Making our Voices Heard
By John C
Beyer, Director mediawatch-uk
O |
n the day that
Mary Whitehouse was called home the telephone did not stop ringing until very
late. One after another journalists wanted some 'inside' and personal comment from
me because I had worked alongside Mary for almost twenty years until she
retired as our President in 1994. The television news bulletins that evening
included faded film clips of the original meeting in 1965 at Birmingham Town
Hall. Coach loads of people were seen arriving eager to show their support for
this schoolteacher who had experienced at first hand the damaging effect of
television on the thinking of the children in her care. Mary was shown
addressing the gathering in her broad 'brummy' accent: "If violence is
seen as normal on the television screen," she said, "it will help to
create a violent society".
The next day the
newspapers included lengthy tributes and generous obituaries giving testimony
to Mary's courage and tenacity.
Directly linking
television with social behaviour seemed like common sense, and still the
damaging influence of violent entertainment is hotly debated by academics and
remains the subject of intense scientific and social research. Today violence
in films and on television is a matter of real public concern as we see around
us a society saturated with violent imagery and experiencing high levels of
violent crime and social disorder.
Since the 23 November many
people have sent messages of condolence and support for the on going work.
Several made the point that history will vindicate Mary and the cause she
founded. The astonishing achievements of almost forty years are recorded in the
six books she wrote and these provide an insight into the kind and
compassionate person who wrote them. Mary's concern was always for children and
young people who she believed should be allowed to grow up and mature at their
own pace rather than having maturity, and a lot more besides, forced upon them
by the media. "Better a millstone" was a title often used for the
talks she delivered around the country.
I |
t is evident from
the many features that have been written in the last few weeks that Mary
Whitehouse at least caused people to think about the influence of the media and
she reminded the practitioners of the responsibilities they carry. Some cynics
say that the campaign was a comprehensive failure because the overwhelming
forces of liberalism are unstoppable. Such a judgement is premature because
there are consequences for society that we ignore. The real failure, largely
overlooked, has been with those, charged by Parliament to regulate broadcasting
according to the law and their own codes and guidelines, who have allowed
standards of taste and decency to incrementally decline.
A report published recently asserts that Britain has
become a nation of adulterers where men and women casually cheat on their
partners. The divorce bill is costing around £5 billion a year. Has the
portrayal of casual sexual conduct in film and on television helped bring this
about? Will the obscene phrase, uttered by the singer Madonna at last week's
Turner Prize - and shown on television - quickly become commonplace in the
school playground?
Next year a new
Communications Bill will come before Parliament laying foundations for the
regulation of the media in the future. Revolutionary developments have taken
place in the technology that enables us to communicate with each other. Mobile
telephones, the Internet, e-mail and television and radio are going digital.
Around the world governments are legislating for the new and complex
information society taking into account national and global ramifications. It
is essential that this new legislation strike the right balance between the
industry and the consumer.
A |
s always mediawatch-uk,
formerly known as The National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, is at the
forefront of the campaign for better broadcasting. We have already submitted a
ten-point plan ('A Fair Deal for Stakeholders') to the Government aimed
at strengthening the position of the viewing public. We believe that much more
ought to be done to canvas public opinion about programmes and standards of
taste and decency. The regulator, to be called OFCOM, should be required to
draw up a comprehensive and well-defined Code of Practice that should be made
available to the public. And there should be meaningful sanctions against those
who breach the rules.
Mary Whitehouse was
undoubtedly a significant figure of the twentieth century and she demonstrated
what could be achieved given the determination. The future holds many
challenges and perhaps the biggest of these is not to pass by on the other side
by switching off and remaining silent when programmes offend. We all owe it to
Mary Whitehouse, who sacrificed a very great deal, to continue the work that
she started. In order to succeed many more people will have to be involved to
build on the substantial achievements of the past and to ensure that they will
mean much more in the future.
12 December 2001
Click here for mediawatch-uk Directory
Click here for Joining Form
Click here for About Us