Crikey



Idiot’s Guide to the Convergence Review: content standards

News media self interest being what it is, most commentary on the Convergence Review’s recommendations on media content standards has focused on journalism, and the ditching of the Finkelstein report’s recommendation for a statutory regulator of news media. Crikey covered this aspect of the report earlier this week.

But what about all the rest? The films, the computer games, the YouTube videos, the DVDs, the iViews and the Netflix-type providers? How does the Convergence Review balance its deregulatory vibe with its assertion that content standards are still necessary, because the community expects them and because failing to restrict access to some content can do harm?

For this part of its work, the review team had help. Not only was there the Fink to do the heavy lifting on news media, there was also the Australian Law Reform Commission, which at the same time as the Convergence Review got to work, was considering what reforms were needed to the National Classification Scheme — the mechanism that delivers those handy ratings such as PG, M, M15+ and so forth on, used by so many citizens to decide what films and computer games our children should be exposed to.

While the Convergence Review disagreed with the Fink’s prescription for news media, it picked up and endorsed the ALRC’s work. But that isn’t the end of the matter, because the Classification Scheme doesn’t deal with all media content. For example, films in cinemas get caught in its net, but not, directly in any case, films broadcast on television.

In fact, as the Convergence Review says, the whole business of content standards is a mess. Radio and television content is regulated, not through the National Classification scheme, but by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which works with a mixture of codes developed by the broadcasters, and its own regulations — although those codes often refer to the National Classification Scheme ratings.

And the laws relating to how classified content such as DVDs are restricted vary from state to state.

ACMA, by its own admission, lacks an appropriate range of powers. In theory it can pull a licence off a broadcaster, but that is so draconian a reaction that in real life it is unlikely ever to be used. ACMA lacks what the lawyers call mid-range sanctions, such as fines and other penalties. It is also hobbled by the processes of administrative law, which means the process of acting on complaints is, as the Convergence Review report puts it, “cumbersome and elongated”.

Another problem is that a citizen can only complain to ACMA after first approaching the broadcaster concerned, and failing to get satisfaction. And the broadcasters, so adept at meeting tight deadlines in every other branch of their commercial lives, take every minute of the allowable time to respond to complaints and the regulator.

Meanwhile, the ABC and SBS run their own race under their charters and codes of practice, with some oversight by ACMA. And the internet is hardly regulated at all, except for the most noxious kinds of material, which ACMA can have pulled down.

None of this makes sense or is much use at a time when the TV in the corner of the living room — or in the child’s bedroom — might be used in the course of a single evening to screen conventional broadcast television or, at the flick of the button, the latest video downloaded from iTunes, or YouTube content, or ABC iView, or a DVD.

Now, ACMA has been active in lobbying over all this, authoring several reports over the past year or so drawing attention to the problems. It has also conducted research on community attitudes to content regulation, which the Convergence Review quotes liberally and relies on heavily.

Long story short, the research shows that people want content regulated according to similar standards no matter what platform it is delivered on. People want meaningful ability to complain, followed by corrections, apologies and restitution where appropriate. They also want help in making decisions on what to view, and how to keep their children safe from harmful content.

So, what does the Convergence Review recommend?

First, it says that content should be regulated in a consistent fashion, regardless of the platform it is delivered on. All those who make significant amounts of money distributing content to the Australian public should be subject to the same regulatory regime.

Second, feature films, TV programs and computer games should be classified by a new classifications authority, which will be part of the Convergence Review’s recommended new nimble regulatory body, although having statutory independence. That brings films, television and games all under the same system, rather than the different systems they are regulated under now.

Page 1 of 2 | Next page

Tags: , ,

Categories: Federal, MEDIA

One Response

Comments page: 1 |
  1. We do need education on child locks etc. Most parents don’t seem to realize they already have the tools to protect their children from unsuitable content, over-viewing and unsupervised access.

    All modern devices come with parental locks. Check your preferences for these simple but powerful features.
    Kiosk software and kiddy browsers provide your small child with edutainment but prevent that child from accessing the rest of your computer.
    You can lock individual folders, whole disk partitions or disks, and shared folders online, using a password you set.
    You can get software which will block Internet access for specific devices, for periods of time you can set yourself.
    You can get software which will log your child’s activity, and software which will block access to the command line or scripts. Any scripts require for legitimate access can be activated on a case-by-case basis.
    When you buy a device which your child will use, make sure the main (admin) account is yours. Thus children can’t make significant changes to that device. If you buy a mobile phone or tablet for your child, create a separate iTunes or Google account for yourself to manage that mobile device. Thus you can track its use, and authorize any purchases made on it. You can also fund it with specific-amount gift certificates.
    Do not allow devices in your child’s sleeping room. Devices should be used in the family room, with an adult present as often as possible. Share in the child’s device-based activity. Play the game (with an extra handset), discuss the image, forum or issue, research the behaviour.
    You are older, have more knowledge and experience. Use it.
    I’m 53, and managed to supervise my three digital-native children (now all adult). If I can do it, you can.

    by Clytie on May 4, 2012 at 4:47 pm

« | »