casualty, Emmerdale etc), or in bed etc. is surely ill-advised. Although whilst again we are told it
reflects life today, is in general, offensive to the majority of viewers. Many
have said to me it is hopeless complaining as no-one will take any notice!
The 'watershed' is not
enforced. It has become flexible. Programmes that at one time would be shown
late because of their content have crept earlier and earlier to even the pre
watershed. The 21st century has witnessed a growing increase in 'latch-key'
kids and children having televisions in their bedrooms. Control of what is
watched is consequently difficult. Children are left to fend for themselves and
the bedroom is their 'personal space' not to be policed or monitored by parents
or family elders. Many youngsters are
viewing television well after the watershed in any case. It must also be
stressed that many programmes like Eastenders,
Emmerdale etc. have scenes that are
disturbing and children can go to sleep with such scenes playing over in the
mind.
There is, we suggest, a
complacency on the part of film makers, who seeks to present a film, soap, or
whatever, where ratings and income are the predominant considerations - not,
sadly, the harmful repercussions that are possible on young impressionable
minds. Subjectivity to blasphemy,
swearing, violence, bad behaviour long enough convinces hearers that it is okay
and normal behaviour. It is akin to brain-washing. There have been many studies
and reports on this subject. A recent article "The damning proof that TV
DOES corrupt our young", by Professor Robert Young (Daily Mail Friday 9th
January) clearly and poignantly illustrates the point. The street evidence is abounding of
behavioural problems, both on what is said and done by the young. For example,
youngsters swearing at their peers, lack of respect for people's property etc.
etc. Who is to blame? Sadly, the adults who lead by bad example!", but
also the constant bombardment from television has to share a large percentage
of the blame and responsibility. Blasphemy, swearing and bad behaviour becomes
the norm. is good and in vogue. Violence is acted out some way in the play
ground as second nature. We are sure there is a direct link between bad
language and bad actions on television etc. and actions of the young in and
around our streets and homes in today's society. One of the benefits of the re-showing of the old films etc. is
that one came be more relaxed, in that, the language will be not generally be
offensive, nor will it be subjected to nudity or simulated sexual intercourse
etc. They were safer family viewing.
D.P., Uckfield
________________
There are
occasionally excellent programmes after this, often from BBC4. For example there were 'Holidays in the Axis of Evil' which were superb in the reality and
background information they gave of life in these four countries. Apart from that, we enjoyed 'The Lost Prince', and another Stephen
Poliakoff drama and one costume drama on BBC. There have also been some
excellent programmes on BBC1 on disability, for example, dwarfism. We do enjoy good drama but generally we find
that the acting is poor and unconvincing.
Also there is rather too much blatant sex where nothing is left to the
imagination. I tried to watch Auf Weidersehen Pet as it can be very
funny, but was so offended, not just by Jimmy Nail's disgusting pants and bare
buttock, but by the endless stream of foul language from the start, that I
quickly switched off.
On ITV, I
watch Heartbeat and The Royal - rather mild programmes but
heartening and cheery. They make me
feel good and draw me in to the story.
We also enjoy Foyle's War
although it does tend to drag on for rather too long.
That
unfortunately cannot be said about the majority of dramas, especially
police/detective ones. The crimes
portrayed now are just so horrific and invariably sexual - the pictures and
descriptions quite sickening. The
behaviour of the characters is often poor with no respect for each other, let
alone the victims. Helen Mirren's character for example is most unpleasant in
the Prime Suspect series she has been
doing over the years.
I feel that
Ofcom and the Public Service Broadcasters should take a look at the original
ideas Lord Reith had. How much being broadcast nowadays can be said to enhance
our lives? I am sure my husband and I
are not alone in wanting to watch something in the evening after a very hard
and often distressing day, which leaves us feeling positive about what we've
seen, ourselves and the world in which we all live! Yes, we do have the option to turn the TV off, but nowadays
wonder why we are paying our licence fee for perhaps 5 hours a week maximum
viewing.
I come
across a wide range of people every day and find that generally there is a mood
of cynicism and despair. I feel that there is an increase in anger, aggression
and selfishness in the nation. In the
USA there have been many studies linking poor behaviour with TV/film viewing. I
really think we ignore these studies at our peril. Once our TV was acclaimed throughout the world as being of the
best quality. I feel we are rapidly losing that reputation as our screens are
filled with game shows and 'reality TV' which is basically voyeurism. Our
language is being destroyed too by the constant flow of swear words which are
invariably just not necessary. I think we should take advantage of this time of
consultation to take stock of where we are and where we want to be in the
future.
