Thursday, January 25, 2007
Ofcom in Action
IMAGE ONE
Ofcom would not have a problem with this website, as it is in the context of sex education, and as the broadcasting code states, this is acceptable.
Broadcasting code:
1.17: Representations of sexual intercourse must not occur before the watershed, or when children are particularly likely to be listening, unless there is a serious educational purpose.
IMAGE TWO
As with the first image, Ofcom would not censor this image as it is acceptable to have detailed anatomical drawings in the context of sex education.
IMAGE THREE
The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) banned this image of Sophie Dahl in December 2000. As Ofcom took on the responsibility of the ASA, they would react to the hundreds of complaints in a similar fashion.
Like the ASA did, they would argue that the image was acceptable in women's magazines, as it would be suitable for the target audience, but was not appropriate for a poster campaign with the image emblazened on the streets for anyone to come across**
Broadcasting code:
1.18 Nudity before the watershed must be justified by the content.
IMAGE FOUR
This photograph by Kevin Carter would not be censored by Ofcom as long as it is fitting with the editorial it is broadcast in. Ofcom would encourage broadcasters to warn viewers that the image may be disturbing.
IMAGE FIVE
Ofcom does not have the power to ban films (unfortunately, though secretly we wish we did.) What would the BBFC do? Or “WWTBBFCD?”. Go to someone else’s blog for that answer my friends.
IMAGE SIX
Again we shall consult the broadcasting code...
Broadcasting code:
1.17: Representations of sexual intercourse must not occur before the watershed, or when children are particularly likely to be listening, unless there is a serious educational purpose.
With this in mind, I think that Ofcom would not have a problem with this image, as it promotes safe sex. However, I do think they would be wary of the context of the image. It would not, for example, be a suitable poster for a primary school.
Addendum:
Ofcom is wary of the presence of a ring on the lady’s index finger. This is the custom of a Jewish wedding ceremony (though granted, many women afterwards move it to the ring finger). However, Ofcom is concerned that the creator of this image is suggesting that Jews carry AIDS. This is of course a shocking thing to say, so Ofcom would like to further investigate the creator’s intention before coming to a final decision. The ring on the gentleman’s left hand also leaves something to be desired.
IMAGE SEVEN
Ofcom did not prevent broadcasters from showing the lead up to the execution of Saddam Hussein. However, they do not have any regulatory power over the internet, so the mobile phone video on Youtube has remained unregulated***
Ofcom had this to say about the matter:
"We are dealing now in continuums. Audiences have different expectations if they are watching BBC, Fox TV, or YouTube. Content regulation needs to evolve to address legitimate areas of public interest while also reflecting these different shades of expectation."
IMAGE EIGHT
MYRA HINDLEY by Marcus Harvey
The only part of the code which may be considered to have been breached is,
2.3 In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by context. Such material may include…humiliation,…violation of human dignity.
However due to the context of the piece in an Art gallery, where one may expect controversy and shocking images, I think Ofcom would have no problem with this image.
After all, Chris Morris got away with a song about Myra Hindley with the following lyrics:
“Every time I see your picture, Myra/I have to phone my latest girlfriend up and fire her/And find a prostitute who looks like you and hire her/Oh, me oh Myra,”
IMAGE NINE
Ofcom would not have the power, or indeed the desire, to regulate Gilbert & George’s shit. As with Marcus Harvey’s piece, in the context of an Art Gallery, people are to expect some sort of shit.
IMAGE TEN
This is a still from Imogen-Who-Was-Once-On-Big-Brother's sex video. Ofcom would not, as my friend suggests regulate it "phwoar", but would instead deem it unsuitable for broadcast, unless it was on a pay-per-view channel.
I am not sure of the entire content, but here's a little clue...
Ofcom signing off...
Sophie x
*Not the opinion of Ofcom, but of a rather loquacious Scriptwriting student.
