Clive Hamilton is disappointed with the this week’s report by the Senate Committee charged with looking into how and if sexualised images of children in the media need to be regulated.
The Australia Institute’s report titled “Corporate Paedophilia”, was released in October 2006 and set off a tsunami of public concern, especially from parents and parent groups. Psychologists, criminologists and child development experts soon joined the fray with expert commentary about the damage being done as children are exposed to erotic imagery and behaviours.
The Senate Committee was set up in March this year and have just made their call – more self-regulation but no government regulation.
The Senate committee report, tabled in parliament yesterday, recommends a children’s television channel and a classifications system for magazines similar to that for television programs as two measures to combat sexualisation of children in the media.
Other recommendations include vetting of advertisements, for advertisers worried they are pushing the limits or for repeat offenders, and a call for broadcasters to review their classification of music videos.
The advertising industry continues to claim “We’re a responsible industry, we would never allow children to be sexualised. The system of self-regulation is working well.”
Some media academics who see no problem dismissed community anxiety as a “moral panic”, argue that children are “critical media consumers” and that exposure to erotic material helps them form “healthy sexual identities”.
In the Senate’s report, girls’ magazines such as Dolly and Girlfriend were singled out for criticism, with the report claiming that they played a central role in increased sexualisation of children.
“While all media target children, both in their content and through advertising children’s magazines, particularly those published for girls between the ages of 12 and 16, were identified in submissions as a particular source of sexualisation of children,” the report stated.
“Children were also thought to be influenced by the amount of sex-related content throughout such magazines — such as in articles on boys or celebrities and advertisements for clothes and mobile-phone screensavers — as well as the stereotypical images of girls and young women in advertising and content,” it said.
But the Government has not recommended harsher laws be introduced to monitor ads sexualising children, instead it has asked that self-regulation measures by bodies such as the Advertising Standards Board be increased.
Clive Hamilton writes “Instead of proposing even the mildest regulation to help parents control the tide of erotic imagery washing over their children, the Senate committee washed its hands of the problem, declaring it a ‘community responsibility’ and politely suggesting that the advertising industry might think about ways of allaying community concerns.”
Students studying Media Influence this year in VCE MEDIA might like to debate whether the sexualisation of children is occurring because of the failure of self-regulation. Is the answer government regulation? What are the pros and cons? Are these images having any measurable effect?
