Little Brother is watching
you:
Preschool children, television news and responsibility in Australia
Research Masters Thesis By Susan Hetherington B. Bus (Comm)
1
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: Date:
2 Contents Abstract Page 4 Chapter 1: Introduction Page 5-12 Chapter 2: Methodology Page 13-23
Chapter 3: Literature review Page 24-70 Chapter 4: Primary findings Page 71- 104 Chapter 5: What now? Conclusions and Recommendations Page 105-119 References Page 120-132 Appendix 1: Published survey Page 133 Appendix 2: Focus Groups Page 134 Appendix 3: Industry Input Page 135
3
Abstract Hundreds of thousands of Australian children under the age of six witnessed at least some of the coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. In the days and weeks that followed September 11, the researcher was confronted with numerous anecdotes from mothers who talked about the impact the coverage had had on their children. Many of the mothers reported that they had not known their children were watching the coverage or had not believed that they were old enough to understand what was going on. Which raised the question of responsibility and sparked the research project which asked how could preschool children best be protected from material that was likely to disturb or harm them both in scheduled news broadcasts and extraordinary events such as September 11? Through surveys, focus groups with mothers and interviews with news directors, the research looked at existing protections, how well they worked in the view of both parents and the industry and whether there could or should be a better way.
The research recommended that greater protection of preschool children from inappropriate television news content could be achieved through the implementation of six recommendations.
1. Television news should be Rated PG.
2. Digital television technology should be employed to prevent news events "overtaking" scheduled children's programming and to protect safe harbours placed in the classifications zones to protect children.
3. Broadcasters should regain control of the images that go to air during "live" feeds from obviously volatile situations by building in short delays in G classification zones.
4. Parents should be educated to understand that even very young children can take in television news and are often scared by it.
5. Television journalists should understand that even very young children are exposed to television news and are often scared by it.
6. News promotions during afternoon children's programming should be dropped.
4
Chapter 1 Introduction
5
It was televised mass murder in front of a global audience on a scale the world has never seen before [1] Max Uechtritz ABC's head of news and current affairs
On September 12, 2001, Australia woke up to a story of immense historical significance. At 8:45 a.m.(US Eastern Standard Time) on September 11, the first of two airliners crashed into the World Trade Center, opening an apparently coordinated terrorist attack on the United States, which saw the collapse of the two 110-story towers and a later attack on the Pentagon. The following days saw a news coverage unprecedented in Australia's history. Channel Nine maintained coverage from 10.30pm on Tuesday, September 11, to 7.30pm on Thursday, September 13, [2] the ABC ran almost 57 hours of uninterrupted coverage, [3] Channel 7 ran continuous coverage for more than 30 hours [4] and Channel 10 about 10 hours of continuous coverage. [5] Hundreds of thousands of Australian children under the age of six witnessed at least some of the coverage of the attacks, according to figures from media monitoring organisation OzTam.
In the days and weeks that followed September 11, the researcher was confronted with numerous anecdotes from mothers who talked about the impact the coverage had had on their children. Many of the mothers reported that they had not known their children were watching the coverage or had not believed that they were old enough to understand what was going on. The researcher's son - who was three and a half on September 11, 2001 - saw none of the coverage but the reaction of friends' children raised real issues for her. It raised her level of consciousness about her personal dilemma trying to balance the dual roles of a journalist, whose job it is tell the news, and a mother, whose primary interest is to protect a child. This study was born out of that internal conflict.
While there could be no doubt that the story of September 11 had to be told and that viewers - adults and children - would be shocked by some of
6 what they saw, the researcher became intrigued with the question of responsibility. Should the parents have done more to protect their children from these images? Was there anything more that the broadcasters could have done in framing their coverage? Did the government have a role to play in regulating coverage? Could technology help protect children from images that are likely to disturb them? Thus began a two-year research project examining the issue.
The central question that needed to be addressed was: How could preschool children best be protected from material that was likely to disturb or harm them both in scheduled news broadcasts and extraordinary events such as September 11? Answering that question involved answering four sub questions: 1. Are preschool children in Australia adequately protected from material that is likely to disturb or harm them in scheduled and unscheduled television news broadcasts? 2. What are the views of broadcasters and parents on the efficacy of existing mechanisms for protecting children from this material? 3. Do parents and/or broadcasters support any additional or alternative mechanisms, and if so what are they? 4. Who should bear the primary responsibility for protecting children from material in television news broadcasts that is likely to disturb or harm them – and how?
Answering those questions involved an intensive review of the existing literature on the subject and a research project constructed in three distinct phases. Stage one of the project sought to examine whether the anecdotes the researcher had heard from friends about the reactions of their children had any resonance in the wider community. This was tested through a questionnaire printed in a mass circulation Brisbane publication aimed at parents of young children. Parents in this study were asked questions related to the following: a) How much television news preschool children watched
7 b) What restrictions parents placed on the television news viewing habits of preschoolers c) If parents had changed their own television news viewing habits since having children d) Whether parents believed their children had ever been disturbed or harmed by material they had seen on television news e) How much, if any, of the coverage of the September 11 attacks preschool children watched f) Whether parents believed the coverage disturbed or harmed their children and if so in what way g) Whether there were any special issues relating to the September 11 coverage which concerned parents
Phase two built on the results of the questionnaire using focus groups to seek to understand the meanings behind the parental responses in the initial surveys. Mothers were drawn from the initial questionnaire respondents and grouped to ensure a diversity of ideas. Different focus groups were shown television footage of either regular scheduled television news or the September 11 news coverage. As a group they were asked to explain in detail what aspects, if any, they considered likely to disturb their children. In order to identify impacts of both audio and video, the elements were separated and groups were presented with an audio only version, a video only version and a combined package. The groups were asked to find consensus, where possible, on the question of how best to plug any gaps they identified in the current media environment.
In the third phase, in depth interviews with news directors were carried out to determine how much consideration was given to young audiences when deciding what news material would be broadcast and whether September 11 raised any special issues or concerns. It asked whether in hindsight the coverage could or should have been handled better or differently. It asked
8 whether they believed "child-friendly" news was desirable or even possible. Again the question was put "what is the best way to plus any gaps?"
Much has been written on the issue of media violence and its impact on children but there are key reasons why this study is different and important. In the first instance, little of the formal work relating to disturbing television images and children is Australian and thus takes into account our unique media environment and cultural differences. Indeed Associate Professor Michael Carr-Gregg has noted that of the 3000 different studies which have been done over 40 years into the impact of television violence on young people, not one is Australian [6].
Much of the focus of researchers has been on fictional violence rather than violence in the context of news and current broadcasts. As Hoffner and Haefner summed up: "Research of children's emotional responses to mass media has focused on entertainment programming and even research with adults has rarely examined emotional reactions to news or documentaries [7]." Smith and Wilson agreed. "Unfortunately there is very little research on the impact of graphic news images on children," they said in 2000. [8] Indeed, Jeff McIntyre of the American Psychological Association said that when American classification system was thrashed out there was a conscious decision to exclude news and sports from the need to classified. “It’s not where the problem is,’’ said McIntyre who was in the room when the debate took place. [9] Australia’s regulators have also made the decision to exempt news and sport from this country’s classifications. The ABA Code of Practice does, however, require broadcasters to take special care in news and current affairs to ensure that programs that are likely to be watched by children will not cause alarm or distress.
But researchers are finding news violence to be of concern. Joanne Cantor, in a 1996 study of 300 parents, found that one in three said that their child had been frightened by something on the news [10]. A separate study she conducted in 1984 found that parents listed television news in the top 10
9 television programs that scared their child [11]. Her findings were echoed by van der Voort, van Lil and Vooijs who found that "there is evidence that children's emotional responses to television portrayals of real violence are stronger than to violent scenes in fictional programs [12]. But almost none of the work that has been undertaken relating to children and news coverage relates to the preschool child.
In fact, the Australian Broadcasting Authority's recognised this gap in the literature in its March 1998 report Infants and Television noting: "Research into children and television has mainly focussed on older age groups, particularly aged five years and over." [13] That study sought to redress the balance but focussed only on the infant aged between four and 30 months. Again the preschool child was overlooked. One of the very few studies that did concentrate on preschool children found that despite what their parents or teachers assumed, preschoolers did see and understand news broadcasts. The researchers found that television news reports read like picture books. They have a beginning, a middle and an end. The pictures and the text match perfectly. The reports were structured in simple succinct pieces. They were readily understood by children [14]. Further, a review of the effects of television violence on children of different ages concluded that "there are a number of reasons that preschoolers may be an especially vulnerable audience" [15] and the American Academy of Pediatrics said media violence was especially damaging to children aged under eight. [16]
The current project was also important because it built on work already undertaken concerning significant news events. In the age of the instantaneous news cast, significant world media events that predate September 11 – Princess Diana’s death [14], the Gulf War [12, 17, 18] , the Space Shuttle disaster [19], – were all analysed in terms of their impacts on audiences with the child viewer of key importance. In that environment, the September 11 coverage commanded attention. Attention needed to be focused on finding out just how well the ABA’s code was met in the special news
10 environment created by incidents such as September 11 as well as in scheduled broadcasts.
This study acknowledged from the outset that it may never be possible to fully meet the competing needs of telling the news without fear or favour and protecting children from images and ideas that could alarm or distress them. Studies in other parts of the world suggest that this may be the case but none takes into account Australian media or Australia's particular regulatory environment. Buckingham sums up the problem. “There are feelings of pity and fear that cannot easily be swept aside; yet on the other, there is the argument that such material is important to know about. This balance between the need for information and the need to avoid distress often presents a dilemma [20 p202-203].” Dianne Levin also acknowledged the weight of the problem. "We must accept the fact that children cannot be fully protected from violence in the news [21]." Because there may not be one simple answer does not mean that the questions should not be put. And if, as Levin suggests, children cannot in a regulatory sense be protected from television news violence this research asks are there other possible ways of plugging the gaps?
In consultation with the industry this study aimed to develop a set of procedures for broadcasters to consider when packaging news about violent or disturbing events especially when faced with the pressure cooker environment of a large scale disaster or incident requiring broadcasting well outside the normal half hour evening format. But it was always unlikely that recommendations for plugging the gaps were likely to point only to the broadcasters. Regulators, parents and technology in the age of digital TV were all likely to have a role to play. The study's aim was to identify how that might be so.
11
1. ABC News, Terror Strikes America: The World Prepares for War. 2002, Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Sydney. p. 1-18 2. Anderson, L., September 11 coverage survey emailed to Author. February 13, 2004 3. ABC News, Terror Strikes America: The World Prepares for War. 2002, ABC News: Sydney. p. 9 4. Cook, I., September 11 terrorists attacks in the USA, Letter to Author. February 28, 2003 5. Breen, D., September 11 attacks coverage, questionnaire emailed to Author, December 2003 6. Family and Community Development Committee Parliament of Victoria, The effects of Television and Multimedia on children & families in Victoria: Final Report. 2000: Melbourne 7. Hoffner, C., Haefner, Margaret J.,, Children's Affective Responses to News Coverage of the War, in Desert Storm and the Mass Media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton: Cresskill. 8. Smith, S.L. and B.J. Wilson, 'Children's reactions to a television news story: The impact of video footage and proximity of crime'. Communication Research, 2000. 27(5): p. 641-673. 9. Steinberg, J., 'Breaking All the News That's Fit to Frighten', in New York Times. October 1, 2000: New York. p. B4 10. Cantor, J. and A. Nathanson, 'Children's Fright Reactions to Television News'. Journal of Communication, 1996. 46(4): p. 139-152. 11. Cantor, J. and G.G. Sparks, 'Children's Fear Responses to Mass Media: Testing Some Piagetian Predictions'. Journal of Communication, 1984. 34(2): p. 90-103. 12. van der Voort, T.H.A., van Lil, Jan E., Vooijs, Marcel W., Parent and Child Emotional Involvement in the Netherlands, in Desert Storm and the mass media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton: Cresskill. p. 341-352. 13. Cupitt, M., et al., Infants and Television. 1998, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority. 14. Weddell, C. and J. Copeland, 'Television Really is Kids' Play'. International research forum on children and the media, 1998. 6: p. 8-9. 15. Josephson, W.L., Television Violence: A review of the Effects on Children of Different Ages. 1995, National Clearinghouse on Family Violence: Ottawa 16. Some Things You Should Know About Media Violence and Media Literacy. 2004, American Academy of Pediatrics 17. Wober, M., Young, Brian M.,, British Children's Knowledge of, Emotional Reaction to, and Ways of Making Sense of the War, in Desert Storm and the Mass Media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton: Cresskill. 18. Cantor, J., M.-L. Mares, and M.B. Oliver, Parents' and Children's Emotional Reactions to TV Coverage of the Gulf War, in Desert Storm and the Mass Media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton Press: Cresskill. 19. Cantor, J., Children's Emotional Reactions to Technological Disaster Conveyed by the Mass Media, in Television and Nuclear Power: Making the Public Mind, M.J. Wober, Editor. 1992, Ablex Publishing Corporation: Norwood. p. 32-54. 20. Buckingham, D., ed. Moving Images. Understanding Children's Emotional Responses to Television. 1996, Manchester University Press: Manchester. 21. Levin, D.E., Remote Control Childhood? Combating the Hazards of Media Culture. 1998, Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
12
Chapter 2 Methodology
13 We cannot randomly assign children to watch heavy doses of media violence Joanne Cantor [1]
While Cantor's study in 2000 sought to answer the question of whether watching violent television created violent children, she raised an important point about methodology which needed to be addressed from the outset of this study. The question had been framed: How can preschool children best be protected from material that is likely to disturb or harm them both in scheduled news broadcasts and extraordinary events such as September 11? Thus at its core, this study's aim was to discover whether children were disturbed or harmed by news coverage and if so how to protect them. It used the dramatic events of September 11, 2001 in the United States as a case study to examine the question. A methodology needed to be developed that measured children's reaction to television news in general and the September 11 coverage in particular without taking the ethically and morally inappropriate step of directly exposing children to the types of footage considered potentially harmful and measuring the results.
Thus to test whether children were disturbed or harmed by news images, the study sought the testimony of parents. The age of the children involved also dictated that parents would be the most appropriate means of judging impacts on children. For the purpose of the study, if parents reported behaviour that they considered as evidence of a child being alarmed or disturbed it was accepted as such. Similarly, if parents reported concern or a likelihood to act to protect children it was also accepted as such.
Research parameters
There were limitations in using this method of data collection. Weddell noted that parents were often oblivious to how much television news young children were seeing and absorbing. [2] Gunter and McAleer talked of how parents were unwilling to admit to the amount of television watched in their own homes [3]and Buckingham recognised the notion of the "good parents" reluctant to admit allowing their children access to disturbing
14 material. [4] But the aim was not to address how often in a quantitative sense children were disturbed by television news merely to find IF the phenomena existed despite Australian regulatory controls. It was a qualitative, humanist research project not designed to arrive at statistical statements but to develop a picture of the adequacy of controls imposed from above. In keeping with usual qualitative research practice it was multi-method in its attempt to find understanding [5].
For the purpose of the study the age of preschoolers was defined as being between age three and six. This definition was consistent with that used by other Australian researchers in the field. Weddell and Copeland [2] set their parameters at age three to five while the 2002 La Trobe university study Children's Media Diet: A Mothers Perspective [6] used the age range three to six. While the age in which children start school varies from state to state across Australia, the majority of states legislate that children must have started school by the day they turn six. In Queensland, where the research was carried out, children start school the year they turn six. Thus six was selected as a meaningful upper age limit and three considered the age below which children were too young to adequately comprehend the news material under review.
Data Collection The study comprised three key methods of data collection and in doing so aimed to achieve triangulation of meaning.
Phase One - the Questionnaire Phase one was a questionnaire printed in Kids in Brisbane and its sister publication Kidz on the Coast (see appendix one). Both were mass circulation publications aimed at parents of young children. The Glasgow Media Group used the same technique in 1988 using a national magazine and the parenting forum network. Media Group research director Greg Philo noted "This was not a fully representative national sample but we were interested to see how parents would describe the behaviour of their own children."[7]
15 The surveys were printed in the February 2002 editions of the publications. Choosing this method of data collection meant that there was arguably an inherent bias with parents with a special interest or concern in the issue more likely to spend the time completing the questionnaire. This was not considered problematic as it was stated from the outset that the aim was to uncover IF children were disturbed by news coverage and not to measure to what extent, if any, it occurred. Also, while parents of both sexes were able to respond, both publications had content directed almost exclusively at female readers thus a strong bias of female respondents was considered inevitable. The circulation through day care centres concentrating on high income areas suggested that middle class working mothers were likely to be over- represented in the study. As stated the study did not seek to create a representative sample however, to endeavour to obtain a wider variety of opinion, an incentive was offered to encourage parents to participate. All those who returned the completed survey were placed in a draw to win $100 worth of children's videos. A free reply post address was set up to increase the likelihood of the completed surveys being returned.
Parents in this study were asked: a) How much television news their preschool children were watching b) What restrictions parents placed on the television news viewing habits of preschoolers c) If parents had changed their own television news viewing habits since having children d) Whether parents believed their children have ever been disturbed or harmed by material they've seen on television news e) How much, if any, of the coverage of the September 11 attacks preschool children watched f) Whether parents believed the coverage disturbed or harmed their children and if so in what way g) Whether there were any special issues relating to the September 11 coverage which concerned parents h) Whether the content or scheduling of television news should be modified in any way to take into account young viewers.
16
In addition, the survey recipients were asked to detail the ages and sex of their children, whether they were the child's mother/female guardian or father/male guardian and whether the home had Pay TV as well as free to air. They were also asked for a name, contact phone number and email address although they were informed that this would not be used as part of the final research document. Replies were collected throughout February and March 2002. In all 140 parents responded to the survey. Five of these had to be discounted as the children were outside the age group defined by the study. Only two surveys were completed by men. The 135 valid responses were tabulated and analysed according to themes. Data collected from this initial phase of the research was used to formulate both the nature and structure of subsequent focus group discussions and the questions for industry representatives which formed the third stage of the project.
Phase two - Focus groups In December 2002, a series of three focus groups was held with the aim of further expanding on the ideas raised in the initial survey work. As Hansen and his colleagues noted in 1998 "Survey work is good at providing a snapshot of audience beliefs, attitudes and behaviour - the what of the audience-media relationship - but is much less suited to telling us the why or how of such relationships" [8]. The aim of the second stage of the data collection was to draw out this richer, more sensitive interpretation of media audiences and thus the focus group came into play. Focus groups are, according to Lunt and Livingstone, "particularly useful when researchers seek to discover participants' meanings and ways of understanding"[9]. The group application to the question can provide data and insights not likely to be uncovered by speaking to individuals alone. In short focus groups are appropriate when the aim is to uncover how or why people come to hold a particular view.
For this project, focus groups were considered especially appropriate as the aim was to uncover which aspect of news coverage - the audio or the video - was considered most problematic by parents in terms of the child
17 audience in their homes. With this data obtained the question of how this can be controlled - and by whom - will fall into sharper focus. This method of focus group construction conforms with Kitzinger et al's observation that typically the group discussions are "focused" in that members are set some type of group activity such as viewing a video[10]. The focus group participants were drawn from the initial pool of survey respondents. At the time of completing the surveys, participants were asked whether they would be prepared to take part in a focus group at a later date. The 48 participants who indicated a willingness were contacted by phone or email in late October 2002 and asked if they would still be prepared to attend a focus group discussion. Parents prepared to take part in stage two were sent forms on which they were asked to indicate their preferred time and availability. Final times were selected to suit the greatest number of recipients. As Kitzinger and Barbour rightly point out statistical representativeness is not the aim of most focus group research [10]. Drawing on Hansen et al's observation that there appears to be "a general consensus that the optimum size for focus group discussions is between five and nine people" [8] initial pools of eight people were established. As the participants were all to be mothers of young children, it was considered likely that there would be a high number of unavoidable late drop outs. A pool of eight provided a suitable buffer to ensure that the final number of participants did not fall below the critical level of five.
Three focus groups were conducted. (see Appendix 2) The first two analysed opinions in relation to general news coverage. The third had a specific September 11, 2001 focus. In order to gauge whether there were any different or special issues relating to the September 11 coverage, the third focus group included two participants from one of the original groups. These participants were self-selected according to availability. The discussion focus groups were all held in lecture rooms at the Queensland University of Technology's Gardens Point Campus. The setting was chosen because of its central location, readily available parking and easy access to public transport. Hansen et al note "the choice of setting always needs to be considered in relation to the nature of the topic to be discussed, and practicality"[8]. In this instance, where the participants were all mothers of small children, it was
18 considered vital that the setting be both child-friendly and accessible. The mothers were all invited to bring their children who were cared for by a qualified and registered child minder in the room next door. Having children cared for in the same venue as the focus groups was considered advantageous on a number of fronts. In the first instance, mothers were more likely to be able to participate if child care was made available. In addition, having their children so close at hand would assist the mothers to focus their discussions on the impact of what they were being shown on their children.
In keeping with Marczak and Sewell's recommendation that "moderators should have characteristics that are similar to participants and be skilled in the group process[11], the moderator chosen for the project was a mother of similar age to the participants. The sessions were audio recorded with the researcher, a journalist with long experience of note-taking, present to take detailed notes. The sessions were later transcribed. Equipment failure meant that full transcripts were not available for the first two sessions but the detailed record taken while the sessions were in progress provided a comprehensive overview of the opinions expressed.
As one of the key aims of the focus groups was to determine which aspect - if any - of news coverage was considered most problematic by parents, the focus group participants were asked to consider separately the elements of audio and vision that made up the news package. The week before the focus groups took place, news bulletins were video recorded. Participants were shown the first 10 minutes of one news bulletin. In the first instance, sound only was played. The second screening showed only the vision and the third combined the two. The parents were then invited to consider and discuss how these different elements would combine in the eyes of their children. The moderator then steered the discussion to more general feelings about news coverage and children responding to participants' comments. The third focus group followed the same format but this time the participants were shown the first 10 minutes of the Nine Network's early morning news from September 12, 2003. Again the group was asked to concentrate on the separate elements of audio and video and then to consider issues such as impact on children, the
19 timing of the broadcast, regulation and responsibility. Both groups were asked to find consensus, where possible, on the question of how best to plug any gaps they identified in the current media environment. The discussions were transcribed and analysed for recurring themes.
Phase three- Industry Input
During the 1990s the Glasgow Media Group completed a dozen research projects into media audiences reception of topical issues. All used a triangulation approach and most studied the journalistic production process as the third line in the triangle [21]. This study replicated that approach. Preliminary letters of inquiry were sent to newsrooms in February 2002 seeking information about how long the stations suspended normal broadcasts for the September 11, 2001, coverage and what level of complaint if any was received about the coverage. It was considered important to gain this level of statistical information early while records remained intact. The primary method of data collection in this phase consisted of in depth interviews with key figures from within Australian television newsrooms. Eight news directors from the three major commercial networks and the ABC in Brisbane and Sydney were contacted by phone in November 2003. Follow up interviews with the six who agreed to take part in the project were conducted by phone, email and in person (depending on the subject's availability) during the following two months (See appendix 3). As the subjects' identities and positions were important to authenticate the findings, clearance was sought and obtained from the Queensland University of Technology's ethics committee to identify participants in this stage of the research. All participants were advised of this prior to interviews taking place and all signed ethical clearance documents confirming their willingness to participate under these terms.
Questions which formed the basis of the in depth interviews were generated from the findings of the first two stages of the research. The news directors were asked:
20
• What level of complains, if any did the station receive about a) The content of the September 11 coverage? b) The suspension of normal programming? • How much consideration is given to young viewers when deciding which images would be included to illustrate stories about violent or disturbing incidents? • Did they think current warnings about disturbing segments were adequate? Could/should they be varied in any way? • Did they run news promos during afternoon children’s television viewing spots? why/why not? • If they ran promos who were they targeted at and what measures were taken to take into account child viewers? • To what extent, if any, were the content and images used in the day-time or early evening news bulletins different from what was shown in late night news? • What level of complaint, if any, did they receive about graphic images in television news? • How difficult was it to control the nature of what viewers saw on Australian television when taking live feeds from overseas networks? • To what extent were advances in technology (such as live feeds) making it more difficult to control the images that went to air in breaking news events? • What type of news stories raised the most concern from viewers? • Was a child-friendly news program possible or even desirable? • In their opinion, whose responsibility was it to protect young children from the disturbing aspects of television news? • Do they believe many preschool aged children watched news broadcasts?
As the September 11, 2001 coverage was the subject of much public debate, in addition to the interviews with key media players, material was drawn from public comments from those within the industry on the issue. The
21 first and second anniversaries of the terrorist attacks and the subsequent coverage, the Bali bombing and the second Gulf War also ignited public debate about disturbing material on television and the child viewer. At the time public, debate resulted in industry comment and again the material provided vital supplementary evidence for the research. Other public comments from industry leaders were also incorporated, when relevant. In addition the ABC conducted its own internal report on the September 11, 2001 coverage and this was considered an important document to draw upon as were the corporation's internal memos and broadcast warnings relating to the Gulf War II coverage. Finally, in seeking independent verification of the numbers of preschool children watching the September 11, 2003, coverage, the media monitoring company OzTAM was commissioned to research the issue. OzTAM was able to analyse its database to reveal how many children aged six and under were watching television in Australia's five key metropolitan cities during the day and early evening of September 12, 2001.
Outcomes
The aim of the research was to gain data on where existing mechanisms for protecting children from material in television news that is likely to disturb or harm them fell down and how those gaps could best be plugged. The multi- layed approach involving both parents and the industry provided a balanced and considered approach that was likely to result in research recommendations able to meet the needs of both.
1. Cantor, J., Media Violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2000. 27(2): p. 20-34. 2. Weddell, C. and J. Copeland, Television Really is Kids' Play. International research forum on children and the media, 1998. 6: p. 8-9. 3. Gunter, B.M., Jill L., Children and Television: the one eyed monster. 1990, London: Routledge. 4. Buckingham, D., ed. Moving Images. Understanding Children's Emotional Responses to Television. 1996, Manchester University Press: Manchester. 5. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Yvonna S., Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research, in Handbook of Qualitative Research, N.K. Denzin, Lincoln, Yvonna S.,, Editor. 2000, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, California. 6. Skouteris, H., Children's Media Diet: A Mother's Perspective. 2002, La Trobe University: Melbourne.
22 7. Philo, G., ed. Message Received: Glasgow Media Group Research 1993-1998. 1999, Longman: Harlow. 8. Hansen, A., Cottle, Simon, Negrine, Ralph, Newbold, Chris, Mass Communication Research Methods. 1998: Macmillan. 9. Lunt, P., Livingstone, Sonia,, Rethinking the Focus Group in Media and Communication Research. Journal of Communication, 1996. 46(2): p. 79-98. 10. Kitzinger, J., Barbour, Rosaline S.,, Introduction: the challenge and promise of focus groups, in Developing Focus Group Research, R.S. Barbour, Kitzinger, Jenny,, Editor. 1999, Sage Publications: London. 11. Marczak, M., Sewell, Meg,, Using Focus Groups for Evaluation, University of Arizona http://ag.arizona.edu/fcr/fs/cyfar/focus.htm (Access date May 23, 2002).
