Media Studies
iQuote » “Media is a word that has come to mean bad journalism” – Graham Greene
What harm and offence
do our media cause?
Should we be more worried than we actually are? By Andrea Millwood Hargrave
T
eenage boys shooting class mates or appalling murders with
sexual elements are continually linked back to the (mis)use of
particular types of media content, be they delivered by film,
television, the internet or even print. This describes the public face
of moral panic about media influence. The debate then, is around the
harm that may be caused to children through viewing inappropriate
media content – frequently it is graphic depictions of violence that create the most concern.
Regulators are seeking to understand the changing parameters that
have developed with the convergence of media delivery platforms, which
offer faster, easier access to material that was hitherto difficult to find.
In this process, the concepts of ‘harm’ and ‘offence’ are gaining prominence. The 2003 Communications Act changed the broadcasting standards debate in the UK by moving from the previously held concepts
of ‘good taste and decency’ to offering ‘adequate protection... from
the inclusion of offensive and harmful material’. These concepts echo
those in the European Union’s Television without Frontiers Directive,
currently being debated in a revised form. The debate continues to pivot
on the exposure of minors to potentially
harmful or offensive material, although
there are other sensibilities considered
such as offence or harm caused to those
from minority groups.
While harmful and offensive material
is, in principle, distinguished from that
which is illegal (obscenity, child abuse
images, incitement to racial hatred,
etc), it is not easy to define the boundaries in a robust and consensual fashion.
What content is considered acceptable
by today’s standards, norms and values,
and by whom? Borderline and unacceptable material may include a range
of contents, most prominently - though
not exclusively - ‘adult content’ of various kinds, and these may incur considerable public concern. While norms of
taste and decency can be tracked, with
some reliability, through standard opin-
ion measurement techniques, methods for assessing harm, especially,
are much more contested and difficult, and there is little agreement
about the parameters that should be used.
It was to seek to explore these questions – to give industry, the regulators and, indeed, the public some facts - that a review of the evidence
for harm and offence across media forms was conducted. Recent research on television, radio, music, press, film, games, Internet, telephony, advertising as well as the regulation associated with each area
were evaluated. The aim was to provide an assessment of the potential
for harm and offence.
An immediate finding was that the linking of the terms ‘harm and
offence’ is causing confusion. It is not clear what the difference between them is taken to be when considered in a legal or regulatory
context. In terms of research evidence, other than in relation to legal or
philosophical discussions, there is nothing that links them together in
the academic literature. Further, while there is an extensive literature
on harm (usually labelled ‘effects’), there is little academic research on
offence. This may be a methodological bias on the part of researchers
or it may be a political bias, based on a
concern that research on offence opens
the door to censorship. What research
there is in the area of offence, has been
conducted by the regulators themselves
or by industry.
Much recent regulatory debate has
talked of technology-neutral regulation and it was hoped that it would be
possible to look across content-delivery
platforms, and evaluate the likelihood
for harm and offence as a contentdriven rather than technology-derived
process. Would equivalent content have
a similar effect or influence on individuals, regardless of the method of delivery? In fact, the review found a minimal
amount of cross-platform research, and
this is a yawning gap as regulators and
others base current policy decisions on
incomplete or sparse data.
‘While harmful and offensive
material is, in principle,
distinguished from that which is
illegal... it is not easy to define
the boundaries in a robust
and consensual fashion. What
content is considered acceptable
by today’s standards, norms and
values, and by whom?’
18 | Intellect Quarterly
Harm & Offence
iQuote » “A good newspaper is a nation talking to itself.” – Arthur Miller
The evidence also shows that there are omissions in research knowledge about the impact of certain media – either because they are too
‘old’, such as print and therefore less researched now, or because they
are too ‘new’ to have a body of evidence behind them, such as mobile
telephony. However, there is clear evidence that older media still exert
significant influence and that the way in which a print news story (an
‘old’ medium) is framed may affect the attitudes of its readers. For
example, it can be argued that potentially negative attitudes towards
substantial segments of the population can be created or sustained
through the way the news about them is reported while the presentation of partial information (in the area of science, for example) can
lead to a misinformed public.
The potential influence of newer content delivery forms is unknown
but policy assumptions are being made, with policy decisions being
based on evidence from media delivery platforms that are dissimilar
in how they are used. For example, the potential effect of antisocial
content delivered via mobile telephony on people has not been subject to any systematic or coherent research, but the ‘evidence’ of it has
become part of the public/media debate.
The paucity of data from a converged or converging environment
leads us to argue that the search for simple and direct causal effects
of the media continues to be inappropriate. Rather, this should be replaced by a risk-based approach that seeks to identify the range of factors that directly, and indirectly through interactions with each other,
combine to explain particular social phenomena. The research shows
that each social problem of concern (e.g. aggression, prejudice, obesity, bullying, etc) is associated with a distinct and complex array of
putative causes. The task then, is to identify and contextualise the role
of the media within that array. The result
will be a more complex explanation of
what are, undoubtedly, complex social
problems. This should, in turn, permit
a balanced judgement of the role played
by the media on a case–by–case basis.
In some instances, this may reduce the
concentrated focus on the media – for
example, by bringing into view many
other factors that contribute to present
levels of aggression in society. In other
cases, it may increase the focus on the
media – for example, in understanding
the possible role played by the Internet
in facilitating paedophiles’ access to
children. So we argue that the question should no longer be ‘do the media
cause violence?’ but ‘what factors may
be important in adding to the potential
of the media to cause (harm/offence)
among a range of factors?’ {
‘So we argue that the question
should no longer be ‘do the
media cause violence?’ but
‘what factors may be important
in adding to the potential of the
media to cause (harm/offence)
among a range of factors?’
FURTHER READING
Harm and Offence in Media
Content: A Review of the Evidence
By Andrea Millwood Hargrave & Sonia Livingstone
£19.95, $39.95
In today’s media and
communications environment,
pressing questions arise regarding
the media’s potential for harm,
especially in relation to children.
This book offers a unique and
comprehensive analysis of the
latest research on content-related
media harm and offence. For
the first time, a balanced, critical
account brings together findings
on both established and newer
interactive media. Arguing against
asking simple questions about
media effects, the case is made for
contextualising media content and
use within a multi-factor, risk-based
framework. Available now.
Children and Propaganda
By Judith Proud | £14.95, $29.95
This volume brings together three
studies which demonstrate how
the everyday literature of youth
has been subverted at key points
in twentieth-century European
history, to promote the ideologies
of a dominant political regime.
Concentrating primarily on the
specific area of children’s fiction,
Children and Propaganda focuses
on the propaganda writing of
Vichy France; the cult of seafaring
in Nazi Germany; and images
of empire and decolonisation in
France between 1930 and 1962.
In addition to close textual study,
works are located within the wider
context and discourses that shaped
their production, dissemination
and reception, giving the volume
a broad, cross-disciplinary range of
appeal. Available now.
Intellect Quarterly | 19