Sections in this issue outline (in order) 1 What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
Dictionary To activate the in-built dictionary linked to this issue outline, double-click on any word in the body of the text.
Analysis help Students and others can read a guide to analysing the language of the news media by clicking HERE
2002/02: Should television news be censored during children's viewing hours?
What they said ... What they said ... 'Despite having the best intentions, the campaign to censor TV news bulletins is fundamentally flawed' Jill Singer, Herald Sun commentator
'Violence on television desensitises children, makes them more fearful of the world around them, and increases the likelihood of aggression towards others' Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, adolescent psychologist>
The issue at a glance At the end of November, 2001, the Victorian state government referred a report on the media and children to the Australian Broadcasting Authority for its further consideration. The Family and Community Development Committee had produced the report over three years. Probably the most controversial element of the report was the recommendation that 6pm television news should tone down or avoid graphic images such as the planes hitting the World Trade Centre on September 11. The Victorian Premier, Mr Steve Bracks, claimed he did not support this proposal. Other members of the Victorian Government are said to favour a 'child-friendly' early news bulletin. Television news managers have claimed that requiring them to edit news telecasts in this way is unnecessary and probably unworkable. Others have claimed that it would be an unjustifiable limitation of the adult community's right to know. Some child psychologists, on the other hand, have supported the recommendation.
Background The former Kennett Government established the Family and Community Development Committee inquiry into the effects of television and multimedia on children and families in 1997. The Committee's report was released in October 2000. The report makes a number of inquiries. Included in these are a review of the timeslots in which films showing sex and including violence can be shown on television and the more rigorous implementation of age limits for young people seeing restricted films at cinemas. The report also recommends better regulation of the computer-game industry to protect children from violent images. The report's most disputed recommendation was that early television news broadcasts avoid graphic images of violent or distressing events. These, it is suggested, should only be shown in later news bulletins. Currently, under commercial television codes overseen by the Australian Broadcasting Authority, television stations must ensure news and current affairs programs are presented with care and take the viewing audience into account. Footage considered distressing to most viewers can be shown if justified by the public interest and if warnings are broadcast. The ABC and SBS have similar policies. These are all essentially self-regulated. The commercial television code is due for review in April 2002 and may be tightened if industry and community consultation suggests it is necessary.
Internet information There are a number of Internet sites giving information on this issue.
A full copy of the preliminary discussion paper produced by the Family and Community Development Committee 'Inquiry into the Effects of the Television and Multimedia on Children and Families in Victoria' can be found on the Victorian Parliament Internet site at http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/fcdc/tvmmdis.htm A discussion paper helps to establish a framework for an inquiry and is an invitation to interested parties to make submissions to the inquiry within certain areas.
The Committee's preliminary views re television news and children can be found at http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/fcdc/etmcf/chap5.htm Interestingly, the Committee indicates that 92 per cent of children surveyed claim to watch television news. This directly contradicts the popular view that children do not watch television news programs.
The Final Report (of the Family and Community Development Committee) into 'The Effects of Television and Multimedia on children and families in Victoria' can be found at http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/fcdc/tvmmfinal.htm This is a lengthy and detailed report, but as the basis of the current debate it repays careful reading. It is in pdf files and needs to be read using Adobe Acrobat Reader. Of particular interest is Chapter 3 - Television and Multimedia Violence.
Radio National's AM current affairs program broadcast an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Commission chairperson, David Flint, on December 4, 2001. The interview dealt with the recommendations of the Family and Community Development Committee re the impact of media violence on children and families. Professor Flint was asked if he were aware that in Britain 'some stations actually show child-friendly news services early in the evening, which omit most violent images.' Professor Flint was asked for his view on this practice. A full transcript of the interview can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/am/s431724.htm
A similar interview was conducted with Professor Flint on Radio National's World Today program on December 4, 2001. Also interviewed was the national secretary of the Australian Family Association, Bill Muhlenberg. A full transcript of these interviews can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/s432537.htm
An interesting anti-censorship site is libertus.net (formerly known as 'Burning Issues'). This site has subsections dealing with Internet censorship and more general aspects of the censorship issue in Australia. Though the site has not yet dealt with the Family and Community Development Committee's recommendations re the late screening of violent images on television news, the proposal has been made by previous government committees and has been opposed by liberus.net One interesting article opposing the censorship of television news was written by McKenzie Wark, who lectures in media studies at Macquarie University, and is a visiting professor in American studies at New York University. The article is titled, 'Media freedom versus the nanny state' and was first published in March 1997. It can be found at http://libertus.net/censor/odocs/mw970317.html
The United States Surgeon General released a report in January 2001 on Youth Violence, detailing the apparent connection between media violence and violent behaviour in young people. The full report can be found at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/report.html
Arguments in favour of censoring television news during children's viewing hours 1. Less graphic images can be shown without falsifying news reports It has been argued that this is not a question of omitting sensitive news items, but of ensuring they are presented in the least distressing manner possible. Adolescent psychologist, Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, has made this point, claiming, 'You can have a report without showing it in all its gruesome detail.' Dr Carr-Gregg has further noted, 'Young children should not be shielded from what is happening in the world, but they should be shielded from content that is too graphic.' It has been particularly recommended that children not be exposed to images of dead people and animals. Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, in reviewing recent television news coverage, has suggested that the following events were treated in unnecessary detail in early news telecasts - the World Trade Centre attacks, the Dunblane and Port Arthur massacres, the Ash Wednesday fires, the Hoddle Street shootings, the Russell Street bombing, the Gulf War and the James Bulger and Karmein Chan murders.
