Bad Language in the Media

Elmo

Views of Bad Language in the media.

This question was raised in the radio form over the use of the F-word on daytime Radio during an episode of the now axed Arts show Rattlebag on RTE Radio 1. The show had a poet on reading a poem in which the F-word was repeated a number of times.

A boardster did write into the BCC (Broadcasting Complaints Commission) about the use of the bad language and got the reply that it was "Art".

So should we be banning bad language from Radio, TV and Publishing?

IMO no.

Why do we insist in having separate rules for print media then that of TV and Radio, who do we complain to if the RTE Guide had published the same poem?

Should we complain that the poem shouldn't even be printed just in case a child picks up and reads it? Surely print media is more accessible and acceptable root for young people.

Why can I say bollix on boards and not ****/****/****?
Why is bitch worse then bastard?
Why do we have such issues surrounding bad language?

monument

Elmo wrote:

Rattlebag... poem... F-word... BCC... "Art".

It was Rattlebag, it must have been art!

Today on Ray D’Arcy’s show, after Ian O'Doherty told him that Ray’s temporary replacement last week read out more of Ian’s fan texts/mail, and said the temp was more professional (apparently taking the piss)… Ray responded by continuing his new legacy and telling O'Doherty to **** off, just as he cut to adverts. I’m deeply offend by this, I mean what kind of example is this to all his listeners… Dear Madam…

Elmo wrote:

So should we be banning bad language from Radio, TV and Publishing?

The term "bad language" could mean anything.

Slightly related, the role of modern film censor looks for stuff that is “offensive” and just age-rates such, they tell distributors/etc what will get into one rating or another and leave it up to them to make cuts or not so they can make the rating they want. (Err… I wasn’t tuned into the Censor’s interview on Rattlebag, honestly)

The problem is applying something similar to radio/tv.

Elmo wrote:

Why do we insist in having separate rules for print media then that of TV and Radio,

Because our self-appointed moral guardians find it harder to interfere with old guarded mediums such as books, newspapers etc…

Forgetting the printed news media, why don’t we have ratings on books?

Elmo wrote:

who do we complain to if the RTE Guide had published the same poem?

Maybe the Censorship of Publications Board – but these days it unlikely they’ll do anything about such.

Elmo wrote:

Should we complain that the poem shouldn't even be printed just in case a child picks up and reads it? Surely print media is more accessible and acceptable root for young people.

In realty, “****” (sic) is very much so commonplace, and nobody should be getting their knickers in a twist over it.

Elmo wrote:

Why can I say bollix on boards and not ****/****/****?

Edit (forgot to comment here): because one or more of the people running the site thinks you should not be able to, simple as that.

Elmo wrote:

Why is bitch worse then bastard?

Ask John Waters, he’ll go into detail on this matter for you…

Elmo wrote:

Why do we have such issues surrounding bad language?

Because some people are easily offended, annoyed, or “above” such colourful language.

DublinWriter

monument wrote:

Today on Ray D’Arcy’s show, after Ian O'Doherty told him that Ray’s temporary replacement last week read out more of Ian’s fan texts/mail, and said the temp was more professional (apparently taking the piss)… Ray responded by continuing his new legacy and telling O'Doherty to **** off, just as he cut to adverts. I’m deeply offend by this, I mean what kind of example is this to all his listeners… Dear Madam…

I heard that today, and thought 'nah, he couldn't have said that'.

Elmo

The term "bad language" could mean anything.

Refering to "bad language" not bad spelling, grammar or the use of the word GOTTEN (IT'S NOT A FU*KING WORD).

The problem is applying something similar to radio/tv.

The BCI are currently looking for recomendations.

Today on Ray D’Arcy’s show, after Ian O'Doherty told him that Ray’s temporary replacement last week read out more of Ian’s fan texts/mail, and said the temp was more professional (apparently taking the piss)… Ray responded by continuing his new legacy and telling O'Doherty to **** off, just as he cut to adverts. I’m deeply offend by this, I mean what kind of example is this to all his listeners… Dear Madam…

GOOD IAN O'DOHERTY SHOULD **** OFF.