**Pun very much intended.
***I did some “research” on Youtube, and though I am still anti-censorship, I found it terribly difficult to watch. But that’s just my crazy belief against execution.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Ofcom - Super Regulator
VICTORY!
“Ofcom aims to take a strategic and evidence-based approach to regulation”
Ofcom is responsible for regulating the content of Radio, Television, and Telecommunications in the UK. It began It’s reign in 2003, after the publication of the Government’s White Paper (2000), when it took over from the Independent Television Commission (ITC), the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel), the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC), the Radio Authority, the Radiocommunications Agency and the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA).
Ofcom encourages regulation through response to complaints, and their broadcasting code, available online here, for self-censorship.
“It is the responsibility of the broadcaster to comply with the Code.”
Ofcom has 6 specific duties:
1. Ensuring the optimal use of the electro-magnetic spectrum
2. Ensuring that a wide range of electronic communications services - including high speed data services - is available throughout the UK
3. Ensuring a wide range of TV and radio services of high quality and wide appeal
4. Maintaining plurality in the provision of broadcasting
5. Applying adequate protection for audiences against offensive or harmful material
6. Applying adequate protection for audiences against unfairness or the infringement of privacy
Ofcom also has principles, seven to be precise:
• Ofcom will regulate with a clearly articulated and publicly reviewed annual plan, with stated policy objectives.
• Ofcom will intervene where there is a specific statutory duty to work towards a public policy goal which markets alone cannot achieve.
• Ofcom will operate with a bias against intervention, but with a willingness to intervene firmly, promptly and effectively where required.
• Ofcom will strive to ensure its interventions will be evidence-based, proportionate, consistent, accountable and transparent in both deliberation and outcome.
• Ofcom will always seek the least intrusive regulatory mechanisms to achieve its policy objectives.
• Ofcom will research markets constantly and will aim to remain at the forefront of technological understanding.
• Ofcom will consult widely with all relevant stakeholders and assess the impact of regulatory action before imposing regulation upon a market.
- Examples -
Look4Love (Television Concepts Ltd)...
January 2007.
Ofcom decided that the licence held by Television Concepts Limited to provide the service known as Look4Love should be revoked. Ofcom also directed the
licensee to pay a fine of £175,000 (payable to HM Paymaster General).
Look4Love is a channel in the adult section of the Electronic Programme
Guide and was transmitted under the title “Babestar.tv Live XXX”. It featured
a number of women in various states of undress using sexual actions and
extremely explicit sexual language to promote a premium rate chat line. This
included apparent masturbation and verbal ‘invitations’ to both anal and oral
sex.
Ofcom felt that the “extreme explicitness of the language transmitted was of an adult sex nature and was wholly unsuitable for transmission on a free-to-air service.”
Television Concepts Ltd were found to be in serious breach of seven rules of the
BCAP TV Advertising Standards Code (incorporating Rules on the scheduling of
television advertisements):
• Rule 4.2.3 Treatments unsuitable for children
• Rule 5.1 Misleading advertising
• Rule 5.4.2 Superimposed text
• Rule 6.1 Harm and offence
• Rule 7.3.1 Mental harm
• Rule 7.3.7 Use of scheduling restrictions
• Rule 11.1.2 Premium rate services
MTV Dance
August 2006
A viewer complained that a segment of programming displayed text messages that contained inflammatory, sectarian comments. The complainant singled out a reference: "all u Fenons (Fenians) out there – die”, as being particularly inappropriate. The complainant also noted references to Bobby Sands and the UDA.
MTV accepted that there were certain references in the texts that were sectarian and for which it apologised. The moderator responsible for displaying the texts was unaware of the significance of the messages. The nature of the references was further confused by the fact that they seemed to be mixed in with what appeared to be football references, making them more difficult to identify. Nevertheless, the incident prompted the broadcaster to revise and update its internal training programme for moderators. This, it was felt, would minimise the possibility of any re-occurrence of the problem.