2. Family viewing times appear to have altered and children now watch television during earlier news telecasts The Family and Community Development Committee received evidence indicating that children as young as 10 were now watching TV later at night or unsupervised in their bedrooms. Recent Australian studies have indicated that children between the ages of 5 and 14 spend 21.7 hours a week watching television. The Victorian Government has indicated 'there would be merit in reviewing core family viewing times in light of the changing nature of families, working hours of parents and the time of day that children return home from care experiences.' The Government has further stated, 'It particular, the current evening weekday viewing times for M-ratted material (8.30pm onwards) do not sufficiently take into account the increasing numbers of children potentially watching television at these times.'
3. Children can become distressed after viewing explicit coverage of violent events on television news Some experts have argued that television news has a particular capacity to disturb children as it is representing reality, not fantasy. This makes it impossible to comfort the child with the assurance that what they are viewing is not real. It has also been suggested that television news can give children a distorted view of the world as it focuses on what are deemed news worthy items and these frequently involve violence or people in significant distress. Some psychologists have claimed that children can become clingy, afraid of the dark and unwilling to go to school after seeing very violent images. Adolescent psychologist, Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, has cited a range of international authorities whose research suggests that 'such violence on television desensitises children, makes them more fearful of the world around them, and increases the likelihood of aggression towards others.'
4. Parents have inadequate advance warning as to the nature of the material to which they are exposing their children when viewing news telecasts It has been noted that the television news is something of a Pandora's box. Sometimes viewers are warned that potentially disturbing footage is about to be shown; often they are not. This makes it very difficult for parents to anticipate what their children may be about to view. Inga Peulich, the chairperson of the Family and Community Development Committee, has stated, 'We accept the TV stations have a right to screen certain material and are not suggesting they ban it. But what we want carefully looked at is the time these things are shown, so that parents don't have to be on the edge of their seats not knowing what is coming into their lounge room next.'
5. Self-regulation of news content by the television stations is not effective as the news editors' principal aim is to attract viewers. It has been suggested that news editors favour dramatic footage as a way of attracting an audience and thus ratings. Therefore, it has been suggested, allowing the stations to self-regulate the nature of the material they include in their news telecasts will be ineffective. It is claimed news managers are not primarily motivated to produce more low-key material that will not disturb children. Adolescent psychologist, Dr Michael Carr-Gregg has made this point. Dr Carr-Gregg has stated, 'Public health advocates around the world know that voluntary codes seldom work, especially when ratings are the primary goal and they are accompanied by anaemic sanctions.'
Arguments against censoring television news during children's viewing hours 1. Regulating children's television viewing is a parental responsibility Numerous commentators, including parents writing to the letters pages of the newspapers, have expressed this view. Typical of this position are the opinions given by Mr Mark Hopgood, in a letter published in The Herald Sun on December 6, 2001. Mr Hopgood stated, 'If we don't want our children to see the images on the news, it's easy to tell them to leave the room. My 13-year-old daughter and I sit down to the news together so I can help explain why things happen.' Mr David Flint, the chairperson of the Australian broadcasting Authority, has stated that the current regulations requiring that warnings be broadcast before the screening of graphic footage were based on the assumption that parents were supervising their children's viewing. Other critics of the proposal to have child-suitable news broadcasts have objected being limited to what is deemed suitable for the eyes of children. Those holding this view have argued that governments and regulatory bodies cannot substitute for vigilant parents and that adults' right to be informed should not be sacrificed because of the fear that some parents were not exercising their responsibilities.
