Gendre double standards at the ASA?

It’s possible that advertising and broadcasting regulators have different attitudes towards adverts and programmes which may be seen as sexist towards women than they do towards adverts and programmes which may be seen as sexist towards men.

Mediasnoops does not believe in censoring ads or programmes just because some people may find them sexist to either gendre.

The Advertising Standards Authority may have double standards when it comes to ads that mock men and ads that mock women. But the last thing we need is for this unelected body of self righteous humourless puritans to become even more censorious and start banning ads that might be deamed by some to be offensive to men.

From the Daily Mail:

It’s official: You’re allowed to mock men in adverts. Just don’t try doing it to women

By Sean Poulter
20th May 2009

A television advert that lampoons men as incapable of performing simple domestic tasks has been cleared by advertising watchdogs.

The commercial, for an oven cleaning product, drew 673 complaints from viewers who felt it was sexist for portraying men as stupid and lazy.

But the Advertising Standards Authority rejected the complaints, saying the ad was ‘unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence’.

The Oven Pride ad that made men look pathetic

Critics said the verdict was out of line with years of ASA policy which has outlawed the demeaning of women in commercials.

Industry observers said the prevailing view now appeared to be that it is fine to treat men as sex objects or fools, as this represents turning a stereotype on its head and is therefore ironic and funny.

In the Oven Pride advert, a man is shown throwing a tantrum at the thought of having to clean an oven.

A voice-over says ’so easy, even a man can do it’ as he is shown using the product with exaggerated delight while being watched by a disapproving pregnant woman.

Homepride Ltd, which manufactures the oven cleaner, said the advert was intended to raise awareness using tongue-in-cheek humour and that it was not unreasonable to use humour to play on natural gender differences.

The firm said it did not intend to cause offence and the commercial had brought an increase in sales, suggesting-many saw it as harmless fun.

A spokesman for the ASA said: ‘We noted that the ad used mild humour to refer to traditional gender stereotypes but considered that the overall impression was such that it did not portray either gender in a way that stigmatised, humiliated or undermined them by using harmful stereotypes. 

An ad for Paddy Power featuring sexy girls was banned for associating sexual success with gambling

‘We noted some might consider the humour in poor taste but concluded-that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.’

A study from the Chartered Institute of Marketing in 2001 found two thirds of people believe women are now portrayed in adverts as intelligent, assertive and caring, while men are shown as pathetic and silly.

Only 14 per cent said men came across as intelligent. The pattern is evident in the wimpish character featured in Mr Muscle household cleaner advertisements, while commercials for the drink Lambrini featured young, brash women who treated men as sex objects and figures of fun.

 

In March, the ASA banned a nightclub poster that featured pictures of young women dressed in mini-skirts and cropped tops under the headline ‘I love SEX’. It objected to the link between sexual success and alcohol.

Last year, it banned a newspaper advertisement for stock market betting by Paddy Power, which featured a man between two attractive women because it associated sexual success with gambling.

Also last year, it banned an advertisement showing women in lingerie praying for beautiful hair.

In 2005, the authority banned a poster for Sloggi G-string lingerie, which featured a rear view of four virtually naked women, from being placed near mosques.

And in 2001, a poster for the perfume Opium featuring a nude image of Sophie Dahl was banned on the basis it was too sexually suggestive to be put on billboards.

One of the reasons why the ASA might be more likely to ban/censor adverts which may offend women is because women’s rights groups are far more vocal and more likely to complain about adverts they find offensive.

In America men’s rights groups are catching up and lobbying for adverts which they deam offensive to men to be taken off the air.

Indeed there does seem to be a general portrayal of men both in adverts and TV programmes as lazy, incompetent and useless at basic household chores. Such depictions can be irratating but they are hardly the cause of men’s problems (as some men’s rights activists suggest).

Instead of trying to get such adverts banned men who object can choose to not by the products that these ads promote.

“Jon” Beyer pissed off with Archers swearing

Newspapers are getting so used to having Johnny Boy (or should that be Jony Boy? Lol!) as a rent-a-quote they can’t even be bothered to spell his name properly.

From The Telegraph:

Taking umbrage at Ambridge: Row over bad language on BBC’s The Archers

An episode of Radio 4’s flagship soap The Archers has infuriated fans by including an outburst of bad language.

By Chris Hastings, Public Affairs Editor
23 May 2009

Listeners have complained after Matt Crawford told his arch rival Brian Aldridge to “p— off” during a drunken encounter in a bar.

It is understood to be the first time such language has been broadcast on The Archers and fans have posted messages on its own website saying it does not fit with the context of the show.

Another listener added: “It does seem inappropriate language for the radio at any time when children are listening.”

A parent wrote: “As a mother listening with a 9-year-old son who loves The Archers, I was appalled to hear Matt’s outburst to Brain. This despite the fact that I would use the same expression myself in adult company.”

Another poster added: “I swear like a navvy and even I was a bit open mouthed when I heard that, not because if offended me but because, well, this is, y’know, The Archers, my mum listens to it.”

The row over Matt’s outburst has exposed the BBC to allegations of hypocrisy.

Moderators who are responsible for monitoring the content of the official Archers website have removed some postings which repeat the offending phrase.

Jon Beyer, the director of Mediawatch UK, which campaigns for better standards on radio and television, said: “I think people generally speaking expect better than this from The Archers.

“The audience for The Archers is what it is and they would not expect to hear language like this in the programme.”

However, some fans have defended the language. One said it was “refreshing and realistic”. Another described it “as the line of the week”.

The outburst from Matt, who is played by Kim Durham, came when he bumped into Brian in a bar.

Matt has been under immense pressure following the collapse of his business affairs and an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

“He has also been ousted as chairman of Borchester Land, a property company, by Brian, who is played by Charles Collingwood.”

