For many years now, the 9pm watershed has protected young eyes from seeing scenes of sexual content, ‘foul language’ and scenes of a violent nature and although it is subject to be made stricter I do not think there is much point as programs such as the X Factor regularly show raunchy performances, BGT has recently had a Britney lookalike strip down to a thong and programs like Eastenders often show violent scenes.
Yes the watershed is useful as it stops the younger generation to be influenced, but children who are fans of pop idols Rihanna, Beyonce and many more can just go on YouTube and watch a video of their songs while wearing provocative clothing. Some songs even have taboo words in them and music videos can be viewed all the way throughout the day. It is impossible to stop children to somehow come across swearing, or other bad things as one way or another they will find out.
Programs like Eastenders are supposed to portray ‘realistic family situations’ where heated arguments may occur and if parents don’t want their kids to come into contact with this kind of ‘violent natured action’ then they shouldn’t allow their children to watch it. However some families are more lax on what their child can and can’t watch so a child might hear a word and as it is bad and new to them they will remember it. Then they will tell their friends and so on. It all depends on the parents attitudes and the children’s attitudes, a child could be intellectual and mature so could watch more of the shows but a child might fit the stereotypical ‘bad man’ persona and should not be aloud to watch certain programs. Also with children having their own mobile phones and laptops (now at an average age of 11) parents are not going to be able to monitor everything they look at, and truth be told – I’m sure they are going to come into contact with a lot worse should they have a laptop or mobile phone.
So overall I am debating whether the watershed is worthwhile, children could...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document