Why are soaps exempt from the watershed?

[d9f1c7]

http://news.sky.com/h...news/article/16201023
Surely caving someones head in with a hammer is post watershed stuff. So why are the soaps exempt? On the few occasions I have accidentally caught a bit of one of the main soaps I've often thought they should be on late (if at all!). What does it say about the masses that this appalling drivel is so popular?

[Nini74]

I was actually just thinking the same thing myself after seeing that piece on the news. I don't watch them, but I hear enough from other people about various murders, rapes etc - even if the violence isn't shown, surely they are dealing with "adult themes" and should be on after 9pm. Also worries me that people allow their children to watch these programmes when clearly they're inappropriate for children! I don't understand the fascination with them - as far as I can see they're just full of hate, anguish and upset, yet they're supposed to be a reflection of real life!

[Mick-Talbot]

On the few occasions I have accidentally caught a bit of one of the main soaps



Yeah okay, lol

[askyourgran]

I agree d9f. I know it's after the watershed now but, I'm watching Silent Witness. One scene shows someone putting a plastic bag over a young boy's face, killing him. I just hope that there are no children watching this programme.

[puternut]

Some episodes of the soaps - especially when they contain scenes of this nature are shifted to post 9pm. A recent storyline where a castmember was raped is a similar case.

I cannot confirm if this episode was one of them but do seem to recall that this and a tramcrash, which coincided with the 'hammering', was post watershed. It was actually aired in December 2010

Having said that

[tinkerbell23]

Id like a watershed one...

Then when they are so angry and catch people with their partners etc they can call them more than a cow or something :)

More real to life x

[Kromovaracun]

I must say, bearing in mind that this kid did copy his MO from Coronation St, I'm really quite unconvinced that media put any desires there which aren't there in the first place. I don't know what as I don't know enough about the case, but this kid's actions are a product of something else - not watching soap operas.

Why do I think this? Because as far as I'm aware, there isn't any serious study which has conclusively demonstrated that watching violent media etc. can have any effect on behaviour beyond the very short term. And even those short-term effects don't seem particularly nuanced*. In addition to this, consider all the horrible events in the past which have been laid at the door of violent TV/movies/video games for no good reason. The Columbine massacre is a very good example - a horrific event in which the media rapidly jumped on video games as the scapegoat because the killers involved them in their shooting fantasies.

[d9f1c7]

I agree kromo, I donlt think watching violence on TV itself begats violence, sorry if my question gave that impression, I was really using this incident to enquire why soaps seem to be exempt from the watershed. I completely accept the many studies to which you refer.

[anotheoldgit]

It is the same when they give a previous warning 'there are scenes of a violent and disturbing nature, that could cause distress'.

Then why show them?

[ummmm]

Because they will be disturbing and distressing to only a handful of people.

[emmie]

because they are trying to show some degree of true to life stories in these soaps, however some of the storylines should be well after the watershed.

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm

/// Because they will be disturbing and distressing to only a handful of people. ///

How could you possibly know that?

They may 'NOT' be disturbing and distressing to only a handful of people.

[Zeuhl]

<<Because they will be disturbing and distressing to only a handful of people>>

and of interest to far more people who want to execise their rights as adults to watch what they want.

Heaven forbid that access to news footage, comedy or even the tragedies of William Shakespeare should be censored by those who think they can control and impose their model of the world on others
.

[Zeuhl]

<<How could you possibly know that? >>

because broadcasters know how many people watch - and continue to watch.

they also know how many people complain or compliment a programme

and they regularly commission specific research studies on particular programme strands or on topics such as swearing, blasphemy, violence and sexual content

does that answer your question?

[ummmm]

If people found these soaps disturbing and distressing on a regular basis then surely they'd stop watching?

So it's an educated guess, Aog.

[missprim]

Is there an answer to this? probably not.
I do believe there is too much sex, swearing and violence on TV but this has been going on for years. Remember Mary Whitehouse?
This boy in question was 15yrs old and I'm sure he and many other kids have TV's in their bedroom that they watch 'til late at night.
Can parents do something about this? I don't know.
Would it make a difference if we all wrote to the makers of these programmes to complain?
No, as they would always make excuses as to why these programmes can be shown.
There will continue to be things shown on TV that some of us don't agree with and it will probably get worse in the coming years.

[EDDIE51]

I fully agree that the 'soaps' especially East Enders should be shown after 9pm.
It is not so much the violence but the casual attitude towards sex and relationships. I remember an episode of EE where a female character wanted to extract a favour from a male character . The woman said '' Good idea, I'll just have to have sex with him first''
Hardly the attitude I would wish my daughters to acquire, but passed off as normal on TV.

[anotheoldgit]

Those who show these various scenes on TV, seem to have a very funny idea of what is acceptable and what is not.

For example it would be abhorrent to show a man striking a female, and quite rightly so, but there have been many scenes on TV where a woman has struck a man.

Also, murder, violence and bad language seems quite acceptable, yet the sight of the naked human body is strictly taboo.

Take for example on Saturday's 'Britain's Got Talent' there was an exotic dancer, who breasts were covered from the viewer's gaze, but apparently not from the judges or the audience.

If all this was far too much for the viewer to take in, why did they have this dancer on the show in the first place?

[d9f1c7]

em10" because they are trying to show some degree of true to life stories in these soaps, however some of the storylines should be well after the watershed. " - crikey where do you live!? - If all that happens in about 3 acres of "London" has any parallel to real life then no one would live in a place like that. This is pure fiction trying to out do rivals for viewing figures.

[Zeuhl]

<<Those who show these various scenes on TV, seem to have a very funny idea of what is acceptable and what is not.>>

How do you know? - the people who 'show' the programmes ie the programme makers and broadcasters are not the people who lay down the rules. that's done by the governing bodies.

<<murder, violence and bad language>>
in fact there are strict rules pre watershed

<< the naked human body is strictly taboo>>
pre watershed yes it is regulated

<<for example on Saturday's 'Britain's Got Talent'>>
because that is pre watershed

post watershed full frontal nudity (male and female) is frequently shown
eg The Reader on Film4 last night

as is more graphic violence and adult language

it's really not that complicated

[Davethedog]

Last night on MTV, at half time on the football 20:45. Meet the Khardashians had one of tem being photographed nude, not full frontal but side and back.

I am no prude, but I do believe a line should be drawn as to what younger people should and could watch, however standards are going if not gone. Kids can watch films in the home that, they cant in a cinema and they can see full frontal nudity (and worse) on a PC so is there a point of a watershed?