Is there too much swearing on TV?

[Alan H]

In today's Sunday Times:

********************************************************************************
Viewers want ban on TV swearing - Times Online
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 162495.ece
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Viewers want ban on TV swearing
Dipesh Gadher

Almost two-fifths of viewers support a total ban on swearing on television, according to a new YouGov poll for The Sunday Times.

Some 30% of people believe the F-word should be banned, while 55% think the C-word should be outlawed.

However, nearly half of all viewers (49%) believe there should be a place for some swear words – albeit mild ones – in programmes.

The findings follow calls by politicians and senior broadcasting figures, such as Michael Grade, the boss of ITV, and Sir Terry Wogan, the BBC presenter, for television to clean up its act.

Writing in the News Review section today, Frank Skinner, the comedian, says he has toned down the bad language in his show.

“To my horror, I find myself agreeing with Michael Grade and Terry Wogan that there really is too much swearing on television,” writes Skinner.

“I don’t want to sound like a grumpy old stand-up, but some young television comics use swearing like a kid uses tomato ketchup.”

Just over 40% of people polled by YouGov said the BBC should “reflect” standards of language – even if this means showing things that offend some viewers.

[Retrieved: Sun Nov 16 2008 13:22:51 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)]

###################

What do you think and why?

[Alan C.]

Well, as someone who doesn't watch TV, I could only select the last option in the poll Sorry Alan.

Almost two-fifths of viewers support a total ban on swearing on television,

So more than three- fifths don't support a ban? I say go with the majority, what is it with some people and cussing? They're only words after all said and done, they should watch the video Lewis just posted in the comedy thread (and he posted it before the "watershed") Naughty Lewis slaps wrist.

[MedMae]

I have to say I just don't get what the big deal is, they are only words.

And also on this subject:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_ ... re=related
And
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=prYYCnGQP ... re=related
And finally
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY

I say get rid of "Political correctness".

[lewist]

Well, as someone who doesn't watch TV, I could only select the last option in the poll Sorry Alan.

Almost two-fifths of viewers support a total ban on swearing on television,

So more than three- fifths don't support a ban? I say go with the majority, what is it with some people and cussing? They're only words after all said and done, they should watch the video Lewis just posted in the comedy thread (and he posted it before the "watershed") Naughty Lewis slaps wrist.

Sorry, Alan. It was some bad Australians what did it.

It's funny though, isn't it?

Seriously, I do sometimes wonder about the casual and unnecessary swearing on television. I'm not sure about outright bans but perhaps it needs to be limited in some way. Even that Australian video could perhaps have been as funny without the unacceptable language.

[Alan C.]

Even that Australian video could perhaps have been as funny without the unacceptable language.

I WAS ONLY KIDDING Lewis! the language wasn't unacceptable, it was funny! If we're going to compromise "funny" or "enjoyable" to be PC, then we might as well be Muslims.
Islamist rebels whip 32 dancers in Somalia. It's no wonder they are all so fecking miserable all the time.

[Lifelinking]

I am not at all sure about that 'fuck off' option....



Surely in the interest of balance it should be " don't talk bollocks you fucking twat, there's not nearly enough"?

[lewist]

Even that Australian video could perhaps have been as funny without the unacceptable language.

I WAS ONLY KIDDING Lewis! the language wasn't unacceptable, it was funny!

I know, Alan.

However, some people would find the language unacceptable and it's possible it could it have been funny without it. How much of the effect of the video was in the language and how much in other aspects such as the contrast of styles? Of course, the very idea of sending up child protection may be unacceptable to some people.

Here's a question for us: Why are some words and terms socially unacceptable?

Answers please! I would give an erudite response. However, I have been socially conditioned to see certain words as unacceptable but when I challenge myself as to why I find it hard to come up with anything other than the fact that many people find them so. Is that sufficient reason?

[MedMae]

Why are some words and terms socially unacceptable?

Heres a theory:
As most of the "bad" words are to do with sex, sexual acts and sexual organs, I think religion may have something to do with it. Religion with it's demonisation of sex and divinification of killing, hence no words to do with killing are "bad" words.
I do not understand what is wrong and bad about sex, I think I missed out on the social conditioning lessons as there are many things like this I do not understand.

[Lifelinking]

I agree with much of what you say Medmae. If you relate language to relationships of power, I think it is illuminating.

Also a great excuse to air Tom Leonard again.



right inuff

ma language is disgraceful



ma maw tellt mi

ma teacher tellt mi

thi doactir tellt mi

thi priest tellt mi



ma boss tellt mi

ma landlady in carrington street tellt mi

thi lassie ah tried tay get aff way in 1969 tellt mi

sum wee smout thit thoat ah hudny read chomshy tellt mi

a calvinistic communist thit thoat ah wuz revisionist tellt mi



po-faced literati grimly kerryin thi burden a thi past tellt mi

po-faced literati grimly kerryin thi burden a thi future tellt mi

ma wife tellt mi jist-tay-get-inty-this-poem tellt mi

ma wainz came hame fray school an tellt mi

jist aboot ivry book ah oapnd tellt mi

even thi introduction tay thi Scottish National Dictionary tellt mi



ach well

all livin language is sacred

fuck thi lohta thim

[kbell]

Why are some words and terms socially unacceptable?

