Question to Vivienne Reding - Commissioner for information Society and Media from Mairead McGuinness MEP elicits an evasive response from Commissioner Reding. 

ORAL QUESTION H-0345/06

for Question Time at the part-session in May 2006 pursuant to Rule 109 of the Rules of Procedure

by Mairead McGuinness MEP to the Commission

 Subject:            Violence on television

For the past number of months there has been a great deal of publicity surrounding the potential of television without frontiers, as well as the opportunities and trends that are associated with new forms of media and their potential benefits for consumers.

Does the Commission have any concerns about the effect of these developments on the exposure of children and young adults to violence as entertainment on television? I have received representations on the possibility of setting aside a specific day each year where television stations across Europe would not transmit programmes using violent death as entertainment. Would the Commission support such an initiative?

 Tabled: 10.04.2006

 Reply to oral question

H-0345/06

May I 2006

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concerns about the exposure of minors to violence on TV. Protecting minors from harmful content is of paramount importance. As a result of cultural differences, there remain, however diverse views on the methods to be used to achieve this goal.

According to the Commission, the protection of minors is a shared responsibility of parents, industry and regulators. Due to the arrival of the internet and other digital technologies, the world has changed considerably over the past few years. Nowadays, children are often more digitally literate than their parents. In this changing environment, parents need to be empowered to make informed choices for their children. Co-and self-regulation, within the meaning of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making[1], can play a significant part in this process. Rating and labelling of content combined with media literacy and technological solutions are key tools to address these important issues. Through its legislative proposals as well as through its other actions, the Commission is endeavouring to ensure the best protection possible for our children within the bounds of its responsibilities under the Treaty.

 As to the possibility of setting aside a specific day each year “where television stations across Europe would not transmit programmes using violent death as entertainment”, the Commission feels that this should be a matter for self-regulation. Finally, the Television without Frontiers Directive will be revised so that the general principles regarding protection of minors and human dignity are also applied to audiovisual content distributed through on-demand services.

 [1]     Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making (2003/C 321/01), OJ C 321, 31.12.2003

A Submission to the EU Media Literacy Expert Group

Media Violence and Media Literacy.

Abstract

This submission highlights the need for public understanding of the harmful effects of excessive exposure to violence as entertainment.

Education on the effects of media violence is very valuable for the general public, especially parents, young people and those concerned with the influences to which children are exposed.

Research strongly suggests that media education may result in young people becoming less vulnerable to negative aspects of media violence exposure.

An approach designed to encourage the public to develop sufficient understanding of media to be able to make more informed viewing decisions is proposed.

It is suggested that much could be achieved, simply and at little cost by promoting a single day each year, throughout Europe, to focus attention on the effects of accepting violence as routine entertainment. On this single day each year TV companies would be asked to include no violent deaths as entertainment in their schedules. Also on this day schools and colleges would be encouraged to focus media awareness or civics classes on the subject of violence as entertainment. The 21st September, United Nations World Peace Day is suggested as a suitable date.  The EU Media Literacy Expert Group, is invited to adopt this idea as its own, as it is a body which could realistically and effectively sponsor such an initiative,

Responses to the Media Literacy Expert Group questionnaire

1) A definition of Media Literacy

The EU Media Literacy Expert Group has proposed the following definition of media literacy: “The ability to access, analyse and evaluate the power of images, sounds and messages which we are now being confronted with on a daily basis and are a important part of our contemporary culture, as well as communicate competently in the media available on a personal basis.”  It is suggested that this definition is incomplete and inadequate as it does not include any recognition of the harm that some material can cause. 

It is now generally accepted that some media material is harmful.

The EU Television without Frontiers Directive stipulates that television stations should not transmit material which “might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors”. There is an implication that material which might simply impair the physical mental or moral development of minors is acceptable.  The definition of media literacy should include a phrase which conveys the idea that  a media literate person can discriminate between material which is safe, material which may harm and material which will probably harm.

