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.