[cma-l] Avoiding sexually-explicit songs

Wed Nov 2 17:07:05 GMT 2011

Ian/Alex/Trevor et al

Again I should re-iterate what follows is my personal opnion and does not represent any organisation with which I may otherwise be assoicated. 

Thanks for taking the time to respond Ian and Alex - and hello Trevor

I said don't bother to lecture me on legal implications  - your comments 
are of course always welcome Ian, and it is not for me to tell you what, or what not to say, well that's what I believe anyway. 

The disclaimer which was used and heard on Sound Radio is not a proposal it is a statement of historical fact, the existence of which may be of 
interest to some people.

Ian - your view 
that watersheds, disclaimers, assertions of ethnic or social parity are 
excuses for not doing the job properly thankfully is not directed at any one person - I would hate for you run the risk of possible legal action - I'm joking but I hope you will take the point that use of 
language (appropriate or inappropriate) is not just a question of 
expletives - because something appears civilised does not mean it is 
automatically right or accurate and because something appears rude 
does not mean it is of neccessity wrong or inaccurate.   

To be honest I don't think the issue is whether you swear when someone 
drops a hammer on your foot from the top of the antennae or whether you 
personally find Billy Connolly funny so that you then feel it is 
acceptable to mimic such similar content. It would appear you believe 
your sensibilities are shared by your known audience which may be an 
accurate observation, or maybe they are just being polite (joking). 

You may never know all your broadcasting audience like the chap down the pub believes he knows all his pals - 
but for Community Radio there is this small matter of a promise of 
delivery which quite clearly sets out an agenda to target particular 
groups and individuals - and therein lies the core of its creation 
(Community Radio) as something distinct and different from either the 
BBC or the Commercial radio sector  - and notably with a desire to achieve social gain for those ill served or not served at all by mainstream media.

I honestly believe some people may be getting the legislative duty of 
Community Radio confused with that of commercial  ILR's. Social gain is 
achieved by the active engagement of all of our citizens and that is 
endorsed in the principle that all should have the opportunity to have a voice - whether you like what they have to say or not, 
or in deed how they want to say it. The current sensibility of the 
mainstream, and clearly a proportion of the community radio sector to 
some extent,  would appear to endorse some kind of utilitarian view of a 
democratic society, where the majority decide what's good for everyone - which is okay unless you happen to be outside the majority. 

There are plenty of opportunities to indulge as a listener/viewer in 
mainstream media output in all its glory but there are precious few 
legal and available platforms for alternatives - that is the point - for me anyway. 
Why offer such programming? because some people may actually want it, 
enjoy it and think it is an important part of their lives- while you and me may not want it -  who are we to judge! Have an opinion yes but to 
judge and preclude? 

My experience of risk taking content with a range of communities in the 
same physical space was probably the greatest example of developing 
social cohesion I have witnessed -  there was debate, dialogue -with an 
albeit required level of tolerance - which showed real signs of a move 
towards mutual respect from all those contributing and demonstrably 
listening. Yep that's right you don't like what were broadcating please 
come in and take part in a show to put your view in person (not in a 
read out funny voice for 5 minutes once a week).

I am not encouraging anyone to disregard the requirements of Civil and Criminal law, that is a personal choice with personal consequences - but intelligent challenge - legislative campaigning where necessary -these are the very activities that the CMA and others pursued to bring about the legislation that now provides us with the opportunity to have a good old debate (might even make a half decent radio programme if we can keep the swearing to minimum)

Here is to a healthy and diverse sector - as ready to row as it is to tolerate - (I may use that as a personal strapline)

all best
Lol

________________________________
From: Two Lochs Radio <tlr at gairloch.co.uk>
To: cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk
Cc: ian at transplan.uk.com; lolgellor at yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2011, 14:18
Subject: Re: [cma-l] Avoiding sexually-explicit songs

Time to de-lurk!

I understand what you're saying Ian, but I think your final salvo about 
encouraging community segregation etc opens up some huge contradictions that 
would lead potentially to the conclusion that community radio is in itself 
encouraging segregation and discrimination, and it really is not a sustainable 
argument.

Communtiy Radio licences are issued to enable a group to serve a community, 
be that a geographically defined community, or a community of interest. If your 
argument is taken to its logical conclusion, surely these purposes, particularly 
the community of interest one, would be inherently capable of being 
seen as divisive and encouraging segregation and discrimination. For example, a 
station established to serve an Afro-Caribbean community is by its nature 
somewhat exclusive of other ethnic groups. Almost every other station by seeking 
to particularly serve a group of people with a common interest runs the risk of 
discriminating and encouraging segregation.

Or, such a station can strive to make its remit include 
fostering better understanding of and relations between its core audience 
and other communities, and thereby aim to diminish discrimination and 
barriers.

Surely a station with an essentially broad audience (eg a geographic one) 
that programmes less mainstream musical tastes 'out of hours' may be attempting 
just the same thing for its listeners' musical awareness and tastes - ie 
exposing them in a limited manner to a wider range of artistic and cultural 
material and standards than they might automatically come across, rather 
than segmenting and isolating them in their niches?

So I guess I am with Lol on this.

I also wonder why it is that the concept of scheduling more narrowly 
acceptable material in off-peak hours and preceding/accompanying programmes with 
warnings is seen as totally unacceptable for radio when it is such a widely 
accepted and deployed procedure for TV? 

I accept that radio may be a bit more pervasive, but surely its audience at 
any particular time of day is known just as innaccurately as TV's is? It's not a 
black-and-white game in which we must programme to the lowest common 
denominator of every single listener - instead meeting the 
expectations, sensibilities and needs of the vast majority of an audience 
seems to be a valid concept. While the bar may need to be set higher owing 
to radio's greater ubiquity, I don't see why the general concept of raising 
and lowering the bar with time of day and using listener warnings shouldn't 
apply at least to some degree.

Alex
----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Ian  Hickling 
>To: lolgellor at yahoo.co.uk ; cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 1:09  PM
>Subject: [cma-l] Avoiding  sexually-explicit songs
>
>
>  Lol
>I know you said don't bother to comment - but I'm 
  going to.
>The obvious problem with your proposed disclaimer is 
  that it may not be heard.
>In any case, watersheds and disclaimers and 
  assertions of ethnic or social parity are simply excuses for not doing the job 
  properly.
>I'm no prude - I swear quite well when it's appropriate 
  - and I enjoy and relay Billy Conolly-type humour.
>But I moderate my 
  outgoings to suit my known audience.
>You can't do that with 
  broadcasting because you cannot possibly know your audience.
>If you want to 
  broadcast what you describe as "programmes with language, lyrics and views 
  outside of mainstream sensibilities" then you must logically be sure 
  that listeners in that category will accept them, but those outside that 
  category are excluded to protect yourself.
>I submit that it is impossible 
  to effect that exclusion, therefore exposing the latter to that programming is 
  irresponsible and places you at risk of action or prosecution.
>In any 
  case, why do you feel there is a need to offer programming in that 
  vein?
>Surely by doing so you are encouraging community segregation and 
  thereby discrimination? 
>Is that Social Gain?
>I don't think 
  so.
>Quite the opposite in fact.
>
>------------------------------------
>Ian  Hickling
>Partner
>transplan 
  UK
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20111102/e2cb9047/attachment.html>