The BSA appeared in front of the Commerce Select Committee last week for their annual financial review. They had undertaken a survey during the year called Watching the Watchers that indicated, amongst other things, that parents relied on the watershed of 8.30pm to know when the content shifted to adult themes. I asked them what they were doing to respond to this in light of the adult content of many of the soaps – including Coronation Street – which screened before the watershed. They said they could only act on complaints. I asked them who was responsible for setting the watershed time – they said it was negotiated between them and the broadcasters – they didn’t think the broadcasters would want to change it. I wasn’t the only MP who thought that this was a concern. The reporting of this has been interesting. For the record I didn’t complain about the content of Coronation Street - I used to watch it many years ago – I stated that its content was no longer suitable for children. And for that I have received overwhelming support from teachers & family counsellors, but most importantly from the parents of children, about the wider issue of what children are exposed to. Everyone agrees that it is up to the parents to screen what their children watch, but I keep coming back to the fact that the BSA survey has highlighted that parents rely on the threshold and it is unreliable when you look at the adult themes these popular soaps deal with today. The Select Committee will report back to Parliament in the next week or so – I am sure we will be commenting on what is a highly complex issue.
I agree – as a mum with a wide range in ages in my home – oldest is 17, youngest is 7 – it is very difficult making sure everything on tv that they are seeing is appropriate. And to make it even more frustrating – it’s not even the actual shows… but now the ADVERTISEMENTS we have to concern ourselves with… Case in point, the horrible ad for underarm deoderant that says it will stop premature sweating, with very rude connotations to premature ejaculation… I’m sorry, but that is a terrible thing to have on tv at anytime… but certainly before 8:30. Thanks for taking concerns to heart, I doubt you will get anywhere, it seems everything is geared more and more towards inappropriate in order to get ratings. so sad.
Moving the watershed to 7:30pm – which maybe you suggested, if the media reports were accurate – will enable more adult material to be played while children are awake and watching TV.
If material is playing at 7:30 that is considered inappropriate for children, even with parental supervision, then what you’d need to change is the definition/interpretation of AO and PGR.
I take it you’ve solved all the rest of New Zealand’s economic and social problems then, Lianne.
Funny thing is that violence is often ignored. But sexy stuff is something to be hidden from kids. Listening to 5-6 year old kids from a decile 9 school chatting to each about sex things in the library recently, suggest that keeping them shielded is way too late. There is no evidence that TV programs will affect their behaviour but family values will.
Leanne and Ianmac sum it up well.
Advertising particularly, seems to be on a slide with its content but as parents it really is our responsibility to provide the moral and behavioural compass for our kids.
Something, I might add, that is impossible to legislate for.
Isn’t this why we have standards?
I would be more worried about the collective groan I heard in the room I was in (full of adult (ex-?)Labour voters)when this was mentioned on the news. It will certainly lend itself to the nanny state meme, when NAct go looking for white elephants, distractions and side issues before the election.
Seriously, do you expect a majority of Coronation Street viewers would agree with your assessment? I find that hard to believe and bordering on the ridiculous. Most of us don’t grow up with Lianne’s moral standards, it seems. No-one had even complained to the BSA.
Don’t they have better things to worry about in Christchurch East?
What Graeme said about the time thingy!
@Ianmac- chicken and egg dude, they probably wouldn’t have been talking about that if there wasn’t so much sexual material on when they can see it!
It’s not just soaps, comedies have been getting dirtier as the years have gone by.
Seriously?? I couldn’t believe this when I first saw it reported, surely it is the responsibility of the parent to determine what their children watch, not the Governments, or do you want to legislate how children should be brought up. What next? Stop the internet? Children today will be exposed to so much more than many of us ever were, they don’t need to watch Coronation Street to see raunch, just turn on Juice, fire up the internet, or go to the local dairy and look at the magazines (as many did when I was a kid), or better yet head down the street to the local cafe, the street, park or beach. I can’t believe how prudish this all is, moving the watershed won’t solve the problem, however, it can be used by parents to educate their kids. Lianne there is so much more on tv to worry about than a little skin, think about the news where there is violence, dead bodies and animal cruelty shown, and that’s on at 6pm maybe we should move the watershed to 6?, oh that’s right, you aren’t bothered by the violence only the sex as this quote in the article on nzherald site implies: ‘National MP Aaron Gilmore said he was more concerned about violence than sexual themes, to which Ms Dalziel quipped, “Wait until your daughter turns 15.”‘
I personally have issues with the amount of violence on TV and in our sport, much more damaging to society in my view.
Spud: I disagree, when I was at primary school the kids were already curious and talking about things sexual, and there wasn’t nearly as much on TV, kids are always going to be curious about it, and the less they are exposed to conversations about it the more they will talk about it amongst themselves and become completely uninformed. And just out of curiosity what is your view on the amount of violence on TV, kids don’t just talk about that, they actually try to copy it, much more disturbing.
Oh, and Lianne, on the title of this post, parents SHOULDN’T rely on the watershed, the parents should be aware of what is on tv and what their kids are watching, and be able to discuss it with them. It is not up to some magical time, tv companies or the Government to tell them what their kids are watching is okay, it is up to the parents to be more knowledgeable about what their kids are up to, and talk to their kids about what is on.
