Whitehorn’s World Setting Tv Censorship... (Press, 4 January 1983)

In a commentary published on 4 January 1983, Katharine Whitehorn discusses the current state of television in Britain, which has recently expanded to four channels with the impending introduction of cable television. She highlights the mixed reactions from the public regarding the potential for increased access to controversial content, including pornographic material. Whitehorn points out that while there are valid concerns, much of the discourse surrounding these issues lacks focus, as protestors often conflate significant grievances with trivial concerns. She expresses frustration at the inability of critics to differentiate between varying forms of offensiveness, such as coarse language versus graphic sexual violence. Whitehorn acknowledges that while certain films and programmes are indeed disturbing, the reaction to offensive language can overshadow more pressing issues regarding content that glorifies violence or exploitation. Whitehorn draws attention to the challenge of establishing appropriate censorship guidelines, emphasising the difference between verbal and visual impact. She explains that while certain images can provoke a strong emotional response, not all shocking visuals are inherently objectionable. For instance, graphic depictions of violence can be more problematic than necessary medical illustrations. She criticises the backlash against a proposed programme showcasing a homosexual party, arguing that it is unjust to dismiss such representations entirely. Whitehorn warns that the current mode of protest could undermine genuine concerns about the emergence of cable television, leading to an extreme binary view: the unrestricted broadcast of any content versus an overly sanitised programming landscape. Ultimately, she advocates for a more nuanced debate around censorship in media, suggesting that instead of arguing merely from a place of personal discomfort with new content, critics should engage in thoughtful discourse that acknowledges the complexities of representation in media while still advocating for protections against genuinely harmful material. Without more sophisticated arguments, the conversation risks devolving into two polarised camps.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand