It's a topic that has us both baffled and furious. Why is it that our society condones footage and images of death and torture on television yet baulks when a naked family is shown strolling down a beach or when two men give each other a kiss?
In Australia, the trend of incredibly graphic television shows continues unabated. Yet, remarkably, we never seem to hear a whimper of disapproval. Even five years ago, shows such as CSI and the like would have prompted complaints on a mass scale. But today, there is no question we have become desensitised. Rather than filing a complaint, people nowadays are more inclined to grunt a small sound of disgust when confronted with a scene depicting every detail of an autopsy or murder scene.
If these gruesome scenes were contained to a time period where children were less likely to stumble across them, our objection would not be as fierce. But let us ask you, when exactly was it when Australia began accepting, without question, footage of victims, gore and torture in our prime time viewing? When did we stop caring that children could turn on the television and stare in amazement at a captured dictator having a noose fitted firmly around his neck? Where the hell have our standards of decency gone?
Given our zombie-like acceptance of violence on television, it is gob-smacking to see the level of hysteria that surrounds any depiction of full frontal nudity, no matter how brief. Australian prime time news stations are happy to broadcast a seven-year-old Iraqi child with his arms and legs blown off crying for his dead Mother but they carefully censor the genitals of those participating in a World Naked Bike Ride or Spencer Tunic project.
Is it just us or has the whole country gone mad when it comes to moral standards? Nobody seems to speak about it. Nobody even seems to have noticed. One programme on channel nine last week showed two men having a conversation about an upcoming golf tournament. Not so bad until the camera slowly zooms out to reveal one of the men is removing the flesh from the hip bone of a recently deceased person. We never heard it mentioned the next day at work.
A month ago a popular Australian programme featured a scene where two men kissed in a spontaneous show of lust. It was on page three of a major Australian newspaper the next day. Everyone was talking about it.
There is saying that asks: "why is that society is not offended by the site of casualties of war yet becomes upset at the site of two men holding hands?"
Below is an article from an Australian newspaper published on June 17, 2007.
Prime time television is awash with death and violence.
An exclusive, seven-night survey of Sydney's five free-to-air channels revealed a catalogue of disturbing images across all stations and timeslots.
This relentless march of televised violence - and sex - into the nation's lounge rooms is a grim reality for parents, including NSW Premier Morris Iemma, who are struggling to act as censor for their children.
The Sun-Herald enlisted six journalism students to watch every program (including advertisements) between 6pm and 10.30pm for one week - 157.5 hours of prime time television.
They witnessed 234 cases of gunfire, 104 deaths, 142 cases of physical abuse, 85 car crashes and 350 other violent acts.
There were four rapes and 34 sexually explicit acts.
SBS led the way, its result bolstered by its 6.30pm and 9.30pm nightly world news bulletins, which take in many more global conflicts and tragedies than rival bulletins. The multicultural broadcaster outdid its rivals in several categories of violence, notably gunfire (SBS 100, Channel Seven, 58, Channel Ten 43, ABC 25, Channel Nine eight).
Seven was the clear leader in car crashes (50), with Ten a distant second on 18.
No one day could be identified as the most violent, with parental vigilance required from 6pm onwards on any given night.
The Premier said the survey results were alarming, and he no longer felt comfortable leaving his children - Clara, 8, Matthew, 7, and three-year-old twins Luca and Joshua - to watch television unsupervised.
"The intrusion of violence into timeslots that have traditionally been family friendly is more and more evident," Mr Iemma said.
"I think it does call for parents to step up the oversight and intervention into what our kids are watching, and for programmers to have a serious think about what goes to air when.
"I recently put an early end to a Saturday night screening of Spider-Man because I was concerned at the level of violence. It wasn't a popular decision with my eight- year-old daughter, but it's one that you sometimes have to make as a parent."
Free TV Australia, which represents the free-to-air commercial networks, cites violence as a perennial concern.
In the first three months of 2007, it received about 270 complaints about classification issues, almost 10 per cent relating to violence and 21 per cent to foul language. Sex and nudity accounted for 56 per cent of complaints.
Chief executive Julie Flynn said Free TV was so concerned about violence it had introduced a special classification category - AV 15 + - for programs with very strong violence. This material can only be shown after 9.30pm.
SBS led the way in violence in The Sun-Herald survey.
But classification manager Laurence O'Neill said that, while violence was of concern, it was not the cause of the greatest alarm.
"In terms of my feedback from the community, I find that sex and nudity is something that generates a greater response [than violence]. There is a greater conservatism about that," he said.
ABC network television classifier Sandy Sharp said the popularity of crime dramas such as Nine's CSI and Ten's Law & Order and true crime reality shows such as Seven's Police Files Unlocked affected the results.
The fact that there are so many murders shown on TV is more to do with the fact that people are making programs about crime," he said.
He rejects the argument that constant exposure to televised violence creates aggression.
"Ninety-nine per cent of people are intelligent and sensitive and they understand it's television, it's not real life. It's only a few who are adversely affected." He acknowledged that there was a need to respond to community concern.
"I'm sure in the past people's complaints were fobbed off.
"Now we're trying very hard to get it right. All the classifiers are. It's not as if we're just cowboys. We're actually trying to serve the viewer. The viewer is our ultimate client."
Archbishop of Sydney George Pell told The Sun-Herald: "It concerns me particularly that, from the evidence you've gathered, much of the violence appears to be shown during times when children are still watching. We don't want our young people growing up thinking that violence is acceptable and a normal part of life."
Prime Minister John Howard said parents had the greatest responsibility to monitor their children's intake.
"Beyond always examining initiatives to protect children, I am not in favour of further regulation. It is up to television outlets to exercise self-regulation," he said.
The Australian Communication and Media Authority is monitoring attitudes to sex and violence on television in its current study, Media And Society.
Its last major study - Research Into Community Attitudes To Violence On Free-to-Air Television, released in 2003 - found 80 per cent of respondents believed television was becoming increasingly violent.
Related Link http://www.nakedaustralians.com/view_forum_thread.php?id=700 |
