Old bag? That’s not really rude, rules TV watchdog
IT’S not a problem to call someone a coffin dodger or an old bag on television, the broadcast watchdog said yesterday.
And most viewers believe some ‘milder’ swear words are used so widely that they are now acceptable before the 9pm watershed, it found.
But critics said some of the words deemed mild, including ‘a***’, ‘b***er’ and ‘c**p’, would be offensive to many, and accused Ofcom of giving broadcasters a licence to use foul language.
Stronger swear words were said to be unacceptable before the watershed, and some racist and homophobic language was described as ‘highly unacceptable at all times’.
The regulator asked 248 people to consider 144 words and six offensive gestures to discover what they found offensive and why certain words were deemed unacceptable. Its findings have been used to publish a reference guide to offensive words and gestures for broadcasters, with a description of how audiences perceive each word or act.
The watchdog found that television viewers and radio listeners were more likely to tolerate swearing if it reflected ‘real world’ situations. Of the swear words deemed ‘milder’, the study found they were ‘generally of little concern’ if used to express strong emotion or as a light-hearted insult.
The Ofcom report said: ‘Many of these were thought to be in common use, including in front of children, and therefore mostly acceptable before the watershed.’
Derogatory language used to describe older people, including ‘coffin dodger’ and ‘old bag’, was deemed mild and ‘not considered problematic by most’. Other words such as ginger or gay were only considered a problem if they were used as a derogatory term.
Viewers were less tolerant of swear words linked to body parts, or of religious insults or racist or homophobic language. The religious terms were included because of their use as expletives, not because of their use in a religious context.
Offensive gestures were said to be ‘generally unacceptable’ before the watershed, and audiences said they still believed the watershed was crucial in protecting children.
Tony Close, of Ofcom, said: ‘These findings will help us strike a balance between protecting audiences from unjustified offence, especially before the watershed, and allowing broadcasters to reflect the real world.’
But Sam Burnett, of campaign group Mediawatch-UK, said: ‘Ofcom is remarkably out of touch with the viewing public. This is just the latest signal of the declining standards on our screens.’