English Entertainment
Americans feel govt indecency curbs going too far
MUMBAI: Most Americans say that they are very concerned about the amount of sex and violence in entertainment and want something done about it. However, many worry that government restrictions could go too far.
This information is contained in a Pew poll of 1,505 adults. It was done from 17-21 March 2005 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Americans doubt the effectiveness of government action, and believe that public pressure in the form of complaints and boycotts is a better way of dealing with the problem. They also blame audiences more than the media industry for objectionable material. Significantly, Americans see greater danger in the government’s imposing undue restrictions on the entertainment industry, than in the industry producing harmful content (by 48 per cent vs. 41 per cent).
At the same time there is broad public support for several proposals now being considered for curbing indecent material in the media. 75 per cent favour tighter enforcement of government rules on TV content during hours when children are most likely to be watching. Sizable majorities also back other anti-indecency proposals currently before Congress, including steeper fines (69%) and extending network standards for indecency to cable television (60%).
The tug of war in public opinion about government regulation of entertainment reflects political and religious divides about the issue. Americans over the age of 50 register much higher levels of personal concern than do younger adults about different types of TV material, and are more likely to view harmful content as a bigger problem than intrusive government restrictions. By contrast, those under 30 view excessive government restrictions as a far greater danger than harmful content.
Despite these divisions, however, there are a number of points of broad national agreement on issues relating to entertainment and the government’s role in reducing offensive content. – Poll respondents feel that parents are primarily to blame when children are exposed to explicit sex or graphic violence. 79 per cent say that inadequate parental supervision rather than inadequate laws is mostly responsible for children being exposed to that sort of offensive material.
There is widely shared concern over what children see and hear from various media, though for the most part these attitudes have remained fairly stable since the late 1990s. Roughly six-in-ten say they are very concerned over what children see or hear on TV (61 per cent), in music lyrics (61 per cent), video games (60 per cent) and movies (56 per cent). An even higher percentage (73 per cent) has expressed a great deal of concern over the internet. 68 per cent believe that children seeing so much sex and violence on TV gives them the wrong idea about what is acceptable in society.
Concerns over media content are changing; Reality TV causes worry: The survey also highlights the changing nature of the public’s concerns over media content. Americans these days are troubled by much more than sex and violence in fact, sex and violence do not even top the list of people’s personal concerns over TV.
46 per cent say that they are personally bothered a lot by TV programmes showing depictions of illegal drug use, while 38 per centvoice a high level of concern over reality programmes in which real people are tricked or made fun of. And among parents, as many say they worry a great deal over their own children being exposed to illegal drug references as say that about sexual content.
Despite the recent string of controversies over sex and violence in the media, however, the overall image of the entertainment industry has not eroded in recent years. The public continues to have low regard for video games manufacturers. Only 34 per cent have a favorable view of the makers of video games, about the same as in June 1999. Young people stand out as virtually the only demographic group with a positive view of this industry. A majority of those under age 30 (56 per cent) have a favorable view of video games makers, compared with just 15 per cent of those age 50 and older.
TV choices okay, content has gotten worse: Americans are reasonably happy with the choice of what they can see on television, and there has been relatively little change in this sentiment over the past 11 years. Those who have more programming choices via cable or satellite and especially people who subscribe to premium channels are happier with the options available to them. Younger people express greater satisfaction with the choices than do older people.
People who watch top-rated reality television shows or those with sexual or violent content express somewhat greater satisfaction with available choices than do those who do not watch such programmes. On the other hand, people whose preferences tilt toward more wholesome fare are no more satisfied than other viewers.
Despite expressing general satisfaction with the choices available 66 per cent say that entertainment TV shows are worse now than they were five years ago. Just 24 per cent say that entertainment TV has gotten better. This pattern is almost identical to that seen when the question was asked in 1993 and in 1983.
People who think TV is worse today cite a range of concerns. About one-fifth each cite sexual content and violent content. 16 per cent have mentioned the depiction of immoral behaviour and a lack of good values.
17 per cent specifically said they dislike reality television. Comparable numbers of people in 1993 and today said that TV programs lack substance (13% in 2005), had a bad influence on children (11%), or contained too much bad language and swearing (10%).
Among the roughly one-quarter of the public who feel that television has gotten better over the past five years 37 perv cent cited greater choice and diversity as the main reason and those who have cable TV, satellite dishes, or premium channels are even more likely to mention this. Other reasons included greater creativity or better acting (nine per cent), better technology and special effects (nine per cent), greater social relevance (eight per cent compared with 24 per cent who cited this in 1993), and greater educational value (eight per cent).
Divided Over Solutions: The American public is divided in its assessment of the best way to curb violence and sex in the entertainment media. Fewer than a third (32 per cent) think that government regulations and fines are the most effective way to reduce the amount of sex and violence in entertainment. Instead, 37 per cent look to public complaints and boycotts as the most effective remedy, while 23 per cent would rely on the industry to enforce its own rules.
In part, the reluctance to turn to the government may be owing to the widely held opinion that audiences wanting this kind of entertainment, rather than those who produce it, are primarily to blame for excessive sex and violence. Half of those surveyed blame audiences exclusively while another 13 per cent said that they share the blame with producers. Only 34 per cent singled out entertainment producers exclusively.
Younger people, especially younger men, tend to be more skeptical of government regulation. And only 32 per cent of men age 18-49 think that the entertainment industry has transgressed the bounds of protected free speech, whereas two-thirds of the public over 65 think it has. By the same token, over half of men age 18-49 see greater danger in the government imposing undue restrictions compared with only a third of those over 65. Young people, however, are also more likely to put the onus on parents to supervise their children’s viewing habits.
