REPORT: Quality Assurance 01

Transcription

Research report
Community
Attitudes towards
Coarse Language in
the Media
Prepared by Urbis Pty Ltd
July 2011
Advise. Verify. Review
Editorial Policies
The Editorial Policies of the ABC are its leading standards and a day-to-day reference for makers of ABC
content. The Editorial Policies –
give practical shape to statutory obligations in the ABC Act;
set out the ABC‟s editorial principles and enforceable standards; and
describe and explain to staff and the community the editorial and ethical principles fundamental to
the ABC.
The role of Director Editorial Policies was established in 2007 and comprises three main functions: to
advise, verify and review in relation to the Editorial Policies.
Preparation of this report
This report was prepared by Urbis Pty Ltd for the ABC.
Urbis Social Planning and Social Research team has received ISO 20252 certification, the new
international quality standard for Market and Social Research, for the provision of social policy research
and evaluation, social planning, community consultation, market and communications research.
Urbis staff responsible for this report were:
Roberta Ryan, Director
Wesley Hill, Associate Director
Sam Ryan Watkins, Senior Consultant
Susan Hatherly, Consultant
Disclaimer
Views in this report are those of the authors and survey respondents and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the ABC.
Acknowledgements
Director Editorial Policies acknowledges the valuable role taken in the preparation and facilitation of this
research project by colleagues in ABC Audience Research, in particular Lisa Walsh and Gillian Ramsay.
Thanks also to the relevant Urbis personnel and to those inside the ABC who took the time to contribute
during the preparation stage and to those who participated in the field research stages.
© 2011 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
ISBN 978-1-921832-04-8
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
700 Harris Street, Ultimo NSW 2007
abc.net.au
Foreword
The ABC aims to reach and to reflect the diverse Australian community and so it must consider
community standards.
Attitudes towards the use of coarse language in the media can be diverse. They differ among different
segments of the community and are dynamic over time. The issue has always required careful
management, and the challenge is complicated by the way today‟s digital technologies allow content to
flow across the television, radio, online and mobile platforms. Audiences increasingly interact, both with
content makers and with each other.
This research report by Urbis provides a comprehensive and textured analysis of current community
attitudes to coarse language on television, radio and online platforms. The methodology and the findings
reflect the complex nature of the issue. The results indicate that the ABC is well regarded, and that the
ABC can have confidence that its overall approach to the issue is broadly consistent with community
expectations.
The subjective nature of individual responses to media content mean that the issue cannot be entirely
free of controversy, as the ABC Editorial Policies recognise in setting out the principles which underpin its
standards on „harm and offence‟. In providing comprehensive and innovative content, the ABC
anticipates providing –
…challenging content which may offend some of the audience some of the time…The ABC
acknowledges that a public broadcaster should never gratuitously harm or offend and accordingly
any content which is likely to harm or offend must have a clear editorial purpose…What may be
inappropriate and unacceptable in one context may be appropriate and acceptable in another.
Coarse language…may form a legitimate part of reportage, debate, documentaries or a
humorous, satirical, dramatic or other artistic work.
The research tends to confirm that key considerations in forming judgements about use of coarse
language in media include context, intent, the potential audience – particularly children – the importance
of warnings and, for broadcast programs, the time of day.
Not surprisingly, the research indicates that the public is still adjusting to the impact on the media of
convergence. As linear, scheduled TV is increasingly joined or replaced by TV that is „pulled‟ from the
internet at times of the viewer‟s choosing, older expectations about who is chiefly responsible for the
exposure of an individual to coarse language may change. The media environment is in flux, and it would
be useful for the ABC again to undertake research into the issue of coarse language in a few years‟ time.
Meanwhile, the findings further enable the ABC to be aware, responsive and considered in its handling of
an issue of significance to its reputation.
Paul Chadwick
Director Editorial Policies
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1
I.
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5
A.
Research topics .......................................................................................................................... 5
B.
Research design ......................................................................................................................... 5
C.
This report ................................................................................................................................... 6
D.
Note ............................................................................................................................................ 6
II.
Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 7
A.
Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 7
B.
Stakeholder consultations ........................................................................................................... 7
C.
Focus groups .............................................................................................................................. 7
D.
A national survey ........................................................................................................................ 8
III.
Key findings from the literature review and the qualitative research ....................................... 9
A.
Stage 1 – Literature review ......................................................................................................... 9
B.
Stage 2 – Qualitative research ................................................................................................. 11
IV.
Concerns about coarse language ...............................................................................................14
A.
Survey results ........................................................................................................................... 14
B.
Overall summary ....................................................................................................................... 20
V.
Defining coarse language ............................................................................................................22
A.
Survey results ........................................................................................................................... 22
B.
Overall summary ....................................................................................................................... 27
VI.
Contextual considerations ..........................................................................................................30
A.
Survey results ........................................................................................................................... 30
B.
Overall summary ....................................................................................................................... 36
VII.
Attitudes towards the use of coarse language on television ..................................................37
A.
Survey results ........................................................................................................................... 37
B.
Overall summary ....................................................................................................................... 39
VIII.
Attitudes towards the use of coarse language on the radio ....................................................41
A.
Survey results ........................................................................................................................... 41
B.
Overall summary ....................................................................................................................... 44
IX.
Attitudes towards the use of coarse language on the internet ...............................................46
A.
Survey results ........................................................................................................................... 46
B.
Overall summary ....................................................................................................................... 47
X.
Warnings and classifications ......................................................................................................48
A.
Survey results ........................................................................................................................... 48
B.
Overall summary ....................................................................................................................... 49
XI.
Who should be responsible? ......................................................................................................50
A.
Survey results ........................................................................................................................... 50
B.
Overall summary ....................................................................................................................... 51
XII.
The role of the media ...................................................................................................................53
A.
Survey results ........................................................................................................................... 53
B.
Overall summary ....................................................................................................................... 54
XIII.
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................55
XIV.
References ....................................................................................................................................57
Appendix 1: Composition of focus groups ............................................................................................58
Appendix 2: Survey questionnaire .........................................................................................................61
Appendix 3: Profile of survey respondents ...........................................................................................78
Gender .................................................................................................................................................... 79
Age of respondents ................................................................................................................................. 79
Location................................................................................................................................................... 79
Relationship and family status ................................................................................................................ 79
Religious Belief ....................................................................................................................................... 81
Language spoken at home ..................................................................................................................... 81
Identification as an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander ................................................................... 82
FIGURES:
Figure 1 – Offensive coarse language seen or heard on television, ................................................................ 14
Figure 2 – The extent of concern for swearing and coarse language .............................................................. 18
Figure 3 – Concern for swearing and coarse language on television, radio and the internet by age ............... 19
Figure 4 – Concern for swearing and coarse language on television, ............................................................. 20
Figure 5 – The acceptable use of coarse words on TV, radio or online ........................................................... 23
Figure 6 – Contextual considerations of the acceptable use ........................................................................... 31
Figure 7 – The use of coarse language according to program genre .............................................................. 35
Figure 8 – The use of coarse language according to television networks ........................................................ 39
Figure 9 – The use of coarse language according to radio stations................................................................. 44
Figure 10 – Warnings and classifications ........................................................................................................ 48
Figure 11 – Responsibility for adults and children‟s exposure to ..................................................................... 51
TABLES:
Table 1 – Media source where respondents saw/heard coarse language by age ........................................... 15
Table 2 – Media source where respondents saw/heard coarse language ....................................................... 15
Table 3 – Media genre where respondents saw/heard coarse language......................................................... 15
Table 4 – Time of day when respondents saw/heard coarse language ........................................................... 17
Table 5 – The acceptable use of coarse words on TV, radio or online ............................................................ 22
Table 6 – Unacceptability by age, gender and parental status ........................................................................ 24
Table 7 – Extent of agreement about increasing levels of coarse language in public and the media .............. 24
Table 8 – Agreement (total percentages of agree strongly and agree) by age and parental status ................. 25
Table 9 –Factors that have contributed to shaping attitudes ........................................................................... 26
Table 10 – Contributed strongly by age and parental status ............................................................................ 27
Table 11 – Contextual considerations of the acceptable use ........................................................................... 31
Table 12 – Unacceptability (not at all/not very acceptable) by age, parental status and gender ..................... 32
Table 13 – Unacceptability (not at all/not very acceptable) by educational attainment .................................... 33
Table 14 – Coarse language on television ....................................................................................................... 37
Table 15 – The use of coarse language according to television networks ....................................................... 38
Table 16 – Coarse language on the radio........................................................................................................ 42
Table 17 – The use of coarse language according to radio station ................................................................. 43
Table 18 – Coarse language on the internet .................................................................................................... 46
Table 19 – Warnings and classifications .......................................................................................................... 48
Table 20 – Agreement (strongly agree/agree) by age of respondents ............................................................. 49
Table 21 – Responsibility for censoring adults‟ exposure to ............................................................................ 50
Table 22 – Responsibility for censoring children‟s exposure to ....................................................................... 51
Table 23 – The role of the media ..................................................................................................................... 53
Table 24 – Agreement (strongly agree/agree) by age and parental status ...................................................... 54
Table 25 – Demographics and make-up of focus group participants ............................................................... 59
Table 26 – Age of respondents ........................................................................................................................ 79
Table 27 – Respondent‟s State or Territory of residence................................................................................. 79
Table 28 – Marital status of respondents ......................................................................................................... 80
Table 29 – Respondent‟s who have children (including step children) ............................................................ 80
Table 30 – Ages of children ............................................................................................................................. 80
Table 31 – Employment status of respondents ................................................................................................ 80
Table 32 – Occupation Type ............................................................................................................................ 80
Table 33 – Highest level of education completed by respondents ................................................................... 81
Table 34 – Religious belief of respondents ...................................................................................................... 81
Table 35 – Language other than English spoken at home............................................................................... 81
Table 36 – Other languages spoken ................................................................................................................ 81
Table 37 – Identification as An Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander .......................................................... 82
Executive Summary
Urbis was commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to undertake research to
explore the attitudes of Australians towards the use of coarse language in the media with particular
emphasis on television, radio and the internet.
The research project consists of three iterative stages beginning with a review of existing literature (Stage
1), explorative qualitative research (Stage 2) and quantitative research (Stage 3).
The literature review revealed that limited Australian research has been conducted in the previous few
years on community attitudes towards the use of coarse language in the media. The aim of this research
was to build on the existing body of knowledge and address some of the information gaps identified.
This report primarily details the findings from the quantitative research (Stage 3). The findings from
stages one and two are contained in separate reports.
The quantitative research involved the conduct of a national survey. The survey was administered to a
total of 2,201 respondents across all Australian States and Territories. The majority of respondents
(2,101) completed the survey online. A sub-sample involving 100 respondents completed a computer
assisted telephone interview (CATI), which was designed to reach people who do not have access to the
internet or are from non-English speaking backgrounds. Fieldwork quotas were set to ensure full
geographic coverage (capital city, major urban centre, regional and rural) as well as demographic
representation (gender, age, relationship and parental status, employment status, occupation type,
educational attainment, language spoken at home, religious belief and persons of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander background).
The following represents the key findings from the research.
Concerns about coarse language
Top-of-mind concerns relating to the use of coarse language on television, radio and online do exist. Just
under half of all respondents (47%) said in the last six months they had seen or heard coarse language
on television, radio and the internet that they found to be offensive. Significant demographic differences
were evident, with concerns for the use of coarse language in the media particularly prevalent amongst
older respondents and parents.
This aligns with the qualitative research which suggests that people without children and, in particular,
teenagers and young adults, are confident media users and generally comfortable with its content. They
expect a level of coarse language to be used and are usually not concerned. Parents on the other hand,
are concerned by media content that exposes children to potentially harmful material.
Top-of-mind concerns most commonly related to the use of coarse language on television, with around
four times more mentions than radio or online. Movies/films was the most commonly reported television
genre where coarse language was observed, followed by comedy or live entertainment and drama/crime
shows. In both the qualitative research and the responses to the open-ended survey question, people
spontaneously mentioned specific television shows including Underbelly, Two and a Half Men, Gordon
Ramsay’s cooking shows, and Good News Week. Concerns were raised about the slippage in adult
themes and language creeping into early evening and family viewing timeslots, and about programs
containing coarse content broadcast late at night being promoted on air during the day.
Significantly fewer respondents identified radio as the source of offensive coarse language. Younger
respondents, however, identified the radio as being of greater concern, compared with television.
Concerns with coarse language on the radio mainly related to talkback radio or song lyrics broadcast
during morning or afternoon drive time programming, particularly when children may be listening.
Younger respondents were also more likely to report online as the source of offensive coarse language
compared with their older counterparts. Reported instances of offensive coarse language related to social
networking sites and other shared content sites such as YouTube.
Report – Coarse Language in the Media
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
While at least nearly half of all respondents had some level of concern about the use of coarse language
on television, radio and online, there was not a clear consensus on the specific type of coarse language
that people find to be offensive, with people‟s answers varying significantly. Some participants in the
qualitative research even suggested that restrictions relating to media content can sometimes be
unnecessarily excessive. It appears these participants want the freedom and right to choose what
material (including coarse material) they are exposed to, and not to be surprised by unexpected coarse
content.
Demographic differences in attitudes
Attitudes of survey respondents towards the acceptable use of coarse language in the media varied
according to the demographic factors of age, parental status, gender, educational attainment and
respondent‟s level of media consumption.
In particular, older respondents and parents generally had more conservative views towards the use of
coarse language in the media. The qualitative research indicates that older people are reacting to the
perceived increase in the use of coarse language, in the media and society more generally, that has
occurred over their lifetime; while, parents are generally concerned about protecting children from
potentially harmful material.
Contextual considerations
Definitions of coarse language are largely subjective, with various contextual considerations affecting
people‟s views on the acceptable use of coarse language in the media. Key contextual considerations
include: intent, tone and delivery.
Words considered the least acceptable are those used in the context of vilifying or degrading someone or
a group of people either behind their back or to their face, insulting someone behind their back, or when
used for shock value. The qualitative research supports these findings. Focus group participants said
coarse language delivered in an aggressive, angry, malicious tone intended to insult, harm or humiliate
was considered to be less acceptable. For example, in discussing Gordon Ramsay Kitchen Nightmares,
participants said it was not the coarse language per se that was offensive but the aggressive and
derogatory way in which it was delivered.
Coarse language considered the most acceptable are words said accidentally or in frustration, said in a
joking or humorous manner, said in defence, or used to give emphasis or as an exclamation.
Younger respondents and those without children were more accepting of words used casually or as part
of everyday conversation and words used for shock value compared with older respondents and parents.
Acceptability varies by program genre
The use of coarse language is more acceptable in some program genres than in others. Coarse language
can be acceptable in drama when it contributes to the story line and provides credibility, and in comedy
when used to increase the humour and entertainment value. Coarse language is less acceptable in news
programs without justification, especially given that children may be watching. Many agree that coarse
language is less acceptable in reality shows when used as a method of shocking the audience and that
reality shows set a bad example in terms of the use of coarse language.
Unacceptable words
At a basic level, coarse language can be defined simply in relation to the words. The types of words
considered to be least acceptable are those intended to insult, offend, and denigrate people with a
disability, or discriminate on the basis of race, religion or sexual preference.
Coarse words considered to be the most acceptable are those that relate to anatomy, bodily functions
and sexual acts.
These findings are consistent with the trends identified in the literature and the qualitative research, which
found there has been a softening of attitudes in respect to words associated with sex and bodily
functions, especially amongst younger people, in line with broader societal shifts regarding sexual mores
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
and behaviours. While there has been a softening of attitudes with respect to some words, others have
become more disliked by audiences. The qualitative research also found that words intended to denigrate
racial, religious or other minority groups were thought to be unacceptable.
Although the irreverent use of religious words was found to be unacceptable in the survey, this was not
the case in the qualitative research. This difference can be explained as follows. Focus group participants
made a distinction between two types of religious words. Blasphemous words („God/Goddamn‟ and
„Jesus Christ‟), which were often viewed as relatively inoffensive swear words whose religious
connotations have diminished over time, and words used to vilify or discriminate religious groups, which
are not acceptable. Specific examples of religious words were not provided in the survey instrument,
respondents therefore may be referring to a range of words that potentially fall under the category of
„religious‟.
The acceptable use of certain words differed according to the gender of respondents. Overall, females
were more likely to find coarse words unacceptable compared with their male counterparts, particularly
words relating to gender and sexual preference.
Television - the most influential media platform
The overwhelming majority of respondents who had seen or heard offensive coarse language in the past
six months nominated television as the source. The impact of coarse language on television was
considered to be greater than other media due to the visual element. Participants in the qualitative
research also indicated that coarse language can be more offensive when coupled with visual clues such
as aggressive body language or acts of violence.
Language used on radio is generally suitable
Coarse language is perceived to occur less frequently on radio and the language used on the radio is
generally viewed as suitable for the intended audience. However, because it occurs less frequently,
coarse language on the radio has the potential to be more shocking because listeners receive less
warning and are therefore less prepared for it.
Many respondents agreed that it is inappropriate for radio hosts to use coarse language; however more
tolerance was exhibited for people calling in and to a lesser extent, guests. A large majority of survey
respondents agreed that broadcasters should take care during times when children are likely to be
listening.
Online – a different set of rules
Most respondents agree that the internet operates by different rules than other media platforms.
However, there was not a consensus view as to whether coarse language on the internet should be
censored.
Younger respondents, respondents without children, and those who spend more than two hours per day
using the internet were significantly more likely to oppose internet censorship. Reflecting this, younger
people and those without children in the qualitative research generally expressed greater confidence in
using the internet and felt comfortable navigating content.
Despite the disparity of opinions on whether online content should be regulated, the majority agreed it is
difficult to regulate coarse language on the internet. Some focus group participants noted that selfselection plays an important role and a large degree of responsibility falls to the user to avoid undesirable
or offensive content.
Warnings about coarse content
Warnings and classifications play an important role in considerations of the acceptable use of coarse
language in media content. It is more acceptable for a program to contain coarse language where
adequate classification information or warnings have been issued beforehand, and where the use of
coarse language conforms to the expectations of the audience. It is also more acceptable for a program
to contain coarse language if it is broadcast in an appropriate timeslot.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
Children – in need of protection
Throughout the research, children were consistently identified as a group particularly in need of protection
from coarse language in the media.
In terms of whose responsibility it is to ensure that children are not exposed to unsuitable coarse
language on television, radio or the internet, many indicate the parents or guardians have the primary role
in regulating children‟s viewing, while a similarly high proportion considered the responsibility to be
shared between parents/guardians and the broadcaster or originator of material.
A shared responsibility between individuals and broadcasters
In relation to who should be responsible for ensuring adults are not exposed to coarse language, views
vary according to media platform. The individual and the broadcaster are jointly considered responsible
for ensuring viewers and listeners are not exposed to offensive material on television and radio. With
regard to the internet, most indicated that the individual user is mainly responsible for ensuring they are
not exposed to offensive material.
The ABC is held in high regard
Standards relating to the use of coarse language were thought to differ across television networks. The
ABC seems to be held in high regard, when compared with other television networks. Many identified the
ABC as the network that should be most responsible in regulating coarse language. Compared with other
networks, the ABC was considered to have the highest standards and to be in least need of improvement.
Therefore, while people have high expectations of the ABC, it appears these expectations are being met.
Standards relating to the use of coarse language were also thought to differ across radio stations. Most
people were unsure as to which radio stations currently have the most programs containing coarse
language or need to most improve their content. Most people were also unsure which radio stations
currently have the highest standards in terms of regulating the use of coarse language.
Of those who did identify a station, triple j was generally seen as the station with the most programs
containing coarse language and as most in need of improvement. However, despite this, triple j was not
identified as needing to be most responsible with the highest proportion of respondents believing triple j
should be a free and independent environment where higher levels of coarse language may exist.
ABC Local Radio and ABC Radio National were identified as have the highest standards in regulating
coarse language, when compared to other stations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
I.
Introduction
Urbis was commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to undertake research to
explore the attitudes of Australians towards the use of coarse language in the media with particular
emphasis on television, radio and the internet. The research also assesses community attitudes towards
the ABC‟s responsibility in relation to the broadcasting and publishing of content that may contain coarse
language.
The research findings are to assist the ABC in reviewing, applying and enforcing policies and codes in
relation to coarse language.
A.
Research topics
This research project involved an in-depth investigation of the following topics:

Top of mind concerns relating to media content.

