Chapter 4 - Effectiveness of the current classification standards
4.1
This chapter investigates the operation of the current classification
standards across television and radio broadcasting that form a significant
element of each code of practice. It also considers the opinions and
experiences of those who have raised concerns about various aspects of the
effectiveness of the standards.
4.2
The Committee is aware that industry codes of practice contain broader
information than classification standards. Given the lack of complaints by
submitters on issues such as time occupied by non-program matter or closed
captioning for hearing impaired or deaf people, for example, the Committee will
restrict its analysis to classification standards only.
Classification of material
4.3
Section 123(2)(c) of the BSA allows each broadcasting industry group to
include in their code of conduct its own system of classification for programs.
If industry groups exercise the option to classify programs, it must comply
with section 123A of the BSA, which reflects the principles set out in the
Classification Act.
4.4
ACMA reports that:
As the Classification Act envisages, the process of making
classification decisions is one of balancing rights and protections. A key
guiding principle is that adults should be able to read, hear and see what they
want. This principle must be balanced against the consideration that children
should be protected from material that may harm and disturb them, and that
everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they
find offensive.[1]
4.5
Commercial television and open narrowcasting codes that elect to
classify programs must also adhere to requirements relating to the
classification of films.
4.6
ACMA notes that 'the concept of "community standards" is
central to the classification principles'. Further, it states that:
The process of determining community standards is not a
straightforward matter, as such standards are not able to be readily expressed
or quantified. A pluralistic society such as Australia's will necessarily
encompass multiple viewpoints, and there will be a variety of needs in relation
to being able to access material, or being offered protections. The concept of
a classification framework is, however, based around the understanding that
some form of judgement can be made, and that the standards so defined will be
broadly accepted by the community.[2]
4.7
News, current affairs programs and sporting events are not required to
be classified for television or radio broadcast. However, all codes of practice
include provisions to ensure that material of this nature that is broadcast is
suitable for the expected audience of the program.
Television classification
4.8
All television codes of practice use a series of classifiable elements
to assist with the classification of a program. The frequency and treatment of
the following elements in a program broadcast by any station will determine the
classification:
- Violence;
- Sex and nudity;
- Coarse language;
- Drug use; and
- Themes (including adult themes, strong adult themes, medical
procedures, supernatural themes, and horror).
4.9
'Impact' is also considered by all broadcasters in determining
classifications—explicitly in the subscription television Codes of Practice,[3]
and implicitly with other broadcasters.[4]
4.10
Although broadcasters are not required under the legislation to
consider the classifiable elements when implementing ratings for televisions
programs,[5]
these classifiable elements are based to varying degrees on the Guidelines
for the Classification of Films and Computer Games, made under the Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. This is explicitly
acknowledged by a self-administering broadcaster, the ABC.[6]
4.11
The Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games also
asserts that assessing the impact of the material is an essential principle in
determining classification, and that:
Assessing the impact of material requires considering not only
the treatment of individual classifiable elements but also their cumulative
effect. It also requires considering the purpose and tone of a sequence.[7]
4.12
There are strong similarities between program classifications that have
been developed for commercial television stations Seven, Nine and Ten; ABC;
SBS; and subscription broadcast television channels and the classifications
required for films under the Classification Act. In ascending order, the film
classifications are:
G General
PG Parental Guidance
M Mature
MA 15+ Mature Accompanied
R 18+ Restricted
X 18+ Restricted
RC Refused Classification.[8]
4.13
All broadcasters use the following classifications for television
programs: G (General – suitable for all ages); PG (Parental Guidance
recommended); and M (Mature). It should be noted that programs rated G and PG
are not, necessarily, made specifically for children. The rating merely
indicates that they do not contain elements that would require a more
restrictive classification.
4.14
In addition, all broadcasters have a category for programs not suitable
for people under 15 years (MA or MA 15+). SBS and commercial television
stations include an additional classification for programs incorporating strong
violence (MAV15+ and AV respectively). Subscription television stations include
an R18+ (Restricted) category, although '[t]his classification category applies
only to films'.[9]
4.15
With the exception of subscription television stations, codes of
practice contain schedules of times when programs with different
classifications can be screened. The schedule is based on 'the majority
audience normally viewing at that time, with particular regard to the child
component of the audience'[10].