The episode was first aired at 7pm on May 15 and then feature in the omnibus edition last Sunday morning.

A BBC spokesman confirmed the corporation had received 13 official complaints.

He added: “The Archers always gives a lot of consideration before using any potentially offensive language in the programme and it is used very sparingly.

“However the programme has a reputation for being as realistic as possible, and the use of the phrase was appropriate to Matt’s character and the situation he found himself in.”

“The audience for The Archers is what it is.”

Yeah, mostly people from middle England. The swearing in question was “Piss Off!” Hardly the most strong of expletives, but it just goes to show how easily middle England types can be offended.

Channel 4 in live operation outrage

The news media is always complaining that TV is “dumbing down”, yet as soon as someone does something to try and educate people they try to whip up moral outrage.

From The Sunday Express:

ANGER AS REALITY TV FILMS NHS OPERATION

 

Q&A: Surgeons broadcast live performing on patients will answer viewer’s questions

Sunday May 24,2009

By EXCLUSIVE Lucy Johnston

SURGEONS will answer viewers’ questions while performing major operations in a controversial new Channel Four series to be broadcast from tomorrow.

 

The four-part show will feature open-heart surgery and the removal of a brain tumour while the patient is still conscious.

Viewers will be able to send in questions using a special website which the surgeon will answer on the show but the stunt was condemned last night by Michael Summers, vice chairman of the Patients’ Association.

“A number of people will be very disturbed by this,” he said.

“It could also be psychologically harmful, especially to those who have had operations like this. There are some things certain patients prefer not to know.

“It may be that some will find it enlightening but many others will feel it is sickening and distasteful.”

Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat health spokesman, also expressed concern.

“There is a role for getting the public better informed about what goes on in busy hospitals and the work of surgeons but the danger is that the operations just become entertainment,” he said.

“A very careful judgment has to be made about when you step over the line and compromise patients’ safety.”

Paul Grundy, a neurosurgeon at Southampton General Hospital, will be filmed removing the brain tumour.

“I wouldn’t have done this unless I thought it was important and of benefit to patients,” he said.

“They are nervous and terrified about the prospect of surgery. Patients who see and understand more about what will happen are comforted and it is easier to counsel them through it. We hope to show people it isn’t awful. The more informed people are the better they are at coping with stress. If it goes wrong we stop filming.”

Mr Grundy specialises in “awake surgery” in which brain tumours are removed under local anaesthetic.

His middle-aged male patient developed symptoms several years ago, including epilepsy and memory loss.

On the show he will have his skull opened and an electric probe passed across parts of his brain to identify and avoid damaging the functioning areas. The man will be able to feel the probe on the healthy parts.

“The tumour will be electrically silent and we will be able to target it,” said Mr Grundy.

He rejected any suggestion that he might be distracted by viewer’s questions.

“Questions will be fielded by other team members and I will answer at appropriate times. We have surgical trainees who we talk to day in, day out. It’s part of the job.”

He also said the show would not be a financial burden on the health service.

“The NHS won’t directly benefit from this but it is cost neutral. I’m here to treat patients and many patients now and in the future will benefit from it. That’s why I do my job.”

The Operation: Surgery Live will be broadcast in front of a studio audience at Wellcome Collection, a medical gallery in north-west London.

Clare Matterson, Wellcome Trust director for medicine, society and ­history, said: “Although surgery and medicine are often seen on television, we are bringing, for the first time, a real experience of surgery into the public realm.”

 

“It could also be psychologically harmful, especially to those who have had operations like this. There are some things certain patients prefer not to know.”

Indeed. But those people can choose not to watch. Others should be able to make up their own minds.

“It may be that some will find it enlightening but many others will feel it is sickening and distasteful.”

So those who might find it enlightening should be stopped from watching it because others will find it sickening and tasteful. Those who will find it as such can choose not to watch. Those who would find it educational should be given the choice to view it.

“There is a role for getting the public better informed about what goes on in busy hospitals and the work of surgeons but the danger is that the operations just become entertainment,”

Why is something informative reduced to entertainment in some people’s eyes just because it’s on TV. This programme is not there to entertain viewers but to give viewers a better understanding about what goes on during live saving operations.

The Sunday Express asks their readers to vote in a poll entitled “Should this sick programme be banned?”

Such a loaded question and it’s obvious which way they are directing their readers to vote.

The vulgar truth?

Nobody knows the truth about what viewers really think about swearing (or about violence or sex for that matter) because every survey is skewed to fit the own agendas of those carrying it out.

From the Express:

VULGAR TRUTH ABOUT OBSCENITY ON TV

 

FOUL: The constant swearing of chef Gordan Ramsay has outraged viewers

Tuesday May 19,2009

By Anna Pukas

Have your say(0)

Brace yourselves dear readers because as far as humanly possible, this article will contain no swearing and these days that is apparently more shocking than a liberal sprinkling of four letter words.

 

According to Mark Thompson, director-general of the BBC, it would be perfectly acceptable if this article were peppered with profanity because we are all quite relaxed about that sort of thing.

He bases this assertion on a recent survey on taste and decency which is to go before the BBC Trust this week and purports to show that most viewers do not mind bad language on tele­vision.

In fact, a substantial minority of viewers and listeners are in favour of less censorship than we have at the moment.

The Trust requested a review of editorial standards following the Russell Brand-Jonathan Ross deb­acle, in which the pair left an obscene message on the answering machine of actor Andrew Sachs.

The survey involved about 7,000 members of the public and reveals a lack of concern among viewers about the use of bad language in certain contexts, particularly after the 9pm watershed.

