Page 9 - 18_Bafta ACADEMY_Pierce Brosnan & Halle Berry_ok

The draft Communications Bill gives OFCOM the function of promoting media literacy. The concept is not defined, though it is implied by what the Clause allows OFCOM to do.
It empowers OFCOM to take steps to:
•ensure awareness of the nature and characteristics of dif- ferent types of content.
•ensure awareness of the way in which such content is chosen for publication.
•ensure awareness of external regulatory measures.
•ensure awareness of self-reg- ulatory measures.
•encourage the development of relevant and easy to use regu- latory tools.
•promote the use of these tools.
This Clause in the monster Bill has not hitherto been much remarked on. Insofar as it has been, some are uneasy at its pos- sible ‘nannying’ ramifications, and potential expense to OFCOM’s licensees.
After all, unlike the rest of OFCOM’s content regulatory functions, the media literacy remit specifically extends beyond broadcast media to any elec- tronic network serving the gener- al public, including, in particular, the Internet.
But we in the BSC would argue that media literacy is neither a worthy add-on to OFCOM’s basic powers to regulate content nor a potentially worrying extension of its licence to meddle.
Taking media literacy seriously is, in fact, the best route to a future in which there is less call or need for regulation because the rela- tionship between service provider and consumer is sufficiently strong and adult for external intervention to be unnecessary.
That requires a will to communi- cate to and empower consumers on the one hand, and a confi- dence to accept responsibility for their own choices on the other.
In 2000, the BSC defined media literacy anew.
It said: ‘Media literacy exists when the user not only has
access to a full range of electron- ic media, but is able to compre- hend the choices available and evaluate them.’
The Commission has long argued that media literacy is a key component of regulation, both for adults and young peo- ple. That’s not surprising, because we’re in the business of enabling free expression by helping audi- ences and broadcasters to min- imise avoidable offence. Audiences are generally sophisticated in the way in which they approach the broadcast media, understanding the con- ventions of scheduling, the parameters to which particular programme genres subscribe and the varying approaches adopted by different radio stations or tele- vision channels to which they have access.
But audiences also want more information so that they can make choices and decisions about the content with which they are pre- sented, either for themselves or for others in their care.
The criteria on which audience understandings are based have been challenged in recent years by satellite and cable television. But audiences are robust in their grasp of how these differed from conventional terrestrial television and relatively little new learning has had to occur. Indeed, the change in attitude was a change in attitude towards regulation.
By paying for satellite and cable services, audiences recog- nised they had a voice in the type of content provided. They could simply stop paying for it if it overstepped the boundaries too far. Also, audiences recognised that the clear labelling of the channels on offer meant they were less vulnerable to being mis- led about content - a potential concern with mixed-schedule ter- restrial channels.
The advent of the Internet, however, and the promise of ‘converged’ media, began to threaten established conventions. Digital television, with its interac- tivity, also offers a whole range of
new experiences which the audi- ence must learn to negotiate, and sift through.
Children are, of course, a par- ticular focus of concern in this context. Recent research com- missioned by the BBC, the BSC and the ITC showed that parents used television conventions such as the Watershed widely for their younger children.
As children got older, parents felt less able to exercise direct control over their children’s view- ing, relying more on trust and hope that they had prepared their child to make appropriate judgements about viewing and listening, as in other areas.
However it was clear from the research that parents exercised this more liberal approach in the knowledge that television and radio programming are regulated externally. While they did not call for increased forms of regulation, they appreciated what they have.
The use of mechanical controls such as conditional access sys- tems with PIN codes was also wel- comed, although it was recog- nised (by parents and their chil- dren alike) that the person in the house who would be most at ease with such tools is often the child.
Nonetheless, parents suggest that they would like to have such tools available to them, and then they will exercise their judgement as to whether or not they want to use them in their own home.
One aim for OFCOM in pro- moting media literacy will be to ensure that those tools that work are widely publicised for those who might want to use them. The film and video classification sys- tems are always much praised, simply because they provide guides to parents which are both familiar and trusted.
It is in this context that people express concerns about the Internet. They recognise that the medium is relatively unregulated, although some Internet service providers have marketed them- selves on their walled-garden approach. It is also true that there are some basic self-regulatory
mechanisms in place within the industry in the UK, but people are not aware of these.
It will be for the OFCOM Content Board to encourage the development of best practice within the industry and the cre- ation of relevant and technically simple means for those parents who want to allow their children access to the Net while ensuring their (personal) safety.
Our research chimes well with the Government’s broad goals for media literacy:
• to allow the Internet to be used safely without formal con- tent regulation
• to educate citizens to use the potential of electronic com- munications to the full
• to equip viewers to control their own consumption of elec- tronic content (including broad- cast) so as to protect themselves and their families from unsuitable or unwanted material
Taking an active view of the media literacy function does not mean OFCOM applying a heavy, nannying hand, nor investing in huge directly-managed educa- tion programmes.
It does mean finding out what works and encouraging people to use it, and it should be part and parcel of a regulatory approach favouring competition and choice.
Paul Bolt (47) became the Director of the BSC in mid-July 2001. He has previously played a key role in Government policy on broadcasting. He was head of the Bill team for the 1996 Broadcasting Act and then, from 1996 to 1998, head of Broadcasting Policy Division, before his elevation to the post of Director of Strategy and Communications at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
reducing regulation
Paul Bolt, Director of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, argues the case for ‘media literacy’
first person
7