38. Memorandum submitted by
the Office of Communications (Ofcom)
VIOLENT LYRICAL
CONTENT IN
MUSIC AND
THE PORTRAYAL
OF VIOLENCE
IN MUSIC
VIDEOS
The Home Affairs Committee ("the Committee"),
sought information concerning the prevalence of complaints made
to Ofcom about music (or music videos) where the lyrical content
included references to violence.
My colleague Neil Gardner previously forwarded
the relevant sections of our Broadcasting Code, against which
complaints are judged (namely Sections One and Two, "Protecting
the Under-Eighteens" and "Harm & Offence" respectively),
together with our published "Guidance" for both these
sections.
Compliance with the requirements of these two
sections of the Broadcasting Code is mandatory for all UK broadcasters
licensed by Ofcom and the BBC and S4C; adherence to the accompanying
Guidance is advisable as best practice, but is not mandatory.
The Committee asked us to provide the following
quantitative information:
— the number of Ofcom rulings relating
to violent lyrical content in music, or the portrayal of violence
in music videos in each of the last five years; and
— the numbers of public complaints
in this area over this time.
Colleagues here have undertaken a thorough search
of our complaints databases, encompassing not only Ofcom's own
records (since its vesting in December 2003), but also those of
the three legacy broadcasting regulators (the Broadcasting Standards
Commission, the Independent Television Commission, and the Radio
Authority).
As complaints are not catalogued against the
category violent lyrical content in music or the portrayal of
violence in music videos we have checked our data base using key
words.
The number of complaints that the regulators
have received specifically on this matter during the last five
years is small—five complaints, all made since 2004. Four
complaints were not upheld and one was resolved. A complaint is
resolved when Ofcom considers it would have upheld the complaint
had it not been for mitigating action by the broadcaster. In this
case the matter was resolved following the admission of an error
by the broadcaster in the scheduling of the video given the nature
of its content.
The complaints were as follows:
— Resolved: Music video for "Smile"
by Lily Allen broadcast on Smash Hits!, 24 June 2006, 13:00, The
Hits, 7 July 2006, 15:50 and The Box, 19 July 2006, 08:14.
A viewer found this video, which told the story
of a woman taking revenge on her ex-boyfriend, offensive—in
part, because it showed the woman "paying thugs to beat up
her ex-boyfriend". We felt that the narrative of the song
related to the singer's personal feelings and were presented in
the stylised world of a pop video, thus creating a distance from
real life events. We felt that it would be unlikely to encourage
any adult viewer to copy such behaviour, but the content was too
strong for broadcast at these times when children might be watching.
The broadcaster apologised and addressed our concerns in subsequent
screenings.
— Not Upheld: Brit Awards, ITV1, 17
February 2004, 20.40. A viewer complained that the presenter mentioned
that the artist 50 Cent had been shot nine times.
— Not Upheld: Choice FM, 7 January
2005, 22.00 approx. A listener's primary concern was the use of
racist terms however the listener also mentioned that in the listener's
view a track had glamorised gun crime and anti-social behaviour.
— Not Upheld: Westwood Rap Show, BBC
Radio 1, 17 March 2006, 21.00 approx. The complaint focused primarily
on the use of racist terms. It also alleged that the lyrical content
had advocated the indiscriminate murdering of African people.
— Not Upheld: BBC Radio 1Xtra, 27 September
2005, 23.00 approx. A listener felt that there was racist language
and in that context mentioned "violent vitriol".
The lyrical content that the Committee wishes
to investigate is, of course, largely (if not wholly) confined
to certain specific genres of music, such as "hip hop"
and r'n'b. Looking at complaints in this area in order to assist
the Committee it appears that, amongst the largely self-selecting
audience for this type of music, there is still much greater concern
about the use of racially abusive terms (eg "nigger"),
misogynistic terms (eg "whore" and its derivatives)
and, to a lesser extent, strong profanity generally, than there
is about potential incitement to violence.
It is worth noting that there is a long standing
tradition of music companies providing radio edits—that
is versions of the main track from which potentially offensive
material has been removed—so that the track may be played
for broadcast. The same editing technique applies to videos. Therefore,
for example, a video played pre-watershed may well be different
to a video for the same track played post-watershed. For this
reason concerns regarding the lyrical content of music or the
portrayal of violence in a video may not necessarily apply to
tracks and videos as broadcast. The legacy regulator for radio—the
Radio Authority—had a series of meetings with the music
companies to discuss how this worked. At the time the Radio Authority
was satisfied that the companies were taking significant steps
to meet broadcasting standards.
As discussed previously, our Code contains a
number of Rules concerning the portrayal of violence and dangerous
behaviour which we require broadcasters to adhere to. For example:
2.4 Programmes must not include material
(whether in individual programmes or in programmes taken together)
which, taking into account the context, condones or glamorises
violent, dangerous or seriously antisocial behaviour and is likely
to encourage others to copy such behaviour.
The following Rules are specifically applied
to protect under-eighteens:
1.3 Children must ... be protected by appropriate
scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.
— Meaning of "children":
Children are people under the age of 15 years.
— Meaning of "appropriate
scheduling": Appropriate scheduling should be judged according
to:
— the nature of the content;
— the likely number and age range of children
in the audience, taking into account school time, weekends and
holidays;
— the start time and finish time of the
programme;
— the nature of the channel or station
and the particular programme; and
— the likely expectations of the audience
for a particular channel or station at a particular time and on
a particular day.
1.4 Television broadcasters must observe the
watershed.
1.5 Radio broadcasters must have particular regard
to times when children are particularly likely to be listening.
— Meaning of "when children
are particularly likely to be listening": This phrase particularly
refers to the school run and breakfast time, but might include
other times.
Violence and dangerous behaviour
1.11 Violence, its after-effects and descriptions
of violence, whether verbal or physical, must be appropriately
limited in programmes broadcast before the watershed or when children
are particularly likely to be listening and must also be justified
by the context.
1.12 Violence, whether verbal or physical, that
is easily imitable by children in a manner that is harmful or
dangerous:
— must not be featured in programmes
made primarily for children unless there is strong editorial justification;
and
— must not be broadcast before
the watershed or when children are particularly likely to be listening,
unless there is editorial justification.
1.13 Dangerous behaviour, or the portrayal of
dangerous behaviour, that is likely to be easily imitable by children
in a manner that is harmful:
— must not be featured in programmes
made primarily for children unless there is strong editorial justification;
and
— must not be broadcast before
the watershed, or when children are particularly likely to be
listening, unless there is editorial justification.
Our Rules make it clear that broadcasters should
always make considered judgements as to whether the material that
they broadcast can be adequately justified by the context. Context
might include (but is not limited to):
— the editorial content of the
programme, programmes or series;
— the service on which the material
is broadcast;
— what other programmes are scheduled
before and after the programme or programmes concerned;
— the degree of harm or offence
likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of
material in programmes generally or programmes of a particular
description;
— the likely size and composition
of the potential audience and likely expectation of the audience;
— the extent to which the nature
of the content can be brought to the attention of the potential
audience for example by giving information; and
— the effect of the material on
viewers or listeners who may come across it unawares.
I hope this information is of use to the Committee.
If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact us again.
Fran O'Brien
Senior Standards Manager, Content and Standards
December 2006
|
