Regulation is dead: long live the independent TV viewer?

Polls suggest the public is ready to take a more active role in TV regulation to ensure it does its

Source: Getty Images

In my living room, I can turn on my web-enabled TV, watch an ITV drama and last week's episode on ITV Player. Then, I might watch a political podcast from a newspaper's website, and if I fancy it, round things off with a prank video from YouTube of someone pretending to drop an electric cable into a swimming pool.

If my husband wanders in with a cup of tea, all four of these pieces of content look like TV programming as I switch between them with my remote. But in reality they are regulated (or not) under three different regimes (Ofcom, ATVOD, and no content regulation for the internet). An hour of sofa surfing can produce a whole range of things that walk like TV programmes and talk like TV programmes, but are not in fact TV programmes. While some of them are subject to stringent regulations on harm, offence, protection of minors, privacy, fairness and impartiality, others are not.

And here in lies the future challenge for Ofcom and others concerned with protecting viewers. How should audiences be protected, when more and more regulated and unregulated content appears next to each other on converged TVs, looking, to the untutored eye, exactly the same?

Ipsos MORI's latest audience research for Ofcom shows that protecting minors and other vulnerable audiences from inappropriate or harmful content clearly remains the main concern for most people. Protecting other vulnerable groups from financial or emotional harm is the second most important principle. Whatever we are watching, whether delivered through the internet, on new converged TV's, or on mobile devices, people wanted the same, or more, regulation in future on these issues.

But findings also show there is a degree of pragmatism about what can be achieved in this world of ever-increasing channels and platforms. Importantly, viewers recognised that regulating content is not the same as censoring it.

The participants in our study broadly formed two somewhat contradictory attitudinal groups. A 'Protect me' group wanted regulators to take more of a traditional authoritarian role, stopping broadcasters putting out anything potentially harmful.

On the other hand an 'Inform me' group felt that empowering individuals might be the most effective way forward. They wanted viewers to understand that a YouTube and newspaper video will not been regulated in the same way as Channel 4 news or a BBC drama; and then allow the viewer to use her common sense while watching.

We are entering a new era, where our viewing is not policed by authority figures censoring at source or guiding us with a timeframe of what we can watch when. Everyone will, though, need help to make choices, in the form of more information, and technical tools to signpost the difference between regulated and unregulated content.

The youngest participants in our study, a group of very media-literate 16 year-olds, seemed the most enthusiastic and the readiest for this. This may be a natural evolution for regulation for the young but are their adult counterparts happy to see them use the information and technology at their disposal to make their own choices when it comes to some content?

However the 'Protect Me' group - older, more conservative overall - may need more help. If regulation shifts its focus, it is crucial that all kinds of vulnerable groups, who are likely to be the least digitally literate, are not left behind.

New regulation has to cover the views both type of audiences so that everyone sitting on their sofas understands what they are watching, where it comes from, and how far it has been regulated - and then we can all enjoy an evening's viewing.

Technical note: Ipsos MORI conducted seven pairs of reconvened workshops with about 20 participants in each in London, Cardiff, Edinburgh, York, Birmingham and Manchester. Quotas were set to ensure that Ipsos MORI achieved a range of ages (from 18 to late 70s), gender, ethnicity, socio-economic group, and high and low users of new technology.

Sarah Castell is head of qualitative research at Ipsos MORI

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.