Children deserve a clean view on Freeview

In the past we have highlighted the fact that some ‘adult channels’ broadcasting on Freeview show sexually explicit material without encryption.  Channels such as Babestation and Smile TV show naked women simulating sex to entice viewers to call premium-rate numbers for more hardcore content.

Some 77% of UK households have Freeview which means that the majority of the nation’s children are able to access the shocking images with relative ease.

When we took this up with Ofcom they told us that these channels were licensed in the Netherlands and regulated by the rather more permissive Sommissariaat voor de Media.

EU legislation requires TV companies to be regulated by their home country and not the countries in which they air.  Although much of the content on Babestation and Smile TV would fall foul of Ofcom’s Code it is not in breach of the Dutch regulations and so can be broadcast in the UK.

Ofcom told us that we should take our complaint up with the Dutch regulator.  However I’m happy to report that they have now begun ‘active discussions’ with their Dutch equivalent to ask that the channels involved comply voluntarily with UK rules.  This follows a complaint from the UK regional broadcaster Six TV which was unhappy that its potential viewers had to flick through listings for adult broadcasts in order to reach its channels.

Ofcom said: “we take the protection of UK viewers, especially children, very seriously”.  In 2010 they did withdraw the licences of four adult pay-TV channels in 2010 for ‘serious and repeated’ breaches of their Code.

This matter is just as serious in its impact on society.  Earlier this week a man was convicted of exposing himself to women.  He explained his behaviour as the result of ‘confusion’ likening what he’d done to ‘harmless flirting, like the women on Babestation do every night’.

Caroline Dineage MP, on of the members of the Parliamentary Enquiry into Online Child Protection summed up the situation saying: “we need to urgently address TV content that could be harming our children.  It is simply not acceptable to place private profit before the protection of children.”

Freeview have announced that they are reviewing their programme listings and plans are underway to move all adult channels to the end of the programme guide.  If you have a Freeview device it should be possible for you to delete channels you don’t want to see.  But beware; Freeview automatically updates its service periodically to scan for new channels which can mean that any channels you have previously blocked are reinstated.

The BBC will listen if you wield an AK47

An interview with the BBC’s Director-General, Mark Thompson, was recently posted online by the Free Speech Debate, a research project at Oxford University.

In the interview Mr Thompson claimed Christianity is treated with far less sensitivity than other religions because it is ‘pretty broad shouldered’.  He revealed that producers had to consider the possibilities of ‘violent threats’ instead of polite complaints if they pushed ahead with certain types of satire.

 “Without question, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms’, is different from, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write’,” he said. “This definitely raises the stakes” said Mr Thompson.

These remarks should concern everyone – not just Christians.  The work we do at Mediawatch benefits those of all faiths and none and we should all be concerned if this is how decisions about broadcasting content are being made.

Children being fed a broadcast diet of degrading behaviour models, inappropriate sexual content and graphic depictions of brutality and violence are unlikely to make violent complaints but the values broadcasters inculcate are undermining cohesion and stability in our society. There may not be violent protests outside Broadcasting House but the results of this play themselves out in our increasingly fractured society.

In the whole debate about the state of our society the media is no innocent bystander. 

No Watershed Online

The UK's video on-demand regulator, ATVOD, recently ruled that Bootybox.tv breached regulations by not preventing under-18s from accessing pornographic content on its website.  ATVOD required the provider to "either remove the hardcore porn content from the service or put it all behind effective access controls which will ensure that only adults can see it".

ATVOD's chief executive Pete Johnson said: "UK providers of hardcore pornography on demand must take effective steps to ensure that such material is not accessible to under-18s.  Asking visitors to a website to click an 'I am 18' button or enter a date of birth or use a debit card is not sufficient - if they are going to offer explicit sex material they must know that their customers are 18, just as they would in the 'offline' world."

This move to protect children from online pornography is most welcome but we are concerned that children remain at risk from other on-demand services.

The catch up services offered by Britain’s main broadcasters do not carry ‘hardcore’ material, but at the beginning of February any child capable of ticking a box to say they are over 16 could access the 18 rated horror film Day of the Dead and Sex: How to do Everything.  Programmes which, we would argue, are potentially harmful.

It is bizarre that broadcasters are, quite rightly, unable to broadcast certain material ‘on air’ until after the watershed but are quite free to broadcast the same material over the internet at any time without there being adequate protection mechanisms in place.

The statutory rules for video-on-demand content are significantly less strict than those for TV broadcasts.  In cases where content "might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of eighteen", providers must make efforts to prevent young people from accessing the material.  We have been told by Ofcom that, in practise, this means material that has been broadcast on television will not seriously impair a child and is not subject to these rules.  

 

We believe that there are feasible steps that can and should be taken by broadcasters to control access to post-watershed material by children.

Who is protecting children online?

