Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
2005/18: Big Brother Uncut: should commercial free-to-air television programs be subject to greater regulation?
Related issue outlines: 2002: Should television news be censored during children's viewing hours?
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
brother
big
television
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
What they said ...
'As a young adult slowly reaching the age of marriage and starting a family, I am concerned about the deterioration of society's moral fabric as reflected in television programming. I am worried about what effect it will have on my children. It is time to take a stand and stamp out lewd television broadcasting'
Jeremy Zwaigoft, letter writer to The Age, June 22 2005
'The current system of warnings, of definitions of what you might expect to find or to see ... I think it's working. In the end, you have to make your own moral decision for you and your family'
James Cockington, author of Banned, a book which examines Australia's censorship history
The issue at a glance
On June 21 2005 federal government backbencher, Liberal MP Patricia Draper, complained about Channel Ten's Big Brother Uncut during a meeting of the Liberal and National.
The program has attracted particularly negative attention since one of the male house members massaged the shoulders of a female house member and deliberately exposed his penis while doing so.
Concern among Coalition MPs led to Communications Minister Helen Coonan having to explain free-to-air television classification rules to the government members.
The Communications Minister has since announced that she has asked the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) to examine three episodes of Big Brother Uncut.
The Minister has also said she is seeking clarification of the classification code and its operation from the ABA. The ABA may then re-examine the television voluntary code on how explicit nudity is presented.
Senator Coonan has stated that the ABA, which will be replaced by the Australian Communications and Media Authority on July 1, will be considering whether the code should be made more rigorous and whether the voluntary classification system should become a licence condition. This would effectively make the code mandatory.
Background
There is currently a Code of Practice which covers what can be shown on free-to-air television. The code is voluntary to the extent that the various channels are self regulating. They are required to oversee their own adherence to the code.
Viewers who object to what is shown on television have a number of options. Firstly they can make a complaint to the channel which screened the potentially offensive material. Then, if they do not consider that their complaint has been responded to effectively, they can forward their complaint to the ABA.
If the ABA believes there is a potentially legitimate grievance it will investigate the complaint and may then make recommendations to the Communications Minister.
Channels can be warned, fined or, as a last resort, have their licences suspended.
It has been claimed that aspects of the Code of Practice need clarification and that the available penalties are rarely, if ever, applied.
In April 2000 the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies released an ALP minority report on Self-Regulation in the Information and Communications Industries. The minority report made a number of criticisms which have been repeated as part of discussion on the suitability of some Big Brother Uncut episodes. These criticisms include the following claims:
*There is a lack of public awareness of the complaints process.
*The time taken to deal with complaints is excessively long.
*The ABA is failing to adequately monitor compliance with the Codes of Practice.
*There is a lack of meaningful penalties for broadcasters who breach the Codes.
The Big Brother controversy raises the further possibility that what is potentially allowable under the code's classification system may not be in accord with community standards.
Internet Information
The Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice can be accessed from the Australian Broadcasting Authority's Internet site.
The address is http://www.aba.gov.au/contentreg/codes/television/commercial_TV.shtml
The Code is published as a pdf file and requires Adobe Acrobat Reader. The relevant section of the Code begins on page 17.
The classification code begins on page 23. The section of the code relating to MA 15+ material begins on page 25.
The procedure for lodging a complaint with the Australian Broadcasting Authority is outlined in a section of the ABA's Internet site. The index for complaint procedures can be found at http://www.aba.gov.au/contentreg/complaints/radio_TV.shtml
The composition and function of the Australian Broadcasting Authority is outlined on the ABA's Internet site. This information can be found at http://www.aba.gov.au/about/index.shtml
On June 21 2005 the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan, issued a media release indicating that she would be writing to the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) to clarify issues relating to complaints about the Big Brother program.