It is suggested that any definition of media literacy should include an awareness of the effects of media.   “The ability to as access, analyse and evaluate the power and understand the consequences of images, sounds-----“ .

```

2) Media literacy for all

Media Literacy has become an essential life skill for all who live in the more advanced economies world-wide. People need greater powers of discrimination to be able to sort and select from the ever increasing number of media inputs that are available. It is essential that all media users be equipped with the skills to allow us recognise material which is likely to be harmful to us and our young people. We all need the basic media skills which allow us identify harmful material.

If the EU formally recognises, in the Television Without  Frontiers Directive, that its citizens may be exposed to harmful material and if it does nothing to equip us with the ability to recognise and deal appropriately with such material surely it must be guilty of reckless endangerment.

There is much confused thinking among the public about material which is generally considered undesirable. This is normally a mix of material which is harmful and material which is considered to be in bad taste. Material which is harmful has scientifically measurable negative consequences and may be discussed objectively. Whereas each individual has a different interpretation of bad taste, it is subjective and does not lend itself to scientific measurement.

This submission is concerned only with media education relating to violence and violent death as entertainment, material where harmful effects are measurable and quantifiable.

3) Media production skills for consumers

If as media consumers we have some media production skills it may well help us to appreciate a piece of work and add to our enjoyment of the work. This is similar to how a painter with some technical insights may look at the work of an established artist. However somebody who has no painting skills can be equally moved and equally enjoy the artist’s work. Production skills may be helpful but are not essential.

It is far more important that the artist understands something of the effect that the piece of art may have on viewers.

Recent research has produced valuable insights into how the negative effects of violence may be altered by the context in which it is shown.(Appendix 1). Informing programme makers of this and similar data is a specific media education task.

4) Who is responsible for creating media literacy. 

Some degree of media literacy is an essential life-skill for all citizens of the more advanced market driven economies. We all need to know how to use media responsibly. We need to know when we are consuming too much media material which will harm us socially. It has some similarities to drinking alcohol - a pleasurable and healthy activity if done in moderation. In the drinks industry politicians, regulators, producers, distributors and consumers all share an interest in responsible usage. One could not rely on the educational system alone to take the responsibility for inculcating sensible use of alcohol. There are a number of major influences.

Similarly the responsibility for media education is shared between politicians, regulators, media industries, educational establishments and family groups. Having a high profile media awareness day each year, relating to violence as entertainment, to which all stake holders can contribute would start the process towards greater universal media awareness.

In the author’s experience few of media stake holders have exhibited any serious enthusiasm for the task.  Each has a different agenda.  It is as if one were seeking to have the tobacco industry publicise on a voluntary basis that some aspects of smoking could damage your health.

There have been some efforts to encourage some sections of the media (TV and film) to be self regulating. Inevitably these approaches have had limited value to the general public.

 5) Teaching media literacy.

Some level of media literacy is a basic tool for living and is required by each media consuming citizen. The level of knowledge required would dictate the appropriate teaching method. It is suggested that media awareness could be taken as part of a general course up to age 12 or 13. Thereafter media literacy should be thought as a specialist subject.

6) Media literacy initiatives outside the formal education system. 

Do advertisers really want us to understand the methods used to influence us?

Do electronic games manufacturers really want us understand the negative effects of spending large amounts of time in simulated violent situations?

Do film makers and TV executives want us to be aware of the harm that some material may cause?

A quick internet search on “media education” finds that most organisations with an interest in this area are vocational or voluntary concern organisations, healthcare professionals and academics.

Media industries, governments and regulators are all very poorly represented.

It is suggested that there are many interests close to the media industry who may be reluctant to actively support any form of questioning or critical media literacy education programmes.

How long did it take to get tobacco manufacturers to put warnings on cigarette packets?

A single high profile day each year focusing on educating citizens to the effects of media violence, if supported by the EU, would generate public discussion and highlight the need for media literacy. 

7) Funding for media literacy initiatives

Education on the potentially harmful aspects of media is a public duty and social obligation, responsibility for which should with rest with national governments, prompted and policed as necessary by the EU.