Rule 2.3 of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code requires:
“In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context. Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the ground of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs and sexual orientation). Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.”
The text messages were displayed in a banner style running below a music video. They included a mixture of loyalist and republican comments referring to the Ulster Defence Association, a reference to Celtic football prefixed by a republican slogan in Irish meaning: ‘our day will come’ and a misspelled suggestion that all “Fenons” (Fenians) should die.
Ofcom said:
“Within the context of a music programme, the inclusion of these texts was offensive and potentially inflammatory. We noticed that, on occasions, there was a message displayed below the texts that said: ‘Messages do not represent the views of MTV’. However, this does not mean that a broadcaster can abdicate responsibility for broadcasting such material.
While we welcome the steps taken by the broadcaster to initiate an updated training programme for moderators, we nevertheless felt that these messages were not ambiguous and the moderator should have prevented the broadcast of such messages.”
opener2006_itv.jpg)
Meridian Tonight
April 2006
A viewer complained about two reports, broadcast on consecutive days, in ITV Meridian’s regional news programme. The reports covered Dubai’s increasing popularity as a holiday destination amongst viewers in the south of England.
The first report covered the fact that Virgin Atlantic was launching a new service to Dubai and explored the area’s growing popularity with holiday makers. The second report looked at Dubai’s popularity amongst second home buyers and property developers.
Both reports were followed by a competition, for which the prize was a holiday in Dubai, with free Virgin Atlantic flights. The complainant considered the reports unacceptably promoted both Dubai as a holiday destination and Virgin Atlantic.
Ofcom asked ITV to comment in relation to the following Rules of the Broadcasting Code which require:
10.3 Products and services must not be promoted in programmes.
10.4 No undue prominence may be given in any programme to a product or service.
ITV Meridian said that Meridian Tonight is a news magazine programme, carrying a solid spine of same-day news stories, but also containing other elements such as news features, lighter stories, competitions, sport and weather.
ITV Meridian said it did not accept that it was in breach of the Broadcasting Code because:
• it did not lose editorial control and had complete independence over the content of the reports;
• there was no product or service being promoted in the programme; and
• mentions of Virgin Atlantic fell far short of undue prominence and were, in any event, editorially justified.
Ofcom argued…
“While it may be legitimate to include Virgin Atlantic in a news story, this was compromised by its inclusion in a piece of this nature, along with the promotional language and tone used to describe the destination the airline had decided to start flying to. The two issues together (Virgin Atlantic and Dubai ) gave the impression of a promotional video, despite the comments made relating to the amount of building work in Dubai .
Overall it appeared that the bulletins had included two 4 minute news reports on the basis that the broadcaster had been offered prizes for a competition.”
…and concluded a Breach of Rule 10.3 .
Racism and Bullying in Celebrity Big Brother?
Ofcom said that it had received 7,600 complaintsof alleged racism in Celebrity Big Brother against Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty, the highest number since the BBC screened Jerry Springer — The Opera. Channel 4 has received a further 2,000 e-mails and calls.
Channel 4 say they're taking the matter very seriously.
Here's what The Times say about the matter:
"Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, will investigate whether the programme has breached broadcasting rules forbidding discriminatory language or treatment.
Channel 4 said that it did not tolerate bullying or racist abuse but believed that it was important for viewers to judge the contestants by their behaviour. A spokesman said: “The social interactions of the group are part of the Big Brother story and viewers have a right to see these portrayed accurately. This is balanced with our duty not to broadcast material that may cause unjustifiable offence.”"
But we shall have to wait and see for the verdict on this one. The fact of the matter is it may take weeks for Ofcom to come to a decision, and Celebrity Big Brother is only on for another two weeks, so poor Shilpa may have to suffer.
At least she will have the guidance of the calm buddha-esque Jermaine Jackson...
"If she wants to disgrace herself then let her, let her. I came in here with dignity, and I'm going to leave with dignity."
That is all.
Sophie x
