Context and intent shape audience views on offensive language

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. 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.

For more information on the methodology and detailed findings, please see the full report: Public attitudes towards offensive language on television, radio and video-on-demand