This media release can be found at http://www.minister.dcita.gov.au/media/media_releases/complaints_about_big_brother
The Big Brother Internet page can be found at http://bigbrother.3mobile.com.au/
Network Ten's background information on the Big Brother series can be found at http://www.ten.com.au/promo.aspx?promoID=238
Arguments against greater regulation
1. Channel Ten has received relatively few complaints regarding Big Brother Uncut
Channel Ten has maintained that it has received very few complaints with regard to Big Brother.
A Channel Ten spokesperson has acknowledged that while Ten has received a number of complaints, he stressed that it was not the 'flood' which critics have claimed.
Supporters of the current regulatory procedures have maintained that Big Brother Uncut is clearly not offensive to the majority of those who view it. If it were then there would be a large number of complaints. They further argue that the reason why the ABA has not taken action against Channel Ten and Big Brother Uncut is that there have simply not been the community complaints to prompt the ABA to conduct an investigation.
2. No complaints have been made to the ABA regarding Big Brother
The ABA usually investigates 'unresolved complaints', that is complainants are directed to the TV network but still not dealt with to the satisfaction of the complainant(s).
While some members of the public have approached the ABA about Big Brother Uncut, the authority has no official unresolved complaints
Apart from the Liberal MPs who complained to Communications Minister Helen Coonan, the Minister has also said she had not received any complaints from the public.
It has been suggested that if Big Brother Uncut were not in accord with community standards then viewers who had complained to Channel Ten and were still dissatisfied with the program would have referred their complaints to the ABA. The fact that this does not appear to have happened suggests that the program does not give significant offence to the Australian viewing audience.
3. Channel 10 has abided by the code developed in conjunction with the ABA
Network Ten spokesperson Margaret Fearn has argued that Big Brother Uncut is in accord with the ABA code of practice. 'We appreciate that Big Brother may not be to everyone's taste,' she said, 'but it complies with the code of practice and it is popular.'
The code's MA classification allows visual depiction of intimate sexual behaviour or of nudity only where relevant to the story line or program context. Detailed genital nudity is not allowed to be shown in a sexual context. Intimate sexual behaviour can only be discreetly implied or discreetly simulated. Channel Ten argues that it has followed these guidelines.
A spokesperson for the network maintained there was no breach, because the nudity - which has included regular group showers, and, on one occasion, one housemate with his penis exposed massaging another - was 'not gratuitous'.
Ten's manager of corporate communications has claimed, 'Nudity can be shown in MA15+ programs provided it is relevant to the program context. Big Brother is all about a house full of young people and what they do. Them showering is an activity that's part of the program context of people living in a household environment.'
Ten claim that none of the genital nudity that has been shown is in a sexual context. Further, it has been noted that the one incident of sexual intercourse that has been reported as occurring on the program has since been denied to have taken place. Even in this incident, it has been argued, there was obviously no explicit depiction of sexual acts or the subsequent denial would have been impossible.
An ABA spokesman, Donald Robertson, has also pointed out that Big Brother Uncut, with its MA 15+ rating was adhering to classification guidelines by going to air at 9.30pm. The guidelines actually specify that material with such a rating must be screened after 8.30pm. Channel Ten claims that in broadcasting the program an hour later than the earliest allowable screening time the station is demonstrating social responsibility.
4. Channel Ten has employed its own classifier to vet all Big Brother episodes
Channel Ten has stressed that it has been particularly careful to ensure that Big Brother Uncut is in accord with the ABA code of practice. To guarantee that this is the case the station has employed its own classifier to scrutinise each episode of Big Brother before it is screened.
Network Ten spokesperson Margaret Fearn has claimed that the final decision on whether something was fit to screen lay with this classifier, who, she stressed, is a woman. Fearn's implication would appear to be that a female classifier is likely to be more sensitive to the potential offence that may be given by some material, especially that which could be considered to demean women.
Ms Fearn has said, 'The classifier reviews every bit of footage and gives advice to the program producers on every scene before it goes to air. We have a full-time, experienced program classifier on this program to ensure that at no stage does anything go to air that would contravene the MA15+ program classification.'
