Pattison is the new Director of Mediawatch-UK, an organisation best known for earwigging the number of naughty words used in the British media, and calling for bans of all manner of things it deems offensive. It was founded by the late Mary Whitehouse, and it was originally named the National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association, appealing mainly to Christian voyeurs and eavesdroppers. It changed its name to Mediawatch in 2001, the year in which the professional prodnose died aged 91. The ludicrous John Beyer then took over as it head.
It also inspired the launch of the highly-regarded Mediawatchwatch which has the apt slogan: Watching. Pointing. Laughing.
Pattison, previously an Account Director at Midas Public Relations:
Will be building on the work of her predecessors and providing an independent voice for those concerned about taste and decency issues.
One of Pattison’s first tasks, we assume, is to attract more visitors to Mediawatch’s ailing website, which receives around 1,300 visitors a month, down from 1,750 in March 2006. Contrast that with the number of visits the Freethinker blog has been receiving since the beginning of 2009: about 4,600 a DAY!
Anyway, Pattison managed to get her name in print when she backed Tory MP Julian Brazier, who wants the movie Saw VI banned.
The certificate 18 movie, which, like its predecessors, has grisly scenes of murder and torture, is set for release at Halloween.
However, local authorities are able to block films and Tory MP Julian Brazier has urged them to do so.
The British Board of Film Classification is passing more and more violent films. But councils do have the power to ban such films and I welcome any taking this tough line.
However Sue Clark of the BBFC sensibly retorted:
We believe adults should be free to choose their own entertainment.
Pattison got her penny’sworth in the Daily Express over Saw VI:
Studies link exposure to film violence with violent behaviour. If there is the slightest chance that media violence can cause harm is it worth the risk?
This prompted the Melonfarmers to point out that it is:
Always worth considering parallels with religion. Studies link exposure to religion with violent behaviour. If there is the slightest chance that religion can cause harm, is it worth the risk?