J.H.,
Reading
________________
The General Media, Television
Radio and the Press, are very powerful tools of communication. It conquers language barriers and can bring
individuals and nations together in harmony or rend them apart through
misinformation due to lack of good reliable output or malicious meddling and
‘mind bending’.
Programme providers, in
particular Television, because of its intimacy (mainly in the home) visual and
sound presentation, are morally bound to adhere to strict codes of good
conduct. Viewers, listeners and
readers, do not wish to be presented via these three Media forms with what is still
considered bad taste and harmful, negative content.
Unfortunately there exists a
body of individuals in the General Media with enormous power over what is
broadcast and written and heard that are heavily committed to promoting their
own agendas. Current trends indicate
that it not for the good!
I can't recall when I realised that some television programme and
a lot of TV advertising content had taken a definite ‘down -slide’ in
quality. A lot of adverts are very
mediocre and sometimes offensive in their message. It has been what seems a slow process over the decades but its
escalation has been rapid! Since the
introduction of Sky, BBC 3, Channel 4 and five there has been a definite
degeneration of programmes.
On a positive note there are
many excellent viewing opportunities on all of the nation's television
channels. Why do we have to put up with what is ‘fed’ to us in large doses of
filth and corrupt content in the guise of ‘thought provoking and challenging
programme content’? It does not wear
well with ordinary decent people for the programme providers to tell us in such
arrogant patronising tones that ‘times have changed, views and opinions have
shifted, etc… Yes, times have changed
and views have shifted, but why do they accentuate the worst side of human
nature? This is the voice of corruption and warped philosophy!
I strongly feel that ‘OFCOM’ can
(but will it?) now take up the challenge of turning the tide and standing up
for good standards.
In conclusion, we as individuals
must speak out and defend what we consider right, don’t be lazy or
‘brainwashed’. Our children and future
generations rely on us all to pave the way for a better world. Public Service
Broadcasting as a people-serving body has a moral duty to make positive strides
in this direction.
C.S., Holbeach
________________
There are
an increasing number of programmes that use strong swearing frequently and
routinely. This is completely
unnecessary and usually a result of poor quality scripting. The sentiments expressed by foul language,
where that is the intention, can be expressed by the creative director/producer
using other means than swearing.
There are
an increasing number of programmes that depict gay and lesbian
relationships. I have no objection to
honest and sensitive exploration of gay/lesbian issues and experiences but
object strongly to the implicit propaganda that seeks unquestioningly to
'normalise' gay/lesbian relationships in the minds of viewers.
There are
a number of documentary programmes, particularly those dealing with wildlife,
such as those presented by David Attenborough, that uncritically project
evolutionary theory as fact rather than hypothesis. This portrayal is unscientific and simply betrays underlying
ideological preferences.
There are
an increasing number of programmes that depict explicit sex, particularly on
channels 4 and 5. I question strongly
whether this is really necessary on TV for entertainment purposes and feel
concerned about the on-going effects on our humanity and relationships, particularly
in a society already characterised by massive levels of relationship-breakdown.
Our news
programmes are incredibly UK-centric.
In a globalising world, it would be great to see news items exploring
international issues from other national perspectives, too.
I hope
these comments are helpful and that the consultation will bring genuine change.
N.R.,
Sutton
________________
Wildlife programmes, 'Animal
Hospital' etc., Gardening, Art and so on are excellent and the makers are to be
congratulated. Great viewing. 'Heartbeat', 'The Royal', 'Countdown' and
'Fifteen to One' - good viewing. The
Soaps - I have only watched 'Coronation Street' which is like the curate's
egg!
Like all programmes nowadays it
is taken for granted that if you are sixteen then you can immediately sleep
around. And if you are older then a few
one-night stands are in order. Children
can be as rude as they like without reprimand, and the Church is always
misrepresented. Even this week there was a quite exciting episode regarding a
child and the church tower but surely everybody knows that churches are kept
locked at all times except when manned, and health and safety laws are very
rigid especially regarding dangerous places like towers. (I work in Truro
Cathedral and am well aware of the regulations.)