23 G. A. McMahon
CHAPTER 2: PHYSICAL CHARACTER AND SETTING OF THE BURDEKIN RIVER DELTA AREA
Location and topography
The BRD is located on the northeast coast of Queensland, Australia approximately 90 kilometres southeast of the city of Townsville. The delta is situated within Burdekin Shire and contains the towns of Ayr, Home Hill, and Brandon. Figure 2 shows the location of the study area with respect to the regional surroundings.
Figure 3 shows a digital elevation model (DEM) for the delta area. Data for the DEM was reconstructed using topographic data from 1:25,000 mapping contours and surveyed bore heights. The resultant grid was then hydrologically enforced to ensure that drainage gradients remained true (did not run uphill). The final DEM was constructed and interpolated using Spatial Analyst, a software extension for ArcView 3.2.
The topography is essentially flat to slightly undulating, however high outcrops of basement rock occur in the south and southwest of the delta. The study area is generally confined to the delta plain sediments of the lower Burdekin River, which extend generally southwest to northeast across the delta plain from the Stokes Ranges and Mt Kelly to the coast. Approximately one third of the delta lies south of the Burdekin River (SBWB), and two thirds north of the river (NBWB). The water resources of the delta are administered by the North and South Burdekin Water Boards, and are not part of the state-controlled Burdekin River Irrigation Area (BRIA). The total area of the land under administration of both boards is approximately 850km2 including the Burdekin River channel. This does not include a margin of land on the northern coast of Bowling Green Bay, which consists of mostly mangrove swamps and grazing land. Individually, the NBWB and SBWB administer about 534km2 and 265km2 respectively. Figure 4 shows the Water Board boundaries as well as the names of the main local regions.
8 G. A. McMahon
N N
INSET Townsville %T Burdekin River Delta INSET # %TTownsville B U R D E K I N R Burdekin River IV E Catchment R
%T Mackay Brisbane %T QUEENSLAND
Longreach %T %T Emerald
0 50 100 150 200 Kilometres
N
CORAL SEA Townsville %T
G%Tiru Ayr Burdekin River Delta %T # Wood%Tstock %T Burdekin River Irrigation Area Home Hill
Clare%T
# %T Gumlu %T Millaroo Bowen %T Charters Towers Ravenswood %T %T
Dalbeg %T
N I
K E Collinsville D %T R B U 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Kilometres
Figure 2. Location of the Burdekin River Delta, the Burdekin River catchment and surrounding towns, north Queensland.
9 G. A. McMahon
530000 540000 550000 560000
B o w l i n g G r e e n B a y
0 ã 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 8 8 7 7
C o r a l S e a
amia al Cree
K k
k
0 e 0
e
0 0 r
0 0
C
0 0 n
4 4
o lanta
8 i P tion 8 t C
7 reek 7 a t
s p Brandon e
e h S
Ayr
ch n
0 a 0 r 0 b 0
0 a 0 n 0 A 0 3 3 8 8 7 7
er iv R Home Hill n ki de ur B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 8 8 7 7
k e r Cr e Grope
530000 540000 550000 560000
All town, road and coastline data supplied courtesy of 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 Australian Land and Information Group, Canberra (1999). Horizontal Datum: AGD84, UTM projection Zone 55. km Elevation (metres ASL)
5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 - 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 7 0 5 5 0 ------1 1 2 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 - - - 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 0 0 7 0 5 1 1 Figure 3. Digital Elevation Model of the BRD area, reconstructed using 1:25,000 topographic contours and surveyed bore heights.
10 G. A. McMahon
530000 540000 550000 560000 B o w l i n g G r e e n B a y ã 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 8 8 7 7
C o r a l S e a
Kalamia amia al Cre K ek Colevale
Pioneer
k
0 e 0
e
0 0 r
0 0
C
0 0 n
4 4
o lanta
8 i P tion 8 t C
7 reek 7 a t
s Airdmillan p Brandon e
e ce High h Bru way S
Ayr Jarvisfield
ch Maidavale n 0 a 0 r
0 b 0
0 a 0 n
0 N 0 B A 3 W Rita Island 3 8 B 8 7 S 7 BW B
Airville er iv Mt Kelly R Home Hill n ki de ur B
Charlie's Hill 0 Osborne 0 0 "The Rocks" 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 8 8
7 Inkerman Beachmount 7 Iona
k e r Cr e Grope Mt Inkerman
Stokes Ranges
530000 540000 550000 560000
All town, road and coastline data supplied courtesy of 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 Australian Land and Information Group, Canberra (1999). Horizontal Datum: AGD84, UTM projection Zone 55. km
Legend
Highway Bedrock outcrop Water Board Areas Irrigated land
Figure 4. The Burdekin Water Board, with names of local regions and dominant physiographic features. The NBWB operates in the area north of the main river (including Rita Island). The SBWB operates in the area south of the main river.
11
Chapter 3 Literature review
24
25
26
27
Australia's regulatory environment "Good evening and welcome to television" Within hours of Bruce Gyngell welcoming Australians to the first official TV broadcast on TCN-9 Sydney on 16 September, 1956, Chuck Faulkner read the nation's first television news bulletin [1]. News has been a key part of Australian television since its inception in 1956. Also since its inception, Australian television has been the subject of Federal Government regulatory control, initially under the 1942 Broadcasting Act until it was replaced in 1992 by the Broadcasting Services Act. The Australian Broadcasting Authority, created by the Broadcasting Services Act, became the regulator for commercial radio and television but the job of ensuring that programs (including news) reflected community standards rested with the broadcasters themselves under industry-developed codes of practice.
Two sets of voluntary codes of practice operate. The national broadcaster is governed by the code set out by the Australian Broadcasting Commission while until late 2002 the commercial stations fell under the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations or FACTS. In October 2002, FACTS became Commercial Television Australia (CTA) although the change was described by then chairman David Gyngell as a "new brand identity" [2] and the industry's code of practice remained almost unchanged. Certainly, there was no discernible difference between the old FACTS code and the new CTA code in relation to policies regarding the broadcast of news. Both the commercial and ABC codes base classifications on the Office of Film and Literature Classification guidelines which has as one of its four key principles that “minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them”[3]. Further the guidelines state that "particular attention is paid, when classification decisions are made, to the protection of minors from material that is disturbing or harmful”.[3]
28 Television news, however, does not require classification. The Australian Broadcasting Authority's clause 2.3.1 makes an "exception for News, Current Affairs and Live or Near-live Sporting Programs" stating that "these programs do not require classification, provided that the licensee exercises care in selecting material for broadcast having regard the likely audience of the program; and an identifiable public interest reason for presenting the program material."[4] Although news does not need to be classified, both the commercial and ABC codes make specific and detailed reference to acceptable standards in relation to news broadcasts. Section four of the ABC code deals with news broadcasts with sections 4.8 and 4.9 dealing specifically with issues relating to news flashes and updates. The code says:
4.8 News Flashes. Care will be exercised in the selection of sounds and images used in news flashes and consideration given to the likely composition of the audience. 4.9 News Updates and News Promotions. Television news updates and news promotions should not appear at inappropriate times, especially during programs directed at young children. They should include very little violent material and none at all in the late afternoon and early evening.
The Code (section 3.1) also makes specific reference to children's programs stating that: "While the real world should not be concealed from children, special care will be taken to ensure programs children are likely to watch unsupervised will not cause alarm or distress".[5] In terms of its day-to- day implementation, the ABC Code of Practice needs to be read alongside the Corporation's Editorial Policies which expand on the notion of acceptable program standards as well as outlining the ABC's policy of upward referral of any contentious material. The Editorial Policies recognise that the media both reflects and influences community standards and say that at times the ABC will broadcast material that it knows will be disturbing or offensive to some viewers. In section 10.2.1 they say: "In such cases, the ABC has a responsibility to warn listeners or viewers about the material" [6] . The
29 Editorial Policies are specific when it comes to the broadcast of disturbing or offensive material when it is screened as part of the television news offering. They recognise that violence is often inherent with news stories and that there may be occasions where the story demands that material broadcast will be shocking. They note in Section 10.4.9: "A difficult balance needs to be struck between the inherent strength of the images and proper detachment" [6] Violent events, the Policies state in section 10.4.8, should never be sensationalised or presented for their own sake. The policies say in section 10.4.8: "The decision whether to use violent images or sounds should be based on judgment of their newsworthiness and reporting value, together with regard for reasonable susceptibilities of audiences to the detail of what is broadcast or published. Many news events are violent and involve injury or death, but reports should not linger on corpses or the suffering of the wounded. Wide shots of the dead may be necessary to make a point but unnecessary close-ups should be avoided [6]
The Editorial Policies reiterate the Code's statement in relation to news updates and news promotions. They do, however, expand on what the Code says in relation to news flashes. The Policies note that the timing and content of news flashes are unpredictable and the need to get a newsflash to air as quickly as possible should not override the principle of giving consideration to the likely make-up of the audience. Section 10.4.11 of the Editorial Policies states in part: "Prior to any news flash during children's and other G classified programs, a visual and audio announcement will be broadcast advising viewers that regular programming will be interrupted with a news flash "[6]
The commercial code, while not as detailed or prescriptive as its ABC counterpart, largely mirrors the sentiments outlined by the national broadcaster. Like the ABC Code, the commercial code recognises the need to be especially sensitive to the child news viewer. The CTA Code of Practice states as a key objective that news and current affairs should be "presented with care, having regard to the likely composition of the viewing audience and, in particular, the presence of children" (section 4.1.2) [7] Like the ABC Code, the CTA Code charges broadcasters with the responsibility of providing
30 viewer warnings prior to distressing or offensive material being broadcast. It also highlights the need for the material being broadcast to be selected because an identifiable public interest. It states in section 2.30 that: "A licensee must provide prior warnings to viewers when a news or current affairs or other program which does not carry consumer advice includes, for an identifiable reason, material which in the licensee's reasonable opinion is likely to distress or seriously offend a substantial number of viewers. The warning must precede the relevant item in a news and current affairs program" [7].
Because news and current affairs (as well as live sport) are exempted from classification under Australian Broadcasting Authority regulations, promotions for these programs can be screened during time zones classified by the authority for general, preschool or child audiences. The CTA code, however, outlines detailed provisions which state in section 3.13 that the promotion must comply "in every respect with the requirements for the viewing zone in which it is broadcast". Further, news is permitted within the General (G) because under section 2.3.1 the code allows for an exemption from classification for news. The current zones, as set out by the Australian Broadcasting Authority in clause 2.12, are on weekdays from 6am- 8.30am and 4pm to 7.30pm and on weekends from 6am to 7.30pm. [4]. Thus all the commercial networks and the ABC screen their prime news bulletin within the G zone.
Children's Program standards
Another significant development in broadcasting policy in Australia was the implementation in July 1984 of the first children's and preschool children's programs standards which were reviewed in 1989 with new standards taking effect on January 1, 1990 [8]. The standards, which had as an objective, that children should have a variety of television programs made especially for them, set out time
31 frames for preschool (P) and children's (C) programming and minimum broadcast times for both. But the Children's Television Standards (CTS) code made allowances for news flashes within broadcasts directed specifically at children. Section 5 of the code stated:
5.1 During C programs a licensee may broadcast a news flash which cannot, in the public interest, be delayed until completion of the C Program
5.2 Programs may not be interrupted except for an announcement which cannot, in the public interest, be delayed until completion of the P program [8]
In 1991, an inquiry was held to assess the adequacy of the CTS. One of the issues listed for consideration by the inquiry was the displacement of C time by live coverage of sport or an event of national significance [8] P18. While the inquiry heard arguments for tightening the provisions of displacement of children's programming and even considered not including a provision for displacement, submissions from the networks allowed for the existing provision to remain largely unchanged. [8]
Government reviews
Almost since the time television began in Australia, debate has raged on whether the regulatory environment in this country goes far enough (or in some instances whether it goes too far). Much of the debate has centred on the issue of violence with news violence being a key area of concern. But while the debate has for the most part bubbled along in the background, a number of key violent events within the past 25 years have brought the issue firmly into the foreground forcing community debate and government inquiries. Indeed in 1997, Peter Sheehan noted that in the previous decade 12 government reports concerned with violence and the media had been submitted. [9] The first of these was the Victorian State Government's Community Council Against Violence (CCAV) which was set up in 1989 after Melbourne's Hoddle Street shooting rampage left seven civilians dead and the Queen Street massacre left eight Australia Post workers dead. Following an intense period of public
32 consultations, two years into its brief the CCAV convened a public seminar titled Climate of Fear - Media responsibility in Reporting Violent Crime.
Inevitably, the issue of protecting children from violent television images was raised. Dr Diane Bretherton, a lecturer in Psychology at the University of Melbourne, argued that the problem with media violence was that the violent act often appeared to go unpunished or was even celebrated. Society as a whole needed to address that, she said.
I don't think we can opt out like members of the media do, when they say 'it's just up to the parents', adults can make their own decisions and that when you're thinking about young people it's just the parents' responsibility. Unfortunately it's those young viewers who have little communication with their parents who are going to be the most likely to be affected by violent reporting. There is a lot of research work that suggests that if young people who watch violent programs, whether it's news or fiction, sit down and talk over what they have seen with adults who have non-violent values, that will mediate the effect of what has been seen. But those young people who talk things over with their parents are not the ones who are likely to be affected in any way.[10]
While the finger pointing at the media was predictable, so too was the response from the industry. John Brook, a news and current affairs producer and writer, told the seminar that as long as good taste and ethics and common sense prevailed the media should not be making an apology for television news footage that made compelling viewing. Care was needed in reporting violent crime, he argued, but for the most part that care was taken.
I believe, with some minor aberrations, most journalists, reporters, sub-editors, editors and producers use the utmost care in making decisions on what to use in their stories and headlines and TV reports. In fact, it is my belief, that most tend to err on the conservative side when evaluating the total amount of material and pictures they have to select from. If we heeded the calls for media control to supervise what we do and how we do it, the major question is then who should control those who shout loudest to impose censorship. [10] As a result of the seminar, the CCAV produced a one-page fact sheet titled Understanding Violence in the Media which outlined the effects of exposure to violent media, the law and media violence and myths and facts about media violence. It made no recommendations to industry but did issue advice to parents. "Parents can have an active role in what children are exposed to by supervising programs, vetting unsuitable programs, not watching violent programs when children are
33 around and considering a child's development when making viewing decisions" [11].
The Commonwealth Government entered the arena seriously following the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania on April 27, 1996. Within two weeks the Parliament had established The Committee of Ministers on the Portrayal of Violence in the Media and after receiving more than 700 submissions and letters the committee reported back to Cabinet in June that year.[12] Two months later on August 22, 1996, the report was referred to the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply and Services Utilising Electronic Technologies which in turn began its own inquiry into the portrayal of violence in the media. The committee convened a seminar in Canberra on November 29, 1996, with one whole session of the seminar being given over to news and current affairs violence and the protection of children. Terry Flew, representing the Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Studies at the Queensland University of Technology, summed up the issue.
Many of the concerns about violent material on television have arisen in relation to news and currents affairs material as distinct from drama and other fictional forms. This brings to mind the question of the ability of different audiences, and particularly children to distinguish between fictional and realistic forms of violence. In the area of news and current affairs, the onus must be upon journalists, news producers and broadcasters to act responsibly in the presentation of stories, particularly in the early evening bulletins. But it is also important to add that there exists a legitimate concern among journalists and others working in the media about governments or regulatory bodies taking an overly prescriptive role about what can and cannot be broadcast; and that it would be argued that there are broader public interest concerns to be considered there.[13]
Barbara Biggins, who was the Office of Film and Literature Classification's convenor of the Classification Board of Review and the president of the lobby group Young Media Australia argued at the seminar that the job of protecting children from media violence could not fall with parents alone. "I am really concerned," she said, "that the government, through its regulatory systems and all sorts of parenting education programs, ought to be making the media environment far more healthy for kids and not
34 leaving the whole responsibility on parents to keep their kids away from unsuitable material." [14] Alasdair Grant, the editor of the University of New South Wales Communication Law Centre's Communications Update, took up the issue of the rights of children arguing that at times graphic news footage needed to be shown and that the exemption for news in the 6.30-7pm time slot was thus appropriate. He did, however, add an important rider stating that "we should define the industry codes quite strictly so that there is not that element of gratuitousness". [14]
Media policy activist Julie James Bailey, the inaugural professor of Film and Media at Griffith University, argued against that position saying that the news at 6 or 7pm should conform with that time zone classification while a more "robust" news service could be screened later at night. "It seems to me that how the question could be solved, as it has been in the UK, by having a different news at 6 o'clock and having different standards for the 6 o'clock news than you have for a later news. This has come forward time and time again," she said. [14] Ms Biggins also argued against having an "adult" news service in the G Classification zone from 4-7.30pm. "It works against parents' understanding what the G classification zone means," she said [14].
While Prof James Bailey suggested that there could be a commercial reluctance to have two versions of the evening news as there would be a cost involved in re-editing news packages, the Senate Committee obviously believed the proposal had real merit. When the report was tabled in the Senate in February 1997 arguably its most contentious recommendation was for a toned down early evening news bulletin with Recommendation 13 stating: "when reporting items which are identified by television stations themselves as being accompanied by 'disturbing footage', that footage should only be shown in later evening bulletins and not during the early evening news bulletin when large numbers of children are watching television." [12] But while the Government acted quickly on the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and legislated to push back the watershed for violent MA movies from 8.30 to 9.30 at night, no formal action was taken on the news recommendation. In its official response to the report, the Government
35 acknowledged the Senate's concern about disturbing footage on the early evening news but noted that FACTS had proposed to amend its code to ensure that greater sensitivity was taken in the broadcast of news and current affairs. It "strongly urged" broadcasters "to be vigilant in meeting the requirements of their codes of practice".[15]
The proposal was, however, back on the table less than four years later in October 2000 when the Victorian Government's Family and Community Development Committee brought down its final report on The effects of Television and Multimedia on children & families in Victoria. It noted the Federal Government's earlier unwillingness to make any commitment to further regulate news broadcasting. In the absence of that regulation it suggested that parents consider encouraging their children to watch the ABC's program Behind the News (the program was dropped by the ABC in 2003). It also urged broadcasters to implement Recommendation 13 of the Senate Report and keep disturbing footage out of the early evening news bulletins [16].
When the Bracks State Government brought down its official response to the report in November 2001 it agreed to refer the matter to the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Federal Government [17]. While Victorian Premier Steve Bracks was quoted at the time as saying he did not support the censorship of news, former Premier Jeff Kennett, whose government set up the original inquiry, agreed that television violence could be toned down [18]. The response to the Government's action from the industry was swift and emphatic.
News directors said careful regard was already given to the type of pictures aired when families were viewing and Channel 9's John Sorell branded the recommendation for child-friendly news bulletins as "pie in the sky" [18]. "We do censor or self-regulate our news bulletins already. We are conscious we are airing during family viewing time and make every effort to avoid upsetting younger
36 viewers."[19] His comments were echoed by Channel 10 news manager Dermot O'Brien, Channel 7 state news director Robert Olney, ABC State news and current affairs director Marco Bass and Phil Martin, SBS news and current affairs director. [19] And Jill Singer, a former host of both the ABC's 7.30 Report and Channel 7's Today Tonight in Melbourne described the idea as "fundamentally flawed" adding that any network that pursued the idea would be forced out of business by the competition. "Trying to regulate standards rather than relying on parental guidance is an idea doomed to fail,'' she said.[20]
Melbourne's Herald Sun in its editorial of December 4, 2001 said it was thankful that State governments had no control over what appeared on television. "The Government is sympathetic with the proposal that 'disturbing footage' accompanying news items should be shown in later news bulletins when fewer children are watching. But these are 'disturbing days'. What would be left. The Government also backs early news services for children - a naive belief that they don't know what's going on outside."[21]
While the media itself showed contempt for the proposal, the Australian Broadcasting Authority chairman David Flint floated the idea that at least one TV network screen an early evening sanitised news service aimed at children. [18] He said while broadcasters did a good job of applying industry codes on graphic material, there was room to tighten regulations. "There is a code and there is always the possibility of changing a code and making it more severe than it presently is,'' Professor Flint said. [18] The code, however, remained unchanged.
Broadcasting authority reviews
While Australian governments have been active in reviewing policy as it relates to television, the broadcasting regulators have also been pro-active in researching policy and opinion relating to television. Broadcast news and the child viewer have attracted a great deal of attention from the regulator - and from audiences. Two years
37 after the Broadcasting Services Act was brought down in 1992, the ABA cast its spotlight on section S3J which sets out to protect the interests of children: "To ensure that providers of broadcasting services place a high priority on the protection of children from exposure to program material which may be harmful to them".
In order to gauge how well that provision was serving Australian children, the Australian Broadcasting Authority set out in 1993 to find what children themselves felt about violence, swearing, kissing and nudity on television. To that end, 108 children aged between five and 12 took part in focus groups with the results published in the Authority's Monograph Number 4 "Cool Stuff" and "Slimey Stuff": Children and Classification Issues. The study found that 92 per cent of children claimed to watch the news but while it was "okay to hear about" some events in the news it was not necessarily okay to "see and hear about" the same events.[22] Stories about children being hurt or killed by members of their own family and animals being hurt or killed or people being shot or killed were among those considered most distressing by children. [22] The survey found that older children were generally more accepting towards watching and hearing about some news events than younger children.[22] As well as interviewing the children, researchers also interviewed their parents and found that while they acknowledged that news was the TV genre most likely to impact on their children it was also the genre they were least likely to police. "Although more parents reported incidents involving real life depictions which concerned or upset their children than any other type of incident, they did not regulate this program category as much as others."[22]
While the 1993 study focused on what children disliked about television, a follow-up study in 1995 looked at what children liked to watch on TV. It found that children found news boring but "if a program was deemed boring by children, it did not necessarily preclude them from watching it" [23]. It also found that despite early evidence that children did not watch news more recent studies
38 suggested that children were watching the news because it interested them. "All children said they watched news and current affairs programs regularly or sometimes and viewing generally increased with age,'' the study Kids talk TV: "super wickid" or "dum", found.[23] The children themselves supported the idea of a child- friendly news service. "They said 'news doesn't always have to be so boring and serious' and that 'if they told the news by cartoon it would be easier to understand'." [23]
Having looked at what children liked and disliked on television, in 2000 the Australian Broadcasting Authority turned its attention to children's views about media harm. In a collaborative project with the University of Western Sydney, the ABA undertook a research project titled Children's views about media harm which involved 50 children aged between 10 and 15.[24] Harm relating to the news media was one of the areas of interest to researchers. The children acknowledged the special concerns about graphic news stories but felt they were capable of dealing with it although other, particularly younger, children may not be.
"Even though the children often referred to major news stories as instances of media related harm (such as the Colorado shootings and Port Arthur massacre) they were reluctant to be characterised as passive or powerless when faced with the media's potential," the report said. [24] The report concluded that news violence affected children over and above fictional violence. "The children believed that the high impact of drama was offset by the knowledge that it was 'not real', whereas the impact of documentary, news and current affairs programs was intensified by the fact that the events 'really happened'." [24]
While the focus of most of the research has been on primary and lower secondary school aged children, in 1998 the ABA released the results of a longitudinal study which measured the exposure of infants to television in Sydney between 1988 and 1994. It found that
39 infants aged between four and 30 months, like older children, were regular "viewers" of television news. "Infants were exposed to adult programs as well as programs made especially for young children. Adults programs included news and current affairs,'' the study found.[25] At four months, for example, news and current affairs made up almost a quarter of the television content the infants were exposed to. This dropped off significantly by the age of 30 months when the proportion of preschool programming the infants watched increased markedly.
The study showed that while news and current affairs made up a significant part of an infant's TV diet, it was one of the genres which interested the children least. It also found that when the children watched news and current affairs they were with a parent almost all of the time. It also revealed a significant contradiction between parental attitudes towards appropriate content and the viewing patterns of their infants. "Some of the mothers expressed concerns about their child becoming more aggressive or violent and learning undesirable values from television content. The mothers did not want their child exposed to programs containing violence and war, sex and nudity, news and current affairs or cartoons. These findings are at odds with the relatively high levels of exposure that many children had to news and current affairs programs,'' the summary of findings revealed. [25]
Views of the adult viewer have also been a priority of the regulator. In January 1990, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal released a four-volume study titled TV Violence in Australia: Report to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Television news was, according to the report, considered as a major area of concern with the report noting that "it was rare to see a submission which endorsed the current presentations, portrayal and reporting of violence on the news in Australia".[26]
The idea that news should be broadcast later in the evening or the content toned down for 6pm received widespread support.
40 "Despite some viewers' belief that the screening of 'real life' violence was justified, six in 10 adults thought evening news showing explicit violent material should be shown only later in the evening. Even though there is uniform agreement that children's viewing is a parental responsibility (96%), it would appear that a large proportion of the community desire changes to visual presentation of violent material during early evening time slots,'' the summary of evidence concluded. [26]
News directors questioned by the tribunal rejected the proposition. Ian Cook, the then Director of News at Channel 9, told the tribunal that a violent story would be treated the same regardless of its transmission time. He argued that "any attempt to present news material differently between news programs would censor news, and thus important stories would be lost to the early evening bulletin". [26] The tribunal disagreed saying that "argument of this kind implies that stories cannot be separated from their violent images, a position which the tribunal does not accept". [26] It recommended that "the television industry examine its approach to news and current affairs programs giving special attention in the code to editorial policy and practice where graphic footage is available (eg natural disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks, murders and executions) and the criteria applied to determine the presentation of such incidents".[26]
Yet, 13 years later when the Australian Broadcasting Authority conducted a new review of community attitudes to violence on television, news violence still emerged as a major concern. In fact, while more people now believed violence was acceptable in movies or drama late in the evening fewer people now believed that it was justifiable to show violence in news and current affairs. [27] "As for 1989, violence is more upsetting or worrying when shown on the news than when part of a movie,'' the report concluded. [27] And the number of adults who believed that violent news footage should be shown later at night rose between the two surveys.
41 When presented with the statement "news items showing violence should only be on later at night" two thirds of adults agreed (66%) which was higher than in 1989 (61%) [27] There remained a strong belief that it was the parents' responsibility to control what their children watched on television. "As with 1989, in 2002 almost all adults agreed that parents should control what their children watch on television (97%)," the report said. [27] ABA chairman Professor David Flint said the results of the report were timely as the Commercial Code was under review. "The 2002 survey findings highlight the continuing importance the community places in the depiction of violence on free-to-air television indicating that the ABA and broadcasters must remain vigilant on the issue,'' Professor Flint said. [27]
Submissions on the amended Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice closed in September 2003 with the revised code due for release in the very near future. The draft code released for public comment in August 9, 2003, remained largely unchanged in relation to news and current affairs with only a strengthening of the clause relating to reporting on a child's personal or private affairs.
The history of relevant research
TV's reporting of the Vietnam War gave us our initial doses of "reality violence" on national news in grisly detail for more than a decade. [28] J. Sean McCleneghan
The issue of violence in news coverage is not new and nor is the interest in the subject by media researchers. While McCleneghan argues that it began with the Vietnam War, if one had to pinpoint one specific event and date which marked the beginning of interest in the topic it would have to be the assassination of US President J.F.Kennedy. From the beginning, the child audience has been a key area of interest of the media researchers. Roberta S. Sigel surveyed 1349 children in Grades 4-12 in Detroit 21 days after the November 22, 1963, assassination of Kennedy. Her findings showed that the
42 coverage of the Kennedy assassination had some striking similarities to the coverage almost 40 years later of the September 11 attacks on the US. She noted, firstly, that there was saturation coverage of the event. "No news avoidance was possible during the four days. Children viewed either the assassination or nothing," said Sigel. [29] She also noted that "people everywhere spent an extraordinarily large amount of time in front of the television set". [29]
Children, who Sigel said as a rule "tend to avoid news programs and documentaries", saw large amounts of the coverage with 98 per cent of children watching television and 82 per cent watching more than usual. There was also a level of resentment with the fact that regular programming was cancelled. "Eleven per cent felt that television should have continued with some children's or regular programs,'' Sigel found. Significantly Sigel found that parents underestimated the extent to which their children were upset. National Opinion Research Centre figures, quoted by Sigel, reported that 32 per cent of adults felt that their children were not very upset at all while 23 per cent felt their children were very upset. Yet Sigel's research found that 37 per cent of children did not feel like eating, 45 per cent had trouble sleeping and 39 per cent cried. "The younger children reported the most severe reaction,'' she said.
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster In one of the few overviews of the younger child and intense news coverage, Joanne Cantor examined the available research on the January 28, 1986, coverage of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.[30] She found that much of the research pointed to the fact that children aged between 5 and 8 did not fully understand the magnitude of the tragedy with many not understanding that the deaths could not be undone. But there was also evidence that the children did need to talk more about the disaster, that there was a prevalence of questions about why the disaster happened and the presence of explosion themes in children's games. Children also talked about the people who had died and expressed fears about their own parents dying.
43
A second study of the same disaster conducted by Wright, Kunkel, Pinon and Huston found that 25 per cent of five to eight year olds saw the Challenger launch at their school.[31] "Without warning, these children instead witnessed a violent explosion and tragic demise of the spacecraft and its crew of seven astronauts,'' the researchers commented. They found that most children suffered emotional distress but "children are robust in coping with real-world disasters, no matter how they are presented in the media". However, the study concluded "None is immune from the powerful impact of instantly and simultaneously distributed catastrophic news like the Challenger disaster".
The Oklahoma City bombing Just how strong that impact can be was examined in research involving children in Grades six through 12 in Oklahoma seven weeks after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It found that even children who had no direct exposure to the incident suffered post traumatic stress syndrome as a result of their television exposure. "For children without physical or emotional exposure, television exposure was significantly related to post-traumatic stress symptomatology," Pfefferbaum et al said.[32]
The researchers noted that the coverage of the event in the Oklahoma community was exhaustive - much like the September 11, 2001 coverage. "Virtually nothing except bomb-related coverage was aired on major local television stations for days after the incident; initial coverage was unedited and graphic," they said. They recommended that children should not watch this type of disaster coverage alone as "television exposure is largely within one's control". "Although television is an excellent source of information, its viewing by children during or after disasters should be monitored and adults should be available to address their emotional reactions and to answer questions and correct misconceptions," they said. "Watching television with children would provide and opportunity for adults to observe distress associated with television exposure."
44 In another assessment of the reaction of children to the Oklahoma City bombing, Diane Levin noted that children who had witnessed the coverage frequently acted out what they had seen in their play. "After the tragedy in Oklahoma City, many parents and teachers reported dramatic play that imitated the bombing: children demolished block buildings with accompanying boom-and-crash sound effects, pretended to be dead victims, rushed injured classmates to the hospital," Levin said. [33] She said that children often used painting and drawing to work out violence issues and that dramatic play was also an important way of young children making sense of what they had seen. "Dramatic play is probably the most common and powerful avenue young children use to work out an understanding of their experience - and this holds true with the violence in the news," Levin said.
The First Gulf War Studies also found that children displayed significant emotional distress after witnessing the television news coverage of the first Gulf War [34-38] and again the theme of children acting out the war was reported. Cantor, Mares and Oliver reported that "acting out the war in play" was one of the common emotional responses of children who witnessed the war coverage. [34] Their study of children aged from Grade 1 to Grade 12 found that 48 per cent of first grade children suffered a "negative emotional reaction" to the coverage, according to their parents.[34] For the first grade children the most distressing aspects of the coverage were the "the weapons shown", "showing injured people" and "visual images of planes dropping bombs". The most common way children displayed anxiety was by talking about the event frequently and by asking numerous questions. But the parents reported that children were crying, had trouble sleeping, were tense or nervous, confused frustrated or irritable [34-38].
An Australian study of children aged 8, 10 and 12 found that the coverage seemed to have a greater impact on girls. "The girls seemed to take more literally the realism of news presentation, and the gravity of the subject caused anxiety and/or avoidance,'' the researchers said. They noted that
45 Australian children were more likely to see the coverage than some children in other western countries. "The earlier news time in Australia made the events of the war even more accessible," they said.
Princess Diana's Death A three-year study of children aged two to five conducted by Cassandra Weddell and Janice Copeland found that the preschoolers were "profoundly affected" by news events. [39] Like earlier studies, Weddell and Copeland found that children acted out news events. "News-savvy preschoolers devised props and elaborate story lines to re-enact major stories in the playground - such as the dramatic rescue of British yachtsman Tony Bullimore, the Thredbo disaster and the death of Princess Diana". [39] Weddell said that parents were often unaware of how much of these events their children had seen. "Parents also need to be mindful that young children will want to be where the family is congregated and that often that will be in front of the television in the evening. If parents and older siblings are watching adults programs, young children will absorb the images presented on TV."[39]
The September 11, 2001, attacks on the US The intense media coverage received by the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States inevitably caused community concerns especially in relation to the child viewer. Much of what was written at the time echoed themes and concerns raised about the coverage of earlier disastrous events. Once again, evidence arose of children re-enacting the events in play and art. Toni Gross and Sydney Gurewitz Clemens wrote about children aged four or five spontaneously deciding to paint pictures about the New York events. Some children started their artworks either in the days immediately after the tragedy but in some cases it took them much longer. "A few weeks later Rio (age four) and Joshua built towers of clay and began knocking them down with clay airplanes. Emma made a tower of her own, building it up and smashing it down again and again. All three children made airplane noises and talked about the towers." [40]
46 Concern was also raised about the young child's inability to understand the news process and thus the likelihood of the saturation coverage and frequent repeats impacting on child viewer. Psychotherapist Connie Alexander said many adults were mesmerised by the coverage and as a result large numbers of children were exposed to the coverage. She quoted one five year-old girl as saying "So many planes are hitting so many buildings".[41] "Her parents apparently weren't watching television with her or putting events into perspective. The girl needed to know the attacks only happened once."
The 2002 annual scientific conference of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons was told that repeatedly exposing children to the September 11 coverage could cause psychological damage. US military expert Professor Jay Winter told the conference that repeated exposure to horrific images of war -such as those broadcast after the World Trade Center attack - could cause long lasting damaging psychological effects particularly in young children. [42] He said the effects were similar to - if not worst than - the post traumatic stress disorders suffered by soldiers who experienced shell shock or were involved in battles. "Showing (such images) thousands of times is unconscionable," Professor Winter said. [42]
A study by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that about 17 per cent of Americans living outside New York suffered post- traumatic stress disorder for months after the terrorist attacks. [43] And a report in the New York Times to mark the first anniversary of the attacks said that children were equally affected, with the television coverage believed to be the source of their trauma. "Some child psychologists believe that the saturating television coverage of the events, which parents in all parts of the country found difficult to switch off for several days, made a child's physical proximity to Lower Manhattan or the Pentagon on Sept. 11 almost irrelevant to how they felt then or are feeling now," the report said. [44] A separate study of children in New York found that 10 per cent of the city's school children suffered post-traumatic stress disorder. The study, by the New York City Board of Education, found that 26 per cent of school children had at least
47 one mental health disorder including depression or anxiety. [45] The children may or may not have had direct exposure to the disaster.
A US national survey of stress reactions after the terrorist attacks published by the New England Journal of Medicine noted that people who are not present at traumatic events may experience stress reactions. It found that of the 560 US adults surveyed after the attacks 45 per cent had more substantial symptoms of stress with 90 per cent having one or more symptoms at least to some degree.[46] The survey also found that 34 per cent of adults restricted their children's television viewing during the attack coverage with parents more likely to try to limit viewing by younger children than by older children. Children watched an average of three hours of coverage with 35 per cent of children showing one of more stress symptoms with 47 per cent worried about their own safety or the safety of loved ones.
"Television coverage was immediate, graphic and pervasive," the authors said. "People who are present at a traumatic event often have symptoms of stress but there is evidence that adults and children need not be present to have stress symptoms especially if they consider themselves similar to the victims." [46] The authors concluded that the level of stress "was associated with the extent of television viewing". "For others, particularly children, watching television may be exacerbated or caused stress, especially with repeated viewing of terrifying images."[46] The authors went on: "Ongoing media coverage may serve as a traumatic reminder, resulting in persistent symptoms."
Outside the United States, the impact of the coverage also raised concern. A study conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Commission in the United Kingdom in 2001 concluded that the September 11 coverage accounted for a significant surge in the portrayal of violence on free-to-air television. In fact, news constituted almost a quarter of all violence monitored in 2001, the study concluded. "Monitoring of violence across two weeks of prime time programming has shown a substantial increase in the number of incidents portrayed in 1999-
48 2001 compared with 1997 and 1998, due largely to the coverage in news and related programs of violence in Bosnia and following September 11."[47] Further the 2003 British study How Children Interpret Screen Violence found that the September 11 attacks were the most violent thing children aged between nine and 13 had seen on television.[48] "They were talking about buildings falling down, people jumping out of windows, fireman going in, voices and telephone conversations," the report's author Andrea Millwood Hargreave said. [49]
Teachers at the time of the attacks grappled with the idea of whether they should allow students to watch the television coverage. "They wrestled with whether to turn on classroom televisions and let students watch the unfolding of the most horrifying, yet fascinating, episode in recent U.S. history," the Wall Street Journal reported after the attacks. [50] The Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest in the US with 730,00 students, advised against letting children watching the coverage, the Journal reported.
There was also much debate about whether children should be allowed to watch the coverage of the first anniversary commemorations of the attacks. "Don't let children watch upsetting footage," said Allan Steinberg associate director of National Centre for Child Traumatic Stress at the University of California, Los Angeles. [51] "Parents need to know that even with the best intentions, presenting reminders of the traumatic events and the feelings associated with them can perpetuate fear and distress." Grief counsellor Deborah Rivlin agreed telling the Boston Herald "it's true that kids are resilient, but they don't need to see those images over and over again". [52]
Mental Health Association of Greater Houston executive director Betsy Schwartz went further saying that parents should pay careful attention to what their children were watching. "There has been some research done that shows the correlation between the amount of TV people watched on Sept 11 and the incidence of post-traumatic stress afterward,'' Schwartz told the Houston Chronicle. [53] Dr Stephen Pierrel, assistant professor of family and
49 community medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, agreed that young children in particular should be sheltered from the coverage. "For little children…it's not good to watch those images over and over again," Dr Pierrel said.[53] "Their sense of time is different. They think it's happening right then."
US First Lady Laura Bush also weighed into the issue, advising parents to switch off their televisions on the first anniversary of the attacks. "Don't let your children see the images, especially on September 11, when you know it'll probably be on television again and again the plane hitting the building or the buildings falling," Mrs Bush was quoted as saying. [54]
In the aftermath of the attacks as the US launched war on Afghanistan, parents were advised not to put their own desire for information about the war ahead of their children's emotional health. "Don't let your own desire to keep up with the news get in the way of your children's well being," the MSN Women Central Parenting site advised parents.[55] "Even if your children are very young, the continual commentary, frightening speculation, and repeated replaying of the disasters and military strikes on TV will only fuel their fears and insecurities."
Dorothy Henderson, the assistant director of the Infant-Parent Study Center of the Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services, told the New York Times that while parents had the ability to monitor their own reactions and turn off the TV to prevent overload, very young children did not. "Now is the time to remind parents of young children to protect them from these images and to monitor carefully their older children for signs of distress. Young children are unable to place these images in historical context and you will need to reassure them that they are safe,'' Henderson said in the lead-up to the first anniversary of the attacks. [56]
The Second Gulf War Concerns that were raised about child viewers in the aftermath of
50 September 11 and in the lead-up to the first anniversary of the attacks resurfaced in March 2003 when the second war in Iraq began. The child's lack of ability to put the news events in perspective was a major concern. Young Media Australia director Barbara Biggins told The Courier-Mail that children's sense of safety and security was being undermined because they believed the events happening in Iraq were likely to happen in Australia tomorrow. "They lack the adult perspective to be able to see that this is happening a long way away and that this is the worst thing that is happening (in the world) today," Ms Biggins said.[57]
The Royal Australian College of Physicians children and media issues policy coordinator, Michael McDowell, said in a media interview that without cognitive maturity children could be upset by images without understanding them. "Emotive images that they are seeing are going straight to the part of a three-year-old's brain with very minimal intellectual information to process it," Dr McDowell said [57]. Dr Susie Burke, the national convenor of Psychologists for the Promotion of World Peace (PPOWP), also said young children did not understand issues of time and space and could not easily differentiate between events happening on the other side of the world and events happening on their own doorstep. "Young children should not be exposed to media coverage of the war," she said. [58] "Parents should also be carefully supervising children's television viewing to ensure that they aren't being exposed to news flashes in between regular programs." Amanda Allen, the author of PPOWP's report Managing Children's Reactions to Events of War, said parents needed to regulate their children's exposure to the war on television. "Children at different developmental levels actually believe that Iraq is more or less down the road, and if bombs are happening there, then it can happen her, too. That's a very real fear." [59] Psychologist C.T. O'Donnell II, the CEO of Kidspeace, said parents should be honest with children but to limit their exposure to war coverage. "Repeated graphic images is a huge problem, especially because younger children have a hard time differentiating between multiple events and a single event that's shown over and over again." [60] O'Donnell said that bedwetting, thumb-sucking and
51 clinging to parents could be among the signs that a preschooler or toddler was distressed or afraid by something they had seen.
Jane Roberts, the Vice President of Young Media Australia, also urged parents of preschoolers to "watch out for if their patterns of behaviour are starting to change, if they are becoming more fearful, if they don't want to sleep at night, if they are becoming more fearful". [61] She said news flashes presented a particular difficulty for parents, especially those living in Western Australia because of time difference between the west and east coasts of Australia. Broadcasts out of Sydney into the west could potentially be at a suitable time in Sydney but not in Perth. She called on the television networks to show restraint. "Generally speaking when news shows or current affairs shows are going to show something quite graphic or explicit you are given a warning," Ms Roberts said. "Now …those images might flash up without any warning and be in times when traditionally parents might be feeling fairly comfortable about having their preschooler or their young primary school age child watching TV i.e. 3.30/4 o'clock in the afternoon. I'd really like to think that the media will take some responsibility in acting sensitively when they are going to put these news flashes up, that there is some sense of warning and especially given that a third of their population out there are young children."
If children were to watch the coverage Dr Ken Haller, an assistant professor of paediatrics at the St. Louis University School of Medicine, advised co-viewing by parents. "If your child watches TV news reports on the war, an adult needs to be available to help him or her process these troubling images," Dr Haller said. [62]
The Australian Federal Government also weighed into the issue with Minister for Children and Youth Affairs Larry Anthony writing to national television news directors asking them to keep in mind the impact graphic images of war could have on children. "All television networks will no doubt be showing a great deal of footage of the conflict in Iraq over the coming days and weeks. I have written to them seeking cooperation in exercising restraint,
52 particularly during prime viewing time for children and young people, in the type of visuals used in their coverage of the conflict," Mr Anthony said in a press release dated March 24, 2003. [63] Mr Anthony said children were resilient and could absorb much coverage without any apparent long-term damage. "However, for many children exposure to scenes of warfare can be very harmful," he said. "I hope all news agencies consider the effect images of war can have on children and I urge parents to carefully monitor their children's exposure to these images." [63]
The ABC issued internal memos to all news and current affairs staff reminding them of the need to be selective when dealing with violent and disturbing footage. "It is important that such images are not used gratuitously, and warnings should precede them when they are used,'' said Walter Hamilton, Acting Director News an Current Affairs, in a memo to staff on March 24, 2003. [64] "The decision to use violent or potentially disturbing images or sounds should be based on judgement of their newsworthiness, together with regard for the reasonable susceptibilities of audiences to the detail of what is broadcast or published." Staff were reminded to be mindful of timeslot in which images were used and to remember the different time zones across the country which meant "news updates or rolling coverage could break into children's programming".
The ABC did, however, decide to reinstate its afternoon news updates. In December 2001, Bernard Bowen Executive Producer of ABC Television News in Queensland, explained that the ABC had dropped its 5pm news promotion because of concern about child viewers. "It’s a children’s viewing time so to take out that element of risk we decided to do away with the 5pm promo and we are very aware early and I guess mid afternoon that if there is an update we have to be very cognisant of the fact that there are children watching you know Play School is on, Sesame Street. When kids are watching those programs we don’t want to confront them with violent images that might stress them," Bowen said in a radio interview. [65] The policy was reversed during the Gulf War but management directed staff to ensure viewers were warned. Mr Hamilton told ABC staff that updates between 7am and
53 10am and 3pm and 6pm - the traditional children's programming times - would be preceded by an audience alert. Producers were to "avoid images that would be likely to disturb children (eg dead bodies, severely injured people, images of close combat, close-up images of people in pain or distress)". [66] Viewers watching scheduled afternoon children's programs in the early days of the war were given the following audio warning hourly before a news update was broadcast:
We interrupt our scheduled children's programming to bring you this ABC News Update. It may contain images unsuitable for young viewers. In this time of crisis, the ABC has a responsibility to provide an independent comprehensive news and information service for the Australian community. This includes coverage of wars and other events including human suffering. The ABC does its best to ensure that there are warnings before coverage that might contain violent programming. We take particular care to consider the needs of our younger audience. Events in a war are unpredictable and coverage may interrupt normal programming at short notice.[67]
While the ABC's cautious approach to the war coverage received praise in some areas, it was not without its critics. Media Watch, the unofficial watchdog of media in Australia, noted on March 24, 2003, that in the first four days of the war the ABC had shown 41 hours of war coverage - much of it "in the wee hours" according to presenter David Marr [68] . In contrast, the Nine Network showed 56 hours of war coverage in the same period. But Nine's response was also the subject of criticism. The Today Show, whose extended war coverage replaced scheduled preschool programs such as Hi-5 or Here's Humphrey, asked viewers whether they believed there was too much war coverage. "I believe when children's shows are taken off air to show horrible images of war, there is too much war on television," viewer "Allan" said in an email read on the show [69]. Another viewer "Julie" said: "I worry for the children who do not feel safe any more. My six and nine-year-olds express fear of the war".[69]
In the US concerns about children's fear reaction to the war coverage prompted the producers of Sesame Street to create eight public service announcements featuring Elmo telling children and parents how to deal with
54 their fear. In a broadcast on the American CBS television network about young children's reactions to war coverage, an unnamed representative of Sesame Street told reporter Morry Alter that the announcements were considered necessary because "the media is filled with images and discussion about war and terrorism and children are picking up on these messages from the media".[70] The public service announcements were not screened in Australia.
David Hookes' death In the Australian environment the issue of violence on television was somewhat surprisingly provoked again by the bashing death of cricketer David Hookes in January 2004. In an interview with Alan Jones on Radio 2GB, Australian Prime Minister John Howard commented on "the national unease" about the willingness of some members of the community to "react physically far too readily". "I think perhaps it's a product of the excessive violence on television," he said. [71]. He said, however, that that did not mean that the government was planning any strategies to alter the level of television violence. "Those things are always very difficult because you've got to be very careful of governments getting too interventionist in anything. But the trail of violence and the deification of violence in certain forms in the media have perhaps contributed," he said.
While the Prime Minister advocated a non-interventionist approach by government, Opposition leader Mark Latham suggested that government action might be necessary saying that television stations needed to be aware of the number of young children watching television in the early evening. "I think there is some room for sensible regulation in that regard, whether it's self regulation or the government has to step in," Mr Latham said. [72] He said he often turned off the television when his three-year-old son Oliver was watching and shows became too violent or aggressive. To date neither party has put forward any policy for increased regulation.
Fact is scarier than fiction
55 The news is totally inappropriate for kids today. I don't let them watch it---not today, not since September 11, it's just too disturbing. My kids have had nightmares, we have had to deal with the nightmares. Stephen Spielberg [73]
Although regulatory bodies have adopted the stance of exempting television news from classification there is ample evidence that children actually find the truth scarier than fiction. In an international context, the 2003 British Broadcasting Standards Commission study into television violence found that children aged between 9-13 could clearly distinguish between fictional and real violence and they found the real life violence more disturbing.[74] Dr David Buckingham, the Director of the London-based Centre for the Study of Children, Youth and Media, said that while there was evidence that children could become desensitised to fictional violence no such evidence exists in relation to news violence. "Children often find it much harder to cope with the negative feelings induced by non-fiction material," Buckingham wrote in 2000 [75]. "They learn to control their fear of a monstrous villain like Freddy Kruger by reassuring themselves that he is merely fictional; yet such reassurances are simply not available when one is confronted with news about grisly serial killings or images of suffering in Bosnia or Rwanda." [75] Buckingham said there was little children could do to come to terms with negative responses to non-fictional violence. "Children frequently described the disturbing effects of news reports about violent crime, and they reported experiencing much greater anxiety about the media reporting of the Bulger case than they did about the film that allegedly provoked it." [75]
Indeed, Buckingham argued that those calling for stricter regulations on fictional violence may have the emphasis wrong. "Significantly factual for example on the news - often seemed to generate more anxiety in this respect than the fictional violence that is persistently condemned by politicians and other social commentators," he said. [76] Buckingham said, however, that news was generally ignored as a problem because it was seen that it did not provoke the same emotional responses as fictional violence. "If the emotional responses invoked by horror and melodrama are widely perceived to be
56 problematic or inauthentic, in the case of news they are often regarded as simply irrelevant."[76]
For a child audience, though, there is evidence that the emotional response to news is identical to that of fictional programming. "Children's descriptions of their feelings for the victims in horror films or melodramas are quite similar to their descriptions of their feelings for the victims of war or disaster or violent crimes shown on the news."[76] A study of Scandanavian children also found that children were more frightened by documentaries and news programs than they were by detective stories and horror films.[77] Similarly, in the Netherlands, van der Voort, van Lil and Vooijs found that "there is evidence that children's emotional responses to television portrayals of real violence are stronger than to violent scenes in fictional programs [35].
And the findings in the United States mirror those in Europe. Wilson and Smith found in 1995 found that three quarters of children aged from kindergarten to sixth grade reported that television news was scary with more than half being able to recall a specific news item that scared them. Joanne Cantor, who has been researching how mass media frightens children since 1980, has undertaken numerous studies which support the notion that news content scares children. In a 1996 study of 300 parents she found that one in three said that their child had been frightened by something on the news [78]. A separate study she conducted in 1984 found that parents listed television news in the top 10 television programs that scared their child [79]. Indeed television news came in sixth, which meant that children found it scarier than the horror film Halloween.
There is also ample evidence in an Australian context that television news scares children. Dr Shelley Phillips, the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's Children Program Committee, said in 1986 that her research found that children found television news distressing. She said that news violence was the biggest issue discussed by children, aged between six and 13, to whom she had spoken at selected Sydney and Melbourne schools. [80] Patricia Edgar, the then director of the Australian Children's Television
57 Foundation, agreed that news was particularly disturbing to children. "The news is the most disturbing thing kids can see on television,'' she said in 2001. [81]
A 1993 study of 125 children aged between 10 and 11 in Brisbane also found that news violence had greater impact than fictional violence. "Violence in drama is not perceived as such a concern as it is not intended to be ‘real’," wrote researcher Anne L. Russell. "The children in the study can recognise what is real and are concerned with physical, assault and intrusion into personal grief or suffering. "[82]
In fact the 1995 study of Australian children by Linda Sheldon and Lilica Loncar found that the news upset 38 per cent of the children aged five to 12 surveyed - far more than any other genre screened to the children.[83] The same study found that more parents (34%) reported news and current affairs programs had upset their child than any other type of television program while eight per cent of children said they found news and current affairs upsetting.[22] Dr Susan Roberts, who put together The Australian Early Childhood Association's submission to the 1989 ABA inquiry into television violence, said parents needed to take into account not only whether their children were viewing television violence but more importantly what type of violence they saw. "Children find it easier to cope with violence in police dramas, for example, than with violence in news because news stories rarely place violence in an understandable context,'' she said [84]
Australian adults also reported that news violence is more of a concern than fictional violence. A study carried out for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in 1989 by Kate Aisbett and Andree Wright found that news was considered the most disturbing program on television. "The single most important factor to influence the intensity of the violence was whether the subject matter was about real life,'' the study found. News segments and realistic drama were among the items considered most violent. News excepts were consistently judged most upsetting."[85]
58 There is also evidence that the concern about violence in the news is increasing in Australia. The 2003 Australian Broadcasting Authority report into violence on free to air television found that adults believed that violence was more worrying or upsetting when shown on the news then when part of a movie. [86] Fewer people now believed that it was justifiable to show violence on the news or in current affairs programs than when the previous survey was conducted in 1989. [86]
Kids do watch news. There is ample evidence that children - even young children - do watch news although they might neither choose to watch the programs themselves nor enjoy the content. But there is also evidence that newsmakers do not believe that children watch the news. The 1990 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Report into Violence on Television found that while adults have concerns about the early evening news content in relation to young viewers, the networks believed that censoring the news would be misguided because of the likely audience make-up. "(Television networks) suggest that few children watch the news or current affairs and that any action taken to protect children in these areas would therefore be misguided,'' the report found. [26]
There has been support for that view in academic circles as well. "Many broadcasters and academicians argue that children do not watch news,''[87] said New York University Assistant Professor of Journalism Mary Quigley in 1989. She argued, however, that Nielsen Media Research Rating Figures put the number of children in the US aged two to 11 watching free-to- air television each night at 2.3 million.