Also on Ray D'arsy they did talk about bad lanuage and ****/****/**** where all mention on that but they were talking about the words rather then actually using them. But parents where emailing in to say that they had to send their kids out, talking about words is wrong? no one is causing offence there surely?

flogen

Listen to Gerry Ryan; he'll throw in the odd curse under the guise of concern ("it's a load of shíte that old people aren't respected nowadays" kind of thing), and it's not very clever, he just knows that some housewifes are sniggering at the fact that they heard a rude word.. he gets away with it because most kids wouldn't be listening to it (time of day, topics) and because he gets big listenership figures... frankly "grown up" radio like Newstalk, which doesn't aim itself at kids at all, is full of curse words, look at Dunphy or Moncrieff, now if the same words were used at the same time on a chart music show or young persons show, there'd be trouble... the context matters more in radio rather than the time.
With that in mind, the f-word tends to get more uproar than shít or shíte, just like cúnt often gets a negative response, even amongst the most foul-mouthed people. Why? Who knows? As words grow in usage they lose their potency. Bitch and Bastard are both actual words that developed into insults ("you're a dog" or "your the produce of an unholy, sinful act of lust" ), and as such could never pack the punch of a slang term like fúck, shít and cúnt. For some reason Ireland (and other countries I suppose) seem to have softened up to shíte, which is given more favour than other words, even its sister "shít", maybe it's because it sounds softer or more jovial.

Newspapers like The Guardian use curse words for the most part it's when a quote (why censor what someone says, it's not like we don't know what's behind the three *'s that follow the 'f', and besides, if a child was a regular reader of the Guardian I'm sure they'd be mature enough to take such a word in their stride, and besides, if you wanted to remove any trace of the offending word you'd have to reconstruct the quote and so create a mis-quote).

There's not really a need for curses in radio, and in cases like Ray D'arcy there's the potential for children to hear it because he presents a show a young person might like to hear. Print for the most part doesn't use bad language, most cases it does would be in quotations or to really emphasise a point, and after all, that's what the words are there for.

ODS

flogen wrote:

For some reason Ireland (and other countries I suppose) seem to have softened up to shíte

Flogen, you are quite right - we have got too used to putting up with sh!te in this country:D

monument

Elmo wrote:

Refering to "bad language" not bad spelling, grammar or the use of the word GOTTEN (IT'S NOT A FU*KING WORD).

Sorry there, although the way I went about it was unclear, I was in fact meaning to say that the question “So should we be banning bad language from Radio, TV and Publishing?” is too broad, as ‘bad language’ includes a spectrum from hardly offence to deeply offence.

J.R.HARTLEY

As the Complainer in question i feel an explanation closer to the actual facts than the OP described would be better suited,
the complaint was not about the F word being used on radio but it being used quite liberally over two days as well as other language that i chose to ignore as one bad language complaint was deemed to be enough.
the poems in question had approx 5 or 6 verses with the f word cropping up in the refrain and about 2-3 times per verse, it was just too much. it's not a case of whoops i cursed or this line has a curse in it, it was just ridiculous the amount of times the word was used in a 2 minute space.
The BCC stood by the complaint,The Rattlebag Producers attitude was that ART excused the barrage of bad language.

Elmo

As the Complainer in question i feel an explanation closer to the actual facts than the OP described would be better suited,
the complaint was not about the F word being used on radio but it being used quite liberally over two days as well as other language that i chose to ignore as one bad language complaint was deemed to be enough.
the poems in question had approx 5 or 6 verses with the f word cropping up in the refrain and about 2-3 times per verse, it was just too much. it's not a case of whoops i cursed or this line has a curse in it, it was just ridiculous the amount of times the word was used in a 2 minute space.
The BCC stood by the complaint,The Rattlebag Producers attitude was that ART excused the barrage of bad language.

Thanks for the reply J.R.

I am just wondering would you have addressed this issue had it been published in the RTÉ Guide?

