Measuring the potential to cause offence in the media isn’t an exact science – but it is possible

Regulatory exercises are often about judging shades of grey – even the law is frequently much less black and white than we might like to imagine

It is good news indeed that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has announced changes to the UK Advertising Codes that will see harmful gender stereotypes banned in the future.

This comes on the back of various ads that caused outrage over the way they pigeonholed men and women into particular roles. Asda’s christmas advert a few years ago portrayed a knackered mother doing all the preparation for the family’s upcoming festivities: it drew 600 complaints from viewers.

The change follows a review which found evidence that harmful stereotypes can “restrict… choices, aspirations and opportunities”. If the new rules help to even the playing field, well amen to that.

Naturally, there will be a degree of subjectivity in judging whether the new rule has been broken. The regulation requires that advertisements “must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence”. Measuring harm and offence are not exact sciences.

But regulatory exercises are often about judging shades of grey – even the law is frequently much less black and white than we might like to imagine. And determining whether something is so offensive it breaches a written code is precisely what organisations such as the ASA are set up to do. Once a body of case law has been established, it becomes ever clearer what will – and what will not – fall foul of the required standards.

It is notable, however, that codes relating to journalistic content have generally avoided setting boundaries on “offensive” material. That is for two reasons: first, readers choose their news provider more actively than they choose what ads to look at; second, information might cause offence but be nonetheless important in the proper reporting of a news story; or be a crucial rhetorical element of a comment piece.

The Independent’s Code of Conduct hints at the dilemma. It makes clear that “we do not set out to offend the general reader”, reminding journalists to “consider how people will respond to our material”. But it is equally clear that “we should necessarily shy away from publication simply for fear that it might provoke a negative reaction in some quarters”.

In other words, we avoid the gratuitous, but we can’t guarantee that news – and views – might not sometimes leave readers angry, upset, or even outraged. And nor should we.

Yours,

Will Gore

Executive editor