'The Bill' is fairly true to
life I should imagine, but the other side of a policeman's life leads one to
believe that it is all drugs and wife swapping, whereas when I was Chairman of
an organisation concerned with troublesome children we had endless help from
the police, who gave a lot of their spare time running classes, sports, camps,
etc,. for them. 'Holby', 'Casualty',
etc. again show disgusting behaviour from the Staff and I should be scared
stiff if it was really like that in hospital. Luckily my daughter is a nurse
and reassures me! I find 'Fame Academy'
and 'Pop Idol' very sad - what an outlook for these kids. Far too many quizzes for money and we need
better comedians.
R.E., Truro
________________
It is
obvious that there has been a general trend of liberalism in our country over
the years and this has been reflected, if not emphasised, in the content of
many radio and TV programmes. I believe
that pictures seen on our screens have a powerful effect on us all as viewers
and to that extent violence, bad language and immoral sexual behaviour does
have an influence on people's actions. There must be, therefore, at least some
connection between the lowering of the nation's moral standards and similar
standards which programmes show these as something that is normal and
acceptable today. This is something that does worry me about our broadcasting
set-up. However, there are many programmes that are beneficial and which I can
enjoy.
I would
now like to comment upon the programmes under the following
headings:-
1.
SPORT. I am a keen viewer of sport,
particularly rugby union, cricket and athletics and usually find the
commentaries very good, especially by BBC.
It was therefore a disappointment when the Six Nations matches at
Twickenham were taken over by Sky.
2.
HISTORICAL. I find most of these
programmes educational and interesting and I am glad that there seem to have
been more showings on this subject in the past year.
3.
NATURE. These, again, are well worth
viewing. The photography is often superb and leave viewers spellbound at the
wonder of creation and nature.
4. NEWS
AND CURRENT AFFAIRS. This is, perhaps, the most important function of the media
broadcaster as it is a main means of information about vital matters
world-wide. Therefore it has to be seen
as being impartial - which is not always easy to establish. I can accept that, in general, the BBC and
ITV news is the best of any country. In
particular I regularly enjoy the 'Today' and 'World at One' radio
programmes. Channel 4 news at 7pm is
also good.
5.
MUSIC. I listen to music mostly on the
car radio on the Channel. However, the TV Leeds 'Young Musician of the Year'
contest is quite brilliant.
6.
RELIGION. There are fewer religious
programmes today and many of these have little content. Services are often formal and they need to
be more relevant and alive. 'Songs of
Praise' led by Aled Jones lack spiritual content and Pam Rhodes is the best
presenter to make them meaningful. I
was pleased to see that Jonathan Edwards was brought into the Religious
broadcasting team as he brings a new dimension to it. The series 'The Hand of
God' in which Michael Buerk was the interviewer was quite negative and thus
very disappointing.
7.
COMEDY. I do enjoy a good humorous
programme but sadly, some are spoilt by the use of bad language (which oddly
brings a laugh and encourages producers to think this is necessary) and
too-obvious sexual innuendo.
8.
DRAMA. I would venture to look at more
films and plays if I could be sure there was nothing in the content likely to
cause me offence. Unfortunately, I
cannot be sure so I may miss out on some enjoyable programmes. There is nothing worse that having to turn
off half way through a play or film for the sake of decency and even then the
harm has already been done.
I trust
these comments may be of some help in producing your response to Ofcom. I do appreciate all you are doing to provide
a media environment we can all enjoy.
R.A., Ramsgate
________________
It seems
that PSB covers just about everything and one can see that the general terms
'education' and 'entertainment' as defined in The Communications Act 2003 mean
that most genres and types of programming will fall into one or the other. I don't know how specific you would like us
to be but I think the words 'integrity' and 'truth' need to be
prerequisites. I am also particularly
keen that we should question the constant emphasis on TV aimed at young
people. With an ageing population older
people's opinions and tastes should be given much more prominence than at
present. This would also be of immense
benefit to younger people who need good role models and to realise that the
older generation has something of interest to offer them.
Regarding
programmes made outside London - they should be as independent as possible to
reflect local issues and communities and talents.
P.S.,
Gloucester
________________
I would make the following
points that I hope will be considered:
1. In
comparison with what is on offer for the younger generation, there is very
little for retired folk to enjoy either on television or radio.
2. There
are virtually no pre-war films shown on any channel.