4.16
SBS and commercial television channels may only show programs containing
strong violence (MAV15+) between 9:30pm and 5:00am. The ABC Code of Practice
requires that MA15+ programs begin no earlier than 9:30pm. SBS and commercial stations allow MA15+ and MA programs to begin at 9:00pm;[11]
however, SBS notes that, in its case as an independent broadcaster:
The time zones indicated for each classification ... are guides to
the most likely placement of programs within that classification. The
recommended placements are not hard and fast rules and there will be occasions
where programs or segments of programs will appear in other time slots.[12]
4.17
According to all codes of practice, programs rated M may be screened
from 8:30pm. M-rated programs may also be shown between noon and 3:00pm on
school days. PG programs may be screened on weekdays between 8:30am and 4:00pm
and 7:00pm and 6:00am and on weekends at any time except between 6:00am and
10:00am. G-rated programs may be screened at any time.[13]
The timetable for weekday programming on commercial free-to-air television is
at Figure 4.1 below.
Figure 4.1—Weekday Classification Zones Timetable
[14]
4.18
Subscription television broadcasters may screen programs at any time although
'[m]ost channels...schedule more adult material later in the evening'[15]:
The fact that the Subscription Broadcast Television (SBT) Codes
of Practice do not contain classification time zone requirements, unlike the
codes for free-to-air television, reflects the different nature of SBT and free-to-air
television industries and audiences.[16]
4.19
The Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA)
argues that subscription television should be distinguished from free-to-air
television because it is an 'opt-in' system in which the consumer chooses to
enter into a contract to purchase certain services.[17]
In addition, all contracts executed between subscription broadcast television
providers and patrons can include facility for a ‘parental lock’ function.[18]
4.20
Free-to-air and subscription television broadcasters are required to
display the appropriate classification symbol of the program being screened at
the beginning of the program. The classification symbol for a program being
promoted will be displayed during the promotion. The commercial television
stations also undertake to display the classification symbol 'as soon as
practicable after each break'.[19]
4.21
The Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice also specifies that
the appropriate classification symbol must be 'of at least 32 television lines
in height, in a readily legible typeface, [and] must be displayed for at least
3 seconds'[20].
4.22
All free-to-air television broadcasting codes of practice require
stations to provide audio and visual consumer advice[21]
at the beginning of each program. The code for commercial television stations
also includes a voice-over script for each classification.
4.23
According to Free TV Australia, consumer advice:
[M]ust specify one or more of the classification elements set out
below. Where the frequency of classification elements is not indicated in the
listed terms, the adjective “some” or “frequent” should be used (e.g. “some
nudity”).
Language
- mild coarse language
- some coarse language
- frequent coarse language
- very coarse language
- frequent very coarse language
Violence
- stylised violence
- mild violence
- some violence
- frequent violence
- realistic violence
- strong violence
Sex
- sexual references
- a sex scene
- sex scenes
- strong sex scenes
Drugs
Other
- adult themes
- strong adult themes
- medical procedures
- supernatural themes
- horror
- nudity[22]
Radio
4.24
The Committee notes that the SBS Codes of Practice 2008, and the
ABC Code of Practice, March 2007 apply to both television and radio
broadcasts.
4.25
Neither the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice and
Guidelines nor the Community Radio Code of Practice describes
a system of classification that includes classifiable elements. Instead, both
codes list material that may not be broadcast: that is, material that promotes
or favourably depicts the behaviours in paragraph 4.23 above.[23]
Programs with an explicit sexual theme as the core content may only be
broadcast between 9:30pm and 5:00am.