Thanks for your comments. It is true Missy that parents shouldn’t rely on the watershed – what the survey told the BSA is that they do – and the BSA won’t do anything about it because they are reliant on broadcasters to agree to change the threshold. Either that or rely on complaints, but complaints do not identify a breach of standards (as they are not measured against children watching the programmes). Graeme – watch one of the soaps and I think you will realise that the adult content already happens before 8.30pm – which was my point. At least if the watershed was changed, parents who didn’t know this could be alerted to this fact.
@Missey – it depends on how graphic the violence is and what kind it is. I’m fine with kids playing cops and robbers, but copying dare devil stuff and putting it on the net to see how many followers they can get is disturbing.
I agree with you Lianne, Ma and Pa may be busy with stuff and have no idea that something dodgy is on TV in their kids’ rooms while they are busy making grub and whatnot.
@Missey – all the examples of stuff you have given on TV proves Lianne’s point about widespread innappropriate stuff. The net has all kinds of stuff that little Johnny shouldn’t see or talk to. Sure kiddies do talk smut sometimes, but I think that children are getting far too much exposure to this kind of thing. And don’t get me started on some of those bleepin clothes out for preschoolers.
I think I’d have to disagree about the BSA “not doing anything about” the sort of content you’ve raised Lianne. While the watershed may not have been changed, in many cases I feel the BSA have actually shown they are far too conservative when in their decisions they attempt to force their code of sexual morality on the rest of the country.
It’s a pity that they are willing to get all up in arms about kissing scenes, but then refuse to lift a finger when they’re faced with flagrant sexism or racism from people like Paul Henry.
It may also be worth looking at a lot of audience research that has been done that shows young people’s consumption of media doesn’t necessarily directly influence their behaviour in all case – and that one of the few real functions of soap opera can in fact be that it stimulates important discussions about things like sexuality amongst young people.
I actually see some shows as forcing their sexuality onto young children. I don’t think there’s anything conservative in not wanting to expose children to sexual images and material that isn’t age appropriate. Children should be allowed to be children and there is a difference between a child and a teenager. I mean how can it be okay to show children sex on tv, but then if two adults were in the same room as the child doing the same thing they would be paedophiles. To me, showing sexually explicit material on TV to little children is not much better than this.
Let children have their childhoods, it’s such an important time. I’m not talking about teenagers here. If you think that children aren’t influenced by what they are exposed to on TV then you are wrong. Children are little sponges.
I agree with what you say Spud. Little kids don’t need and shouldn’t have to be thinking about this stuff. Obviously there comes an age where naturally they start to wonder and ask questions about this kind of thing – but it should happen in their own time and not be forced on them by TV. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have this Watershed thing (admittedly this is the first time I’d heard of it :blush: ) – parents can’t be at their kids’ side all the time, monitoring exactly what they watch every second of the day. In regards to the Coro thing (yes, I’ll admit it now, I watch it regularly, don’t hold it against me!) maybe it is starting to get a bit more… I don’t know, risque, maybe it wouldn’t hurt to have a disclaimer at the start like there is for programmes that are explicitly violent or whatever. At least that way parents have a heads up and can switch it off if they so choose – they have the information to make a decision on it (assuming they are in the vicinity and thus can make the decision). It wouldn’t hurt for programmers etc to perhaps be a bit more aware of this sort of thing, imo – plenty of hours in the day to play the more adult stuff at adult times, but kids generally have a little less flexibility in terms of when to watch stuff.
Regarding the sex vs violence thing and what’s a bigger concern: Could it possibly be (and I’m just throwing it out there as an idea in general) related to the fact that we explicitly tell kids that violence is bad – no excuses, not justified etc (I’m generalising a bit here) but when it comes to sex and relationships and whatnot there’s more of a grey area? Where violence is concerned it’s a bit more black and white, but when it comes to sex we tend to shy away from it as a… social conversation if you get my drift?
“one of the few real functions of soap opera can in fact be that it stimulates important discussions about things like sexuality amongst young people.”
I do like and agree with this point – but I guess then comes the question of at what stage do we start discussing these things, and at what level?
can someone answer me this
IF it is the parent’s responsibility to ensure they are only allowing children to watch appropriate material ;
1. where does a parent go to view a programme before it views to enable them to make this judgment?
2. if a parent doesnt take on this responsibility, as many don’t, will society feel the potential effects from that in the event of the child being impacted negatively?
I agree wholeheartedly with spud’s analysis except the teenager bit. I think we run the risk of assuming teenagers are also adults, which mentally, physiologically they are not. They may think they are, they may want to be and might look like they are, but they are also still developing, particularly in the brain which is why alcohol and drug use at this age is such a crucial issue.
Anything a young child doesnt understand, they use what knowledge and limited experience they do have to concoct an explanation, which is usually centred round them. Hence sarcasm doesnt work well with children.
Agreed Ella, in their own time. And as for age conversations, yes age appropriate.
@Tracey – excellent questions.