TV News

New Iranian censorship rules have banned TV makers from showing women eating pizza on screen. Also, drama makers have been warned that men should not be shown serving women tea in scenes involving a workplace, while women must not wear leather gloves. Also women cannot be seen to be drinking red coloured liquids or eating sandwiches.

According to IranWire, government officials have issued the new guidelines to broadcasters and film makers following a recent audit.

To ensure that the strict new rules are followed, any scenes or photographs showing men and women in a domestic setting will have to be cleared by the IRIB before broadcast.

No doubt that there is some domestic logic linking the seemingly bizarre set of prohibitions but news sources haven't offered any explanation to date.

Viewers and listeners have told Ofcom they are generally more relaxed about most swearing on TV and radio, particularly if it is accidental and an apology swiftly follows, according to our latest in-depth research study.

Audiences say they still want broadcasters to consider carefully when, and how, offensive language is used. But many people recognise that, in the right context, it can play an important role in programmes.

Participants in the study felt that, in line with freedom of expression, offensive words can be used to create dramatic impact, bring humour, reflect real life, or even to inform and educate. In 2020, only 1% of total broadcasting complaints were about swearing. 8% of complaints were about racial discrimination.

They had limited concerns so long as the strongest language was broadcast after the watershed and parents were given sufficient warnings and information to help them decide what their children see and hear.

Timely, genuine apologies were also important to viewers and listeners in cases where offensive language was accidentally broadcast live on-air. Discriminatory language and stereotypes

By comparison, audiences told us they had more serious concerns about discriminatory language on TV and radio -- particularly around race.

In our focus groups, viewers and listeners pointed to the underlying attitudes that discriminatory language reflects, and had higher expectations about this being avoided, including during live broadcasts. Audiences said that, when strong forms of discriminatory language do appear in programmes, they expect broadcasters to do all they can to carefully put it into context and so protect viewers and listeners from the offence it can cause.

Opinions on older programmes containing potentially problematic content and language were mixed. Many participants said that they did not want to see these types of programmes disappear from screens completely -- arguing that history should not be censored or sanitised and that audiences would be aware they were from a different era.

Other participants suggested that older programmes containing outdated views could cause unnecessary offence and reinforce stereotypes. Most participants agreed, however, that clear and specific warnings about the type of language and content that might cause offence were important in helping audiences make an informed choice.

Adam Baxter, Director of Standards and Audience Protection said:

People's views on offensive language can change significantly over time. So to ensure we're setting and enforcing our rules effectively, it's essential we keep up to date with how viewers and listeners think and feel.

Broadcasters' and audiences' right to freedom of expression is important. These findings will help us to strike the right balance between protecting audiences -- and children in particular -- from unjustified offence, while still allowing broadcasters the creative freedom to reflect real life in their programmes.

This year, we've engaged with a larger and more diverse selection of viewers and listeners than ever before. This included more than 600 people of all ages and backgrounds, living throughout the UK, as well as those from a range of minority groups and communities. We also expanded our focus groups to include dedicated sessions with members of the Jewish and Chinese communities for the first time.

There is no absolute right not to be offended by things broadcast on TV and radio. Consistent with rights to freedom of expression, broadcasters can include material in their programmes that is potentially offensive -- but, to stay within our rules, they must make sure they provide sufficient context and adequate protection to audiences.

These findings will help broadcasters to better understand audience expectations about the use of potentially offensive language in their programmes, and what steps they may need to take to protect viewers and listeners.

Following a recent national edict requiring Chinese TV to be kept free from sissy boys, a sneering term for men with styles unbound by traditional conceptions of masculinity, the Beijing Municipal Radio and Television Bureau ordered stations to exercise tighter control over their actors' aesthetics, and to foster mainstream values and positive energy in the capital's audiovisual spaces.

A subsequent episode of Weibo censorship suggested widespread dissent against this move to protect mainstream television aesthetics.

 

 

Malaysia's Film Censorship Board (LPF) had sent a notice to two local TV stations instructing them that undergarments should not be shown regardless of it being worn by a model or a mannequin. The reason given was that any indecent visual displays, including advertising 'undergarments' will still offend the community.

A letter from the censors said:

The home ministry is of the view that the aforementioned content advertising innerwear is inappropriate to be shown for general viewing... and all broadcasts similar like this should be discontinued immediately.