Ms Fearn has claimed that the classifier had full power to switch camera angles and 'bleep' coarse language.
Another Channel Ten spokesperson has said, 'As has happened on certain occasions during the past five years of Big Brother, housemates have been warned and penalised with respect to issues including violence, racism and sexism. Network Ten will encourage Endemol Southern Star to again reinforce these warnings to the housemates, especially with respect to appropriate behaviour towards women to ensure this sort of behaviour is not repeated.'
5. There is clear advance warning of the nature of the program content
It is claimed that warnings issued prior to the screening of any program specifying the content it contains which may be offensive to some views should be sufficient to ensure that no one is offended by inadvertently watching material they find disturbing.
This point has been made by James Cockington, author of Banned, a new book which chronicles Australia's history of censorship. Cockington has stated, 'The current system of warnings, of definitions of what you might expect to find or to see ... is working. In the end, you have to make your own moral decision for you and your family.'
6. Those who do not like what is shown are able to turn off
It has been argued that there is no need to limit further what can be shown on programs such as Big Brother Uncut. According to this argument anyone likely to be offended by the program's content need only either not tune in in the first place or turn the program off when anything they dislike is being shown.
This point has been made by one of the Big Brother contestants who during a recent edition of Big Brother Uncut was filmed exposing himself while massaging the back of a female resident of the Big Brother house. This contestant, who was later voted off the show, has argued 'If viewers don't like what they see, they should switch off their TV.'
The same position was put by commentator Helen Razer who noted in an opinion piece published in The Age on June 25 2005, 'There's a lot of television to which I object. Normally, I just turn it off.'
It has been claimed that many viewers are already discriminating in this way with regard to Big Brother.
In a piece published in The Sydney Morning Herald on June 9, 2005, Miranda Devine noted, 'On Mondays, traditionally the highest rating night for Big Brother, viewers have steadily drifted away, from 1.58 million to 1.25 million in the first four weeks, according to OzTam. It's a similar story for all the 17-plus hours a week of Big Brother.'
Supporters of the current regulation system argue that the decline in Big Brother's audience over the course of this year indicates that viewers are well able to decide for themselves what they wish to view. They do not need further restrictions placed on broadcasters in order to protect them from programs they may find offensive.
7. Big Brother has a large following among a particular viewing audience
It has been argued that Big Brother and Big Brother Uncut attract a significant audience and thus are well liked by a portion of the television viewing public. Its appeal is particularly strong to the young adult section of the viewing audience.
Chief executive of television John McAlpine has said Ten would remain number one in its key 16-39 demographic in 2005 because of the appeal of a range of programs including Australian Idol, the AFL finals - and the last weeks of Big Brother.
It is argued that neither the ABA nor the federal Government should attempt to dictate to this audience what their viewing preferences should be.
An 18-year-old interviewed by The Age on his reaction to proposals to restrict what was shown on Big Brother noted, 'What they [politicians who object to Big Brother] need to understand is, just because they're old, back in their day, sex was like hidden and very private. These days it's more out in the open.'
The implication is that Big Brother's viewing audience do not want others who do not share their values or viewing preferences attempting to determine what they are able to watch on television.
Meagan Shaw paraphrased this position in an analysis published in The Age on June 25 2005. Ms Shaw wrote, 'What would grey-haired suits in Parliament know about the life of young suburban men and women?'
Arguments in favour of greater regulation
1. The program is in breach of the ABA code
A number of the critics of Big Brother Uncut have suggested that certain recent segments are likely to be in breach of the ABA code.
The Communications Minister, Helen Coonan, has ordered the ABA to 'look at whether there may have been a breach of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice relating to certain footage shown on the Big Brother program'.
The code allows nudity only where it is in context. Critics of Big Brother Uncut have suggested that the producers have artificially created a context where nudity is inevitable.