3. There
are only a few pre-1950 post-war films shown.
4. There
are only a few pre-1960 post-war films shown, especially those in black and
white, which are almost entirely suitable for families.
5. There
is a good deal of bad language before the watershed.
6. The
credits to good productions are invariably interrupted and ruined by a
continuity announcer breaking in to tell us "Stay tuned for Graham
Norton" or something else equally distasteful.
7. So
called stand-up comedians are almost entirely naff and get their cheap laughs
by mocking others. This is not funny to
a vast number of people.
8. Radio 4
comedy shows, with the exception of Giles Wemmbley-Hogg (two 'm's two 'g's!,
are quite nasty in their approach. I
include 'The News Quiz' which was once a very funny programme but which has now
been turned into a forum for unpleasant people like to Andy Hamilton to simply
poke fun at others.
9. Tuneful
music has all but been abandoned by Radio 3 which has been hijacked by
politically correct gurus such as Michael Berkeley who openly despise those who
prefer melody. It is not surprising that Classic FM has taken such a share of
the R3 market.
10. Apart
from Brian Kay and Richard Baker, there is virtually no time given over to
British Light Music or any form of tuneful serious music on BBC Radio or
television.
11. The
following tuneful radio programmes have all been cut back:
a) Malcolm
Laycock and dance band music
b) Frank
Renton and brass band music
c) Nigel
Ogden and organ music
d) Hubert
Gregg and theatre music
12. There
is almost no radio or television time given over to anything
pre-war,
specifically music and films.
The
over-50s have been almost entirely disenfranchised which is ridiculous when one
considers that they make up the sizeable majority of the country!
P.W., Cheltenham
________________
It is difficult to bring to mind
any current TV programme that we really like and we find ourselves looking for
repeats of old favourites.
There does not seem to be any
good comedy series anymore like 'Time Goes By' or 'The Good Life' and 'Only
Fools and Horses'. The recent Costume
dramas leave a lot to be desired. We
looked forward to seeing Pepy’s but were very disappointed and turned it off
after ten minutes. In our view it was a wasted opportunity to produce what
should have been an epic programme.
As a general view there is too
much explicit sex on our screens, we suggest that it is better to keep the
bedroom door closed and allow us to use our imagination, which is usually
better than what follows. Is sex used
to blind the viewer to the poor quality of British TV? Some programmes verge on the pornographic
for instance 'Between the Sheets' was an absolute waste of the talents of
Brenda Bethan and Alun Armstrong.
In almost every programme these
days there is gratuitous violence which, often ends up with a victim on the
floor having his head kicked in! There are too many programmes about cooking,
real estate here and abroad and gardening.
These comments apply to all TV
channels we have no criticism of radio the programmes are varied and generally
interesting. We would love to see some
clean comedy on TV and some first rate drama that the BBC has been very good
at.
We hope that the review by Ofcom
will result in some badly needed improvements.
A.P., Mayfield
________________
Whilst
there is much to appreciate on BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Five, many Christians,
Muslims and other people are becoming increasingly concerned that the shift
from terrestrial to satellite broadcasting is exposing millions of people to
unwanted and harmful pornography. In
June 2003, I wrote to Sky on three occasions expressing the following concerns
but did not receive any response, therefore our family cancelled our
subscription.
Since 1999
we saw Sky's pornography channels increase from two to nearly 20, their
"freeview" advertising now starts at 7pm (back in 1999 it was 10pm)
and more recently Sky has made it easier for men to take-out a pornography
subscription. Sky's removal of monthly postal statements, replaced by on-screen
viewing, now hides any subscription to a pornography channel. Clearly there's money to be made out of
pornography and at this rate of growth by 2009 Sky will have more pornography
channels than all the others channels put together!
Millions
of families like us, who have never subscribed to any of Sky's pornography
channels, must be disturbed by the explicit images shown from 7pm onwards to
advertise these channels. It is simultaneously compelling and revolting: not
even zoo animals behave like those actors/prostitutes on TV. Sky's pornography
channels are playing on the malleability of peoples' minds, making things that
should shock and repel appear to be attractive and seductive.
