Name:

Donal O'Sullivan

Organisation:

Family and Media Association

Contact details:

Alberione Media Centre, Newtownpark Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin. Tel:01 2789288 086 330 9724

Would you like to be kept updated on the development of the code?

Yes

FMA believes these principles to be inadequate for achieving the objective of promoting responsible broadcasting in general.

This is primarily because the objective of “not censoring or sanitising programme content” is patently inconsistent with the objective of “promoting responsible broadcasting” (4.2). Promoting responsible broadcasting is no more than a meaningless aspiration without the willingness to take hard decisions which may involve “censoring” or “sanitising”.

Expressing the desire not to censor or sanitize, as is done in section 4.2 of this document and as was also done in the radio advertisements seeking responses from the public, creates an unacceptable prejudice in the mind of the reader/listener and, intentionally or otherwise, is an attempt to manipulate public opinion rather than reflect it. Any research psychologist would be aware of this fact and would expect the responses elicited from such an approach to be skewed. This is why such care is taken by social scientists to word questions, on balance, neutrally, when designing surveys.

With regard to specific principles:

1. General Community Standards:

FMA believes that “programme material must not offend against commonly held standards of what is acceptable in contemporary Irish society”, only as an absolute minimum. Applying the 'Lowest Common Denominator' as a measure of acceptability neither protects the viewer/listener nor does it reflect the truth that certain material is offensive of itself notwithstanding any “changes in social mores” (4.2).

2. Due Care

The qualifications placed on the term 'due care' are unacceptable and do not reflect the

commonly held understanding of the term. “Appropriate scheduling” of itself will not prevent either harm or offence coming from certain material. To say that context may reduce offence is very different from saying that it will make it acceptable.

One such example involves the question of broadcasting self-harm, including suicide. If this is broadcast before the watershed then it places children at risk in general. However if it were broadcast after the watershed then, paradoxically, the most vulnerable children are at risk: children who do not have proper parental supervision, for example. At increased risk also are those suffering from depression with accompanying hopelessness. Loneliness can be experienced most intensely late at night when suicide is most likely to occur.

Furthermore, if viewers and listeners are to be protected from “undue'” harm this begs the question when is harm not considered undue?

3. Protection for Minors

While FMA welcomes any attempt to protect minors it cautions that merely including a principle on the protection of minors, without actually providing for their adequate protection, creates a dangerous and false sense of security.

To do so is not honest and it is a betrayal of the trust that these most vulnerable members of society are forced to place in us. Minors may watch programmes at any time of day and, again, it is often the most vulnerable - those without proper parental supervision - who are most likely to watch television under circumstances not usually associated with children's viewing.

FMA welcomes, however, the highlighting of the circumstances for which particular care is being proposed which shows that thought/research has gone into considering children's viewing behaviour.

4. Assessment

None of these contextual factors can, of themselves, make what is harmful not harmful or what is offensive not offensive. However it is to be welcomed that all programme material must conform to all principles.

FMA is concerned about the use of the term “editorially justifiable” without making clear what is meant by the term. We are also concerned that it is ultimately not possible to know what the composition of the audience listening to or watching a programme will be and therefore we cannot use a perception of the likely composition of the audience to justify inclusion of material which would be harmful or offensive to members of the actual audience. It may also be the case that those who claim not to be offended are in fact those who are most susceptible to harm.

For example, in the Lansdowne Market Research attitudinal survey which was commissioned by the BCI, it was found that the majority of the 30% who claimed never to have been offended by anything they heard or saw on radio and TV were under 24 years of age. Given that this age group includes children from the age of 15, it doesn't take a genius to spot that there are serious problems with some of the implications being (over)drawn from this study.

It is highly unlikely that a majority of parents would consider that their 15 year old children would be in a better position than themselves to decide what was safe for them to watch or listen to.

Why then are their views being allowed to skew this research with the implication that if some members of the survey sample find material acceptable then their tastes must be accommodated?

Not only does this oppose the legitimate rights and obligations of parents to exercise judgement on how best to bring up their children, it also fails to take into account the fact that these children will probably hold very different views in regard to what they themselves should have been allowed to view when they are older and in a better position to make that judgement.