Indeed there is ample evidence from Australia and overseas that children are watching news in large numbers - although there seems to be considerable variance on just how large those number are. A survey of 580 children aged between 11-16 conducted in 1994 for Children Now, a US child
59 advocacy organisation, found that 65 per cent of children said they had watched a television news program the day before being interviewed. [88] And in 1978, Atkin found that two thirds of children between kindergarten and fifth grade watched TV news "sometimes" or "almost every day". [89]
Almost two decades later, Hosrt Stipp told the 1995 International Communication Conference that about 500,000 American children aged between 2 and 11 watch the evening network news every day.[90] But five years later, a New York Times article put the number at almost double the 1995 figure citing Nielsen Media Research figures which had the total number of viewers aged between 2 and 11 at almost one million.[91] Joanne Cantor and Amy Nathanson found that children were not avid news watchers and did watch the news less than other top rating programs. However, they said, hundreds of thousands of young children did watch the news every night - far more than watched News for Kids.[78]
In an Australian context, too, there is ample evidence that children are regular consumers of television news. A study conducted by La Trobe university researchers in 2003 but still unpublished found that 10 per cent of children aged between 4-6 watched the news daily with another 25 per cent watching occasionally.[92] The 1994 Australian Broadcasting Authority study into children's attitudes to violence, swearing and nudity on television found that 92 per cent of children aged five to 12 said they watched television news although large numbers reported not liking to either see or hear about events such as children being hurt of killed. [22] And in 1985 Noble and Freiberg found that news programs were the least popular with children because they failed to give them a "fluttery feeling inside" interpreted by the researchers as failing to induce a pleasant feeling of arousal - but they still watched it.[93]
For the most part, children seem to be reluctant viewers of news. The British study of children aged 9-13 found that children did watch news "although this is not a genre of viewing choice for most participants and is often seen within the home or family-viewing environment" [74]. Dr Jane
60 Ledingham, the director of the University of Ottawa's Child Study Center, noted that when children and parents watched television together it was more likely to be a program that the adults preferred. "This can mean that children are exposed to violence in crime shows and news programs that adults have chosen to watch," she said. [94] And Mary Quigley argued that while children did not sit and stare at the set while the news was on they were frequently in the same room. "Admittedly many youngsters do not choose a news program themselves; they watch with their family during dinner or while playing in the same room when their parents are watching TV," she said. [87]
Australian research has also pointed to the fact that children may be reluctant viewers of television news. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's 1990 study into television violence in Australia found that the early evening news was screened at a time when many children were likely to be watching "although may adults acknowledged that children do not like watching news programs." [26] Dr Susan Roberts agrees stating that "children are unlikely to watch news programs freely. They are only likely to watch the news if some well meaning adults insist" [84] Indeed, Patricia Palmer in a 1986 study into Australian children and television, found that the programs on television most hated by children were news and current affairs [95]. Dr Shelley Phillips, the chairperson of the Children's Program Committee of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal which undertook the research, said news violence was the biggest issue discussed by children. "The kids are hating it because of the violence,'' Dr Phillips said. "If parents want to watch the news with their children they need to discuss it with them and encourage them to talk about it. [80]"
Further, when children did watch news studies showed that it was not very interesting to them. While children's attention will be held by a movie for 76 per cent of the time, news held their attention for only 55 per cent of the time rating in last place alongside advertisements. [96] There is also evidence that adults often do not realise that children are consumers of television news. As Smith and Wilson commented in 2000 "Contrary to what adults often
61 assume, many American children regularly watch television news"[97] p1. The Smith and Wilson finding is echoed by lobby groups Children Now and the Kaiser Family Foundation who note "many adults do not realise how many kids actually watch TV news or read the newspaper"[98]
Even media researchers have, according to Barrie Gunter and Jill McAleer, underestimated how much news children see. "A long standing belief among media researchers that news is of little interest to children is not borne out."[99] Indeed the Gunter and McAleer research conducted in the UK in 1990 found that the BBC program Newsround - a news program packaged for children - rated in the top 10 programs viewed by children aged 4-15. "Provided it is packaged in the right way children switch on to the news as much as adults do,'' they wrote.[99]
Jennifer Wolff described in 1997 how parents often did not realise their own preschool children were watching the news - even if they were in the room at the same time. Wolff described how the parents of one five-year- old girl believed the child was engrossed in Lego on the floor - not watching the news coverage of the Gulf War - until she started asking who Saddam Hussein was. The mother stopped watching the news while the preschooler was in the room. Wolff cited another example of four-year-old Scott Cernak who was in the room while his parents watched news items about starving people in war-torn Somalia [100]. "The Cernaks didn't think Scott was paying attention, until one day he tearfully asked his parents how those poor people were going to eat,'' Wolff wrote. "The next day, while driving to preschool, they heard on the radio that American troops were trying to airlift food to the Somalians. But Scott worried that the soldiers wouldn't bring enough food and again asked how the people would be fed which made his mother realise that he was not only listening but taking the news to heart."[100]
Cantor and Nathanson summarised the issue. "It is clear that the news is included in the television diet of many children. Even if children do not select the news themselves, they may still be affected by news stories that their parents are watching." [78] And Jill Singer the former host of the ABC's
62 7.30 Report and Channel 7's Today Tonight in Melbourne said that as parents could choose to turn off the news as easily as they could to turn it on. "In any case, my experience is that most young children aren't clamouring to watch news bulletins, but usually see them only if the parents are in control of the remote. And if parents are present they can monitor their child's reaction to what they are viewing," Singer said. [20]
Parents as censors
I wouldn't let my child watch the news alone. Dr Ellen Wartella University of Illinois Institute of Communications Research professor [87]
There is ample evidence that parents do monitor and censor their children's viewing of the news - although as the research has found children still watch large amounts of television news and are frequently scared by what they have seen. Buckingham, in interviews with British parents in 1996, found that many had made a deliberate decision to watch the news when their children were not around. "Many argued that the news could often be more upsetting than fictional material, and in some cases, this had led them to watch the news later in the evening, when the children are in bed."[76] While parents do monitor and censor their children's viewing of the news, there is evidence that they are less vigilant with censoring news programming than they are with other television genres. In fact the 1995 Australian Broadcasting Authority report into children's attitudes to violence, kissing and swearing on television found that real life incidents were the least likely to be regulated by parents. "Although more parents reported incidents involving real life depictions which concerned or upset their children than any other type of incident they did not regulate this program category as much as others," the researchers found. [22]
Parents do, however, accept that the responsibility of regulating what their children see on television. The 2003 ABA report into attitudes on violence on television found that 97 per cent of adults agreed that parents should control what their children watch on television. [86]. In practice,
63 however, there is evidence that this doesn't always happen. In fact, there is some evidence that parents will often allow their children to choose what content they watch. "Parents can serve as models of how to watch television, as gatekeepers allowing or denying access to television, and as interpreters of the content of television,'' said Dr Jane Ledingham of the Canadian National Clearinghouse on Family Violence. "However," she said, "research has shown that most parents seldom intervene in their children's choices of TV shows."[94]
Diane Levin, a professor of education who specialises in children, violence and the media, believes that parents would be best advised to stop their children from watching the news. "The best approach for young children is to try and protect them and, when possible not have the news on when they're around. This means the TV at dinner or radio in the car."[101] She said, however, that even the most vigilant parent would not stop their children from learning about disturbing news events. "But, despite our best efforts, it's important to realise that most children will still hear about disturbing stories in the news - at child care and in school settings, in other people's homes, and from older siblings and playmates."[101]
In any event, Joanne Cantor argued that even the most vigilant parent would only be able to prevent children from seeing violence that can be reasonably predicted. "A vigilant parent might avoid watching the news with children around, but what about the dreaded bulletin about the terrorist bombing of a jet liner that can crop up at any moment? Real stories such as these that raise genuine threats to all of us, are especially challenging for parents to help their children handle"[102]
But there are arguments that parents should not have to bear the burden of censoring their children's television viewing alone. Barbara Biggins, Young Media Australia director and former Office of Film and Literature Classification Board of Review convenor, told the 1996 Senate Select Committee into Portrayal of Violence in the Electronic Media that parents did
64 monitor and censor their children's viewing but they could not do it alone. "I am really concerned that the government, through its regulatory systems and all sorts of parenting education programs, ought to be making the media environment far more healthy for kids and not leaving the whole responsibility on parents to keep their kids away from unsuitable behaviour,'' she said.[13]
The 1989 study conducted by Kate Aisbett and Andree Wright for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal found that even though 96 per cent of adults felt it was a parent's responsibility to control what their children saw on television, six in 10 adults felt that news showing violent material should only be shown later in the evening. "It would appear that a large proportion of the community desires changes to the visual presentation of violent material during the early evening time slots," Aisbett and Wright said.[85]
David Buckingham's study of British parents found that many believed that the broadcasters themselves should take more responsibility. "Parents argued that this kind of control should be exercised more carefully by broadcasters themselves,'' said Buckingham[76]. "Some asserted that the news programs shown at breakfast time and in the early evening were too upsetting."
The broadcasters, however, have consistently argued that while they actively took into account the young viewer, parents needed to take the ultimate responsibility for what their children saw. As Bernard Bowen, the Executive Producer of ABC Television News in Queensland, said in 2001: “I would just urge parents out there to be very careful and take a greater responsibility when their children are watching the nightly news,” [65]. But as Brett Waters from the University of New South Wales' Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry summed up, many parents do try to mediate their children's television viewing from an early age. "Unfortunately yet others are quite indifferent to their children's viewing."[103]
65 What children understand about news Preschool children see news and there is evidence that they understand a good deal of what they view - more even than their parents or preschool teachers often give them credit for. Diane Levin, a Professor of Education who specialises in children, media, and violence, said children do pick up more from the news than their parents predict. "Often we think that young children can't understand what they hear on the news, but children pick up on more than we realise,'' Dr Levin said.[101]
Brisbane-based early childhood researcher Cassandra Weddell said the reason children picked up on news reports was that their structure made them readily accessible to the preschool child. "A news report is an easy text for children to read because it presents the who, what, when where and why, with pictures,'' she said. [104] In a landmark study conducted in 1995, Weddell and preschool teacher Janice Copeland interviewed 109 parents and 124 teachers and made extensive observations of preschool children at play. They found that neither the parents nor the teachers were aware of just how much television news the preschool children were picking up. "Our findings suggest that both parents and teachers are oblivious to how much young children are absorbing from television news,'' the researchers said.[105] They argued that it was the simple "picture book" type structure of the news genre that made children pick up the content so readily. "The news genre is something that children do latch on to because of the way in which a news report is structured: they are short succinct pieces that have a beginning, a middle and an end, and the pictures and spoken text match. That's very understandable to children." [39] In fact, even children who did not see all the report or who were not giving the program their full attention were able to make sense of the story, the research found. "We found that children were able to piece together a story even when they had not seen the complete story. In households where television is part of the background noise - perhaps in another room during the evening meal - children were easily able to understand and make sense of a story." [39]
But while the structure of news assisted the young viewer in understanding the message, there was also evidence that their understanding was incomplete and often lacked context. A 1998 study by Professor Joanne Cantor, a US expert on the effects of the mass media on youth, found that children became more upset by the news as they aged. "There was an upward trend in the percentage of children frightened by news, going from
66 26 per cent of kindergarteners to 44 percent of sixth graders,'' Dr Cantor said. [102] She argued that this was because the younger child had not yet fully developed an appreciation of the distinction between reality and fantasy. These age differences in children's understanding of news, according to Dr Cantor, explains why younger children "were a great deal more upset than older children by news coverage of natural disasters". [102] "Natural disasters are usually dramatically visual and television news stresses the images of devastation: Homes are shown being ripped apart by hurricanes, swept away in floods, or crushed in earthquakes, and this footage is accompanied by images of frightened bystanders or sobbing victims. These images are readily remembered and often cause children to worry that a similar disaster will happen to them next." [102] Dr Cantor argued that it was a young child's ability to "read" the pictures that made the medium so accessible to them. Thus stories about criminal violence were less threatening to young children because the violent acts were not normally caught on film. "When they are, as in the Rodney King beating, I would expect younger children to be as frightened by them as older children," Dr Cantor said. Appearance is everything, with young children. "For preschool ("preoperational") children (approximately age 2-7), how something looks is the most important determinant of whether it will be scary."[106]
A Canadian study added weight to the argument that the visual elements of television coverage impacted most on preschool children. "Preschool age children understand visual material on television more easily than auditory material although they can learn from auditory material if it uses dialogue that matches the preschoolers' vocabulary,'' researcher Dr Wendy Josephson concluded. [107] She said, however, that there were a number of reasons why "preschoolers may be an especially vulnerable audience". [107] "Although they actively search for meaning in the television content they are still attracted to vivid production features such as rapid character movement, rapid changes of scene and character, varied settings, intense or unexpected sights and sounds, loud music and peculiar or non-human voices." Further Cohen, Wigand and Harrison said children's recall of dramatic or emotionally arousing news items was improved significantly if visual material was included. [108]
67 While the video was important to a child's understanding of television news, it would be a mistake to assume that the audio was unimportant. Gunter and McAleer [99] found that children often did not watch the screen but followed what was going on through the audio and then turn their attention to the screen if something interesting was happening. "Even children as young as three have this ability to monitor the sound-track on television whilst looking elsewhere and have been observed to shift their attention back to the screen when appropriate."[99]
There are other differences between the preschool child and older children as consumers of television and television news in particular. The already identified inability of the young child to accurately distinguish between reality and fiction can have both positives and negatives for the preschool viewer. Young Media Australia echoed Cantor's finding that children under seven or eight could not reliably distinguish between fantasy and reality. YMA argued, therefore, that the young viewer could be the most vulnerable to fictional media violence because even a cartoon character can be seen as real. But there were implications in terms of news violence as well. YMA recommended that parents restrict the amount of news children under 11 or 12 view because "these children are unlikely to understand that 'it isn't likely to happen to you' as they don't understand probability". [109]
The inability of young children to accurately predict the likelihood of an event in the news directly affecting them, is essentially a double-edged sword. Smith and Wilson [97] found that children aged six and seven were far less likely than those aged 10 and 11 to feel especially vulnerable when the news reported an event that happened close to home. On the down side, however, "the inability to clearly discriminate risk as a function of proximity makes younger children susceptible to a range of unlikely fears".[97] This inability also made young children feel vulnerable when viewing war coverage. "Younger children were more likely than older children to perceive that the war posed a risk to them even though it occurred in a distant country." [97] Weddell noted that the preschoolers' fears may not quickly erode, no matter how fleeting the view the child received. Nor, she argued, was the preschooler likely to be able to fully put the event in context. "We might think the images are so fleeting their impact will soon dissipate. In fact they can leave a heavy imprint,'' she said.[104] "A three-year-old who sees a plane crash into a building may fear that every plane they see in the sky will also crash."
68
The inability of a young child to understand replays was taken up by the Dr Robin Goodman of New York University Child Study Center who said preschool aged children could be easily overwhelmed by what they saw. "They might not realise that a single incident is rebroadcast so may think many more people are involved than is the case. In addition, the graphic and immediate nature of news makes it seem as if the conflict is close to home - perhaps around the corner."[110] Dr Josephson agreed. "Preschoolers' even older ones, rarely understand instant replays,'' she said. [107]. That, says Dr Harry Pellman, a clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of California, made television news about disasters especially upsetting for preschool children. "Repetition of graphic images and discussions about disasters give the impression that they are happening again and again,'' he said. [111]
There is evidence, in fact, that a child might not fully understand television news until the age of nine. "Although the specific age at which a child is capable of understanding and dealing with what she sees on the news depends on the maturity of the individual child, psychologists say most youngsters under nine can't comprehend the complexity of violence of TV news,'' said Sandy Keenan. [112] Keenan quoted clinical psychologist Madeline Levine as saying "At nine, a child can reliably distinguish between reality and fantasy."
In summary, children see the news and although they might not fully understand it nor like it, they are affected by it. Neither their parents not the broadcasters appear to fully appreciate this fact.
1. Bertrand, I. The Changing Face of News. in 40 Years of Television Conference. 1996. Melbourne: Monash University. 2. Introducing Commercial Television Australia. 2002, Commercial Television Australia: Sydney. 3. Office of Film and Literature Classification, Guidelines for the Classification of Film and Videotapes (Amendment No 3). 2000: Canberra 4. Australian Broadcasting Authority, Content Regulation. Commercial Television Code of Practice. 1998-2001 5. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC Code of Practice. 2003, Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Sydney. 6. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC editorial policies. 2002, Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Sydney. 7. Commercial Television Australia, Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice. 1999: Mosman., New South Wales.
69 8. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, kidz tv: An Inquiry into Children's and Preschool Children's Television Standards. Vol. 2. 1991, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. 9. Sheehan, P.W. The Effects of Watching Violence in the Media: Policy, Consensus and Censorship. in Violence, Crime and the Entertainment Media. 1997. Sydney: Australian Institute of Criminology. 10. Victorian Community Council Against Violence. Climate of Fear. in Media Responsibility in Reporting Violent Crime. 1991. Melbourne. 11. Community Council Against Violence, Understanding Violence in the Media, VCCAV: Melbourne. 12. Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies, Report on the Portrayal of Violence in the Electronic Media. 1997, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra 13. Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies. The Evidence of Media Violence. in Portrayal of violence in the electronic media public seminar. 1996. Canberra. 14. Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies. The Protection of Children and News and Current Affairs Programs. in Portrayal of violence in the electronic media. 1996. Canberra. 15. Senate Hansard, Government Response to the Report on the Portrayal of Violence in the Electronic Media by the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of services Utilising Electronic Technologies. 1999, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra. p. 1901-1902. 16. Family and Community Development Committee. Parliament of Victoria, The effects of Television and Multimedia on children & families in Victoria: Final Report. 2000: Melbourne 17. Collier, K., 'TV Censors - Victoria's bid to hide violent scenes from family viewing time', in Herald Sun. December 4, 2001: Melbourne. p. 1 18. Collier, K., F. Burstin, and A. Gardiner, 'Censorship Blast', in Herald Sun. December 5, 2001: Melbourne. p. 27 19. 'What the News Managers Say', in Herald Sun. December 5, 2001: Melbourne. p. 27 20. Singer, J., 'You be the censor', in Herald Sun. December 7, 2001: Melbourne. p. 20 21. 'Turning off the real world', in Herald Sun. December 4, 2001: Melbourne. p. 18 22. Sheldon, L.R., Gillian: Loncar, Milica;, 'Cool' or 'gross': children's attitudes to violence, kissing and swearing on television. 1994, Australian Broadcasting Authority: Sydney. 23. Sheldon, L. and M. Loncar, Kids talk TV: 'super wickid' or 'dum'. Vol. Monograph 7. 1996, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority. 24. University of Western Sydney, A.B.A., Children's views about media harm : a collaborative project between University of Western Sydney and the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Monograph/Australian Broadcasting Authority; 10. 2000, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority. 25. Cupitt, M., et al., Infants and Television. 1998, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority. 26. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, TV Violence in Australia. 1990, Report to the Minister for Transport and Communications: Sydney 27. Rickards, S. and S. Savage, Research into Community Attitudes to Violence on Free- to-Air Television: Research conducted by AC Nielsen for the Australian Broadcasting Authority. 2003, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority. 28. McCleneghan, J.S., ''Reality violence' on TV news: it began with Vietnam'. The Social Science Journal, 2002. 39(4): p. 593-598. 29. Sigel, R.S., Television and the Reactions of schoolchildren to the Assassination, in The Kennedy Assassination and the American Public: Social Communication in Crisis, E.B. Parker, Editor. 1965, Stanford University Press: Stanford. p. 199-219. 30. Cantor, J., Children's Emotional Reactions to Technological Disaster Conveyed by the Mass Media, in Television and Nuclear Power: Making the Public Mind, M.J. Wober, Editor. 1992, Ablex Publishing Corporation: Norwood. p. 32-54. 31. Wright, J.C., et al., 'How children reacted to televised coverage of the space shuttle disaster'. Journal of Communication, 1989. 29(2)(Spring): p. 27-45.
70 32. Pfefferbaum, B., Nixon, Sara Jo, Tivis, Rick D., Doughty, Debby E., Pynoos, Robert S., Gurwitch, Robin H., Foy, David W., 'Television Exposure in Children after a Terrorist Incident'. Psychiatry - Interpersonal and biological process, 2001. 64(3): p. 202-211. 33. Levin, D.E., Remote Control Childhood? Combating the Hazards of Media Culture. 1998, Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children. 34. Cantor, J., M.-L. Mares, and M.B. Oliver, Parents' and Children's Emotional Reactions to TV Coverage of the Gulf War, in Desert Storm and the Mass Media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton Press: Cresskill. 35. van der Voort, T.H.A., van Lil, Jan E., Vooijs, Marcel W., Parent and Child Emotional Involvement in the Netherlands, in Desert Storm and the mass media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton: Cresskill. p. 341-352. 36. Morrison, D., MacGregor, Brent, Anxiety, War and Children: The Role of Television, in Desert Storm and the Mass Media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton Press: Cresskill. 37. Hoffner, C., Haefner, Margaret J.,, Children's Affective Responses to News Coverage of the War, in Desert Storm and the Mass Media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton: Cresskill. 38. Wober, M., Young, Brian M.,, British Children's Knowledge of, Emotional Reaction to, and Ways of Making Sense of the War, in Desert Storm and the Mass Media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton: Cresskill. 39. Hammond, A., 'Research Shows Television News is Child's Play', in Inside QUT1998: Brisbane. p. 1-2 40. Gross, T. and S. Gurewitz Clemens, Painting a Tragedy: Young Children Process the Events of September 11. 2002, thelearningcollaborative.org 41. Kamberg, M.-L., 'Watch What You're Watching', in Women in Business. 2002. p. 25 42. The War on Terrorism: September 11 Discussed. in Royal Australiasian College of Surgeons Annual Scientific Congress 2003. 2003. Adelaide: RACS website. 43. Silver, R.C., et al., 'National Longitudinal Study of Psychological Responses to September 11'. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2002. 288(10): p. 1235-1244. 44. Steinberg, J., 'How the young cope; The Fears of a Child, Reflected in the Clouds Above Any U.S. City', in New York Times. September 11, 2002: New York 45. 'NYC survey finds children affected by Sept. 11'. Mental Health Weekly, 2002. 12(35): p. 1. 46. Schuster, M.A., et al., 'A National Survey of Stress Reactions after the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks'. The New England Journal of Medicine, 2001. 345(20): p. 1507-1512. 47. BBC, Broadcasting Standards Commission, and Independent Television Commission, Briefing Update: Depiction of Violence on Terrestrial Television. 2002, British Standards Commission: London 48. Millwood Hargreave, A., How Children Interpret Screen Violence. 2003, Broadcasting Standard Commission and Independent Television Commission: London 49. Leonard, T., 'Why fact, not fiction, frightens children watching TV', in Daily Telegraph. September 23, 2003: London 50. Rundle, R., R. Blumenstein, and J. Angwin, 'September 11, 2001: Schools Debate Whether to Watch News', in The Wall Street Journal. September 14, 2001: New York. p. B2 51. Mithers, C.L., 'One Year Later', in Parenting. 2002. p. 161-164 52. Cavaan, A.M., 'Experts: Shield kids from coverage', in The Boston Herald. March 10, 2002: Boston. p. 41 53. Karkabi, B., 'Our changed World; Remembering September 11; Helping children cope with 9;11 fears by listening', in The Houston Chronicle2002: Houston. p. 1 54. Gersema, E. and V. Maye, 'For The Sake Of Your Kids Switch Off The TV, Says Laura Bush', in Sun Herald. September 8, 2002: Sydney. p. 7 55. How to talk to your kids about September 11. 2001, BabyCenter 56. Henderson, D., 'The Horror of Sept. 11, Replayed', in The New York Times. September 4, 2002: New York. p. 20
71 57. Moore, T., 'TV footage can make kids fear for their safety', in The Courier-Mail. March 27, 2003: Brisbane. p. 5 58. Burke, S., Psychologists warn against exposing children to war. 2003, ABC online 59. Tomazin, F. and J.-A. Davies, 'Tell children they're safe, conflict is far from home', in The Age. April 2, 2003: Melbourne 60. Critchell, S., 'Parents can influence - but not control - how children see war', in Associated Press. March 24, 2003 61. Hillman, C., Helping Children Cope With Images of War. 2003, ABC: South Coast, Western Australia 62. Gilbert, S., 'A Parent's Guide to War Anxiety', in The New York Times. March 20, 2003: New York. p. 7 63. Anthony, L., Helping Australia's Children in Troubled Times. 2003: Canberra. 64. Hamilton, W., The use of footage in ABC's war coverage,Memo ABC News and Current Affairs Staff, Editor |Date,Year
65. Strong, T., Regulating children's news viewing. 2001, ABC Radio: Brisbane 66. Hamilton, W., Daily Television Output in Week March 24-28: Attention all Newscaff TV Staff. 2003: Sydney. 67. Warning. 2003, ABC Television: Sydney 68. A new national broadcaster?, in Media Watch. 2003, ABC Television: Sydney 69. Reaction to Reports on the war, in Today Show. 2003, Nine Network: Sydney 70. Alter, M., Children and war coverage. 2003, WCBS TV 71. Jones, A., Interview with Prime Minister John Howard. 2004, Radio 2GB: Sydney 72. Atkins, D., 'Latham backs curbs on television violence', in The Courier-Mail. January 29, 2004: Brisbane. p. 2 73. Giles, D., 'Call Home', in The Courier-Mail. March 2, 2002: Brisbane. p. 1-2 74. Hargrave, A.M., How Children Interpret Screen Violence. 2003, Broadcasting Standard Commission and Independent Television Commission: London 75. Buckingham, D., After the Death of Childhood. Growing Up in the Age of Electronic Media. 2000, Cambridge: Polity Press. 76. Buckingham, D., ed. Moving Images. Understanding Children's Emotional Responses to Television. 1996, Manchester University Press: Manchester. 77. von Feilitzen, 'Findings of Scandinavian research on television in the process of socialisation'. Fernsehen und Bildung, 1975. 9: p. 54-84. 78. Cantor, J. and A. Nathanson, 'Children's Fright Reactions to Television News'. Journal of Communication, 1996. 46(4): p. 139-152. 79. Cantor, J. and G.G. Sparks, 'Children's Fear Responses to Mass Media: Testing Some Piagetian Predictions'. Journal of Communication, 1984. 34(2): p. 90-103. 80. Carroll, N., 'Children's survey finds bad news about television', in The Advertiser. October 19, 1985, 1985: Adelaide. p. 28 81. Lawrence, A., 'Kids vulnerable to news violence for months', in Insite. October 26, 2001: Brisbane 82. Russell, A.L. Television interesting stuff for Life. in Address to Visual Media in Education Conference. 1993. Brisbane: Friends of ABC. 83. Sheldon, L., Loncar, Milica, 'Cool stuff and Slimy Stuff - children and Classification issues'. Media Information Australia, 1995. 75: p. 139-149. 84. Roberts, S., 'Violence on television - how are children affected?' Rattler, 1989. 11(Spring): p. 16-18. 85. Aisbett, K. and A. Wright, 'Views on the News'. Media Information Australia, 1989. 54: p. 13-16. 86. AC Nielsen, Research into Community Attitudes to Violence on Free-to-Air Television. 2003, Australian Broadcasting Authority: Sydney 87. Quigley, M., W., 'Kids Watch television news and it scares them'. Washington Journalism Review, 1989. 11(8): p. 46. 88. Maslin, P., Children & the Media: Tuned In or Tuned Out? America's Children Speak Out on the News Media. 1994, Children Now 89. Atkin, C., 'Broadcast news programming and the child audience'. Journal of Broadcasting, 1978. 22: p. 47-61.