Federal MP Paul Neville has claimed that the producers of the program have 'tortured to its extreme limits' a code intended to allow for contextualised artistic expression. 'It's not like a daring segment in an otherwise reasonable show,' the parliamentarian argued. 'This is gratuitous virtually from start to finish. It is set up that way. Where else in Australia do young people live with eight or 10 beds round one room? The very formatting of it invites a gratuitous response.'
If the ABA determines that the nudity in Big Brother Uncut is gratuitous (unnecessary and thus exploitative) this would put the program in breach of the code.
In its explanation of what is required for an MA rating the code states, 'a program or program segment will not be acceptable where the subject matter serves largely or wholly as a vehicle for gratuitous, exploitative or demeaning portrayal of sexual behaviour or nudity. Exploitative or non-consenting sexual relations must not be depicted as desirable.'
2. The code may not be sufficiently rigorous
It has been claimed that the code is too loosely framed and open to diverse interpretations, thus allowing material which is clearly unsuitable to be broadcast without likelihood of penalty.
Australian Family Association vice-president, Bill Muehlenberg, who has claimed the ABA is a 'toothless tiger'.
'The ABA guidelines tend to be a bit loose and perhaps not as in conformity with the general community as they might be,' Mr Muehlenberg has argued.
The federal Communications Minister, Helen Coonan, has stated in a media release dated June 21 2005 'I will ... ask the ABA to look at whether the Code continues to provide sufficient safeguards in light of the increasing amount of reality television programming ..."
3. The ABA does not effectively enforce the code
It has been argued that the ABA does not have sufficient power to ensure that breaches are appropriately punished. It has been suggested that complaint procedures are time-consuming and unwieldy and that the ultimate penalty is so great that the regulator will not impose it.
The primary responsibility for ensuring that programs reflect community standards rests with radio and television stations. Complaints about the content of programs on radio and television must first be made to the broadcaster concerned. If a station fails to answer a written complaint within 60 days, or the response is considered unsatisfactory, a person can complain directly to the ABA.
The ABA may, at its discretion, investigate unresolved complaints relating to codes of practice and will inform the complainant of the results of that investigation. If a television broadcaster is found to be in breach of the code then the ABA will 'generally', as stated in its operating procedures, seek to ensure that operators remedy the breach. In the event of a broadcaster failing to follow the ABA's direction, the ABA may give the Minister for Communications and the Arts a written report on the matter, which will then be tabled in Parliament.
The ABA is generally reluctant to undertake such a lengthy process, especially when complaints that reach it will already be at least two months old. Thus the powers of the ABA are very rarely used.
The ultimate recourse the ABA has is to recommend to the Minister that a station's licence be revoked. Such extreme action is very unlikely to occur.
It has further been claimed that the ABA is currently less effective than it would normally be. The ABA is about to be replaced by the new Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The ACMA is due to come into being on July 1, but cabinet has failed to endorse a candidate to head the ACMA and has not replaced Professor David Flint who resigned as head of the ABA in July 2004. The prolonged gap since the departure of Professor Flint is likely to have further reduced the effectiveness of the ABA .
4. Not all parents are sufficiently careful about what their children view
On June 13 2005 media commentator Susie Morrell noted, 'Thousands of children as young as five are among the million-strong fans nationally watching the 7 pm version and an estimated 33,000 Australian children aged 12 and under are also watching the Uncut version late at night.
Not only do these watching children have the bad luck to have parents who clearly don't care what they were watching so late on a night before school, they also have the bad luck of living at a time when no one else seems to care what they watch either.' Morrell then went on to complain about what she claimed was the ABA's apparent indifference to what was shown on Big Brother Uncut.
In a piece published in The Sydney Morning Herald on June 9, 2005, Miranda Devine further noted that over 85,000 children aged between 13 and 17 also watch Big Brother Uncut.
There are those who argue that in a society where parental negligence means that over 30,000 Australian children under 12 and 85,000 children aged between 13 and 17 are watching television programs showing full frontal nudity and other highly unsuitable behaviours then there need to be stricter regulations limiting what can be shown.