It is also difficult to imagine a paedophile or psychopath indicating that they are offended by material which some of them have claimed to be the reason behind their attacks. It is more than plausible that their views go to make up the “diversity of audience taste and interests” referred to in this document, particularly in light of the finding that between 10% and 20 % of children have been molested by the age of 18 (Kaplan and Sadock, 1994). The mandate of the BCI is to prepare a code specifying rules to be obeyed not to “acknowledge this diversity of tastes and interests” (2.1.1(b), 4.2.2 etc.).

FMA is also concerned that the use of “channel/service type” as a contextual factor may create the mindset whereby certain stations may be tolerated which are extremely harmful and offensive on the grounds that they reflect one aspect of the diversity of audience tastes. This should also be rejected for the reasons given above. The Broadcasting Act refers to “taste and decency”. Putting the word “taste” together with “decency” implies a particular meaning for the word taste. This is not the same meaning for 'taste' implied by the expression “tastes and interest” which does not appear in the Broadcasting Act and should therefore not play a part in the broadcasting code.

A principle should be included requiring that religious beliefs not be offended against. This will help to foster harmony between the diversity of religious groups now in Ireland. It will also help to dispel the growing idea that there are now acceptable, as well as unacceptable, prejudices. Such consistency will help to heal the divisions in society by ensuring that people do not feel alienated but can instead identify with the television and radio services in Ireland and also with the state.

The fact that violent material caused concern is significant but what is more significant is the fact that it is objectively harmful. If no concerns were expressed about violence in the media, the wealth of scientific research showing the clear link between it and subsequent anti-social behaviour which has been widely reported by scientists of varying beliefs, indicates that strict rules must be put in place notwithstanding broadcasters attempts to mirror real life.

With regard to the proposed rules, rule 1 seems to be a rule in name only. What does having “due regard” actually mean, for example. By a similar token what does “appropriateness and/or justification” mean.

The same could be said of rule 2. Apart, again, from the lack of firm criteria here, with no definitions for terms like “a greater level of editorial justification” and “strong editorial justification”, it seems that literally anything could be screened that “is justifiable in the context of the development of the narrative and/or characters” which, again, is left undefined as a term but sounds like a way of allowing one to broadcast whatever one feels like and then build a story around it. There is nothing in this rule to prevent a broadcaster from acting highly irresponsibly by broadcasting a story about suicide which would make real suicides more likely.

In rule 3, it is not enough to say that the detail of sexual violence should be kept to a minimum. What this minimum is should be defined clearly. It should also be absolutely necessary that this violence not be portrayed in such a way that it might be titillating for any possible viewers. It could also be argued that merely not condoning such violence is not enough - this must be the case for all violence, in fact, and it is particularly worrying that such a requirement is not made explicit for violence against children – but given the self-reinforcing and social learning element in sexual violence, sexual should be presented negatively with its negative consequences for both victim and perpetrator, in particular.

These rules taken together seem to be so weak that it is arguable that they are better than having no rules at all since their existence gives the false impression that the Broadcasting Act's requirements have been followed whereas, practically speaking they have not.

That such a practically non-existent set of rules on the broadcasting of violent material should be thrown up from phase 1, highlights, not only the strangeness of a decision to include in the survey children who were, in some cases, 3 years short of being able to vote, but also the inordinate degree of influence of broadcasters on the decision making process by means of the workshop with broadcasters, in particular.

While the experience of broadcasters is very welcome, the general aversion towards censorship among broadcasters is not shared by the public as a whole. This therefore is another way in which the process has been skewed.

It also seems that the rules, as outlined, do not reflect the level of concern expressed in the attitudinal survey.

Furthermore, the strength of language, even in the preamble to the rules in 4.2.2(a), is not backed up by the rules themselves. The aspiration, in other words, seems stronger than the actual putting into effect of those aspirations in the form of rules having clear and objective criteria. It is as though the internal resistance to anything which might in any way restrict a broadcaster's freedom is always too great for the aspiration to protect the viewer.

This approach is possibly best typified in the opening section of the consultation document. Here it is stated that “the purpose of the code is to promote responsible broadcasting where entertainment, education and access to information are enhanced and offence and harm reduced”.