4.26
In considering the acceptability of language, 'the gratuitous use in a
program of language likely to offend the anticipated audience for that program
must be avoided' by the commercial radio licensee.[24]
Effectiveness of the classification system - television
4.27
Among the views heard by the Committee was that:
[T]he current classification standards reflect current community
standards. We do not believe that there is any evidence to support further
restrictions to the classification standards.[25]
4.28
Other submitters concurred with this view; a submitter noted that
mechanisms for 'viewer education are more than adequate'[26]
while the Young Liberal Movement Victoria went further, stating that:
YLM Vic believes that the current broadcasting and other
classification codes are adequate to meet the community’s needs. The codes
facilitate the adequate provision of consumer information whilst preserving
consumer choice. If anything, the codes go too far in regulating content and
should, if anything, be relaxed.[27]
4.29
Unsurprisingly, industry bodies and the independent broadcasters
perceived the classification process as being very effective:
[T]he ABC believes its current policies, including effective
classification, appropriate consumer warnings, awareness of target audience and
context, and a rigorous complaints system, appropriately address community
attitudes about what content should be broadcast. The ABC’s Code of Practice
operates effectively and allows flexibility for the Corporation to fulfil its
obligations to a diverse Australian community.[28]
4.30
In the case of community broadcasters, program producers are consulted
when a program is classified. This is in addition to training that is provided
to staff and volunteers to ensure that programs do not exceed the limits of
their timeslot allocation:
Further, it is largely the case that community television
stations approach classification quite cautiously. For example, if there is any
doubt or question about the program classification it will usually be
classified at the higher level to ensure a more sensitive audience is not
likely to watch and be offended.[29]
4.31
However, the majority of respondents to this inquiry considered that one
or more elements of the classification standards, applying to free-to-air television
particularly, required adjustment or change. The Committee did not hear any
evidence which suggested that subscription or community broadcasting services
were the targets of significant complaints with regard to classification
standards.
Symbols of the classification
system
4.32
The Committee received evidence from YMA that the current classification
symbols of G, PG and M:
... based as they are around the age of 15 yrs, (and not related
to any real ages and stages of childhood) do not helpfully reflect the ages at
which different age groups of children are vulnerable to certain portrayals.
YMA is of the view that these classifications would be more
helpful, if they were changed to G (suits all), G8+ (suits those 8 and up) and
G13+ (suits those 13 and up. These classes would then be followed by MA15+
(having legal force).[30]
4.33
The Australian Family Association (AFA) has also expressed support for
classification categories that differ from those currently used in classifying
television programs, based on the Classification Act. The AFA notes that:
There are also continuing issues with classification categories
that do not accurately reflect child and adolescent developmental needs. In
many other countries, classifications include a category indicating
appropriateness for older children or young teenagers. At present parents are
often confused about the meaning of PG and M ratings for their child. Some M
rated content might be better rated as PG 13+.[31]
4.34
Changing these symbols would bring Australia more closely in line with
other countries, such as: Brazil, which has categories of appropriate viewing
for under 16s, under 14s, under 12s, and under 10s, as well as more general
viewing; Canada, which classifies children's viewing as suitable for under
eight years and over eight years; and America, which distinguishes programs
suitable for children above and below seven years.
4.35
The Office of Film and Literature Classification is responsible for
classifying films under the Classification Act and broadcasting industries'
codes are required to align with the film classification system. A qualitative
research study among people of all ages in 2004 found that there was a common
request to make film/video/DVD, TV and computer games classification symbols
and advice the same, so that the system was as simple as possible for everyone
to understand.[32]
4.36
The Committee notes that the current classification symbols for film and
television have high community recognition. The Committee is, therefore,
reluctant to recommend a change of symbols or the addition of new symbols simply
on the basis that other countries do it. However it is clear from many submissions
to this inquiry that members of the community do not feel that the current
system is sufficiently nuanced to provide reliable guidance as to the content
of programs, particularly in the PG and M classifications.
4.37
It is also apparent from a number of submissions that viewers rely on
the symbols to a much greater extent than on a detailed understanding of the
wording of the standards or the codes of practice, however desirable that might
be. Thus there may be benefits to be gained from introducing additional symbols
which allow content to be matched more closely to particular age-groups.
Recommendation 3
4.38
The Committee recommends that ACMA investigate whether the inclusion of
additional age-specific symbols in the G and PG categories offer any advantages
over the current system.
Terminology
4.39
The consumer advice provided before a program is, of necessity, brief.
Ideally it should be interpreted having regard to the actual standards set out
in the code of practice. 'The enforcement of content and the notification of
consumer advice'[33]
can be improved but there must also be community awareness that, while consumer
advice, along with a classification, is available, a 'wider understanding of
the actual standards and their role is desirable'.[34]
4.40
The clarity of the terminology used in the consumer advice of the classification
standards was a source of concern to some, particularly in relation to 'impact'
words (mild, moderate, strong) and terms such as 'very' or 'frequent' used as
indicators of the incidence of coarse language. These terms were viewed as
subjective and, according to the Community Broadcasting Association of
Australia (CBAA), the result of this is that 'classification decisions are
often made due to the personal opinion of the classifier'.[35]
4.41
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) shares this opinion, agreeing that:
There is a great deal of leeway available to programmers in
these loose guidelines and it is clear that television stations are more than
willing to push the boundaries...[36]
4.42
Furthermore, the ACL believes that subjectivity in the consumer advice
terminology is used by broadcasters to 'justify screening inappropriate content
on artistic grounds.'[37]
CBAA notes that:
Conversely, the understanding of program classification by the
audience can also be a matter of opinion and perception. Various members of the
community will have widely differing ideas of what may constitute ‘moderate’ or
‘strong’ impact.[38]
4.43
The Committee is aware that such a clarification has been attempted for
film classifications in the past. For example, in 1999, it was determined that
coarse language at each classification could be identified:
At G level... [coarse language] might include
"bloody" or "bugger".