Federal Liberal backbencher, Trish Draper, has argued, 'My concern is that young children around Australia could be watching the show - what sort of role models are they showing our kids?'
5. Those performing or competing on Big Brother are being exploited
Critics of Big Brother and more particularly Big Brother Uncut have argued that those appearing on the reality program are being exploited. According to this line of argument the producers of the program, especially for season five, deliberately selected young people likely to become involved in salacious situations. It has been claimed that this was a strategy intended to boost the program's falling ratings.
Liberal backbencher Patricia Draper has accused Channel Ten of turning the housemates into porn stars. Ms Draper has claimed, 'They are manipulating and exploiting the young people on the show to get ratings.'
Critics have argued that the program may make these young people notorious rather than famous and that they are unlikely to be adequately aware of the potentially negative consequences their celebrity could have with regard to their privacy and their lives after the season ends.
6. Programs such as Big Brother Uncut promote anti-social attitudes and behaviours
A variety of organisations have suggested that Big Brother Uncut encourages undesirable attitudes and behaviours.
Endeavour Forum, a pro-family woman's organisation, has claimed that some of the incidents aired on Big Brother Uncut were degrading to both sexes. Babbit Francis, the national co-ordinator of Endeavour Forum has stated, 'The segment that I saw sends out the message that men exposing themselves is okay and I don't think it is.'
Apart from the possibility of encouraging irresponsible sexual behaviour, the program has been criticised for promoting sexist attitudes. In a letter published in The Age on June 22 2005 Ruby McKinley noted, 'What is disturbing is the extreme sexism towards, and degradation of, women in the Big Brother house. The male housemates are mostly gross examples of the worst in Australian yob behaviour, and they seem to revel in being pigs. They generally lack decency, self-awareness and a conscience. Almost as bad is that the women seem to find it amusing. Most do not protest when they are groped and made to do housework, and they laugh at the men's tales of degrading sexual escapades. This ... behaviour ... encourages guys to believe that it is OK to behave like that, and girls to believe it is OK to be treated that way.'
7. Programs such as Big Brother Uncut may encourage divisions within the Australian community
It has been argued that programs like Big Brother Uncut create a major division in values between those who become inured to such programming and those who refuse to accept it. This point has been made by commentator Miranda Devine.
In a piece published in The Sydney Morning Herald on June 9, 2005, Miranda Devine argued, 'Children are becoming more worldly with every generation, and most parents want them to be socialised and part of mainstream culture, which is healthy for society. But at some point, once that mainstream culture becomes debased because its guardians cease to protect basic standards, you can see a time parents will start to withdraw their children.
It won't just be odd clusters of home-schoolers but whole new schools and communities which isolate themselves from the degraded mainstream, leaving the jungle to the apes, as it were ...
We are approaching a societal divide into moral haves and have-nots, where the haves are those children whose families uphold values and the have-nots are those left to the mercy of the prevailing culture, condemned to spending their lives in a Big Brother world.'
Divine argued that the screening of programs like Big Brother Uncut also made it much more difficult for newcomers to Australia with more conservative social values, such as Muslims, to accept mainstream Australian values.
Further implications
Channel Ten appears to have responded to the criticism of its Big Brother Uncut by promising to exert greater internal control over what is allowed to take place within the Big Brother house.
The Channel issued a media release on June 22 2005, the same day that Patricia Draper's dissatisfaction with the program was reported.
The media release read, 'Network Ten apologises for any offence the late-night programme, Big Brother Uncut, may have caused regarding the attitude of some male Big Brother housemates towards women. Ten and the Big Brother producers, Endemol Southern Star, are aware of their responsibilities regarding the portrayal of women, and will seek expert advice to raise awareness of this issue in the Big Brother house.'
The Channel has promised that Big Brother will exert a greater moderating influence, warning and chastising participants who behave in potentially offensive ways.