FMA believes that this is an amazing statement in that it implicitly acknowledges that some broadcasting is harmful ( if it were not harmful it would not need to be reduced ) and yet it accepts it at a certain level ( harm is merely to be reduced, not eliminated ) as though it were some form of necessary evil to be tolerated, ultimately, in the interests of a broadcaster's freedom of expression.

Yes. A consistent finding of psychologists is that the portrayal of violence without the portrayal of its consequences has extremely harmful effects. Portraying false or incomplete effects is also harmful and untruthful. A rule should be included therefore requiring that where violence is portrayed, its full effects should also be portrayed. This should limit the self-reinforcing and social learning effects in violent depictions and, significantly, such a strategy provides part of the therapy for violent offenders.

As with the rules on violent programme material, these rules lack firm, well defined criteria. What do “due regard”, “appropriateness” and “justification” mean in rule 1?

As with the second rule regarding violent programme material, surely “justifiable in the context of the development of the narrative and/or characters” (rule 2 – Sexual Conduct) means that anything can be shown provided a story is built around it. Also, what does “strong editorial justification” mean?

If sexual relationships between under-aged young people or between an adult and a child are allowed in a programme it is not enough merely not to encourage such activities. The consequences are far too serious not to present them in such a way that reveals how negative they are for children and adults. However, the “exploring” of these situations at all would probably encourage some people to engage in them in so far as it may open possibilities in their minds or cause them to dwell unduly on those possibilities.

This could be dangerous, in particular, for people who have an addiction and for pubescent children who are learning to adjust to cognitive, social, sexual and emotional changes.

For these vulnerable people, it might be practically impossible to present a situation which would not either encourage the behaviour or otherwise be disturbing to their social relationships.

It would clearly not be possible to ensure that no pubescent children nor paedophiles were watching the programme in question, regardless of what time it was broadcast or what channel it was broadcast on.

A dry and basically interview based documentary, which would be designed to be uninteresting for children, would probably be the only way these topics could be covered.

What does it mean to say that “nudity during programme material must only be broadcast when justified by context”? If the context is defined, it still allows for the possibility that a programme be artificially built, in some way, around that context. It would - and has been - very tempting for a broadcaster to get ratings or some sort of reaction by presenting nudity, ostensibly, under the pretext of public education. Again vulnerable groups should be taken into account. Nudity is unnecessary, given the risk to these people and the impossibility of ensuring they are not watching.

Sexual activity must never be used to to titillate as this is an abuse of people's dignity, particularly that of the most vulnerable. The full and realistic consequences of sexual activity should be shown, whether positive in terms of family and selfless self-giving, for example, or negative in terms of std's, cancer and the negative aspects of pregnancy outside the context of family. In this sense the problem with the depiction of sexual activity is that it doesn't show enough. Broadcasters should not be allowed to exploit their audience, effectively lying about sex by not telling the whole truth about it.

As with the sections on violence and on sexual conduct, Rule 1 is too vague and appears ineffective, having merely the superficial appearance of a rule. Rule 2 appears positive in that it appears to go some way towards protecting viewers. Rule 3 should be amended to say: Names considered sacred or holy shall not be used as expletives.

Names considered sacred or holy shall not be used as expletives. '4 letter words' and the like shall not be used. Use of these words offends against the dignity of everyone in one way or another and is particularly offensive to some groups and their beliefs.

These rules appear to be very good.

The following could be added to rule 1:” ... disease, race or religion, or on the basis of being a priest, religious, minister, rabbi, imam or other religious minister. This is not intended to prevent critical scrutiny of any of the behaviours of any of these persons or members of these sections of the community. Sexual orientation refers only to subjective feelings of attraction. It is not intended, to prevent legitimate assessment of paedophiliac or other paraphiliac activity, homosexual activity or heterosexual activity which is not in the context of marriage”

In relation to rule 3, one could add that where there is actually a negative correlation between the criminal act and the mental health of the perpetrator, this should be referred to. With some mental health disorders the person who has the disorder may be unusually passive compared with other people and of far greater danger to themselves than to anyone else. They may also be at greater risk of being harmed than of harming.

