Television censorship Would you prefer television censorship to prevail or abolished? This is still a cause of debate among governments, its people, and certain organizations. Censorship, in general, can be defined as editing or omitting materials from broadcast or print, which may be offensive to the social, moral, or political order. When in application to television, television censorship has varying degrees and mostly corresponds to the type of show or program. Television censorship is practiced in many countries through the use of labels or ratings to classify TV programs. In the U.S., the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is a de facto regulatory organization that helps the industry conform with legislative decrees to protect children. TV ratings Television censorship in practice is the use of TV ratings, which aid adults in classifying TV programs suitable for little children as young as 2 – 6 years like the “All Children” rating. This rating refers to programs whether live or animated that contain themes or elements designed for very young viewers, and are not intended to frighten them. The “Directed to Older Children” rating refers to TV shows and programs appropriate for children from age 7 and above who have acquired the cognitive skills to differentiate between reality and fantasy. These programs may contain mild violence through animation or those that could frighten very young children. “Directed to Older Children – Fantasy Violence” is the rating given to television programs whose elements contain dialogues and actions relating to more intense violence. “General Audience” refers to TV programs that are conceivably suitable for all ages. Although these types of programs may not be intentionally designed for very young viewers, parents might allow their children to watch these programs unattended. It may contain dialogues or scenes with a mild or no violence, or does not connote sexual acts at all. “Parental Guidance Suggested” is the rating for programs that contain materials not suitable for younger children. Parents are advised to watch this program with their children since programs tagged with this rating usually include moderate violence, few sexual situations, infrequent use of language, or some dialogues, which may be suggestive. “Parents Strongly Cautioned” or PG13 is a rating that many parents would consider not appropriate for children below 14 years. This provides a stern warning for parents to exercise extra caution in allowing their children watch these programs.
Unlike in motion pictures, television censorship usually is stricter since the television is a mass media device, especially the free TV. The censorship board pre-evaluates any program prior to their broadcast.
COLUMN
The need for TV censorship BHASKAR GHOSE A broad-based body consisting of persons of distinction in the arts should be formed to advise television programme producers to present a fare that does not harm young minds. FROM time to time there have been demands that some form of censorship be imposed on the proliferating television channels that show what are generally called `entertainment' programmes - serials, music videos, films and other programmes such as those which are called reality shows. Recently this has again been announced by authorities in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, including the Chairman of the Central Board of Film Certification, Anupam Kher. There has even been an indication that the Cable Television Networks Act will be used to prohibit cable networks from carrying programmes that are considered objectionable. K.R. DEEPAK
Most filmmakers need someone to sit in judgment over what they make because the young are addicted to television more than one imagines.
The reason why this comes up again and again is obvious. Television is now a part of the consciousness of millions of households throughout the country, particularly the young, who spend hours watching a variety of programmes. It is impossible for parents to keep monitoring what they watch, and even if they do, how would they ensure that their proscriptions are being followed? And all the while the numerous television channels are showing films, serials and other programmes some of which contain sequences or events or shots that would be considered offensive or unacceptable by many. Yet the problems that face any attempt to censor television programmes are numerous and formidable. For one thing, it becomes controversial if censorship is aimed at adult viewers. The assumption behind any attempt to do that is that adults need to be protected from violent, or sexually explicit scenes because if they are not, they may go berserk and indulge in looting, murder and rape. This assumption angers, and with reason, a large number of people. Who, they argue, are these arbiters of good taste? Who are these people who have a greater sensitivity and creative perception than other people, who have the wisdom and insight to decide what people should or should not see? `Social workers', who sometimes have an IQ of 40 or thereabouts and are on the panel of censors only because of their political connections? Political workers, many of whom have criminal cases ranging from murder to rape to fraud against them? This is not an easy argument to counter. The lists of those on the panel of censors in each regional office of the Central Board of Film Certification will not stand up to scrutiny of the most cursory kind, though among the names one may come across one or two who are rational and sensible; but nonetheless, not people whose views filmmakers and producers of serials and entertainment shows will necessarily accept without question. But let us look first at the situation as it is. There are few programmes that can be said to contain gratuitous violence or explicit sex; some English films shown on certain channels may have some sequences that Indian films would not usually have, but even they are careful about such matters - for example the f... . words are bleeped out in all films, and violent sequences cut down. Indian serials have little by way of violence and steamy sex; there may be relationships that may be considered socially unusual, to put it mildly, but that is about all one gets. There is far more violence in cartoons; just watch what happens to Tom in a Tom and Jerry cartoon and you will see violence on a scale you cannot even imagine. He is run over by a steamroller, put in a washing machine, and, in one memorable sequence, is grinning with satisfaction when a golf ball smashes through his teeth as if they were made of glass. So there is some kind of self-censorship; one may not be very happy with it but it is there. The question is, since it is there, must we have any other kind of censorship, by a public body, which will determine the content of programmes? The answer to this is that we should. There is no point in saying that no one can sit in judgment on a creative filmmaker or a producer of a serial. Most filmmakers do need someone to sit in judgment over what they make, because they make these programmes for money and put in not gratuitous violence but enough violence and sexually suggestive shots to make their