At PG level... [coarse language] might include
"shit".
At M... [coarse language] includes "f***".[39]
4.44
These film guidelines contain no advice on how the terms 'some' and
frequent' should be interpreted.
4.45
Free TV Australia notes the difficulty under the current classification
system with assigning classification based on a count of certain words or
behaviours:
The suitability of material for broadcast will depend on the
frequency and intensity of the classifiable elements in the program, such as
violence, sexual behaviour, nudity and coarse language. It will also depend on
a range of other factors, such as the merit of the production, the purpose of a
sequence, the tone, the camera work the relevance of the material, and the
treatment. These factors must all be taken into account and carefully weighed.
This means that some actions, depictions, themes, subject
matter, treatments or language may meet current community standards of
acceptability in one program, but in another program may require a higher
classification or be unsuitable for television.[40]
4.46
The Committee appreciates the difficulty in developing codes of practice
that are less subjective. However, industry bodies should make every effort to
ensure consumer advice is as descriptive as possible. With regard to
consistency, more detailed definition of the meaning of terms used should be included
in codes of practice.
4.47
The Committee does not support the adoption of codes that proscribe
specific words or phrases or seek to protect particular individuals or
institutions from criticism or abuse. A brief review of the content of the
lists of proscribed material produced by the Hays Office in the 1930's to
control content of US films or the BBC's Green Book which set out
guidelines for content in post-war Britain, suggests that the most immediate
consequence of attempting such a list in contemporary Australia would be to
expose the authors to ridicule.[41]
Recommendation 4
4.48
Each industry code of practice should clarify terms used for
classification and consumer advice as much as is practicable (eg. 'occasional',
'some' and 'frequent'). Codes should also contain a clear discussion on the principles
for classification, such as 'impact', that may be used to determine a program's
classification.
4.49
It should also be noted that
ACMA, in responding to complaints, usually includes extensive discussion of the
reasons for its findings, which, by reference to specific examples, provide guidance
to interpretation of terms. For example, in August 2006 ACMA upheld a complaint
against an ABC program which looked at the content and history of a collection
of erotic art accumulated by the Czarina
Catherine the Great.
4.50
The report on ACMA's findings is
seven pages long and, by relating the content of the program to the terms used
in the classification code and discussing the nature of the complaint, and the
ABC's defence of the M classification it had given the program, provides a very
useful guide to the interpretation of terms used in classification. It also
explores contextual and other factors relating to the treatment of the subject
matter and the extent to which they influence the classification given to the
program. The ABC noted, for example that the program's focus was on the
artistic merit and historical background to the collection.
4.51
ACMA found that:
Although the code permits descriptions and depictions of sex and
sexual activity in the context of a documentary, and while the depictions are
artistic representations, it is considered that the cumulative impact of these
classifiable elements is strong and therefore exceeds the M classification.[42]
4.52
The Committee acknowledges that
the ordinary viewer should not have to go to a multi-volume dictionary or the
ACMA website for guidance before they turn on the TV for a quiet night in.
However the community should be aware that there is an extensive and constantly
evolving body of work which underpins the classification symbols and viewer
advice.
Appropriateness of content within
classifications
4.53
Of concern to some was that the classification categories of G, PG and
M, in particular, are too permissive with what can be broadcast. Mrs Carol V. Phillips
summarised this view, stating that:
There seems to be just a—I do not know the word for it—but a
watering down of the standards set for what is offensive and what is not and
what is appropriate and what is inappropriate in particular classifications.[43]
4.54
Contributors to the inquiry made a number of recommendations to the Committee
on how issues problems relating to clarity could be addressed. In the first
instance, the Festival of Light noted that:
Parents, in particular, want a G classification which is
guaranteed to be free of sex, drug use and nudity rather than being told that
any treatment of these elements will have “very mild impact”.
