|
The report called Broadcasting Standards Regulation provides opinions
from groups of adults about current regulatory codes for radio and
television. Groups of 20 participants in the UK were interviewed
during a series of three one-day participative forums, a company
release states.
The survey showed that participants consider regulation necessary
to ensure acceptable standards and to protect children from offensive
or harmful material. Television, in particular, is felt to be a
dominant and influential medium, which both mirrors and influences
society.
The survey also showed that according to most respondents, regulating
broadcasting content is something which contributes to the general
good of society. Participants expressed concern that without regulation,
broadcasters would show "what they like, when they like".
A female viewer from Birmingham was quoted in the release as saying,
"If there was no regulation you could have porn movie at nine
o'clock in the morning followed by cartoons, followed by something
else."
The area causing most concern was violence, with sexual content
and strong language following behind. Some participants, especially
parents, worry that strong language, in particular, might encourage
imitative behaviour.
There was concern about radio talk shows featuring strong language
or sexual innuendo. A sizable minority have fears about the breakdown
of society and the influence of television on young people, with
portrayals of casual sex, drug taking, gang culture and crime.
When asked whether all radio and television channels should be
treated in the same way, with the same rules, at first participants
agreed. However, over the course of the discussions, they said they
could conceive of a future in which a 'multi-layered' approach was
adopted, with some differences between expectations of the most
popular channels (such as the terrestrial channels, Sky One, etc)
and the smaller, niche channels, the release says. Similarly, there
could be differences between the expectations of national and local
radio stations.
The survey also reveal that participants feel radio should be regulated
with a 'safe zone' policy priority for all listeners, including
children, not to create a watershed but a sense of reasonable expectation
from radio stations, so they know how and when to avoid potentially
offensive material.
For television, in addition to the Watershed, ideas suggested to
complement the current regulatory environment include pre-transmission
and on-screen warnings, helping people to make informed opinions
about programme content. Sky viewers feel more in control of their
viewing, with devices such as locks and PIN numbers to monitor and
regulate viewing, the study shows.
UK participants also want to see regulation of broadcast advertising
continue, at least as strictly as that for other broadcasting content,
since it is unplanned viewing and viewers don't get a choice about
whether to see it or not. They were in favour of teleshopping channels
having to comply with the same rules as spot advertising - and some
consider even stricter rules should apply to teleshopping. Radio
advertising caused less concern than television advertising.
Sponsorship of programmes is tolerated by most, who accept that
it is a useful source of revenue for the broadcasters and one which,
under current regulation, does not impact on the editorial integrity
of editorial content. However, participants do not want to see sponsorship
of news, current affairs or investigative programmes allowed, or
for more direct relationships between sponsors and programmes, the
survey suggests.
Editorial integrity is particularly important in news programmes,
where viewers and listeners want facts to be clearly distinguished
from opinion. They are tolerant of opinionated news on local radio,
but not on national radio or on television.
Overall, British news services were felt to be trustworthy and
impartial, although interestingly it appears that a degree of partiality
is expected during a war, so as to speak from a national perspective.
|
