Indeed, esteemed scholars, we thought it was the Roman Catholic church at the centre of recent controversy when it was revealed illegal immigrants form most of their congregations in London.
Today it was debated at a general Church of England synod that television that "exploit the humiliation of human beings for public entertainment" such as Little Britain (particularly the way character Vicky Pollard makes fun of how teenage girls talk) and reality TV series Big Brother and Saturday night entertainment shows like Strictly Come Dancing are "fatally eroding" society and its standards of behaviour (Daily Mail headline) because they focus too much on the losers.
It also debated concern for the censorship of films, making pornography or extremely violent scenes more accessible by people. Films such as Baise Moi and 9 Songs, which feature frequent scenes of graphic real sex in them were passed as 18 certificates, which it is argued would have been rated R18 a decade ago, allowing them only to be shown in licensed cinemas.
Different sources took different angles on the matter.
The Daily Mail ('Film sex and violence 'fatally eroding' society') focused more on the aspect of film classification standards being lowered and changed to fit in with societies taste at different periods. In its report it gives five examples of films that have been passed with a certificate lower than what they felt they should have been classified:
- Baise-Moi, Initimicy, 9 Songs and Destricted are all 18 certificates that should have been given an R18 certificate, but were passed with an 18
- Casino Royale, the latest James Bond film was passed with a 12A despite critics saying it should have been rated 15 because of scenes of torture.
The Guardian ('TV contests humiliate losers, say synod speakers') also focused on the complaints of young children from cathedral schools being allowed to watch the latest James Bond film and the "melodramatic excess" of singling out losing contestants on Strictly Come Dancing was against the Christian ethos to help those who have been losers.
Interestingly, it also got a quote from a former BBC executive Anne Sloman, now a member of the Archibishops' Council who spoke from her experience
"Broadcasters want to know what you think. If you think a programme is
exploitative let them know, but try to avoid using the electronic equivalent of
green ink."
What the bloggers said:
hockeyshooter blogs on BBC's article:
"I don't know about "can" exploit - they do exploit - that's the whole point of Big Brother. The programme producers deliberately pick people who are going to piss each other off, get in a strop and therefore create "good" television. But the CofE do need to realise the difference between Big Brother and Little Britain - they're hardly the same thing."Strictly Come Blogging says, on The Guardian's article:
"Personally, I don't believe that any of the participants are humiliated in any way. The public, the presenters and even the judges are on the side of the participants, however good or bad they are. Exiting participants are always treated with respect and encouraged right until the end. Strictly participants are treated better than on any other 'reality' show in my opinion.
And every single participant says how lifechanging appearing on the show is. A little bit of dramatic tension is a small price to pay, I'm sure."
