|You are in: Talking Point|
Friday, 23 November, 2001, 12:37 GMT
Is TV becoming too crude?
Recent TV shows have been accused of becoming too smutty in a bid to win viewers.
The BBC has apologised after 500 viewers complained about sexual comments made by the actor Rupert Everett during Saturday's show "One Night with Robbie Williams".
Chat show hosts Frank Skinner, Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton have also been accused of being too crude and swearing too much on television.
Have TV standards fallen to a new low in a cynical attempt to boost ratings? Or are TV programmes merely reflecting society's increasingly liberal attitudes?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
Almost all of the so called Adult material on TV and elsewhere would have been referred to as Childish material a few decades ago. As the standard of education in this country falls, year upon year, the behaviour of the masses now never rises above that expected of a ten year old in the nineteen fifties. They are to be pitied, not blamed, for watching this drivel.
Most participants think that TV ought to REFLECT society...which is fair enough is these changes are natural. However, does not TV itself change society too? Hence, I believe some sort of quality control is more than necessary.
What annoys me is not adult language being used in adult programmes, but the rubbish and depressing innuendo used in pre-watershed 'family' comedy. Hardly an episode of My Family or Kiss Me Kate seems to go by without some 'ooh er' joke or a tedious bit of innuendo (*lots* of references to Hob Nobs). Let's have adult comedy in adult timeslots and proper family comedy in family timeslots.
The sad people who have got nothing better to do than complain about what is on TV (which, by the way, is designed around what people actually want to watch - I hardly think a self-respecting TV network is going to show something that it thinks nobody will watch!) should get a life, and also pick up a copy of their TV's manual and find out which button switches it off - because if they don't want to watch it, they only have to press the button. We all pay out TV license (in the UK anyway) and subscription fees, so why should TV be oriented solely around the views of people who like writing letters to big organisations complaining about anything just so they gain some feeling of importance. Get a life!
Is television not less offensive now than during the blatantly racist and sexist era of the likes of Alf Garnet, Love Thy Neighbour, Benny Hill and such like. Television now may portray a grittier (read - more realistic) side to life, but it rarely if ever now commits derisory racist or sexist comments in an attempt to raise cheap laughs.
TV has become too smutty. Why? Because it's all about making money and not giving a single thought to how horrible we are making this world for "our children", the next generation. If the smut was taken off the TV, we wouldn't really miss it and it would only be a positive, nice step forward.
The problem is there are no actual standards for what is allowable! If you disagree, then find me one.
Swearing on TV is only part of the wider issue - I got so used to finding nothing worth watching on television, nothing at all thought-provoking that I stopped watching TV altogether. Television still tries to 'entertain' but is forgetting to educate and inform which is a pity as the latter categories can be entertaining too.
Rachel MacPherson, London
In Portugal competition between TV stations also leads to a loss of values in what comes to sexual image and violent programmes. Also, cartoons nowadays are too violent. This kind of programme can lead to behaviour disorders. The Government has provided measures to restrict the sexual images in reality shows such as Big Brother.
Personally I find Sunday evening television to be severely marred by the presence of "Songs of Praise" but you don't see me complaining about it! People who have nothing better to do than be upset by something on the television that they CHOOSE to watch, really do need to get out there and find a life!
However, there are some shows on daytime TV (even shows specifically for kids) that I wouldn't want any child of mine to watch. And that's when parents have to be responsible adults and not just park the kids in front of the telly, but to check out what they're watching. And the same goes for the VCR. If your child wants to record something that's on after their bedtime it would be a good idea to check it out. That's not too difficult now, is it?
It's no coincidence that all other European countries, which all have significantly more explicit, smutty and rude television programmes than the UK, have significantly lower teenage pregnancy rates. "Reasonable levels of crudeness" - and I believe most programmes on TV at present are "reasonable" - do much to help break down the taboo attached to sex and relationships in British society. If you can't find it funny, you aren't finding it enjoyable.
Alastair Gregory, Scotland, UK
Different things make people laugh, different things interest people. In our new multi channel society, there is plenty of airtime for everyone to find whatever they want. I could never spend hours in front of UK Gold, but I know that my Gran loves to. Graham Norton makes me roar and I know that my Gran likes him too! Our society needs to loosen up and stop trying to control what everybody "should do" or "should show" or "should watch". Let's explore and celebrate diversity (especially as there are enough channels for it) between our births and deaths!
There is also another lie, those who purvey this do so claiming they are alternative and radical, when in reality this is the mainstream or at least a part of it. More people probably watch Graham Norton than go to church on Sunday. The truth is that Graham Norton is the Establishment.