2. Withholding more graphic images until later news bulletins would be unworkable The Victorian premier, Steve Bracks, has stated that requiring television stations to produce 'child-friendly' news broadcasts would not be feasible. According to this line of argument, so much of the material shown on regular news telecasts is potentially disturbing that it would not be possible to have a full news program produced that would not have material in it that was likely to upset some children. This point was made in an editorial published in the Herald Sun on December 4, 2001. The editorial stated, 'The Government is sympathetic with the proposal that "disturbing footage" accompanying news items should be shown in later news bulletins when fewer children are watching. But these are "disturbing" days. What would be left?' It has also been noted that if this sort of 'edited' news broadcast were to go ahead it would soon be supplanted by more graphic overseas news reports. Jill Singer made this point in an article published in The Herald Sun on December 7, 2001. Ms Singer stated, 'Even if we could force all our national commercial and public broadcasters to fill their bulletins with fluffy feel-good stories, they would soon be out of business because of off-shore competition.' Ms Singer has further argued that in many distressing stories it is the facts of what occured rather than the visuals accompanying the story which have the capacity to disturb.
3. Children and adults need to be informed of current affairs and world events It has further been stated that both children and adults are ultimately advantaged by being informed of what is happening in the world around them. This point was made by 16-year-old Katherine Walsh in a letter published in the Herald Sun on December 7, 2001. Ms Walsh stated, 'I do not enjoy watching violence, but I acknowledge the reasoning behind showing such scenes as the Port Arthur massacre and the terrorist attack on the World Trade centre. The violence shown is reality and an important lesson that far exceeds what is taught in a classroom.'
4. There are already regulations in place regarding potentially distressing news items Under commercial television codes overseen by the Australian Broadcasting Authority, television stations must ensure news and current affairs programs are presented with care and take the viewing audience into account. Footage considered distressing to most viewers can be shown if justified by the public interest and if warnings are broadcast. The ABC and SBS have similar policies. The chairperson of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Mr David Flint, has stated that television stations already do a good job of developing and applying industry codes on graphic material. The Victorian premier, Steve Bracks, has made a similar point. Mr Bracks has stated, '... news editors have very good judgement on what is appropriate and not appropriate in relation to violence on the news services.' Defenders of the current system note that complaints about violence made up only 8.8 per cent of written complaints against commercial television stations last year.
5. Other media areas are of greater concern than television news It has been claimed that those who are concerned about the effect of media violence on children are misdirecting their energies. According to this line of argument, most children do not watch news telecasts. They are, it is claimed, more likely to be adversely affected by the violent films they watch and the computer games they play. The Age editorial of December 9, 2001, stated, 'Most children who watch television are not interested in the news.' The Australian Family Association has complained about the effect of the type of material being broadcast on FM. The Association's national secretary, Mr Bill Muehlenberg, has also claimed that many parents are worried about the effect of artists such as Eminem on children.
Further implications The proposal to produce a child-suitable early television news bulletin seems unlikely to go ahead. The Australian Broadcasting Authority is currently reviewing the recommendation, however, the premier has already indicated that he does not support it and there has been significant community and industry opposition to the proposal. What seems most likely to happen is that there will be greater pressure on commercial and public news and current affairs programs to ensure that the abide by current regulations. What is particular this is likely to mean is that news broadcasters may need to be more conservative when judging which news items should be preceded by a warning indicating that they contain potentially distressing material. Such a development is likely to satisfy both camps. It would allow parents to better monitor what television news items their children view and it would please those many adults who do not want the first major news telecasts of the evening scaled down so as to make them suitable for children. The underlying question as to what to do about households where children watch news telecasts unsupervised is probably beyond the reach of governments and regulatory bodies.
Sources The Age 5/12/01 page 6 news item by Richard Baker and Sophie Douez, 'Push to control media violence' 9/12/01 page 14 editorial, 'What about the children?' 16/12/01 page 14 letter to the editor form Michael Carr-Gregg, 'Too much reality'
The Herald Sun 4/12/01 page 1 news item by Karen Collier, 'TV censors: Victoria's bid to hide violent scenes from family viewing time' 4/12/01 page 18 editorial, 'Turning off the real world' 5/12/01 page 27 comments by five TV news managers, 'What the news managers say' 5/12/01 page 27 news item by Karen Collier, Fay Burstin and Ashley Gardiner, 'Censorship blast: we're careful, say chiefs' 5/12/01 page 27 news item by Ashley Gardiner, 'Call to clean up radio, too' 6/12/01 page 18 three letters to the editor under the general heading, 'Parents should censor TV for their kids' 6/12/01 page 20 comment by Ian McPhedran, 'Censors on the march' 7/12/01 page 18 five letters to the editor under the general heading, 'TV censor can start with TAC, Simpsons' 7/12/01 page 20 comment by Jill Singer, 'You be the censor' 8/12/01 page 31 letter to the editor from Lorraine Bortista, 'Ignorance is not bliss' 8/12/01 page 31 letter to the editor from Sue Carlyon, 'Good move, censoring TV' 9/12/01 page 11 news item by Kylie Smith, '1100 hours of kids TV
Related issue outlines
Dictionary