products saleable. And this becomes all the more urgent when it comes to television, to which the young are addicted more than one imagines. One may not call it censorship, because the word tends to be associated with the censoring of ideas and information. But whatever one calls it, the fact is it is unavoidable and necessary. The Report on Culture and Development submitted to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) says, in part, "All countries and cultures have struggled to define the line where freedom ends and licence begins. Standards of decency, respect for others and self-restraint vary from one country to another, and from one period to another. While all forms of censorship must be avoided, nowhere is freedom unqualified and allowed to operate regardless of the consequences." (Emphasis added.) There needs to be a broad-based public body filled with enlightened persons who have distinguished themselves in the arts, appointed by a transparent procedure, which looks at television programming and advises producers and scriptwriters on what they consider would have harmful effects on the young. I am emphasising this aspect because I believe that the body must address itself to what will be harmful to the young and not to what adults should or should not see. The line between the two is thin; you cannot guarantee a child will not watch what is meant for an adult. But the main concern must remain the young. Will such a body become a strait-laced bunch of narrow-minded moralists? Perhaps. That is a risk that we always run. We run the risk of getting incapable people in high offices whenever these offices are filled, whether they are judges or vigilance commissioners or chiefs of police. That, by itself, cannot vitiate the institution itself. The institution is something that can be criticised, and made to respond to criticism. But it needs to exist, and the burgeoning television entertainment industry must learn to grow within the parameters laid down by such an institution. At the same time, the government would do well to look at the existing institution it has for films. This institution, the CBFC, needs to have on its panels truly distinguished people. Its procedures must be overhauled, the panels must engage in close discussions with filmmakers so that they understand one another. And it would be best if this were done initially before the film is made, not after the filmmaker has spent money on the sequence the CBFC then thinks must be taken out. Only if the filmmakers and the CBFC panel members fully understand one another will the recurring bitterness between the two end. And it must not be saddled with the scrutiny of television programmes. Whatever the nature of the body that is set up for television programming, it must be quite separate from the CBFC. There are a number of issues involved that require this; many programmes are, for example, broadcast from foreign countries, uplinked from there and received in India from a satellite 35,000 kilometres out in space. Are those programmes subject to Indian regulation? Why should they not be, if they use Indian cable networks?
But then what about programmes that come in free-to-air or through DTH satellites? These issues make it necessary to consider the composition of the programme regulating body carefully, and also the manner in which it will work. But the body must be set up, and soon; there is a great deal at stake, and if we do not address the problem now, later regrets will be of little use. Censorship in India mainly targets religious issues. It is justified by the government as necessary to maintain communal harmony, peace and tranquility, given the history of communal tension.
Increasingly, electronic media--including television, music video, videotape, film, radio, compact disk, and hypertext for personal computers--have become primary sources of information and recreation, as well as emotional and artistic experiences for everyone. “Censorship refers to supervision and control of the information and ideas that are circulated among the people within a society.” In present day times, censorship refers to the assessment of books, periodicals, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other communication media for the purpose of changing or hold back parts thought to be offensive or unpleasant. The objectionable material may be considered immoral or obscene, unorthodox or blasphemous, seditious or subversive, or injurious to the national security. Thus, the rationale for censorship is that it is necessary for the protection of our society. For the television and radio industries the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has generally propagated fuzzy rules about program content containing an indirect threat that a license can be cancelled for repeated poor judgment involving program content. In 1987, however, the FCC reacted to public complaints by assuming various measures to restrict the use of explicit language about sex and bodily functions from the broadcasting media. Station operators voluntarily adhere to another code, designed by the National Association of Broadcasters. The major networks also have their own self-regulating system. The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), for example, has a staff of people who assess scripts and monitor everything that is aired on CBS-TV, including commercials. The Network is responsible for everything that is aired by them. Next week, America will observe the first year anniversary of the Columbine Tragedy. Have we stopped just for a moment and wondered why this tragedy happened in the first place? Many would agree that violence on television and other forms of media may have been responsible for this disaster. Television can be a powerful influence in developing value systems and shaping behavior. Unfortunately, much of today's television programming is violent. We see it everyday around us this kind of vulgarity on the television. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry American children watch an average of three to fours hours of television daily.