J.R.HARTLEY

i have to admit i'm not sure, my main point wasn't just the standards issue, but primarily that anyone who knows radio knows that listeners tend to listen to stations rather then individuals, i.e. if mammy listens to liveline she'll work away through rattlebag until creedon comes on, and in that sense the kids will be subjected to the language, as in fairness what parent would be on the watch out for vulgarity at 3.00pm
if it were in the RTE Guide i think i would be a little upset, i suppose to be fair i might have complained about that aswell, i can't see any reason not to censor it like the curses here on boards are censored, there's no point in taking it out because the children already know the word, but what people (mostly non parents) seem to miss when using that argument ("but they hear it all the time in the playground") is that we are trying to teach them not to use it, to know that it's wrong, like the way kids know what the two fingered salute is, but we discourage it, we don't just say "oh well they know it so whats the point in stopping them now"
maybe i'm alittle old fashioned but if you've ever seen bubba ho-tep especially the commentary where "elvis" gives out about the cursing, saying he does it himself just not in front of women or children you know what i mean.

Elmo

By changing the channel/station you would be letting your children know that you do not like the use of bad language. Sometimes it is up to parents to actually tell their kids that bad language is wrong it is not up to the rest of us who do not have children to advise other peoples children that bad language is wrong. They should know it. Just in the same way they parents need to start letting their kids know that littering is not good.

Again it depends on what you think is bad language. e.g. **** is less respectiable then bollix, bastard is more respectful then bitch and **** is worse then **** (yet better :rolleyes: )


Edit: I would rather see people using the Two Fingers (as its historical back ground shows that it only annoys that the french didn't get to cut of the fingers of English archers) then the one finger which is very vulgar and american (not that I am conservative or anything)

J.R.HARTLEY

Elmo wrote:

By changing the channel/station you would be letting your children know that you do not like the use of bad language. Sometimes it is up to parents to actually tell their kids that bad language is wrong it is not up to the rest of us who do not have children to advise other peoples children that bad language is wrong. They should know it. Just in the same way they parents need to start letting their kids know that littering is not good.

i agree with that point almost 100% however my problem is noone is on the lookout for it at 3PM and as such changing the channel is a good reaction but the deed has been done, they've heard
an adult say it(and no matter how many times you say it's wrong - just like us as kids- we can't wait to say it tomorrow in school), just like you wouldn't think of scanning the TV at 3PM to make sure a slasher or porno isn't on when you let the kids watch it, we all have responsibilities and for broadcasters it's standards. it was only a small matter for them to change it, or better still and this bugs me as i'd find this an acceptable alternative, they could have warned people and then gone ahead and done it, similar to a cd having it's warning (okay folks the following contains material you may find offensive, if you want to turn your radios down for a few seconds), if the parent wants the kid to hear it, fine, if they don't you have 5 seconds to turn the sound down for a minute or two, i'm not looking for a ban on expression, just courtesy and common sense, and (here's the word again) standards.

i'm not looking for others to eductae our kids , my point is it's hard enough and we don't need the outside world purposely cursingand not caring, people curse by accident in front of kids all over the world and say oops sorry , and you say "no worries i'll sort the kid out", but the main thing there is the person says sorry and acknowledges that it's not the best to curse in front of a child and that they didn't mean any harm, whereas rattlebag, excused as being art and stated they weren't sorry and would do it again, it's a BS excuse. i mean it's not like i want them to sanatize shakespeare or anything (read him , he's worse than tarantino)


remember when Liveline failed to loop delay their show last year and someone accused Martin Cullens PR girl of giving him a BJ , thats the kind of laziness i've come to expect from RTE in the last few years,:rolleyes:

DublinWriter

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

remember when Liveline failed to loop delay their show last year and someone accused Martin Cullens PR girl of giving him a BJ , thats the kind of laziness i've come to expect from RTE in the last few years,:rolleyes:

Failed? RTE couldn't be arsed to implement a tape-delay system, despite radio stations in the USA using them since the 1950's.

Elmo

This is live TV and Radio to disrupt it just because you might offend some body then you are just censoring them.

The caller was taken of the air as soon as he said it, it gives the papers something to talk about.

It makes good radio and TV.

