Ofcom Discussion

Interesting nugget from Ofcom Watch:

Quote:Ofcom official becomes MP
By Russ on May 07th, 2010
Congratulations to Ofcom’s Chinyelu Onwurah who won the Newcastle Central seat for Labour last night.

Onwurah gained a degree in Electrical Engineering and worked in hardware and software development, product management, market development and strategy for a variety of mainly private sector companies in a number of different countries – Britain, France, US, Nigeria and Denmark while studying for an MBA at Manchester Business School.

Prior to becoming an MP she was Head of Telecoms Technology at OFCOM, with a focus on broadband provision.

Miliband appointed Onwurah as a junior shadow minister for Business, Innovation and Skills on 10 October 2010.

(Wikipedia)

(25-09-2011 01:24 )eccles Wrote:  Interesting nugget from Ofcom Watch:

Quote:Ofcom official becomes MP

What does that mean to us and the Babe channels?

First lets make it clear, personally I wish her every success, and congratulations on being selected for a safe Labour seat in the face of tough competition.

The reason for the mention is that Ofcom now have someone you might think is very sympathetic to them in Parliament where they could raise questions, table bills, etc.

However it is odd that a senior public official manages to gain sufficient prominence in what was the governing party to be nominated as candidate for a safe seat. Under rules introduced by Margaret Thatcher to stop leftwing councils employing political activists on the rates, public sector employees above a middle management grade are not allowed to engage in public political activity.

Relevant laws include the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (section 2) and the Local Government Officers (Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990 (neither of which applies to Ofcom) and others.

Under the first of these a council employee cannot even cannot stand for election as a Member of Parliament, Member of the European Parliament, National Assembly for Wales or Scottish Parliament without first resigning, cannot be an officer in a local branch of a political party if involved in branch management or dealing with non party members, cannot speak or write in public to affect support for a political party. Actually they cannot even announce that they intend to stand for election without first resigning. http://www.picx.co.uk/images/Politically-Restricted.pdf

Teacher are exempt!

So, how does someone who cannot write a political letter to the local paper, sit as a councillor, or be on the local party committee rise above all the people who have been doing all those things for 20 years and get elected?

The only thing I can see in her Wikipedia entry that might explain it is prominence in the anti apatheid movement.

Good luck to her but civil servants getting elected as MPs, let alone being appointed junior shadow minister makes me uneasy.

Some excellent points again Eccles, great post.

typical labour.

after daily mails "out rage" of rihanna and christina aguilera being "too sexy" before watershed ofcom have tighten the rules on what people can wear or not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvand...lator.html

This is from Ofcoms website and it clearly shows that they are tightening up what is viewed after 9pm. Tell me what you think.


Ofcom has today issued new guidance on the TV watershed, warning broadcasters to be more careful about programmes they show before 9pm that could be unsuitable for children.
This is part of Ofcom’s ongoing work on the enforcement of the 9pm watershed, in line with its statutory duty to protect under-eighteens.
The new guidance follows a series of recent meetings with broadcasters to ensure they are clear about the standards Ofcom expects from them.
The new guidance aims to help broadcasters comply with the Broadcasting Code rules for pre-watershed content, with specific focus on:
Programmes broadcast before and soon after the watershed; and
Music videos broadcast before the watershed.
Broadcasters are expected to pay particular attention to family viewing programmes, trailers and soaps. Ofcom advises broadcasters to take particular care with post-watershed content which has been edited for pre-watershed viewing, for example by masking or editing offensive language.
Research
Ofcom regularly conducts research among parents to monitor the level of concerns about the content their children watch on television . For example, fewer parents are now concerned about the TV programmes their children watch (31%) than they were in 2009 (36%).
Ofcom also measures parents’ views about the time of the watershed and the amount of TV regulation. Some 77% of parents think the watershed is at the right time, and 73% believe the amount of regulation of television is ‘about right’.
In recent months Ofcom has investigated several cases involving pre-watershed material that it judged to be unsuitable – or close to the limits of acceptability – for children.
As a result, Ofcom has conducted new research into parents’ and teenagers’ views on pre-watershed TV programmes. This builds on Ofcom’s existing research.
Parents’ views
The new research, which is also published today, found that the majority (58%) of parents surveyed were not concerned by what their children had watched on television before 9pm in the last 12 months. One quarter (24%) of the parents surveyed said they were ‘fairly concerned’, although fewer than one in ten (9%) said they were ‘very concerned’.
The types of pre-watershed programmes that caused concern to the parents surveyed were soaps (14%) and film (14%), followed by reality programmes (12%) and music videos (11%).
Some 21% of all parents surveyed mentioned concerns about nudity or sexual content, one in five (20%) were concerned about violence, and one in six (17%) had concerns about offensive language.
Teenagers’ views
Just under a quarter (23%) of teenagers surveyed said that over the past 12 months they had seen something on TV before the watershed that had made them uncomfortable or had offended them.
Pre-watershed programmes that had caused teens concern were films (7%), soaps (6%), reality programmes (5%) and music videos (4%).
Sexually explicit content concerned 7% of teens surveyed, while 4% expressed concerns about offensive language, and 4% had concerns about violence.
Today’s guidance draws on these new findings and sets out in detail the issues that TV broadcasters must consider carefully to ensure that children are protected from material that may be unsuitable for them, as required by the Broadcasting Code.
The new guidance and the detailed research findings are available in our parents section.

