(05-01-2012 23:31 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Good points about the 2005 survey. One vital thing it lacked was any context or baseline. As Roquentin quoted "a majority of them found it offensive and think it should only be on late night subscription channels (child protection cited)." but Ofcom have never asked similar questions about other types of offensive material such as realistic horror/torture porn, violent war films, gambling, cage fighting, female boxing, psychic channels, etc.
Take gambling or psychic channels. The religious Afro-Caribbean and Asian women who took part in the survey would regard both categories as dangerous and against their religions. Yet there are a huge number of gambling and psychic shows on evening TV sucking money out of the vulnerable.
It is quite possible that if a survey had asked about the categories above a majority would have said that they too should be banned from free to air.
The 2005 survey was based on focus groups with a total of about 140 people. Women, Africans and Asians were over represented and no attempt was made to correct this. African women and Asian women are well known for being strongly religious and conservative.
By contrast the biannual Media Tracker surveys are based on interviews with about 10,000 people and are statistically corrected for age, gender, ethnicity and socio economic group to give statistically valid data.
The 2005 survey was described as "qualitative" (measuring quality, or feelings) rather than "quantitative" (based on hard numbers). A bunch of people were asked how they felt about things. Some questions and topics overlapped, some were asked in group situations, some were based on anonymous questionnaires, some before/after viewing highly selective clips. Inevitably this results in inconsistencies.
However it is difficult to avoid the impression that the questions were badly structured, in such a way that no clear conclusions could be drawn. There is nothing to compare against, and no attempt to define a threshold of acceptabilty. The 2009 survey had similarities, and some adult content was rated about as acceptable as BBC content and the infamous Alan Titchmarsh dildo show*.
*BBC: Rome, clip 3, 24% unacceptable, 43% acceptable, +17% more acceptable than unacceptable.
Red Hot 40+ trailer: clip 9 26% unacceptable, 43% acceptable, +16%.
Playboy clip 7: 29% unacceptable, 40% acceptable, +11%.
Alan Titchmarsh, ITV 3pm, clip 1, 42% unacceptable, 36% acceptable, -6%.
Final point - the Content Board themselves seem to have had concerns and asked for future surveys to be peer reviewed.
Just a final note on the initial R18 research, which has probably already been discussed to death - the author of that study wrote to OFCOM to inform them that the research which they cherry picked to base their argument was not representative of the majority view and more robust study was needed. Ofcom, though, had the ammunition they needed.
Here's what other broadcasters made of the original draft document, which has since become even more restrictive - in a clear and transparent way.
COBA pdf
(08-01-2012 11:29 )HenryF Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2012 23:31 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Good points about the 2005 survey. One vital thing it lacked was any context or baseline. As Roquentin quoted "a majority of them found it offensive and think it should only be on late night subscription channels (child protection cited)." but Ofcom have never asked similar questions about other types of offensive material such as realistic horror/torture porn, violent war films, gambling, cage fighting, female boxing, psychic channels, etc.
Take gambling or psychic channels. The religious Afro-Caribbean and Asian women who took part in the survey would regard both categories as dangerous and against their religions. Yet there are a huge number of gambling and psychic shows on evening TV sucking money out of the vulnerable.
It is quite possible that if a survey had asked about the categories above a majority would have said that they too should be banned from free to air.
The 2005 survey was based on focus groups with a total of about 140 people. Women, Africans and Asians were over represented and no attempt was made to correct this. African women and Asian women are well known for being strongly religious and conservative.
By contrast the biannual Media Tracker surveys are based on interviews with about 10,000 people and are statistically corrected for age, gender, ethnicity and socio economic group to give statistically valid data.
The 2005 survey was described as "qualitative" (measuring quality, or feelings) rather than "quantitative" (based on hard numbers). A bunch of people were asked how they felt about things. Some questions and topics overlapped, some were asked in group situations, some were based on anonymous questionnaires, some before/after viewing highly selective clips. Inevitably this results in inconsistencies.
However it is difficult to avoid the impression that the questions were badly structured, in such a way that no clear conclusions could be drawn. There is nothing to compare against, and no attempt to define a threshold of acceptabilty. The 2009 survey had similarities, and some adult content was rated about as acceptable as BBC content and the infamous Alan Titchmarsh dildo show*.
*BBC: Rome, clip 3, 24% unacceptable, 43% acceptable, +17% more acceptable than unacceptable.
Red Hot 40+ trailer: clip 9 26% unacceptable, 43% acceptable, +16%.
Playboy clip 7: 29% unacceptable, 40% acceptable, +11%.
Alan Titchmarsh, ITV 3pm, clip 1, 42% unacceptable, 36% acceptable, -6%.
Final point - the Content Board themselves seem to have had concerns and asked for future surveys to be peer reviewed.
Just a final note on the initial R18 research, which has probably already been discussed to death - the author of that study wrote to OFCOM to inform them that the research which they cherry picked to base their argument was not representative of the majority view and more robust study was needed. Ofcom, though, had the ammunition they needed.
Here's what other broadcasters made of the original draft document, which has since become even more restrictive - in a clear and transparent way.
COBA pdf
It's no surprise that Ofcon use research to suit their own agenda. They do not want full R18 on UK televsion so it does not matter what anyone comes up with in terms of evidence on non-harm. They just do not want it on our tv screens and, if they had their way, would ban it from the internet too.
Strange people.
Why haven't they removed the more explicit shows? That guide to sex show that Daz posted is uncensored, yet it's allowed to be shown on non adult channels. I think they do care, but I also think they care more about making money.
(08-01-2012 23:08 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]Why haven't they removed the more explicit shows? That guide to sex show that Daz posted is uncensored, yet it's allowed to be shown on non adult channels. I think they do care, but I also think they care more about making money.
Exactly. Ofcoms actions make no sense even by their own criteria. If content is offensive it is offensive regardless of context. Context is only valid if there is an overriding social justification, such as avoiding teenage pregnancies or drink driving. As for protecting teens, that applies pretty much regardless of context - a 15 year old will get an erection from the topless orgy scene in Up Pompeii just as effectively as from Bang Babes, despite the former being justified by plot.
The fact that the author of the R18 survey disowned it (or at least put heavy disclaimers on) is a material factor that a resonsible organisation would have published, if only to rebut it.
Many thanks to HenryF for the Coba report. Its the first time I have seen it (unless I have forgotten) and arries weight coming from a reputable industry body representing 70+ broadcasters. A note of caution: the website address seems malformed and confuses my virus checker, that first warns its a phishing site, then says it has not been evaluated. Seems to be a mistake but take care.