The problem is that though we live in a supposedly Liberal society, it is a society that at best just laughs rather than listening to those who think differently.
If you don't like what's on TV, you don't have to watch. Who says you must own a TV?
I am all in favour of realism in TV dramas, but some programmes go a bit too far. Some of Guy Ritchie's films are rendered unenjoyable because of the overused bad language.
Being a youth leader of 8 to 18 year olds, in my opinion, they use the worse language of the lot. I'm sure this comes from TV in recent years.
I think a balance between necessary and unnecessary material is needed.
What struck me reading this item was the prurient attitude of some people towards issues of sex and sexuality. In my view, this is more damaging than a few swear words or a smutty innuendo (and as someone pointed out, a lot of programmes from the "good old days" such as Dick Emery and Are You Being Served were much better at that than anything Graham Norton can come up with!). If nakedness is seen as dirty and shocking, if sex is seen as something to be talked about in hushed whispers and after 10pm then we are embedding all sorts of repressive views in our society that are just as damaging as the perceived stream of smut on our television screens.
Wake up! people swear, so what? Don't like it? Don't watch it. If it's on in adult viewing time then what's the problem? Aren't there more important things like talking to your kids about drugs and sex than what someone says on TV. Wake up Britain this is 2001
If I had a real choice, I rather not watch TV, especially the news. I always have and now believe more so that TV/media is used in the most cruellest way: to brainwash in the direction of the media moguls.
Simon Moore, UK
Uncreative "entertainers" use shock value to create controversy and gain attention. Many people think if its shocking and controversial it is cool, so drivel sells. As a result it is largely drivel and childish entertainers who fill our airwaves.
Since when has swearing hurt anyone? What I'd like to know is why the BBC 6 O' clock news can show dead bodies lying in gutters in Afghanistan but people then complain about swearing on a TV program broadcast after 10 pm? If TV is anything like real life then there'd be swearing in every program.
Dumbing-down, no morals, values or decency. I blame the government.
Jamie T, Germany (British)
There are excellent programmes out there, its just that today they are easily overwhelmed by the huge volumes of dross on our ever growing number of channels. Society's attitudes may be more liberal, but the real change is that TV controllers no longer feel they are constrained by certain moral standards unless they are certain it will diminish the audience. I was less disappointed by the needless swearing in Robbie Williams show than by his rather middle of the road interpretations of some classic songs and his smoking throughout the act. It might have been cool in the fifties, but it's stupid in the nineties when an entertainer of his calibre should know better!
The charter of the BBC is to 'Educate, inform and entertain'. If BBC TV can still do this then swearing is OK in moderation.
So John Beyer and his minority Mediawatch prudes find some television after 9pm too crude? Find the OFF button and listen to the radio then, so us adults can enjoy the likes of Graham Norton, Jonathan Ross et al in peace!
Steve, London, UK
Media and society are becoming evermore interrelated; each has an ever-stronger influence on the other. I'm in my early 20s, liberally minded and enjoy watching stuff like So Graham Norton and other (supposedly crude) C4 comedy. I of course recognise that to older generations this probably wouldn't apply. But undoubtedly (and, to me, thankfully) British society is becoming more open-minded, liberal, expressive and less inhibited. I happen to feel strongly that those people who are open and liberal about sex and sexuality are far better placed to celebrate their own personal freedom. However, whilst the treatment of sex on TV should reflect changing societal attitudes, violence should not be mindless but should have a 'purpose' behind its portrayal.
Take Friday nights at 10.30: Graham Norton on C4 and Newsnight on BBC2. These two programmes could not be more different! The point is, society is diverse and TV must respond to this. Nowadays, digital TV offers you over 150 channels; if you can't find something you like either get out or get a life!!
TV producers seem to be obsessed with 'pushing back the boundaries'. First Channel 4 tried to be a cruder version than ITV, then Channel 5 tried to out do Channel 4. This may be fine for some people but, judging by many of the comments made, most people would prefer good TV to crude TV.
Out of an audience of about 7 million only 500 people were so outraged they complained.
This is 0.007% of the audience. Why a tiny, tiny fraction of an audience should dictate what the rest of us can watch is a mystery to me. The programme was shown after the 9pm watershed. Parents should realise that ANY programme after this time is likely to contain adult material regardless of the subject matter.
I love swearing and I'm 82!
Simon Feegrade, England
The comedy style of the likes of Graham Norton and Frank Skinner which some seem to consider "crude" simply makes me laugh a great deal. They also make a great deal of my friends laugh. I would even go as far as saying they make a great deal of people in my generation (early 20's) laugh as well.
