Introduction
mediawatch-uk's stated aims include:

1. helping to create good media values and
2. helping viewers and listeners to make their voices heard about programmes in the most effective way.

The organisation actively campaigns for socially responsible broadcasting and against content that is offensive and harmful, for example, violence, swearing and pornography. 

After careful consideration we decided it was time to up-date our name in March 2001 from the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, founded in 1965 by the late, great Mary Whitehouse CBE, in order to signal to the world that we recognise the whole broadcasting environment had changed. 

The Director of mediawatch-uk, John C Beyer, gave The Flag newspaper the following interview which was published in March 2006 Issue No 131.

Q - 'Some People say that if you don't like what you see on Television you can always Switch It Off - is that Your View?'

Of course, everyone has the easy option to turn off the TV set or radio if something offensive is broadcast into their home.  Alternatively, one can choose another channel, and in this age of multi-channel television, there are, in theory, many options available.  The BBC frequently tells viewers about the new channels on offer through Freeview and programmes on BBC3 TV and BBC4 TV are often trailed in the breaks between programmes. 

Other cable and satellite providers advertise to tell us about access to a multitude of TV and radio channels but these are dominated by pop music and lifestyle programmes such as shopping, DIY, cooking and gardening. 

There are also children's channels and a number of American religious channels.  Around two-thirds of households have now gone digital and the latest viewing statistics show that BBC1 and ITV1 are losing out to the many other channels on offer.   

(For news and information on digital TV visit:
www.sky.com  www.freesatfromsky.com  www.freeview.co.uk  )

(Learn more about the digital switchover)

Q - 'But is Exercising Choice in this way the Answer to the Question?'

Not entirely. There is no evidence to support the assumption that switching off actually changes anything.  One of the central aims of mediawatch-uk is to promote public participation in broadcasting and this, we believe, should include determining generally accepted standards and influencing decisions on what is acceptable and what is not.  Such matters should not be left entirely up to unelected and unaccountable, highly paid TV channel controllers.

All programmes on TV are commissioned by TV executives and find their way on to the screen after being approved by a succession of editors and controllers who are paid, one way or another, by viewers and listeners.  The old saying ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune' certainly does not apply in the field of broadcasting.  To its credit the BBC has recently introduced a new web-based system for making comments about programmes but little is done by the corporation to promote it and the overall effect of this is difficult to discern. 

Our view is that if a programme is good and praiseworthy, like the new BBC production of Bleak House, or Strictly Come Dancing, or Not Forgotten on Channel 4, we should tell them.  Equally, if we believe programmes fail to comply with the terms of the Broadcasting Code or the BBC's Producers' Guidelines we should tell them this too.  And if our representations are ignored we should take up the matter with out members of Parliament because it is in Parliament that the legislative framework for broadcasting is laid down.

Click on the links below to complain or praise about programmes:

BBC: www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

ITV: www.itv.com/page.asp?partid=5

Q - 'At present there is a Nine O'Clock Watershed.  Do You think this is Adequate Protection for Children?'

It always amazes me that broadcasters and regulators always point to the ‘watershed' as though it is a panacea for all grievances about programmes.  The ‘watershed' was invented by the broadcasters in the 1960s when there were just two channels, BBC and ITV, and it was intended to be a signal to indicate that programmes after 9.00pm were likely to include ‘adult' content that was not suitable for children.

There is now a very high public awareness of the ‘watershed' because the broadcasters, in their own interests, have made sure of it.  However, since it was introduced the ‘watershed' has been used as an easy way to push back boundaries of taste and decency by those wanting to exploit ‘freedom of expression' so that now there is little that will not find a place in the twenty-four-hour schedules.

The fact that the vast majority of households now have video or DVD recorders, enabling easy time shifting of programmes, renders the arbitrary ‘watershed' meaningless.  Additionally, the regulators of broadcasting content have permitted ever worsening standards and the accommodation of bad taste and indecency at practically every level. 

The violent and aggressive content, for example, of the popular soaps suggests that the ‘watershed', as a means of ‘protection', simply does not work and has been sacrificed on the altar of ratings and audience share and a process of ‘giving the viewers what they want'.  This is largely determined by what broadcasters make available and is not, in our opinion, the right way to set standards for such a powerful medium as television.

Q - 'Do you want to see a lessening of the level of violence, nudity and pornography after the watershed?'

Broadcasting is a very powerful influence and what is portrayed as normal on television quickly becomes normal in society.  Accordingly, it is our belief that by portraying violence, disorder and anti-social behaviour television and film shapes the society into which these aspects of human behaviour are delivered.  This logic applies also to sexual conduct and bad language.  It is not good enough, or honest, for broadcasters simply to shrug their collective shoulders and say they simply ‘reflect society as it is' and thereby deny any responsibility for the state of society. 