At the top end of the scale it is important to clarify what will
not be permitted even in the highest (MA15+/AV15+) classifications.[44]
4.55
The Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide offered a practical example of what
might be done to clarify and improve what it considered to be poorly expressed classification
categories with regard to language. Figure 4.2 shows the Archdiocese's written
depiction of the current classification system. Figure 4.3 is the Archdiocese's
suggestion for improvement.
Figure 4.2—Representation of current classification standards
|
Classification
|
Description
|
Frequency
|
Context
|
|
G General
|
Very Mild
|
Infrequent
|
When absolutely justified by
storyline or context
|
|
PG Parental Guidance
|
Low Level
|
Infrequent
|
When justified by storyline
|
|
M Mature
|
No description
|
Infrequent
[more frequent if justifiable]
|
When appropriate to storyline. Not
very aggressive.
|
|
MA Mature Audience
|
Very Coarse
|
Not overly frequent or impactful
|
Important to storyline
|
Figure 4.3—Representation of proposed adjustments to classification
standards
|
Classification
|
Description
|
Frequency
|
Context
|
|
G General
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
|
PG Parental Guidance
|
Very Mild
|
Very Infrequent
|
When absolutely justified by
storyline or context
|
|
M Mature
|
Low Level
|
Infrequent
|
When justified by storyline
|
|
MA Mature Audience
|
Coarse
|
Infrequent
[more frequent if justifiable]
|
When appropriate to storyline.
|
4.56
Under the Adelaide Archdiocese's scheme, the G category could contain no
material that could cause offence regardless of the circumstances.[45]
Mr Paul Russell of the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide indicated that he was
aware that terminology is still an issue, but that his classification system is
a 'starting point'. In his view 'the timeslot principle is probably a more
appropriate thing that I would like to look at'.[46]
4.57
YMA also identified 'problems with the application [of classification
criteria] to programs and to films on free-to-air TV.'[47]
This sentiment was echoed by a number of contributors, who feel that the
classifications standards are not necessarily wrong but are being misapplied:
[C]hild friendly and family viewing programs...have increasingly
been taken over by adult themes.[48]
The violence and explicit sexual content on TV seems to be
creeping into earlier and earlier time slots, making it less of a medium for
families to utilize.[49]
4.58
In fact, programs classified PG may include low level coarse language,
sexual content and violence that is mild in impact and adult themes that are
'carefully handled and mild in impact'.[50]
Thus many parents may find PG material unsuitable, particularly for younger
children.
4.59
There does appear to be a broad consensus that the G category should be
contain extremely low levels of material that could be confusing or disturbing
to children or that parents might find unsuitable or offensive. However the
difficulty of applying this in practice is illustrated by the acceptability of
words like 'bloody' and 'bugger' in the G classification for films, terms that
a number of those who made submissions to this inquiry would find offensive.
Time zones
4.60
As discussed above, time zoning seeks to restrict particular
classifications to times of day when children and young people are likely to be
watching television. Many submissions argued that the utility of times zones
was being undermined in two ways; the actual time zones no longer reflect the
realities of children's behaviour and, as discussed above, the content that is
allowed in early evening time zones is becoming 'more adult'.
4.61
With regard to the actual times it is argued that:
Whilst the current broadcasting codes of practice thoroughly
address the issue of time slots and the subsequent time-appropriate language,
over time the zones have become out of touch with the realistic television
patterns of children.[51]
It is claimed that children are staying up later in the
evening from earlier ages and thus are exposed to M rated material which is not
appropriate for them.
4.62
The Committee is not aware of any research that actually demonstrates
this, though it does appear to be a widely held view, and does not wish to
recommend changes to time zones without some sound evidence on the subject. Moving
the M and higher classification to later in the evening would tend to reduce
the opportunities for adults to watch programs suitable for mature audiences.
Recommendation 5
4.63 The Committee recommends that ACMA and Free TV Australia investigate,
as part of the current review of the Commercial Television Code of Practice, the
issue of the appropriateness of the current evening time zones having regard to
claims of changed patterns of television usage by children.