 

FURY: The Sex Pistols’ infamous outburst

 

Thompson goes on to assure us that “in the interests of creative freedom” the BBC will continue to “push boundaries”. So that’s all right then.

The next time anyone complains about something patently distasteful, Thompson and his executives will no doubt feel justified in arguing that they are quite au fait with what viewers do and don’t like because they’ve asked them.

But have they? We do not know how the questions in the survey were phrased, nor are we likely to find out as the results are being presented to the Trust and are not for public consumption.

However, it is impossible to listen to the director-general’s summary and not smell a rat.

The majority of viewers and listeners don’t care about swearing? Most have no objection to a string of f-words, or worse, coming out of their screens or radios? Frankly, who does Mark Thompson think he is kidding?

“There is a big difference between people resigning themselves to hearing bad language on television and liking it,” says Tony Thorne, who is language consultant at King’s College London, and has written numerous books on language. “They may have come to expect it but that doesn’t mean they like it.”

Indeed not. Gordon Ramsay is a popular TV chef and we know that the professional kitchen is a high-pressure environment. We get the joke in The F-Word.
 It’s a programme about food but the title is a reference to Ramsay’s salty language. But when Ramsay’s Great British Nightmare was broadcast in January containing 115 instances of offensive language in 40 minutes, Ofcom received 51 complaints. It was not the swearing per se which offended but the relentlessness.

This is what linguists call “appropriacy”. Thorne explains: “It’s about the right word in the right context. Swearing does serve a function.

“It can be an emotional release or it can enable you to fit in with a group, which is why teen­agers have their own slang. People can be unsophisticated but they are very sensitive to language.”

 

GUARDIAN: Mary Whitehouse foresaw TV’s ugly future

 

But have we really become so desensitised to language that we feel no outrage when a teenager uses the c-word to her father, as Debbie Gallagher did in a recent episode of Shameless?

In 1914, the use of the phrase “not bloody likely” on stage during the first night of George Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion incited hysteria in the audience and a call from the Bishop of Woolwich for the word to be banned.

Half a century passed before critic Kenneth Tynan said the f-word on TV in 1965. The gap between the next utterance was only eight years. Nowadays, its use is practically obligatory in “gritty” drama.

 

Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand’s obscene message during a Radio 2 show

 

Reality shows such as Big Brother and I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here, which are broadcast live, have contributed to the increased frequency of “mindless” swearing, in which the f-word is used almost as punctuation.

Thorne believes the inclusion of offensive words shows laziness on the part of scriptwriters and programme makers.

“They use swearing as a short cut to a false authenticity but it ends up looking completely unauthentic. It’s like rock ’n’ rollers still striking a rebellious pose after 40 years. It’s just that: a pose. Relentless profanity is such an uncreative use of language.

“We have a million words of vocabulary at our disposal in the English language and it seems a pity not to be more imaginative.

DEBBIE: A lead character in Shamless

 

“My 10-year-old son loves Top Gear but gets annoyed when guest drivers doing the time trial have to be bleeped out so much. He asks me why they can’t control their language and he’s right. It is very tedious.”

A few years ago, a survey revealed that while viewers had no great objections to scenes of sex or violence, they were very disturbed by bad language.

This makes sense; we can switch off scenes of violence because there is usually some preamble to them but there is no time to take evasive action against offensive language.

Once it’s out, it’s out. And a 9pm watershed is useless to a father and his young son watching a live football match together in the afternoon as the cameras linger on the snarling faces of footballers mouthing obvious obscenities at the ref­eree.

The bleeping device is also ludicrous; all it does is alert a viewer or listener to the use of the word that it is covering up.

 

T he judicious use of swearing is effective: it can shock or intimidate or simply release tension. But what does the constant swearer say when he is really angry? What can he do when his language has lost its power? Punch something? Punch someone?

We ignore the insidious creep of profanity at our peril. “Attitudes are definitely far more liberal but make no mistake, those old social taboos are still there,” says Tony Thorne.

“The biggest number of complaints to newspapers are about language. It may be a minority that doesn’t like bad language but if it’s a significant minority, you should listen.”

Will the BBC listen? Maybe. But I wouldn’t swear to it.

It may be a minority that doesn’t like bad language but if it’s a significant minority, you should listen.”

What is a significant minority?

The real vulgar truth is tabloid newspapers who’ve reported on and commented on the BBC’s poll based souly on their own agendas against the BBC and the so called “lefty liberals” why they claim run it.

 

Beyer hits back at BBC swearing poll

And promotes Mediawatch UK’s swearing poll which is designed to suit their own agenda.
Once again we need an independent poll which is not carried out by agenda driven pressure groups or broadcasting corperations but is going to represent the views of ALL Television viewers.

From Mediawatch UK:

SWEARING ON TV CAUSING WIDESPREAD OFFENCE
A new poll published today, 19 May 2009, shows that 73 per cent of people find swearing on TV offensive.  The poll, commissioned by mediawatch-uk, was conduced by ComRes who interviewed 1002 GB adults by telephone between 15 and 17 May 2009.

Significantly, the poll also found that 70 per cent believe the regulator, OFCOM, should do more to reduce the amount of swearing on TV.  Despite Ofcom’s own Communications Market research conducted over recent years, showing that the majority of people believe there is too much swearing on TV, the regulator very rarely upholds public complaints on this issue.  60 per cent of people believe that swearing on TV encourages swearing in daily life and 53 per cent believe that children are not effectively protected from swearing on TV.

Speaking today, John Beyer, director of mediawatch-uk, said: “The results of this survey show once again that swearing on TV causes widespread offence and that OFCOM really is not doing enough to allay public concern.  We certainly welcome OFCOM’s recent criticism of record-breaking programme, Ramsay’s Great British Nightmare, but this action is too little too late.”