Biblical
teaching and the legislation of virtually every civilised culture have certain
prohibitions or taboos about sexual intercourse in public. The sacred
experience of making love is meant to be private. Sex is not a spectator
sport. Similarly, while there is
nothing inherently wrong or sinful about the human body, the nakedness of a
person is for their marriage partner's delight no-one else - because it is part
of the couple's total sharing. Any kind of pornography or voyeurism denigrates
and perverts that intimacy. It is a
warped and depraved substitute for the joy God intended to be found in
marriage. Sky is promoting sex as a
form of recreation - akin to watching football. Some would argue that you are just giving people what they want,
but we believe SKY is playing an active part in destroying the moral fabric
that holds our families and British society together. Sky really should act
more responsibly by limiting this output and cutting it back before it gets
completely out of control.
This is no
small 'hole in the corner' concern since Sky is a key part of a huge
multi-million international business empire in which the men at the top make
huge profits by exploiting a basic human frailty. Scientific research is
proving beyond doubt that pornography destroys character, wrecks marriages and
distorts the mental image of woman within every culture. This is greater than any society has seen
before and is a powerful force destroying marriage and family life.
Whilst
Sky's computer system includes safeguards to reduce the risk of children
accessing this material, some adults are more impressionable than others. A significant minority will become addicted
to pornography and, for some, their ultimate frustration in not finding
satisfaction will be expressed by abusing themselves, their wives, children and
other vulnerable people in society.
Although
Sky may be operating within the law, just knowing what's happening elsewhere on
Sky makes Christians feel compromised.
Ofcom should force Sky to adopt one or more of the following:
a. the
pornography channels are to be excluded (eg. BBC and freeview
channels),
or
b. the
technology must completely hide them from view, or
c.
‘freeview’ porno advertising is to be banned, or
d. this
advertising is to be only allowed after 11pm.
These are
the reasons why we cancelled our Sky subscription and in future thousands of
Christians, Muslims and others will do the same unless Ofcom get a grip on this
problem
A.C., Cheltenham
________________
I feel so strongly that half of
the ills of our society are, in part, caused by the irresponsible attitude of
the television companies, especially the BBC.
Public service broadcasting, should be just that, and not, as it is now
a recipe for much of what is decadent in our society. Decency, tastefulness, has been replaced with the explicit and
the vulgar. The "F" word is
commonplace to the disgust of many who phone to register their anger, only to
be told that the item took place after the watershed. Never mind that many adults deplore such language broadcast into
their homes and that millions of children have TV's in their bedrooms. The country, our country has many problems,
violence, under age sex, crime gets worse and more vicious every year. Much of television compounds our
problems. In my opinion, television has
been usurped by the pro permission irresponsible minority to the detriment of
society as a whole! Yours son, my
daughter are being badly influenced or influenced badly and irresponsibly and I
do not think it is good enough for the Government to wash its hands of the
powerful influence of our televisions.
The watchdogs of the past have proved to be toothless bulldogs. It may not be in the remit of the BBC to
provide good wholesome decent entertainment to the exclusion of the vile, of
the vicious and harmful, then perhaps it is about time it was in their remit! I ask for more late night decency from the
BBC, after all, I must pay for their decadence with my licence fee and I do not
like it, nor does my wife. I have 50
years experience of television I know how it used to be. I know what it is like now, much damaging to
our society. I am not religious but do
believe in right and wrong. It seems to
me that there is so much more propaganda for crime, for anger, for lust, for
cheating, than there is for reticence, for niceness and for love and decency
and our society is suffering.
H.R., Ebbw Vale
________________
Sadly, I reckon standards appear
to be dropping alarmingly, year by year, because I am increasingly being
sickened and offended by what is broadcast.
In particular, the f-word, which I had never heard broadcast, say up to
3 years ago, is now being broadcast. I
read in the newspaper about the f-word being used emphatically on Newsnight,
and sadly I heard the f-word on the last Panorama programme I watched (by U.S
troops to Iraqi civilians I think) on 28 September 2003. I don't watch much TV after 9pm. I avoid watching any possible offensive
programmes. I find TV weekly guides
useful, informative, clear etc. Now
I've stopped watching programmes like Newsnight and Panorama because I no
longer trust them.
I believe the 'watershed' should
be moved later as 9pm-10pm is too early and I believe certain programmes like
The News, Newsnight and Panorama should lead the way by declaring themselves
free in future from offensive material.
I think if you conducted a survey of viewers and asked "do you want
cleaner TV?", then over 95% would vote yes. And if you asked about the f-word being broadcast and watershed
timings I think you'd get a majority in favour.
