Study: Parental Control of Television Broadcasting http://europa.eu.int/cormn/dg 10/avp ... ey_doc/parental_ controllindex.html Europa nr The &trope• Commission FINAL REPORT: PARENTAL CONTROL OF TELEVISION Dire(torate Ge~l ~:-:\: BROADCASTING by University of Oxford, PCMLP Study carried out by the European Commission as required by Article 22b of Directive 97/36/EC of30 June 1997 aroendin~ Directive 89/552/EEC (Television without Frontiers Directive). • Executive Summary (html) • Full text in PDF format: Chapter 1 (including content table) Annex 1 (including content table) Chapter 2 Annex2 Chapter 3 Annex 3 This study is also related to the Protection of Minors and Human Dignity. [ SQ]- [ Audiov!c'iual Policy Hom<.•pa~s:] 4/8/99 12:25 PM Study: Parental Control of Television Broadcasting - summary http://europa.eu.int/comm/dglO/avp ... _doc/parental_control/summary.nUiu Europa The Ellropean FINAL REPORT: Commission ..... PARENTAL· CONTROL OF TELEVISION ''4 ... Directorate Genjpl BROADCASTING This report represents the fmdings of a study undertaken on behalf of the European Commission. FuJI text of the studv in PDF ft1nnat EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Issues, Analysis and Recommendations 1. General conclusions 2. Problems with the V -chip model 3. Looking to a Digital Future 4. Positive approaches to parental choice 5. Recommendation for the transition 6. Encouraging pluralism in approaches to enhancing parental choice 7. Placing a premium on programme information 8. Broadcaster responsibility and regulatory monitoring 9. Media education and literacy campaigns Executive Summary: Issues, Analysis and Recommendations The Directorate General X of the European Commission has requested a study of the techniques and technologies available to facilitate parental choice, addressing specifically the television environment. This is prompted by the interest, at European level, in parental choice devices of the kind that have been adopted elsewhere in the world, especially the United States and Canada. This study only encompasses choice mechanisms to protect children from harmful content; it does not consider approaches to illegal content. As several EU documents have outlined, it is necessary to differentiate between these catc~_gories of content. They represent different issues of principle, and call for very different legal and technological responses. Furthermore, as the study also shows, what is considered to be harmful depends on cultural differences and can be distinct according to different age groups. All this has to be taken into account in defining appropriate a2proaches to protect children against undesired material whilst ensuring freedom of expression. A significant public interest lies in protecting children from viewing excessive television violence and other programming that may produce harmful effects. of12 4/8/99 12:25 P~1 . I Study: Parental Control of Television Broadcasting- summary http://europa.eu.int/comm/dglO/avp ... _doc/parental_control/summary.html ' / ~-lJ_' J 3<~.:.: • ? ."', :. ,,.• :J , 7. :3 -~()~·j J 2- (;~2,. · 3 ~·:j ,c~~t( tJ h ,;, ,' ".'. j-5 ~~-,~ .~/ ·~~ 1\ •. ; ; ·l f.t}_'") ' t l I . 7 ' . , I I I V' . / :~ . ' . ) ~ .) ~I ) .. ' ) .:: . " • . ,I ~ Children are presumed, quite justifiably, to be different from adults, to be mor~, , .... ~ vulnerable, less able to apply critical judgmental standards, and more at risk. Ordinarily, society depenas on parental supervision to protect children, but there are elements of the current system that have limited the scope of such supervision. The time in which the family as a single unit watches programming together has declined, and this process will be accentuated in a multi-diannel, multi-set digital era. This decline has occurred as the vast outpouring of transnational channels has made it more difficult for regulatory authorities to monitor the way companies comply with programming standards based upon cultural sensitivities. New forms of technology have also increasingly upset established patterns of parental choice. It is in this context that there has been a search for ways of enhancing parental choice and discovering new ways of governing, based upon a partnership between industry, social groups and government, to accomplish that goal. The importance is clear of Europe-wid.e action that is cost-effective, administratively viable, capable of general adoption and one which empowers parents. This Study ranks ana recommends approaches that can be taken at the European level to accomplish these goals. The very definition of enhanced parental choice is somewhat difficult. Partly, it is a matter of ensuring that parents or guardians have adequate information, in a manner efficient to obtain and use, to exercise the authority that is