4.64
The inquiry has heard that despite the consultation undertaken by the
industry bodies in developing appropriate classifications, viewers may link assumptions
about what constitutes a child-friendly show to the time zone in which the
program is broadcast rather than primarily consider the classification that
the program has been given. Mr Russell from the Adelaide Archdiocese commented
that:
Parents will actually rely on time slots more than they do on
program ratings. Time is a far easier tool for management for mums and dads
because there is a direct relationship between bed times and the ages of their
children and, therefore, the times that they will be watching television.
Parents know that at the later time of viewing, the greater is the likelihood
that their children might encounter a program containing elements deemed by
them as inappropriate.[52]
4.65
The problem of relying on a general understanding of time zones rather
than the classification and consumer advice attached to particular programs was
clearly expressed in a number of submissions to the Committee. For example;
It causes me much concern that "family" viewing times
on TV are continually imbued with sex content, foul language and brutal scenes
and dialogue expressing extreme violence and suffering.[53]
4.66
The assumption that pre-8.30 television is a period for 'family viewing'
and will only contain the mildest of material seems to be widespread.
4.67
The Committee is aware that the realities of domestic life make it
difficult for many parents to monitor and control what children watch. Parents
may not be present at the start of each program or when a program returns from
a commercial break to see the classification symbol displayed; they may not be
present at all times to control 'channel surfing'; an older child may have
disproportionate influence on the viewing practice of younger siblings or the
short-term benefits of an 'electronic baby sitter' may overcome a parent's
concern about content.
4.68
At the practical level of assisting parents to manage their children's
viewing or listening codes and time zoning may be considered rather blunt
instruments. They can only provide general guidance. The Committee has made
various recommendations that may refine them to a degree but they cannot
replace parental choice and supervision.
4.69
Current affairs programming and live sports broadcasting are not subject
to classification. There have been complaints to this Committee and elsewhere
about the content of news and current affairs programming and about advertising
during sports broadcasting.
4.70
Current affairs broadcasting, as it tends more towards 'infotainment'
relies increasingly on a diet of graphic and sensationalised reporting of
violent crime, spectacular accidents and the like. These stories often have
little intrinsic merit as news but do provide an opportunity to screen graphic
images during early evening time slots which may be distressing to children.
4.71
A second category of news or current affairs story that is a cause of
some concern is when television programs themselves become the story. For
example, Mr Ramsay's programs and the some of the more prurient incidents in
'Big Brother' have become news stories. This results in the very material that
was found offensive by some in a later time slot being televised much earlier
in the evening as part of a news or current affairs program. With regard to
live sports broadcasts complaints focussed on advertising which was considered
unsuitable for children and young people.
Recommendation 6
4.72 The Committee does not wish to tell television stations what they
should or should not include in news and current affairs programming. However
it recommends that ACMA, in consultation with broadcasters, review the
sections of the Classification Code applying to news and current affairs
programming, with regard to the use of graphic and disturbing imagery and
excerpts from M or higher rated programs in news and current affairs
broadcasting in early evening time zones.
Program promotions
4.73
A common complaint made to the Committee was with regard to promotions for
later programs screened by the network which were shown in earlier time zones.
There have been ongoing problems with Broadcasters airing higher
impact promotional programming for their own shows containing depictions of
sexual or violent behaviours or themes. This can include promotion for current
affair program content. Such promotion is not in keeping with respect for the
integrity of the code or with respect for the needs of children.[54]
4.74
Some contributors went further, suggesting that the 'promotion of
programs for more mature audiences within lower classified programs' should be
limited.'[55]
The Commercial Television Code of Practice states that PG programming is
allowed during G time zones such as 4:00pm – 6:00 pm weekdays. During that time
period, news, current affairs or sports programs may contain promotions for M
programs as it is considered that these programs are unlikely to attract large
audiences of children.[56]
4.75
Evidence was received that audiences find it difficult to exercise their
right to turn off the TV to avoid offensive promotions for programs during ad
breaks when the content of the show being promoted is not known:
I accept the argument that if I don’t like Gordon Ramsay
swearing his head off, I choose another channel, watch a DVD or turn the tube
off. It is difficult to turn off the tube not knowing the content of the 15
second previews while watching a program about how to build a dog shed.[57]
4.76
Mr David Coleman, on behalf of the Nine Network observed that
promotions for shows with a higher classification than the program currently
screening is prohibited under the code unless it has been modified so that
inappropriate material is not screened:
[O]ur classifier will sign off on a promotion for an M-rated
program that appears in PG that the promotion itself is PG in nature. So any of
that M-related content would not appear in a promo.[58]
4.77
Free TV Australia notes that promotions for station programs are classified
and a symbol with the correct classification for the program is displayed.[59]
However, the symbol must only be displayed for three seconds and the placement
of the symbol is not prescribed. A voice-over program promotion transmitted
during the closing credits of a program is not required to comply.[60]
4.78
The Committee is aware of the sensitivity surrounding the promotion of
station programs and notes the need for broadcasters to be vigilant in ensuring
that codes of practice are adhered to.