J.R.HARTLEY

Elmo wrote:

This is live TV and Radio to disrupt it just because you might offend some body then you are just censoring them.

The caller was taken of the air as soon as he said it, it gives the papers something to talk about.

It makes good radio and TV.

can't agree with you there elmo, total nonsense, you have to screen calls, it's not censorhip to cut out calls where people spout unsubstantiated personal opinion which may have legal implications for the broadcaster. they made a serious and unfounded allegation that RTE had to appologise for, a simple delay system would have prevented that.

DublinWriter

Elmo wrote:

This is live TV and Radio to disrupt it just because you might offend some body then you are just censoring them.

Not really. There is a degree of legal exposure to a broadcaster if someone comes on air and defames/slanders someone.

That is, RTE could have had the arse sued off them by Martin Cullen. He more than likely would have won and it would have ended up costing us licence-payers at the end of the day.

It's the for same reason you see mods on boards come down heavy on people promoting illegal activity in threads. Boards themselves would be held responsible in an Irish court to a degree for what people say via it.

Elmo

That is, RTE could have had the arse sued off them by Martin Cullen. He more than likely would have won and it would have ended up costing us licence-payers at the end of the day.

Lets face it RTE appoligises completely for that incident. It made good news headlines for weeks. You cann't beat that.

Look at the sunday newspapers in relation to the death of Liam Lawlor, far worse and totally unforgivable IMO.
And again this bring us back to a major point, why do we view Radio and TV differentlly to Print Media? How many complaints where made againist the Indo through their watch dog about the bad reporting of Liam Lawlor's death?


While I don't like either Martin Cullen or Liam Lawlor what was said about them was totally out of line.

DMC

You should see the bruhaha with them across the water about Jonathan Ross' interview with David Cameron last week.

He asked "Did you or did you not have a **** thinking 'Margaret Thatcher'?"

Tory grandees and the Mail on Sunday are disgusted, Cameron played it with a straight bat.

But, surprisingly, the Observer's editorial today said that Ross was wrong, and that while bad languange is part of the "linguistic arsenal."

The Observer wrote:

The problem comes with overuse. Words are a commodity, cheapened when supply runs unchecked. For an expletive to have dramatic effect, it must come in the context of otherwise sober discourse. If every broadcast is peppered with expletives, our language is impoverished. Mr Ross crossed a line in his interview with Mr Cameron last week. Some may have been offended, others amused. But we can say with certainty that it is a stunt that works only once. It definitely won't be funny the next time.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1805347,00.html

I'd take my own personal line from that leader; I do object to the likes of Gerry Ryan and Ray D'arcy swearing on-air, cos they think it's with the kids. I don't mind it in the right context, but I do object to it being broadcast during the daytime.

Elmo

I'd take my own personal line from that leader; I do object to the likes of Gerry Ryan and Ray D'arcy swearing on-air, cos they think it's with the kids. I don't mind it in the right context, but I do object to it being broadcast during the daytime.

And yet again we forget about print media. How often do we find are selfs reading about celebs on the town or who they are sleeping with but we are totally offended should it be shown or said or the TV or Radio.

the Mail on Sunday are disgusted

Tabloid Trash, they have a nerve.

monument

Elmo wrote:

And yet again we forget about print media. How often do we find are selfs reading about celebs on the town or who they are sleeping with

Not too often at all, what papers/mags do you read?

Elmo

Not too often at all, what papers/mags do you read?

LOL fair enough I don't read that type of garbage but WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN surely it should be topshelf stuff.

Did you see the Ireland On Sunday the day after CJ Haughey's death they could have left it a few weeks.

Really should we be subjected to CJ and some aul hag kissing of the front page of a national news paper. :eek:


I am pointing out the different attitude we have towards print media and tv/radio.

monument

As I said in a post above, it's "Because our self-appointed moral guardians find it harder to interfere with old guarded mediums such as books, newspapers etc…".

There was a brilliant documentary aired a year or two ago – on I think Channel Four, of all places – about how print can get away with much more then broadcast, it centred on the UK and explained how over there printed words and images became so guarded.

