Susan Hetherington Thesis (PDF 2MB)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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.