Mr Beyer went on: “Today is also the closing date of our online petition to the Prime Minister which after just 6 months has attracted more than 5,400 signatures.  We are hopeful that Gordon Brown, who has expressed personal concern about broadcasting standards, will now directly intervene in this situation and call upon broadcasters and film makers to seriously improve standards of literacy in their media productions.”

Aware of the latest BBC survey Mr Beyer disputed the finding that people are “relaxed” about swearing on TV.  He said: “It may be true that swearing ‘in context’ is tolerable but for most people the main concern is with swearing that is entirely gratuitous and has no dramatic or any other context whatsoever.

“Moreover, the BBC’s findings seem to contradict research carried out by the BBC for Panorama in February which found that 55% of people thought there was now too much swearing, while 68% thought language had worsened in the past five years.”  Mr Beyer said: “Rather than wasting licence fee payers money on unnecessary surveys, the BBC should be asking itself how swearing in programmes fulfils its Charter obligation to ‘sustain citizenship and civil society’.”

Mr Beyer concluded: “The time really has come for broadcasters to act decisively on this matter by strengthening the regulations otherwise they know they risk alienating swathes of viewers.  In the Digital Age when broadcasting standards matter more and more to viewers and listeners it really is no good ignoring public feeling against swearing on TV.”
mediawatch-uk news release 19/5/2009
“Rather than wasting licence fee payers money on unnecessary surveys, the BBC should be asking itself how swearing in programmes fulfils its Charter obligation to ‘sustain citizenship and civil society’.”

The BBC’s survey is “unnecessary” because it doesn’t give Beyer what he wants to hear. If the survey had reported the viewers are all up in arms over swearing on TV Beyer would have said that it was very useful and welcomed it.

“We are hopeful that Gordon Brown, who has expressed personal concern about broadcasting standards, will now directly intervene in this situation and call upon broadcasters and film makers to seriously improve standards of literacy in their media productions.”

Why should film makers be included in all this? The issue is over swearing on TV and the offence that it may or may not cause to TV viewers. Films have not been talked about and people who do not wish to hear swearing in films can avoid films that contain swearing.
But of course Beyer confuses offence with potential harm and believes swearing should be censored out of everything for the “own good” of viewers.

What Beyer and Mediawatch UK are worried about is that the results of the BBC’s survey which shows viewers are relaxed about swearing (and again we don’t know how representative of the entire broad spectrum of tastes and views of the British TV viewing public the survey is) will prevent the regulation to ban swearing on TV completly that he and Mediawatch UK want brought in.
Which is why he is launching into this tirade and why his pressure group have realeased this press release in order to attempt to discredit the BBC’s findings.

At the moment surveys into viewers views on swearing, sex and violence are designed to fit the agendas of those who carry them out and are mainly targetted at certain groups (eg: Mediawatch UK’s survey was probably carried out amongst people living in middle England who share their views).
It’s time for a survey which will represent the views of all TV viewers and will take into account the broad tastes and views which TV viewers hold.

Supermarkets cover up Manics CD

From the BBC:

By Georgie Rogers and Lucy O’Doherty 6 Music News reporters   The cover was painted by artist Jenny Saville Enlarge Image     The new Manic Street Preachers album is being shipped to supermarkets in a plain slipcase because its artwork has been deemed “inappropriate”. Concerns have been raised that the cover for Journal For Plague Lovers, a portrait by artist Jenny Saville, looks like it is splattered with blood. Singer James Dean Bradfield called the situation “utterly bizarre”. “We just thought it was a beautiful painting. We were all in total agreement,” he told BBC 6 Music. The frontman disagreed that Saatchi favourite Saville, who also painted the cover for the band’s 1994 album The Holy Bible, had intended to depict a bloody face. “It is her brushwork,” he said. “If you’re familiar with her work, there’s a lot of ochres and browns and reds and browns and perhaps people are looking for us to be more provocative than we are being. “We just saw a much more modern version of Lucian Freud-esque brushstrokes. That’s all we saw.”     You show a piece of art and people just freak out James Dean Bradfield Bradfield added that the band were frustrated by supermarkets’ attitudes. “You can have lovely shiny buttocks and guns everywhere in the supermarket on covers of magazines and CDs, but you show a piece of art and people just freak out,” he said. Supermarkets’ word Four of the main supermarket chains – Sainsburys, Tesco, Asda and Morrisons – are among the shops using the slip cover. Asda told 6 Music they wanted to be extra cautious in case the artwork upset some of its customers.   Journal For Plague Lovers is Manic Street Preachers’ ninth studio album Meanwhile Nicola Williamson, Sainsbury’s music buyer, said: “We felt that some customers might consider this particular album cover to be inappropriate if it were prominently displayed on the shelf. “As such, the album will be sold in a sleeve provided by the publisher.” Journal For Plague Lovers, the Welsh band’s ninth studio album, sees them set the lyrics of former band member Richey Edwards to music, 14 years after the 27-year-old disappeared from the Embassy Hotel in London’s Bayswater. Bradfield says that the artwork was an integral part of the project and, for that reason, the band had never considered revising it. “It’s the first time ever that we actually feel controlled by the idea, which basically stemmed from Richey’s words,” he explained. “So we’re not going to censor it or anything, because it is what it is. “It is bizarre that supermarkets actually think that that’s going to impinge on anyone’s psyche.” Journal For Plague Lovers is released in the UK on Monday. To be fair supermarkets are in a no win situation. If they cover up a potentially controversial CD cover they will be attacked by the anti-corpeate brigade for caring more about profit than artistic freedom. If they don’t cover it up they will be got at by self appointed moral guardian pressure groups for displaying “inappropriate” material in front of children. Mediasnoops thinks supermarkets should stock the CD uncovered and let people make up their own minds. Mediasnoops was watching The Wright Stuff on Channel Five this morning and the way Matthew Wright and his guests were going on anyone would have thought that supermarkets had banned the CD outright. Of course it’s silly for supermarkets to cover up a CD in case people might be offended but they haven’t banned the Manic’s album completly. Of course the cover up will probably work in favour of the CD’s sales. The Manic Street Preachers are very anti-capitalist and will no doubt push the “evil nasty multinational corperation censoring us” line to their fans and it will help their new album become a hit! The supermarkets have probably done them a favour.