72 90. Stipp, H. Children's exposure to TV news and reality-based programming. in International Communication Association annual conference. 1995. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 91. Steinberg, J., 'Breaking All the News That's Fit to Frighten', in New York Times. October 1, 2000: New York. p. B4 92. Skouteris, H., Personal communication, Author, Editor |Date,Year
93. Noble, G. and K. Freiberg, 'Discriminating between the viewing styles of the commercial and ABC child viewer'. Media Information Australia, 1985. 36: p. 22-3. 94. Ledingham, D.J., The Effects of Media Violence on Children. 1994, The National Clearinghouse on Family Violence: Ottawa 95. Palmer, P., The Lively Audience: A study of children around the TV set. 1986, Sydney: Allen & Unwin. 96. Bechtel, R.B., C. Achelpohl, and R. Akers, Correlates between observed behaviour and questionnaire responses on television viewing, in Television and Social Behaviour, Vol. 4: Television in Day-to-Day Life: Patterns of Use, J.P. Murray, Editor, US Government Printing office: Washington, D.C. 97. Smith, S.L. and B.J. Wilson, 'Children's reactions to a television news story: The impact of video footage and proximity of crime'. Communication Research, 2000. 27(5): p. 641-673. 98. Talking with Kids about the News. 2002, Children Now Kaiser Family Foundation 99. Gunter, B.M., Jill,, Children and Television. Second ed. 1997, London: Routledge. 100. Wolff, J., 'Can You Protect Your Child From the News', in Parenting. September, 1997. p. 135-142 101. Levin, D.E., When Your Kids Hear about Scary News. 2002, Beansprout 102. Cantor, J., "Mommy, I'm Scared" How TV and Movies Frighten Children and What We Can Do to Protect Them. 1998, San Diego: Harvest. 103. Waters, B., 'Mediating Children's TV/Video Viewing - Censorship in the Home?' Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 1989. No 1(October 1989): p. 128-139. 104. Osfield, S., 'Talking to children about disaster', in The Australian Women's Weekly. January, 2003: Sydney. p. 113 105. Weddell, C. and J. Copeland, 'Television Really is Kids' Play'. International research forum on children and the media, 1998. 6: p. 8-9. 106. Cantor, J., Children's Fright Responses to Television and Films. 1997, Coalition for Quality Children's Media 107. Josephson, W.L., Television Violence: A review of the Effects on Children of Different Ages. 1995, National Clearinghouse on Family Violence: Ottawa 108. Cohen, A.A., R.T. Wigand, and R.P. Harrison, 'The effects of type of event, proximity and repetition on children's attention to and learning from television news'. Communication Research, 1976. 3: p. 30-36. 109. Overview of the effects of violence in the media. 2003, Young Media Australia 110. Goodman, R.F., Talking to Kids About Terrorism or Acts of War. 2001, About our kids.org 111. Pellman, H., 'What parents want to know about children and disasters'. Pediatrics for Parents, 2002. 20(1): p. 4-5. 112. Keenan, S., 'Talking to Kids About Violence', in Good Housekeeping. 1997. p. 76-79
73
Chapter 4 Primary findings
71 "I think you have to accept that news is not actually a program made for children"[1]Susan Mitchell ABC Radio Brisbane
Who's watching what? News may not be made for children, but large numbers of preschool children do see news footage on a regular basis. As noted earlier, still unpublished research undertaken by researchers at La Trobe University found that 10 per cent of children aged between 4-6 watch the news daily with another 25 per cent watching occasionally. [2]. This research suggests that the figures could be even higher. Figures collected from the surveys of parents found that almost half (48.5 per cent) of those who responded said their children watched the news at least occasionally. Figures for the September 11 coverage were even higher, with 82 per cent of children aged between three and six seeing some of the coverage, according to their parents. The mother of one three-year-old boy estimated that he saw 10 hours of the coverage with the mean amount of coverage watched by preschoolers estimated to be 57 minutes.
OzTAM research confirmed that large numbers of preschool children saw the coverage. The Australian media monitoring company was commissioned for this project to analyse its data for September 12, 2001, seeking figures for the number of children aged six and under who watched television that day . The available figures measured five city metropolitan viewers, that is people watching television in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. OzTAM found that 40, 317 children saw the Channel 7 news that night, 107,126 saw National Nine News, 45,079 saw Ten News First at Five, 20,589 saw the ABC evening news and 2,753 saw SBS World News. In addition to the 215,864 preschool aged children who saw the scheduled news broadcasts that day, very large numbers saw the coverage earlier in the day. For example, 23,789 saw the Ten News: America Under Attack coverage which ran from 6am until 11.30am, almost 60,000 were watching the Nine News special World Cross America Under Attack between 5 and 6pm, 20,641 saw the Channel Seven news special which ran from 2am- 6pm and 25,555 where watching the ABC's coverage from 6am until noon.
72
Preschoolers and the News
While the evidence suggests that large numbers of children are watching news, the research also shows that often children do not watch the news in the way adults do. This makes controlling what they see on the news problematic for their parents. Parents say children do not always seem to be "watching" the news although they are often in the room while it is on. Sonya in Focus Group Three, said she mistakenly let her daughters, aged two and a half and four and a half, see the September 11 coverage because she did not believe they were "watching" it or taking it in. "We kept the television on because we didn’t actually think they were actually watching it because they were off playing, doing things and we didn’t realise they’d absorbed much of what had been displayed or spoken about until later when they started making statements about planes and stuff. Their father was going on a plane and they asked 'Daddy is your plane going to crash into a building too?' that sort of deal."
Weddell and Copeland reported that parents often under-estimated their children's ability to watch and understand news. "Our findings suggest that both parents and teachers are oblivious to how much young children are absorbing from television news, current affairs, serials and even radio."[3] If, as Weddell and Copeland suggested, preschool children absorbed news from radio as well as television, the audio as well as the video must be important. The focus group participants backed up this view. Martine, in Focus Group One, said audio cues drew her children's attention to the news when they were not paying full attention. "The kids were playing with toys and we were watching the news. They said a woman had been bashed three times. He stopped playing and looked up at the TV. Why do they have to say that?" In Focus Group 2, Lisa also described how her children saw bits and pieces of news coverage. "They don’t watch the whole thing. They come running in and out around the room but they pick up on things."
73 The survey also uncovered the idea that while children where not interested enough to watch the news, their attention was sometimes caught by individual items. Two of the 16 parents who said their children did not watch the news because of lack of interest, went on to explain that they would be drawn to some content. Respondent Number 49, the mother of a three-year- old girl said. "She's not interested. Usually only if a headline stands out on the TV such as September 11 attacks etc." And Survey Respondent Number 49, the mother of twin girls aged five and a 12-year-old boy, said her twins did not watch the news because they were "not really interested". But she went on: "Sometimes (they) comment on issue they hear on (the) news." Again, what the parents reported was in line with the Weddell and Copeland findings. "Sometimes children are watching adult programs such as news and current affairs - however peripherally - and understanding them."[3] As children appear to be absorbing news without actually appearing to watch it, the issue of whether it was what they saw or what they heard that mattered needs to be addressed in depth.
Sound and vision By separating the elements of sound and vision, the participants in the focus groups were able to address this question in detail. The consensus seemed to be that while the images had the biggest impact, it was the audio cues that attracted the attention of children to the screen in the first place. Martine, in Focus Group One, for example, said that the vision of a policeman walking out of the water with a toy in the story of a near-drowning of a toddler was something that would have impacted on her child and was unnecessary. And in the September 11 coverage, the images of people covered in dust, people crying and people jumping out of buildings were considered likely to have great impact on a child viewer. But the parents felt that the audio track - with people screaming and obviously distressed announcers - would have grabbed their preschoolers' attention in the first place. "The biggest impact I think was the combination of the two,'' said Sonya in Focus Group Three. "I think the screams and the … audio probably would have drawn their attention to it if they weren't listening already, that would have definitely drawn their attention to sort of go, 'what's going on here Mummy?'."
74 Michelle elaborated: "No it's the sort of key words that we as mothers use like 'oh my God' I mean that's a classic. Kids really do pick up on a voice. They are still not tuned in to the visual but they are listening all the time. Those key little phrases, classic mother things would have grabbed their attention and made them distressed."
Defining distressing news The mothers who took part in the focus groups said that the types of stories that upset adults were not necessarily the same as those which would disturb or distress children. War and terrorism, for example, were considered beyond their level of comprehension and thus not threatening. The parents felt, therefore, that a story about a mother trying to drown her children would have had a much bigger impact than one about the city beefing up its counter terrorism training as the threat of war loomed.
Children were most scared by stories that impacted on their own sense of safety and security, the mothers in Focus Group One explained.
Elizabeth (2): He would have liked the soldiers and the tanks. The story about the mother and the children would have upset him though.
Martine: Water is a problem. My son is petrified of water
Elizabeth (1): It’s true. If my daughter had seen that she would have refused to have swimming lessons.
Later Martine elaborated on why the story about a woman being murdered would have been distressing: "They talked about the woman’s son and said she was a mother. Kids understand that. They know what it is like to run and hide." And Jo said: "It’s the very personal stories that are the problem. The environmental disaster was a bit less personal."
There was also an acknowledgment that while children react differently from adults, they also react differently from each other. "Children
75 pick up cues and interpret it quite differently from adults," said Elizabeth 1 in Focus Group Three. "You can sit there and censor these broadcasts but that doesn't reflect on how a child interprets it and each child interprets it totally differently. I think that as adults we have to be acutely aware not to think about children on mass but as a group of individuals and accommodate that as much as we can."
News can be scary There can be little doubt that news editors take very seriously their responsibility to protect all viewers, and children in particular, from distressing images. As Fiona Crawford, the ABC's Queensland State Editor of News and Current Affairs, said: "We have a really strict set of checks and balances to make sure that distressing vision isn’t shown to viewers."[1] But even with the most stringent checks and balances, the nightly news will, on occasions, contain material that is distressing - both to adults and children.
Although 51 per cent of parents who took part in the survey said their children did not watch the news, almost half (47.4%) of all parents said their preschool child or children had been harmed or disturbed by TV news content. Parents highlighted stories about robbers, car accidents, fires, and stories about children or animals as being particularly disturbing to young children. They reported that the children had nightmares, were very questioning, were frightened or worried or were crying upset or distressed.
Almost half (45.2 per cent) of the parents whose children had seen the September 11 coverage said their children had been harmed or disturbed by what they saw. Again the signs of distress included disturbed sleep and nightmares, constant questioning and tears.
How 9/11 impacted on children Linda, in Focus Group Two (p6), explained how the incident impacted on her child.
76 My daughter is quite a bright, sensitive girl. She had just turned three on September 11. In the morning I went to turn on the kids' shows and of course they weren’t on and then of course I was fairly distracted by what I saw on the TV and so didn’t realise that my daughter D*** was also watching what was happening and witnessing the planes crashing into the buildings.
After that time her behaviour deteriorated substantially. She started to wet her pants and soil her pants and wet the bed. She had night terrors and regressed back to two-year-old tantrums. There was a marked change in behaviour which really concerned me. I was talking to a counsellor who suggested that I ask her if there was something bothering her.
I did and she turned to me and said “Mummy I’m really worried that a plane’s going to crash into your building and I’ll get left at kindy”. I’d always talked to D*** about Mummy working in a big tall building in the city and she’d worked it out in her mind that a similar thing would happen to me. She went on to say “I’m scared that you’re going to die" and I guess the only way I can describe my reaction to it was that I was completely gobsmacked. I was really quite amazed that she had made that connection and was so disturbed by what she had seen on the TV.
She only just mentioned it again about six weeks ago. I had to tell her it can’t happen here.
It's child's play Re-enacting the September 11 drama in play was also a common theme reported by parents. "He built his blocks into towers then threw and airplane into it,'' the Survey Respondent Number 33, the mother of a three- year-old boy said. "Two days later he was pulling things out of the cupboard. When questioned he said he was pulling out the firemen plus for a quiet child he was disruptive for several weeks afterwards. At the time I didn't stop to think that it would affect him but he understood what was going on." Significantly, Channel 7 Brisbane Director of News Rob Raschke described similar behaviour. He said, however, that his daughter was interested rather than disturbed by what she'd seen. "My own daughter was three when September 11 happened. She built a skyscraper out of cardboard and was throwing planes at it. She thought it was a movie. That was her take on it." [4]
This idea of re-enactment through play is one that was highlighted through the research of Weddell and Copeland who found that children frequently "played out" content they had seen on the news or current affairs in the preschool setting. "In their play, they developed props to extend their dramatised re-enactments of media events like Bosnia, the death of Princess Diana and the sea rescue of Tony Bullimore in the southern ocean," Weddell
77 and Copeland reported [3]. Parents found this type of re-enactment disconcerting and disturbing. It was mentioned only in connection with the September 11 coverage and not with other news broadcasts.
What made 9/11 particularly scary For 68 per cent of parents surveyed aspects of the September 11 coverage were more disturbing than regular news footage. Repetition of images was the biggest concern with 44 parents listing that as a problem but the footage of people jumping out of the towers was also considered problematic. Survey Respondent Number 96, the mother of a six-year-old boy and a three-year-old girl described her concerns. "Repetition of the image of the second plane flying into the building & people jumping from buildings. Too much violence and destruction. How can you raise optimistic children when this is saturating the TV for days on end?"
The participants in Focus Group Three also expressed concern about the footage of people jumping out of the towers. "Yes, I think the falling out of the windows was a big thing,'' Michelle said. "I mean I didn't watch the September 11 coverage because of my little girl I just turned the tele off but listening to it then I was thinking 'oh well if she was there then I'm sure that would have distressed her'. Falling out of windows over and over and over again."
The inadvertent viewer The fact that much the September 11 coverage seen by children was screened during what would normally be family viewing times was considered a particular issue for parents. Many participants felt very strongly that there needed to be some mechanism for warning parents when news coverage replaced scheduled children's television such as during the September 11 coverage. Respondent Number 94, the mother of a four-year- old boy, described the problem: "They should give a warning if it is on during a time of children's viewing. I only turned on the television in order to find some children's shows for my son and we were both in the room. I was
78 unprepared for what I saw and unprepared for explaining it to my son." Linda, a participant in Focus Group 2, reinforced the theme. She said she believed the coverage of September 11 severely impacted on her then three-year-old daughter. She said it was not the type of content she would normally have allowed her daughter to view. "When September 11 happened I was turning on for the kids' programs. What would help me is if they had some sort of warning. We need some sort of warning when they are showing things like that,'' she said.
Elizabeth (1), a participant in focus group three, is married to a journalist and says her son always sees at least some of the television news. Of all the participants in her group she was the only one who believed that the footage shown could be appropriate at 7am. She did, however, add an important rider. "You could show it in the morning, I suppose, as long as it wasn't on the ABC when you were expecting the children's shows. I mean the news should be shown during news times."
A warning about warnings Although the need for warnings was a widely articulated theme there were some reservations. Sonya, in Focus Group Three, said while warnings were better than nothing they would not help if a child was watching alone or when people tuned in during a program rather than at the beginning. "I think a warning is better than nothing, absolutely, but in the case of when your child was up …and turn(s) on the television…. that's not going to help. And also the fact that September 11, a lot of people turned on the TV at really odd times. You know what I mean. Whilst they are better than nothing and would go some way towards helping they are not going to be the be all and end all."
The participants Focus Group Three came to a consensus that existing warnings were not adequate and suggested a type of "warning fatigue" existed. Michelle said because fictional content such as movies now carried warning such as "this program may contain sex and violence" the warnings were frequent that they had lost all their impact. She suggested that new mechanisms were needed such as a flashing or flickering television which
79 would ensure that children notified their parents even if they were not in the room. "You know like be if the tele flicked or flashed you know like it was 15 bright colours or something so the kids go 'Mum there's something wrong with the tele and you can race out. " The proposal gained much interest with Elizabeth (2) describing it as a "secret signal to mums"
Michelle: Like the screen flashing two different tones of colour. Just so you could go "hey "
Elizabeth 2: Like a secret signal to mums
Michelle: Not so much the mums. It's more. Because what are they going to write? This scene contains material that may be distressing to children or may be distressing to others. You could miss that. How much weighting do they give that section?
No news is good news While some parents felt that warnings were enough, there were others who felt that what was required was one "safe" child-friendly television station was the solution. The implication was that this station would be news free. "There should be at least one channel left on TV for children viewers to watch without news on it," said respondent Number 27, the mother of a three-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl. The ABC was considered the most likely candidate. "Keep at least one channel for kids, say ABC,'' wrote survey recipient Number 90, the mother of a six-year-old girl. In Focus Group 3 the parents felt that any channel adopting a "child safe" policy would be likely to have a marketing advantage. Michelle said: "The parents will love them if they just go 'we will avoid this news thing, this drama, this fire, this whatever is going on and we will keep our kids' programs'". She later continued: "We should have one channel that is safe. Like a net nanny. That is safe so that we have a safe area. I flick between the ABC and SBS and they are not safe any more."
Parents as censors Parents, however, were not trying to abdicate their responsibility for controlling what their children saw on television. For the most part, they reported taking active steps to restrict, control and monitor what television
80 news content their children saw. When asked about restrictions to news viewing, 33 parents said they just didn't watch. Most of those who did watch had strategies in place for controlling or restricting what their children saw. Distracting or removing a child if the content became inappropriate or watching only selected parts of the broadcast such as the weather or sport were among the strategies adopted by parents. Fifteen parents said they would turn off or change channels if the content on the news was considered too violent or related to themes not suitable for children.
Respondent Number 42, the mother of a four-year-old boy and a six- year-old girl, was typical. "I try to watch when they are not around or if they are I monitor and sometimes change channel if I consider the subject to be too violent." While changing channels after the content becomes too violent may seem like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, the idea of monitoring, rather than a blanket ban, was one that received a lot of support. Sixteen parents suggested monitoring and making decisions on a case-by-case basis was appropriate.
Linda, in Focus Group Two, explained how a variety of strategies were needed depending on the situation. "With the Bali bombing we didn’t watch the news at all. Our children are never left alone when the news is on. We have the remote control in one of our hands. We turn the sound right down so we can do a lot of distracting. After September 11 we just stopped watching the news which was really hard." There was also support for the idea of restricting children from seeing some of the content but using other pieces to educate them about the world or reinforce certain safety messages.
Turning negatives into positives "If the news stories are too violent they are not to watch them,'' said Respondent Number 32, the mother of three boys aged between three and six. "Good news stories are fine. We have shown them house fires started by children and other dangers they come across to stress the points we teach them." Focus Group Three also touched on the idea of turning potentially disturbing news stories into teaching experiences for children.
81
"You have to do that whole thing of 'why did that little girl drown?' 'Oh well she didn't have her mother with her, you must always have a grown up with you when you swim' you know," Michelle said. "For the rape and the murders and the car crashes 'why did they have a car crash?' 'because they were driving over 60 and they didn't have their seat belts on'."
Stacey agreed: "Bring safety into it."
Sonya later took up the theme: "If they ask the questions and you can give them a plausible answer well is that harmful or is that just part of their learning process. Learning that the world is not, you know, a totally safe place to be and I have to take on board what Mum and Dad say seriously because it's not this fairy cotton world."
Providing a context for children Many parents believed that it was important to explain the news to their children, not only as a way of reinforcing safety messages but to provide a context for the news stories which parents felt young children were unable to grasp alone. Parents felt that their children's sense of safety was threatened by news because they could not put the news in context and could not, for example, differentiate between items that happened in their neighbourhoods and ones from overseas. This extract from Focus Group Three develops the theme:
Elizabeth 2: I think kids don't understand the relationships…. They don't have any context you know or that these things don't happen very often.
Michelle: It impinges on their safety. You're right. Brisbane to Bribie is hours and it's no different from Brisbane to Sydney, to Darwin to… It's a threat. To them it's not overseas.
Stacey: The globe doesn't mean much.
Elizabeth 1: Or the idea that Brisbane isn't as important to a terrorist as Washington.
Michelle: They are getting the world concept now but again their spatial distance is not correct.
Elizabeth 1: Or their idea of time. They don't understand yesterday or 10 to 12 .
Linda, in Focus Group Two, also touched on the issue. "It’s very much harder with a child’s concept because you have nothing to put it in perspective.'' she said.
News flashes
82 While parents were willing to help their children understand and deal with news content they did express the view that it was unreasonable to expect them to control content outside scheduled news times or screened without adequate warnings. News flashes were a particular area of concern. Tracey in Focus Group 2, the mother of a girl aged three and half, was very critical of news flashes during children's programming. "I think it was Channel 7, one of the news breaks was about people being killed. We were actually watching the children’s programs. It came in the middle of the children’s programs I know. It’s only an ad but I think it’s totally inappropriate. I think I have a bigger problem with that. Lisa agreed. "If they are watching the children’s programs I don’t like them to see snippets of the news." She took up the argument again later when asked about whose ultimate responsibility it was to control what children see. "I think the responsibility has a lot to do with the parents to be responsible for what their children are watching but I think it is unnecessary to show snippets of news in the children’s programs." Tracey also returned to the issue when the question of responsibility was raised. "I think it is unnecessary to say the news is coming up. It’s all about ratings. I think the responsibility is 95 per cent the parents'. We have to take responsibility but it would help if we had greater protection in the lead-up to the news."
Stacey suggested firm guidelines governing news flashes. "They just need to follow certain things. You know how they show you the ads for the news coming up next at five or next at six we'll have this, this and this. And not show it then because that's just no warning to get your child out of there because there's something horrible that they're going to see. " Elizabeth (1), argued that parents do have an ultimate responsibility but that news flashes created an unreasonable burden on them. "Well, I think ultimately it's up to parents to censor what their children are watching, within reason. I think the promotions that are showing what are coming up in the news are unreasonable because you don't know who's watching."
The issue of news flashes, especially during children's programming, was one also raised in the survey. Eight parents singled out news flashes as a particular problem when asked: "Do you believe the content or scheduling of
83 television news should be modified in any way to take into account young viewers?" Respondent Number 4, the mother of three children, said: "I don't believe news updates with disturbing contents should be aired during children's shows or between children's shows eg stabbing & I once saw footage of a man accidentally shot while trying to subdue an escaped lion & it aired straight after a children's show at 4.30pm".
If news flashes are to be shown at all, parents argued, their content must be in line with the programs they break into. As respondent number 32, the mother of three boys aged between three and six, argued: "News breaks throughout the day when young children could be watching should not show graphic images or violent events. We do not know when these are coming on so we can't supervise these."
Put it in writing Written news updates were suggested as a possible alternative so that adults could be informed about breaking news but young people did not need to be unexpectedly exposed to inappropriate content. Sonya in Focus Group Three explained: "But if it was sub titles I mean most young people can't read and they can't read that fast." Michelle agreed: "Yeah, I've just bought a TV with teletext for specifically that reason."
Warnings While news flashes were considered particularly problematic there was a more general sense of a need to give appropriate warnings with all news content that might be considered disturbing to children. It was a theme that was raised both in the surveys and in the focus groups. In Focus Group One, Kelli summed up the situation: "I would prefer some warning. 'In five minutes we are going to ruin your week'. I would like to know when. They give sex and violence warnings elsewhere. I would think they could in news." In response to the survey question which asked if content or scheduling of news should be modified to take into account young views, 16 parents mentioned the need for either more or better warnings. Respondent Number 19, the mother of two boys, was typical: "Warnings of upcoming stories if they could
84 contain material that could be harmful or traumatic to children eg shootings, bloodshed, torture. Not having news bulletins during children's TV shows."
The argument for external regulation There was a perception that while parents did censor their children's viewing of television news, some form of external regulation was required because children could be exposed to unsuitable material in the homes of others or when someone other that the parent was in charge. Linda described strict regulations imposed in her home after September 11. The children were never left alone in the room with the news on. The television was switched off during events such as the Bali bombing and the remote control was always at hand. The volume on the family's television was always switched down and the children were quickly distracted if any content deemed unsuitable is aired. She says those controls could only work in her own home where she controlled the television. "My parents are television junkies. They are not as aware as us, despite the impact September 11 had on my daughter. I have to be extra vigilant when I am at their place."
Grandparents were singled out as a particular problem area when it came to controlling children's viewing of news. Given the amount of informal care now undertaken by grandparents, this finding was considered particularly significant. Kelli, who said she supervised her children's viewing strictly, said her rules did not apply in her parents' house. "It’s really hard, near impossible, when I’m with their grandparents. My father doesn’t alter his life in any way at all just because there are kids in the house." Tracey added that even if other adults did censor viewing, their views on what was appropriate and what isn't may not mirror those of the parents. "My parents have Foxtel and no restrictions. At someone else’s house you can’t go turning it off. It’s not for me to say so she will watch the news but she’s not allowed to watch The Simpsons. Her (my mother’s) perception is that The Simpsons is bad but the news is fine." Lisa said that while her mother avoided watching the news, her father would watch regardless of whether there were children present or not. "My father if he’s watching the news and the kids are running around and
85 yahooing. He’s not worried about what they might see while he’s watching. It’s not a big issue for him."
The battle of the sexes The issue of different values between the sexes was raised as an issue within the home as well as outside. Several mothers believed that while they were vigilant, their husbands or partners did not share the same level of concern. Maria summed it up this way: "I found my partner is not that interested in whether the kids are watching the news. Usually he’ll only answer their questions if they hound him." Jo also mentioned the different values between parents. She said she checked content but her husband was not as rigorous. "If my husband had his way he’d watch the news and he’d leave it on. I prefer to have the TV off and not just because of the news. " Elizabeth took up the theme: "When their father was with us he used to watch TV all the time and you can’t censor everything."
The idea of fathers' and mothers' values differing came through in the survey material also, even though it was not one of the areas particularly targeted. Respondent Number 40, the mother of a six-year-old girl, said she imposed a total news ban because she could not edit the content. However, when asked to describe any evidence of her children being harmed or disturbed by TV news content she said: "When her father was living with us he was a news addict - he would watch the news on every channel as well as pay TV news. My daughter would watch with him. Sometimes generally following this she would have nightmares"
Although separated parents might have a greater inclination to mention differences in parental attitudes to news controls, the comments were not confined to families where the parents were not living together. Respondent Number 2, the mother of a four-year-old boy, said her child watched the news "only because his father insists on watching TV news daily". She said: "I am more sensitive to violence and inappropriate behaviour". When asked what restrictions were placed on news viewing in the home she said: "If father not
86 home, do not watch TV news. Change channel or turn off if violence (eg war) shown on TV news (sic)." Respondent Number 113, another mother of a four- year-old boy, said it was her choice not to show children the news due to violent/negative content and some times graphic images. She said she had deliberately changed her TV news consumption habits since having children. "(I) used to watch news and current affairs. Now (the) TV is generally off at these times unless his father wants to watch something in particular."
Timing is important The 6pm news slot came under the spotlight, with 21 parents (15%) who responded to the survey listing later bulletins as a modification needed to take into account younger viewers. Respondent number 49, the mother of a three-year-old girl, summed up the sentiment. "(I) would suggest that TV news puts on horrific or disturbing events on at a later time slot so as little children don't have to be scared or upset about these things."
All three focus groups also raised the issue of the need for later bulletins. The following exchange from focus group two summed up the feeling:
Linda: I think the news should be on later after the children have gone to bed at night, preferably nine o’clock.
Lisa: I do think later would be a good idea
Tracey: In saying that not everyone has children but I would prefer it on later at night. I don’t think it is the responsibility of the parents alone.
While later bulletins were a common theme there was less agreement on what time of night might be appropriate. Some parents thought the 7pm ABC model would be late enough but others suggested 7.30, 8pm, 8.30 or even nine o'clock news would be needed to protect the interests of children. If the news was not put on later many parents believed that the 6pm content needed to be toned down to take into account younger viewers. The issue was raised 27 times by respondents to the survey. As respondent Number 85, the mother of two girls aged eight and three, said: "If we must hear them, keep graphic explanations of murders etc till late night news. We don't need to hear them at
87 6pm when our children are up and having dinner." In Focus Group 2, Maria said that the content of much television in the early evening, including the news, needed to be re-examined in light of the likely child audience. "We try to monitor what they are watching but we have very little control. There are things on that I don’t think are appropriate at 7 or 7.30 at night. I have to explain things to them with that and the news. I’d rather not have to do that. I think there has to be much more assistance with the content of the programs."