Television can be a powerful influence in developing value systems and shaping behavior. Unfortunately, much of today's television programming is violent. Hundreds of studies of the effects of TV violence on children and teenagers have found that children may: · Become "resistant" to the horror of violence; · Gradually accept aggression as a way to solve their troubles; · Imitate the violence they watch on television; and · Identify with certain characters, victims and/or victimizers; Extensive viewing of television violence by children causes greater aggressiveness. Sometimes, watching a single violent program can increase aggressiveness. Children, who view shows, in which violence is very realistic, frequently repeated or unpunished, are more likely to imitate what they see. Same is the case for video games and such violent activities that children these days indulge in. Studies have showed that the impact of TV violence may be immediately evident in the child's behavior or may surface years later and young people can even be affected when the family atmosphere shows no tendency toward violence. National Coalition on Television Violence Organization is an organization dedicated to monitoring and reducing violence on television. It provides statistics about the frequency of violence; ideas for community and personal action to decrease it, especially the percentage seen by children; addresses and sample letters to television stations and other media representatives; toy selection guidelines; and a bibliography of additional information related to the issue. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of recent developments, such as the V-Chip and industry ratings. It would be impudent to say that violence on television is the only source for aggressive or violent behavior, but it is a significant contributor. And it is a fact to reckon that not only children are worst affected by this, but also adults. Several people have taken up for the cause of Children’s protection from Television violence. Senator Ernest F. Hollings and Senator Daniel K. Inouye co-sponsored the Children's Protection from Violent Programming Act of 1993, which would ban the broadcast or cable transmission of violent programming during hours when children make up a substantial share of the audience. This ensures some kind of screening that can prevent children from watching violent programs on television. In the hallmark case of Gay and Lesbian Public Access Show vs. Denver Community Television, Denver Community Television (DCTV) refused to air two episodes of Anthony Palange's "G/L Magazine" asserting they were "obscene." Palange then filed suit against the network station. Under Federal Cable Television laws, public access channels are public forums, and “neither a city nor an agency to which a city delegates the function of administering public access TV may censor the content of programs.” In the case of "G/L Magazine" there had never been any judicial determination that the programs met the legal standard for obscenity. The episodes did not even contain nudity. In early November 1993, "G/L Magazine" resumed broadcasting.
When such things happen, it is often difficult to draw a line where censorship is concerned. Censorship laws in the United States still need to defined more clearly and accurately.
That the issue is one that needs addressing goes without saying. With more than 130 channels, reaching out to about 85 million homes and with more than 200 million homes still remain to be tapped, India is touted as one of the largest growing TV audience in the world. Which is why analysts feel the time has finally come to take stock of the situation.
Chairperson of Central Board of Film Certification : Ms Sharmila Tagore
Chairperson of Children Film Society of India : Ms. Nandita Das
Petitioners Deepak Maini and Prabhat Kumar had said the show - on which contestants are asked personal questions - was "obscene" and went against the values of the Indian society. "Our culture is not so fragile that it would be affected by one TV programme. You are asking us to entertain an area which deals with perceptions and opinions. Further, morality yardsticks are to be decided by the government. We cannot decide the issue." It is well known that parental influence can be a major factor in reducing the impact that television violence will have on children. But parents need to be aware of this and need to take the time to know what their children are viewing and, at best, view programs with children in order to ameliorate the negative impacts from such viewing. Parental influence can also enhance the positive impacts of television, and can allow children to understand social systems and appropriate behaviour more fully. Parental education and awareness programs will determine how successful this approach is
Are you fond of watching TV? Are you a fanatic of the new shows or the traditional ones? With so many new shows on TV these days, do you stay longer in front of the TV now than before? Are you one of those avid viewers who anticipate and just can’t wait for the next episode? Which shows do you patronize? Well nowadays, most young viewers prefer to watch and enjoy reality TV shows. Different viewers have different reasons why they do so, and there lies the underlying effects of watching such. Watching these shows has effects on the viewers and the society in general. It may be positive to
some audiences, but it also affects negatively to many, depending on how one views and takes the essence of the show. Let’s discuss these reality television shows and their effects on society. First, a reality show stars a non-celebrity or a volunteer who wants to participate in the program, and the core role is to see what their reactions in certain scenarios are, and how they face given situations. In some ways, this gives the audience a connection with the show’s stars as they feel that they are “real and normal” people representing them. This is why the reality shows are hitting big time in the TV scenes because the audience empathizes with the show’s stars. Unfortunately, this is also why reality shows have a negative impact on the audience — because they tend to think, act, and feel, like the show’s stars, and in the process lose their own sense of critical thinking and “real” emotions towards certain situations. Reality television shows and their effects on society are also dependent on the viewer’s desires and motives, they see themselves in these stars and somehow these stars are living their lives through the show. Each reality show portrays and fulfills certain desires - like power or influence, travel and living, survival and outwitting, beauty and satisfaction, revenge and honor, etc. The viewing audience doesn’t realize that these reality television shows and their effects on society are reflected on how people compromise their well-being and self-worth. This observation may not seem likely but studies show that it has distorted one’s views on the “real” reality. More people enjoy a certain sense of pleasure and satisfaction when they watch these reality television shows and their effects on society are continuously mirrored in the way they interact with others, deal various situations, and face certain challenges. One must be keen in absorbing the messages of these shows and one must remember that each individual handle scenarios, problems, dilemmas, differently. What makes it worse than the way it affects people now, is that viewers get entertained by the sadness, depression, frustration, and emptiness that reality stars feel and experience in the show. It’s time to get real when you watch these reality TV shows.