Heres a theory:
As most of the "bad" words are to do with sex, sexual acts and sexual organs, I think religion may have something to do with it. Religion with it's demonisation of sex and divinification of killing, hence no words to do with killing are "bad" words.

I agree although words like 'shit' and even 'bog' for toilet are also considered objectionable by many. I suppose shit is associated with one of our 'private parts'. One old lady I know called it 'profanity'. LOL!

I think it's useful that some words are considered coarse or vulgar. In fact, I think it can't be helped. Even if we totally did away with the idea of swear words, I think there will always be some words which are considered vulgar. If TV dramas are to reflect real life then some characters will use vulgar language and some won't and this would be a key to the type of character they are. (I don't necessarily include TV soaps because I don't think these do reflect real life - they are a bit of escapism and are seen as 'family entertainment' that even have a sort of educational role in that they raise social issues in a way that children can understand). But the kind of dramas and films that really aim to make people lose themselves in the story will want their characters to be as believable as possible and I think the use of swearing in them is justified. I do wonder if stand up comedians need to be quite so graphic. I generally avoid watching these when in the company of older relatives because it just makes me so uncomfortable in their presence.

[thundril]

No I don't think there's too much swearing on TV. I just think there's too much TV.

"The bad news is we've got nothing to eat but camel shit... The good news is we've got fuckin tons of it!"

[Beki]

I like swearing. It's therapeutic.

Although I try (quite) hard not to do it sometimes it just slips out. I agree with Billy Connelly when he said that only Scots and New Yorkers can use the f* word properly "fark" or "feck", just doesn't cut it for me! You need a good long, guttural u sound to make it work properly!

Now I'm going to f-off and get some work done.

[Alan H]

In today's Guardian:

********************************************************************************
BBC swears to cut down on bad language | Media | The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/no ... -sachsgate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BBC swears to cut down on bad language

* Leigh Holmwood
* guardian.co.uk, Friday November 28 2008 00.01 GMT
* The Guardian, Friday November 28 2008
* Article history

There will be less swearing on BBC TV and radio next year following a review of bad language across the corporation's services, a senior executive revealed yesterday.

The director of BBC Vision, Jana Bennett, told the Guardian that Jonathan Ross had agreed to cut back on bad language in his BBC Friday night chatshow.

Bennett said that as part of her job she had to approve any use of the most extreme language. Speaking at the Media Festival in Manchester, she said: "The c-word goes to me actually. That was one of the surprising aspects of the job when I got it. F and MF are referred to controllers."

She said the review of bad language had been launched before last month's "Sachsgate" row, in which Russell Brand and Ross left offensive messages on actor Andrew Sachs's voicemail.

It came after an incident in May when Ross told the actor Gwyneth Paltrow he wanted to "fuck" her. The BBC Trust last week described Ross's comments as "gratuitous and unnecessarily offensive".

"We have actually been pushing back a bit on language. It is possible that some language alienates some audiences unnecessarily," Bennett said.

"There is a higher sensitivity about making sure there is more discussion about slots [in which bad language features], type of channel and genre. There will be less effing, but the blinding seems to be OK."

Bennett said she did not believe the move to cut down on swearing would harm risk-taking at the BBC.

[Retrieved: Fri Nov 28 2008 00:49:25 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)]

###################

[jaywhat]

I voted for fuck off because there is something bloody stupid about saying there is too much swearing on TV. What if I said there is too much advertising for sofas on TV?
So I get the job of deciding what is too much and what is enough. Do I include all sofas or just those with girls on them. Do I allow sofas during 'Countdown' but not when the news is on.
Are we really saying there are too many sofas or that there should be no sofas at all? What then, is a sofa? Can we have advertising of chairs?

My point is, if I haven't forgotten it, that the whole thing is meaningless and fucking stupid and indefinable and illogical.
And what is this about 9 o'clock in reality. More bollocks.

[Lifelinking]

fuckin' yeah J

[getreal]

I think most people understand the issue, though I do agree it's pretty difficult to define - a lot of what my parents consider swearing, I would not. However, there are many words which currently, in the UK, most people would consider swearing.

I think the status quo is fine. After 9pm say (more or less) what the fuck you like.

I'm actually more concerned with real violence/death on TV (as in news reports). I can handle drama violence, but real violence is another thing.

I was once told by a Dutch student that senes of really graphic real violence and death were not allowed on Dutch TV.

Can anyone verify/refute this?

[Alan H]

The effects swearing on TV has on children seems like a small problem in comparison with the effects of seeing violence [---][/---] real or imagined. Is there any research on the comparative effects swearing, real or dramatic violence and sex have on children?

[getreal]

I wonder, too if some of the contents of news reports have an effect?