Opinion: Why Torchwood censorship is no bad thing

You've missed my point. It's not whitewashing-- it's removing explicit sex. I'm not saying the characters shouldn't kiss, that they shouldn't be in bed together-- in fact, that sort of stuff happens all the time on BBC 1 in EastEnders. what i AM saying is that the explicit over the top content that regularly occurs on Starz/HBO/Showtime has no place on the UK's widest audience channel that's funded by public money in a time slot that is barely beyond watershed.

The characters aren't changed fundamentally by not showing their private parts as it seems you are saying-- saying that would fundamentally change the characters is a gross overstatement.

I'm sorry but all you're displaying is an incredibly prudish attitude towards sex and nudity which I am 100% sure is not representative of the average British adult. Whilst I respect your personal opinion that to show nudity or sex constitutes "over the top content" it is absolutely not one shared by a great number of people, not only here but also across Europe. The argument that the BBC shouldn't show that sort of content because it is publicly funded is also a complete nonsense - it is perfectly within the BBC's remit to cater not only for those of a delicate or overly sensitive nature but also mature grown-ups who don't hold prudish or conservative views on perfectly normal, natural human behaviour, which applies just as much too mainstream BBC1 as it does to any other channel. I refer back to the point previously made that as long as "adult" content has been scheduled post-watershed the ball is then very firmly in the viewers' court - if you don't like something or know you will be offended by something then simply don't watch it.

I must say that I am frankly amazed to find a British gay-orientated culture website such as this putting forth such prudish, conservative-minded attitudes redgarding sexual content/nudity. If this were something coming out of the USA or non-Western country then I could understand the possible cultural difficulties with such content but I really don't recognise it being representative of modern, tolerant, liberal-minded Britain.

Whoa--  I'm not saying ban it all together, and i'm not being intolerant. I'm saying, from a strictly programming industry-minded-people-trying-to-make-a-living perspective, pick your time slot for your explicit content. And this was not the time slot for explicit content and therefore BBC quite rightly edited things.

And i'm sorry, I may be American, but isn't this uncensored Torchwood script/episode made in America, written by Americans and mostly paid for by Americans? I'd back off on the nationalistic bashing, please. If anything, your comments about Americans prove to me the existence of the unfortunate side of some liberals (and believe me, I am a liberal as well) and it is that tunnel vision that actually hurts progressive views in the mainstream.

I certainly didn't mean to come across as anti-American or to stereotype - I was simply trying to compare what seems to me to be a difference between what is largely culturally acceptable in the UK and Europe with other more culturally conservative countries such as the US. Don't get me wrong, I very much applaud the US-backers of this show, along with the other recent producers of more liberal-minded series.

What I am very much disagreeing with you on (as do many others from what I've read here and on other culture websites) is your attitude towards so-called "explicit" content and this idea that the only opinion that counts in "industry-minded" circles are conservative  ones. I think you do a massive disservice to the millions of UK adult viewers who are perfectly comfortable with "adult" content or themes, again assuming that the 9pm watershed is adhered to.

Hi Nosferatu

Without getting into a debate about the substantive point you raise about attitudes to sex, I do want to defend So So Gay against the argument that because we are a gay magazine - indeed, because Jamie is a gay man - we or he should be expected to hold any particular point of view about this issue. We publish our writers' points of view, without fear or favour; we are politically impartial and I wouldn't want anyone to think that a single opinion piece defines our editorial approach. The article is headlined 'Opinion' - and that's exactly what it is.

Andy
Editor-in-Chief

Hi Andy,

No offence or slander meant towards your website, I was just genuinely shocked to see an opinion piece like this posted here, considering the quite extreme and surprising viewpoint it puts forth (maybe blame my own naivity I guess). Of course I completely respect the author's right to hold such views, regardless of background or political persuasion. The only thing I would say is that this sort of article, with its quite narrow, political and arguably controversial viewpoint does at least appear to speak loudly on behalf of this website, especially as there doesn't appear to be anything else balancing or rebuffing it.

Without it being shown on US cable, this series wouldn't be made, so I'm not entirely sure how irrelevent it is. It's not simply being broadcast by Americans, it's being made by Americans.

Sorry I shoyuld have been clearer in that particular point - I meant that the show being made by Americans and screened in the US is irrelevant in terms of the UK broadcast being cut. Usually UK broadcasters can be relied upon to treat its adult audiences with a lot more respect than their normally much more prudish and conservative counterparts in the US but sadly this looks like quite a step backwards.

That's my point - if we need their money to pay for it, we should also get to see what they make.

I don't disagree with you Ade, but put it on the DVD release or on a repeat on BBC 3 at 10 o'clock, but I agree with their limited decision about its present time slot.

Now with Channel 4-- I agree with you. Queer as Folk had a place there. But that's because its remit is for alternative programming. Each over-the-air channel in this country has a different remit and explicit sex isn't in BBC 1s. If it wants to keep its funding, it needs to keep the most number of people happy.

The BBC's remit is to provide content for all audiences across its channels. Granted that the digital BBC channels have a very clear remit in terms of content and target audience but there is nothing that says that BBC1 can't or shouldn't screens shows for adult, liberal-minded audiences as long as it schedules them in an appropriate timeslot.

Just because the licence fee is currently controlled by a prudish, conservative-minded government doesn't mean the BBC should in anyway assume that the majority of its audience are like-minded "oh won't you please think of the children!" Mary Whitehouses.

Actually each channel has a separate remit-- i've actually been to Writers Guild Meetings with BBC In House Drama where each channel is discussed, they do separate them out significantly in content, style and audience.

Fair enough but that still doesn't mean that BBC1 shouldn't cater for grown-up liberal-minded audiences in terms of "mainstream" entertainment such as Torchwood as long as the timeslot is appropriate for the content. I understand that content that is rated "18" should normally only be shown after 10pm so in that regard I hope the uncut version at least gets a DVD release so we can see what the objective BBFC view of the content is.

I just find it very worrying that the BBC seems so willing sacrifice its integrity and that of the creatives making their shows due to fear of offending potentially prudish audiences.

At the end of the day we all have a choice over what we watch, this sort of censorship has no place in an institution with a reputation as high as the BBC.

Now, actually, I agree with you there. If the beeb were still censoring at 10 o clock, I would be troubled. If anything, it'd seem less homophobic if they'd show the uncut version on the latenight BBC 2 repeat. But I still don't think that the actual reasoning as the decisions were made had anything to do with being anti-gay in any sense of the word.

Oh yeah I agree that it probably doesn't have anything to do with homophobia (although I can very much understand people wanting to raise that issue with the BBC to make sure it wasn't the case), I would be appalled by the BBC censoring post-watershed content regardless of who or what it involved.