By a margin of 48 per cent to 41 per cent the public also sees greater danger from the government’s imposing undue restrictions on the entertainment industry than from the industry’s producing material harmful to society. That same ambivalence is shown in responses to the question of whether entertainment producers have gone beyond their constitutional rights of free speech (48 per cent agree) or remained within those rights (46 per cent).
And while a substantial majority agrees that there are basic standards of decency that the entertainment media should follow, a sizeable minority worries that no basic set of standards can work because everyone has different views about what’s offensive or not.
UK: The aerial is losing its grip. As broadband becomes the default way Britons watch television, the UK is edging towards a decisive, and divisive, question: should Freeview be switched off by 2034? The issue, highlighted in reporting by The Guardian, has exposed deep fault lines over access, affordability and the future of public service broadcasting.
For nearly 25 years, Freeview has delivered free-to-air television from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 to almost every corner of the country. Even now, it remains the UK’s largest TV platform, used in more than 16m homes and on around 10m main household sets. Yet the same broadcasters that built it are now pressing for its closure within eight years.
Their case rests on a structural shift in viewing. Smart TVs, superfast broadband and the Netflix-led streaming boom have pulled audiences online. Advertising economics have followed. By 2034, the number of homes using Freeview as their main TV set is forecast to fall from a peak of almost 12m in 2012 to fewer than 2m, making digital terrestrial television, or DTT, increasingly costly to sustain.
But critics say the rush to switch off risks abandoning those least able, or least willing, to move online.
“I don’t want to be choosing apps and making new accounts,” says Lynette, 80, from Kent. “It is time-consuming and irritating trying to work out where I want to be, to remember the sequence of clicks, with hieroglyphics instead of words. If I make a mistake I have to start again.”
Lynette is among nearly 100,000 people who have signed a “save Freeview” petition launched by campaign group Silver Voices. She fears the government is about to “take [Freeview] away from me and others who either don’t like, can’t afford, or can’t use online versions”.
Official figures underline the fault lines. A report commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport estimates that by 2035, 1.8m homes will still depend on Freeview. Ofcom’s analysis shows those households are more likely to be disabled, older, living alone, female, and based in the north of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Freeview is owned by the public service broadcasters through Everyone TV, which also operates Freesat and the newer streaming platform Freely. After two years of review, DCMS is expected to set out its position soon, drawing on three options proposed by Ofcom: a costly upgrade of Freeview’s ageing technology; maintaining a bare-bones service with only core PSB channels; or a full switch-off during the 2030s.
The broadcasters have rallied behind the third option. They argue that 2034 is the logical cut-off, when transmission contracts with network operator Arqiva expire. By then, they say, the cost of broadcasting to a dwindling audience will far outweigh the returns from TV advertising.
Ofcom agrees a crunch point is approaching. In July, the regulator warned of a “tipping point” within the next few years, after which it will no longer be commercially viable for broadcasters to carry the costs of DTT.
Others see risks beyond economics. Questions remain over whether internet TV can reliably deliver emergency broadcasts, such as the daily Covid updates, in the way that universally available DTT can. The UK radio industry has also warned that an internet-only future for TV could push up distribution costs and force some radio stations off air if PSBs no longer share Arqiva’s mast network.
“It is a political hot potato,” says Dennis Reed, founder of Silver Voices, who says he has “dissociated” his organisation from the government’s stakeholder forum, which he believes is “heavily biased” towards streaming.
The Future TV Taskforce, representing the PSBs, counters that moving online could “close the digital divide once and for all”. “We want to be able to plan to ensure that no one is left behind,” a spokesperson says, adding that rising DTT costs could otherwise mean cuts to programme budgets.
The numbers show the scale of the challenge. Of the 1.8m Freeview-dependent homes projected for 2035, around 1.1m are expected to have broadband but not use it for TV. The remaining 700,000 are forecast to lack a broadband connection altogether.
Veterans of the analogue switch-off, completed in 2012 after 76 years, recall similar fears of “TV blackout chaos”. Around 6 per cent of households were labelled “digital refuseniks”, yet a targeted help scheme and a national campaign, fronted by a robot called Digit Al voiced by Matt Lucas, delivered a largely smooth transition.
This time, the BBC is less keen to foot the bill. Tim Davie, the outgoing director general, has said the corporation should not fund a comparable support programme for a Freeview switch-off.
Research for Sky by Oliver & Ohlbaum suggests that with early awareness campaigns and digital inclusion measures, only about 330,000 households would ultimately need hands-on help ahead of a 2034 shutdown.
Meanwhile, viewing habits continue to fragment. Audience body Barb says 7 per cent of UK households no longer own a TV set, choosing to watch on other devices. In December, YouTube overtook the BBC’s combined channels in total UK viewing across TVs, smartphones and tablets, albeit measured at a minimum of three minutes.
That shift may accelerate. YouTube has recently blocked Barb and its partner Kantar from accessing viewing session data, limiting transparency just as online platforms consolidate power.
“When the government chose British Satellite Broadcasting as the ‘winner’ in satellite TV it was Rupert Murdoch’s Sky instead that came out on top,” says a senior TV executive quoted by The Guardian. “There already is such an outsider ready to be the winner in the transition to internet TV; it is YouTube.”
Freeview’s future now hangs on a familiar British dilemma: modernise fast and risk exclusion, or protect universality and pay the price. Either way, the aerial’s days as king of the living room look numbered.
