Paying To Be Peeping Toms
By John C Beyer, Director mediawatch-uk
I |
t was reported last week that a ten-year-old child was caught accessing
hard core pornography on the Internet. He was showing his classmates when a teacher
intervened and turned the computer off. The child had apparently overridden the
software by which such material would normally be excluded from sites
accessible to those using school equipment. Whilst we accept that all children
should be computer literate this eventuality is one of the predictable
consequences of connecting schools to the World Wide Web. Indeed we warned the
Government, many months ago, that effective safeguards should be in place
before the substantial sums of tax payers money were expended on connecting
schools to the so-called Grid for Learning.
Many people, perhaps, will probably not be aware that the Internet,
apart from its beneficial capability of enabling access to a wealth of valuable
information, is a technological development, just as video was in the 1980s,
that is being used extensively by the sex industry. There are many web sites
offering access too much that is morally corrosive and offensive in the
extreme. Indeed, daily newspapers and magazines advertise numerous web
addresses that offer pornography, prostitutes, sex products and so on. More
worrying are the many sites that seem innocent and yet conceal some very
explicit images.
In the past people who wanted pornography had to go to sleazy back
street premises and do so in fear of being seen. All that has changed and today
anyone with a computer and a modem, and there are now 10 million homes in
Britain connected to the Internet, can access obscenity in the privacy of their
own homes. It is estimated that the number of visits to pornographic web sites
is to be counted in millions every day!
Channel 5 TV, not surprisingly, is currently showing a series of
programmes entitled 'www.sex'. Included so far has been a programme
about Porn Stars, others about prostitutes and "swingers" with
another about "amateurs" who like to perform sex acts while being
watched by others. According to one contributor "'Amateur' is a prized
quality that people are really willing to pay for - the illusion that they are
seeing into somebody's house and they are seeing them do something that they
don't think they are being seen doing". Web sites devoted entirely to
voyeurism were featured as well as some of the explicit images shown on them.
This series seems to be little more than a promotion for the sex industry and
its exploitation of the Internet and we can hardly be surprised if youngsters
have their innocence destroyed by surfing the net.
C |
ommunications technology has moved quickly into the digital age and
television producers have been eager to demonstrate the range of novel
capabilities that are now possible. The first series of 'Big Brother'
hit our television screens last year and was considered to be a ratings success
for Channel 4 TV. It was followed later in the year by 'Celebrity Big
Brother' which was also a ratings winner with prize money being given to
charity. 'Big Brother' has also enjoyed unprecedented press coverage and
some of the participants have quickly achieved celebrity status especially
those who have played up to the cameras.
The continuous web casting, the transmission of edited highlights on
free to air television and telephone voting combine to bring us a televisual
development that is bound to become commonplace in the future.
In George Orwell's book '1984', 'Big Brother' was the all seeing
eye that exerted total control over every action, word, gesture and thought of
the subjects. In the TV series it is not difficult to imagine the conversations
reflecting directives from Orwell's Ministry of Love. Even the location, a high
security compound, is not very far removed from the windowless building
described in the satire. That the viewers decide who stays and who goes could
have sinister implications for the future of our televisual society.
As with other programming the wider social consequences are simply not
considered. Such a series turns viewers into voyeurs and it moves further along
the so-called 'fly-on-the-wall' genre of programming. 'Big Brother' creates
an unhealthy curiosity and a lustful desire to see what other people do
"in private". It pretends to be showing the reality of living but it
is so clearly contrived to parade the worst excesses of exhibitionism. The
danger of programmes like this is that they assume that individual privacy can
be cynically surrendered in the interests of novelty television aimed at
maximising audience ratings and advertising revenue. The towel dropping scene
will no doubt be shown again and again and in order to keep us all viewing we
are promised that Helen and Paul, two of the "stars", are expected be
spending a night together in the den.
The portrayal of real, rather than simulated, sex on television is an
objective that has been achieved several years ago on some European satellite
TV channels. At the Edinburgh Festival in August last year a high ranking TV
official demanded that hard core pornography should be available on British
subscription channels. This is a prospect that is not as far off as we might
think! Next week a new film called 'Intimacy' will be shown in Britain's
cinemas. This film, classified "18" by the British Board of Film
Classification, represents a landmark judgement. For the first time real sexual
intimacy is being portrayed in a film regarded by the BBFC as suitable for
general release in the nations cinemas. Up until the Board's guidelines were
relaxed last year such imagery would not have been so classified. With an
"18" certificate 'Intimacy' is eligible for showing on
television. Other explicit films like 'Showgirls', said by one critic to
give pornography a bad name, has been shown by Channel 4 TV, the remake of 'Lolita'
and David Cronenberg's controversial film 'Crash' have been shown
recently by FilmFour. The sordid sado-masochistic film 'The Story of
O' about a young woman who becomes a sex slave has also been shown by
Channel 4 TV.
That current broadcasting policy
is out of step with a large proportion of public opinion has been demonstrated
again by the results of two separate polls conducted recently by 'The Heaven
and Earth Show' on BBC TV and another by ITV's teletext service. Viewers
were asked if they thought that society is being corrupted by the media. Of the
thousands who telephoned and e-mailed 92% said YES. Teletext readers were asked
if they are sick of TV sleaze. Astonishingly, this had an even higher 98% YES
vote!
Of course it is easy to keep going on about the problem but you may ask
what are we doing about it?
m |
ediawatch-uk, previously called the
National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, has established a reputation for
taking on media issues fearlessly and without compromise. We have suffered many
setbacks in the past and have had to cope with the criticism of being "too
negative". We continue to recognise good programmes that deserve praise
but we believe that these do not outweigh the bad. Nor do we believe it is
right to remain silent when the programme codes and statutory duties seem to be
ignored.
At the beginning of June Channel 4 TV transmitted a two part drama
called 'Men Only'. Significantly this was a few days before the General
Election when most people, including our politicians, were concerned about
voting. 'Men Only' was previewed in a national Sunday newspaper and the
description of the contents proved to be accurate if understated. From the
outset and throughout the characters used a continuous stream of foul language.
The men were portrayed using illegal drugs and brutally raping a nurse. We
wrote immediately to the Chairman of the Independent Television Commission
asserting that the drama breached several sections of their Programme Code. We
also said that it failed to comply with the provisions of the Human Rights Act
1998 in so far as it portrayed disorder and crime and sexual conduct that was
not healthy or moral. We also wrote to the Broadcasting Standards Commission
because we thought it breached their Code of Guidance too. Bearing in mind that
Channel 4 TV's drama season is being sponsored by Renault we wrote, in French,
to the chairman, Msr Benoit Marzloss, urging that their funding be withdrawn.
Television has imperceptibly
assumed an essential role in our society and we have all come to trust the
broadcasters and rely upon the entertainment, the information and the education
that is prescribed for us. The Digital Television Age brings with it the
advantage of greatly increased choice of viewing. If we want good wholesome
programming that respects audiences and is not offensive we must all make a
real effort to ensure that high standards of taste and decency prevail. We have
to ask ourselves whether being turned into voyeurs is right or desirable and
whether television is going beyond and what it ought to be - our servant not
our master. One thing is certain, switching off and remaining silent are no
longer realistic options.
This article first appeared in The Catholic Herald 20/7/2001
Click
here for Make Internet Pornography an Election Issue
Click here for Time
to strengthen the law against pornography
Click here for Some
myths about Denmark
Click here for Joining Form