2007-Mar-31 Biased BBC Radio 4 Coverage (0)

emark's profile

Posted by emark on Sat 17 May 08, 6:41 PM

[Repost from 2007-Mar-31]

"Do you want your daughter going out with someone who views extreme violence?"

There's not much media coverage on the "extreme porn" law at the moment, but a couple of interesting ones sprung up. Firstly, The Northern Echo ( http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/features/lea... ). It seems nice that they are attempting to cover both arguments for and against, but there's something that doesn't seem quite right ... let me think ... ah yes, they've presented both sides of the argument by only interviewing someone in favour of the law. Brilliant.

Okay I don't expect much from most newspapers, but more recently we have the BBC covering the issue on Radio 4's Woman's Hour ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03/2007_1... ). Interestingly it involves the same person, Clare McGlynn, joined this time by some guy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gamble ) from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Exploitation_... ) (like this has anything to do with children or child porn?)

I took me a few days to work up the strength to actually listen to the 8 minute piece, but I finally did it. To be fair, the questions posed are reasonably good, but it seems they're under the impression that this is only about actual non-consensual violence. But whatever is said, it's absurd to get any sort of reasonable debate when you only have two people in favour of the law. It basically seemed to be a piece for supporters of the law to shout down any possible criticisms (a few people have complained ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ ) about the blatant bias, I am tempted to do so).

Amusingly the message board ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766779?threa... ) gets a bit of an invasion of people complaining, though actually, some of the people arguing against the law and the programme are regulars of the board rather than people who followed a link. There are only a few people arging in favour (and amusingly every so often, a regular will step in to shout them down). It was quite disappointing actually, I came home from work hoping to get stuck into some meaty debate on this, only to find about 100 comments in a row which I agreed with... But there are two people picking up the slack now, and it's degenerated to, well, let's just say it makes me want to run around screaming "OMG PLEASE WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"

Anyway, someone from the BBC responded to the comments ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766779?threa... ), ending with "Rest assured that if, in the near future, there are developments in the libertarian argument then we will return to the debate and explore these aspects." which to me sounds like diplomatically trying to brush aside the criticisms (if there were new developments in favour of this law, I failed to hear them). And also sticks to the assertion that this material is already illegal to produce (I've not heard of the OPA applying to non-published material? Furthermore, the OPA requires that the material would "deprave or corrupt"). Oh, and we're "Libertarians"...

During the media coverage in August, the BBC news team were a lot more willing to listen to criticisms of one-sided coverage, acknowledging this on their blog ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/08/al... ), and doing a piece where they tried to be a bit more balanced.

Anyway, I could only make it through the programme by writing notes ridiculing the arguments, which I present here:

*Starts with the assertion that it's illegal to produce or distribute.

*Clare McGlynn defines the term "extreme pornography", referring to sites such as "Death by asphyxia", and at no time gives even a suggestion that they are simulated with consented adults. The "bylines" are quoted (e.g., "teen raped by pig" - which in practice probably really means "adult pretends to be raped by a pig" - if it's an underage teen, then that would be child porn, and already illegal). It is frustrating that the blurb given by the sites themselves is often just fuel for the fire. She didn't however quote the blurb from Necrobabes, which is bylined "Erotic Horror for Adults! A friendly place in which to play dead.", and which rants about censorship and points out how there's no porn (by US definitions) and it's all simulated... She also claims it wouldn't cover S&M porn. Well, that's got to a good and provocative start, what did the person in opposition say?

*Oh wait, the next person is Man from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. Again the interviewer repeats the assertion that it's already illegal to produce. He says that it's about bringing the Obscene Publications Act up to date (by applying it to non-publication? By removing the test that the material is "obscene"?) and protecting the public (by throwing them in prison, because the Government knows what's best). Says he wants to identify individuals who "for whatever perverse reason want to hold them".

*Now to be fair, the interviewer does ask a good question - child porn is simple to define, but how do you avoid criminalising S&M porn between consenting adults. Unfortunately she doesn't ask what is the difference in the first place, if the aforementioned sites are simulated and also made with consenting adults. "Think of the Children" Man replies, saying it's about sexual violence, sex with animals, necrophilia - i.e., ignores that the law would cover "realistic depictions", whether or not the participants consent, and that the Government has yet to show evidence of any sites where this actual violence occurs. He says that the definitions will be decided in the normal way, through the normal traditional process (being arrested, going through a trial, branded as a "pervert", perhaps deciding not to risk prison and instead accept a caution and being placed on the sex offender register). Refers to these simulated images as "most horrific".

*Asks Clare, "as a lawyer [who is in favour of the law]", what she thinks about concerns of limiting freedoms and artistic expression. She tells us it's okay, because it's only porn which is covered - everyone knows that porn and art are different. Good-o, sites showing artistic violation, pictures of dead women arranged in artistic poses, will be fine. To be fair, she does say that there are legitimate concerns about the scope of the measures.

*"Think of the Children" Man says that we need deterrents, refers to the material as "harmful", doesn't tell us what that harm is. Then talks about child porn. Says it's easy to block known sites - strange how the Government hasn't managed to do that so far then?

*Clare is asked about the problem that there is international cooperation over child abuse, but not with "extreme porn". She notes that regrettably the US won't cooperate (has this concept known as "Freedom of Speech"), and says we should at least get cooperation within the EU. It's okay for us to tell other Europeans what they can look at because - and I kid you not - the EU tells us what nets we can use for fishing. Reminds us that women are being abused by animals on these sites.

*"Think of the Children" Man is asked how much of a defence would it be to say one downloaded it by accident, or was doing research. Mocks the idea of someone not doing enough research to realise they'd be committing a crime - well yeah, but it's a shame he didn't do some research before coming on this programme. If only someone would do some proper research on what these sites have, whilst we still can...

*Clare is asked how much we know about whether viewing images leads to acts of violence. She answers that's there's no conclusive evidence of a causal link. She says the Government accepts that, but that it thinks that it may encourage people. It's odd, she is happy to say that there's no evidence, but it's as if she's trying to plead that this doesn't matter and ... there it is! She whips out the "social harm" card. Yes, common in debates such as gay sex, it's the card whipped out when there is no evidence of harm, so this new term of "social harm" is invented. She doesn't explain what it is, though.

*"Think of the Children" Man takes a sharp intake of breath at hearing about this lack of evidence - he wants a say! (Well, it's nice that there's some disagreement, after picking two people on the same side to be interviewed...) He agrees, but he says, let's simplify this: "Do you want your daughter going out with someone who views necrophilia, extreme violence?" he rhetorically asks. Well thank god for that, I was worried it would get to the end of the show, and "Think of the Children" Man wouldn't make a "Won't somebody think of the children?" argument. It was obviously a sharp intake of breath because he'd been bursting to make that soundbite, but realised it was almost the end of the programme.

*He then says the question is why people are looking at this - no it isn't. No one's interested in answering that at all, the only intention is to criminalise people and lock them up. He then, hoping viewers will forget the bit about no conclusive evidence, states that he's seen "lots of evidence" where people view images then cause harm. So there you are.

Edited Sat 17 May 08, 6:47 PM by emark


	©1997-2009 Informed Consent