Home Politics & Debate
Ongoing maintenance - the boards are undergoing some ongoing, intermittent maintenance. Pages might load slightly slower than usual and there may be very short periods where the boards are offline.

Why aren't BBC/ITV/C4 etc giving trigger warnings?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
During the news viewers are given many different warnings - of flashing lights, of disturbing images etc, but why are they not giving out trigger warnings especially when reporting thing to do with violence -in particular, sexual violence? I was watching a BBC news report about the savile case - and most of time, they are very matter of fact and don't go into the details of what he did to people. But on this report they did, they interviewed one of his victims where he was attacked in the 1960s, and he gave (albeit slightly vague) details of what Savile did to him. That was enough to trigger me, and I tried to make a complaint (but the bbc never have made it easy for people to do so!).

But should all TV programs be made by law to give out warnings like they do for flashing lights and disturbing images?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can see where you're coming from. But where would it end with the warnings?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, definitely!

    I hate the news for stuff like that, I don't watch it anymore, but say I'm with someone else who's watching it I notice they never give warnings.

    A lot of the TV programmes I watch too, they don't always give warnings and sometimes I'm like 'uh, great'.

    I can understand it wouldn't be easy to complain to the BBC, good for you for trying though!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well I think its pretty fair to give warnings of sexual violence like they do when they show images of someone being beaten up or their face afterwards. Its not warnings for everything in any sense, its just helping vunerable people protect themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure about this. Triggers are personal, and maybe it should be up to the viewer to decide to not watch if the topic is on something they may find triggering?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would hazard a guess that the general outline of a story would allow someone to judge whether there may or may not be a potential for trigering. Yet I also imagine that sometimes people dont always get triggered by the same things either. Sadly, if we went down the route of putting a warning on ever single little bit of possible triggering (and I have known people trigger over the most random of things), then it would be more simple to just not have the news.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought that they usually had warnings? E.g. 'some viewers may find this upsetting'
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought that they usually had warnings? E.g. 'some viewers may find this upsetting'

    :yes: a lot of programmes do have warnings like that.
  • Annaarrr!!Annaarrr!! Noob Posts: 876
    I think the warnings they give are enough tbh
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,156 Skive's The Limit
    I've seen warnings about disturbing content for all sorts of things on the news. You have to strike a balance between warning people and wrapping people in cotton wool.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with G-raffe. surely the general outline of the story that they give before they go onto the full report should let you know whether you want to turn it over or not. they can't warn about everything.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The problem lies with the consistency of the warnings - if they give them for some reports with similar content then they need to give a warning for all reports with similar content. I'm just talking for reports of sexual assaults and such. And if I left the room every time there was a report I'd end up not being in the living room for most of the evening. But of I'm given a warning at least I'm informed and can make a choice to take the chance or turn over or mute it. Sometimes there are very nondescript reports which are written as to reduce the potentially triggering material. But the way they actually edited the piece it just seemed damaging for the victim involved who was obviously shaken by being there and recounting the events as well as potentially triggering for others. And yes I'm aware that people can be triggered by the most random of things but I think hearing someone recount historic sexual abuse would be triggering for almost anyone who had had similar experiences - which according to stats is 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men, which is a huge proportion of our population.

    I'm not saying we should wrap everyone in cotton wool but if the warnings had a little more consistency those affected would be able to make better choices.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How long before we end up with warnings before Art Attack and Blue Peter because "this show contains images of scissors some people may find disturbing"? Or before Jamie Oliver's Pukka Effing Scran 5000 because "this shows contains images of knives being used which some viewers may find upsetting".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I expect they don't give warnings because it would very quickly become absurd. The flash photography warning is given because there's a very simple link between people seeing such things and fitting. The links between X and some possible reaction that someone could have to X would be a lot less defined.

    As others have mentioned, you can't protect everyone from everything. I personally don't want to have to sit through a prescribed "warning" text that someone reads before every programme just because its content might upset someone. The usefulness of such warnings is also highly debateable if it would become so commonplace that folk would just ignore it. As a case in point, consider how much attention is giving to pre-flight safety announcements.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How long before we end up with warnings before Art Attack and Blue Peter because "this show contains images of scissors some people may find disturbing"? Or before Jamie Oliver's Pukka Effing Scran 5000 because "this shows contains images of knives being used which some viewers may find upsetting".

    I admit I'm inclined to agree.

    I normally don't use the slippery slope argument but it's such a subtle one with triggers; they're deeply personal. It's the same with triggers on the internet - if you just put "trigger warning" that's totally useless, much more useful to make it very clear what you're taking about and then people can see the triggers coming (you could also include a warning but really if it's clear what will be discussed it might not be necessary)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    piccolo wrote: »
    I admit I'm inclined to agree.

    Don't sound so reluctant! :D
    I normally don't use the slippery slope argument but it's such a subtle one with triggers; they're deeply personal. It's the same with triggers on the internet - if you just put "trigger warning" that's totally useless, much more useful to make it very clear what you're taking about and then people can see the triggers coming (you could also include a warning but really if it's clear what will be discussed it might not be necessary)

    I'm not sure it's even a slippery slope argument. The warnings that are currently in place - on the news for example - aren't there to mitigate people who are "triggered"; warnings are in place to give fair notice of strong content coming up. If you start taking being "triggered" explicitly into account when giving warnings then the myriad of triggers people suffer from would make virtually everything a potential trigger and, as Mist says, render warnings completely useless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I read the news on line so I can ignore the stories that may upset me. I don't think trigger warnings should be on the TV, it's generally very clear what a programme is about and you can always change the channel if it looks like the content will be upsetting.
    One of my major triggers is fire, it'd be ridiculous of me to expect every programme containing fire to come with a warning. I'm also triggered by sexual abuse etc and even though it's a more common content to be upset by I think it's down to the viewer to make sensible choices in what they watch.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    . I don't think trigger warnings should be on the TV, it's generally very clear what a programme is about and you can always change the channel if it looks like the content will be upsetting.

    Agreed. There's a medical programme I used to watch on TV and it would have a warning about how this programmes contain graphic content. I would have been somewhat surprised if the programme didn't contain graphic content.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its never clear whats going to be in the news though! if it was people wouldn't watch it, and it would be called new-s!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Miss_Riot wrote: »
    Its never clear whats going to be in the news though! if it was people wouldn't watch it, and it would be called new-s!

    I don't watch the news at all. I find it too upsetting and triggering for various reasons.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Miss_Riot wrote: »
    Its never clear whats going to be in the news though! if it was people wouldn't watch it, and it would be called new-s!

    *It is quite late and night and I'm not sure this is going to make sense*

    Surely then, if they gave an accurate warning of what is coming up, would that then not be just being given the news. At which point we would have to have triggered warnings about the trigger warnings (thinking back to your original post).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Miss_Riot wrote: »
    Its never clear whats going to be in the news though! if it was people wouldn't watch it, and it would be called new-s!

    That's why I read it online. Can pick and choose the stories you feel comfortable reading.
Sign In or Register to comment.