Toxic TV, teens, sex, greed, cruelty and Daily Mail scaremongering bollox

Hooked on toxic TV: Teen viewing diaries reveal alarming diet of sex, greed and cruelty

By Penny Marshall
Last updated at 7:48 AM on 18th May 2009

 

Cruelty. greed. Graphic under-age sex. Forget the watershed… thanks to today’s technology, your children can watch ANYTHING at ANY TIME. We asked four teenage girls to keep a diary of their viewing. What they told us was alarming

Augustine Vale is good looking, sassy and bright. At 15, she’s a typical well-educated teenager studying for her GCSEs, with the usual rows with her parents about homework.

But her mother, Viviane, says Augustine has a major problem that has divided the family. She believes her daughter is dangerously hooked on a toxic diet of junk TV and crude popular culture.

‘Augustine’s lovely, of course. But when it comes to youth TV, she’s like an addict,’ says Viviane. ‘And so are her friends. The messages that shows such as Gossip Girl, The Girls Of The Playboy Mansion, Desperate Housewives and Skins give out is that to get ahead you must be thin, be a sexual predator and treat your friends as ruthlessly as your enemies. It is dangerous and disturbing.’

Glamorous: The cast of U.S. teen soap Gossip Girl

Augustine is one of four girls, aged 12, 15, 16 and 17, who each kept a week-long diary of their TV viewing for the Mail.

If The Country Diary Of An Edwardian Lady recorded a vanishing world of charm and beauty at the turn of the last century, this diary, which we could call The Cultural Diary Of A 21st-Century Teenager, records a world where girls are hearing one message loud and clear: sex and money are the most important things in life and you can’t start getting them too soon.

It is also a world where on-demand viewing, as a result of DVD recorders, digital packages such as Sky Plus and the availability of programmes online, has made age-inappropriate material available around the clock. The 9pm watershed is unworkable as a parental guide or teenage warning.

These four girls’ diaries bear no resemblance to the broadcast schedule. They are watching X-rated shows over afternoon tea.

All are dominated by celebrity and reality shows, dieting and modelling programmes, crude dramas aimed at adults and soaps. Most of the shows are American.

Of the girls we monitored, Augustine watched the most TV – four hours a night. But that is less than the national average, which is five hours a night. Along with 80 per cent of teenagers, she has a TV and computer in her bedroom.

‘It is the lament of every concerned parent and the anxiety of all teachers in every generation that what children are watching and reading isn’t good for them’

Here’s her diary entry for a typical Tuesday: 5pm, Hollyoaks (featuring one-night stand pregnancies, threesomes and drugs); pop videos; 7pm, Shameless, the Channel 4 drama with strong language and highly sexual content (it is broadcast on Mondays at 10pm, but Augustine recorded it so she can watch it when she wants); 8pm, The Sex Education Show Vs Pornography (its graphic material attracted scores of complaints); 9pm, Desperate Housewives, a glamorous export about the sex lives of married women in small-town America.

‘It is the lament of every concerned parent and the anxiety of all teachers in every generation that what children are watching and reading isn’t good for them,’ says Vicky Tuck, the principal at Cheltenham Ladies’ College.

‘But what is genuinely new is the sheer volume of the material. If we are not careful, it can drown out other, more nurturing influences at this critical age of development.’

Augustine is arguably more discerning than most of her peers because she watches only one ‘body image’ programme a week – ITV1’s Supersize Vs Super Skinny.

Perceptively, she says programmes about body shape depress her. She’s absolutely right. All the evidence is that watching programmes about body weight and beauty can damage a young girl’s self-esteem.

‘I don’t want to watch Jane Austen’

However, 12-year-old Olivia Radcliffe, from Marlow, Bucks, loves body image programmes best of all. Her mother limits her viewing to two hours a night, though she does have a TV in her bedroom.

Prim and proper: Girls are aware that their mothers would prefer them to watch Jane Austen films, but they prefer trashier alternatives

Olivia is goal shooter in her school netball first team and bright enough to win a place at grammar school. And yet typically her weekly viewing includes shallow, image- obsessed shows such as Coleen’s Real Women, How To Look Good Naked and Ten Years Younger.

Her favourites are America’s Next Top Model and Britain’s Next Top Model – 20 per cent of the audience for these shows are aged under 24.

Britain’s Next Top Model features a contestant who is a former anorexic, Jade McSorley. Living TV, who broadcast the series, say Jade’s condition has increased awareness of the issue among teenage girls, but others have criticised the show for including her as a way of once again promoting size zero models.

‘All Olivia’s friends watch these body programmes – peer pressure has a lot to do with it,’ says her mother, Helen, a nurse. ‘She’d prefer to watch adult body programmes rather than children’s programmes any day.’ Olivia’s typical TV diary reveals – Monday: 8pm, EastEnders; 9pm, Britain’s Next Top Model. Tuesday: 7.30pm, EastEnders; 8pm, Gok’s Fashion Fix.

‘My mother would probably prefer me to watch Jane Austen, but I wouldn’t,’ says Olivia. ‘I find these diet and fashion programmes really interesting. I like to talk about them with my friends at school.’