As an alternative to toning down the content, a number of parents suggested that news bulletins, or individual items within bulletins, should be rated as a guide to parents. Repsondent Number 38, was one of five survey respondents to suggest a news ratings system. The mother of three children aged under four, raised the need for more positive news stories as well as "Possibly a rating system (as per movies) so that parents can remove kids from some coverage". In Focus Group Two both Lisa and Linda suggested a news rating system to help guide parents. "Some sort of rating system would be appropriate and I’d like to see the rating of ads about the news. I don’t think it can just be a parent thing," Linda said.
The concept of where the ultimate responsibility lies in protecting preschool children from news footage which is not age-appropriate raised a wide range of views. The survey respondents suggested a range of modifications to news content and scheduling that called broadcasters to account more for the material they broadcast. These included: • News ratings (5 mentions) • Warnings (16 mentions) • Less graphic images (12 mentions) • Later bulletins (21 mentions) • Toning down the 6pm content (27 mentions) • Care with news promotions (8 mentions)
Parents take control
88 But there was also a very strong sense that parents should not be looking to others to control what their children see on television. Twenty parents who responded to the survey said that the responsibility should be their own either fully or in part. As Respondent Number 77, the mother of a three-year-old boy, put it: "Parents should take their own initiative and make choices about what their children are exposed to." There was a fair degree of sympathy for that position within the focus groups too. "I think ultimately it is up to the parents,'' said Elizabeth (2) in the first focus group. "TVs have off buttons and it’s up to the parents to use them,'' said Alison in Focus Group Two.
In Focus Group 3, Elizabeth (1) explained that the September 11 experience had taught her that it is no longer possible to assume that material on the television would be "safe" at any time of the day or night. "I've accepted full responsibility for what the children watch now as a consequence,'' she said. She later continued: "It woke me up to the fact that I can not be so blasé to think that 15 minutes while I get out of bed and have a shower is safe, well it's not. It's your responsibility as a parent and if you object to them seeing this material then you have to be in a position to actually scrutinise it."
Sharing the burden But while there was a strong sense that parents needed to take the ultimate responsibility to censor their children's viewing, the focus groups uncovered a belief that for parents to assume this responsibility changes were needed at either a broadcaster or regulatory level. In Focus Group Two, a number of the mothers articulated the view that parents needed support to be able to regulate what news content their children were exposed to. Maria said: "It is a fully shared responsibility. We can’t do it on our own." Tracey was prepared to apportion responsibility. "I think the responsibility is 95% parents. We have to take responsibility but it would help if we had greater protection in the lead-up to the news." And in Focus Group Three Stacey said: "I think everything should start from the home…. but then again I think it would be good if everyone could all work together. I wish the government would take
89 some more responsibility. But in terms of the media, they need to rein themselves in a little sometimes."
There was, however, concern that not all parents had the same level of concern of what was appropriate and inappropriate material for children to view and thus some external controls were necessary. Linda, in Focus Group Two explained:
I think it is a shared responsibility. We are all white, middle class well educated women. I think that not everyone else has the same awareness but their children still deserve the same protection. My child’s grandparents still dismiss the issue even though they know the impact September 11 had on my child. I have a problem with it being the parents alone. I don’t trust the broadcasters. I would like it to be regulated. I think that’s the only way it would work. Some sort of rating system would be appropriate and I’d like to see the rating of ads about the news. I don’t think it can just be a parent thing.
It was a view also expressed by Sonya in Focus Group 3: "(It's) a mix between government legislation, parents and media bodies. Because at the end of the day not everyone has the same parental controls in their home.”
Children need children's programming While regulation of news programming received support so to did stricter guidelines for children's television. Parents felt that their children had a right to expect normal programs to be aired even when significant news events occurred. It was an issue raised in both the focus groups and the surveys. "They shouldn't all cancel normal screening TV shows especially children's shows,'' said survey respondent number 50, the mother of three children, one in target age group.
When asked whether there were any aspects of the September 11 coverage that concerned them, 10 parents listed the fact that children's programs had been replaced, 15 complained that there was days of coverage and 19 were concerned that there was nothing else on. Disturbing television was widely considered inappropriate but so was the cancellation of children's television.
90 In the context of a discussion about the impact of the September 11 coverage and the Bali bombing footage Lisa in the second focus group explained that children were disturbed not only by what they saw but what they didn't see: "Trying to explain to them why all their favourite children’s shows weren’t on,'' she said.
Your ABC Again the ABC was singled out for mention. In Focus group 3 Michelle said: "The television promotes us to condition our children to watch ABC kids for example so therefore I think they are morally and responsible to, if an event like this happens, to (keep the kids shows on), because that was a big thing 'where's ABC kids?'" In the same focus group Elizabeth (1) said: "Just think of all the children in Australia who were exposed to September 11 because they saw it on the ABC. That's really horrific." The issue was also raised by Jo in the first focus group. "We have the ABC on in the morning. The week of September 11 they didn’t even put the kids' shows on."
The industry's response
Preschool children and the news The news makers are conscious of the fact that preschoolers "saw" the news on a regular basis but many feel that few were actually "watching" the news. As Walter Hamilton of the ABC said: "I think many preschool aged children would be exposed to news broadcasts; a smaller proportion, I expect, would actually watch them in the full sense of the word."[5] Lee Anderson of Nine Brisbane said few young children watched the news. "Last night 20,000 children under four watched our evening news out of a total audience in south-east Queensland of 303,000 (3000 children 5-12 watched)," Anderson said on February 13, 2004.[6] Paul Fenn said that the news was "basically a service for adults" and of little interest to preschoolers. "I know there are children at home (but) from my quite intimate knowledge of preschool kids, having a grandchild, she wouldn't watch the news in a fit." [7] And David Breen of Ten Sydney said while children may be in the room while news was
91 on, they did not watch it. "Ratings data shows that very few teenagers let alone children watch our news," he said.[8]
Protecting the child viewer While broadcasters agreed that children were not watching news in large numbers, they also agreed that they needed to be mindful of the content that they put to air - not just for the child viewer. David Breen said Ten had to be particularly cautious because the network's main bulletin went to air at 5pm which was in the G classification zone. "The industry code of practice, to which Ten is committed, requires broadcasters to exercise care in the selection and broadcast of news material shown in the G time zone. More detailed coverage is possible in Ten Late News," Breen said.[8] Paul Fenn from Nine said: "It's not just children. It's people generally. We are very, very, very careful." Rob Raschke from Seven said he pictured his own children when making a decision about what was and what was not appropriate to go to air. "I think, yes, she's in that room and that TV is potentially on and how appropriate or inappropriate is this?"[9]
Fiona Crawford also identified experience as a parent as a useful guide in making decisions about appropriate content. "Most of the TV production team in Queensland are parents, and therefore are aware of how disturbing footage/inappropriate language can impact on young viewers." [10] She said the ABC was very careful about using “graphic” images in stories. "We accept that many families view our news and current affairs shows, but particularly our 7pm news, and so we are mindful of the potential to upset younger viewers,'' Crawford said.
Raschke said that as a young reporter he would have believed that considering children when framing news would have equalled censorship. There are those within the newsroom who still hold that position, he said. "In fact at times it has become a point of conflict I suppose with some reporters 'you are trying to sanitise this'. It's ‘no not trying to sanitise it. I don't want to sanitise it but in my household what you've just written would lead to a lot of awkward questions from a child to a parent'." Raschke said, therefore, that a
92 senior person should be making the decision about the use of images and choice of language. "I was told that (there was a need for caution) a hundred times by news executives over the years when I was a 23, 24-year-old correspondent in Africa for the ABC," he said. "It would never have occurred to me that some of the images or things I was describing or writing to or choosing pictures for a particular story (might be a problem). Now I might be told a hundred times but it was not even in my frame of reference at all." He agreed that in protecting children, adults could be denied access to material they might find interesting or useful. He gave the example of a court case where there was evidence that a person had been anally raped. The report that went to air said the person had been the victim of a vicious sexual assault. "There was an argument that that was disguising the brutal reality," he acknowledged. "But if my child hears about anal rape they will ask what that means. I don't want to sit down and have that conversation." [11] "It's a compromise, no two ways about that. You know there's never a perfect solution." [9]
Censoring the early evening bulletin The industry, therefore, believed that it was already doing enough to protect children. Although there appeared to be significant support among parents for a "toned down" early evening news bulletin, the industry strongly rejected any legislated move for sanitising the 6 or 7pm bulletin. "I don't agree disturbing footage should only be shown on the late night news. It is a question of editorial judgement of what is in the public interest," Marco Bass, the ABC Victorian state editor of news and current affairs said in response to Victorian Government moves to tighten controls on the 6pm news.[12]
Even without government intervention networks say they already "tone down" the content of the early evening broadcasts. Rob Raschke, the News Director of Seven Brisbane, said there was "frequently" a lot of difference between the early evening and late evening bulletins. "May be there's some stories from overseas that are conflict-based stories that you would write and cut every differently at six o'clock than you would at 10.30. They are very different." [9] Paul Fenn, the Nine Network's National News
93 Manager, said there could be significant differences between the early and late bulletins. "You can relax a little with a bulletin that's going to air at 11 or half past eleven where you wouldn't expect children to be up watching anyway."[7]
Fiona Crawford, ABC Queensland Editor of News and Current Affairs, said the ABC was careful not to show graphic violent footage at any time of the day or night unless there was a compelling reason for doing so. However, she added: "Probably language gets a little more relaxed later in the evening, and you may for example get more colourful expressions from commentators that would be cut out of a 7pm bulletin." [10] And David Breen, the Ten Sydney News Manager, said "more detailed and graphic images and information may be shown in the late bulletins as it is acknowledged that these time zones are for mature audiences".[8]
What about warnings? While parents expressed some reservations about warnings, the industry maintains that they work well and are certainly better than no warning at all. "I believe the current warnings are adequate," said Anderson.[6] "They inform viewers that the following item contains material that might be disturbing." Crawford agreed. "We have an accepted form of words which seems to be adequate, and have very few complaints when we run warnings," she said.[10]
Raschke argued that to work warnings needed to continue to be "fairly broad". "If you start going into too much detail about what you are going to show in a minute you might serve to pique people's interest instead of telling them they might want to turn away."[9] "I know that a lot of people say warnings don't mean anything. I think it's better than not doing it if you think something's alarming."
Fenn said there was discussion within newsrooms about the adequacy of warnings saying that a warning offered viewers little time to remove themselves from the coverage. "I guess these days with remote controls it's a
94 lot better," he said.[7] Writing more detailed warnings would not be practical, he said. "You don't have time. Bear in mind we have a half hour news service which all up is about 23 minutes." Raschke agreed the lack of time between warnings and the footage being shown was an issue. "You could probably argue that that person only had eight seconds at home to change the channel but that eight seconds is better than none."
News Updates Another area of concern expressed by parents was news promotions during afternoon children's programming. While the ABC has abandoned its afternoon news promotions, the commercial stations believe that with appropriate guidelines the promos could and should continue. Fiona Crawford of the ABC in Queensland said the ABC had dropped the 5pm update because of continuing complaints about its potential to impact on young viewers. "Parents regard ABC kids TV as being safe because there are no advertisements, and it’s often the one time of the day when they can sit their children in front of the TV and not have to worry about inappropriate material being aired. Our first promo/update goes to air at 1800." [10] Walter Hamilton the head of national coverage for ABC News and Current Affairs said that news promotions should not appear at inappropriate times especially during programs directed at young children. "This is because of the repetitive nature of promotions and the risk of greater negative impact of isolated images," Hamilton said.[5]
But the commercial networks did not believe dropping the promotions was necessary. Paul Fenn from Nine said it would be counterproductive to include violent images in a news promotion. "If you put in a promo something violent or whatever, people aren't going to watch that. People aren't going to rush home and watch the news to see some dreadful story." [7] Rob Raschke said adequate precautions were taken with the afternoon promotions. "I think between five o'clock and six o'clock we need them to tell people what we are going to show them at six o'clock. We really do need to be able to say to people "this is what's news tonight. This is what's coming up," Raschke said.
95 "I think it's important to tell them what you are going to be covering at six o'clock. I don't think there's any purpose served by taking them off air."
But he did concede that the afternoon news promo was an area of special concern and required extra vigilance. "I guess when it's most important is in children's programming in the afternoon. You've got to be very careful about what you show in those updates there. If the system fails and someone breaks the rules about what you can and can't show and talk about in that children's programming in the afternoon, yes you do get a lot of complaints," he said.
David Breen from 10 said that the ABA provided that news flashes should not interrupt C programs (such as Totally Wild) unless the news flash cannot in the public interest be delayed until completion of the program. "The content of news updates broadcast adjacent to children's programs is selected with care," he said. [8]
Complaints are few and far between In measuring their success in meeting the competing needs of adults and children, the industry pointed to the low level of complaints received about news broadcasts. Fenn said the network would receive "At most half a dozen letters a month" while Anderson put the number of complaints to the Brisbane studio at "two or three a year". "But we are pretty careful," Fenn said. "I'm not giving myself a rap here but we are pretty careful and I've been here long enough to instil in anybody new to be careful and "if in doubt, leave out" [7] He said stories the stories most likely to cause concern were "anything with a hint of violence" and car accidents where "you have to be very, very careful with shot selection".
Raschke said most of the complaints that came were about promotions for news either during the afternoon or on a Saturday night if a family movie was being screened in the early evening. "If those updates from 6.30 to 8.30, it happens a lot on a Saturday, if they are talking about murder and mayhem and
96 ,you know, very explicit language and very disturbing shots you will get a lot of complaints and that shouldn't happen," he said.
Crawford said that the Queensland newsroom would receive about five complaints a year out of a national tally of about 20. "Most relate to pictures of animals, affected by drought or cruelty," she said adding that the problem was not normally the images themselves but the lack of warning. Breen said the level of complaint about graphic images was "very low" pointing to the ABA's 2003 Community Attitudes to Violence on Free-to-Air Television finding that people are more likely to find violence justified if it is part of the news or about real events.
A question of responsibility Just as parents believed that they could not exercise the required controls alone, broadcasters also overwhelming supported the idea of a shared response. Broadcasters would fulfil their legal and social contract with parents taking responsibility for control of their own children in their own homes.
Fiona Crawford, from ABC Queensland, said broadcasters guaranteed a "certain quality and propriety in our coverage" but "I do think parents do need to take more responsibility for monitoring what their children watch".[10] Walter Hamilton agreed. "It is a shared responsibility - for the editors and broadcasters to uphold their declared standards, and for parents to understand what their use of the medium implies for the well-being of their children."[5]
Lee Anderson, of Nine Brisbane, argued that parents needed to make decisions based on their own moral code. "It is the station's responsibility to ensure news programs are presented with care, having regard to the likely composition of the viewing audience and, in particular, the presence of children," he said.[6] "It is a parent's responsibility to monitor the product and ensure it meets their personal moral standards."
97 Rob Raschke, of Seven, said that in the early evening the weight of responsibility should fall on the broadcaster but later at night parents needed to assume control. "I'd have a problem if someone allowed their kid to sit up and watch coverage of the Gulf War on a news channel at nine or 10 o'clock at night. I'd think they'd have a hide to complain about it. At six o'clock, I think you (the broadcaster) have to take very great care. Later at night I think it's a different argument."[9]
David Breen, of Ten, pointed to the ABA’s research which found that almost all adults (97%) agreed that parents should control what their children watch on television. "News bulletins are not directed at children and have very little appeal to them, as evidenced by ratings data," Breen said. "However care is taken in the selection of material at times when children may be watching unsupervised, such as news updates adjacent to children’s programs (or in the rare case of breaking news flashes during children’s programs)."[8]
The September 11 experience While many of the issues faced by those manning newsrooms on the night of September 11 were not new, there was widespread agreement that delivering the coverage did present special issues. "There was no benchmark for this story in my lifetime that I can compare it with," said Rob Raschke who was executive producer of Seven News Sydney on September 12, 2001. "It was televised mass murder in front of a global audience on a scale the world has never seen before," said Max Uechtritz, ABC's head of news and current affairs [13].
Paul Fenn said "the magnitude and the boldness" of the attacks made them different from events that had gone before. He said it was also quite possible that the terrorists had deliberately targeted New York as a way of using the news process as part of their weaponry. "We'll never know that for sure but to aim at the two tallest buildings in New York City, it would suggest that that was what they were doing. All the television networks CBS, ABC,
98 NBC, they are all based in New York. They know that CNN has a monstrous office in New York. It was always going to get live coverage," Fenn said.
One of the first questions the news producers had to deal with was whether to show the images of people jumping out of the towers. Rob Raschke said after debate Seven decided that would be inappropriate. "A very clear decision was taken early on that there was no way we would show pictures of people jumping out of buildings," he said. “That didn't mean we wouldn't talk about it…but there was no way that images were going to be shown of people hurtling off the 80th floor of the World Trade Center. I know Channel 9 did make the decision. They talked about it long and hard. It wasn't just something that got through the system and they made a choice to show those pictures. That's not something I would have done."
Paul Fenn explained Nine's decision. "We harrowed over it but it was all part of the story," Fenn said. "There were different types of shots you could use. There were close-ups and there were wide distance shots and we chose the distance shots so that no-one could be identified and we also chose not to follow them all the way down." He said he believed that those images were important in telling the story of September 11. "My word. Because it happened. You can't deny that it happened."
Fenn also said that Nine was taking live feeds from US networks which lessened its control over what went to air. "We were taking the American networks live for three days. We don't have any say then in what they are going to run. They run those pictures and we are caught. When it came to repacking for the news broadcasts, that's a different proposition." He said, however, that Nine was taking feeds from trusted US networks but conceded that "there were some shots that during the live coverage, not many, where I thought gee I wish they hadn't run that. We wouldn't run that in our news bulletins".
99 Although Fenn said "live's live", Raschke argued that one of the main lessons he learned out of the September 11 coverage was the use of digital delays built into live coverage. "There is technology available now, digital technology, that allows the incoming live pictures, you can set a delay on them of anywhere from one second to 30 seconds so effectively the pictures are coming in, there's a delay there of say 30 seconds and then it comes out the other end. You set that delay however long you want to and what you need to do is have a very senior person watching that and saying 'cut away from those pictures back to the presenter', they talk for a while and then go back again because there might have been something there that was terribly inappropriate."
Raschke agreed with Fenn that there would be times when an Australian network would take feeds live from other parts of the world. "But it would have to come through a news organisation that you knew intimately in terms of what its standards were in terms of what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable," he said. Crawford also talked about building a delay into coverage. "If we are taking a ‘live’ feed, we have virtually no control over the images," said Crawford. "Often we use material in a one or two second delay but the reality is that we are at the mercy of the foreign network."
Other news directors talked of the importance of having people ready to break into live coverage. "Ten editorial management does maintain control through direction of the news bulletins and the capacity to break into live feeds quickly," said Breen. Hamilton said transmission was always monitored via an editorial chain of control. "The ABC does not surrender absolute control in any circumstances," he said.
Complaints about the coverage The graphic nature of the events surrounding September 11 and the extent of coverage were bound to attract comment, but the news directors said there were relatively few complaints. The ABC News and Current Affairs report into the coverage said there were more than 100 telephone calls and email contacts to news and current affairs programs in the first few days of the
100 coverage. Some expressed concern at the 24-hour coverage, others urged that the most graphic images not be repeated. [13] While calls direct to the news and current affairs programs directly were low, the total number of calls logged by the ABC was much higher at 2230. [10] "The main complaint regarding content was about the actual footage of the planes colliding with the Twin Towers," said Crawford. "And we stopped broadcasting those images, as did our competitors, after 48 hours. They are very rarely used now because of the dramatic and confronting nature of the video. 977 calls were about the extent of the coverage and rescheduling of programs. There were also positive comments about the comprehensive nature of the coverage (138)."
Lee Anderson said Nine Brisbane received about 30 complaints about the coverage and a similar number regarding the suspension of normal programming. "These numbers are above average, but would not be considered excessive," Anderson said.
The footage of the aeroplanes crashing into the buildings appeared to be a focus of public attention. "There was only a certain amount of time you could run the planes crashing into the two buildings," said Fenn. "I think we gave that up after about 12 hours. So did the Americans, by the way."
Complaints about cancelling programs While hundreds of thousands of people were captivated by the September 11 coverage, there is evidence that many people, especially parents, were disturbed by the lack of normal programming. David Breen said Ten's decision to return to scheduled programming after less than 24 hours was welcomed. "Ten was the first network to resume normal programming, we received a very large number of calls thanking us for providing normal programming (children’s programs in particular) as an alternative to the continuous coverage of the attacks on the other networks," he said.
Rob Raschke said that for the first two days of coverage there was no objection to the lack of scheduled programming. "There was very little of that
101 because it was such an overwhelming issue. Certainly day three, day four day five there were people ringing saying can we just leave this alone?"
According to figures provided by Crawford, 43.8 per cent of the 2230 complaints logged by the ABC in the aftermath of September 11 were about the extent of the coverage and rescheduling of programs. [10] And Paul Fenn of the Nine Network also said that more callers were upset by what was not being shown than by what was. "(Callers were asking) where's Friends? What about Burke's Backyard?" [7]
Achieving a balance The networks were confident that they had the balance between informing and protecting right both in scheduled coverage and extreme events such as September 11. "I'm proud of what we do. We get very, very few complaints for overstepping the mark," said Fenn. "I think that the viewers, they judge with their remotes these days." Which was not to say that there were not criticisms. Raschke was critical of some of what he saw on Ten News. "There are times I see things that they run about things that happen around Brisbane, like a close up shot of a knife with blood dripping off it. You don't need to show that image. It doesn't matter," he said. "There are times I think there are some people who take too much leeway that's the choice they make and they have to deal with the consequences. Generally I think it's not too bad." But Breen said the level of complaint from viewers of Ten News was "very low". "Our news stories attract very little complaint," he said.
In summary Hundreds of thousands of preschool-aged children in Australia saw at least some of the coverage of the September 11 attacks on the United States, even though in many instances their parents either did not realise they were watching or did not realise they were able to take it in. Almost half (45.2 per cent) of the parents whose children saw some of the coverage said they had been disturbed by what they saw. The children questioned, were frightened or
102 worried, cried or were upset or distressed or acted out the events in their play. Large numbers of the parents (68 per cent) believed that the September 11 coverage was more disturbing than regular news footage principally because of the repetition of images.
While parents agreed that they needed to exercise the primary responsibility for what their children saw on TV they felt that they required assistance to do this. There was particular concern about a parent's ability to control content outside scheduled news broadcasts - thus news flashes and updates and interruptions to normal programming were considered of particular concern.
The news directors acknowledged the notion of shared responsibility and stated an ongoing commitment to exercising care when choosing images of disturbing events - particularly in relation to their early evening bulletins. They said, however, that some news items were unavoidably disturbing but still needed to be told in the public interest. All agreed that the news was not a program directed at children and was not a program that young children should be watching alone.
1. Mitchell, S., Talkback. 2002, 612 ABC: Brisbane. 2. Skouteris, H., Personal communication with Author, December 5, 2003. 3. Weddell, C. and J. Copeland, Television Really is Kids' Play. International research forum on children and the media, 1998. 6: p. 8-9. 4. Raschke, R., Personal conversation with author 2003. 5. Hamilton, W., September 11 survey response, Email interview with Author, December 2003. 6. Anderson, L., September 11 coverage survey, Email interview with Author February 13, 2004 7. Fenn, P., Interview regarding September 11 coverage. Telephone Interview with Author, February 13, 2004 8. Breen, D., September 11 attacks coverage, Email interview with Author December 2003. 9. Raschke, R., Interview regarding television news and preschool children, Interview with Author, January 14, 2004. Brisbane. 10. Crawford, F., Preschool children and television news, Email interview with Author. January 8, 2004 11. Raschke, R., Personal conversation with Author. Telephone conversation January 10, 2004: 12. What the News Managers Say, in Herald Sun. 2001: Melbourne. p. 27. 13. ABC News, Terror Strikes America: The World Prepares for War. 2002, Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Sydney. p. 1-18.
103
104
105
Chapter 5
What now?
105 This balance between the need for information and the need to avoid distress often presents a dilemma [1] David Buckingham
Presenting television news is a balancing act. Parents, broadcasters and the regulatory authorities all recognise that compromises have to be made on an almost daily basis when deciding how best to tell some of the shocking stories that make up news fully and fairly without being unnecessarily confronting or disturbing. The coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States showed just how difficult that juggling act could be. As Rob Raschke from the Seven Network explained: "It's a compromise, no two ways about that. You know there's never a perfect solution." [2]
This research demonstrated that large numbers of parents felt that despite the protection built into the code and the genuine efforts made by broadcasters, the system was still failing preschool children. They talked of nightmares, children who were very questioning, were frightened or worried or were crying upset or distressed. Almost half of all parents who responded to the survey said their preschool child or children had been harmed or disturbed by TV news content. While there seemed to be clear evidence that a problem still existed, a consensus on what to do about it was far less clear. There was a general sense that something needed to be done to address the problem but a feeling of powerlessness to actually be able to bring about change. Indeed, short of a blanket ban on television, parents alone can not effect real change. But better protection for the preschool age child is possible and the strategies to make that happen are neither radical nor should they be unpalatable to any stakeholder - parents, broadcasters or regulators. Six recommendations are proposed.
1. Television news should be Rated PG
"Still unrated are the most sensational and upsetting programs: TV news. Millions of children are exposed daily to images of mayhem far worse than those found on most TV M-rated shows." Jennifer Wolff [3]
106 There seems to be almost universal agreement among broadcasters that young children should not be watching the television news unsupervised. "I wouldn't let them watch it alone," said Paul Fenn, the News Director of the Nine , a grandfather. Rob Raschke, the News Director Channel Seven Brisbane and father of two girls ,said: "I think the concept of my children sitting there alone watching the television news is not something that I would be happy with." He added: "If you are not going to be sitting there with them watching it, don't have it on. I don't think it's appropriate for young children to be watching a news bulletin without any guidance." And Bernard Bowen, Executive Producer of ABC Television News in Queensland, urged parents "to be very careful and take a greater responsibility when their children are watching the nightly news".
Further, research on the Oklahoma bombing recommended strongly that children should not be watching coverage of that nature alone, noting that "television exposure was significantly related to post traumatic stress". [4] "Disaster-related television viewing by children should be monitored and parents and/or other adults should be available to address their emotional reactions," Pfefferbaum et al concluded.
There was also ample evidence from this study and from previous work that television news does scare children. Yet, television news does not have to be rated and news events of national significance can be shown at any time of the day or night.
The current General (G) classification zones, as set out by the Australian Broadcasting Authority in clause 2.12, are on weekdays from 6am- 8.30am and 4pm to 7.30pm and on weekends from 6am to 7.30pm. [5]. Thus all the commercial networks and the ABC screen their prime news bulletins within the G zone. News is permitted within this zone because section 2.3.1 the code allows for an exemption from classification for news, current affairs or live or near-live sporting programs "provided that the licensee exercises care in selecting material for broadcast having regard to:
107 2.3.1.1 the likely audience of the program; and
2.3.1.2 any identifiable public interest reason for presenting the program material."
There can be no doubt that broadcasters would be unwilling to move their flagship nightly news out of this G zone. As Rob Raschke, of the Seven Network, said: "It's been a time slot that people have tampered with at their peril. Certainly in Australia in commercial broadcasting, those who've tried to move away from six o'clock have probably not done it very successfully." [6] Paul Fenn, from the Nine Network, echoed that position. "I think the programmers would be a bit fearful if you put it on at half past eight there would be a mass turn off. People would be watching whatever was on the other channels. Australians expect their news around about six o'clock. In that area 5- 7." [7]
But if the code allows for an exemption, it could allow for a PG rated news broadcast as easily as it could allow for an unrated news broadcast within the G classification zone. The rating may be largely symbolic. However, the PG or Parental Guidance classification which the code in section 2.13 defines as " Material classified PG may contain careful presentations of adult themes or concepts but must be mild in impact and remain suitable for children to watch with supervision" more accurately reflects the content of news broadcasts.