Recommendation 7
4.79
Free-to-air television stations should show the classification watermark
throughout program promotion to increase viewer awareness of the classification
of the program being promoted.
New ideas for consideration
4.80
The Committee has heard evidence proposing new items for inclusion in a revised
broadcasting codes of practice for free-to-air television, including the
'classification watermark', supported by submissions 4, 32 and 70; and the
inclusion of the classification mark and classifiable elements in electronic
programming guides (EPG) for Digital Television:
Regardless of the accuracy of the current classification
standards, they are simply not effective because program classifications are
only notified onscreen briefly prior to commencement of the program. To be
functional, the classification of any non-G-rated TV program being broadcast between
(say) 0500 and 2030 must be displayed on-screen at all times. The
classification should also be transmitted as part of the EPG information
available for optional self-censorship through digital tuners.[61]
Recommendation 8
4.81 The Committee recommends that television broadcasters should give
consideration to permanently displaying the classification symbol of a program
on screen along with the letters indicating which classifiable elements are
present in the program. The Committee believes that there is scope for
broadcasters to place this information next to watermarks, which are now
displayed by all free-to-air stations.[62]
Recommendation 9
4.82
The electronic programming guide on digital free-to-air television
stations should contain the classification of the program being viewed and the consumer
advice relevant to the program.
Effectiveness of the classification system - radio
4.83
Criticisms of radio programs did not feature as prominently as for
television programs, although it was still subject to comment such as, 'on
radio, the boundaries of the kinds of language used pushes further and further
towards coarseness, particularly on the popular music stations.'[63]
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) stated that:
If the
television classification standards are not a reliable guide on the content of
a program, the situation is far worse for radio.
Commercial radio programming is governed by its own Code of
Practice and Guidelines with the ACMA acting as the regulator. The commercial
radio code does not include a ratings system, meaning that there are no
announcements made as a guide to the likely program content.[64]
4.84
The majority of those who commented on the effectiveness of the
classification system for radio made the link that radio should have a
classification system similar to television, particularly in relation to the
verbal warnings that are broadcast on television prior to the start of
programs.
A similar classification structure as for television, therefore,
should be put into place for radio, with announcements before programmes that
are aimed at mature audiences, based on both the programme content, and the
advertising content. There is also a need for warnings to be announced at
various times throughout a programme, since not everyone tunes in before a
programme begins.[65]
4.85
The Committee is aware that some of the same objections applied to
television can also be applied to radio.
Recommendation 10
4.86
The Committee recommends that ACMA, in consultation with industry bodies
for radio, considers implementing the use of verbal warnings in their next
codes of practice.
4.87
In conclusion the Committee wishes to reiterate its view that
broadcasting codes with regard to programme content cannot satisfy every member
of the community, the can only seek to reflect a broad consensus. Similarly,
striking the balance between the freedom of adults to watch what they wish and
the need to protect children will not be achieved to the satisfaction of all.
Thus complaints about the system should not, automatically, be assumed to mean
that it is failing.
4.88
The Committee believes that the combination of rating systems, consumer
advice and time zoning is an effective way of reconciling the competing
objectives of the regulatory system and the range of views in the community
about program content. Thus the Committee has not recommended any radical
changes to the system. It believes that a process of constant refinement is the
appropriate direction to take – regular sampling of community opinion to ensure
that Codes of Practice are broadly reflective of it and constant review of and
improvement to ratings systems and consumer advice to assist individuals,
particularly parents to manage their, and their children's, viewing habits.
4.89
The Committee notes that ACMA already samples public opinion and tests
community standards through its specific inquiries and its research program. It
might be a valuable additional tool if ACMA established an annual opinion
survey on matters with regard to broadcasting standards. By testing public
opinion on issues of continuing importance and newly emerging issues such a
survey would provide a valuable indicator of current attitudes and of shifts in
attitude taking place over time.[66]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page