A brief posting on the BBC's stance on their use of the term "Child Porn". The one organisation I no longer bother to complain to about this - hopefully the below will explain why.
In a nutshell they have no objection to using this phrase in their reporting as long as they also include "indecent images of children" somewhere else in the articles. Not sure why they think this acceptable - by their reasoning one could use the term n****r as well as long as you include the words "black person" - no sense I know, but one that they have used.
Below is a PDF from the BBC Trust complaints section, detailing my complaints and their responses. It is from page 41 to 44, so not that long. It is worth a read, below in blue, to see both my points and their (pretty rubbish to be honest) answers.
The complainant appealed to the Trust following the decision of the Head of Editorial Standards, BBC Trust, not to accept his complaint on appeal.
Complaint
Stage 1
The complainant contacted the BBC on 28 April 2011 to complain about the use of the phrase "child porn" in a BBC News Online headline. The complainant said that this was not an acceptable phrase as
"To suggest these are ‘porn’ implies both a mutual consent (non-existent) and legality, (again, non-existent)."
The complainant said this was an offensive expression and was not used by the child protection agencies.
BBC News replied, agreeing that "indecent images" might be a better term but adding:
"in headlines -where the number of characters we can use is limited –‘child porn’ is a widely-understood term and can be used as long as the story itself spells out the nature of the material or offence."
The complainant contacted the BBC again in June 2011 regarding another article which had the headline "Norfolk minister Philip Hilstrop sentenced over child porn". The complainant said this was both offensive and trivialising. He said that neither the courts nor the child protection agencies used this term and that he would like the BBC to stop doing so and to amend its style guide accordingly.
The BBC responded saying that, it understood the complainant’s preference for use of the term "indecent images" as a suitable description.BBC News Online thought it acceptable to use the expression "child porn" in headlines as long as the story itself spelt out the nature of the material or offence. The response said that the style guide is refreshed periodically and that the complainant’s comments would be borne in mind.
Stage 2
The complainant escalated his complaint to the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit on 28 June 2011, saying he had complained several times about the use of the term "child porn" and asking to see the BBC’s policy on this. He repeated his view that the term is offensive, and said that it has implications of having "child porn stars", implies mutual consent and a business interest, and trivialises and legitimises the offences as related to art. The complainant said the term in law is "indecent photographs or films of children" and that other media and the child protection agencies do not use the term "child porn".
The complainant repeated his statement that the BBC should review its style guide to reflect this.
The Head of the Editorial Complaints Unit replied on 7 July 2011. He said he would be considering specifically the second article the complainant had mentioned but that any finding might be expected to have general application. He said that he intended to consider the complaint as being about misleading content under the Accuracy guideline.
The Head of the ECU then responded substantively, saying that he had understood the complainant to be objecting to the use of the term on the grounds that it diminished the severity of the crime and implied consent or voluntary participation. However, the Head of the ECU said he had checked a number of sources and definitions and did not find
support for that view. He added that the principle that children could not give informed consent also militated against this view. The Head of the ECU concluded that for this reason he could not uphold the complaint.
The complainant replied, asking the Head of the ECU to respond to the specific points in the complainant’s first communication with him. The complainant asked the Head of the ECU to consult the links he enclosed and reconsider his decision.
Having visited the sites suggested by the complainant, the Head of the ECU said he agreed there was evidence some people found the term "child porn" offensive. He apologised for not specifically addressing each of the points the complainant had made originally but said this was because he thought them all a subset of the complaint as he had summarised it. He mentioned an Editor’s Blog by Mary Hockaday6, written in 2007, which addressed the very point the complainant was making and said he hoped this reassured the complainant that these matters were kept under consideration.
Appeal to the Trust
The complainant wrote to the BBC Trust on 21 August 2011, saying he had persuaded a number of media outlets to stop using the term "child pornography" or "child porn" and he hoped the BBC would stop doing so likewise.
The complainant said that "victims of this crime find this a deeply offensive term to use" and that "Paedophiles will always try to justify their actions to others". The complainant’s third reason was that:
"The actual crime, as detailed in the UK sexual offences act 2003, is ‘taking or making an indecent photograph of a child’."
The complainant said that taken in literal context, the words "child" and "porn" do not go together. He stated that a number of child protection agencies –such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Internet Watch Foundation, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, and Phoenix Chief Advocates –state that this is the incorrect way of referring to these images; primarily on the basis that it trivialises the crime committed.
The complainant noted that terms and language that are deemed acceptable change over time. He asked the Trustees to review the material and links he had attached and to conclude that the term should not have been or continue to be used by the BBC.
The BBC Trust’s Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser replied on behalf of the Head of Editorial Standards, explaining that the Trust does not adjudicate on every appeal that is brought to it, and part of the role of the BBC Trust’s Head of Editorial Standards is to check that appeals qualify for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees) under the Complaints Framework.
The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that the Head of Editorial Standards had read the relevant correspondence, and the articles in question, and had concluded that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and should not proceed to the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust.
The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser informed the complainant of the Head of Editorial Standards’ reasons for her decision.
She said that the Head of Editorial Standards understood that this is a matter the complainant felt very strongly about. She explained that in general the BBC is not
expected to ban specific words or phrases. In the case of the phrase "child porn", the Head of Editorial Standards believed the BBC was correct in the position it had explained to the complainant; that this is a phrase that is well understood by the public and that they are likely to appreciate that it signifies an act of abuse.
The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that the Head of Editorial Standards understood that for some people this is a particularly offensive term and acknowledges that the BBC should be sensitive to that.
The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser noted that the complainant had been directed to the Head of the Newsroom’s blog, and had included a link to it in his appeal. She said that the Head of Editorial Standards’ view was that the piece was thoughtful and explained the BBC’s view and the continued use of the phrase.
The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser noted that the headline on the article originally complained about had been changed to read, "Former West Yorkshire PC jailed for child sex offences". She also noted that the second article included a very clear explanation of what was meant by the phrase used in the headline:
"A Methodist minister from Norfolk has been given a four-month jail sentence suspended for two years after admitting possessing indecent images of children."
She explained that the Head of Editorial Standards therefore did not believe that there was a reasonable prospect of success for the appeal and did not propose to put it to the ESC.
The complainant replied with a request for the Trustees to review the decision of the Head of Editorial Standards not to proceed with his appeal.
The Committee’s decision
The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust, the response from the Trust’s Head of Editorial Standards, and the complainant’s appeal against the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision. The Committee was also provided with the Stage 2 response from the Editorial Complaints Unit.
The Committee noted that the complainant felt very strongly that the term "child porn" should not be used by the BBC, and it noted his reasons for this view. The Committee also noted the Head of Editorial Standards’ statement that the BBC is not expected to ban specific words or phrases. The Committee noted that the Head of the BBC’s Newsroom had addressed the issue raised by the complainant in her blog. The Committee was satisfied that the BBC had demonstrated that it was sensitive to the offence that the use of the phrase could cause, and that, while the BBC would not enforce a ban on the use of the word, it had removed it from the headline of the article about which the complainant originally complained and that context was given in the second article. The Committee agreed that there was not a reasonable prospect of success for this appeal.
The Committee was therefore satisfied that the decision not to proceed with the appeal was correct.