You may have noticed that on Wednesday this week Wikipedia, the world’s largest online encyclopaedia, was blacked out.  Users were greeted with a message entitled ‘Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge’ which explained that the US Congress was planning to implement laws which would ‘fatally damage the free and open internet’.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) are currently being considered by Congress because some websites are offering books, films, television programmes and music free of charge thus depriving their creators of earnings.  Critics, which include big names such as Facebook, Ebay and Twitter, argue the laws go much further and amount to an attempt to control the internet.

Regardless of which side of the SOPA/PIPA debate you stand on these are measures which have been designed at the behest of big businesses to protect their interests.

But which powerful corporations are fighting to protect the interests of the victims of the ‘free and open internet’ that enables children to have pornography streamed into their bedrooms and allows sociopaths to encourage the vulnerable to commit suicide?  How many global websites have blacked out to show their support for those who are being damaged by such content?

These are the interests which need real protection.

That is why we are supporting Claire Perry MP’s proposal for an ‘opt-in’ to block adult sites at source unless specifically requested.  One thing is clear: children’s rights are just as important as those of big business.  We fail to protect them at our peril.

Are parents in control?

Mediawatch-UK recently submitted evidence to the Parliamentary Enquiry into Online Child Protection, which is seeking to determine what British Internet Service Providers have done to protect children online and what could best be done to protect them from harmful online material.

As part of our submission we included the results of a survey we conducted amongst our members.  We asked our members whether or not their ISP had ever contacted them with details of the parental controls available as part of their package.

• 80% said their ISPs had never contacted them about parental controls.
• 20% reported that their ISPs had informed them about parental controls. 
• Of those who had been told about parental controls 61% were with TalkTalk.  Approximately 60% of TalkTalk subscribers had been alerted to their provider’s new HomeSafe service. 
• Of members who subscribed to other services only 11% had been told about the parental controls available. 

Of particular concern were a number of BT customers who were under the impression that installing parental controls will cost them a further subscription.

Our sobering statistics show that the majority of internet users are not alerted by to the existence of controls by their ISPs.  It is therefore imperative that ISPs actively communicate to their users the parental tools which are available.

The six largest ISPs in the country control in excess of 90% of the market.  With revenues of more than £3 billion annually these companies must share the responsibility for protecting children online.

There is a suggestion that it is entirely the responsibility of parents to safeguard their children from harmful imagery.  Many parents feel they are able to protect their children by monitoring their browsing histories but new functions such as Google Chrome’s Incognito mean this is no longer the case.  Other parents say that they are not confident in their ability to install a filter. 

It is for this reason that we are supporting the proposal of Claire Perry MP for an ‘opt-in’ system to block adult sites at source unless specifically requested.

Internet firms must block porn

This week the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, announced that he will be including a measure in the new Communications Act to ensure that it is easier to block adult and age-restricted material from the internet.  Mr Hunt said he wants to see ‘services that are safe for my children’ and he proposes all consumers are offered an active choice about parental controls either at the point of purchase or when they activate an account.

A recent Ofcom survey found the number of parents using filtering software had dropped from about 50 per cent to 40 per cent so this move comes not a moment too soon.  

Research has also shown that not all parents are aware of the controls currently available and that they should be better signposted.  We understand the Government has not ruled out also coming up with a way of getting existing users to make the same active choice.

Although this is most welcome news, these controls will only be effective if they are applied to every device used for accessing the internet including tablets, gaming consoles and mobile phones. 

That is why we will continue our campaign to get Internet Service Providers to block adult material at source.  This would be the best way to stop children accessing potentially harmful material and would not stop adults who wish to see it from opting-in to access it.

Phone hacking and morality

This week has been dominated by the news of ‘phone hacking on an industrial scale by the News of the World.  Each day this week has brought another revelation of the scope of this and the number of people who have been targeted. 

We learnt yesterday that the News of The World will be closed.  The paper’s position was increasingly untenable; because of concerted campaigns waged using social media it was haemorrhaging advertisers and many readers were planning a boycott.

The paper’s parent company, News Corps is proposing to take over BSkyB which would give it, with its strong newspaper portfolio, a dominant position in the UK media.  Until the beginning of this week it looked like the Culture Secretary was likely to accept this deal but somewhere in the region of 200,000 people have contacted him to protest, pushing any further decision back until September.

Public support has also pushed politicians to start speaking out.  This is something of a watershed moment as politicians have long been loath to attack the Murdoch empire which is seen to have the power to make or break governments.  At an emergency debate in Parliament phrases such as ‘we've fallen for threats’, ‘we've colluded for too long’ and ‘we were not courageous enough’ were used. 

These public outpourings illustrate the considerable power that we as individuals hold if we work together.  If we don’t speak out our silence condones the status quo which is why individuals making their views known is so important.

However, perhaps we should not be so surprised by this week’s revelations.  We have long held that the media we consume affects our behaviour.   Perhaps the absence of morality in sourcing stories is the logical outcome of abdicating moral responsibility for that which is put out.