It remains to be seen whether such assurances are either followed through with or are sufficient to divert the criticisms that the show has received. It appears that the program's producers may be doing no more than incorporating a supposed authority figure into the show to wag a supposedly disapproving figure at risque behaviour that has already occurred. If this is all that happens it is unlikely to satisfy those Liberal MPs who clearly find the program offensive and believe they are speaking on behalf of large numbers of like-minded constituents.
The core of this issue is actually the commercial free-to-air concept. As opposed to either the ABC or SBS, commercial free-to-air channels have a more populist brief.
As explained on the ABA's Internet site free-to-air commercial broadcasting services provide programs that are intended to appeal to the general public. Thus programs likely to appeal to a more specialist or restricted audience, such as culturally sophisticated programs or programs with appeal to a particular ethnic minority are unlikely to appear on commercial free-to-air channels.
However this notion of fair average quality as applied to commercial free-to-air channels also precludes other forms of specialisation. Such channels can not be exclusively movie channels, or sports channels or cartoon channels or adult-material channels.
Where such specialisation occurs this is the preserve of pay TV or cable networks where viewers pay to access dedicated channels. This has a vetting function which serves to ensure that only those people who really want to view this particular type of material do so. It is for this reason that even with advance warning films with restricted classifications are usually cut before being screened on commercial free-to-air channels.
Thus it may indeed be decided that even at a 9.30pm or 9.40pm time slot Big Brother Uncut is not suitable to show on commercial free-to-air channels.
What is significant, however, is not the fate of a faltering reality program but what happens with regard to the Code of Practice and whether the new Australian Communications and Media Authority, which has replaced the ABA as of July 1 2005, adopts a more interventionist approach than its predecessor. Australian television viewers may find that a little bit of censorship goes a long way.
In the final analysis it will be popular taste that is the arbiter. If ratings fall sufficiently Big Brother (whether cut or not) will fail to attract enough advertisers to make it a worthwhile investment for the network and the program will be dropped from the schedule. The question remains, do we need other measures to protect us from material we may not wish to view?
Sources
The Age:
June 23, page 16, editorial, `Who's watching Big Brother?'.
June 23, page 3, news item by Jason Koutsoukis, `Oh, brother! Ten issues an apology, of sorts'.
June 22, page 1, news item by Jason Koutsoukis, `Big Brother or big brothel? MPs to probe the house'.
June 25, Insight section, page 11, comment by Helen Razer, `Little more than a storm in a hot tub'.
June 25, Insight section, page 2, analysis by Meaghan Shaw, `Now we've seen everything'.
June 24, page 7, news item, `ABA to probe raunchy episodes of Big Brother'.
The Australian:
June 23, page 5, news item (with ratings statistics) by Sophie Tedmanson, `Cut or Uncut, Big Brother nudity barely makes ripple'.
June 22, page 3, news item by Dennis Shanahan, `Ten slammed over Big Brother "porn"'.
June 29, page 13, comment by Janet Albrechtsen, `A lost censor perspective'.
June 29, page 3, news item by John Schulze, `G-rating push for fourth TV network'.
Herald-Sun:
June 23, page 18, editorial, `Brotherly love'.
June 22, page 3, news item by Gerard McManus and Michael Rose, `MPs snip at BB's uncut nudity'.
June 16, page 18, comment by Amir Butler, `The revolution that ruined us'.
June 14, page 20, column item, `Sex in bath a dirty BB lie'.
June 26, page 19, analysis by F Byrne, `BB's nudity is tacky and dull'.
June 13, page 19, comment by Sally Morrell, `Too big for his boots'.
June 10, page 28, news item by Susie O'Brien, `Brother bothers critics'.
June 24, page 5, news item by L Dennehy, `Probe into Big Brother's naughty bits'.
July 7, page 20, editorial, `Oh, brother it's gross TV'.
July 6, page 5, news item by Liam Houlihan et al, `Stop this filth'.
July 11, page 18, comment (photo) by Matthew Pinkney, `Nannies need a rest'.
July 10, page 32, news item (photo) by Healey and Bolling, `Sex, nudity rule our TV'.