I admit that there are many people out there who prefer a cleaner and more traditional form of entertainment - that is their choice and it is a choice that is well catered for (somebody has already mentioned UK Gold) but shouldn't me and my friends be catered for too? I thought television was about meeting the needs and tastes of every social group and age group in society or is that just me being too old fashioned?
I am surprised that no-one seems to have remarked on Robbie Williams' cavorting with Nicole Kidman on Top of the Pops. This struck me as exceedingly raunchy, though in terms of its likely harm on impressionable minds, infinitely preferable to the likes of "So Solid Crew", "Limp Bizkit" and all the other tattooed pre-literates who infest the so-called charts.
Good idea Peter Hardaway, take a look at what UK Gold has on offer: "Are you being served" - more innuendoes on that program than on Graham Norton. "The A-Team" - more violence than the CNN coverage of the war. "Dad's Army" - slightly anti-German. Times change, cultures change, people change, TV has to change.
It is very sad how broadcast TV has changed for the worse. You only have to look at the repeats of recent series on UK Gold to remind yourselves how good TV can be. Shows like Dads Army, Are You Being Served Lovejoy and many others look like something from a different era compared to most of today's rubbish.
Perhaps it's down to the fact that so many 'luvvie' producers really do feel they reflect the wider world rather than their own very narrow lifestyles.
I don't think TV is becoming too crude but I do think that it is becoming too dumb. I'd rather have witty programs that didn't have to censor themselves than mind numbing family entertainment.
I'll take crude over dumb any day.
There is a certain amount of the population that possesses a sense of humour that never matures. Subtle humour eludes them but the mere mention of under garments, alcohol, or the use of a swear word sends them into fits of giggles. A comedian who was not born with a natural amount of cleverness and who knows their audience has a low IQ can only choose vulgarity and blandness.
Listen Fraser Mann, in response to your condescending dismissal of everyone who doesn't agree with you as being 'prudes'. You're absolutely right that we don't want to go back to the Mary Whitehouse days, they were too puritanical. But now things have swung too far to the opposite extreme. A bit of crudity here and there is fine, but the point of this debate is that it is now to be found almost everywhere on TV and is fast approaching saturation point. Because you don't want to be constantly bombarded with vulgarity every time you switch your TV on does not make you a prude and nor does it mean you have Victorian attitudes to sex.
Fraser Mann, England
It's true that standards have slipped in many of the established TV timeslots, but
I actually think that it's more the issue of general 'dumbing down' that is the problem. I could cite Jim Davidson's language and behaviour on 'The Generation Game', but there's also the pointless (some would claim harmless) drivel peddled by Cilla Black on ITV. If these programmes are as popular as it appears, then I am truly concerned...
If broadcasters justify smut and crudity by saying they are 'reflecting society's increasingly liberal attitude', it doesn't surprise me in the least. The entire industry seems to be a monumental insult to the intelligence of the British public. The likes of Frank Skinner and Graham Norton do not make me angry, merely bored and rather sad that such mediocrities are considered talented.
Alastair Stevens, Cambridge, UK
In this modern day and age there is such thing as an OFF button. Don't like what you see? Press it and stop moaning.
I think the old version of the Oxford English Dictionary had it just right. Next to certain words it would put "vulg" which it explained as "implying either want of education or want of manners". That sums up exactly the present generation of so-called comedians who use bad language as a substitute for saying something genuinely funny.
Swearing provides an excellent addendum to the common English language when used appropriately and in relative moderation, the danger being that when used excessively it loses its impact and relevance. Many swear words are extremely versatile and adaptive, the same words being ideally suited for providing emphasis, displaying frustration or simply adding comic value to a statement that is being made.
TV should clean up its act and reject crude language and behaviour. All too often our ears and eyes are polluted by uncalled for swearing and street attitudes, which, let's face it, is largely influenced by American street speech and mannerisms.
Mark Hill, England
Yes, TV is becoming needlessly crude. I don't mean Graham Norton's saucy but amusing late-night stuff, but the way that swearing is seen as somehow inherently funny during primetime television. Frankly most people grow out of laughing at rude words by the time they leave primary school.
If British TV is becoming too crude in an effort to boost ratings, what does that say about the mentality of the viewing public? Crude TV will only be watched by crude people, and if smutty TV boosts ratings, doesn't that indicate that the viewers are crude themselves?
Using naughty words to enhance a story or joke is one thing. Using them as a substitute for talent as Messrs Skinner, Ross and Norton do I'm afraid, is another. Don't censor them. Let their obvious lack of wit shine for all to see.
19 Nov 01 | TV and Radio
Complaints over Robbie's TV show
24 Jul 00 | Entertainment
Radio report slams swearing
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Other Talking Points:
Links to more Talking Point stories
|^^ Back to top
News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy