Trigger Warnings

It's not just soaps though. Lots of programmes have trigger warnings. Interestingly, many repeats of things that went out without comment in the 70s and 80s now have warnings about offensive content, which is usually unacceptable language.

As I remember it, swearing was less acceptable then than now, but racially insensitive language was standard, and attitudes to women were jaw-dropping. I saw a repeat of Auf Wedersehn Pet, which I remember loving back in the day, and was quite shocked. All of which suggests that it at least some of the warnings are maybe to pre-empt complaints - if there has been a warning you can choose not to watch if you are going to be upset by 'attitudes of the day', and the channels can argue that you did so with informed consent.

I don't know - are we becoming more sensitive? People like Mary Whitehouse used to argue that if TV continued to show things of which she disapproved we would all become savages, but the reverse seems to have happened.

I'm with Germanshepherdsmum.
Ditch the warnings. And then the simple answer is, - if you don't like it, switch off.

PS On the other hand, totally irrelevant, I'm against Gransnet contributors who give themselves extremely long and complicated names. Or perhaps I should say I'm against the names - not the owners!

Total nannyism.

Snakes. I wish there were trigger warnings for snakes. My DH has the most severe snake phobia. It would help if before a wildlife programme someone would say " there are snakes in tonight's programme". DH is ok with programmes about the polar regions or under sea, but his tension with any other areas is palpable.

That's an interesting point, Lizbethann. The trouble, of course, is that people have phobias about different things, so we could end up with a list of possible triggers - buttons, clowns, the number 13 etc, and there'd be no time for the programmes . Maybe one day we'll be able to program our tv so that we get personalised warnings.

I've read that trigger warnings are one of the first steps to psychologically condition the public to accept direction from a higher power, and not question it.
Possible or not?

With Coronation Street's current storylines of a rape charge; someone being plied with drugs to take over her business, another character who has MND, and another character having acid thrown over them - there would need to be enough trigger warnings to stop you watching the show.

Where is the humour which used to feature so strongly in this soap?

Fanny Cornforth, I read the Daily Mail, too. I get fed up with trigger warnings on vintage films and programmes that are much more innocent than many modern ones. The same with traditional texts that A level and university students read. They have often been exposed to far more via social media than many of us could imagine. Whatever has happened to people being able to make up their own minds and having educated discussions?

I think there should be far fewer trigger warnings, except in those circumstances where something could not have been remotely anticipated. If I watch "Father Brown" I will expect a different treatment of violence and crime scenes to those I'll likely encounter in "Happy Valley". It shouldn't be beyond the wit of adults to research a little before reading or watching content. It won't work in every situation, but would for the greater part. Too many trigger warnings have diluted their worth. The 100% exception is the flashing lights warning frequently given on, for example, news bulletins.
I can appreciate warnings for adults to observe in the case of PG films etc. Parents will have a pretty good idea of the tolerance level of their own children.

Namsnanny

I've read that trigger warnings are one of the first steps to psychologically condition the public to accept direction from a higher power, and not question it.
Possible or not?

Interesting.

How does that work? People accepting that the things they are told are 'triggers' are things worth getting worried about? I can see how that's possible, yes.

'This programmes contains scenes of workers' exploitation and greedy shareholders' doesn't feature often, does it?

Rosie51

I think there should be far fewer trigger warnings, except in those circumstances where something could not have been remotely anticipated. If I watch "Father Brown" I will expect a different treatment of violence and crime scenes to those I'll likely encounter in "Happy Valley". It shouldn't be beyond the wit of adults to research a little before reading or watching content. It won't work in every situation, but would for the greater part. Too many trigger warnings have diluted their worth. The 100% exception is the flashing lights warning frequently given on, for example, news bulletins.
I can appreciate warnings for adults to observe in the case of PG films etc. Parents will have a pretty good idea of the tolerance level of their own children.

That's exactly my view, Rosie.

I would only keep the flashing lights warnings which are vital for people with some forms of epilepsy.

I've watched Corrie for 60 years and the acid attack upset me. I didn't see it about to happen. I am taking a breakfast as there are so many depressing plots at the moment and none of the usual light hearted stuff.

*break not breakfast, far too late for that.

Some people should have bit of empathy. A few seconds warning before a show doesn't hurt anyone of a robust disposition, yet some people may be triggered by a programme which has content about ,for example, suicide, when they have had been personally impacted by suicide and would rather not watch it. - so they are informed. What harm does that do?

It's a 3 second warning

Do not see the problem with it. Some programmes describe what the scene may contain but are general enough not to spoil.

Many people watch programmes with their children around, the brief warning allowed you to decide if its suitable to watch right now without the whole programme having an age rating or being on later in the day.

Some people do get triggered by certain scenes. I can very easily allow them a brief moment to decide if they want to continue.

It barely affects me in any way at all, cannot complain

But they rarely explain what content viewers might find upsetting so it’s meaningless.

The ones I have seen have given a general idea

I can recall a day when a warning ‘of sexual content’ meant I’d try and watch it 🙂

I’m old and grumpy on trigger warnings. I dislike the term, it feels infantilising.
Film categories are helpful when choosing movies for grandchildren. TV programmes after 9 May include swearing and violence. If we don’t like it, don’t watch it or turn it off
Like others, I rather enjoy the ‘contains smoking’ warning. Is the risk we’ll be transported back to the 60’s and 70’s and take up smoking again?

Oh dear, what has happened to Corrie? Bring back Ena I say!

CoolCoco

Some people should have bit of empathy. A few seconds warning before a show doesn't hurt anyone of a robust disposition, yet some people may be triggered by a programme which has content about ,for example, suicide, when they have had been personally impacted by suicide and would rather not watch it. - so they are informed. What harm does that do?

No harm in that instance, but what if the suicide happens on 13th of the month, and someone is wearing buttons, and there is a spider or a snake in a tank in the room? Or there is a car crash, or someone vomits, or dies of something that a viewer has a fear of? So many things can be triggering. And what if the suicide comes at the end of the programme, and knowing it's going to happen ruins the impact?

I'm not being flippant - I just don't see how everyone's fears can be covered without ruining programmes.

Options:

Do something

Do nothing

Neither options cause any kind of inconvenience generally

For the most part I don't mind them. I do find them helpful on the news, since I can not watch if I choose. These ones are verbal warnings usually, for graphic footage.

Doodledog, maybe, just maybe, Gransnet will benefit from a bit of flippancy. It’s impossible to warn everybody about any possible ‘trigger’
Is it too much to ask that if we think a programme isn’t for us, we don’t watch it

I stopped watching Corrie about 12 years ago. It was another miserable wretched 12 year old pregnant, giving birth alone story that tipped me over the edge. I’d loved the mix of pathos/tragedy/murder/laughter that used to be guaranteed. When it became for me, a misery fest I gave up. It didn’t ‘ ‘trigger’ me, I just got fed up.