How is coarse language defined?
the level of acceptability of particular coarse words
changes over time in attitudes towards coarse language
factors that shape the use of coarse language.

Contextual considerations given to the use of coarse language in the media including:
tone and delivery
purpose
program genre
intended audience
source of the language
timeslot.

Attitudes towards coarse language according to media platform.
the use of coarse language on television
the use of coarse language on the radio
the use of coarse language on the internet.

Attitudes towards warnings and classifications.

Who should be responsible for regulating coarse content in the media?
B.
Research design
The project consists of three iterative stages of research carried out between April 2010 and May 2011.
Stage 1 – Review of existing literature
The purpose of Stage 1 was to draw on recently published Australian and international literature to
provide a context and identify relevant themes and issues to be explored during the qualitative and
quantitative stages of the project. This was completed in July 2010. The findings from Stage 1 have been
detailed in a separate report.
INTRODUCTION
5
Stage 2 – Qualitative research
The purpose of Stage 2 was to undertake an in-depth qualitative exploration, primarily in the form of 18
focus groups, of community attitudes towards the use of coarse language on television, radio and the
internet. Stage 2 built on the existing body of knowledge and addressed some of the information gaps
identified from the review of literature. This was completed in November 2010. The findings from Stage 2
have been detailed in a separate report.
Stage 3 - Quantitative research
The purpose of Stage 3 was to undertake quantitative research to supplement and support the findings
from the qualitative research. Stage 3 involved a national survey administered to over 2,000 people
around Australia.
C.
This report
The primary purpose of this report is to detail the findings from the quantitative research (Stage 3).
At the end of each chapter, the report makes comparisons between the quantitative research and the
findings from Stages 1 and 2. By drawing together the results from the literature review, qualitative and
quantitative research an analysis of overall key findings is presented.
The structure of the report is as follows:

Chapter One: Introduction

Chapter Two: Methodology

Chapter Three: Key findings from the literature review and the qualitative research

Chapter Four: Top-of-mind concerns about coarse language

Chapter Five: Defining coarse language

Chapter Six: Contextual considerations

Chapter Seven: Attitudes towards the use of coarse language on television

Chapter Eight: Attitudes towards the use of coarse language on the radio

Chapter Nine: Attitudes towards the use of coarse language on the internet

Chapter Ten: Warnings and Classifications

Chapter Eleven: Who should be responsible?

Chapter Twelve: The role of the media

Chapter Thirteen: Conclusions
D.
Note
This report contains language that may cause offense. The analysis is based on the personal responses
of those participating in the research and do not reflect the views of Urbis. The use of coarse words in the
report is only to facilitate a better understanding of the opinions and attitudes expressed by research
participants.
INTRODUCTION
6
II.
Methodology
The methodology for this research has involved a literature review, qualitative and quantitative research.
The key research activities are detailed below.
A.
Literature Review
In order to identify themes and issues to be explored during the qualitative and quantitative phases of the
project, Urbis carried out a literature review, drawing on recently published Australian and international
literature. The literature review involved the examination of 20 recently published studies. Limited
Australian research has been conducted in the previous few years on community attitudes towards the
use of coarse language in the media. Key Australian studies included in the literature review were:

Australian Broadcasting Corporation., “Inquiry into the effectiveness of the broadcasting codes of
practice”, Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the
Arts, May 2008

TNS, Understanding community attitudes to radio content, research prepared for the Australian
Broadcasting Authority, October 2003

Loncar, T., Community Attitudes to Radio Content, Research report prepared for the Australian
Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), 2010
Recent international research reports were also used to inform the literature review. Of particular
relevance were:

BBC, Taste, Standards and the BBC: public attitudes to morality, values and behaviour in UK
broadcasting, June 2009

Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, Taste and Decency: a review of national and international
practice, January 2005

Broadcasting Standards Authority., Freedoms and Fetters: broadcasting standards in New Zealand,
Dunmore Publishing Ltd, 2006

Office of Communications (Ofcom), Audience attitudes towards offensive language on television and
radio, Research study conducted by Synovate on behalf of Ofcom, June 2010.
B.
Stakeholder consultations
A number of consultations with stakeholders at the ABC were conducted to help inform the project by
providing important contextual information. Consultations comprised a workshop with around 25 people
representing several different departments of the ABC. This was followed by two telephone consultations,
the first with representatives of Audience and Consumer Affairs, and the second with a representative
from TV Division.
The findings from these stakeholder consultations facilitated the development of the survey instruments in
Stage 2 and Stage 3 of the research.
C.
Focus groups
A total of 18 focus groups were conducted, which includes four „triads‟ conducted with young people aged
14-18 years. Triads were the preferred method for engaging teenagers and young people because of the
informality of the setting and smaller number of participants (ideally three), which make this method more
conducive to the free exchange of opinions and ideas. A total of 14 focus groups were conducted with
adults aged 20-70 years. Ten participants were recruited for each focus group, with an average of eight or
nine attending.
METHODOLOGY
7
The composition of focus groups was designed to capture a representation of relevant demographics,
including a spread across:

Australian States and Territories

metropolitan and non-metropolitan locations

gender

socio-economic status (SES)

age and parental status

religious belief

viewing behaviour.
Refer to Appendix 1 for further details on the composition of focus groups.
D.
A national survey
A national survey was conducted. The survey was administered to a total of 2,201 respondents across
Australia. The majority of respondents (2,101) completed the survey online. A sub-sample involving 100
respondents completed a computer assisted telephone interview (CATI), which was designed to reach
people who do not have access to the internet or are from non-English speaking backgrounds.
Refer to Appendix 2 for the survey instrument.
The survey captured respondents from a range of socio-demographic backgrounds, including:

an equal representation of respondents by gender

respondents who identify as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background

respondents residing in all Australian States and Territories, and in metropolitan, regional and
rural locations

a spread of respondents across different age categories

representation of relationship and parental status

representation of employment status and occupation type

representation of educational attainment

a small proportion of respondents who regularly spoke a language other than English at home

representation of religious belief

representation of viewing behaviour.
Refer to Appendix 3 for further details on the profile of survey respondents.
METHODOLOGY
8
III.
Key findings from the literature review and the
qualitative research
A.
Stage 1 – Literature review
The key issues and insights identified from the review of current literature are summarised below.

Issues relating to broadcast content in the Australian community are complex. Coarse language was
found to be a polarising issue for the community. Generally, audiences do not hold clear, absolute
views concerning the use of coarse language in the media, with contextual considerations playing a
paramount role in judgments made around the acceptability of media content. Community attitudes
towards coarse language change over time and are influenced by broader societal trends and
developments.

People‟s expectations of broadcast materials may vary according to a multitude of demographic
factors including: gender, age, parental status, self-identified religiosity, socio-economic status (SES),
1
sexual preference and personal values . Broadcasters, therefore, are faced with the challenge of
appealing to diverse audiences with correspondingly diverse tastes and expectations.

Overall, there appears to be a softening of attitudes towards the use of coarse language in the media,
partly related to broader societal shifts in relation to the connotations of, and sensitivities towards,
2
certain words . It has been suggested that in recent times there has been a particular softening of
3
attitudes in respect to words associated with sex and bodily functions . At the same time, racially
offensive words and words that denigrate people with disabilities are more disliked by contemporary
4
5
audiences . There is also possibly more concern in current times about protecting children .

Audiences recognise when language adds to the quality of the viewing experience and when it is
used for clear editorial purpose or effect. There is a general attitude that there is a „time and place‟ for
6
the use of coarse language in the media and displeasure when it is used in an unnecessary,
excessive or casual way. The program genre (e.g. drama, reality show, documentary, comedy), tone
of delivery and intent relating to the use of coarse language can help determine how offensive it may
7
be considered to be by the public . The offensive potential of strong language can be compounded
when it is specifically directed at someone or when it is intended to be aggressive, bullying, malicious,
humiliating or harmful, and material broadcast during times when children are likely to be
8
watching/listening should be particularly sensitive to these concerns .

A number of studies suggest that television is perceived to be the dominant and most influential of all
9
the media platforms . Members of the public may consider it of greater importance to regulate
television content compared with the content of other media. A particularly important consideration for
television is whether the broadcast is aired during what is considered to be children‟s viewing times.
In the UK, for example, there is a 9:00pm television „watershed‟ before which serious swearing and
10
sex scenes are not permitted to be broadcast , while in Australia there is a commonly held
community perception that programs aired before 8:30pm are family viewing and that they will contain
11
only mild material .

Compared with television, radio causes fewer concerns in regard to coarse language and
12
comparatively fewer people indicate they have been offended by the content of radio programs .
Nevertheless, studies from the UK, New Zealand and Australia have suggested that a complexity of
1
Broadcasting Standards Authority (2006); BBC (2009)
Robinson (2009); Voxy (2010); TNS (2003); Broadcasting Standards Authority (2006); BBC (2009)
3
Eccleston (2008)
4
Ofcom (2005)
5
Broadcasting Standards Authority (2010)
6
Eccleston (2008); Ofcom (2010)
7
Ofcom (2005); BBC (2009); Eccleston (2008); The Broadcasting Standards Authority (2010)
8
Commonwealth of Australia (2008)
9
Millwood Hargrave (2000); Livingstone & Das (2009)
10
Ramsay (2003)
11
Commonwealth of Australia (2008)
12
Loncar (2010)
2
KEY
findings from the literature review and the
qualitative research 9
13
views exists in respect to radio . This complexity arises with regard to issues such as listeners being
attracted to the strong personalities of radio presenters, while still expecting them to display good
manners and a sense of decency (despite the occasional „slip‟); and acceptance of the coarse lyrics
found in some songs, combined with preference for listeners to be provided with prior warnings of
14
such language. An Australian study found that commercial FM radio presents the main source of
concern or offence for more than half (54%) of concerned radio listeners.

Compared to other media, the internet was thought to be largely unregulated and a domain frequently
used by young people. The protection of young people from potentially harmful or offensive content is
a key issue for online media, and one of the greatest concerns associated with online media relates
15
to the „sexualisation‟ of children .

There is a general view amongst community members that responsibility for viewing choice is (and
16
should be) primarily an individual one or one carried out by parents on behalf of their children , but
17
also that regulation is necessary to ensure that standards are upheld . In particular, there is concern
that children should be protected from exposure to potentially harmful material. Classification and
warning systems assist audiences with making informed decisions about their media consumption,
and Australian research suggests that there is a high degree of community awareness of the system
18
currently in use .

Some community members may be concerned about too much regulation, viewing the suppression of
certain language in the media as unnecessary censorship and instead valuing freedom of speech and
19
expression . For example, a review of national and international practice undertaken by the
Broadcasting Commission of Ireland found that even when offended, people may be reluctant to
support the editing of program content, and may favour clearer and stronger pre-transmission
20
warnings or broadcasting in later timeslots rather than the editing out of coarse language .
Audiences value innovation, ambition and risk taking by broadcasters and accept that this may
sometimes offend some viewers.

Due to increased media reportage, members of the public are more likely to know of instances where
offensive material was broadcast even if they neither watched nor listened to it themselves. Research
undertaken by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has found that a considerable proportion of
21
the public (41%) object to media material that they have neither watched nor listened to themselves .
In summary, the review of available literature suggests that debates concerning the acceptable use of
coarse language in the media revolve around the following key findings.
TEXT
13
BBC (2009); Loncar (2010); Broadcasting Standards Authority (2010)
Loncar (2010)
15
BBC (2009)
16
Ofcom (2005)
17
Millwood Hargrave (2000)
18
Spratt (2004)
19
Commonwealth of Australia (2008); BBC (2009)
20
Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (2005)
21
BBC (2009)
14
KEY
Key findings from the literature review (Stage 1)

The media plays an important role in both influencing and mirroring society values and should be
responsible for upholding and maintaining community standards.

There is not a consensus concerning the use of coarse language in media content and people‟s
expectations of broadcast material may vary according to a multitude of demographic factors.

More recently there has been a softening of attitudes with respect to words associated with sex and
bodily functions, while racially offensive words and words that denigrate people with disabilities are
becoming increasingly disliked.

In judgements concerning the appropriate use of coarse language used in the media, audiences take
into consideration a range of contextual factors, including intention, timeslot, purpose, expectations,
tone and genre.

Regulation of broadcast material is important for ensuring that children are protected from potentially
offensive or harmful material, but there is also recognition that adults ought to have personal freedom
to choose material to which they are exposed.

Television is perceived to be the dominant and most influential of all the media platforms and the
greatest concern in relation to the use of coarse language.

Responsibility for viewing choice should be primarily an individual one or one carried out by parents on
behalf of their children.
B.
Stage 2 – Qualitative research
The review of existing literature found that limited Australian research has been conducted on community
attitudes towards the use of coarse language in the media in the previous few years. While drawing on
international literature is useful for informing an understanding of the complexities and issues involved, it
has its limitations with findings from overseas research not always translating to the local context.
Findings from the review of existing literature also highlighted a number of research gaps, in particular;
attitudes towards the use of coarse language online and the implications of media convergence (the
transference of content from one media platform to another).
The qualitative research was conducted to further inform the lessons learnt from the literature review with
the contemporary views of Australian audiences, and to address the identified research gaps. The
attitudes expressed by focus group participants towards the use of coarse language in the media are
broadly consistent with trends described in the literature review.
Key issues and insights from the qualitative research are summarised below.

Top-of-mind concerns do exist. These generally relate to the overall decline in societal standards and
the perceived role the media has played in contributing to this, the unexpected use of coarse
language, and its use in situations where it previously would not occur.

Attitudes towards the use and acceptability of coarse language vary according to demographic
factors, including; parental status, age and religious affiliation.

The media should play a role in upholding and maintaining community standards. The media is an
influencing force and therefore needs to act responsibly. Language used in media content should be
more constrained compared with the language used in society. At the same time, the media needs to
reflect the diversity of Australian society and has a responsibility to accurately reflect how we live
today.
KEY

Children were the main group identified as requiring protection from the use of coarse language.
Parents expressed a desire for their children to be protected from being exposed to the use of coarse
language content.

In defining coarse language and determining the level of acceptability, intention appears to be the
most important consideration. Words intended to be derogatory, insulting or offensive are generally
thought to be unacceptable.

Discriminatory words or words relating to vulnerable groups are considered to be the most
unacceptable. This includes words that denigrate racial groups, people with a disability or
somebody‟s sexual preference.

With the exception of „cunt‟ and „mother-fucker‟, words relating to sex and anatomy were seen to be
less offensive and acceptable to use provided the context is appropriate.

The media is perceived to be influential in contributing to the changing acceptability and use of coarse
language. The „explosion‟ in media technologies and online platforms has facilitated greater
accessibility and provided new opportunities for the generation of coarse language content. There is
also unease about the perceived slipping standards of media content, with commercial television
networks viewed as pushing the boundaries of acceptable language and unnecessarily broadcasting
sensational and gratuitous content.

The use of coarse language in media content that does not serve an apparent purpose and is
considered to be excessive, gratuitous or used simply for effect is less acceptable.

The use of coarse language was thought to be more acceptable in some program genres compared
to others. Coarse language in drama and comedy genres was thought to be the most appropriate,
while the use of coarse language in soap operas, news programs and children‟s programs was
considered less acceptable. There were mixed views concerning the use of coarse language in reality
television with young people being more accepting compared with older participants.

Clear expectations were seen as important for enabling audiences to control what media content they
consume. Participants suggested they are more sensitive to the use of coarse language when
unprepared for it or taken by surprise.

Television is perceived to be the dominant and most influential media platform with a greater
importance placed on television content.

There was a view that different expectations exist for Pay TV. Content should not be as restricted on
Pay TV as people subscribe on the basis of wanting to view specific channel and program content
and any restrictions would undermine this principle.

Participants held the view that the use of coarse language occurs less frequently on the radio, but,
when exposed to the use of coarse language on the radio, it has the potential to be more shocking
because it is unexpected.

The internet operates by an entirely different set of rules compared with other media. There was a
consistent view held by many that the internet should be a „free domain‟. Self-selection plays an
important role where the onus is on the individual to avoid undesirable material. Parents expressed
unease about their children‟s use of online media, however, the difficulty of policing online material
was acknowledged.

The concept of media convergence was relatively new to participants who were still formulating their
understanding of how it works and what it means. There were differing views on who should be
responsible for ensuring people are not exposed to inappropriate material that originates on one
media platform and is then published on another. Some felt that content creators should consider the
wider implications of use when developing material that may be subject to media convergence. And
yet others felt the host site should proactively monitor the content posted on their site and remove
inappropriate material rather than waiting for complaints to be made.
KEY

Warnings are important as they assist people to make informed decisions and prevent unintentional
exposure to coarse language content. Warnings assist parents with monitoring and controlling their
children‟s consumption of media content.

A range of views were expressed regarding the adequacy of the current television classification and
warnings system. Some felt the current system was sufficient while others expressed a desire for
further clarity and specificity in relation to the context in which coarse language was used.

Despite some saying that the ABC broadcasts coarse language content, it was generally felt that the
ABC acts in a responsible manner. Overall, the use of coarse language on the ABC is regarded as
being in an appropriate context, in the right timeslot and with the provision of adequate program
warnings. The ABC is regarded by some as a „free‟ and „independent‟ environment, and therefore
given greater leniency. Some participants felt the ABC, as the national broadcaster, was best placed
for leading the way and setting an acceptable industry benchmark.
In summary, the qualitative research identified the following key findings.
TEX
Key findings from the qualitative research (Stage 2)

In determining the acceptable use of coarse language, intention is an important consideration. Words
intended to be derogatory, insulting or offensive are generally thought to be unacceptable, as are
discriminatory words or words relating to vulnerable groups.

Overall, words relating to sex and anatomy were seen to be less offensive and acceptable to use
provided the context is appropriate.

The „explosion‟ in media technologies and online platforms has facilitated greater accessibility and
provided new opportunities for the generation of coarse content.

There is a greater acceptance of the use of coarse language in the media after consideration of factors
such as purpose, audience expectations, timeslot and program genre, and a concomitant disapproval
of language that does not serve an apparent purpose but is considered to be excessive, gratuitous or
used simply for effect.

There is agreement that television is the most dominant and influential of all the media platforms, that
coarse language occurs less frequently on the radio (and because of this has the potential to be more
shocking), and that the internet operates by entirely different rules.

In relation to the internet, self-selection plays an important role where the onus is primarily on the
individual to avoid undesirable material. The protection of children from coarse language used online is
more problematic than with other media.

The concept of media convergence was relatively new to participants who were still formulating their
understanding of what it means.

Clear expectations are important for enabling audiences to control what media content they consume
and warnings are important for assisting people to make informed decisions and prevent unintentional
exposure to coarse content. There is a consistent concern for the protection of children from coarse
language through mechanisms such as parental control through filtering, programming timeslots and
warnings.

Despite the view that the ABC does broadcast coarse language content, it was generally felt that the
ABC acts in a responsible manner.
KEY
IV.
Concerns about coarse language
A.
Survey results
Survey respondents were asked a series of questions regarding whether they had seen or heard
offensive coarse language in the media and the extent to which they are concerned with the use of
coarse language on television, radio and the internet. These questions were designed to inform an
understanding of the type of material people find to be inappropriate, which media platform is of greatest
concern, and the extent of people‟s concerns.
1.
Reports of having seen or heard offensive coarse language in the media
Just under half of all respondents (47%) said in the last six months they had seen or heard coarse
language on television, radio or the internet that they found to be offensive.
Figure 1 below demonstrates that older respondents were significantly more likely to report having seen
or heard coarse language they found to be offensive in the past six months, reported by 63% of
respondents aged older than 65 years compared with 32% of those aged 18-25 years. More than half of
all respondents aged between 18 and 55 years did not report having seen or heard offensive coarse
language in the past six months.
Respondents who have children were also considerably more likely to report having seen coarse
language they found to be offensive, reported by 54% of those with children compared with 32% of those
without children.
FIGURE 1 – OFFENSIVE COARSE LANGUAGE SEEN OR HEARD ON TELEVISION,
RADIO OR THE INTERNET IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS BY AGE
100%
10%
10%
7%
7%
5%
80%
44%
60%
58%
47%
45%
Don't
know
54%
No
40%
20%
32%
49%
46%
36-45
years
46-55
years
50%
Yes
36%
0%
18-25
years
26-35
years
56-65
years
Of respondents who reported having seen or heard offensive coarse language in the past six months,
92% identified television as the source of the coarse language. Television was identified around four
times more than radio (24%) or online media (21%) as the source of offensive coarse language.
As illustrated in Table 1, younger respondents were significantly less likely than their older counterparts to
have seen or heard the coarse language on television but more likely than older respondents to report the
radio or online media as the source of offensive coarse language.
CONCERNS
about coarse language 14
TABLE 1 – MEDIA SOURCE WHERE RESPONDENTS SAW/HEARD COARSE LANGUAGE BY AGE
TOTAL
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
OLDER
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
YEARS
THAN 65
YEARS
TV
92%
81%
88%
88%
90%
98%
97%
Radio
24%
33%
37%
36%
24%
14%
13%
Online
21%
31%
25%
22%
31%
17%
12%
* Multiple responses allowed
Base: n = 1038, those respondents reporting coarse language in the last 6 months that was offensive to
them
2.
The type of content found to be offensive
Respondents who reported having seen or heard offensive coarse language in the past six months were
then asked to describe what they had observed in an open-ended question. The level of detail provided in
the responses varied greatly, however, respondents generally addressed the type of media (television,
radio or online), the time of day, and the genre or media content in which the coarse language occurred.
Media source
The majority of respondents indicated the media source/s where they observed offensive coarse
language in the last six months. As shown in Table 2 below, the most commonly reported media source
was television (70% of responses). A minority of respondents referred to radio (15%) or the internet (8%)
as the source of the offensive coarse language.
TABLE 2 – MEDIA SOURCE WHERE RESPONDENTS SAW/HEARD COARSE LANGUAGE
TOTAL
TV
70%
Radio
15%
Online
Not specified
8%
20%
Base: n = 1038, those respondents reporting coarse language in the last 6 months that was
offensive to them
Genre
Approximately half of the responses to this open-ended question indicated either the genre or a specific
program in which the offensive coarse language was observed. The results are summarised in Table 3
below.
TABLE 3 – MEDIA GENRE WHERE RESPONDENTS SAW/HEARD COARSE LANGUAGE
MEDIA SOURCE
TV
Radio
GENRE/ TYPE
TOTAL
Movies/ films
17%
Comedy/ live entertainment
8%
Drama / crime
8%
Current affairs/ news/ documentary
5%
Advertising
2%
Cartoons
2%
Reality
2%
Sports
1%
Breakfast/ drive time/ talk back
4%
Song lyrics
4%
CONCERNS
MEDIA SOURCE
GENRE/ TYPE
TOTAL
Advertising
Online
Social networking/ blogs/ YouTube
Not specified
-
1%
5%
49%
offensive to them
As shown in Table 3, movies/ films was the most commonly reported television genre where coarse
language was observed (17% of respondents), followed by comedy or live entertainment (8%), and
drama/ crime shows (8%). Many respondents reported the specific show or program in which they had
seen offensive coarse language, the most commonly mentioned include:

Underbelly (crime/ drama)

Two and Half Men (comedy/ live entertainment)

Good News Week (comedy/ live entertainment)

Gordon Ramsay’s cooking shows (reality)

The Ben Elton Show (comedy/ live entertainment)

Cartoons including Family Guy, South Park and American Dad.
Specific comments include:
‘Almost all movies on TV now consist of a lot of swearing’.
‘I watched 3 minutes of Underbelly and that was enough for me’.
‘Watching the ABC program Deadwood I was rather offended by the frequent use of the "f" and "c"
words by our public broadcaster. I understand it was rated MA15+ however it was a little shock when
sitting down with the family to watch an acclaimed series’.
‘Comedy shows seem to think they need coarse language to get a laugh!!! But many I now turn OFF’.
‘Unacceptable language on what could be broadly described as comedy programs. The language of
Gordon Ramsay in his programs is also not acceptable’.
‘Then we come to the contemporary cartoons such as Family Guy and American Dad. The language
coming through in the more recent seasons is appalling and vulgar’.
In relation to radio, the most common descriptions of coarse language were commentary on
breakfast/drive time/ talk back radio by the program hosts or callers (4%), or offensive song lyrics (4%).
‘Radio - one of the morning peak hour drive shows, the language was very violent and coarse - my
kids don't need to be hearing that’.
‘Music that is played on day time radio that has the offensive word being blocked but my children are
aware that an offensive word has been blocked’.
Reported instances of coarse language online were all related to social networking sites such as
Facebook, blogs, and other shared content sites such as YouTube (combined 5% of respondents).
‘Facebook is particularly bad in that you can pretty much say anything on your status, which is then
reported for all to see’.
‘Poorly moderated comments sections on blogs/online newspapers allow inappropriate language
through’.
CONCERNS
‘Recently on YouTube I saw a number of comments with extreme swearing and I was just not
prepared for it’.
Time of day
Many of the respondents who reported having observed offensive coarse language on television or radio
also mentioned the time of day during which this occurred. The results are shown in Table 4 below.
TABLE 4 – TIME OF DAY WHEN RESPONDENTS SAW/HEARD COARSE LANGUAGE
TIME OF DAY
TV
Radio
Evening
24%
Early evening
8%
Late night
4%
Day
4%
Day
6%
Early evening
1%
Evening
Not specified
TOTAL
-
1%
56%
offensive to them
As shown in Table 4, most respondents specifying a time of day when offensive coarse language was
observed on television said this occurred during the evening after 8.30pm (24%). A further 4% reported
that the observed coarse language occurred late at night (after 10.30pm). A reasonable proportion,
however, reported having experienced offensive coarse language during early evening (8%), or during
the day (4%). These respondents often noted their concern that children are still awake and watching
television at these times. Some respondents noted that whilst programs containing adult content are
generally shown later at night, the advertising for these shows occurs earlier during the day. Specific
comments include:
‘American "comedies" starting as early as 7.30pm when there are many children watching TV.
Underbelly starts too early as young children can still be awake’.
‘Many television programmes continually show after 8.30pm many programmes that show continual
violence and at times very coarse and offensive language. I often say to my wife how could that be
shown on television? It is prevalent on the ABC as well as Commercial Stations’.
‘I heard the coarse language on a late night show. Granted that it was late at night (10:30pm) but I am
a mother of a one year old and a two year old. Late at night is the only chance that I actually get some
'me' time to sit and relax’.
‘I have also noticed the use of 'mild' coarse language weaving its way into what would otherwise be
considered 'family' shows during the evening’.
Of those respondents who mentioned the time of day when coarse language was heard on the radio,
most reported that this occurred during the day time (6%), commonly in morning or afternoon drive-time
programming. These respondents often noted their concern that this content is inappropriate when they
are driving children to and from school. Specific comments include:
‘Radio – the Kylie and Jackie O show especially. I am too scared to let my kids listen to the radio
because of inappropriate language, DJs and other people during prime time’.
‘I found it particularly offensive as it was on a radio station tuned into at work, so I was unable to
switch it off’.
CONCERNS
Other comments
In answering this open-ended question, many respondents mentioned the use of a specific swear word.
Other key themes observed in responses to this question include concerns about children‟s exposure to
coarse language in the media (mentioned by 8% of respondents), the high frequency of coarse language
in some programming (3% of respondents), and the occurrence of explicit sexual references (3%) or
racially or sexually discriminatory language (1%). Specific comments include:
‘Some of the things said on "Two and a Half Men" aren't always appropriate for this time of viewing. I
realise it is up to the parents to monitor what the children watch but some things do slip through’.
‘A lot of the songs air played on radio, throughout the entire day, have explicit sexual lyrics. My 5 year
old sings along without knowing the things that she is saying’.
‘The use of the "F" word is now considered to be commonplace. I find it way overused and mostly
unnecessary’.
‘I don't mind the occasional swearing but in these two instances every second word was a swear word
of some sort and it spoilt an otherwise good movie’.
‘No particular word offensive enough on its own to worry me, just the constant flow of it’.
‘The show was the Kill Generation, on ABC; most of the language used by the "soldiers" was the "F"
word, with a few racist terms thrown in’.
Respondent‟s general levels of concern
3.
All respondents were asked about their general level of concern with swearing or coarse language on
television, radio and online. Figure 2 shows that at least nearly half of all respondents had some level of
concern (either very concerned or somewhat concerned) about swearing and coarse language across all
three media platforms, and at least one in five respondents were very concerned. More respondents were
concerned about swearing or coarse language on television (62% were either very concerned or
somewhat concerned), compared with 56% for radio and 49% for the internet.
FIGURE 2 – THE EXTENT OF CONCERN FOR SWEARING AND COARSE LANGUAGE
ON TELEVISION, RADIO AND THE INTERNET
100
1
14
4
15
80
23
Don't know
6
18
Not at all
concerned
25
26
Not very
concerned
%
60
40
38
33
28
Somew hat
concerned
Very
concerned
20
24
23
21
Swearing or coarse
language on TV
Swearing or coarse
language on the radio
Swearing or coarse
language on the internet
0
Figure 3 shows the level of concern (the total percentages of very concerned and somewhat concerned)
for the use of swearing and coarse language on television, radio and the internet by age of respondents.
Concerns about swearing and coarse language on all media platforms significantly increased with age.
Most 18-25 year olds did not report being concerned with swearing and coarse language across all three
platforms. While slightly more than half (52%) of respondents aged 26-35 were very/somewhat concerned
with swearing and coarse language on television, most did not report being concerned with swearing and
CONCERNS
coarse language on the radio and internet. Conversely, most respondents aged 36 years and older were
somewhat/very concerned with swearing and coarse language across all three platforms.
Young respondents aged 18-25 years were the only age cohort to identify radio as being of greatest
concern, compared with all other age groups which identified television as being of greatest concern.
FIGURE 3 – CONCERN FOR SWEARING AND COARSE LANGUAGE ON TELEVISION, RADIO AND THE INTERNET BY AGE
90%
78%
80%
70%
67%
64%
64%
64%
60%
60%
56%
52%
50%
40%
46%
48%
56% 54%
56%
56%
51%
47%
38%
33%
30%
20%
10%
0%
18-25 years
26-35 years
TV
36-45 years
46-55 years
56-65 years
Radio
Older than 65
years
Internet
As Figure 4 illustrates, respondents with children are also significantly more likely to be concerned with
swearing and coarse language across all three media platforms. Most respondents without children did
not report being concerned with swearing and coarse language across all three platforms with 46%
reporting concerns for television, 45% for radio and 36% for the internet. In contrast, most respondents
with children were concerned, with 70% reporting concerns for television, 61% for radio and 55% for the
internet.
CONCERNS
FIGURE 4 – CONCERN FOR SWEARING AND COARSE LANGUAGE ON TELEVISION,
RADIO AND THE INTERNET BY PARENTAL STATUS
80%
70%
70%
61%
60%
55%
50%
46%
40%
45%
36%
30%
20%
10%
0%
With children
TV
Without children
Radio
Internet
Concern for swearing or coarse language on the internet was slightly less marked amongst male
respondents (43% had some level of concern compared with 55% of female respondents) and
respondents who only speak English (49% had some level of concern compared with 52% of respondents
who regularly speak a language other than English at home).
B.
Overall summary
Top-of-mind concerns. There are top-of-mind concerns relating to the use of coarse language on
television, radio and the internet. Just under half of all respondents said they had seen or heard offensive
coarse language in the past six months. This, however, varies significantly according to demographic
factors.
Demographic differences. Respondents who had seen or heard offensive coarse language were
primarily older respondents and those with children.
More than half of respondents aged between 18 and 55 years did not report having seen or heard coarse
language they found to be offensive in the past six months, while those older than 56 years did. The
qualitative research suggests that teenagers and young adults, in particular, are confident media users
and generally comfortable with its content; they expect a level of coarse language to be used and are
usually not concerned by media content.
Three out of five respondents without children also did not report having seen or heard coarse language
they found to be offensive in the past six months, while those with children did. Similar to teenagers and
young adults, those without children also expected a degree of coarse language to be used in media
content.
Notwithstanding this, some young adults and participants without children did raise some concerns in the
qualitative research, and these often related to the unnecessary sexualisation of media content (e.g. the
degrading and gratuitous nature of music videos) and exposure to coarse content in unexpected contexts
(e.g. hearing coarse language in public places or in a work environment). Concerns with the use of
coarse language in unexpected situations were also held by older respondents and participants with
children.
CONCERNS
Respondents with children were significantly more likely to have seen or heard offensive coarse language
in the past six months. In the qualitative research parents were generally concerned by media content
that exposes children to potentially harmful material. Parents were worried about their children mimicking
inappropriate language learnt from the media. Mention was given of movies and television shows
containing coarse language (particularly in early evening or family viewing times) and radio content during
the school run or other times when children are in the car listening.
Coarse language used on television. The overwhelming majority of respondents nominated television
as the source of the „top-of-mind‟ offensive coarse language. In both the qualitative research and the
responses to the open-ended survey question, people spontaneously mentioned specific television shows
including Underbelly, Two and a Half Men, Gordon Ramsay’s cooking shows and Good News Week.
Concerns were raised about the slippage in adult themes and language creeping into early evening and
family viewing timeslots (e.g. Two and a Half Men). Previously conducted Australian research indicates
that some members of the community feel that time zones for television programming no longer reflect
the realities of children‟s behaviour, with the perception that children are staying up later in the evenings
compared with in the past. Some feel programming time zones have become out of touch with the
realistic viewing patterns of children. Some participants in the qualitative research said that Underbelly
and Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares should both be broadcast later in the evening, to avoid
children being exposed. In both the qualitative research and the responses to the open-ended survey
question, people raised concerns about programs broadcast late at night containing coarse content being
promoted on air during the day.
Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares was generally felt to be offensive due to the excessive and
gratuitous use of coarse language and the delivery of this language in a bullying and aggressive manner.
Participants also indicated they are concerned by some comedy shows relying too heavily on the use of
coarse language.
Coarse language on the radio. Overall, significantly fewer respondents identified radio as the source of
offensive coarse language. Young respondents aged 18-25 years were the only cohort to identify the
radio as being of greater concern, compared with television. Concerns with coarse language on the radio
mainly relate to talkback radio or song lyrics broadcast during morning or afternoon drive time
programming, particularly when children may be listening.
A diversity of views. While at least nearly half of all respondents had some level of concern about
swearing and coarse language on television, radio and online, there was not a clear consensus on the
specific type of coarse language people find to be offensive, with people‟s answers varying significantly.
This finding is supported by previously conducted international studies which found coarse language to
22
be by far the most polarising issue for community members. Research conducted by the BBC in 2009 ,
found there is less community agreement of what was deemed appropriate in terms of coarse language
compared with other issues of „taste and decency‟ (such as nudity).
Freedom and the right to choose. Some participants even suggested that restrictions relating to media
content can sometimes be unnecessarily excessive. It appears these participants want the freedom and
right to choose what material (including coarse material) they are exposed to, and not to be surprised by
unexpected coarse content.
This is supported by previously conducted studies, which found that some community members may be
concerned about too much regulation, viewing the suppression of certain language in the media as
unnecessary censorship and instead valuing freedom of speech and expression. Even when offended,
some people may be reluctant to support the editing of program content, and may favour clearer and
stronger pre-transmission warnings or broadcasting in later timeslots. Supporting this view, while many
participants in the qualitative research found Gordon Ramsay‟s behaviour and use of coarse language to
be unacceptable, they often did not advocate for his programs to be taken off air. This suggests that
programs of this nature may be acceptable if broadcast in an appropriate timeslot with sufficient warning
of coarse content to allow viewers to make an informed choice.
22
BBC, Taste, Standards and the BBC: public attitudes to morality, values and behaviour in UK broadcasting, June 2009
CONCERNS
V.
Defining coarse language
A.
Survey results
This chapter explores respondent‟s views and perceptions in relation to the acceptability of coarse
language when used on television, radio and online; changes over time to the use of coarse language in
both the media and society more broadly; and, the factors which have contributed to shaping attitudes
towards the use of coarse language in society.
1.
The acceptability of certain words
Survey respondents were asked how acceptable it is for the following seven types of coarse words to be
used on television, radio and online, including coarse words relating to:

race/ethnicity/cultural background

sexual preference

a person‟s disability

anatomy and bodily functions

anatomy and sexual acts

gender

and religion.
The majority of respondents found coarse words in all the seven given scenarios to be unacceptable to
some degree (refer Table 5 and Figure 5 below). Having said this, of the seven categories of coarse
words most participants said only three categories are unacceptable for use in television, radio and online
in all circumstances. These were coarse words relating to:

a person’s disability (69%)

race/ethnicity/cultural background (58%)

religion (51%).
Types of coarse words considered to be the most acceptable were those relating to anatomy and bodily
functions (identified as mostly/always acceptable by 16% of respondents) and anatomy and sexual acts
(identified as mostly/always acceptable by 15% of respondents).
TABLE 5 – THE ACCEPTABLE USE OF COARSE WORDS ON TV, RADIO OR ONLINE
UNACCEPTABLE MOSTLY
NEUTRAL
IN ALL
UNACCEPTABLE
CIRCUMSTANCES
Race/ethnicity/
cultural
background
MOSTLY
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
DON‟T
UNDER ALL
KNOW
CIRCUMSTANCES
58%
22%
12%
3%
2%
3%
46%
24%
18%
6%
2%
3%
69%
16%
8%
2%
1%
3%
Anatomy and
bodily functions
37%
22%
22%
12%
4%
3%
Anatomy and
sexual acts
39%
22%
20%
11%
4%
3%
Sexual
preference
A person‟s
disability
DEFINING
coarse language 22
UNACCEPTABLE MOSTLY
NEUTRAL
IN ALL
UNACCEPTABLE
CIRCUMSTANCES
ACCEPTABLE
DON‟T
UNDER ALL
KNOW
CIRCUMSTANCES
MOSTLY
ACCEPTABLE
Gender
43%
23%
20%
8%
3%
3%
Religion
51%
21%
14%
5%
4%
3%
FIGURE 5 – THE ACCEPTABLE USE OF COARSE WORDS ON TV, RADIO OR ONLINE
Person‟s disability
85
Race/ ethnicity/
cultural background
80
Religion
Anatomy and sexual
acts
Anatomy and bodily
functions
70
66
9
18
8
20
59
11
15
22
60%
5
14
20
61
0%
20%
40%
Generally unacceptable
Neutral
Generally acceptable
Don't know
3
12
72
Sexual preference
Gender
8
16
80%
100%
Table 6 shows general unacceptability (total percentages of unacceptable in all circumstances and mostly
unacceptable) by respondent‟s age, gender and parental status.
Most participants across all age groups said all categories of coarse words are generally unacceptable for
use on television, radio and online, with the exception of respondents aged 18-35 years who did not
identify the use of coarse words relating to anatomy and bodily functions and anatomy and sexual acts as
being generally unacceptable.
Finding coarse words generally unacceptable across all scenarios significantly increased with age. The
most marked difference between younger and older respondents was the unacceptability of coarse words
relating to anatomy and bodily functions, identified as generally unacceptable by 33% of 18-25 year olds
compared with 82% of respondents aged older than 65 years, and anatomy and sexual acts, identified as
generally unacceptable by 38% of 18-25 year olds said compared with and 83% of respondents aged
older than 65 years.
Respondents with children were also significantly more likely to find coarse words generally unacceptable
across all scenarios, compared with respondents who do not have children. The most marked differences
between respondents with children and those without was the unacceptability of coarse words relating to
anatomy and bodily function, identified as generally unacceptable by 44% of those without children
compared with 66% of those with children, and anatomy and sexual acts, identified as generally
unacceptable by 46% of those without children compared with 68% of those with children. Most
respondents without children did not identify the use of coarse words relating to anatomy and bodily
functions and anatomy and sexual acts as being generally unacceptable.
Female respondents were more likely than their male counterparts to find coarse words generally
unacceptable across all scenarios. The most significant difference between male and female respondents
was the unacceptability of coarse words relating to gender, identified as generally unacceptable by 57%
DEFINING
coarse language 23
of males compared with 76% of females, and sexual preference, identified as generally unacceptable by
61% of males and 79% of females.
TABLE 6 – UNACCEPTABILITY BY AGE, GENDER AND PARENTAL STATUS
RACE/
ETHNICITY/
CULTURAL
BACKGROUND
Age of respondents
SEXUAL
PERSON‟S
PREFERENCE DISABILITY
ANATOMY
AND
BODILY
FUNCTIONS
ANATOMY GENDER
AND
SEXUAL
ACTS
RELIGION
18-25 years
26-35 years
76%
58%
77%
33%
38%
50%
67%
73%
64%
76%
45%
47%
54%
63%
36-45 years
46-55 years
76%
68%
84%
52%
56%
62%
69%
83%
71%
88%
64%
66%
74%
76%
56-65 years
Older than 65
years
Gender
80%
71%
90%
69%
69%
69%
74%
86%
82%
95%
82%
83%
82%
85%
Male
Female
73%
61%
81%
53%
53%
57%
65%
85%
79%
90%
65%
69%
76%
81%
82%
73%
89%
66%
68%
71%
76%
75%
63%
79%
44%
46%
56%
67%
Parental status
With children
without
children
2.
Changes over time to the use of coarse language
The large majority of survey respondents (87%) agree with the statement that you seem to hear a lot
more coarse language today in public than you used to, and nearly as many (81%) agree that you seem
to hear a lot more coarse language today in the media than you used to (refer Table 7).
More respondents strongly agree about increasing levels of coarse language in public (53%) than
strongly agreed about increasing levels of coarse language in the media (40%).
TABLE 7 – EXTENT OF AGREEMENT ABOUT INCREASING LEVELS OF COARSE LANGUAGE IN PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA
AGREE
STRONGLY
AGREE
NEITHER
DISAGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
NOT
SURE
You seem to hear a lot more coarse
language today in public than you used to
53%
34%
8%
3%
0%
1%
You seem to hear a lot more coarse
language today in the media than you
used to
40%
41%
13%
4%
0%
1%
Table 8 shows agreement (the total percentages of agree strongly and agree) with the two statements
you seem to hear a lot more coarse language today in public than you used to and you seem to hear a lot
more coarse language today in the media than you used to by age and parental status of respondents.
Older respondents were significantly more likely than younger respondents to agree that there is more
coarse language today in public and in the media than there used to be. The overwhelming majority
(96%) of respondents older than 65 years agree that you seem to hear a lot more coarse language today
in public than you used to, compared with 80% of respondents aged 26-35 years and 81% of those aged
18-25 years. The overwhelming majority of respondents older than 65 years (94%) also agree that you
seem to hear a lot more coarse language today in the media than you used to, compared with 68% of
respondents aged 18-25 years.
Respondents with children were also more likely to agree with the two statements compared to
respondents without children (refer to Table 8).
DEFINING
coarse language 24
TABLE 8 – AGREEMENT (TOTAL PERCENTAGES OF AGREE STRONGLY AND AGREE) BY AGE AND PARENTAL STATUS
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
OLDER
THAN
65
YEARS
81%
80%
85%
89%
91%
96%
91%
80%
68%
75%
81%
82%
82%
94%
86%
72%
You seem to hear a lot more
coarse language today in public
than you used to
You seem to hear a lot more
coarse language today in the
media than you used to
3.
WITH
WITHOUT
CHILDREN CHILDREN
Factors perceived to shape and change attitudes towards coarse
language
Respondents were asked the extent to which they feel different factors have contributed to shaping
attitudes towards the use of coarse language in society. These factors were as follows:

generally we have a more open minded/liberal society

political correctness (i.e. not causing offence)

the broadcasting of coarse language in media content

the decreased influence of religion in modern society

multiculturalism (i.e. the influence of ethnic diversity on words considered to be acceptable or not
acceptable)

explosion of media technologies (e.g. Pay TV, DVDs, video games, internet)

changing attitudes and behaviours relating to sex and sexual relations

decrease in family interaction and less supervision of children

and the rise of social media (e.g. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Blogs).
As shown in Table 9, with the exceptions of political correctness and multiculturalism, most participants
said these factors had either contributed strongly or contributed somewhat in shaping attitudes towards
the use of coarse language in society.
Respondents identified the strongest contributors (based on total percentages for contributed strongly
and contributed somewhat) as:

changing attitudes and behaviours relating to sex and sexual relations (79%)

a decrease in family interaction and less supervision of children (76%)

a generally more open minded/liberal society (74%)

the explosion of media technologies (74%)

the rise of social media (73%).
DEFINING
coarse language 25
TABLE 9 –FACTORS THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO SHAPING ATTITUDES
TOWARDS THE USE OF COARSE LANGUAGE IN SOCIETY
CONTRIBUTED CONTRIBUTED CONTRIBUTED HASN‟T
DON‟T
STRONGLY
SOMEWHAT
SLIGHTLY
CONTRIBUTED KNOW
Generally we have a more open
minded/liberal society
23%
51%
18%
4%
5%
Political correctness (i.e. not
causing offence)
16%
32%
24%
20%
7%
The broadcasting of coarse
language in media content
26%
42%
22%
5%
4%
The decreased influence of
religion in modern society
20%
31%
22%
19%
8%
Multiculturalism (ie the
influence of diversity on words
considered to be acceptable or
not acceptable)
15%
30%
24%
21%
10%
Explosion of media technologies
(e.g. Pay TV, DVDs, video
games, internet)
40%
34%
16%
5%
5%
Changing attitudes and
behaviours relating to sex and
sexual relations
42%
37%
13%
4%
4%
Decrease in family interaction
and less supervision of children
45%
31%
14%
5%
4%
The rise of social media (e.g.
YouTube, Facebook, Twitter,
Blogs)
42%
31%
15%
5%
7%
4.
Differences by age and parental status
Table 10 shows percentages for „contributed strongly‟ by age and parental status of respondents. Older
respondents were significantly more likely than their younger counterparts to say that these factors have
contributed strongly to shaping attitudes towards the use of coarse language in society. The greatest
differences between older and younger respondents relate to:

a decrease in family interaction and less supervision of children, reported as having contributed
strongly by 27% of respondents aged 18-25 years compared with 62% of those aged older than 65
years

an explosion of media technologies, reported as having contributed strongly by 26% of respondents
aged 18-25 years compared with 51% of those aged older than 65 years

changing attitudes and behaviours relating to sex and sexual relations, reported as having contributed
strongly by 32% of respondents aged 18-25 years compared with 57% of those aged older than 65
years.
Respondents with children were also significantly more likely to say that these factors contributed strongly
to shaping attitudes towards the use of coarse language in society. The greatest difference between
respondents with children and those without relate to:

the rise of social media, reported as having contributed strongly by 32% of respondents without
children compared with 47% of those with children

the explosion of media technologies, reported as having contributed strongly by 31% of respondents
without children compared with 44% of those with children

a decrease in family interaction and less supervision of children, reported as having contributed
strongly by 37% of respondents without children and 49% of those with children.
DEFINING
coarse language 26
TABLE 10 – CONTRIBUTED STRONGLY BY AGE AND PARENTAL STATUS
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
Generally we have a more
open minded/liberal society
15%
18%
19%
21%
26%
34%
24%
20%
Political correctness (i.e.
not causing offence)
14%
12%
17%
14%
20%
21%
17%
15%
The broadcasting of coarse
language in media content
20%
18%
25%
22%
28%
40%
27%
23%
The decreased influence of
religion in modern society
15%
18%
17%
19%
17%
32%
22%
15%
10%
13%
14%
16%
19%
20%
17%
13%
26%
32%
40%
43%
44%
51%
44%
31%
32%
33%
37%
43%
49%
57%
46%
35%
27%
37%
39%
48%
52%
62%
49%
37%
32%
32%
41%
45%
46%
53%
47%
32%
Multiculturalism (i.e. the
influence of ethnic diversity
on words considered to be
acceptable or not
acceptable)
Explosion of media
technologies (e.g. Pay TV,
DVDs, video games,
internet)
Changing attitudes and
behaviours relating to sex
and sexual relations
Decrease in family
interaction and less
supervision of children
The rise of social media
(e.g. YouTube, Facebook,
Twitter, Blogs)
B.
56-65
OLDER
WITH
WITHOUT
YEARS THAN 65 CHILDREN CHILDREN
YEARS
Overall summary
Definitions of coarse language are largely subjective. The qualitative research and review of literature
suggest definitions of coarse language are largely subjective, what is considered to be coarse language
by one person may not be so by another. Attitudes to language vary widely within any population and
there is little public agreement about what constitutes offense. According to the Broadcasting Commission
of Ireland (2005) ‘offense is never experienced in a uniform fashion even by members of the same
23
group’ .
Words considered to be more acceptable. At the basic level, coarse language can be defined simply in
relation to the words. Coarse words considered to be the most acceptable are those relating to:

anatomy and bodily functions

anatomy and sexual acts.
These findings are consistent with the trends identified in the literature and the qualitative research, which
found there has been a softening of attitudes in respect to words associated with sex and bodily functions
in line with broader societal shifts regarding sexual mores and behaviours. In the qualitative research,
participants made a distinction between the acceptable use of different words relating to anatomy, bodily
functions and sexual acts. While the words „cunt‟ and „mother-fucker‟ were thought to be unacceptable,
other words such as „shit‟, „fuck‟, „tits‟ and „piss‟ were seen to be less offensive and generally acceptable
to use provided the context is appropriate. Previous research has found similar trends, stating „the upshot
24
today is that the c-word is in a category of its own‟ .
Words considered to be least acceptable. The majority of respondents found the seven types of
coarse words to be unacceptable for use in media content, to some degree. Having said this, only three
types of words were said to be unacceptable in all circumstances, including words relating to:
23
24
Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (2005)
Eccleston (2008)
DEFINING
coarse language 27

a person‟s disability


religion.
While there has been a softening of attitudes with respect to some words, others have become more
disliked by audiences. The qualitative research found that words intended to insult, offend, denigrate or
discriminate racial, religious or other minority groups were thought to be unacceptable. Similar to the
survey findings, words used to discriminate against people with a disability or for racial vilification were
considered to be unacceptable.
While in the qualitative research, religious words were not found to be unacceptable (as they are in the
survey research) these differences can be somewhat explained. Focus group participants made a
distinction between two types of religious words. Blasphemous words („God/Goddamn‟ and „Jesus
Christ‟), which were often viewed as relatively inoffensive swear words whose religious connotations have
diminished over time, and words used to vilify or discriminate religious groups, which are not acceptable.
Specific examples of religious words were not provided in the survey instrument, respondents therefore
may be referring to a range of words that potentially fall under the category of „religious‟.
Contextual considerations. Although some types of coarse words (those relating to disability, race and
religion) were identified by survey respondents as being unacceptable in all circumstances, the qualitative
research and literature review suggest people‟s views of words that are unacceptable may change with
considerations of context. Survey respondents were asked to consider the acceptability of these words in
isolation from context, in the media the use of words, however, does not occur in a vacuum. The
qualitative research found that contextual considerations including intent, tone, delivery, the source of the
language, the audience, program genre and timeslot play a paramount role. People may find words,
which they generally deem to be unacceptable, as suitable for broadcast provided the context is
appropriate. Supporting this view, the BBC research found that, in one particular instance, participants
were even willing to accept the use of the word „cunt‟ (which overall they said was unacceptable) as they
felt it provided a purpose to the program content.
Demographic differences. Younger survey respondents and those without children were particularly
accepting of coarse words relating to anatomy, bodily functions and sexual acts. This finding is supported
by previously conducted research, as one commentator asserted ‘it’s getting harder to get excited about
taboo words to do with sex. The younger generation is ever so much more cool and sensible and
25
reasonable about sex than we were. So that whole hypersensitivity we grew up with is disappearing. ‟
The acceptable use of certain words differed according to the gender of respondents. Overall, females
were more likely to find coarse words unacceptable compared with their male counterparts, particularly
words relating to gender and sexual preference.
Increase in the use of coarse language. It was commonly agreed by survey respondents that the use of
coarse language both in society and in the media has increased over time and become more widespread.
More respondents, however, strongly agree about increasing levels of coarse language in society than
about increasing levels of coarse language in the media. Older respondents were significantly more likely
to agree there are increasing levels of coarse language in both society and the media.
Contributing factors. A range of factors were identified as having contributed to shaping attitudes
towards the use of coarse language in society, most commonly:

changing attitudes and behaviours relating to sex and sexual relations

a decrease in family interaction and less supervision of children

a generally more open minded/liberal society

the explosion of media technologies

the rise of social media.
25
Sue Butler (editor and publisher of the Macquarie Dictionary) in Eccleston (2008)
DEFINING
coarse language 28
The literature review and qualitative research suggest some people are more accepting of the use of
coarse language in accordance with shifts towards a more liberal and open minded society and less
formal behaviours and social interactions. Examples given in the qualitative research to demonstrate this
shift included: casual office attire on Fridays, topless sunbaking at the beach, and the replacement of
formal letters with email correspondence. Changing sexual mores were also thought to be an influencing
factor including a more candid dialogue about sex in social interactions and the portrayal of sexual
relations in the popular media. This was thought to relate to a more educated and intelligent use of terms
relating to sex and sexuality. While some indicate it is appropriate for the media to use coarse language
as it accurately reflects the reality of contemporary society, others say the proliferation of coarse
language in society is a symptom of a decline in public standards, for which the media plays a part.
Although it was not a strong finding in the quantitative research, political correctness and multiculturalism
were identified in focus group discussions as contributing significantly to the changing acceptability of
certain words. It was suggested that the increased focus given to political correctness has amplified the
unacceptability of words relating to racial, cultural, gender and disability contexts. Some of these words,
for example „spastic‟, may have been acceptable in the past but are now not deemed to be politically
correct. It was also acknowledged that community attitudes are informed by the role multiculturalism has
played in shaping the meaning and use of racial terms. Whether a racial word is thought to be offensive
depends on how the ethnic group responds to the use of the word. For example, „Wogs‟ and Lebs‟ are
considered acceptable to use under certain circumstances, as they have, to an extent, been reclaimed by
the ethnic community and used to describe themselves.
DEFINING
coarse language 29
VI.
A.
Survey results
This chapter explores the contextual considerations affecting the acceptable use of coarse language on
television, radio and online. It discusses the acceptability of coarse words in relation to different social
contexts as well as different program genres.
1.
Acceptability of coarse words in relation to different contexts
Respondents were asked how acceptable the use of coarse words is on television, radio and online in
relation to different contexts. These contexts included the use of coarse language:

to insult someone to their face

to insult someone behind their back

to vilify or degrade someone/a group of people to their face

to vilify or degrade someone/a group of people behind their back

for shock value (e.g. celebrities using coarse language to attract publicity)

casually or as part of everyday conversations

accidentally or in frustration (e.g. when somebody stubs their toe)

in defence (e.g. as a reaction to bullying)

in a joking or humorous manner

and to give emphasis or used as an exclamation.
Views on the acceptability of coarse words on television, radio, and online vary greatly according to
different contextual situations (see Table 11 and Figure 6). Overall, most respondents said it is not at all
acceptable for coarse words to be used on television, radio and online:

to vilify or degrade someone/a group of people behind their back (62%)

to vilify or degrade someone/a group of people to their face (61%)

to insult someone behind their back (54%)

for shock value (51%).
Respondents said it is generally acceptable (total percentage of always acceptable and mostly
acceptable) for coarse words to be used on television, radio and online when:

said accidently or in frustration (68%)

said in a joking or humorous manner (54%).
Half of respondents (50%) said it is generally acceptable for coarse words to be used on television, radio
and online when used in defence. Just under half (48%) said it is generally acceptable when used to give
emphasis or used as an exclamation.
CONTEXTUAL
considerations 30
TABLE 11 – CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE ACCEPTABLE USE
OF COARSE LANGUAGE ON TV, RADIO AND ONLINE
NOT AT ALL
NOT VERY
MOSTLY
ALWAYS
DON‟T
ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE KNOW
When used to insult someone to
their face
49%
35%
12%
1%
3%
When used to insult someone
behind their back
54%
33%
9%
1%
3%
When used to vilify or degrade
someone/a group of people to their
face
61%
27%
7%
1%
3%
someone/a group of people behind
their back
62%
28%
6%
1%
3%
When used for shock value (e.g.
celebrities using coarse language
for publicity)
51%
31%
13%
1%
3%
When used casually or as part of
everyday conversations
27%
36%
31%
3%
3%
When said accidentally or in
frustration (e.g. when somebody
stubs their toe)
8%
21%
52%
16%
3%
When said in defence (e.g. as a
reaction to bullying)
16%
31%
41%
9%
3%
When said in a joking or humorous
manner
19%
24%
44%
10%
3%
When used to give emphasis or
used as an exclamation
20%
28%
40%
8%
4%
FIGURE 6 – CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE ACCEPTABLE USE
OF COARSE LANGUAGE ON TV, RADIO AND ONLINE
When said accidentally or in frustration
21
8
When said in a joking or humorous manner
52
24
19
When said in defence
28
20
When used casually or as part of everyday conversations
44
31
16
When used to give emphasis or used as an exclamation
16
10
3
41
9
3
40
8
4
36
27
When used for shock value
31
51
When used to insult someone to their face
49
When used to insult someone behind their back
13
1 3
35
12
13
When used to vilify or degrade someone/a group of people to their
face
61
27
When used to vilify or degrade someone/a group of people behind
their back
62
28
Not at all acceptable
20
Not very acceptable
40
%
Mostly acceptable
33
31
33
54
0
3
60
13
7
13
6 13
80
Always acceptable
CONTEXTUAL
9
100
Don't know
considerations 31
2.
Differences by respondent‟s age, parental status, gender and educational
attainment
Table 12 shows unacceptability (total percentages of not at all acceptable and not very acceptable) by
respondent‟s age, parental status and gender.
Older respondents were significantly more likely to say coarse words are not acceptable in all given
contexts compared with younger respondents. The greatest differences between older and younger
respondents relate to:

coarse words used casually or part of everyday conversation, identified as unacceptable by 47% of
respondents aged 18-25 years compared with 81% of those aged older than 65 years

coarse words used for shock value, identified as unacceptable by 65% of respondents aged 18-25
years compared with 95% of those aged older than 65 years.
Respondents with children were also more likely to say coarse words are not acceptable in all given
contexts compared with respondents without children. The greatest difference between respondents with
children and those without relate to:

respondents without children compared with 69% of those with children

coarse words used for shock value, identified as unacceptable by 72% of respondents without
children compared with 87% of those with children.
Female respondents were more likely than their male counterparts to say coarse words are not
acceptable in all given contexts. The greatest difference between female and male respondents relate to:

males compared with 68% of females

coarse words used to insult someone to their face, identified as unacceptable by 78% of males
compared with 88% of females

coarse words when said in defence, identified as unacceptable by 42% of males compared with 52%
of females.
When used to insult someone to their face
FEMALE
WITHOUT
CHILDREN
MALE
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
OLDER
THAN 65
YEARS
WITH
CHILDREN
TABLE 12 – UNACCEPTABILITY (NOT AT ALL/NOT VERY ACCEPTABLE) BY AGE, PARENTAL STATUS AND GENDER
75% 74% 83% 88% 86% 91%
87% 75% 78% 88%
77% 76% 87% 92% 91% 95%
90% 80% 83% 91%
When used to vilify or degrade someone/a group of
people to their face
82% 80% 90% 92% 92% 95%
91% 84% 86% 92%
When used to vilify or degrade someone/a group of
people behind their back
81% 80% 92% 94% 95% 96%
93% 84% 87% 93%
When used for shock value (e.g. celebrities using
coarse language to attract publicity)
65% 68% 81% 86% 93% 95%
87% 72% 78% 87%
When used casually or as part of everyday
conversations
47% 51% 60% 62% 70% 81%
69% 50% 57% 68%
When used to insult someone behind their back
CONTEXTUAL
considerations 32
When said in defence (e.g. as a reaction to bullying)
When used to give emphasis or used as an
exclamation
FEMALE
WITHOUT
CHILDREN
MALE
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
OLDER
THAN 65
YEARS
WITH
CHILDREN
When said accidentally or in frustration (e.g. when
somebody stubs their toe)
20% 20% 25% 26% 31% 44%
32% 21% 27% 30%
37% 40% 42% 43% 49% 66%
51% 38% 42% 52%
32% 35% 39% 41% 47% 59%
46% 36% 39% 47%
36% 39% 46% 49% 51% 64%
53% 39% 46% 51%
As shown in Table 13, respondents with less than a Year 12 education level (those with „some high
school/primary school‟ and those with „school certificate/Year 10‟) were more likely to feel coarse words
were not acceptable in all of the given contexts.
SOME
UNIVERSITY/COLLEGE/TAFE
STUDY, BUT NOT COMPLETE
HIGHER SCHOOL CERTIFICATE
/ YEAR 12
SCHOOL CERTIFICATE / YEAR
10
SOME HIGH SCHOOL /
PRIMARY SCHOOL
NONE OF THESE
RATHER NOT SAY
someone/a group of people to
their face
someone/a group of people
behind their back
When used for shock value
(e.g. celebrities using coarse
language to attract publicity)
When used casually or as part
of everyday conversations
When said accidentally or in
frustration (e.g. when
somebody stubs their toe)
When said in defence (e.g. as
a reaction to bullying)
When said in a joking or
humorous manner
When used to give emphasis
or used as an exclamation
TRADE/TECHNICAL
QUALIFICATION
to their face
behind their back
UNIVERSITY QUALIFICATION
TABLE 13 – UNACCEPTABILITY (NOT AT ALL/NOT VERY ACCEPTABLE) BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
84%
84%
83%
81%
87%
83%
57%
67%
87%
89%
87%
83%
89%
85%
71%
62%
90%
91%
87%
87%
92%
88%
71%
71%
91%
91%
89%
88%
93%
88%
71%
62%
81%
85%
81%
76%
87%
88%
71%
62%
63%
64%
59%
60%
65%
70%
57%
57%
29%
27%
24%
25%
32%
40%
57%
38%
49%
47%
42%
43%
48%
55%
57%
52%
46%
42%
40%
39%
44%
52%
57%
52%
48%
50%
47%
44%
51%
51%
57%
62%
CONTEXTUAL
considerations 33
3.
Program genre
Respondents were asked the extent to which they agree with a series of statements relating to the
program genres of:

drama

comedy and satire

reality and factual programs

and news and current affairs.
As shown in Figure 7, respondents indicated that the use of coarse words is more acceptable in some
program genres than in others.
Most respondents said the use of coarse language is acceptable in drama shows in the given contexts
with most agreeing that the use of coarse language is acceptable in drama shows when it contributes to
the story line or character development (54%) and when used to provide credibility or portray a real life
situation (53%).
Nearly half of all respondents (44%) agree that it is acceptable for coarse language to be used in humour
in comedy shows. Notwithstanding this, just over three in four respondents (77%) agree that too much
coarse language in comedy shows can detract from their humour.
While half (50%) agree the use of coarse language is acceptable when it is used by real people in real life
situations of stress, anger or frustration, only two in five (40%) agree coarse language is acceptable in
reality and factual programs because there is a large amount of spontaneous and unscripted content. The
majority said that coarse language is less acceptable in reality shows when used as a method of shocking
the audience (60%) and that reality shows set a bad example in terms of the use of coarse language
(63%).
The majority of respondents (80%) agree that it is less acceptable for news presenters to use coarse
language without justification, and that it is less acceptable for coarse language to be used on news
programs because children may be watching (70%). However, nearly half also agree that it is acceptable
that coarse language may sometimes be inadvertently broadcast on news programs (46%) and a
substantial minority agree that people being interviewed on news programs may occasionally use coarse
language (37%).
CONTEXTUAL
considerations 34
News and current affairs
Reality and factual programs
Comedy
and satire
Drama
FIGURE 7 – THE USE OF COARSE LANGUAGE ACCORDING TO PROGRAM GENRE
The use of coarse language is acceptable in drama shows when used to
provide credibility or portray a real life situation
53%
The use of coarse language is acceptable in drama shows when it
contributes to the story line or character development
54%
It is acceptable for coarse language to be used for humour in comedy
shows
18%
17%
44%
18%
Too much coarse language in comedy shows can detract from their
humour
The use of coarse language is acceptable in reality and factual programs
because there is a large amount of spontaneous and unscripted content
The use of coarse language is acceptable in reality and factual programs
when it is used by real people in real life situations of stress, anger or
frustration
Coarse language is less acceptable in reality shows when used as a
method of shocking the audience
It is acceptable that people being interviewed on news programs may
occasionally use coarse language
21%
50%
It is acceptable that coarse language may sometimes be inadvertently
broadcast
Agree
18%
39%
20%
70%
8% 4%
4%
30%
17%
Disagree
5%
11% 7%
9%
20%
5%
15%
80%
Neither
9%3%
27%
20%
46%
4%
6%
19%
63%
It is less acceptable for coarse language on news programs because
children may be watching
5%
33%
60%
27%
23%
11%
40%
It is less acceptable for news presenters to use coarse language without
justification
5%
33%
77%
Reality shows set a bad example in terms of the use of coarse language
24%
4%
8% 4%
Not sure
CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS
35
B.
Overall summary
Contextual considerations. There are a range of contextual factors that influence an individual‟s
decision about whether they find the use of coarse language to be acceptable. People‟s views on the
acceptable use of coarse language vary greatly according to different contextual scenarios.
Words considered the least acceptable are those used to vilify or degrade someone/a group of people
either behind their back or to their face, to insult someone behind their back, or for shock value.
Words considered the most acceptable are those said accidentally or in frustration, said in a joking or
humorous manner, said in defence, or used to give emphasis or as an exclamation.
Focus group participants said tone and delivery play a key role in determining whether the use of coarse
language is acceptable. Coarse language delivered in an aggressive, angry, malicious tone intended to
insult, harm or humiliate was considered to be less acceptable than coarse language delivered in a
frustrated, casual or humorous tone. Coarse language directed at somebody or used to target or vilify
minority groups was also considered to be unacceptable. For example, in discussing Gordon Ramsay
Kitchen Nightmares, participants said it was not the coarse language per say that was offensive but the
aggressive and derogatory way in which it was delivered.
Focus group participants also indicated that words used simply for effect (i.e. to surprise or to shock) or to
strike a posture can be offensive. It was felt that program makers can sometimes go too far and use
coarse language for shock purposes or to simply chase ratings.
Demographic differences. Attitudes of survey respondents towards the acceptable use of coarse words
across these different contexts varied according to the demographic factors of age, parental status,
gender and educational attainment. Older respondents, those with children, females and those with less
than a Year 12 educational attainment were significantly more likely to say coarse words are not
acceptable in all given contexts.
In particular, younger respondents and those without children were more accepting of words used
casually or as part of everyday conversation and words used for shock value compared with older
respondents and parents. Males were more accepting of words used casually or as part of everyday
conversation, words used to insult someone to their face and words said in defence compared with
females.
Program genre. The literature review and qualitative research found that community members feel there
is a „time and place‟ for the use of coarse language in the media. Audiences accept when coarse
language is used for clear editorial purposes or contributes to the viewing experience. Audiences dislike
when coarse language is used in an unnecessary, excessive or casual way. These findings align with the
survey results, which indicate the use of coarse language is more acceptable in some program genres
than in others.
Most respondents agree coarse language is acceptable in drama when it contributes to the story line and
provides credibility. While many agree coarse language can be acceptable in comedy as comedians use
it to make their jokes funny, thereby increasing the entertainment value; audiences are displeased by the
excessive use of coarse language by comedians that does not add to the comedic or entertainment
value.
Generally, respondents agree it is less acceptable for coarse language to be used by news presenters
without justification as children may be watching. Many acknowledge, however, that coarse language
may sometimes be inadvertently broadcast on news programs.
CONTEXTUAL
considerations 36
VII.
Attitudes towards the use of coarse language on
television
A.
Survey results
This chapter discusses the television viewing behaviours of survey respondents, their general attitudes
towards the use of coarse language on television, and their views on the content of programming in
relation to different television networks.
1.
Viewing behaviours of respondents
While there was a large variation among survey respondents in terms of how many hours of television
they watched per day the following trends were evident:

most respondents (72%) watched 2 hours or more of television per day

younger respondents were significantly more likely than those who were older to watch less than two
hours of TV per day

and respondents without children were more likely to watch less hours of television per day than
those with children.
In relation to television channels most watched by respondents:

the majority of respondents (82%) watched commercial free to air the most

approximately half of all respondents reported most commonly watching the ABC (51%)

just over one in four (27%) watched Pay TV the most

and younger respondents were less likely to most commonly watch the ABC or SBS.
2.
Coarse language on television
Three quarters of respondents (75%) agree that coarse language on television has a greater impact than
other media due to the visual element. There is higher agreement with this statement amongst
respondents who watch two or more hours of television per day.
Respondents were divided in relation to the statement coarse language on television is less shocking
because the visual clues allow audiences to better judge the situation and predict if coarse language is
going to occur, with nearly as many agreeing (34%) as disagreeing (39%).
Similarly, nearly equal proportions of respondents agree (39%) as disagree (32%) with the statement that
Pay TV content should not be restricted as subscribers consciously select programs/channels they buy.
Respondents who watch two or more hours of television per day were more likely to agree that Pay TV
content should not be restricted.
TABLE 14 – COARSE LANGUAGE ON TELEVISION
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
NEITHER
DISAGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
NOT
SURE
Coarse language on television has a
greater impact than other media due to
the visual element (i.e. when said with
aggressive body language, facial
expressions, acts of violence etc)
33%
42%
15%
6%
1%
2%
Coarse language on television is less
shocking because the visual clues allow
audiences to better judge the situation
5%
29%
23%
28%
11%
2%
ATTITUDES
towards the use of coarse language on
television 37
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
NEITHER
DISAGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
NOT
SURE
and predict if coarse language is going
to occur
Pay TV content should not be restricted
as subscribers consciously select the
channels and programs they buy
3.
14%
25%
20%
20%
12%
9%
Differences according to network
When thinking of the different television networks and the content of their programming (refer Table 16
and Figure 8), approximately one third of survey respondents identified commercial free to air (34%), Pay
TV (30%) and SBS (26%) as having the most programs containing coarse language. Compared with the
other networks, the ABC was identified by the least number of respondents (8%) as having the most
programs containing coarse language. Just over one in four respondents said they didn‟t know which
network currently has the most programs containing coarse language.
More than one in three of all respondents (38%) said the ABC currently has the highest standards in
terms of regulating the use of coarse language; this was double the number of respondents that identified
commercial free to air (19%), and significantly more than those who identified SBS (12%) and Pay TV
(3%) as currently having the highest standards in terms of regulating the use of coarse language.
Respondents who watch less than two hours of television per day were more likely to say that the ABC
currently has the highest standards.
Over one in four respondents said they didn‟t know which network currently has the highest standards.
The ABC was identified by the least number of respondents (9%) as needing to most improve their
content in terms of the use of coarse language. Commercial free to air was identified most commonly
(35%) as needing to most improve their content in terms of the use of coarse language, followed by Pay
TV (20%). Nearly one in three respondents said they didn‟t know which network needs to most improve
their content.
Nearly half of all respondents (47%) thought the ABC should be the most responsible in regulating coarse
language. Respondents who watch less than two hours of television per day were more likely to say that
the ABC should be the most responsible. Slightly fewer respondents (41%) said commercial free to air
should be the most responsible, and the lowest proportion of respondents (17%) said Pay TV should be
the most responsible.
Most respondents either did not think that any television networks should be a free and independent
environment where higher levels of coarse language are permissible (41%) or refrained to express an
opinion (23%).
TABLE 15 – THE USE OF COARSE LANGUAGE ACCORDING TO TELEVISION NETWORKS
ABC
SBS
COMMERCIAL
FREE TO AIR
PAY
TV
NONE OF
THESE
DON'T
KNOW
Currently have the
most programs
containing coarse
language?
8%
26%
34%
30%
2%
27%
Currently have the
highest standards in
terms of regulating the
use of coarse
language?
38%
12%
19%
3%
10%
29%
Need to most improve
their content in terms
of the use of coarse
language?
9%
15%
35%
20%
15%
32%
ATTITUDES
television 38
ABC
SBS
COMMERCIAL
FREE TO AIR
PAY
TV
NONE OF
THESE
DON'T
KNOW
Should be the most
responsible in
regulating coarse
language?
47%
23%
41%
17%
9%
18%
Should be a free and
independent
environment where
higher levels of coarse
language are
permissible?
8%
12%
10%
21%
41%
23%
*Multiple responses allowed
FIGURE 8 – THE USE OF COARSE LANGUAGE ACCORDING TO TELEVISION NETWORKS
ABC
8
SBS
26
Currently have the most
programs containing coarse
language?
34
Commercial free to air
30
2
Pay TV
27
None of these
38
12
Currently have the highest
standards in terms of regulating
the use of coarse language?
3
Don't know
19
10
29
9
15
Need to most improve their
content in terms of the use of
coarse language?
35
20
15
32
47
23
Should be the most responsible
in regulating coarse language?
41
17
9
18
8
independent environment where
higher levels of coarse language
are permissible?
12
10
21
0
B.
41
23
5
10
15
20
25
%
30
35
40
45
50
Overall summary
Visual cues on television. Television consistently emerged as the most dominant and influential of all
media platforms in both the survey and focus groups. The impact of coarse language on television was
generally considered by survey respondents to be greater compared with other media platforms, primarily
due to the visual element. Focus group participants agreed, noting that coarse language can be more
offensive when coupled with visual cues such as aggressive body language and facial expressions or
acts of violence.
Differences according to network. Standards relating to the use of coarse language were thought to
differ across television networks. The ABC was generally held in high regard compared with other
networks by both survey respondents and focus group participants. Whilst people expressed high
expectations of the ABC, it appears these expectations are being met.
Nearly half of the survey respondents identified the ABC as the network that should be most responsible
in regulating coarse language. Focus group participants also indicated that the ABC was best placed to
set an industry benchmark for the use of coarse language in content.
ATTITUDES
television 39
The ABC was considered to have the highest standards by more respondents than other networks (over
double) and was thought to be in least need of improvement. This was similarly the case in the qualitative
component, with participants agreeing that the ABC is more responsible than other networks and has
higher standards than its competitors. Audiences expect coarse language may be used on the ABC, but
felt that it was generally used in the appropriate context, in the right timeslot and with the provision of
adequate program warnings.
Attitudes towards SBS, commercial free to air networks and Pay TV were less positive. Commercial
networks, in particular, were considered by many respondents to have the most programs with coarse
language and the greatest need to improve program content. Focus group participants saw commercial
networks as using coarse language gratuitously for the purpose of driving ratings and attracting
advertising. Some participants thought commercial networks should be more responsible given they
attract a wider, more mainstream audience, including children.
ATTITUDES
television 40
VIII. Attitudes towards the use of coarse language on the
radio
A.
Survey results
This chapter discusses the radio listening behaviours of survey respondents, their general attitudes
towards the use of coarse language on the radio, and their views on the content of programming in
relation to different radio stations.
1.
Listening behaviours of respondents
In relation to the listening behaviours of survey respondents:

just over three quarters of all respondents (76%) listen to less than 2 hours of radio per day

the majority of respondents (54%) listened to commercial music stations

ABC Local Radio was listened to by around one in five respondents (21%) as were commercial
talkback stations (21%)

both ABC Radio National and non-commercial youth stations (e.g. triple j) were listened to by 17% of
respondents

commercial youth stations were listened to by a small proportion of respondents (7%).
Younger respondents were significantly more likely than their older counterparts to listen to noncommercial youth stations, commercial youth stations, and to a lesser extent commercial music stations.
Younger respondents were less likely to listen to commercial talkback stations and ABC radio.
Respondents without children were also more likely to listen to non-commercial and commercial youth
stations and less likely to listen to ABC radio.
2.
Coarse language on the radio
As shown in Table 17 below, the majority of respondents (72%) agree that the language used on radio is
usually suitable for its audience, and that coarse language occurs less frequently on the radio compared
with television (67%). There is higher agreement with these two statements amongst respondents who
spend two or more hours per day listening to the radio.
Many respondents (58%) also agree that the use of coarse language can be shocking on the radio
because it is less expected, with higher levels of agreement amongst those who spend two or more hours
per day listening.
Few respondents (26%) agree that the use of coarse language on the radio has less of an impact
because the radio is often on in the background. Respondents who spend two or more hours per day
listening to the radio were even less likely to agree with this statement.
A large majority of respondents (86%) agree that content aired during times when children are likely to be
listening should be handled carefully.
While a substantial minority agree that the use of the occasional coarse language on radio is expected
from people calling in (39%), fewer agree the use of occasional coarse language on radio is expected
from guests (21%), and the majority (73%) agree that it is not appropriate for radio hosts to use coarse
language without justification. Respondents who spend more than three hours per day listening to the
radio were more likely to agree that it is not appropriate for radio hosts to use coarse language without
justification and that the use of the occasional coarse language on radio is expected from people calling
in.
ATTITUDES
towards the use of coarse language on the
radio 41
Most respondents (69%) agree that warnings should be issued for songs containing coarse language.
Nearly half (47%) disagree that it is acceptable for songs containing coarse language to be played on
youth radio stations, with higher levels of disagreement amongst respondents who spend two or more
hours per day listening to the radio.
A large minority (41%) disagree that it is acceptable for coarse language to be used on radio stations if
the intended audience is not likely to take offence.
Overall, respondents who listen to ABC Radio National and ABC Local Radio had stronger views (ie they
were more likely to agree or disagree depending on the particular statement) compared with nonlisteners.
3.
NOT SURE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
NEITHER
DISAGREE
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
TABLE 16 – COARSE LANGUAGE ON THE RADIO
The language used on radio is usually suitable
for its audience
15%
57%
11%
5%
2%
9%
Coarse language occurs less frequently on the
radio compared with television
20%
47%
12%
7%
2%
12%
The use of coarse language can be shocking on
the radio because it is less expected
15%
43%
20%
12%
2%
9%
The use of coarse language on the radio has
less of an impact because the radio is often on
in the background
3%
23%
24%
32%
10%
9%
The use of the occasional coarse word on radio
is expected from people calling in
4%
35%
21%
24%
9%
8%
The use of occasional coarse language on radio
is expected from guests
2%
19%
22%
39%
11%
8%
It is not appropriate for radio hosts to use coarse
language without justification
31%
42%
12%
6%
3%
6%
Content aired during times when children are
likely to be listening should be handled carefully
59%
27%
7%
2%
1%
6%
It is acceptable for songs containing coarse
language to be played on youth radio stations
6%
19%
21%
25%
22%
7%
Warnings should be issued for songs containing
coarse language
28%
41%
14%
7%
3%
7%
It is acceptable for coarse language to be used
on radio stations if the intended audience is not
likely to take offence
7%
24%
20%
26%
15%
7%
Differences according to radio station
As shown in Table 18 and Figure 9 below, just over half of all respondents (52%) said they did not know
which radio stations currently have the most programs containing coarse language. Of those that did
nominate radio stations, the highest proportion of respondents (29%) said youth radio/triple j currently has
the most programs containing coarse language, followed by commercial youth stations (14%). Younger
respondents were more likely to say this. Youth radio/triple j was identified as currently having the most
coarse language by 31% of those aged 18-25 years and 37% of those aged 26-35 years compared with
17% of respondents aged older than 65 years.
Over half of all respondents (53%) said they did not know which radio stations need to most improve their
content in terms of the use of coarse language. Of those that did nominate radio stations, the highest
proportion of respondents (20%) said youth radio/triple j need to most improve their content in terms of
the use of coarse language, followed by commercial youth stations (16%). Older respondents were more
likely to say this. Youth radio/triple j was identified as needing to most improve their content by 20% of
ATTITUDES
radio 42
respondents aged older than 65 years and 28% of respondents aged 56-65 years, compared with 12% of
those aged 18-25 years.
Respondents most commonly (43%) did not know which radio stations currently have the highest
standards in terms of regulating the use of coarse language. Of those that did nominate radio stations,
the highest proportion of respondents said ABC Radio National (35%) and ABC Local Radio (27%)
currently have the highest standards.
Both ABC Radio National and ABC Local Radio were considered to be stations that should be most
responsible in regulating coarse language, by 33% and 28% of respondents respectively. These views
were held significantly more strongly by older respondents. 41% of respondents older than 65 years and
42% of those aged 56-65 years said ABC Radio National should be the most responsible compared with
20% of those aged 18-25 years. 34% of respondents older than 65 years and 37% of those aged 56-65
years said ABC Local Radio should be the most responsible compared with 16% of those aged 18-25
years. Respondents with children were also more likely to be of this view.
Overall, over one third (35%) did not know which stations should be most responsible in regulating coarse
language.
Few nominated any type of radio stations that should be a free and independent environment where
higher levels of coarse language may exist and even less so for older respondents and those with
children. Of those that did nominate a radio station, the highest proportion (11%) said youth radio/triple j
should be a free and independent environment.
DON‟T KNOW
9%
1%
1%
3%
52%
3%
4%
11%
11%
35%
27%
4%
43%
coarse language?
20%
16%
13%
10%
2%
1%
9%
53%
Should be the most responsible in
regulating coarse language?
22%
25%
22%
22%
33%
28%
6%
35%
11%
6%
6%
6%
5%
4%
39%
39%
Should be a free and independent
environment where higher levels
of coarse language may exist?
COMMERCIAL
TALKBACK
STATIONS
ATTITUDES
ABC LOCAL RADIO
10%
ABC RADIO
NATIONAL
14%
COMMERCIAL
MUSIC STATIONS
29%
COMMERCIAL
YOUTH STATIONS
Currently have the most programs
containing coarse language?
YOUTH RADIO/
TRIPLE J
NONE OF THESE
TABLE 17 – THE USE OF COARSE LANGUAGE ACCORDING TO RADIO STATION
radio 43
FIGURE 9 – THE USE OF COARSE LANGUAGE ACCORDING TO RADIO STATIONS
Currently have the most
programs containing coarse
language?
9
1
1
3
52
3
4
coarse language?
29
14
10
11
11
43
13
16
20
10
2
1
9
53
22
22
22
Should be the most responsible
in regulating coarse language?
independent environment where
higher levels of coarse language
may exist?
5
4
Youth radio/triple j
25
28
6
0
B.
35
27
4
Commercial youth stations
33
Commercial music stations
35
Commercial talkback stations
11
6
6
6
ABC Radio National
ABC Local Radio
None of These
39
39
10
20
30
%
40
Don‟t Know
50
60
Overall summary
Generally people are less concerned with the use of coarse language on the radio compared with
television and online. The majority of survey respondents thought coarse language occurs less frequently
on the radio and that language used on the radio is usually suitable for the intended audience, with higher
levels of agreement amongst those who spend more time listening to the radio.
Over half the survey respondents agreed that coarse language on radio has the potential to be more
shocking because it is less expected and people are unprepared for it.
Some focus group participants indicated that coarse language on the radio was easier to ignore because
it is „ubiquitous‟ and in the background, with a less captive audience compared with television. It was also
thought by some focus group participants that radio stations occupy more of a niche market with
specifically targeted audiences, and that a station‟s reputation and intended audience assists in
determining the acceptable use of coarse language during broadcasts.
Coarse language spoken by hosts, guests and people calling in. In terms of who is delivering coarse
language on the radio, many respondents agreed that it is inappropriate for radio hosts to use coarse
language, with higher levels of agreement amongst those who spend more time listening to the radio.
More tolerance was exhibited for people calling in and to a lesser extent, guests.
Protecting children. Once again, there was strong agreement that children need to be protected from
the use of coarse language in the media and a large majority of survey respondents agreed that
broadcasters should take care during times when children are likely to be listening. Focus group
participants expressed similar concerns around what is broadcast during times when children are
listening, in particular mentioning the school run.
Differing standards. Standards relating to the use of coarse language were thought to differ across radio
stations. Most people were unsure which radio stations currently have the most programs containing
coarse language or need to most improve their content. Most people were also unsure which radio
stations currently have the highest standards in terms of regulating the use of coarse language. Of those
who did identify a station, triple j was generally seen as the station with the most programs containing
coarse language and as most in need of improvement. However, despite this, triple j was not identified as
needing to be most responsible and the highest proportion of respondents said triple j should be a free
and independent environment where higher levels of coarse language may exist. ABC Local Radio and
ATTITUDES
radio 44
Radio National were identified as have the highest standards in regulating coarse language, compared to
other stations.
Warnings. The majority of survey respondents indicated that warnings should be issued prior to the
airing of songs that contain potentially offensive material. Focus group participants expressed a similar
desire in relation to songs as well as other content. However, it was acknowledged that while warnings
can be easily issued before a song is played, warnings for talkback radio are more challenging.
ATTITUDES
radio 45
IX.
Attitudes towards the use of coarse language on the
internet
A.
Survey results
This chapter examines respondents‟ internet usage and their attitudes towards the use of coarse
language on the internet.
1.
Respondents‟ internet usage
Nearly half (47%) of all respondents spend more than two hours per day using the internet. Internet
usage was significantly higher among younger respondents and those without children.
The internet sites visited most often by respondents were:
 Google/Yahoo search (58%)

social networking sites (47%)

news/current affairs/information sites (45%).
Social networking was significantly more popular among females (54%) than males (39%).
2.
Coarse language on the internet
The majority of respondents (73%) agree that it is very difficult for coarse language on the internet to be
regulated, and just over half (51%) agree that when it comes to the use of coarse language the internet
operates by different rules. These views were significantly more strongly held by younger respondents
and those without children.
There were divided opinions among respondents regarding whether the internet should be a space where
freedom of speech prevails, coarse content should not be censored. Nearly as many respondents agree
(33%) as disagree (39%) with this statement. Agreement was significantly higher among younger
respondents. Half (50%) of respondents aged 18-25 years and 48% of those aged 26-35 years agree the
internet should be a space where freedom of speech prevails, compared with 19% of those older than 65
years.
Agreement with these three statements correlates with the number of hours spent using the internet.
Respondents who spend less than one hour per day using the internet were least likely to agree with the
three statements, while those who spend more than two hours per day using the internet were the most
likely to agree. Also respondents who spent more than two hours per day using the internet are more
likely to agree strongly with the statement that when it comes to the use of coarse language the internet
operates by different rules and are significantly more likely to agree the internet should be a space where
freedom of speech prevails, coarse content should not be censored.
DISAGREE
When it comes to the use of coarse language the
internet operates by different rules
16%
35%
14%
11%
4%
20%
It is very difficult for coarse language on the
internet to be regulated
30%
43%
8%
6%
3%
10%
The internet should be a space where freedom of
speech prevails, coarse content should not be
censored
13%
20%
20%
23%
16%
8%
ATTITUDES
NOT SURE
NEITHER
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
TABLE 18 – COARSE LANGUAGE ON THE INTERNET
internet 46
B.
Overall summary
Different rules for the internet. Over half said that the internet operates by different rules than other
media platforms. Focus group participants expressed similar views, agreeing that the internet is mostly
unregulated. All acknowledged that a much wider variety of content exists on the internet, including a
considerably greater amount of explicit material. The common view amongst participants was that the
internet was mostly unregulated; a space where „there are no rules‟ and „anything goes‟.
Survey respondents and focus group participants had mixed views regarding the need for regulation and
there was no consensus as to whether coarse language on the internet should be censored.
Demographic differences. Younger respondents, respondents without children, and those who spend
more than two hours per day using the internet were significantly more likely to oppose internet
censorship compared to older respondents, those with children, and respondents who spend less time
using the internet. Reflecting this, younger participants in focus groups, as well as those without children,
generally expressed greater confidence in using the internet and felt comfortable navigating content.
Some suggested that the internet should continue to provide freedom of expression and remain
uncensored. These respondents argued that it is up to the individual to avoid content they may find
offensive and that individuals should accept the inherent risks associated with internet use.
Parents on the other hand, expressed greater unease about undesirable material on the internet,
particularly for children, and felt that not enough was being done to police online content.
Regulating coarse content. Despite the disparity of opinions on whether online content should be
regulated, the majority of respondents agreed it is difficult to regulate coarse language on the internet.
Some focus group participants noted that self-selection plays an important role and a large degree of
responsibility falls to the user or parent to avoid undesirable or offensive content.
ATTITUDES
internet 47
X.
Warnings and classifications
A.
Survey results
This chapter explores respondents‟ views in relation to warnings and classifications for media content.
The majority of respondents (71%) agree it is more acceptable for a program to contain coarse language
if there is classification information or warnings beforehand. Most respondents (64%) also agree it is more
acceptable for a program to contain coarse language if it is broadcast in an appropriate timeslot.
Half of all respondents (50%) agree that it is more acceptable for a program to contain coarse language if
there are established audience expectations.
DISAGREE
It is more acceptable for a program to contain
coarse language if there is classification
information or warnings beforehand
20%
51%
10%
11%
6%
2%
coarse language if there are established
audience expectations
10%
40%
20%
19%
6%
4%
coarse language if it is broadcast in an
appropriate timeslot
16%
48%
14%
13%
6%
2%
NOT SURE
NEITHER
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
TABLE 19 – WARNINGS AND CLASSIFICATIONS
FIGURE 10 – WARNINGS AND CLASSIFICATIONS
100
80
6
11
10
%
19
6
13
14
20
60
40
6
51
48
Not sure
Disagree strongly
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Agree strongly
40
20
20
0
It is more acceptable for a
program to contain coarse
language if there is
classification information or
warnings beforehand
10
16
It is more acceptable for a It is more acceptable for a
program to contain coarse program to contain coarse
language if there are
language if it is broadcast in
established audience
an appropriate timeslot
expectations
Agreement (the total percentages of strongly agree and agree) with all three statements was significantly
higher among younger respondents (see Table 21).

The large majority (85%) of respondents aged 18-25 years agree it is more acceptable for a program
to contain coarse language if there is classification information or warnings beforehand compared
with 56% of those older than 65 years
WARNINGS
and classifications 48

Most (65%) of respondents aged 18-25 years agree it is more acceptable for a program to contain
coarse language if there are established audience expectations compared with 40% of those older
than 65 years

The majority (78%) of respondents aged 18-25 years agree it is more acceptable for a program to
contain coarse language if it is broadcast in an appropriate timeslot compared with 47% of those
older than 65 years.
TABLE 20 – AGREEMENT (STRONGLY AGREE/AGREE) BY AGE OF RESPONDENTS
B.
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
OLDER
THAN
65
YEARS
coarse language if there is classification
information or warnings beforehand
85%
80%
77%
71%
63%
56%
coarse language if there are established
audience expectations
65%
59%
51%
49%
44%
40%
coarse language if it is broadcast in an
78%
76%
73%
63%
58%
47%
Overall summary
Warnings and classifications affect the acceptability of coarse language in media content. Survey
respondents generally agree it is more acceptable for a program to contain coarse language where
to contain coarse language if it is broadcast in an appropriate timeslot. Younger respondents generally
expressed greater agreement with these findings.
Focus group participants similarly indicated the value of warnings and classifications and provided insight
into how the level of notification necessary differs across media platforms. Warnings and classifications
were considered desirable for television in particular, as they provide viewers with the information they
need to make informed decisions about what to watch and in this regard may prevent unintentional
exposure to coarse language. Most focus group participants felt that warnings should be provided on
radio when coarse language is likely to be used, but that radio need not be subject to the same level of
classification as television. The use of warnings and classifications for internet media was thought to be
challenging and not always desirable.
There were mixed views in the qualitative research concerning the adequacy of the current classification
and warnings system. Some felt that the current system was sufficient and not in need of change, whilst
others were more critical. Some felt that the current warnings were too generic and would have preferred
greater specificity. Smaller numbers of participants suggested that warnings may be used too frequently
on soft material, thus reducing their credibility, and that warnings can have the unintended consequences
of promoting and attracting children and young people to adult content.
WARNINGS
and classifications 49
XI.
Who should be responsible?
A.
Survey results
This chapter explores respondent‟s views regarding who should be responsible for ensuring adults and
children are not exposed to offensive or inappropriate media content.
Respondents were asked their views on who should be responsible for making sure an adult does not
see or hear coarse content on television, radio and the internet they may find uncomfortable or offensive.
In relation to who should be responsible for making sure an adult does not see or hear coarse content on
television/radio, the highest proportion of respondents (39%) said it is equally their own responsibility and
the broadcasters responsibility. More respondents (36%) said the responsibility was totally/mainly their
own compared with those who said the responsibility was totally/mainly the broadcasters (23%).
The majority of respondents (57%) felt that responsibility for avoiding offensive coarse language on the
internet rests primarily with the individual. Some respondents (27%) said the responsibility is shared
equally between the individual and the broadcaster, and only 13% of respondents said the responsibility
rests primarily with the broadcaster.
Where do you think the responsibility lies for making
sure that an adult does not see or hear coarse
language content on TV/radio they might find
uncomfortable or offensive?
Where do you think the responsibility lies for making
sure that an adult does not see or hear coarse
language content on the internet they might find
uncomfortable or offensive?
DON‟T KNOW
TOTALLY THE
BROADCASTERS
MAINLY THE
BROADCASTERS
EQUALLY THEIR
OWN AND THE
BROADCASTERS
MAINLY THEIR
OWN
TOTALLY THEIR
OWN
TABLE 21 – RESPONSIBILITY FOR CENSORING ADULTS’ EXPOSURE TO
COARSE LANGUAGE ON TELEVISION, RADIO AND THE INTERNET
19%
17%
39%
14%
9%
3%
34%
23%
27%
7%
6%
5%
Respondents were also asked their views on who should be responsible for making sure a child does not
see or hear coarse content on television, radio and the internet that might be unsuitable for someone their
age. Respondents most commonly said it was totally/mainly the responsibility of the child‟s
parent/guardian (45%). Slightly fewer respondents (40%) said it was equally the responsibility of the
parent/guardian and the broadcaster.
WHO
should be responsible? 50
Where do you think the responsibility lies for
making sure that a child does not see or hear
coarse language content on TV, radio or the
internet that might be unsuitable for someone
their age?
27%
18%
40%
5%
DON‟T KNOW
TOTALLY THE
BROADCASTERS
MAINLY THE
BROADCASTERS
EQUALLY THE
PARENT/GUARDIAN AND
THE BROADCASTERS
MAINLY THE
PARENT/GUARDIAN
TOTALLY THE
PARENT/GUARDIAN
TABLE 22 – RESPONSIBILITY FOR CENSORING CHILDREN’S EXPOSURE TO
6%
2%
FIGURE 11 – RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADULTS AND CHILDREN’S EXPOSURE TO
Where do you think the responsibility lies for making sure a child
does not see or hear coarse language content on TV, Radio or the
Internet that might be unsuitable for someone their age?
27
Where do you think the responsibility lies for making sure that an
adult does not see or hear coarse language content on the internet
they might find uncomfortable or offensive?
18
40
34
Where do you think the responsibility lies for making sure that an
adult does not see or hear coarse language content on TV/radio
they might find uncomfortable or offensive?
23
19
0
27
17
20
5
39
40
7
14
60
80
6 2
6
9
5
3
100
%
Totally their ow n responsibility
Mainly their ow n responsibility
Equally their ow n and the broadcasters responsibility
Mainly the broadcasters responsibility
Totally the broadcasters responsibility
Dont know
B.
Overall summary
There were mixed views amongst survey respondents as to whose responsibility it is to ensure adults are
not exposed to coarse language in relation to the different media platforms.
Television and radio. In relation to television and radio, both the individual and broadcaster were
considered to be responsible. Some respondents considered the responsibility to be equally shared
between the individual and the broadcaster, whilst others thought responsibility was primarily the
individuals or primarily the broadcasters.
The internet. Opinions were far more unanimous however, in relation to responsibility for adult‟s
exposure to coarse language on the internet, with over half the respondents considering the individual to
be mainly or totally responsible for their own internet viewing. This view was also common amongst focus
group participants who saw self-regulation of internet content as important.
Children. Throughout the research, children were consistently identified by both survey respondents and
focus group participants as a group particularly in need of protection from coarse language in the media.
In terms of whose responsibility it is to ensure that children are not exposed to unsuitable coarse
language on television, radio or the internet, nearly half the survey respondents indicated that the parents
or guardians have the primary role in regulating children‟s media consumption. A similarly high proportion
WHO
of respondents considered the responsibility to be shared between parents/guardians and the
broadcaster.
In focus groups, parents were particularly concerned about children‟s exposure to coarse language in the
media. Many parents felt they were responsible and reported attempting to regulate their child‟s viewing,
but noted that the realities of modern life can make this difficult. Subsequently, program makers and
broadcasters also have a responsibility to ensure children are protected from unsuitable content.
WHO
XII.
The role of the media
A.
Survey results
This chapter explores general attitudes regarding the role of the media.
The large majority of respondents (80%) agreed that the media should uphold and maintain community
standards in relation to the use of coarse language, with only 6% of respondents disagreeing.
As shown in Table 23 below, at least half of all respondents disagree with the statements that:

it is OK when new programs push the boundaries of acceptability in relation to the use of coarse
language (54%)

it is OK for the media to contain coarse language because it reflects how people speak nowadays
(60%)

coarse language in the media should not be heavily censored as freedom of speech should not be
restricted (54%)
Around one in five respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with these three statements.
DISAGREE
It is OK when new programs push the
boundaries of acceptability in relation to
the use of coarse language
3%
17%
23%
34%
20%
1%
It is OK for the media to contain coarse
language because it reflects how people
speak nowadays
3%
18%
18%
37%
23%
1%
The media should uphold and maintain
community standards in relation to the
use of coarse language
32%
48%
14%
4%
2%
1%
Coarse language in the media should not
be heavily censored as freedom of
speech should not be restricted
5%
19%
20%
32%
22%
1%
NOT SURE
NEITHER
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
TABLE 23 – THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA
Table 24 shows agreement with these statements (total percentages of strongly agree and agree) by age
and parental status of respondents. More conservative attitudes towards the use of coarse language in
the media significantly increased with age and for those with children.
THE
role of the media 53
TABLE 24 – AGREEMENT (STRONGLY AGREE/AGREE) BY AGE AND PARENTAL STATUS
It is OK when new
programs push the
boundaries of acceptability
in relation to the use of
coarse language
It is OK for the media to
contain coarse language
because it reflects how
people speak nowadays
The media should uphold
and maintain community
standards in relation to the
use of coarse language
Coarse language in the
media should not be
heavily censored as
freedom of speech should
not be restricted
B.
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
OLDER
THAN
65
YEARS
WITH
WITHOUT
CHILDREN CHILDREN
31%
28%
24%
18%
14%
12%
16%
31%
31%
25%
19%
20%
19%
15%
17%
30%
75%
72%
79%
82%
82%
87%
83%
73%
34%
25%
24%
22%
25%
20%
20%
32%
Overall summary
Both survey respondents and focus group participants agree the media is influential in respect to
standards around the use of coarse language, and therefore identify the media as having a responsibility
to uphold and maintain community standards in this regard.
Approximately half of the survey respondents felt that the use of coarse language in the media is
acceptable when depicting modern life and how people speak nowadays. Some focus group participants
thought that media content should be more constrained compared with the language used in society,
whilst others felt that the media should reflect Australia‟s diversity and accurately reflect how we live
today.
There was less tolerance amongst survey respondents for programs to „push boundaries‟ in the use of
coarse language, with only one fifth of respondents considering it acceptable for media to do so. Focus
group participants held similar views, with some expressing concern and less tolerance for the media, in
particular commercial television networks, unnecessarily broadcasting sensational and gratuitous content
for self-gain.
On the other hand, some people do value innovation and risk taking and accept that progress will
inevitably offend some consumers.
THE
role of the media 54
XIII. Conclusions
Top-of-mind concerns. In relation to the use of coarse language on television, radio and online, top-ofmind concerns do exist, particularly for older respondents, who seem be reacting to the perceived general
increase in coarse content that has occurred over their lifetime, and parents, who are concerned about
protecting children from potentially harmful material.
No clear consensus. While there is some general level of concern for the use of coarse language on
television, radio and the internet, there is not a clear consensus on the specific type of coarse language
people find to be offensive. Definitions of coarse language are largely subjective. What is considered to
be coarse by one person may not be so by another.
Acceptability of certain words. At a basic level, coarse language can be defined simply in relation to the
words. The types of words considered to be least acceptable are those intended to insult, offend, and denigrate
people with a disability, or discriminate on the basis of their race, religion or sexual preference. Words
considered to be the most acceptable are those that relate to anatomy, bodily functions and sexual acts.
Contextual considerations. People‟s views of words that are unacceptable are not fixed but vary
according to contextual considerations. These contextual considerations include intent, tone and delivery,
the source of the language, the audience, the program genre and timeslot.
Words considered the least acceptable are those used in the context of vilifying or degrading someone or
a group of people either behind their back or to their face, insulting someone behind their back, or used
for shock value. Coarse language considered the most acceptable is that said accidentally or in
frustration, said in a joking or humorous manner, said in defence, or used to give emphasis or as an
exclamation.
Demographic differences. Attitudes of survey respondents towards the acceptable use of coarse
language in the media varied according to the demographic factors of age, parental status, gender and
educational attainment.
Program genre. There is a „time and place‟ for the use of coarse language in the media. Audiences
accept when coarse language is used for clear editorial purposes or contributes to the viewing experience
but dislike when it is used in an unnecessary, excessive or casual way. As such, the use of coarse
language is more acceptable in some program genres than in others.
Coarse language can be acceptable in drama when it contributes to the story line and provides credibility,
and in comedy when used to increase the humour and entertainment value. Coarse language is less
acceptable in news programs without justification, especially given that children may be watching. Many
agree that coarse language is less acceptable in reality shows when used as a method of shocking the
audience and that reality shows set a bad example in terms of the use of coarse language.
Television. The overwhelming majority of respondents who had seen or heard offensive coarse language
in the past six months nominated television as the source. The impact of coarse language on television
was considered to be greater due to the visual element. Concerns were often raised about the slippage in
adult themes and language creeping into early evening and family viewing timeslots.
Standards relating to the use of coarse language were thought to differ across television networks. The
ABC seems to be held in high regard, when compared with other networks. Many identified the ABC as
the network that should be most responsible in regulating coarse language. Compared with other
networks, the ABC was considered to have the highest standards and to be in least need of improvement.
Therefore, while people have high expectations of the ABC, it appears these expectations are being met.
Radio. Coarse language is perceived to occur less frequently on the radio and the language used on the
radio is generally viewed as suitable for the intended audience. Because it occurs less frequently, coarse
language on the radio has the potential to be more shocking because listeners are less prepared for it.
CONCLUSIONS
55
Standards relating to the use of coarse language were thought to differ across radio stations. Most people
were unsure which radio stations currently have the most programs containing coarse language or need to
most improve their content. Most people were also unsure which radio stations currently have the highest
standards in terms of regulating the use of coarse language. Of those who did identify a station, triple j was
generally seen as the station with the most programs containing coarse language and as most in need of
improvement. However, despite this, triple j was not identified as needing to be most responsible and the
highest proportion of respondents said triple j should be a free and independent environment where higher
levels of coarse language may exist. ABC Local Radio and Radio National radio were identified as have the
highest standards in regulating coarse language, compared to other stations.
The majority of respondents agree that it is not appropriate for radio hosts to use coarse language;
however there is greater tolerance for people calling in and to a lesser extent, guests. Most people
express a desire for warnings to be issued prior to the airing of songs that contain potentially offensive
material.
Internet. Most agree that the internet operates by different rules than other media platforms. A much
wider variety of content exists on the internet, including a considerably greater amount of explicit material.
There was not a consensus view as to whether coarse language on the internet should be censored.
Younger respondents and respondents without children were significantly more likely to oppose internet
censorship compared to older respondents or those with children. Parents in particular expressed unease
about exposure to undesirable material on the internet, mainly in regard to children, and some felt that not
enough was being done to police online content. Most agree that it is difficult to regulate coarse language
on the internet. Therefore, self-selection plays an important role and a large degree of responsibility falls
to the user or parent to avoid undesirable or offensive content.
Warnings and classifications play an important role in considerations of the acceptable use of coarse
language in media content. It is more acceptable for a program to contain coarse language where
to contain coarse language if it is broadcast in an appropriate timeslot.
Warnings and classifications are considered desirable (for television in particular) as they provide viewers
with the information they need to make informed decisions about their media consumption and help to
prevent unintentional exposure to coarse language. There were mixed views concerning the adequacy of
the current classification and warnings system. Some felt the current system was sufficient while others
expressed a desire for further clarity and specificity in relation to the context in which coarse language
was used.
Responsibility. In relation to who should be responsible for ensuring adults are not exposed to coarse
language, views vary according to the media platform. The individual and the broadcaster are both
considered responsible for ensuring adults are not exposed to offensive material on television and radio.
While most indicated that the individual is mainly responsible for ensuring they are not exposed to
offensive material on the internet.
Throughout the research, children were consistently identified as a group particularly in need of protection
from coarse language in the media. In terms of whose responsibility it is to ensure that children are not
exposed to unsuitable coarse language on television, radio or the internet, many indicate the parents or
guardians have the primary role in regulating children‟s viewing, while a similarly high proportion
considered the responsibility to be shared between parents/guardians and the broadcaster.
The role of the media. The media is seen as influential in respect to standards around the use of coarse
language, and therefore as having a responsibility to uphold community standards in this regard. Some
said the media also needs to reflect the diversity of Australian society and has a responsibility to
accurately reflect how we live today.
There is limited tolerance for programs which push the boundaries of acceptability in relation to the use of
coarse language, when done so sensationally or unnecessarily to shock audiences or pursue ratings and
commercial gain. Having said this, some people do value innovation, risk taking and boundary pushing
and accept that this may sometimes result in some people being offended. Participants may not advocate
for offensive content to be taken off air, rather it is important for programs to have sufficient warnings and
broadcast in an appropriate timeslot so they can be avoided by those who do not wish to be exposed.
CONCLUSIONS
56
XIV. References
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) (2009). Taste, Standards and the BBC: Public attitudes to
morality, values and behaviour in UK broadcasting. BBC, London.
Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (2005). Taste and Decency: A review of national and international
practice. Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, Dublin.
Broadcasting Standards Authority (2006). Freedoms and Fetters: Broadcasting Standards in New
Zealand. Published by Dunmore Publishing for the Broadcasting Standards Authority, Wellington.
Broadcasting Standards Authority (2010). What Not to Swear: The Acceptability of Words in
Broadcasting, research conducted by Neilson New Zealand for the Broadcasting Standards Authority,
Wellington.
Commonwealth of Australia (2008). The effectiveness of the broadcasting codes of practice, The Senate
Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts, Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra.
Eccleston, R (2008). Warning: Contains coarse language, The Australian, June 2008.
Livingstone, S & Das, R (2009). Public Attitudes, Tastes and Standards: A Review of the Available
Empirical Research. Report prepared for the BBC, London.
Loncar, T (2010). Community Attitudes to Radio Content, Research report prepared for the Australian
Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), Canberra.
Millwood Hargrave, A (2000). Delete expletives? Research undertaken jointly by the Advertising
Standards Authority, British Broadcasting Corporation, Broadcasting Standards Commission and the
Independent Television Commission, http://www.itc.org.uk/uploads/Deleted_Expletives.pdf, accessed
March 2010.
Office of Communications (Ofcom) (2005). Language and Sexual Imagery in Broadcasting: A Contextual
Investigation, Research study conducted by The Fuse Group on behalf of the Office of Communications,
London.
Office of Communications (Ofcom) (2010). Audience attitudes towards offensive language on television
and radio, Research study conducted by Synovate on behalf of the Office of Communications, London.
Ramsay, G (2003). The Watershed: Providing a Safe Viewing Zone. British Broadcasting Corporation,
Broadcasting Standards Commission and Independent Television Commission, London.
Robinson, J (2009). BBC viewers relaxed about swearing on TV and radio, The Observer, May 2009.
Spratt, M (2004). Community Attitudes towards Media Classification and Consumer Advice, Office of Film
and Literature Classification, Sydney.
TNS (2003). Understanding community attitudes to radio content, research prepared for the Australian
Broadcasting Authority (ABA).
Voxy.co.nz., Public Attitudes to Swearing on Air Softening: Survey, http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/publicattitudeswearing-air-softening-survey/5/43265, accessed March 2010, Digital Advanced Limited,
Wellington.
REFERENCES
57
Appendix 1: Composition of focus groups
APPENDICES
58
The composition of focus groups was designed to capture a representation of relevant demographics.
State: Groups were held across five states and territories including New South Wales, Queensland,
Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory.
Location: Groups were conducted in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan locations.
Gender: The focus groups included male, female and mixed groupings of participants.
Socio-economic status (SES): Participants were recruited from low, low-medium, medium, medium-high
and high background.
Age and life-stage: Groups were conducted with participants across various life-stages, including; young
people (aged 14-18 years), single people with no children, married people with no children, parents with
children under 12 years, parents with children aged 13-19 years, parents with children aged 20 years and
over still living at home, and „empty nesters‟ aged 55-70 years of age.
Religion: One or two participants with identified religious affiliations were deliberately recruited for each
focus group. In addition to this, one group in Sydney was undertaken with people who self-identified as
z
Muslim
Indigenous representation: One group was conducted with Aboriginal participants.
Viewing behaviour: A range of media engagement habits were represented in the groups. Each group had
a mix of light, medium and heavy users of television, radio and the internet. Subscribers to Pay TV were
also represented in each group.
TABLE 25 – DEMOGRAPHICS AND MAKE-UP OF FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS
GROUP
NO
LIFE STAGE
GENDER
SES
LOCATION
TYPE
LOCATION
1 „triad‟
Young people
16 and 17 years
Male
Med-High SES
Metro
Sydney NSW
2 „triad‟
Young people
15 and 16 years
Female
High SES
Metro
Sydney NSW
3
Single no children;
range of ages
Male and Female
Med SES
Metro
Sydney NSW
4
Family with children
under 12
Male
Med SES
Metro
Sydney NSW
5
under 12
Male
Low-Med SES
Regional
Port Macquarie
NSW
6
20+ still living at home
Male and Female
Med-High SES
Regional
Port Macquarie
NSW
7 „triad‟
Young people
18 years
Male
Low SES
Regional
Ipswich QLD
8 „triad‟
Young people
14-16 years
Female
Low-Med SES
Regional
Ipswich QLD
9
Empty nesters
55-70 years
Male and Female
Low-High SES
Metro
Brisbane QLD
10
13-19 years
Male and Female
Med-High SES
Metro
Brisbane QLD
z
This was to make some preliminary considerations of Muslim people as they are a growing demographic in Australian society. To
date, little research has been conducted with this demographic in relation to attitudes towards the use of coarse language.
APPENDICES
59
11
Married no children;
range of ages
Male and Female
Med-High SES
Metro
Melbourne VIC
12
13-19 years
Male and Female
High SES
Metro
Melbourne VIC
13
Single no children
Male and Female
Low-Med SES
Regional
Ballarat VIC
14
Married no children
Male and Female
Low-Med SES
Regional
Ballarat VIC
15
13-19 years
Male and Female
Low-Med SES
Regional
Kangaroo Island
SA
16
Empty nesters
55-70 years
Male and Female
Low-High SES
Regional
Kangaroo Island
SA
17
under 12
Male and Female
Med SES
Metro
Darwin NT
18
20+ still living at home
Male and Female
Low-Med SES
Metro
Darwin NT
APPENDICES
60
Appendix 2: Survey questionnaire
APPENDICES
61
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TOWARDS COARSE LANGUAGE IN THE MEDIA
QUANTITATIVE SURVEY – FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Introduction
This survey is about attitudes towards the use of coarse language in the media. The findings of this survey
will help form a picture of Australian Community standards in relation to the use of coarse language on
television, radio and online.
Coarse language refers to swear words or other words that people may find to be rude, vulgar or offensive.
Should you have any concerns about the survey, please feel free to contact Wesley Hill at the following
address [email protected]
To ensure that participants to the survey are representative of the Australian adult population, we need to
commence the survey by asking you some screening questions. Should you screen out during this section it
may mean that you don‟t match the specifications of the survey - for example aged 18 years and over or
alternatively, that the quotas for your demographic have already been filled.
APPENDICES
62
Part A
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
Screening questions
Are you…
1
Male
2
Female
How old are you?
1
Younger than 18 years
2
18-25 years
3
26-35 years
4
36-45 years
5
46-55 years
6
56-65 years
7
Older than 65 years
8
Rather not say
What state/territory do you live in?
1
Australian Capital Territory
2
New South Wales
3
Northern Territory
4
Queensland
5
South Australia
6
Tasmania
7
Victoria
8
Western Australia
9
Outside Australia  thank and close
And do you live in…
1
Capital city
2
Other major urban centre
3
Regional / Rural town
Do you have any children (including step children)?
1
Yes
2
No
b) If yes, are any of these children… (Select all that apply)
1
Aged under 12 and living with you all/some of the time
2
Aged 12-17 and living with you all/some of the time
3
Aged 18 or older and living with you all/some of the time
4
None of the above
APPENDICES
63
Part B
B1
B2
Top of mind concerns
In the last 6 months have you seen or heard coarse language on television, radio or the
internet that you found to be offensive?
1
Yes (go to QB2)
2
No (go to QB4)
3
Don‟t know (go to QB4)
Where did you see/hear the language? (Tick as many that apply)
1
TV
2
Radio
3
Online
B3
Could you briefly describe the time you watched/heard coarse language in the media that
most concerned you? RECORD AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE REGARDING WHAT WAS