Media awareness is an inherent part of a good general education and as such should probably be funded as part of the education system. 

Sponsorship of media activities, if accepted, should be clearly identified and publicised so as to alert consumers to possible conflicts of interest or commercial motives.

8)     Criteria for measuring media violence literacy.

Media violence literacy could be simply assessed by asking a series of questions such as:

Q) How many violent deaths does an average child see on TV before reaching his 12th birthday? 

A)  Approximately 7,000 in United States and United Kingdom. Figures for EU not readily available but can be assumed to be similar.

Q) Describe three effects of exposure to media violence.

A)  Exposure to media violence makes viewers more accepting of violence as normal behaviour.

Viewers also become more convinced that they are living in a hostile and threatening environment.  Also there is a relationship between exposure to violent media and aggressive behaviour and in some cases an increased predisposition to commit acts of violence. 

Q) Does the EU recognise that violence in the media can be harmful?

A) Yes, the Television Without Frontiers Directive acknowledges that there are programmes “which might seriously impair the physical mental or moral development of minors“ and it stipulates that these programmes should not be included in broadcast TV schedules in member states.

 Q) Does the EU recognise any cumulative effects of exposure to violent media or does it encourage training so that we are made aware of the consequences of including large amounts of violence in our entertainment diet?

A) Not yet

9) What is being done to define, highlight and spread best practice re Media Literacy. 

The writer, a concerned member of the general public, is not aware of any projects being undertaken to highlight and spread best practice re media literacy in Ireland.

10) Definition of common principles in relation to textual and audiovisual material.

Such a definition is outside the scope of this submission.

11) Commercial skills to decipher and evaluate advertising and other forms of commercial communications.

An extremely important topic but again outside the scope of this submission.

12) An effective initiative aimed at encouraging young audiences to develop a critical approach.

A project has been developed in Ireland which focuses on a single theme of media literacy across all audio-visual media.  The theme is “Violence as entertainment”. The involvement of a youth theatre group in a piece of street theatre was designed to highlight the issue of violence as entertainment and to focus attention on the idea of having one day each year when no violent death is shown as entertainment on television.  To date only one of the television stations transmitting on the island of Ireland (TG4) agreed  not to include violent death in its entertainment programmes on the Media Violence Awareness Day.

This idea was developed and refined over a four year period  by a small group of concerned people . Some frequently asked questions from the website explain the elements of the idea

Question:    Why focus on “violent death as entertainment” rather than the general level of violence which is shown on television?

Answer:      One can count violent deaths. It is an objective measurement. There can be no argument. General violence is subjective; People may disagree about what constitutes “violence”. There is no argument about what is a violent death.

Question:      Why choose 21st September? 

Answer:      The 21st September is “United Nations World Peace Day” This date is completely neutral from a political or religious point of view and it is suitable for an international campaign which may create the possibility of questioning an all pervasive culture of acceptance of violence.

 Question:     Is this an international campaign?

 Answer:       It will be. The objectives are that no violent death will be shown for entertainment on the island of Ireland on 21st Sept 2006. It is intended to seek to make it an EU wide campaign by 2007. (By Petition and also by contact with the Commission.)     After that.......... 

 Question:       Why seek only one day when no violent death for entertainment is shown on television?.

Answer:         This campaign is about raising public media awareness; it is not about trying to ban violence on television. It is aimed at informing people and allowing people to act on their own considered views.  Hopefully, people will become more selective as a result, and in time, this will influence programme makers. The object is to get away from the mindless acceptance of violence and violent death as a routine and accepted element of our entertainment diet.

 Question:        What about formal media education?

 Answer:          Using the 21st September as a date when schools, colleges and media generally focus on the effects of violent death and general violence for entertainment purposes is a key element of the campaign. This widens the application of the day to cover video games, cinema etc.

 Question:          Does this campaign have any religious agenda?

 Answer:           No. While the campaign originated within the Quaker Community in Ireland and has the support of that community it is intended to seek the widest possible multi faith support. All major worldwide faiths share a common respect for human life and dignity. This is one area where Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Sikh and people of no faith can agree.

 Question:           Does this campaign have any political agenda?

 Answer:           No. However many of the films that show most violent deaths do come from countries inside and outside Europe which have strong “gun cultures”