DMC

Elmo wrote:

I am pointing out the different attitude we have towards print media and tv/radio.

Yes, in that we have the choice about which newspaper to buy. Or not.

Broadcast media is different, in that it has the power to access anyone in the country with the equipment and has a higher chance of penetration. Broadcast media caters for every audience, kids programmes, old folks etc. whereas the Daily Mail's niche is the "wifes of those who run the country"

The Guardian always prints the C word and F word in full, un-starred, yet I don't see kids swapping them around the playground, unlike comics.

Elmo wrote:

Did you see the Ireland On Sunday the day after CJ Haughey's death they could have left it a few weeks.

Really should we be subjected to CJ and some aul hag kissing of the front page of a national news paper.

Would that be more the personal taste of the poster rather than something thats offensive? And also the attitude of the poster to the two pictured?

Elmo

Would that be more the personal taste of the poster rather than something thats offensive? And also the attitude of the poster to the two pictured?

LOL but what about the Children.

I am pointing this out because it was in bad taste regardless of what I think. RTE didn't show the Late Late Show interview with this woman (cann't think of her name) where it all began and surely their would have been more complaints.

Yes, in that we have the choice about which newspaper to buy. Or not.

We do have the choice of what stations we watch regardless. I have read tabloid news papers in work, college, school because others buy them and they are left lying around. And to be honest they do end up being read in this way by a lot of people who would by tabloids.

Broadcast media caters for every audience, kids programmes, old folks etc.

But broadcast media is becoming more niche.

"RED TOPS" are there to attract, everyone who goes by the newspapers reads their Headlines.

DMC

Elmo wrote:

I am pointing this out because it was in bad taste regardless of what I think. RTE didn't show the Late Late Show interview with this woman (cann't think of her name) where it all began and surely their would have been more complaints.

Old people kiss too. :rolleyes: Its a tough picture to publish, no more so for his late wife. I find it more irksome than offensive, and I'm sure thats what a lot of people thought of it too.

Elmo wrote:

We do have the choice of what stations we watch regardless. I have read tabloid news papers in work, college, school because others buy them and they are left lying around. And to be honest they do end up being read in this way by a lot of people who would by tabloids.

I read them too, to see what they are thinking, as you can't ignore their opinion, no matter how much people try to ignore them. Broadcast media has one little thing that sets it apart from the newspapers. Impartiality. Anything that's otherwise is heavily scrutinised by those in the print media, no less.....

Elmo wrote:

But broadcast media is becoming more niche.

TV is fragmenting, but it still has the strictest code of taste and decency, for all channels. You can't see a pair of tits on the TV, on any channel before 9pm, yet you can get a copy of The Sun all day.

Elmo wrote:

"RED TOPS" are there to attract, everyone who goes by the newspapers reads their Headlines.

The power of the red tops has diminished since colour newsprint has before widely available, and the "quality" papers use the power of a big photo to their maximum punch. Also, in Britian anyway, there is a serious decline in the power of the red top, the Mirror, the Sun, and the Screws of the World seeing double digit percentage losses year on year. They still shift in numbers, but for example where 10 years ago it was shifting 5 million per Sunday, is just hovering over the 3 million now, all the while "qualities" hold or gain readership.

Elmo

The power of the red tops has diminished since colour newsprint has before widely available, and the "quality" papers use the power of a big photo to their maximum punch. Also, in Britian anyway, there is a serious decline in the power of the red top, the Mirror, the Sun, and the Screws of the World seeing double digit percentage losses year on year. They still shift in numbers, but for example where 10 years ago it was shifting 5 million per Sunday, is just hovering over the 3 million now, all the while "qualities" hold or gain readership.

I would have just thought that the Broadsheets have just joined the Tabliods in their own game and hence the decline in readership i.e. Newspapers are dumming down.

Old people kiss too. Its a tough picture to publish, no more so for his late wife. I find it more irksome than offensive, and I'm sure thats what a lot of people thought of it too.

Yes! I was being sarcastic when I did say this. :rolleyes: And I found it both irksome and offencive but mainly for the family.