Jacqui Marsden, a psychologist who specialises in women’s well-being, says it’s normal for 12-year-olds like Olivia to follow the pack.

‘Belonging is paramount, which is why they watch and read this material. But there can be real problems associated with watching too much of it.

‘This diet of looking at perfect bodies while worrying about our imperfect bodies and being punished for them is central to much of today’s programming.

We are serving up our daughters a diet of junk…Much of it is age inappropriate.

The drip, drip, drip of it undermines self-esteem. If a girl has a secure sense of self because she has been loved and valued by those around her, she’ll weather this onslaught of body image insecurity.

‘But if she enters her teens insecure then this extra pressure can tip her over into mental distress, anxiety, depression and eating disorders.’

Olivia also likes to watch Snog Marry Avoid – a programme in which ‘tarty’ girls are given more demure make-overs, but inevitably hate them – and Embarrassing Bodies, ostensibly a medical guide, but containing highly explicit images (so much so that the show’s website is accompanied by a warning). Should 12-year-old Olivia really be watching this? 

Enlarge  

Pal: Paris Hilton’s British Best Friend is a favourite with many young girls

But on closer inspection, the series – in which young women are given tasks such as shopping for Paris and ‘keeping her secrets’ – has disturbing echoes of the worst aspects of the school playground, with contestants resorting to bullying and victimising each other in their determination to win. And yet they are rewarded for their excesses.

What sort of message is that for a pre-teen?

‘I’m concerned that there are few voices promoting decent values,’ says Jacqui Marsden. ‘Qualities such as kindness, loyalty and trust are key to forming lasting relationships.’

Other experts agree that such TV shows are dangerous.

‘We are serving up our daughters a diet of junk,’ says Sue Palmer, author of the book Toxic Childhood.

‘Much of it is age inappropriate. And, like junk food, the girls who devour it do know that what they watch on TV and read in gossip magazines is bad for them – the earlier it starts, the more damaging it is.’

Many of the programme titles may not sound familiar to the mothers of teenage boys, but any parent of a street-wise teenage girl will recognise at least some of the shows featured in the diaries.

The Inbetweeners is an award-winning Channel 4 comedy series. It was watched by all three of the older girls, as was Skins, the Channel 4 drama about troubled teens.

Both programmes are post-watershed and include references to graphic sex as well as bad language. In the 15 minutes of The Inbetweeners I watched, there were 35 references to sex acts and 12 four-letter expletives – nearly one a minute.

Eleanor Hayward, 17, our third diarist, particularly likes The Inbetweeners, but says she wouldn’t want her 15-year-old sister to see it.

She also liked Katie & Peter, The Next Chapter, a reality TV series which follows the lives of the former glamour model Jordan, her husband Peter Andre and their children.

Her programme choices, between studying for three science A-levels, leave her father, Martin, an eminent surgeon at London’s Heart Hospital, dumbfounded.

‘These programmes have the wrong messages. Just as we are trying to persuade our daughters to work hard, they see the rewards associated with being a glamour model glorified,’ he says.

But Eleanor disagrees. ‘I don’t admire Jordan. I can see the irony in these programmes. That’s what adults don’t understand. She’s not a role model. She’s just an entertaining distraction.’

One of three sisters, Eleanor is at a private school in South-West London. Her mother, Lindsey, will not allow her to have a TV or computer in her bedroom.

Here’s a typical Thursday night’s viewing: 4.30pm, Friends; 5pm, Scrubs; 5.30pm, Gossip Girl; 6.30pm, Hollyoaks.

The family eat together, which is why they have invested in a DVD recorder so these programmes don’t impact on family life. After doing her homework, Eleanor watched a recording of Katie & Peter, The Next Chapter.

‘I love Hollyoaks, but I do think it’s too hardcore for 12 and 13-yearolds and yet they all watch it at school,’ she says.

‘We have the TV in our living room, so we often discuss issues that come out of the programmes, which is good.’

Her mother agrees. ‘It can be a really useful tool if you watch it with them,’ she says.

‘I wouldn’t want to ban it and seem like a prude. So if all their friends watch Skins, we will have it on, otherwise they will just go to someone else’s house to see it.

‘What I really don’t like is our daughters being bombarded with material that is aggressively sexual.’

‘Early sexualisation’

Our fourth diarist, Chloe Cinamon, 16, from North London, is a talented photographer studying for AS levels.

Enlarge  

Zany: The screwball American comedy set in a hospital also proved popular but it might not always be suitable for younger girls

 

Here is her TV viewing diary for a typical Monday: 11.20am, One Tree Hill; 11.45am, My Super Sweet 16 UK; Noon, The Hills; 1pm, Scrubs; 1.45pm, Pineapple Express.

All of Chloe’s TV choices are U.S. teen soaps or dramas, except for My Super Sweet 16 UK, which is a British version of an American reality show. It follows rich girls as their parents arrange their ’super sweet’ 16th birthday parties. It usually involves stretch limos, gifts of new cars and hysterical catfighting over party invitations.

Most nights Chloe also read adult glamour magazines. Though there are publications aimed at her age group, she chooses to buy those marketed as adult.

Chloe says she finds Bliss, Sugar and Miz too young, which is in itself genuinely disturbing.

The average age of the Bliss readership is 15, yet this month’s edition features a glamorous and ‘inspirational’ spread about three teen mums and their children, without once mentioning that sex with an underage girl is illegal. Two of the girls were 14 and 15 when they became pregnant. Other features included an interview with a star from Skins, promoting a post-watershed programme to a pre-watershed age group.

Ed Mayo, chief executive of Consumer Focus, the Government’s consumer watchdog, has recently accused the magazines of pushing the envelope and warns that parents would be shocked by much of their content.