Anna Har, co-founder of the Freedom Film Network, said the decision was unfortunate and yet another example of needless censorship in Malaysia. She said:

Since when are undergarments such an offensive item? They've been sold in pasar malams and supermarkets for years, this isn't pornography we're talking about.

Myanmar has announced a ban on satellite TV receivers as the country's citizens continue to protest against the country's military coup.

Meanwhile mobile internet access has largely been cut off for more than 50 days in an attempt to stop protests.

In a statement, the junta-controlled MRTV state TV said:

Satellite television is no longer legal. Whoever violates the television and video law, especially people using satellite dishes, shall be punished with one year imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 kyat (US$320). Illegal media outlets are broadcasting news that undermines national security, the rule of law and public order, and encouraging those who commit treason.

The Muppet Show is the latest victim of political correctness gone mad with new trigger warnings over its historic content.

When airing on  Disney+ the show now come with an alert about supposedly offensive content and can only be seen on an adult account. Viewers are greeted with the disclaimer:

This programme includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures. These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now.

Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together.

The warning is believed to refer to Muppet characters designed as stereotypes of Native Americans, Arabs and East Asians. In another episode, the singer Johnny Cash plays on a stage adorned with the Confederate flag.

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said:

I would like to know which bunch of muppets thought this one up. It would appear if this continues kids won't be able to watch any TV programmes which are not newly made. Is nothing safe?

China has banned the BBC in mainland China. State media reported that the British broadcaster would not have its licence renewed by China's media regulator at the start of the Chinese new year.

The move follows the decision last week by the UK TV censor, Ofcom, to strip the Chinese state broadcaster CGTN of its licence in the UK.

The Chinese authorities claimed that BBC World News was found to have seriously violated regulations on radio and television management and on overseas satellite television channel management in its China-related reports.

BBC World News was not available in most domestic news packages in China but could be viewed at some hotels.

Recent BBC reports on China's handling of the coronavirus outbreak and abuses in Xinjiang's internment camps are thought to have infuriated the authorities.

Catholic Archbishop Eamon Martin has called on Irish state broadcaster RTE to immediately censor a television clip which he claims is offensive, outrageous, and blasphemous . He was complaining about RTE's New Year's Eve Countdown Show, which included a mock news review by Waterford Whispers News:

In yet another shocking revelation this year, God became the latest figure to be implicated in ongoing sexual harassment scandals. The five-billion-year-old stood accused of forcing himself on a young middle-Eastern migrant and allegedly impregnating her against her will, before being sentenced to two years in prison with the last 24 months suspended.

In response Martin tweeted:

1. I am shocked that producer/editor of NYE Countdown Show didn't realise how deeply offensive was a mocking 'news report' accusing God of rape & reporting his imprisonment. This outrageous clip should be removed immediately & denounced by all people of goodwill.

2. To broadcast such a deeply offensive and blasphemous clip about God & Our Blessed Mother Mary during the Christmas season on 'NYE Countdown Show' is insulting to all Catholics and Christians.

atheist.ie commented:

Is Archbishop Martin aware that the people of Ireland recently voted overwhelmingly to remove the offence of blasphemy? Criticism or mockery of religious ideas is just as acceptable as criticism or mockery of secular ideas. But what of the claim that the item was offensive?

In October 2019, David Kaye, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the freedom of opinion and expression, published a report to the United Nations General Assembly on the human rights law that applies to freedom of expression. In that he stated:

A person who is not advocating hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, for example, a person advocating a minority or even offensive interpretation of a religious tenet or historical event, or a person sharing examples of hatred and incitement to report on or raise awareness of the issue, is not to be silenced under article 20 of the ICCPR (or any other provision of human rights law). Such expression is to be protected by the State, even if the State disagrees with or is offended by the expression. There is no "heckler's veto" in international human rights law.

RTE later apologised and said it would censor the joke from its catch up service. RTE said in a statement that its Editorial Standards Board found that the sketch did not comply with several provisions.

These included Section 39 (1) (d) of the Broadcasting Act 2009 and the BAI Code of Programme Standards in relation to material that causes undue offence.

It also did not comply with provision of Principle 5 in the above Code (Respect for Persons and Groups in Society) regarding due respect for religious beliefs.

The RTE Editorial Standards Board also found the sketch was not in compliance with the provision in the RTE Journalism & Content Guidelines regarding sensitivity to people's religious beliefs.