These are some of the programmes
I like because they are family viewing, well presented, well prepared,
containing the feel good factor, containing all nice characters, informative,
an insight into situations, nice background music, educational, old films
because values were far higher. I think
we should return broadcasting to the high values of the past.
Songs of Praise, Open All Hours,
Only Fools and Horses, The News, Merseybeat, Animal Hospital, Wimbledon tennis,
Golf, City Hospital, Under the Hammer, Michael Palin's journeys, Heatbeat, The
Royal, Countdown, A Place in the Sun, Watercolour Challenge.
I see little harm in
"repeats" and think there should be more repeats broadcast. I think there must be loads of programmes
I've seen in the past 30 years or so, that I'm never likely to see again but
would deserve another showing. I also
think weekly shows could be repeated at other times in the week as okay.
R.K., Knutsford
________________
I feel that my reply should take
the form of informing you of what I choose to watch.
Drama : 'Midsomer Murders',
'Foyle's War', 'Miss Marples' -type plays........
Reason: Mind-teasing, pleasing
setting,
Soaps etc: Casualty; 2000acres
of sky
Reason : Medically instructive,
pleasant characters, consistent acting
Setting, characters, presenting
decent values
Comedy : 'Have I got news for
you', 'Bremner', 'Bird and Fortune'
Reason : Topical, fast, witty,
satirical and acceptable level of ' ludeness'
Music : Normally supplied by
Classic FM
Occasional Prom
Feature Films: Rare - maybe once
over Christmas period
Arts: Recent programmes on
particular painters and paintings have been instructive
News and current affairs: 'News
at 10', 'Newsnight', 'Question Time'
Reason: Desire to keep up to
date and hear informed opinion and different sides to arguments
Complaint: Not nearly enough of
'From Our Own Correspondent' type material
Sporting and other leisure
interests
National Rugby, Figure skating,
gymnastics, occasional equestrian/circus feats and similar pursuits requiring
immense skill. Also set spectacles, when I marvel at the organisation and input
of effort.
Education: Nature, gardening,
archaeology, history, even 'Antiques Road Show'
Peace and justice (not nearly
enough of this)
Science: There could be much
more on this subject too - particularly in relation to benefits or ill -effects
on humanity and the environment.
Religious social issues: I see
very little on this subject on TV although I would like to see more.
I suppose that there are plenty
social issues screened on soaps but I fear that it is the unedifying subjects
which get most viewing time to such an extent that that behaviour comes to be
taken as the norm. To retain our cultural identity there should be more time
devoted to informing citizens of their God-given responsibilities - in the most
dramatic and appealing way of course. I do not hold with the belief that
watching TV does not influence behaviour (otherwise why are there so many
advertising slots?!)
International Significance:
MORE, MORE please. We are after all living in a global village and we should
know our 'neighbour'. LESS, LESS please of celebrity stuff, that really has no
significance.
Children's Programmes: Our only
grandson lives on the Continent and so we have no experience of these
programmes although I suspect that the same comments will apply: some excellent
creative, educational, imagination encouraging, topical, and uplifting
programmes but also violence by heroes, flaunting by heroines, blatant
consumerism, and little in the way of direction for world citizenship.
I hope from the above that you
gather what I deem bad, good, unnecessary and wish addressed, what is not
covered adequately and what receives too much attention, what I wish to see
more of, or less, and what I consider bad taste and what is decent. In the main
the programming my wife and I enjoy the most include some natural history
productions, documentaries, vintage comedy repeats and current affairs.
Unfortunately, news programmes can almost be presented in an 'entertainment'
style and can focus on certain politically correct topics to the exclusion of
other valid news items
In terms of drama, we enjoy the
'Miss Marple' series with its
gripping plot and no shortage of nostalgia yet with an absence of bad language,
sex/nudity and violence. The presence of such factors as these prevents us
viewing soaps and much of the drama output on tv and many films.
Religious programming we feel is
mixed. 'The Heaven and Earth'
series we feel concentrates too much on New-Age spirituality to the exclusion
of orthodox Christianity. On the other hand, some editions of Songs of Praise can be inspirational.
Hope this is helpful
W.R., Linlithgow
________________
Click here for Joining Form
Click here for mediawatch-uk directory