Further, there is evidence of community concern about the classification of news. The 1999 ABA study into concerns about content on free-to-air television found that 14 per cent of people were concerned about classification aspects of news and current affairs. [8] And in the Senate Select Committee's 1996 seminar into Portrayal of Violence in the Electronic Media heard evidence that the exclusion of news and current affairs from the 4pm- 7pm G classification "works against parents' understanding what the G classification time zone actually means". [9]
108
There is another advantage of rating news. Should parents elect to use V chip technology to screen out content deemed inappropriate for their family, news would not be caught in the net. As Bar et al comment: "The new television ratings system and the v-chip are tools that can help protect children from potentially harmful content. To block out television shows, parents must use the television ratings system." [10] If news is not rated, it would not be excluded should parents deem that appropriate.
The idea of giving the news a PG rating has some industry backing. When asked whether the widespread agreement that young children should not be watching the news alone should translate into a PG rating the Nine Network's Paul Fenn said: "That's probably a good point." [7] He added: "It's an argument that could go on and on but you are probably right. Why not?"
Television news is something which requires parental guidance. It demands to be rated as such.
2. Digital television technology should be employed to prevent news events "overtaking" scheduled children's programming and to protect safe harbours placed in the classifications zones to protect children
"Digital technology allows for the operation of technical devices that offer a much higher level of protection"[11] Monroe Price and Stefaan Verhulst
One theme that emerged strongly from this research related to the replacement of scheduled programming with live news casts in this case the coverage of the September 11 attacks on the US. Parents saw this as creating dual problems. On one hand some mothers were concerned about the removal, without notice, of the scheduled children's programming. This programming - particularly on the ABC - was seen as a right by many parents. But there was also concern that parents turned on the television - or the children tuned in unsupervised - at what was meant to be a "safe" time of the day and children were exposed to content considered unsuitable as a result.
109
The ABC has recognised the importance parents place in the idea of ABC Kids as a "safe" harbour. Fiona Crawford, ABC Queensland News and Current Affair Editor, when discussing the issue of news promotions, outlined the importance parents placed on having content which they knew to be "safe" for their children to watch unsupervised. "Parents regard ABC Kids TV as being safe because there are no advertisements, and it’s often the one time of the day when they can sit their children in front of the TV and not have to worry about inappropriate material being aired," she said. [12]
Digital broadcasting offers a real opportunity for networks to meet the competing needs of delivering scheduled programming, protecting children from unscheduled and inappropriate content and informing the public about important news events. Digital technology is already being recognised by broadcasters in other parts of the world as offering possibilities for granting greater protection for children. Simon Whittle, The BBC controller of editorial policy told the Daily Telegraph in 2003 that an on-screen warning was being developed which would flash up if viewers turned to a program containing violent content. The technology would only work with digital television, he said.[13]
Technology is now available that makes it possible - in the event of a significant international or national news event - to launch a second parallel channel dedicated to the special coverage. Existing programming would be protected - for both adults and children. Viewers could be notified of the special broadcast via carefully worded text messages thus guarding children too young to read from any potential harm. Such a system would satisfy competing needs of fulfilling the public's right to know while protecting children from material which may be unsuitable. As a minimum, the ABC as the national broadcaster should be equipped to ensure this could happen.
3. Broadcasters should regain control of the images that go to air during "live" feeds from obviously volatile situations by building in short delays in G classification zones.
110
"Live coverage is unpredictable when you have acts of terrorism," Nine Network News Director Paul Fenn [7]
Australia's Commercial Television Code of Practice lists as its first two objectives that it is intended to:
1.1.1 regulate the content of commercial television in accordance with current community standards 1.1.2 ensure that viewers are assisted in making informed choices about their own and their children's television viewing
News and current affairs have been granted special exemption with the code. There can be no doubt that this exemption is both sensible and necessary. News can demand immediacy to serve public interest, public benefit and, in some cases, public safety. But it is questionable whether the safeguards built into the classification system to protect children in these instances could be fully met.
The code, in section 2.7.1.1, says that news material broadcast in the G classification zone outside regular bulletins must be compiled with special care. It adds, in section 2.8, that news and current affairs may contain material that is likely to distress audiences if there is "an identifiable public interest" and provided "an adequate prior warning is given". There is no way that broadcasters could guarantee to meet those obligations when taking live feeds from overseas networks or when broadcasting live from potentially volatile news events.
Paul Fenn, from Network Nine, noted of the September 11 coverage: " If we are taking CBS or CNN or ABC live, which we did in different stages during those three days we were on air, we were very, very much in their hands." He went on to say that live feeds from those US networks were considered appropriate because their normal content standards were well known and their values likely to reflect those of the Australian networks. He
111 did concede, however, that live coverage when covering terrorist acts was unpredictable.
Rob Raschke, the News Director of Seven Brisbane said one of the important lessons he took away from the September 11 coverage was the need to build in delays in live coverage to prevent unsuitable images going to air. Raschke agreed that there would be times when an Australian network would take feeds live from other parts of the world. "But it would have to come through a news organisation that you knew intimately in terms of what its standards were in terms of what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable," he said.
But it has to be argued that if those respected overseas affiliates were taking pictures live from what could reasonably be expected to be a trouble spot they would be in no position to vet what was going to air either. A delay at either the point of origin or in the Australian network seems a sensible compromise to put control in the hands of those charged with the responsibility of upholding the code.
By leaving the responsibility to overseas networks, Australia's broadcasters are effectively washing their hands of the issue and abdicating their responsibilities under the broadcasting act and their own codes. The situations where networks need to fall back on these measures would undoubtedly be rare but none-the-less they need to be incorporated into networks procedures and policies. Live radio routinely incorporates a 10- second delay to avoid inappropriate material going to air. Live television should offer the same protection.
4. Parents should be educated to understand that even very young children can take in television news and are often scared by it.
"There is a limit to what any government can do or ought to do in relation to surveillance of the material that children see on television and parents cannot
112 escape their responsibility in relation to it." Australian Prime Minister John Howard [14]
The Australian public overwhelmingly supports the Prime Minister's view that parents need to take responsibility for what their children see on television. The Australian Broadcasting Authority report into violence on television released in 2003 found almost unanimous support for the idea that parents should control what their children see in television "In 2002, almost all adults (97%) agreed that parents should control what their children watch on television," the report said. [15]
Parents do accept a responsibility for what their children see on television. But, this project highlighted a significant problem. Many parents with preschool aged children genuinely under-estimated their children's ability to comprehend what was being shown in the September 11 coverage. Further, there was a tendency to assume that disinterest or lack of attention to the television broadcast by the preschoolers equated to a lack of awareness of the content. Neither proved correct. The research echoed the finding of Weddell and Copeland that parents often under-estimated their children's ability to watch and understand news.
If parents are to protect their children from the dangers of news media related violence - as the community obviously demands - they need to be made aware that the danger exists in the first place. There is evidence in the literature that an education campaign directed at parents is the way to go. "Besides the v-chip, there are other means of protecting children from what is on television. Evidence now shows that media education can help mitigate the harmful effects of media violence, " concluded Barr et al. [10] For older children that could take place in a school environment. For the younger child it is the parents who need to be both educated and educator.
Barbara Biggins of Young Media Australia cites Norway as an example of a country that has opted for a parent education campaign as a major strategy to mitigate the risks of violence in film and television.
113 "Parenting as a major factor in mitigating risk from media violence is clearly seen by some to be of vital importance," Biggins said. [16]. "Now we, in Australia, give lip service to that position but it's not one that is given wholehearted, realistic and constructive support that could really make a difference."
Young Media Australia in 1995 produced Off'n'On: healthy use of television, a kit designed for use by health professionals such as kindergarten teachers, child care workers, preschool and primary school teachers and child health workers. [17] While working though early childhood professionals is an important first step, efforts need to be made to reach parents with young children directly. Thus any education campaign should be directed at specialist parenting magazines and newspapers plus organisations such as Playgroup Australia, the Creche and Kindergarten Association and Breastfeeding Australia which have access to large numbers of parents in the target audience. A more general campaign through mass circulation women's magazines could be beneficial.
Implementing a comprehensive education campaign directed at parents avoids a sanitised early evening news bulletin - an option that is clearly unpalatable to broadcasters. The Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply and Services Utilising Electronic Technologies in 1997 recommended a toned down early evening news bulletin [18] as did the October 2002 Victorian Government's Family and Community Development Committee final report on The effects of Television and Multimedia on children & families in Victoria.[19]
It was a theme also echoed by parents in both the focus group and survey components of this research. But the industry consistently argued that its own guidelines were working and any further restrictions would equate to censorship. The industry argues that responsibility is already exercised in the selection of material for early evening bulletins and that any further restrictions would amount to
114 unacceptable censorship. Parents need to exercise guidance on whether the material on the news is appropriate for their children, it argues.
For responsible parents to exercise that guidance two conditions need to be met. For one, they need to be aware that the news is on. Extraordinary news events such as September 11 and unpredictable news updates and promotions present a difficulty. Scheduled evening broadcasts should not.
The second condition is that parents of preschoolers need to know that despite external appearances young children may be watching and taking in the news offering. If as a society we hand the responsibility to parents we should also hand them the tools to exercise that responsibility.
5. Television journalists should understand that even very young children are exposed to television news and are often scared by it. "(Television networks) suggest that few children watch the news or current affairs and that any action taken to protect children in these areas would therefore be misguided."[20]
Newsmakers, like parents, appear to assume that because children are uninterested in news they are not watching the news product. Walter Hamilton from the ABC summed up the industry's attitude. "I think many preschool aged children would be exposed to news broadcasts; a smaller proportion, I expect, would actually watch them in the full sense of the word."[21]
While preschool children neither choose to watch the news nor appear to take an active interest in it, large amounts what is broadcast is recognised and they are being scared by it. The exemption from classification of news granted under the Commercial Television Code of Practice is conditional on the licensee exercising care in selecting material for broadcast taking into consideration the likely audience of the program.
115 The broadcasters seem genuinely unaware that preschoolers are part of that likely audience.
The evidence has been strongly put that preschoolers are frightened by different aspects of news than older children. Preschoolers, while being alerted by audio stimuli, are more deeply affected by visual aspects of news programs. Natural disasters present a particular problem. "Natural disasters are usually dramatically visual and television news stresses the images of devastation: Homes are shown being ripped apart by hurricanes, swept away in floods, or crushed in earthquakes, and this footage is accompanied by images of frightened bystanders or sobbing victims, Joanne Cantor explained. "These images are readily remembered and often cause children to worry that a similar disaster will happen to them next." [22]
For broadcasters, one of the key differences of the preschool child that needs to be taken into consideration is the child's inability to understand the replay. As Dr Harry Pellman, a clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of California, explained: "Repetition of graphic images and discussions about disasters give the impression that they are happening again and again,'' he said. [23] Broadcasters considering replaying the same piece of footage need to be very mindful of the possible impact this could have on young viewers.
For broadcasters to completely fulfil their responsibilities to consider likely audiences they need to know the likely make up of that audience. Education should be directed both at those already in the industry but also targeted at students in journalism courses. For the most part, measures already taken by broadcasters to protect older children and adults from disturbing material will also protect preschoolers. But there are instances where the bar needs to be raised to meet the particular needs of the preschool child. Broadcasters need to be aware of what these are.
6. News promotions during afternoon children's programming should be dropped
116 "Young children may experience enduring fright effects from brief, visually disturbing excerpts of a program or movie, sometimes even from a few seconds of a movie promotion or teaser for an upcoming newscast." [24] Joanne Cantor
The commercial networks are staunch defenders of news promos in the lead- up to their evening bulletins. Rob Raschke, of the Seven Network said care was taken with the evening news promotions and provided that was exercised, he could see no reason why the practice of afternoon promos couldn't be continued. But when asked about complaints about news programming he did concede that the afternoon news promo was an area of special concern and required extra special vigilance. "I mean I guess when it's most important is in children's programming in the afternoon. You've got to be very careful about what you show in those updates there. If the system fails and someone breaks the rules about what you can and can't show and talk about in that children's programming in the afternoon, yes you do get a lot of complaints," he said.
The ABC has played a leading role in this area. Bernard Bowan, the Executive Director of ABC News in Queensland, explained that ABC's decision to do away with afternoon news promos. "It’s a children’s viewing time so to take out that element of risk we decided to do away with the 5pm promo and we are very aware early and I guess mid afternoon that if there is an update we have to be very cognisant of the fact that there are children watching you know Play School is on, Sesame Street. When kids are watching those programs we don’t want to confront them with violent images that might stress them." [25]
Parents in both the surveys and the focus groups highlighted news promos as an area of particular concern because they are unpredictable and screen within zones considered "safe" for children to be viewing. News promotions are unpredictable in terms of timing and content. Short of banning afternoon television viewing in what is a G Rated zone, parents can not currently prevent their children from being exposed to news promotions. If parents are to exercise control over what their children see, they deserve more
117 certainty. Removing afternoon news updates and promotions would allow that to happen.
Finally The protection of children from news images that are unsuitable is a shared responsibility. Parents have an undeniable responsibility which can be more fully met if they are adequately warned about the potential risks. Rating the news is part of that education process. But parental responsibility can not be fully administered in isolation. To exercise adequate controls parents need certainty in the timing of news broadcasts. The banning of afternoon news updates would be an important first step.
Technology will also have a role to play both in terms of allowing for parallel broadcasting in the event of major ongoing news events and in terms of instituting delays as a safety valve in "live" news broadcasts. Broadcasters have consistently argued against government intervention. And for the most part the recommended changes could happen with the good will of the broadcasters alone without the big stick of the regulator. Government funding for the parental education campaign would, however, be appropriate. If the good will fails to materialise, legislation should remain a real option. From the outset Diane Levin's observation that "We must accept the fact that children can not be fully protected from violence in the news" [26] was accepted. Adopting these recommendations will, however, go a long way to ensure the desired protection.
1. Buckingham, D., ed. Moving Images. Understanding Children's Emotional Responses to Television. 1996, Manchester University Press: Manchester. 2. Raschke, R., Interview regarding television news and preschool children, Author, Editor. 2004: Brisbane. 3. Wolff, J., Can You Protect Your Child From the News, in Parenting. 1997. p. 135- 142. 4. Pfefferbaum, B., Nixon, Sara Jo, Tivis, Rick D., Doughty, Debby E., Pynoos, Robert S., Gurwitch, Robin H., Foy, David W., Television Exposure in Children after a Terrorist Incident. Psychiatry - Interpersonal and biological process, 2001. 64(3): p. 202-211. 5. Australian Broadcasting Authority, Content Regulation. Commercial Television Code of Practice. 1998-2001. 6. Raschke, R., Personal conversation, S. Hetherington, Editor. 2003: Brisbane. 7. Fenn, P., Interview regarding September 11 coverage, Author, Editor. 2004: Sydney.
118 8. Cupitt, M., Community views about content on free-to-air television 1999. 2000, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority. 9. Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies. The Evidence of Media Violence. in Portrayal of violence in the electronic media public seminar. 1996. Canberra. 10. Bar, M.E., Broughton, Daniel D., Buttross, Susan, Corrigan, Suzanne, et al, Children, adolescents and television. Pediatrics, 2001. 107(2): p. 423-426. 11. Price, M.E. and S.G. Verhulst, eds. Parental Control of Television Broadcasting. 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey. 12. Crawford, F., Preschool children and television news, Author, Editor. 2004: Brisbane. 13. Leonard, T., Why fact, not fiction, frightens children watching TV, in Daily Telegraph. 2003: London. 14. Jones, A., Interview with Prime Minister John Howard. 2004, Radio 2GB: Sydney. 15. AC Nielsen, Research into Community Attitudes to Violence on Free-to-Air Television. 2003, Australian Broadcasting Authority: Sydney. 16. Biggins, B. Mitigating Risk in Film and Television: Using Parenting to Mitigate the Risks. in Violence, Crime and the Entertainment Media. 1997. Sydney: Australian Institute of Criminology; Office of Film and Literature Classification. 17. Young Media Australia, Off'n'On: healthy use of television. 1995, Adelaide: Young Media Australia. 18. Senate Hansard, Government Response to the Report on the Portrayal of Violence in the Electronic Media by the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of services Utilising Electronic Technologies. 1999, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra. p. 1901-1902. 19. Family and Community Development Committee Parliament of Victoria, The effects of Television and Multimedia on children & families in Victoria: Final Report. 2000: Melbourne. 20. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, TV Violence in Australia. 1990, Report to the minister for Transport and Communications: Sydney. 21. Hamilton, W., September 11 survey response, Author, Editor. 2003: Sydney. 22. Cantor, J., "Mommy, I'm Scared" How TV and Movies Frighten Children and What We Can Do to Protect Them. 1998, San Diego: Harvest. 23. Pellman, H., What parents want to know about children and disasters. Pediatrics for Parents, 2002. 20(1): p. 4-5. 24. Cantor, J. and A. Nathanson, Children's Fright Reactions to Television News. Journal of Communication, 1996. 46(4): p. 139-152. 25. Strong, T., Regulating children's news viewing. 2001, ABC Radio: Brisbane. 26. Levin, D.E., Remote Control Childhood? Combating the Hazards of Media Culture. 1998, Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
119 References 1998 Inquiry into effects of television and multimedia on children and families, in Family and Community Development Committee. Parliament of Victoria: Melbourne. 1999 Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice. 2000 Children's views about media harm : a collaborative project between University of Western Sydney and the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Vol. Monograph 10. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority. 2001 'Turning off the real world', in Herald Sun. December 4: Melbourne. p. 18 2001 'What the News Managers Say', in Herald Sun. December 5: Melbourne. p. 27 2001 How to talk to your kids about September 11. BabyCenter 2002 Talking with Kids about the News. Children Now Kaiser Family Foundation 2002 Watching the TV news. Young Media Australia 2002 'Saturation coverage of NY attack harms kids: expert', in The Chronicle. May 15. Toowoomba. p. 18 2002 Introducing Commercial Television Australia. Commercial Television Australia: Sydney. 2002 'Survey finds impact of Sept. 11 stretches across country'. Mental Health Weekly, 12(35): p. 1. 2002 'NYC survey finds children affected by Sept. 11'. Mental Health Weekly 12(35): p. 1. 2002 Talking to kids about tragedy. How to respond to fears, questions. MSN 2003 Warning. ABC Television: Sydney 2003 Overview of the effects of violence in the media. Young Media Australia 2003 The War on Terrorism: September 11 Discussed. in Royal Australiasian College of Surgeons Annual Scientific Congress 2003. Adelaide: RACS website. 2003 Reaction to Reports on the war, in Today Show. Nine Network: Sydney 2003 A new national broadcaster?, in Media Watch. ABC Television: Sydney 2003 'Study news to television producers', in The Gold Coast Bulletin. September 25Gold Coast. p. 19 2003 Oztam Audience figures for September 12, 2001,email to Author 2004 Some Things You Should Know About Media Violence and Media Literacy. American Academy of Pediatrics AAP, 'Restraint Urged on TV News', in The Age online. March 25, 2003: Melbourne ABC News, Terror Strikes America: The World Prepares for War. 2002, Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Sydney. p. 1-18
120 Abeles, R.P., Beyond Violence and Children, in Television and Social Behavior: Beyond Violence and Children, S.B. Withey, Abeles, Ronald P., Editor. 1980, Lawrence Erlabaum Associates: New Jersey. p. 1-8. AC Nielsen, Research into Community Attitudes to Violence on Free-to-Air Television. 2003, Australian Broadcasting Authority: Sydney Aisbett, K. and A. Wright, 'Views on the News'. Media Information Australia, 1989. 54: p. 13-16. Alter, M., Children and war coverage. 2003, WCBS TV Anderson, D.R., Burns, John,, Paying Attention to Television, in Responding to the Screen. Reception and Reaction Processes, J.Z. Bryant, Dolf, Editor. 1991, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale. Anderson, L., September 11 coverage survey, Email interview with author. February 13, 2004 Anthony, L., Helping Australia's Children in Troubled Times. 2003: Canberra. Asbury, J.E., 'Overview of Focus Group Research'. Qualitative Health Research, 1995. 5(4): p. 414-420. Atkin, C., 'Broadcast news programming and the child audience'. Journal of Broadcasting, 1978. 22: p. 47-61. Atkins, D., 'Latham backs curbs on television violence', in The Courier-Mail. January 29, 2004: Brisbane. p. 2 Atwal, K.M.-H., Andrea; Sancho, Jane; What Children Watch: An Analysis of Children's Programming Provision between 1997-2001, and Children's Views. 2003, Broadcasting Standards Commission and Independent Television Commission: London Australian Broadcasting Authority, Content Regulation. Commercial Television Code of Practice. 1998-2001 Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC editorial policies. 2002, Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Sydney. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC Code of Practice. 2003, Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Sydney. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, TV Violence in Australia. 1990, Report to the Minister for Transport and Communications: Sydney Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, TV Violence in Australia. 1990, Report to the minister for Transport and Communications: Sydney Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, TV Violence in Australia. 1990, Report to the Minister for Transport and Communiations: Sydney Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, TV Violence in Australia. 1990, Report to the Minister for Transport and Communications: Sydney Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, kidz tv: An Inquiry into Children's and Preschool Children's Television Standards. Vol. 2. 1991, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.
121 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, kidz tv: An Inquiry into Children's and Preschool Children's Television Standards. Vol. 1. 1991: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Baker, R. and R. Hinton, Do focus groups facilitate meaningful participation in social research?, in Developing Focus Group Research, R.S. Barbour, Kitzinger, Jenny,, Editor. 1999, Sage: London. Bar, M.E., Broughton, Daniel D., Buttross, Susan, Corrigan, Suzanne, et al, 'Children, adolescents and television'. Pediatrics, 2001. 107(2): p. 423-426. Bar, M.E., Broughton, Daniel D., Buttross, Susan, Corrigan, Suzanne, et al, 'Media Violence'. Pediatrics, 2001. 108(5): p. 1222-1226. Barbour, R.S., Kitzinger, Jenny,, ed. Developing Focus Group Research. 1999, Sage Publications: London. BBC, Broadcasting Standards Commission, and Independent Television Commission, Briefing Update: Depiction of Violence on Terrestrial Television. 2002, British Standards Commission: London BBC Press Office, Violence on Terrestrial Television. 2003, BBC: London. Bechtel, R.B., C. Achelpohl, and R. Akers, Correlates between observed behaviour and questionnaire responses on television viewing, in Television and Social Behaviour, Vol. 4: Television in Day-to-Day Life: Patterns of Use, E.A. Rubinstein, G.A. Comstock, and J.P. Murray, Editors, US Government Printing office: Washington, D.C. Bertrand, I. The Changing Face of News. in 40 Years of Television Conference. 1996. Melbourne: Monash University. Biggins, B., 'Children and Television Violence: Issues in Practical Policy Making'. CAFHS Forum, 1993. 1(2): p. 15-18. Biggins, B. Mitigating Risk in Film and Television: Using Parenting to Mitigate the Risks. in Violence, Crime and the Entertainment Media. 1997. Sydney: Australian Institute of Criminology; Office of Film and Literature Classification. Breen, D., September 11 attacks coverage, Email interview with author December 2003 Broadcasting Standards Commission, Briefing Update 8 - Concerning Regulation. 2001: London. Broadcasting Standards Commission, Briefing Update 10: Depiction of violence on terrestrial television. 2002, British Broadcasting Corporation; Broadcasting Standards Commission; Independent Television Commission: London Broadcasting Standards Commission, Children Show an Informed Attitude to Images of Violence. 2003, Broadcasting Standards Commission: London. Brown, J.D., Cantor, Joanne,, 'An agenda for research on youth and media'. Journal of Adolscent Health, 2000. 27(2): p. 2-7. Bryant, J., Zillmann, Dolf, ed. Responding to the Screen. Reception and Reaction Processes. 1991, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale. Buckingham, D., ed. Moving Images. Understanding Children's Emotional Responses to Television. 1996, Manchester University Press: Manchester.
122 Buckingham, D., After the Death of Childhood. Growing Up in the Age of Electronic Media. 2000, Cambridge: Polity Press. Burke, S., Psychologists warn against exposing children to war. 2003, ABC online Calder, B.J., 'Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketing research'. Journal of Marketing Research, 1977. 14: p. 353-364. Canning, S., 'Move to cut kids TV', in The Australian. September 11, 2003: Sydney Cantor, J. and G.G. Sparks, 'Children's Fear Responses to Mass Media: Testing Some Piagetian Predictions'. Journal of Communication, 1984. 34(2): p. 90-103. Cantor, J., Fright Responses to Mass Media Productions, in Responding to Screen. Reception and Reaction Processes, J. Bryant, Zillmann, Dolf, Editor. 1991, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale. p. 169-198. Cantor, J., Children's Emotional Reactions to Technological Disaster Conveyed by the Mass Media, in Television and Nuclear Power: Making the Public Mind, M.J. Wober, Editor. 1992, Ablex Publishing Corporation: Norwood. p. 32-54. Cantor, J., M.-L. Mares, and M.B. Oliver, Parents' and Children's Emotional Reactions to TV Coverage of the Gulf War, in Desert Storm and the Mass Media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton Press: Cresskill. Cantor, J., Fright Reactions to Mass Media, in Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research, J. Bryant, Zillmann, Dolf,, Editor. 1994, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale. p. 233-241. Cantor, J. and A. Nathanson, 'Children's Fright Reactions to Television News'. Journal of Communication, 1996. 46(4): p. 139-152. Cantor, J., Children's Fright Responses to Television and Films. 1997, Coalition for Quality Children's Media Cantor, J., "Mommy, I'm Scared" How TV and Movies Frighten Children and What We Can Do to Protect Them. 1998, San Diego: Harvest. Cantor, J., 'Media Violence'. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2000. 27(2): p. 20-34. Carroll, N., 'Children's survey finds bad news about television', in The Advertiser. October 19, 1985, 1985: Adelaide. p. 28 Cavaan, A.M., 'Experts: Shield kids from coverage', in The Boston Herald. March 10, 2002: Boston. p. 41 Centre for Media and Public Affairs, Tabloid TV Is Bad News for Kids. 1997, Centre for Media and Public Affairs Clemens, S.G., Discussing the News with 3 to 7 year olds: What to do? 1998, National Association for the Education of Young Chldren Cohen, A.A., R.T. Wigand, and R.P. Harrison, 'The effects of type of event, proximity and repetition on children's attention to and learning from television news'. Communication Research, 1976. 3: p. 30-36. Collier, K., 'TV Censors - Victoria's bid to hide violent scenes from family viewing time', in Herald Sun. December 4, 2001: Melbourne. p. 1 Collier, K., F. Burstin, and A. Gardiner, 'Censorship Blast', in Herald Sun. December 5, 2001: Melbourne. p. 27
123 Commercial Television Australia, Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice. 1999: Mosman., New South Wales. Community Council Against Violence, Understanding Violence in the Media, VCCAV: Melbourne. Cook, I., September 11 terrorists attacks in the USA, Letter to Author, February 28, 2002 Crawford, F., Preschool children and television news, Email interview with author January 8, 2004 Critchell, S., 'Parents can influence - but not control - how children see war', in Associated Press. March 24, 2003 Cunningham-Burley, S., A. Kerr, and S. Pavis, Theorizing subjects and subject matter in focus group research, in Developing Focus Group Research, R.S. Barbour, Kitzinger, Jenny,, Editor. 1999, Sage: London. Cupitt, M., et al., Infants and Television. 1998, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority. Cupitt, M., Community views about content on free-to-air television 1999. 2000, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority. DeMeo, M.M., 'Disaster hits home'. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behaviour Letter, 1995. 11(6): p. 8. Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln, Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research, in Handbook of Qualitative Research, N.K. Denzin, Lincoln, Yvonna S.,, Editor. 2000, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, California. Family and Community Development Committee Parliament of Victoria, The effects of Television and Multimedia on children & families in Victoria: Final Report. 2000: Melbourne Farquhar, C., Are focus groups suitable for 'sensitive' topics?, in Developing Focus Group Research, R.S. Barbour, Kitzinger, Jenny, Editor. 1999, Sage Publications: London. Felde, K., 'No More Blood at Eleven: TV News Needs to Report Conflict Responsibly'. Media and Values, 1993(63): p. 12. Fenn, P., Interview regarding September 11 coverage, Telephone interview with Author. February 14, 2004 Ferguson, E., 'Focus Groups Distort Reality', in The Observer. September 8, 1996: London. p. 46 Flick, U., An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 1998, London: Sage Publications. Frankland, J. and M. Bloor, Some issues arising in the systematic analyis of focus group materials, in Developing Focus Group Research, R.S. Barbour, Kitzinger, Jenny,, Editor. 1999, Sage Publications: London. Gamson, W.A., Talking Politics. 1992, New York: Cambridge University Press. Garner, P., 'Televised violence and children's emotional development - An open letter to Australian Broadcasting Tribunal'. Media Information Australia, 1986. 39: p. 47-49.
