|
|
Content Regulation in Australia
Lecture Week 3
1. Why do we regulate stuff?
Regulation generally concerns itself around three main areas: ownership,
transmission and content. Today's lecture will focus on content, although
necessarily, all three levels are connected.
As far as media is concerned, the are two main bodies which concern
themselves with regulation: the Office of Film and Literature
Classification and the ABA.
The OFLC is responsible for a range of activities including:
The OFLC has recently revised its classifications, with the new
guidelines relating to G, M, MA, R, X and RC (Refused Classification).
Specifically, these guidelines relate to content in terms of
The RC category is a way of preventing certain materials from entering
the country. Under Australian law, it is illegal to obtain material which
has not been classified.
Like the OFLC, the ABA is also heavily involved in classification
of
content, and in fact classification represents the most prominent
characteristic of Australian content regulation.
Australian legislators are generally reluctant to ban material outright
-
a more common solution is to simply refuse it classification.
2. The ABA and Program Content.
As was noted last week, the regulation of program content is one of
the
ABA's primary responsibilities. However, it appears that a "soft-touch"
approach is also in operation here.
Rather than assess content directly, the ABA ratifies industry-designed
codes, and then attempts to enforce adherence to those codes.
The ABA administers 5 separate codes of practice, these being Commercial
television, Commercial radio, Community broadcasting, Open narrowcasting,
Subscription (pay). Copies of the codes are available from the ABA website.
Each code deals specifically with issues pertaining to that medium.
For
example, the code for commercial television focuses on: program
classifications; program promotions; accuracy and fairness in news and
current affairs; advertising time on television; classification; complaints
handling; and placement of commercials.
By contrast, the code for community broadcasting covers issues such
as:
the responsibilities associated with broadcasting to the community;
complaint handling; general programming guidelines; guidelines for news
and
current affairs; and Australian music content.
The ABA is obligated to investigate any perceived breach of a code,
although the investigation does not necessarily have to be public. There
is
also some question as to the value of the inquiry process.
Case Study 1: That F..king Radio National.
On January 7, the ABA received two complaints about the repeated use
of
the word "fuck" in a report about the ARIA awards on Radio National's
breakfast program.
Both complainants had written to the ABC to voice their concerns, but
had
not received a response in 60 days.
The ABA investigated whether the incident represented a breach of the
code on three accounts: Appropriateness of Language (Section 2.2), Issuing
of Warnings (Section 6) and Handling of Complaints (Section 8).
The ABA also took into account the time the program was broadcast, which
in this instance was 7:45 am.
The Authority subsequently found that the ABC did breach the code, but
that it had already move to take action internally. As such, no further
action was deemed necessary.
Case Study 2: The ABC Goes to SEXPO.
On September 3, the ABA received a complaint from Mr. And Mrs. Ricker,
of
St. Ives, NSW, about a story which appeared on ABC's 7pm news bulletin.
Mr. And Mrs. Ricker claimed that the report showed "quite explicit
sexual scenes which were quite offensive".
The ABA responded by calling on the ABC to provide a copy of the tape,
which it subsequently did. The tape showed a sex industry conference, and
contained scenes of bare-breasted women as well as various pieces of sexual
paraphernalia.
The complainants accused the ABC of breaching Section 2.3 of the Code,
which pertains to the depiction of sex and sexuality. Under the Code, sex
and sexuality can be discussed and reported in the context of news,
information or documentary programs, provided it is handled with integrity.
They also accused the ABC of breaching Section 8.1 (Complaints handling).
The ABC responded by saying that while material in news bulletins fell
outside program classification guidelines, the item in question was "not
of
the standard normally expected in ABC News bulletins. The matter was
subsequently taken up with editorial staff.
The ABA decided that the ABC did breach the Code, but noted that a
written apology to the complainants would be sufficient. It also stated
that it would continue to monitor the ABC's compliance with the Code.
Case Study 3: Not So Funny Home Videos.
On November 9, the ABA received a complaint that the program "Funniest
Home Videos" displayed an "intensity of violence" not suitable
for a PG
classified program. The episode in question featured a soccer player being
punched in the face after disciplining players.
The complainant had originally written to the station which broadcast
the
program, but was told that the segment was acceptable within the context
of
the program. The station also argued that as the program was PG, it was
the responsibility of parents to advise children about the behaviour depicted.
The ABA ruled that the station had breached the Code under Section
2.12.1. This section states that in a PG program, "any depiction of
violence must be inexplicit, discreet or stylised, and appropriate to the
storyline or program context".
However, the ABA the fact that the broadcast was a live feed from another
source might have been a mitigating circumstance.
Points to Note.
In several instances, the ABA seems to be more concerned with the issues
of complaints-handling, rather than breaches of content codes.
The fact that the ABA is mandated to investigate ALL complaints (other
than spurious ones), means that the Authority is regularly swamped with
work.
The way in which the codes are worded mean that it is often easy for
broadcasters to justify their actions. This may also explain why the ABA
is
reluctant to take further action.
To reiterate an earlier point, the codes in question were developed by
the industry rather than the government. This is indicative of the move
away from direct state intervention in broadcasting.
Although in some ways this might seem like an exercise in ABA-bashing,
it
should be remembered that the ABA has to work under scrutiny from the
minister, and with limited funds and staff.
Mark J. Finn
Associate Lecturer
School of Film, Media and Cultural Studies
Griffith University
Nathan, Qld, 4111.
Email: m.finn@mailbox.gu.edu.au
Room: 2.44, Level 2 Humanities Building
Phone: 3875 7434
Mobile: 0412 248 150
