- Audiences more tolerant of swearing but less accepting of discriminatory language
- Ofcom adopts new approach to audience-led offensive language ratings
Viewers and listeners say they find discriminatory language more problematic than swearing on TV, radio and on-demand services according to Ofcom's latest attitudinal study.
When it comes to broadcasting potentially offensive content, participants in our research recognise that there is a balance to be struck, weighing freedom of expression against a responsibility to protect audiences – particularly children and vulnerable groups – from harm.
The report reveals a clear distinction between modern audiences’ general attitudes to swearing versus discriminatory language. Many participants reported frequently seeing or hearing swear words in day-to-day life, leading to greater tolerance towards them in programmes. Participants also felt that offensive words can be an important way of creating dramatic impact, bringing humour, reflecting real life, or even educating audiences.
That said, people still expect broadcasters to use offensive language responsibly, particularly when it comes to protecting children, and to ensure audiences have sufficient control to make informed choices about what they watch and listen to.
Audiences expect strong protections against discriminatory language
While tolerance for swearing in programmes has gradually increased over time in line with societal shifts, audiences maintain that broadcasters should provide strong protections against harmful language which demeans or discriminates against particular individuals or groups.
Participants felt that discriminatory language can often reinforce negative stereotypes, with offensive terms relating to race, nationality and ethnicity among those considered least acceptable. Discriminatory language relating to sexual orientation and gender identity and physical and mental health conditions was also considered especially sensitive by participants.
Views on reclaimed language were divided, with some seeing it as empowering and others believing it risks normalising offensive terms. Other participants raised concerns that people were increasingly criticised or judged for using terms that may previously have been considered acceptable.
Context matters
Participants recognised that the acceptability of offensive language is rarely determined by words alone, with audiences taking a range of other important contextual factors into account.
The intent or motivation behind the language emerged as one of the strongest influences on perceptions of acceptability. Participants also considered the platform or channel, time of broadcast, genre, the identity of the speaker and the presence of warnings, apologies or bleeping as import factors in shaping acceptability.
Expectations between different broadcasters and channels vary. The BBC was held to particularly high standards, while some channels were expected to be more challenging or boundary-pushing. Participants were generally more accepting of offensive language on on-demand channels, where they felt they had actively chosen the content.
Strong protections for children but more flexibility for post-watershed programmes
Despite changes in the way people are consuming content, many participants continue to view the watershed as an important safeguard to protect children from harm and a clear marker for audience expectations.
With this in mind, we are changing our approach to classifying potentially offensive words and phrases in our ‘Quick Reference Guide’ for broadcasters.
As in previous years, this year’s study involved asking participants to assign acceptability ratings to a list of potentially offensive words and phrases.
Under our new approach, each term will be assigned both a pre-watershed and a post-watershed rating, reflecting audience feedback. This recognises that participants often had different views about the acceptability of the same term depending on the time of broadcast and the likely audience.
This revised, more nuanced approach ensures broadcasters have a fuller picture of audience attitudes towards the use of offensive terms when children are more likely to be watching, while affording them greater flexibility in post-watershed programming aimed at adults.
Together with the primary research findings, this will help broadcasters make editorial decisions about audience expectations of potentially offensive language and any steps they may need to take to protect viewers and listeners.
The findings will also support Ofcom's Content Standards and Enforcement team when considering cases involving potentially offensive language, while continuing to have full regard to freedom of expression.
Attitudes to potential harm from health and financial claims in programming
Separately, Ofcom has published research on audience attitudes to potential harm from health and financial claims in programmes, updating its understanding from previous research in 2017.
When participants considered potential harm in programmes they felt that the more credible a claim seemed, the more potential it had to cause harm. They considered credibility to be shaped by four main factors: who made the claim, how it was presented, where it was broadcast, and the audience reached. They were particularly concerned about claims that guaranteed specific outcomes.
Participants felt that personal responsibility should be balanced with broadcasters' duty of care. They expected broadcasters, especially public service broadcasters, to apply robust fact-checking and due diligence processes when presenting health and financial claims. They supported protections that help audiences make informed decisions, such as risk disclosures, presenter challenges and debate, and the presentation of alternative viewpoints.
Related content