Understandable media interest in the Australian Senate’s reaction to the potty-mouth Gordon Ramsay allowed other aspects of the Effectiveness of the Broadcasting codes of practice standing committee report to be overlooked.
The report, released last week, noted a number of interesting changes in the patterns of family viewing which impact on children’s exposure to unsuitable material. It notes, for example, that children are staying up later which increases their exposure to adult material and that the use of the remote makes channel surfing and therefore parental control more difficult to maintain.
But perhaps the most interesting reading was contained in the section relating to news and current affairs.
The committee found that “current affairs broadcasting, as it tends more towards ‘infotainment’ relies increasingly on a diet of graphic and sensationalised reporting of violent crime, spectacular accidents and the like. These stories often have little intrinsic merit as news but do provide an opportunity to screen graphic images during early evening time slots which may be distressing to children”.
There was also concern about unsavory content in other television programs becoming the news story increasing the exposure to a much larger number of children. Gordon Ramsay’s swearing and “the more prurient incidents on Big Brother” (no doubt the turkey slapping incident) came in for special mention.
“This results in the very material that was found offensive by some in a later time slot being televised much earlier in the evening as part of a news or current affairs program”.
Curiously, despite the concern, the committee put the onus back on broadcasters its recommendation 6 saying “The Committee does not wish to tell television stations what they should be in news and current affairs programming”. Why ever not?
What exactly is the point of spending taxpayers’ money on the effectiveness of existing regulations and then washing your hands on the matter?
The committee did recommend “that ACMA, in consultation with broadcasters, review the sections of the Classification Code applying to news and current affairs programming, with regard to the use of graphic and disturbing imagery and excerpts from M or higher rated programs in news and current affairs broadcasting in early evening time zones”.
Yes, yes, heard it all before.
In 1996 for example, in the wake of the Port Arthur Massacre, the Commonwealth Government established a Committee of Ministers on the Portrayal of Violence in the Media. When the report was tabled in the Senate in February 1997 arguably its most contentious recommendation was for a toned down early evening news bulletin saying "when reporting items which are identified by television stations themselves as being accompanied by 'disturbing footage', that footage should only be shown in later evening bulletins and not during the early evening news bulletin when large numbers of children are watching television".
But when the Government’s official response to the report was tabled any talk of enforcement was removed and replaced by broadcasters being “strongly urged” "to be vigilant in meeting the requirements of their codes of practice".
Then in 2000, Victorian Government's Family and Community Development Committee brought down its final report on The effects of Television and Multimedia on children & families in Victoria, urging broadcasters to keep disturbing footage out of the early evening news bulletins.
And here we are in 2008 still politely asking broadcasters to do the right thing.
There is no doubt news creates an especially difficult area for broadcasters. Many of the events journalists cover are violent, disturbing and graphic – that’s what makes them news. But repeatedly parents are telling inquiries that at times the choice of language and images crosses the line in what it acceptable in family viewing times.
They have the right to wonder if anyone is listening.
The report, released last week, noted a number of interesting changes in the patterns of family viewing which impact on children’s exposure to unsuitable material. It notes, for example, that children are staying up later which increases their exposure to adult material and that the use of the remote makes channel surfing and therefore parental control more difficult to maintain.
But perhaps the most interesting reading was contained in the section relating to news and current affairs.
The committee found that “current affairs broadcasting, as it tends more towards ‘infotainment’ relies increasingly on a diet of graphic and sensationalised reporting of violent crime, spectacular accidents and the like. These stories often have little intrinsic merit as news but do provide an opportunity to screen graphic images during early evening time slots which may be distressing to children”.
There was also concern about unsavory content in other television programs becoming the news story increasing the exposure to a much larger number of children. Gordon Ramsay’s swearing and “the more prurient incidents on Big Brother” (no doubt the turkey slapping incident) came in for special mention.
“This results in the very material that was found offensive by some in a later time slot being televised much earlier in the evening as part of a news or current affairs program”.
Curiously, despite the concern, the committee put the onus back on broadcasters its recommendation 6 saying “The Committee does not wish to tell television stations what they should be in news and current affairs programming”. Why ever not?
What exactly is the point of spending taxpayers’ money on the effectiveness of existing regulations and then washing your hands on the matter?
The committee did recommend “that ACMA, in consultation with broadcasters, review the sections of the Classification Code applying to news and current affairs programming, with regard to the use of graphic and disturbing imagery and excerpts from M or higher rated programs in news and current affairs broadcasting in early evening time zones”.
Yes, yes, heard it all before.
In 1996 for example, in the wake of the Port Arthur Massacre, the Commonwealth Government established a Committee of Ministers on the Portrayal of Violence in the Media. When the report was tabled in the Senate in February 1997 arguably its most contentious recommendation was for a toned down early evening news bulletin saying "when reporting items which are identified by television stations themselves as being accompanied by 'disturbing footage', that footage should only be shown in later evening bulletins and not during the early evening news bulletin when large numbers of children are watching television".
But when the Government’s official response to the report was tabled any talk of enforcement was removed and replaced by broadcasters being “strongly urged” "to be vigilant in meeting the requirements of their codes of practice".
Then in 2000, Victorian Government's Family and Community Development Committee brought down its final report on The effects of Television and Multimedia on children & families in Victoria, urging broadcasters to keep disturbing footage out of the early evening news bulletins.
And here we are in 2008 still politely asking broadcasters to do the right thing.
There is no doubt news creates an especially difficult area for broadcasters. Many of the events journalists cover are violent, disturbing and graphic – that’s what makes them news. But repeatedly parents are telling inquiries that at times the choice of language and images crosses the line in what it acceptable in family viewing times.
They have the right to wonder if anyone is listening.
No comments:
Post a Comment