He believes these teen magazines are responsible ‘for the early sexualisation of children’.

But is he right? What effect does this deluge of material have on the young girls who choose to watch and read it? ‘I have real concerns about the way children are being influenced by all this,’ says Kairen Cullen, a leading educational psychologist.

‘There is a clear link with eating disorders and early sexual pressure. Girls are being shown female role models who are highly sexualised, trivial in their thinking and lacking core relationship skills, and that’s an issue.

‘One of the key developmental challenges of adolescence is to work out who we are and what we want.

‘Exposure to this toxic junk is part of that process. Teenage girls do need to see some of it because it is part of our adult world. But they do need to question it and to see how shallow it is, too.

‘And that ability must come from other influences in the home and at school. If they don’t have those, it can do real lasting harm.’

Enlarge  

Hit: The cast of the E4 comedy The Inbetweeners

Vicky Tack at Cheltenham Ladies’ College agrees.

‘We are gardening in a gale; it’s a battle between our influences as parents and teachers and all the other influences,’ she says.

‘These are challenging times for girls to grow up in. But if influences are strong in the first decade, you need to have faith they will survive.’

But perhaps our popular culture is not making it easy for girls like our four diarists, Augustine, Olivia, Eleanor and Chloe, to survive.

Is it really helping them and the rest of their generation to grow up to become the sort of women we’d like them to be? Will this toxic diet have long-term consequences for today’s teenage girls?

We can only hope that the values recorded in their teenage cultural diaries don’t become the realities of their adult world.

What this is is a case of adults dissaproving of what teenagers are watching.

They don’t like what kids today watch on TV and think that it’s bad for them. But just because they think it is bad for them it does not neccesarily mean it is.

And of course they want kids stopped from watching it, which will further alienate kids from adult authority.

Kids today must be tired of constantly being told that the programmes they enjoy are corrupting them and they need to be stopped from watching them for “their own good”.

They must be mightily fed up with being made to feel by adults, politicians and self appointed moral guardians that they are stupid and will believe and copy anything they see on TV.

Instead of blaming TV those who claim to be concerned with the welfare of children and teenagers should be addressing the real causes of the problems they face.

For example why are the lives of some young teenage girls so empty that they aspire to be glamour models or “WAGS?”

Mediasnoops has just finished reading an interesting book called It’s Not The Media by American sociologist Karen Sternheimer which suggests that by constantly blaming the media for violence and sexual activity amongst young people we are ignoring the route causes of such problems like poverty, lack of decent education and lack of opportunity.

It also suggests that by blaming the media politicians can avoid addressing tough issues such as poverty and unemployment. Blaming the media is an easy route because it doesn’t take much work and gets the news media’s attention.

Perhaps the Daily Mail and others who contributed to this article should take a look.

Then there might be less of this scaremongering bollox and more actually adressing the issues and problems which affect kids today.

BBC survey “excuse for more sweaing” say moral guardians

Predictably enough the Tory press have put their own spin on the BBC survey about swearing.
Whilst The Guardian reported how the survey shows viewers are relaxed about swearing and are not in favour of more censorship The Express reports it from the angle of the moral guardians who say it will give the BBC an excuse to air more bad language and they’ve wheeled out Beyer to drum that view home.
It just goes to show how we need an independent survey on broadcasting taste and decency that cannot be reported to fit the agendas and bias of certain newspapers.

From The Express:

POLL GIVES BBC EXCUSE FOR EVEN MORE SWEARING 

By Sara Dixon  Have your say(2)

A BBC report will show that the public is more relaxed than ever about swearing on TV – sparking fears that it will give the corporation a licence to air even more bad language.

The survey of viewers’ attitudes on taste and decency was ordered by the BBC Trust after the furore over Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand leaving lewd messages on veteran actor Andrew Sachs’s answerphone.

The report is said to show that viewers are “relaxed” about the use of bad language, especially after the 9pm watershed.

About 7,000 members of the public were interviewed and the results will be presented to the BBC Trust later this month.

But the findings are contrary to a survey last year in Radio Times, in which 69 per cent of 4,500 people polled said that there was too much swearing on TV.

Watchdogs fear the latest report will stop the BBC cleaning up its act.

John Beyer, of Mediawatch, said: “There is already far too much swearing on TV that is entirely unnecessary. My fear is that Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director general, will tell everybody that it is business as usual.

“But swearing alienates television viewers. If they are going to carry on broadcasting swearing, the BBC will alienate swathes more viewers.”

Brand, 33, left the BBC after the messages were broadcast last October. He had used shockingly explicit language to tell Mr Sachs, 79, about his brief relationship with his grand-daughter Georgina Baillie, 23.

The airing of the pre-recorded Radio 2 show sparked more than 40,000 complaints and severely damaged the BBC’s reputation. Radio 2 controller Lesley Douglas resigned.

Mr Thompson said recently that the BBC, which receives £3.5billion of public money a year, would continue “to push boundaries” in the “interests of creative freedom of expression”.
“My fear is that Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director general, will tell everybody that it is business as usual.”

Buisness as usual? What, allowing viewers to make up their own minds what they want and do not want to watch and not having the viewing tastes of John Beyer and the rest of Daily Mail Tory voting middle England forced upon them? Sounds good to us Johnny Boy!

“But swearing alienates television viewers. If they are going to carry on broadcasting swearing, the BBC will alienate swathes more viewers.”

And those viewers will pick up their remote controls and swtich over and watch something else. The kind of action you don’t seem to be able to grasp Johnny Boy!

The truth is the BBC have never said they are going to be broadcasting more swearing because of this survey. This is just the fear held by their critics. Heck their critics probably hope they will broadcast more swearing just so they can have another go at them.

