Common rules of protection” “

The need to foster periodic exchanges of data, promote research, and disseminate “good practices” already tested by the national agencies dedicated to the protection of children was expressed at the European meeting of the Committee for the protection of minors in TV, held in Rome on 9 January. The meeting reviewed and compared the activities conducted in various countries (France, Holland, Sweden, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Ireland) and permitted an exchange of “educational responses” that, according to the psychologist Vera Slepoj, “represent our prime responsibility towards those who are growing up and who absorb all the stimuli proposed to them”. THE ROLE OF THE EU COMMISSION. “We register a strong consensus throughout Europe about the need to protect juveniles in their exposure to television. But new frontiers are also emerging: risks linked to the new media, including the Internet, from which children also need to be protected”, says MARCEL BOULOGNE, of the executive of the information society of the European Commission. In his address to the seminar, he explained the guidelines of the EU executive in the phase of revising the Directive “Television without Frontiers”. “The EU must have a harmonized legislative framework: we need to insist on self-regulation, and increase good practices, including the use of protected time slots and pictograms”, the symbols that indicate whether a programme is suitable for minors. “But that’s not enough – adds Boulogne -. Different cultural expressions are present and generational differences also emerge in Europe: it’s therefore difficult to establish what is tolerable or not in one country rather than another. What is certain however is that we must protect minors by involving families and educators”. THE INTERFERENCES OF ADVERTISING. “In Norway we consider advertising in television as dangerous as violence or a distorted view of sex. That’s why we are focusing attention on commercial interferences and their negative repercussions on young children”, says INGVIL CONRADI ANDERSEN, of the Norwegian Media Authority, one of the speakers at the “TV and Minors” symposium. She lists a series of initiatives that Norway has taken “in a field directly involved in the growth of our children”. “We have banned television commercials that interrupt programmes for children and any form of sponsorization of these transmissions”. In Holland the Nicam system was activated in 2001, in a deal struck between the government and mass media companies: “There’s strong social concern about the repercussions of TV and of the other media. We monitor – explains MARGO DE WAAL, managing director of the Nicam company – the products destined for TV, cinema, dvd, videogames and mobile phones: the risks arise everywhere with the proliferation of technology. We classify products by age groups and indicate their suitability for viewing to the public. In this process however it’s important to appeal to the role of parents”. BANKING ON CULTURE. HACK KAMPMANN, of the Swedish Broadcasting Commission, says: “We are interested in sharing the experiences and problems of others, to understand what may or may not be acceptable to defend children from the intrusion of television”. Denmark on the other hand considers itself the “enfant terribile” of TV in Europe. “Our television programming is rather liberal – explains BIRGITTE TUFTE, commissioner of the competent watchdog in Copenhagen – and a child may see any film so long as he/she is accompanied by an adult”. Denmark is therefore banking on the role of parents and educators. “On the other hand we think that culture ought to be an essential element in what we propose to the young. In Ireland, with the Children’s Advertising Code, “efforts are made to curb the power of commercial messages. We have introduced simple rules that have been requested by the public itself – says MARGARET TUMELTY, of the Broadcasting Commission –. For example, it is prohibited on our channels to advertise dietary products during the afternoon hours; and sports and showbusiness personalities are banned from advertising consumer products for children”. GROWING CHALLENGE OF REALITY SHOWS. SOPHIE JEHEL, of the Commission for the Protection of Minors in France, confirms many of the concerns expressed by her European colleagues and adds the fears relating to reality shows. These are becoming “ever more numerous, they have a big following and propose languages, attitudes and lifestyles that cannot in many cases be recommended”. But controlling what is transmitted live 24 hours a day “seems extremely difficult”. PIERMARCO AROLDI, of the Catholic University in Milan, points out that “today the traditional problem areas of television, such as violence and sex, are flanked by new themes such as human dignity, anti-social behaviour, abuse, fear and commercial exploitation”. That’s why “the criteria for assessing programmes for purposes of rating” must involve the public and families in particular.