SEEN OR HEARD AND IMPORTANTLY WHETHER IT WAS ON TV, RADIO OR THE INTERNET
AND THE TIME OF DAY.
B4
To what extent are you concerned with the following?
Very
Somewhat
Not very
Not at all
Don‟t
concerned
concerned
concerned
concerned
know
a) Swearing or coarse language on TV
1
2
3
4
9
b) Swearing or coarse language on the radio
1
2
3
4
9
c) Swearing or coarse language on the
internet
1
2
3
4
9
APPENDICES
64
Part C
C1
General questions
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Agree
strongly
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Disagree
strongly
Not sure
a) You seem to hear a lot more
coarse language today in public
than you used to
1
2
3
4
5
9
b) You seem to hear a lot more
coarse language today in the
media than you used to
1
2
3
4
5
9
C2
Agree
strongly
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Disagree
strongly
Not sure
a) It is OK when new programs
push the boundaries of
acceptability in relation to the use
of coarse language
1
2
3
4
5
9
b) it is OK for the media to contain
coarse language because it
reflects how people speak
nowadays
1
2
3
4
5
9
c) The media should uphold and
maintain community standards in
relation to the use of coarse
language
1
2
3
4
5
9
d) Coarse language in the media
should not be heavily censored
as freedom of speech should not
be restricted
1
2
3
4
5
9
APPENDICES
65
Part D
D1
Factors shaping attitudes towards the use of
coarse language
I’m going to read out a number of factors that people have previously identified as
contributing to shaping attitudes towards the use of coarse language in society. To what
extent do you feel they have contributed using the scale [READ OUT SCALE]?
Contributed
strongly
Contributed Contributed
somewhat
slightly
Hasn‟t
contributed
Don‟t know
a) Generally we have a more open
minded/liberal society
1
2
3
4
9
b) Political correctness (i.e. not causing
offence)
1
2
3
4
9
c) The broadcasting of coarse language
in media content
1
2
3
4
9
d) The decreased influence of religion in
modern society
1
2
3
4
9
e) Multiculturalism (i.e. the influence of
ethnic diversity on words considered to
be acceptable or not acceptable)
1
2
3
4
9
f) Explosion of media technologies (e.g.
Pay TV, DVD‟s, video games, Internet)
1
2
3
4
9
g) Changing attitudes and behaviours
relating to sex and sexual relations
1
2
3
4
9
h) Decrease in family interaction and less
supervision of children
1
2
3
4
9
1
2
3
4
9
i)
The rise of social media (e.g.
YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Blogs)
APPENDICES
66
Part E
E1
How acceptable is the use of coarse words on TV, radio and online when used in the
following contexts?
Not at all
Not very
Mostly
Always
acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable
Don‟t know
a) When used to insult someone to their face
1
2
3
4
9
b) When used to insult someone behind their
back
1
2
3
4
9
c) When used to vilify or degrade someone/a
group of people to their face
1
2
3
4
9
d) When used to vilify or degrade someone/a
group of people behind their back
1
2
3
4
9
e) When used for shock value (e.g. celebrities
using coarse language to attract publicity)
1
2
3
4
9
f) When used casually or as part of everyday
conversations
1
2
3
4
9
g) When said accidentally or in frustration (e.g.
when somebody stubs their toe)
1
2
3
4
9
h) When said in defence (e.g. as a reaction to
bullying)
1
2
3
4
9
i)
1
2
3
4
9
j)
When used to give emphasis or used as an
exclamation
1
2
3
4
9
APPENDICES
67
Part F
Coarse language on television
F1
The following questions relate to the use of coarse language on television.
F2
How many hours per day would you say you spend watching television?
F3
F4
1
Less than 2 hours per day
2
2-3 hours per day
3
More than 3 hours per day
Which television channels do you most watch? (Tick as many that apply)
1
ABC
2
SBS
3
Commercial free to air (e.g. Channels 7,9 and 10)
4
Pay TV
5
None
Agree
strongly
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Disagree
strongly
Not sure
a) Coarse language on television
has a greater impact than other
media due to the visual element
(i.e. when said with aggressive
body language, facial
expressions, acts of violence etc)
1
2
3
4
5
9
b) Coarse language on television is
less shocking because the visual
clues allow audiences to better
judge the situation and predict if
coarse language is going to occur
1
2
3
4
5
9
c) Pay TV content should not be
restricted as subscribers
consciously select the channels
and programs they buy
1
2
3
4
5
9
F5
Thinking of the different TV channels and the content of their programs, which of the
following do you think ………… (Select as many TV channels that apply)
ABC TV SBS TV
Commercial
Free-to-air
TV e.g.
7/9/10
Pay TV
None of
These
Don‟t
Know
a) Currently have the most programs
containing coarse language?
1
2
3
4
5
6
b) Currently have the highest standards in
terms of regulating the use of coarse
language?
1
2
3
4
5
6
c) Need to most improve their content in
terms of the use of coarse language?
1
2
3
4
5
6
d) Should be the most responsible in
regulating coarse language?
1
2
3
4
5
6
e) Should be a free and independent
environment where higher levels of
coarse language are permissible?
1
2
3
4
5
6
APPENDICES
68
Part G
Coarse language on the radio
The following questions relate to the use of coarse language on the radio.
G1
G2
How many hours per day would you say you spend listening to the radio?
1
Less than 2 hours per day
2
2-3 hours per day
3
Do you listen to……? (Tick as many that apply)
1
G3
Non commercial youth stations egTriple J
2
Commercial youth stations
3
Commercial music stations
4
Commercial talkback stations
5
ABC Radio National
6
ABC Local Radio
7
None of These
Agree
strongly
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Disagree
strongly
Not sure
a) The language used on radio is
usually suitable for its audience
1
2
3
4
5
9
b) Coarse language occurs less
frequently on the radio compared
with television
1
2
3
4
5
9
c) The use of coarse language can
be shocking on the radio because
it is less expected
1
2
3
4
5
9
d) The use of coarse language on
the radio has less of an impact
because the radio is often on in
the background
1
2
3
4
5
9
e) The use of the occasional coarse
word on radio is expected from
people calling in
1
2
3
4
5
9
f) The use of occasional coarse
language on radio is expected
from guests
1
2
3
4
5
9
g) It is not appropriate for radio
hosts to use coarse language
without justification
1
2
3
4
5
9
h) Content aired during times when
children are likely to be listening
should be handled carefully
1
2
3
4
5
9
It is acceptable for songs
containing coarse language to be
played on youth radio stations
1
2
3
4
5
9
Warnings should be issued for
songs containing coarse
language
1
2
3
4
5
9
i)
j)
APPENDICES
69
Agree
strongly
k) It is acceptable for coarse
language to be used on radio
stations if the intended audience
is not likely to take offence
G4
1
Agree
2
Neither
3
Disagree
Disagree
strongly
4
Not sure
5
9
Thinking of different radio stations and the content of their programs, which of the following
do you think …………. (Select as many radio stations that apply)
Youth
Radio/
Triple J
Commercial
youth
stations
Commercial
music
stations
Commercial
talkback
stations
ABC
Radio
National
ABC
Local
Radio
None of
These
Don‟t
Know
a) Currently have the
most programs
containing coarse
language?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
b) Currently have the
highest standards in
terms of regulating the
use of coarse
language?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
c) Need to most improve
their content in terms
of the use of coarse
language?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
d) Should be the most
responsible in
regulating coarse
language?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
e) Should be a free and
independent
environment where
higher levels of coarse
language may exist?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
APPENDICES
70
Part H
Coarse language on the internet
The following questions relate to the use of coarse language on the internet.
H1
H2
H3
How many hours per day would you say you spend using the internet?
1
Less than 1 hour per day
2
1-2 hours per day
3
Which types of internet sites do you visit the most? (Tick as many that apply)
1
Social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, MySpace etc)
2
YouTube
3
Google/Yahoo Search
4
Blogs
5
News/current affairs/information sites
6
TV sites
7
Music/radio sites
8
Other (Specify) …………………..
Agree
strongly
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Disagree
strongly
Not sure
a) When it comes to the use of
coarse language the internet
operates by different rules
1
2
3
4
5
9
b) It is very difficult for coarse
language on the internet to be
regulated
1
2
3
4
5
9
c) The internet should be a space
where freedom of speech
prevails, coarse content should
not be censored
1
2
3
4
5
9
APPENDICES
71
Part I
I1
Program Genre
To what extent do you agree with the following statements relating to different program
genres?
Agree
strongly
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Disagree
strongly
Not sure
Drama
a) The use of coarse language is
acceptable in drama shows when
used to provide credibility or
portray a real life situation
1
2
3
4
5
9
b) The use of coarse language is
acceptable in drama shows when
it contributes to the story line or
character development
1
2
3
4
5
9
c) The use of coarse language is
acceptable in reality and factual
programs because there is a
large amount of spontaneous and
unscripted content
1
2
3
4
5
9
d) The use of coarse language is
acceptable in reality and factual
programs when it is used by real
people in real life situations of
stress, anger or frustration
1
2
3
4
5
9
e) Coarse language is less
acceptable in reality shows when
used as a method of shocking the
audience
1
2
3
4
5
9
f) Reality shows set a bad example
in terms of the use of coarse
language
1
2
3
4
5
9
g) It is less acceptable for news
presenters to use coarse
language without justification
1
2
3
4
5
9
h) It is acceptable that people being
interviewed on news programs
may occasionally use coarse
language
1
2
3
4
5
9
On news programs, it is
acceptable that coarse language
may sometimes be inadvertently
broadcast
1
2
3
4
5
9
It is less acceptable for coarse
language on news programs
because children may be
watching
1
2
3
4
5
9
1
2
3
4
5
9
1
2
3
4
5
9
Reality and Factual Programs
News and Current Affairs
i)
j)
Comedy and Satire
k) It is acceptable for coarse
language to be used for humour
in comedy shows
l)
Too much coarse language in
comedy shows can detract from
their humour
APPENDICES
72
Part J
J1
Warnings and classifications
Agree
strongly
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Disagree
strongly
Not sure
a) It is more acceptable
for a program to
contain coarse
language if there is
classification
information or
warnings
beforehand
1
2
3
4
5
9
b) It is more acceptable
for a program to
contain coarse
language if there are
established
audience
expectations
1
2
3
4
5
9
c) It is more acceptable
for a program to
contain coarse
language if it is
broadcast in an
1
2
3
4
5
9
J2
Where do you think the responsibility lies for making sure that an adult does not see or hear
coarse language content on TV/radio they might find uncomfortable or offensive?
1
totally their own responsibility
2
mainly their own responsibility
3
equally their own and the broadcasters responsibility
4
mainly the broadcasters responsibility
5
totally the broadcasters responsibility
6
J3
don‟t know
Where do you think the responsibility lies for making sure that an adult does not see or hear
coarse language content on the internet they might find uncomfortable or offensive?
1
totally their own responsibility
2
mainly their own responsibility
3
equally their own and the publishers responsibility
4
mainly the publishers responsibility
5
totally the publishers responsibility
6
don‟t know
APPENDICES
73
J4
Where do you think the responsibility lies for making sure a child does not see or hear
coarse language content on TV, Radio or the Internet that might be unsuitable for someone
their age?
1
totally the responsibility of the parent/guardian
2
mainly the responsibility of the parent/guardian
3
equally the responsibility of the parent/guardian and the broadcasters
responsibility
4
mainly the broadcasters responsibility
5
totally the broadcasters responsibility
6
don‟t know
APPENDICES
74
Part K
Coarse words
The following questions relate to different types of coarse words.
K1
How acceptable is it for the following types of coarse words to be used on TV, radio or
online - using a scale where 1 equals unacceptable in all circumstances through to 5
acceptable under any circumstance.
Acceptable
Unacceptable
in all
circumstances
1
2
3
under any
Don‟t
circumstances
know
4
5
a) Coarse words relating to
1
2
3
4
5
9
b) Coarse words relating to sexual
preference
1
2
3
4
5
9
c) Coarse words relating to a person‟s
disability
1
2
3
4
5
9
d) Coarse words relating to anatomy and
bodily functions
1
2
3
4
5
9
e) Coarse words relating to anatomy and
sexual acts
1
2
3
4
5
9
f) Coarse words relating to gender
1
2
3
4
5
9
g) Coarse words relating to religion
1
2
3
4
5
9
APPENDICES
75
Part L
Demographics
Before we finish, here are a few questions about you just to make sure we have a good sample of
people from across Australia.
L1
L2
Which best describes your marital status?
1
Single
2
Married or de facto
3
Divorced, separated, widowed
4
Rather not say
a) Are you currently in paid work?
1
Yes – permanent full time (35+ hours per week)
2
Yes – permanent part time (up to 34 hours per week)
3
Yes – casual
4
No  Go to QL3
5
Rather not say
b) (If in paid work) Which of the following best describes your occupation?
L3
1
Manager or administrator
2
Professional (eg doctor, architect, solicitor etc)
3
Para-professional (eg police, nurse, technician)
4
Tradesperson (eg plumber, carpenter, electrician)
5
Clerical / secretarial
6
Sales rep / store salesperson / personal services (eg waiter)
7
Machine operator / driver
8
Labourer / storeperson / unskilled
9
Other (please specify
)
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
1
University qualification
2
Trade/technical qualification
3
Some university/college/TAFE study, but not complete
4
Higher School Certificate / Year 12
5
School Certificate / Year 10
6
Some high school / primary school
7
None of these
8
Rather not say
APPENDICES
76
L4
a) Do you regularly speak any languages other than English at home?
1
Yes
2
No, English only  Go to QL5
b) What language/s do you speak most often (apart from English) at home?
L5
L6
1
Arabic
2
Cantonese (Chinese)
3
Greek
4
Italian
5
Korean
6
Mandarin (Chinese)
7
Portuguese
8
Spanish
9
Tagalog (Filipino)
10
Turkish
11
Vietnamese
12
Other (please specify
)
Do you identify as being Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander?
1
Yes, Aboriginal
2
Yes, Torres Strait Islander
3
Yes, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
4
No
5
Prefer not to say
Which of the following best describes your religious belief?
1
Buddhism
2
Christianity
3
Hinduism
4
Islam
5
Judaism
6
Other religions
7
No religion
8
Prefer not to say
APPENDICES
77
Appendix 3: Profile of survey respondents
APPENDICES
78
The survey had a total of 2,201 respondents.
GENDER
There was an equal representation of respondents by gender, with 50% being male and 50% female.
AGE OF RESPONDENTS
The survey was only administered to adult respondents (those aged 18 years and older). Table 35 outlines
the spread of respondents according to age. Of the 2,201 respondents, the highest proportion (20%) was
older than 65 years, followed by those aged 36-45 years (19%).
The lowest proportion of respondents was aged 18-25 years (12%).
TABLE 26 – AGE OF RESPONDENTS
18-25 years
12%
26-35 years
17%
36-45 years
19%
46-55 years
17%
56-65 years
15%
Older than 65 years
20%
LOCATION
As shown in Table 36, respondents resided in all Australian States and Territories. Greatest representation
was from New South Wales (30%), Victoria (25%) and Queensland (20%).
Forty five percent of respondents lived in a capital city, 23% lived in a major urban centre, and 32% lived in
a regional/rural town.
TABLE 27 – RESPONDENT’S STATE OR TERRITORY OF RESIDENCE
Australian Capital Territory
2%
New South Wales
30%
Northern Territory
1%
Queensland
20%
South Australia
10%
Tasmania
3%
Victoria
25%
Western Australia
10%
RELATIONSHIP AND FAMILY STATUS
Respondents were most commonly married or in a de facto relationship (65%), followed by single (21%),
and less commonly divorced, separated or widowed (14%).
Sixty eight percent of all respondents were parents. Of these, 34% have children aged under 12 years who
live with them all/some of the time, 23% have children aged 18 or older living with them all/some of the time,
and 18% have children aged 12-17 years living with them all/some of the time.
APPENDICES
79
TABLE 28 – MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENTS
Single
21%
Married or de facto
65%
Divorced, separated, widowed
14%
Rather not say
1%
TABLE 29 – RESPONDENT’S WHO HAVE CHILDREN (INCLUDING STEP CHILDREN)
Yes
68%
No
32%
TABLE 30 – AGES OF CHILDREN
Aged under 12 and living with you all/some of the time
34%
Aged 12-17 and living with you all/some of the time
18%
Aged 18 or older and living with you all/some of the time
23%
None of the above
38%
EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Respondents were most commonly not currently in paid work (42%), followed by permanent full-time work
(32%), permanent part-time work (13%), and casual work (11%). Of the 56% of respondents who said they
were currently in paid work, the highest proportions worked in manager or administrator jobs (17%),
clerical/secretarial jobs (17%), and para-professional jobs (16%).
In relation to the highest level of education completed by respondents, nearly half had a tertiary qualification
with 26% completing a university qualification and 21% completing a trade/technical qualification. 19% of
respondents had less than a Year 12 level of education.
TABLE 31 – EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF RESPONDENTS
Yes permanent full time (35+ hours per week)
Yes permanent part time (up to 34 hours per
week)
Yes casual
No
Rather not say
32%
13%
11%
42%
2%
TABLE 32 – OCCUPATION TYPE
Manager or administrator
Professional (e.g. doctor, architect, solicitor etc)
Para-professional (e.g. police, nurse, technician)
Tradesperson (e.g. plumber, carpenter, electrician)
Clerical / secretarial
Sales rep / store salesperson / personal services (e.g.
wait
Machine operator / driver
Labourer / storeperson / unskilled
Other
17%
13%
16%
8%
17%
14%
3%
10%
2%
APPENDICES
80
TABLE 33 – HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION COMPLETED BY RESPONDENTS
FREQUENCY
University qualification
Trade/technical qualification
Some university/college/TAFE study, but not
complete
Higher School Certificate / Year 12
School Certificate / Year 10
Some high school / primary school
None of these
Rather not say
573
465
26%
21%
372
17%
351
284
128
7
21
16%
13%
6%
0%
1%
RELIGIOUS BELIEF
Respondents were asked to identify what best describes their religious belief (see Table 43 below).The
majority of participants (58%) indicated a belief in a religion. The most commonly identified religious belief
was Christianity (49%). 39% of respondents said they had no religious belief.
TABLE 34 – RELIGIOUS BELIEF OF RESPONDENTS
Buddhism
Christianity
Hinduism
Islam
Judaism
Other religion
No religion
Prefer not to say
2%
49%
1%
1%
1%
4%
39%
4%
LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME
Eleven percent of all respondents regularly spoke a language other than English at home. Languages other
than English most commonly spoken by participants included: Greek, Italian, Cantonese, Mandarin,
German, Arabic and „other‟.
TABLE 35 – LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH SPOKEN AT HOME
Yes
No, English only
11%
89%
TABLE 36 – OTHER LANGUAGES SPOKEN
FREQUENCY
Arabic
Cantonese (Chinese)
Greek
Italian
Korean
Mandarin (Chinese)
Portuguese
Spanish
Tagalog (Filipino)
Turkish
Vietnamese
13
21
23
21
2
15
1
10
10
3
10
APPENDICES
81
Other
German
French
Hindi
Dutch
Malay
Serbian
Russian
Indonesian
65
14
9
8
6
6
4
4
4
IDENTIFICATION AS AN ABORIGINAL AND/OR TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER
Of the total 2,201 respondents, 23 (1%) said they identify as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait
Islander background.
TABLE 37 – IDENTIFICATION AS AN ABORIGINAL AND/OR TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER
FREQUENCY
Yes, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait
Islander
No
Prefer not to say
23
1%
2145
33
97.5%
1.5%
APPENDICES
82

REPORT: Quality Assurance 01

Transcription

Similar documents

Mathew Hall, Peter Hegedüs, Josip Maras, Marco Mori, Zoltán

CX31 new catalog

information on the Nutrimill Classic Grain found here!

WD 2.500 M

PROMOTION CRITERIA EMPLOYED IN PARASTAT ALS: A CASE

youth participation in national agenda through new media

Do Mobile Respondents Differ from Online Survey

Survey Solutions with a Human Touch

International Issues 1