In rule 4, The words “symbols, writings” should be added after the word “views”

The following could be added to the end of rule 4: “Satirical programming including cartoons shall constitute “unnecessary offence”.

No. Not if the proposed rules are edited as above.

These rules seem very good

Factual programming items shall not be selected or presented in such a way as to titillate as this offends against human dignity and has nothing to do with communicating truth.

As stated in previous sections on violence and sexual activity, it is not possible to ensure that children are not watching other programmes which might not be considered children's programmes or programmes suitable for children. The definition children's programming, implies that 49% of the audience could be under the age of 18 and yet this would not be considered children's programming. If a particular audience was made up of 1 million viewers, 500,000 children under the age of 10 could be watching (provided there were no other children watching between the ages of 10 and 18) and yet the rules in this section would not be in operation.

Having said that, the rules seem needlessly weak. There is no reason why any violence, sexual content or coarse language should feature during children's programming(1) and the use of illegal drugs etc. need not be featured at all. Rule 3 is in our opinion a good rule as is rule 4 except in so far as anti-social behaviour should be discouraged, bearing in mind all the social psychological/ social learning realities, if it is featured at all.

As with other sections, the consequences of behaviours should be explored. Children should also be given positive role models and should not be abused cognitively by changing images and sounds excessively quickly. Care should be taken not to sexualize children, thus robbing them of their childhood. Nor should they be allowed to be groomed for and preyed upon by an overly materialistic market. Rather programming should emphasize their value and worth as children in themselves without needing to prove themselves by being too competitive.

1. Again if programme material depicts the abuse of drugs etc., then it must go further than not encouraging their abuse. It must, bearing in mind all the social psychological/ social learning realities, discourage their abuse.

2. The same applies for the abuse of alcohol

3. This depends on what is meant by strong editorial justification. Why is this not defined?

Given the risk of socially learnt behaviour and the risk of vulnerable people, including children and recovering addicts watching these scenes, it is hard to imagine such a justification.

4. What might not appear to be a favourable light, objectively to an adult, non addict, could well constitute a threat to a child or to an addict who would have different reinforcers and vulnerabilities. It should therefore not be presented at all particularly as fiction.

As with other sections, the consequences of behaviours should be explored. Children should also be given positive role models.

This is an extremely important area psychologically. FMA welcomes the inclusion of this section. The word “encourage” may be a weakness, however. Programme content might have the appearance of discouraging an act while in reality increasing, even unintentionally, the likelihood that a similar behaviour will be performed by one or more of its viewers. It is, however, the broadcaster's responsibility to ensure that he/she understands the psychological mechanisms sufficiently well so that harmful acts will not be performed that would not have been performed had the programme not been viewed. Any depiction which increases the likelihood of a harmful act being performed must therefore be avoided. Included in the acts to be avoided should be “those which are dangerous or prejudicial to their health, safety or well being, to other people's health, safety or well being, which offends against religious views or beliefs and/or which is dangerous to the environment.

No. Not if the proposed rule is amended with the above changes.

Yes. FMA believes that it is in the interest of families and of people in general to be informed about the content of forthcoming programmes as this allows them, to some extent, to take preventative action to protect themselves and their children.

FMA does not believe that discretion regarding the mechanism to be used should be allowed.

1. The fact that different audiences have different expectations should not prevent each programme from being classified. If the content is consistently “adult” then this needs to be stated so that a viewer is aware that they are exercising a choice with regard to something which may or may not be harmful to them. They will in this sense be empowered and it will be more difficult for them to become habituated into a behaviour which they may not want for themselves if allowed to reflect.

2. FMA does not believe, for all the reasons given heretofore that a station should be “adult only”. Sometimes the subscribers to adult only channels are those who may be of most danger to themselves and possibly to others. Furthermore, even with a PIN system, it is still more than possible that minors would have access to programmes, particularly vulnerable minors in abusive households. Just as there are plenty of adults willing to purchase alcohol for children, there will be adults who are willing to show children material which is not suitable for them. This can constitute a form of abuse.

3. If a broadcaster does not have the resources to check how suitable a programme is, say, for children then they have no business being in business. A broadcaster cannot be allowed to broadcast unchecked material any more than a water supplier can be allowed to supply untested water.