Viewers not that pissed off about swearing says BBC survey

The fact that this survey was carried out by the BBC themselves will no doubt be pointed out by their critics.

What we really need is an independent survey to find out what ordinary viewers (and not just viewers who have agendas or certain political leanings) think about taste and decency.

The broad spectrum of tastes amongst viewers cannot be fully understood and represented by the BBC themselves or the right-wing self appointed moral guardians who constantly attack them.

From The Guardian courtesy of the Melon Farmers:

BBC viewers relaxed about swearing on TV and radio

James Robinson, media editor

 

Link to this audio One of the most exhaustive pieces of research conducted by the BBC into viewers’ attitudes to taste and decency is said to show that most are relaxed about the use of bad language on air.

The corporation will submit the results of the survey, which involved around 7,000 members of the public, to the BBC Trust this week. The trust had asked the management to review its editorial guidelines on taste and standards in the wake of the resignation of Russell Brand and the suspension of Jonathan Ross after they left an obscene message on actor Andrew Sachs’s voicemail.

The review is also likely to show that, as well as most viewers being unconcerned about the use of bad language in certain contexts, particularly after the 9pm watershed, a substantial minority of viewers and listeners are in favour of less censorship. Viewers apparently objected to the behaviour of Ross and Brand because of the bullying tone of the broadcast rather than the fact that swearing was used.

In his first major interview since the Sachs controversy, Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director general, told the Observer it was inevitable that some viewers would be offended by BBC content, but defended the corporation’s output. “It would be foolish to believe you could go into this space without sometimes upsetting some people,” he said.

“If we set up a programme strategy based on never offending anyone – which is sometimes a world that some of our critics would like – you wouldn’t broadcast any news programmes, for example.”

Thompson said the Sachs broadcast was a mistake, but insisted that the BBC would continue “to push boundaries” in the “interests of creative freedom of expression”. He denied that a “climate of fear” had taken hold at the BBC.

“With the Russell Brand show, I felt it shouldn’t have been broadcast. But the fact that there are absolute boundaries, and that an invasion of privacy and a kind of bullying behaviour are not acceptable, doesn’t mean… that we shouldn’t be brave.

“We absolutely do need sometimes to declare that in the interests of creative freedom of expression and, also, of the public’s right to hear and see and to make up their own minds about things… that we will have to push boundaries.”

Thompson also claimed that public trust in the BBC is strong. “There’s very little evidence [to suggest] that public support for the BBC has significantly changed,” he said.

 

“Viewers apparently objected to the behaviour of Ross and Brand because of the bullying tone of the broadcast rather than the fact that swearing was used.”

But self appointed moral guardian pressure groups like Mediawatch-UK still used it to launch anti-swearing campaigns to boost their own publicity.

“We absolutely do need sometimes to declare that in the interests of creative freedom of expression and, also, of the public’s right to hear and see and to make up their own minds about things… that we will have to push boundaries.”

Such a statement will know doubt the words of the devil to the ears of the Mediawatch UK Daily Mail Tory crowd who believe the public should only be allowed to hear and see things that they approve of.

Big up Mark Thompson we say!

 ”There’s very little evidence [to suggest] that public support for the BBC has significantly changed,”

Indeed. And there is also very little evidence to suggest the majority of the British TV viewi ng public is opposed to the BBC and that there is much evidence to suggest the majority of people who oppose the BBC and have an axe to grind with it are Tory voting middle Englanders who read the Daily Mail.

Mary goes hardcore with Sir Cliff in porn portrait (and Beyer’s not happy)

Even though Whitehouse’s son said that the portrait is quite witty Beyer still takes offence on her behalf.

Maybe Beyer loves Saint Mary even more than her own son does.

From The London Evening Standard:

Mary and Sir Cliff star in their own hard-core picture

Robert Mendick

 

Fans of Sir Cliff Richard may wish to turn away now. They may find it difficult to look him in the face again.

An artist has produced a portrait of the singer with morality campaigner Mary Whitehouse out of pornographic cuttings from top-shelf magazines. From a distance, the collage looks harmless. But on closer examination, intimate body parts and various sexual poses become clear.

The portrait, measuring 42cm by 42cm, goes on display with a price tag of £25,000 at a new West End gallery which opens tonight.

The artist, Jonathan Yeo, told the Standard today he had chosen Mrs Whitehouse, who died in 2001 aged 91, because he “always had a problem with her”. Sir Cliff is targeted because “anybody who has lived in apparent abstinence deserves a bit of ribbing”.

Yeo, 39, a highly-acclaimed portrait painter whose subjects have included Tony Blair, Dennis Hopper and Erin O’Connor, said: “If Mary Whitehouse was still around I hope she would treat this picture as an insult. She equated nudity, bad language and violence as if they were all equally dangerous.” He added: “I presume Cliff will have a sense of humour about it.”

Yeo painted the pair in oils from a photograph of Sir Cliff and Mrs Whitehouse in the Sixties. He then overlaid this with pornographic cuttings, matching colour, tone and brush strokes with sexual images. Yeo thinks he must have gone through 50 magazines, drawing in particular on Big Black Butt magazine.

The image is the latest produced by Yeo using porn. He depicted George W Bush “to offend a man I found offensive”. His latest portrait is likely to stir controversy. Sir Cliff ’s spokesman Bill Latham said today: “It is so tacky I don’t think Sir Cliff would want to give the artist the satisfaction of a reaction.”

John Beyer, who took over Mrs Whitehouse’s campaign, said: “To have her memory besmirched is contemptible and passé. He needs to grow up.”

But Mrs Whitehouse’s son Richard, 63, said: “It is quite witty really.”

We can think of a few more portraits. How about one of Beyer being the boss of a prison for porn viewers who’ve been locked away for three years?