vested in them. However, the key element for most policy discussions is how to empower parents when they cannot be with their children. The goal, for the purposes of this study, is to increase the power and capacicy of a parent (or guardian) to control what is on the television set _particularly when the parent is not present or able to monitor the content consumed. That is why the international emphasis has been on blocking t~chnologies or other techniques to make proxy decisions relating to programming. Fears exist that these blocking technologies would become "upstream censoring" techniques, violating freedom of ex{>ression rights as safeguarded in the relevant International Treaties and constitutions of the Member States. Nonetheless, in the specific case of parental choice it must be noted that this argument is not so relevant; the decision to not receive the information is decid.ed directly by the potential end user and not by an intermedi~. This is not to say, however, that blocking regimes may not adversely effect the likelihood of financing for some programming based on concerns that some types of content are more susceptible to being blocked from potential audiences. Others argue that the right of children to receive information may be curtailed when introducing these mechanisms. It is therefore clear that, as with all other public policy decisions in the field of communications, a balance has to be found between rights and responsibilities of the media industry, as well as between the empowerment of _parents to protect their children and the protection of children as individuals with the right to receive information and entertainment. Finally, the project of enhancing parental choice must be dealt with in terms of existing measures, such as waterslieds, icons and acoustical warnings. Technical devices to enhance parental choice may have drawbacks, which require the continuation of social safety net measures: measures that protect cliildren in those instances where parents cannot or will not exercise sufficient responsibility to protect their children. As a significant number of commentaries have noted, broadcaster responsibility cannot be abandoned because of the possibility, in a relatively weak and inconclusive form, of mechanisms that improve the capacity for parental supervision. of12 4/8/99 12:25 PM Study: Parental Control of Television Broadcasting - summary http:/ /europa.eu.int/comm/ dg 10/avp ... _doc/parental_control/summary .nnru 1. General conclusions 1. In the current analogue system, the US and Canadian approach is not technically feasible in Europe. Moreover, analo~e technologies available in Europe are cumbersome, unlikely to become fully operational in all regions within a reasonable period, subject to circumvention, and likely to be rendered obsolete by emerging technologies. 2. At present, technical measures alone should not be considered to be able to achieve compliance with Article 22 of the Television Without Frontiers Directive. that is, to "ensure that minors in the area of transmission would not normally hear or see broadcasts" that would be "likely to impair their physical, mental or moral development." 3. Rather than focus on the V -chip, as it is being implemented in the US and Canada, regulatory approaches in Europe should be directed at the opportunities and challenges of the digital environment. Digital technology allows for the operation of technical devices which offer a much higher level of protection. 4. Nonetheless, during a transition period, there are specific efforts in the current, predominantly analogue setting that may be advanced to provide useful, albeit imperfect, technical devices. The use of electronic programme guides (EPGs) and the proliferation of an open technical standard for receiving analo~e EPG signals by new analogue sets and set-top boxes should be strongly encouraged. 5. Our recommendations for parental choice schemes in a digital age favour a model of parental choice in which: • a monopoly rating source is less dominant and pluralism in rating agencies and tecliniques is fostered, and • parental selection of desirable programme content criteria mobilises available analogue and digital technologies. 1. Descriptive ratings, as a rule, should be preferred over evaluative ratings. Descriptive ratings delegate to parents, guardians and minors a greater ability to assess programmes for themselves. Descriptive ratings are also better equipped to overcome cultural differences. 2. No foreseeable rating or labelling sr.stem is a total substitute for broadcaster responsibility. Broadcaster responsibility standards must be sustained at present levels. 3. Consistent with both transitional and long-range approaches, more emphasis must be placed on media literacy education and