There is little doubt that the portrayal of violence and anti-social behaviour in film and on television at the very least contributes to and validates the rise of social violence and disorder requiring the imposition by Government of ever more extreme and elaborate punitive measures. 

From time to time there is talk of ‘joined up government', where all departments work together to achieve political goals, but broadcasting, certainly in some of the films regularly shown on television, seems to work against the drive to restore civility and public order. 

For more than a decade mediawatch-uk has conducted detailed monitoring of films on the five terrestrial channels.  The most commonly portrayed violence involves firearms, followed by violent assaults and the use of offensive weapons like knives. The latest Home Office statistics, published in December 2005, show increases in all these categories of violent crime. 

We believe that lessening the level of violence on TV would result in a lessening of violence and aggression in society.  So it would be with pornography which we believe contributes to the level of sexual crime, sexual disease and marital breakdown as well as a general coarsening of our society.  A lessening of sexual permissiveness in film and on TV would contribute to a much healthier and responsible approach to human sexuality and proper and respectful relationships. 

Considering that Britain is said to have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, a crisis in sexual health among the young and middle-aged ‘swingers', a high divorce rate lessening pornography would have financial and health benefits too.

Q - 'You Campaign against the Volume of ‘Soaps' on Television, couldn't this Lose you Support on other Issues?'

It is not entirely true to say the we ‘campaign' against the volume of ‘soaps' but it is certainly true that the soaps have pretty much taken over the schedules in the battle for ratings and audience share.  It is our belief that such dependency on soaps stifles creativity and other programming is either not made or pushed more and more to the margins of the schedules.  This is not good for television. 

We have never suggested that soaps should not be a part of television programming but their presence should be moderated to once or twice a week with no omnibus editions on Sundays.  Suggesting this about soaps does not diminish the campaign on other important issues. 

In the last few years we have expended considerable resources in monitoring output, responding to the numerous consultations on communications and broadcasting policy issued by the Government and regulators.  Commenting on soaps is only a small part of what we say but it is important because of the influence they exert.  It seems incredible that in some schools the soaps are recommended for study so that students see how to resolve disputes and learn about human relationships!

Q - 'Do you believe there is a link between violence on television and violence in the real world, and what do you believe is the result of pornography on television and on the internet.?'

In 1964 Mary Whitehouse, at the first major public meeting in Birmingham Town Hall, said: ‘If you constantly portray violence as normal on the television screen it will help to create a violent society'.  This seemed to her to be a common sense observation.  More than forty years later ever more brutal violence is still portrayed on television and we have more violent crime, aggression and anti-social behaviour than ever before. 

Those associated with programme making no longer deny a causal connection but invoke their right to ‘freedom of expression' without any rational justification of what they do.  Academics, on the other hand, tend to deny any causal link suggesting that those who act violently are predisposed to it and are, or have been, influenced by other environmental factors. 

Dr Susan Bailey, a forensic psychologist, interviewed by Panorama in 1994 following the release of Natural Born Killers, left viewers in no doubt that for some youngsters in her care viewing violence and pornography was a prelude to their crime of killing.

Pornography on the Internet is an international problem requiring an international treaty or agreement to overcome.  In our response to the Home Office consultation on extreme pornography, Towards a Decent Society, we called for a much wider range of obscene imagery to be taken into account for the new offences proposed. 

A recent study of teenagers concluded that millions of youngsters are routinely exposed to pornography.  The sex industry has used the Internet for some years but the latest worrying development is that youngsters are now setting up web cameras in their own rooms and charging ‘punters' to watch them strip and/or performing sexual acts.

The pity is that none of the mainstream political parties is willing to do anything to strengthen the Obscene Publications Act, introduced under the ten-minute-rule by the late Roy Jenkins in 1958, and we can see no prospect of the situation improving until it is.  But there must also be a radical change in public attitudes to pornography and recognition of the damage it causes.

Q - 'If there was one single (or two) change(s) which you would like to see, what would that (they) be?'

1)  The most important change would be the effective reconstruction of the Obscene Publications Act so that prosecutions could be achieved more easily. 

2)  The second change would be a well defined Broadcasting Code that could be easily understood by everyone that would place priority on the rights of viewers and listeners to be respected and not routinely offended.

About mediawatch-uk

mediawatch-uk is a membership organisation and is funded by subscriptions and donations from members and supporters.  It has no political or religious affiliations and anyone who cares about and is concerned by the standards imposed on society by broadcasters and film makers may join.  The annual subscription is £15.00 for which members receive a topical newsbrief three- times a year as well as other information to assist with advancing the aims of the organisation. 'mediawatch-uk newsbrief' is published three times a year in Spring, Summer and Autumn. Future editions may be obtained by joining mediawatch-uk.