The challenges in defining ‘decency’ and more from ACMAs Citizen Conversations Series. 

The second of today’s ACMA Citizen Conversations Series forums delved into the topic of ‘decency’ and the concerns a simple word can raise in broadcasting. One such issue was ‘how should regulatory bodies and broadcasters define socially acceptable standards when morals and values are, characteristically, a personal and subjective set of beliefs?’ 

Journalist and broadcaster Gretel Killeen believes broadcasters receive ‘mixed messages’ when it comes to decency and standards. She openly admitted that during her extensive media career she was never advised on acceptable standards and suggested this is the also the norm for other broadcasters.

According to Killeen, this shows “there are no rules anymore” when it comes to standards in broadcasting. She used the example of Kyle Sandilands, saying he “is paid millions of dollars each year to be loud and over the top, but then he suddenly is told he oversteps the mark. What is the line though?”

CEO of the Advertising Standards Bureau Fiona Jolly explored this ambiguity of what is ‘overstepping the mark’ from an advertising perspective. Jolly explained that the position of the board is take into account community standards in deciding whether an advertisement has breached a code of ethics, although this approach isn’t actually codified within that code of ethics. She believes that despite the ASB being a self-regulatory body, it is diverse and representative and that “the group often have training days to help better their understanding and develop consistency in decision making”. 

Louise Benjamin, a part-time authority member for the ACMA, acknowledged that the ACMAs complaints handling body is not representative and mainly consists of “middle aged women who attended university”. However, she noted that the ACMA has the resources to take various elements such as legislation, circumstances, context, definitions, case studies and previous incidents into account when it comes to making a decision. She also restated the issue that the language between codes and legislative instruments are different, but so are individuals definitions on acceptable standards. 

Killeen however was the major driving force in relation to the issue of ‘how do we define what society considers acceptable standards, or what is considered ‘decent”. She said:

“This country needs to work out its values and codify definable values that are deemed important”. Also, she quoted the old saying, “do right, just because it is right” but then asked “but how do we do this when no one knows what is right?”

So what suggestions were there in helping to define a set of socially acceptable standards? 

Discussing the lack of human rights codified in Australian law David Mason, the Principal Advisor at the Australian Human Rights Commission, agreed that consensus on the issue is needed, but perhaps “the underlying principles of human rights are a good start”.

Chris Berg, Research Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, questioned the need for any Government regulation posing the simple question “why regulate?” In his address, Berg stated “we should reject any suggested changes or modifications that are restrictions on freedom of speech”. This position agreed with the concept that “decency is the eye of the beholder” but that as society has access to new technologies like social media, and because it had been suggested numerous times that people can incite social media campaigns against what they deem to be ‘unacceptable’ content, that the community overall can regulate standards themselves and will thus make Government regulation obsolete.

Louise Benjamin did agree with Berg that codes are an infringement on freedom of speech, but that they can be justified when they are a protective measure. She said the issue in codifying standards is “we need to know who they are trying to protect and often we talk only about the participant but we need to look at who’s being exposed”. 

ABC head of audience affairs Kirsten McLiesh explored the ABC complaint handling model of moving away from the term ‘decency’ altogether and using the newer terms ‘harm’ and ‘offence’. She explained that “the ABC needs to take the community into account as well as target audience, context and the likeliness to cause harm or offence”.

What questions were raised in relation to the topic of ‘decency’ at the forum were thought provoking for the industry and its regulators. One of the strongest beliefs was that establishing a set of standards society believes are acceptable is the most helpful way to better define ‘decency’. But the panel also agreed that achieving this outcome is near impossible, as there will always be the underlying principle that ‘decency is in the eye of the beholder’ and today’s society is very much focused toward the individual.

Despite the relatively varying opinions and suggested approaches in trying to establish what acceptable standards are, there was one consensus reached by the panel – ‘decency’ is a collective problem we need to solve.