124 Gerbner, G., Violence & Terror in and By Media, University of Minnesota Children Youth and Family Consortium Gersema, E. and V. Maye, 'For The Sake Of Your Kids Switch Off The TV, Says Laura Bush', in Sun Herald. September 8, 2002: Sydney. p. 7 Gibbs, A., 'Focus Groups'. Social Research Update, 1997(19). Gilbert, S., 'A Parent's Guide to War Anxiety', in The New York Times. March 20, 2003: New York. p. 7 Giles, D., 'Call Home', in The Courier-Mail. March 2, 2002: Brisbane. p. 1-2 Gillard, P., et al., 'Children's Recollections of Television Coverage of the Gulf War'. Media Information Australia, 1993. 67: p. 100-106. Goodman, R.F., Talking to Kids About Terrorism or Acts of War. 2001, About our kids.org Green, J. and L. Hart, The impact of context on data, in Developing Focus Group Research, R.S. Barbour, Kitzinger, Jenny,, Editor. 1999, Sage Publications: London. Greenbaum, T.L., The practical handbook and guide to focus group research. 1988, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Greenbaum, T.L., Focus Groups: A Help or a Waste of Time. 1997, Product Management Today http://www.groupsplus.com/pmt0797.htm (accesed May 23, 2002) Greenberg, B.S., Gantz, Walter,, ed. Desert Storm and the Mass Media. The Hampton Press Communication Series, ed. B. Dervin. 1993, Hampton Press: Cresskill. Groebel, J., Krebs, D., A study of the effects of television on anxiety, in Cross- cultural anxiety, C.D. Spielberger, Diaz-Guerrero, R., Editor. 1983, Hemisphere: New York. p. 89-98. Gross, T. and S. Gurewitz Clemens, Painting a Tragedy: Young Children Process the Events of September 11. 2002, www.thelearningcollaborative.org Gunter, B., Furnham, Adrian, 'Perceptions of television violence: Effects of programming genre and type of violence on viewers' judgements of violent portrayals'. British Journal of Social Psychology, 1984. 23: p. 155-164. Gunter, B., Television and the Fear of Crime (Television Research Monograph). 1987, London: John Libbey and Company Ltd. Gunter, B.M., Jill L., Children and Television: the one eyed monster. 1990, London: Routledge. Gunter, B., Responding to News and Public Affairs, in Responding to the Screen. Reception and Reaction Processes, J. Bryant, Zillmann, Dolf, Editor. 1991, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale. p. 229-260. Gunter, B.M., Jill,, Children and Television. Second ed. 1997, London: Routledge. Gunter, B., Media Research Methods. Measuring Audiences, Reactions and Impact. 2000, London: Sage. Hamilton, W., The use of footage in ABC's war coverage, Memo to ABC News and Current Affairs Staff, March 24, 2003
125 Hamilton, W., Daily Television Output in Week March 24-28: Attention all Newscaff TV Staff. 2003: Sydney. Hamilton, W., September 11 email interview with author December 2003 Hammarberg, T., Children, the UN Convention and the Media. 1996, Coalition for Quality Children's Media Hammond, A., 'Research Shows Television News is Child's Play', in Inside QUT1998: Brisbane. p. 1-2 Hansen, A., Cottle, Simon, Negrine, Ralph, Newbold, Chris, Mass Communication Research Methods. 1998: Macmillan. Heard, S., September 11 coverage, Telephone with conversation with Author, January 2002 Henderson, D., 'The Horror of Sept. 11, Replayed', in The New York Times. September 4, 2002: New York. p. 20 Henderson, D., 'The Horror of Sept. 11, Replayed', in The New York Times2002: New York. p. 20 Herndon, S.L., Using Focus Group Interviews for Preliminary Investigation, in Qualitative Research Applications in Organizational Communication, S.L. Herndon, Kreps, Gary L.,, Editor. 1993, Hampton Press: Cresskill. Hillman, C., Helping Children Cope With Images of War. 2003, ABC: South Coast, Western Australia Hoffner, C., Haefner, Margaret J.,, Children's Affective Responses to News Coverage of the War, in Desert Storm and the Mass Media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton: Cresskill. Howitt, D., Mass Media and Social Problems. International Series in Experimental Psychology, ed. M. Argyle. Vol. 2. 1982, Oxford: Pergamon Press. Indiana University, Focus Groups. 1997, http://universe.indiana.edu/clp/rf/focusg.htm (access date May 23, 2002) Jensen, K.B., Jankowski, Nicholas W., ed. A Handbook of Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communication Research. 1991, Routledge: London. Jones, A., Interview with Prime Minister John Howard. 2004, Radio 2GB: Sydney Josephson, W.L., Television Violence: A review of the Effects on Children of Different Ages. 1995, National Clearinghouse on Family Violence: Ottawa Kamberg, M.-L., 'Watch What You're Watching', in Women in Business. 2002. p. 25 Karkabi, B., 'Our changed World; Remembering September 11; Helping children cope with 9;11 fears by listening', in The Houston Chronicle2002: Houston. p. 1 Keenan, S., 'Talking to Kids About Violence', in Good Housekeeping. 1997. p. 76-79 Kitzinger, J., Barbour, Rosaline S.,, Introduction: the challenge and promise of focus groups, in Developing Focus Group Research, R.S. Barbour, Kitzinger, Jenny,, Editor. 1999, Sage Publications: London.
126 Kitzingner, J., A sociology of media power: key issues in audience reception research, in Message Received: Glasgow Media Group Research 1993-1998, G. Philo, Editor. 1999, Longman: New York. p. 3-20. Lamb, G.M., 'Block that TV sex and violence'. Christian Science Monitor, 1999. 91(152): p. 13. Landman, J., 'Across the Gulf- Behind the News'. Education Quarterly, 1991. No 2(August 1991): p. 24-28. Lawrence, A., 'Kids vulnerable to news violence for months', in Insite. October 26, 2001: Brisbane Ledingham, D.J., The Effects of Media Violence on Children. 1994, The National Clearinghouse on Family Violence: Ottawa Leonard, F.R., 'Tide turns against TV violence', in Catholic Leader. September 24, 2000, 2000: Brisbane. p. 12-13 Leonard, T., 'Kids find fact worse than fiction', in The Telegraph. September 23, 2003: Calcutta Leonard, T., 'Why fact, not fiction, frightens children watching TV', in Daily Telegraph. September 23, 2003: London Levin, D.E., 'Understanding and Responding to the Violence in Children's Lives'. Child Care Exchange, 1995. 3: p. 34-40. Levin, D.E., Remote Control Childhood? Combating the Hazards of Media Culture. 1998, Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Levin, D.E., When Your Kids Hear about Scary News. 2002, Beansprout Levy, R., Parents: Turn Off Media Violence. 1997, Coaltion for Quality Children's Media Litchter, R., Dionne, E.J., Wainwright, Rupert,, Violence in the Media. 1999, Online News Hour Livingstone, S.B., Moira;, Young People, New Media. 1999, London School of Economics and Political Science: London. p. 1-42 Lunt, P., Livingstone, Sonia,, 'Rethinking the Focus Group in Media and Communication Research'. Journal of Communication, 1996. 46(2): p. 79-98. Luntz, F.I., Focus Group Research in American Politics. 1994, PollingReport.com http://www.pollingreport.com/focus.htm (access date May 23, 2002) Luntz, F.I., The Makings of a Good Focus Group. 1994, PollingReport.com http://www.pollingreport.com/focus.htm (Access date May 23, 2002) Marczak, M., Sewell, Meg,, Using Focus Groups for Evaluation, University of Arizona http://ag.arizona.edu/fcr/fs/cyfar/focus.htm (Access date May 23, 2002) Maslin, P., Children & the Media: Tuned In or Tuned Out? America's Children Speak Out on the News Media. 1994, Children Now McCleneghan, J.S., ''Reality violence' on TV news: it began with Vietnam'. The Social Science Journal, 2002. 39(4): p. 593-598.
127 McLeod, J.M., Reeves, Byron,, On the Nature of Mass Media Effects, in Television and Social Behavior: Beyond Violence and Children, S.B. Withey, Abeles, Ronald P, Editor. 1980, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey. McNamara, C., Basics of Conducting Focus Gropus. 1999, Free Management Library http://www.mapnp.org/library/evaluatn/focusgrp.htm (Access date May 23, 2002) Mestel, 'Adolescents' TV Watching is Linked to Violent Behavior', in Los Angeles Times. March 29, 2002, 2002: Los Angeles. p. A-18 Michell, L., Combining focus groups and interviews: telling how it is; telling how it feels, in Developing Focus Group Research, R.S. Barbour, Kitzinger, Jenny,, Editor. 1999, Sage Publications: London. Miller, D., Philo, Greg,, The effective media, in Message Received: Glasgow Media Group Research 1993-1998, G. Philo, Editor. 1999, Longman: New York. p. 21-32. Millwood Hargreave, A., How Children Interpret Screen Violence. 2003, Broadcasting Standard Commission and Independent Television Commission: London Mitchell, S., Talkback. 2002, 612 ABC: Brisbane Mithers, C.L., 'One Year Later', in Parenting. 2002. p. 161-164 Moore, T., 'TV footage can make kids fear for their safety', in The Courier-Mail. March 27, 2003: Brisbane. p. 5 Morgan, D.L., Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. 1988, London: Sage Publications. Morrison, D., MacGregor, Brent, Anxiety, War and Children: The Role of Television, in Desert Storm and the Mass Media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton Press: Cresskill. Morrison, D.E., The Search for a Method - Focus Groups and the Development of Mass Communication Research. 1998, Luton: University of Luton Press. Murray, J., Children and television - what do we know?, in Children & Families in Australia, A. Burns, Goodnow, Jacqueline, Editor. 1985, Allen & Unwin: Sydney. p. 100-132. Murray, J.P., Lonnborg, Barbara, 'Violence on TV What do Children Learn? What Can Parents Do?' Media Information Australia, 1986. 39: p. 50-51. Murray, J.P., Children and Television Violence. 1995, University of Minnesota, Children Youth and Family Consortium Myers, G., Macnaghten, Phil,, Can focus groups be analysed as talk, in Developing Focus Group Research, R.S. Barbour, Kitzinger, Jenny,, Editor. 1999, Sage Publications: London. National Health and Medical Research Council Child Health Committee, 'Television and the Family'. AMBA News, 1998(July/Aug 1988): p. 5-7. Nielsen, J., The Use and Misuse of Focus Groups. 1997, useit.com http://www.useit.com/papers/focusgroups.html (Access date May 23, 2002)
128 Noble, G. and K. Freiberg, 'Discriminating between the viewing styles of the commercial and ABC child viewer'. Media Information Australia, 1985. 36: p. 22-3. Office of Film and Literature Classification, Guidelines for the Classification of Film and Videotapes (Amendment No 3). 2000: Canberra Osfield, S., 'Talking to children about disaster', in The Australian Women's Weekly. January, 2003: Sydney. p. 113 Ota, A.K., 'Commerce Panel Approves Bill to Curb Violent TV During Family Viewing Hours'. CQ Weekly, 2000. 58(37): p. 2216. Owen, R., Leonard, Fr Richard, Kucznski, Marcus, 'Do you know what your children are watching?' in Catholic Leader. September 24, 2000, 2000: Brisbane. p. 12-13 Paik, H.C., George;, 'The Effects of Television Violence on Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis'. Communication Research, 1994. 21(4): p. 516-546. Palmer, P., The Lively Audience: A study of children around the TV set. 1986, Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Palmer, E.L., MacNeil, Maurya, Children's Comprehension Processes: From Piaget to Public Policy, in Responding to the Screen. Reception and Reaction Processes, J. Bryant, Zillmann, Dolf, Editor. 1991, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale. p. 27-44. Pellman, H., 'What parents want to know about children and disasters'. Pediatrics for Parents, 2002. 20(1): p. 4-5. Pfefferbaum, B., Nixon, Sara Jo, Tivis, Rick D., Doughty, Debby E., Pynoos, Robert S., Gurwitch, Robin H., Foy, David W., 'Television Exposure in Children after a Terrorist Incident'. Psychiatry - Interpersonal and biological process, 2001. 64(3): p. 202-211. Philo, G., Children and film/ video/ TV violence, in Message Received: Glasgow Media Group Research 1993-1998, G. Philo, Editor. 1999, Longman: New York. p. 82-90. Philo, G., ed. Message Received: Glasgow Media Group Research 1993-1998. 1999, Longman: Harlow. Powell, R.A., Single, H.M., 'Focus Groups'. International Journal of Quality in Health Care, 1996. 8(5): p. 499-504. Price, M.E. and S.G. Verhulst, eds. Parental Control of Television Broadcasting. 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey. Priest, S.H., Doing Media Research - An Introduction. 1996, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Proctor, C., ed. What Are Focus Groups? ASA Series. What is a Survey? Vol. 6. 1997, American Statistical Association: Alexandria. Quigley, M., W., 'Kids Watch television news and it scares them'. Washington Journalism Review, 1989. 11(8): p. 46. Raschke, R., Personal conversation with author January 10, 2004 Raschke, R., Interview regarding television news and preschool children. January 14, 2004
129
Rickards, S. and S. Savage, Research into Community Attitudes to Violence on Free- to-Air Television: Research conducted by AC Nielsen for the Australian Broadcasting Authority. 2003, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority. Roberts, S., 'Violence on television - how are children affected?' Rattler, 1989. 11(Spring): p. 16-18. Rundle, R., R. Blumenstein, and J. Angwin, 'September 11, 2001: Schools Debate Whether to Watch News', in The Wall Street Journal. September 14, 2001: New York. p. B2 Russell, A.L. Television interesting stuff for Life. in Address to Visual Media in Education Conference. 1993. Brisbane: Friends of ABC. Schuster, M.A., et al., 'A National Survey of Stress Reactions after the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks'. The New England Journal of Medicine, 2001. 345(20): p. 1507-1512. Sears, W., Helping Kids Handle Tragic Headlines. 2002, Parenting.com Senate Committee on the Judiciary, M.s., Children, Violence and the Media. A Report for Parents and Policy Makers. 1999. p. 1-16 Senate Hansard, Government Response to the Report on the Portrayal of Violence in the Electronic Media by the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of services Utilising Electronic Technologies. 1999, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra. p. 1901-1902. Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies. The Evidence of Media Violence. in Portrayal of violence in the electronic media public seminar. 1996. Canberra. Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies. The Protection of Children and News and Current Affairs Programs. in Portrayal of violence in the electronic media. 1996. Canberra. Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies, Report on the Portrayal of Violence in the Electronic Media. 1997, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra Sheehan, P.W. The Effects of Watching Violence in the Media: Policy, Consensus and Censorship. in Violence, Crime and the Entertainment Media. 1997. Sydney: Australian Institute of Criminology. Sheldon, L.R., Gillian: Loncar, Milica;, 'Cool' or 'gross': children's attitudes to violence, kissing and swearing on television. 1994, Australian Broadcasting Authority: Sydney. Sheldon, L., Loncar, Milica, 'Cool stuff and Slimy Stuff - children and Classification issues'. Media Information Australia, 1995. 75: p. 139-149. Sheldon, L. and M. Loncar, Kids talk TV: 'super wickid' or 'dum'. Vol. Monograph 7. 1996, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority. Sigel, R.S., Television and the Reactions of schoolchildren to the Assassination, in The Kennedy Assassination and the American Public: Social Communication in
130 Crisis, B.S. Greenberg and E.B. Parker, Editors. 1965, Stanford University Press: Stanford. p. 199-219. Silver, R.C., et al., 'National Longitudinal Study of Psychological Responses to September 11'. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2002. 288(10): p. 1235-1244. Silverman, G., How to Get Beneath the Surface in Focus Groups, Market Navigation Inc. htto://www.mnav.com.bensurf.htm (Access date May 23, 2002) Simmons, B., 'Violence in the air. Why do we watch this stuff?' Columbia Journalism Review, 1994. 33(2): p. 12. Singer, J., 'You be the censor', in Herald Sun. December 7, 2001: Melbourne. p. 20 Skouteris, H., Children's Media Diet: A Mother's Perspective. 2002, La Trobe University: Melbourne Skouteris, H., Personal communication with author December 5, 2003 Smith, S.L. and B.J. Wilson, 'Children's reactions to a television news story: The impact of video footage and proximity of crime'. Communication Research, 2000. 27(5): p. 641-673. Stacks, D.W., Hocking, John E.,, Communication Research. 1999, New York: Longman. Steinberg, J., 'Breaking All the News That's Fit to Frighten', in New York Times. October 1, 2000: New York. p. B4 Steinberg, J., 'How the young cope; The Fears of a Child, Reflected in the Clouds Above Any U.S. City', in New York Times. September 11, 2002: New York Stipp, H. Children's exposure to TV news and reality-based programming. in International Communication Association annual conference. 1995. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Strasburger, V.C.W., Barbara J;, Children, Adolescents & the Media. 2002, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Strong, T., Regulating children's news viewing. 2001, ABC Radio: Brisbane The Australian College of Paediatrics, 'Policy Statement. Children's Television'. Journal of Paediatric Child Health, 1994. 30: p. 6-8. Thoman, E., TV Violence: It's time to break the Circle of Blame. 1995, Center for Media Literacy Tobin, J., Good Guys Don't Wear Hats: Children Talk About the Media. 2000, New York: Teachers College Press. Tomazin, F. and J.-A. Davies, 'Tell children they're safe, conflict is far from home', in The Age. April 2, 2003: Melbourne University of Maryland, C.S.D., Focus Groups, http://www.cs.umd.edu/~zzj/FocusGro.htm (Access Date May 23, 2002) University of Western Sydney, A.B.A., Children's views about media harm : a collaborative project between University of Western Sydney and the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Monograph/Australian Broadcasting Authority; 10. 2000, Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority.
131 van der Voort, T.H.A., van Lil, Jan E., Vooijs, Marcel W., Parent and Child Emotional Involvement in the Netherlands, in Desert Storm and the mass media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton: Cresskill. p. 341-352. van Ierland, G., 'TV & Violence'. Australian Family Physician, 1982. 11(11): p. 833- 836. Victorian Community Council Against Violence. Climate of Fear. in Media Responsibility in Reporting Violent Crime. 1991. Melbourne. Villani, S., 'Impact of Media on Children and Adolsecents: A 10-year Review of the Research'. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolscent Psychiatry, 2001. 40(4): p. 392-401. von Feilitzen, 'Findings of Scandinavian research on television in the process of socialisation'. Fernsehen und Bildung, 1975. 9: p. 54-84. Wartella, E., New Directions in Media Research and Media Effects on Children. 2002: Melbourne. Waters, B., 'Mediating Children's TV/Video Viewing - Censorship in the Home?' Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 1989. No 1(October 1989): p. 128-139. Weddell, C. and J. Copeland, 'Television Really is Kids' Play'. International research forum on children and the media, 1998. 6: p. 8-9. Weddell, C., 'Media-Savvy Young Children. Understanding their view'. Every Child, 2001. 7(1): p. 4-5. Wilson, B.J. and S.L. Smith. Children's comprehension of and emotional reactions to television news. in International Communication Association annual conference. 1995. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Withey, S.B., Abeles, Ronald P.,, ed. Television and Social Behavior: Beyond Violence and Children. 1980, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey. Wober, M., Young, Brian M.,, British Children's Knowledge of, Emotional Reaction to, and Ways of Making Sense of the War, in Desert Storm and the Mass Media, B.S. Greenberg, Gantz, Walter, Editor. 1993, Hampton: Cresskill. Wolff, J., 'Can You Protect Your Child From the News', in Parenting. September, 1997. p. 135-142 Wood, M., 'Censor slams industry over kids' violence', in The Sun-Herald. July 22, 2001, 2001: Sydney. p. 3 Wright, J.C., et al., 'How children reacted to televised coverage of the space shuttle disaster'. Journal of Communication, 1989. 29(2)(Spring): p. 27-45. Young Media Australia, Off'n'On: healthy use of television. 1995, Adelaide: Young Media Australia.
132 Appendix 1
Violent.pdf
133 12 Reader survey
N the night of September 12, fiveyear-old Emma prayed. “. . . and I pray for the O man who crashed his plane into the building . . .’’ Violent Her mother switched on the television that morning and froze. She’s not sure how long she stared at the TV before turning it off. viewing She wasn’t sure how much Emma had seen or how much she’d taken in until they said prayers that night. It’s been said often since that September 11 changed the world. Research being conducted at the Queens- land University of Technology is asking whether it has also changed the way parents of preschool age children view television news. The research is asking if and how parents regulate, control or monitor their children’s consumption of news on TV. It will then ask how those strategies worked when the news became not an hour- ly event but the full diet of available TV. Broadcasters have a responsibility to pro- tect children from material that is likely to disturb or harm them. Parents will be asked if they believe the producers of TV news live up to that expectation or if there are any areas in which improvements could be made. Kids in Brisbane readers are being asked to participate in the research. To have your say, fill in the accompany- be asked to join in round table discussions tact details will be in the running for a prize ing survey sheet. You don’t have to include on the issue as part of the research. pack containing $100 worth of children’s your name and name details will not be used Please indicate if you are willing to take videos. You don’t have to be willing to take as part of the research. part in this second stage of the research. part in the second stage of the research to be However, a small number of parents will Parents who include their names and con- eligible for the prize Questionnaire for parents of children aged 3-6 years Age and sex of children (eg boy, 3, girl 5) ...... Are you the child’s mother/female guardian ❏ father/male guardian ❏ other ❏ (please specify)? ...... Does your home have free to air TV only ❏ Pay TV and free to air TV ❏ 1. Do your children watch TV news? Yes ❏ No ❏ If no, why? ...... If yes: 2. How much TV news would your children see (estimate minutes per week) ...... 2a. What TV new bulletin would your children most likely see? ...... 3. Do you deliberately restrict/control your child’s consumption of TV news? Yes ❏ No ❏ If yes, what restrictions/controls do you place on TV news viewing? ...... 4. Have you deliberately changed your TV news viewing habits since having children? Yes ❏ No ❏ If yes, how and why has have your news viewing patterns changed? ...... 5. Do you believe your children have ever been harmed or disturbed by what they’ve seen on the TV news? Yes ❏ No ❏ 6. Describe any evidence of your children being harmed or disturbed by TV news content...... 7. Did you child see any of the coverage of the September 11 attacks? Yes ❏ No ❏ If yes, how much of the September 11 attacks did your child see (estimate total minutes) ...... 8. Do you believe your child was harmed or disturbed by the coverage? Yes ❏ No ❏ If yes, describe any evidence of your children being harmed or disturbed by coverage of the terrorist attacks...... 9. Were there were any special issues relating to the coverage of the terrorist attacks which concerned you? Yes ❏ No ❏ If yes, describe any aspects of the coverage of the terrorist attacks which concerned you......
10. Do you believe the content or scheduling of television news should be modified in any way to take into account young viewers? Yes ❏ No ❏ If yes, what modifications would you suggest? ...... Name: ...... Take part to Daytime phone number: ...... Email: ...... win $100 Optional questions Would you be prepared to take part in a focus group discussion about this issue? Yes ❏ No ❏ of kids Send your completed survey to: Television news research project Journalism Department videos Level 5 B Block Queensland University of Technology Reply Paid 2434 Brisbane 4001 (no postage stamp required) Page 12. KIDS IN BRISBANE, February, 2002. Appendix 2 Details of focus groups
Focus group 1 Held at QUT Gardens Point Campus. December 3, 2002 Present were: Researcher: Susan Hetherington Moderator: Sharon Tickle Elizabeth - mother of a boy 6.5 and a girl 4.5 Martine - mother of a boy six and a girl 4 Kelli - mother of a boy 5, a boy 3 and a girl 1 Jo - mother of a boy 5 and a boy 20 months Elizabeth 2 - mother of a boy 4.5 Liz - mother of a girl aged 4, a boy 7 and a boy 11
Focus Group 2 Held at QUT Gardens Point Campus. December 4, 2002 Present were: Researcher: Susan Hetherington Moderator: Sharon Tickle Maria - mother of a boy six and a girl 8.5 Alison - mother of a girl five and a girl 2 Lisa - mother of a boy four and a boy 7 Tracey - mother of a girl 3.5 and a girl 18 months Linda - mother of girl 4 and a boy 2
Focus Group 3 Held at QUT Gardens Point Campus December 10, 2002 Present were: Researcher: Susan Hetherington Moderator: Sharon Tickle Michelle - mother of a girl 4.5 Elizabeth 1, - mother of a boy six and girl 4.5 Elizabeth 2 - mother of a boy 4 Sonya,- mother of girls aged 4.5 Stacey - mother of a girl aged 4.5
134 Appendix 3 Industry input
Anderson, Lee. Nine Director of News, Brisbane. Email interview February 13, 2004
Breen, David. Ten News Sydney news manager. Email interview December 2003
Cook, Ian. Channel Seven, Director of News. Letter to author. February 28, 2002
Crawford, Fiona. ABC state Editor, News and Current Affairs Queensland. Email interview January 8, 2004
Fenn, Paul. Nine Network's National News Manager. Recorded telephone interview February 13, 2004
Hamilton, Walter. Head National Coverage, ABC News and Current Affairs. Email interview December 2003
Heard, Sam. Channel Ten national publicist. Telephone interview January 2002
Raschke, Rob. News Director Seven Brisbane. Preliminary telephone interview January 10, 2004
Raschke, Rob. News Director Seven Brisbane. Face-to-face interview January 14, 2004
135