Offensive language and the media

The UK’s media regulator Ofcom has just published research on public attitudes to swearing and offensive language, reported in the guardian . 
They basically conclude that homophobic and ableist terms are acceptable whereas swearing isn’t.

…Ofcom acknowledged [the] softening of attitudes as it published research giving detailed guidance on public tolerance of bad language: "loony", "nutter", "poof" and "queer" can be used at any time of day while the F-word remains unacceptable before the watershed [of 9pm], it concluded.

The watchdog commissioned the research to help staff who deal with complaints from the public about TV and radio content by establishing "a barometer of potentially offensive terms".

My major problem with this is the entire approach taken by this research.  Really, is what the public deems an offensive term, the basis on what derogatory terms should be allowed or disallowed?  What about the actual impact that these words have on people who are queer or have a mental illness.  What about the message that the media is sending to the public about homophobia and ableism being ok.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t advocate the absolute ban on words such as "loony", "nutter", "poof", or "queer".  They are not always used in a ableist or homophobic context, and there are people who self-identify as these terms (including myself as queer).  And they are also sometimes used in a positive context within the media. 

But in most cases that is not how these words are used – it’s not that rare for these words to be used casually on chat shows and shows for example.  And the Guardian were quite happy to follow Ofcom’s advice and print the words "looney", "nutter", "poof", and "queer" but not "fuck"; even though all these words were being using in the same context of analysing media language.  (n.b. the part of the online version containing swear words was omitted from the print version).

Also Ofcom seems to be ignoring the issue that the media has an impact upon people’s tolerance of particular words, mean that media attitudes (past and present) are a factor in what is deemed offensive.  For example, historically the media has tended to avoid swear words far more than derogatory words.  Ofcom even describes the least offensive terms as "well known" words.  And so, to an extent, Ofcom’s conclusions can be interpreted as "the media should continue doing whatever its done before, because the public is used to it"

The attitude of the Ofcom of using people’s tolerance of language as a barometer when dealing with complaints,  is very much inline with the rhetoric of the media itself.  So often arguments about acceptability of language are reduced to the single issue of offending people.  Constantly papers such as the Daily Mail moan about "political correctness gone mad" – that people and organisations are being forced to censor their language because it might offend somebody.

But that is not the issue at stake.  I’m not bothered about being offended; when compared with the harassment, bullying, poverty,  assaults and rapes that occur as a consequence of ableism, homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism and classism.  The Daily Mail et al should censor its language because the media does have a significant impact on public attitudes towards these things, and take responsibility for this power they wield.  But of cause its not in their interest to do so since a predominately white, male, middle-class media does have a vested interested in maintaining the status-quo.  Using "political correctness gone made" arguments and dismissing criticism as purely an issue of offending people is a convenient defense for them.