(30-09-2011 17:50 )continental19 Wrote:  This is from Ofcoms website and it clearly shows that they are tightening up what is viewed after 9pm. Tell me what you think.


Ofcom has today issued new guidance on the TV watershed, warning broadcasters to be more careful about programmes they show before 9pm that could be unsuitable for children.
This is part of Ofcom’s ongoing work on the enforcement of the 9pm watershed, in line with its statutory duty to protect under-eighteens.
The new guidance follows a series of recent meetings with broadcasters to ensure they are clear about the standards Ofcom expects from them.
The new guidance aims to help broadcasters comply with the Broadcasting Code rules for pre-watershed content, with specific focus on:
Programmes broadcast before and soon after the watershed; and
Music videos broadcast before the watershed.
Broadcasters are expected to pay particular attention to family viewing programmes, trailers and soaps. Ofcom advises broadcasters to take particular care with post-watershed content which has been edited for pre-watershed viewing, for example by masking or editing offensive language.
Research
Ofcom regularly conducts research among parents to monitor the level of concerns about the content their children watch on television . For example, fewer parents are now concerned about the TV programmes their children watch (31%) than they were in 2009 (36%).
Ofcom also measures parents’ views about the time of the watershed and the amount of TV regulation. Some 77% of parents think the watershed is at the right time, and 73% believe the amount of regulation of television is ‘about right’.
In recent months Ofcom has investigated several cases involving pre-watershed material that it judged to be unsuitable – or close to the limits of acceptability – for children.
As a result, Ofcom has conducted new research into parents’ and teenagers’ views on pre-watershed TV programmes. This builds on Ofcom’s existing research.
Parents’ views
The new research, which is also published today, found that the majority (58%) of parents surveyed were not concerned by what their children had watched on television before 9pm in the last 12 months. One quarter (24%) of the parents surveyed said they were ‘fairly concerned’, although fewer than one in ten (9%) said they were ‘very concerned’.
The types of pre-watershed programmes that caused concern to the parents surveyed were soaps (14%) and film (14%), followed by reality programmes (12%) and music videos (11%).
Some 21% of all parents surveyed mentioned concerns about nudity or sexual content, one in five (20%) were concerned about violence, and one in six (17%) had concerns about offensive language.
Teenagers’ views
Just under a quarter (23%) of teenagers surveyed said that over the past 12 months they had seen something on TV before the watershed that had made them uncomfortable or had offended them.
Pre-watershed programmes that had caused teens concern were films (7%), soaps (6%), reality programmes (5%) and music videos (4%).
Sexually explicit content concerned 7% of teens surveyed, while 4% expressed concerns about offensive language, and 4% had concerns about violence.
Today’s guidance draws on these new findings and sets out in detail the issues that TV broadcasters must consider carefully to ensure that children are protected from material that may be unsuitable for them, as required by the Broadcasting Code.
The new guidance and the detailed research findings are available in our parents section.

Where is the correlation between Ofcon's findings and their flat refusal to allow full R18 on encrypted channels?

Things have moved on since their very spurious research allowed thm to ban R18 on UK television.

Why haven't they surveyed the parents of all these children who are supposedly watching the encrypted channels?

Of course, they haven't done it because the evidence does not exist. Ofcon made it up to suit their own agenda.

You know, I could kind of put up with their Middle England/feminazi stance on shows like the X Factor and the pop channels if only they would allow full R18 for us adults who want to watch erotic entertainment.

I am over 50 years of age, FFS, but these twats dictate to me what I can or cannot watch on the flimsiest of evidence.

I fucking hate them.

Ofcon, go rot in hell you shits.

I'm all in favour of a watershed as I want a firm demarcation between "family friendly" and "adult" hours. That way there should be more freedom rather than less after, in this case, 9 pm. Of course that's not how it actually works as we all know. But its how it should work.

Spineless hypocrites.

When Ofcom published its original decision it acknowledged that there had been thousands of complaints but was scathing because many complaints were received a long time after the broadcast and because the Daily Mail had whipped up a storm of indignation. It was not revealed how many complainants had actually watched the show. It was unprecedented for Ofcom to criticise the papers.

Ofcom ruled that the show was WITHIN the guidelines, even if only just.

So Ofcom publishes guidelines specially because of a show that did not break the rules because an artificial media storm whipped up by a newspaper causing complaints from people who did not see the show.

In its press release Ofcom says "Ofcom regularly conducts research among parents to monitor the level of concerns about the content their children watch on television*. " and the astrisk link is
* http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-...t-reports/

This points to a page with very old data from
15/9/2008: Media Literacy Audit: Media literacy of UK adults from ethnic minority groups
16/5/2008: Media Literacy Audit - Report on UK children’s media literacy
16/5/2008: Media Literacy Audit - Report on UK adults’ media literacy
2/3/2006: Media Literacy Audit - Report on adult media literacy
2/5/2006: Media Literacy Audit: Report on media literacy amongst children
2/5/2006: Media Literacy Audit: Report on media literacy amongst children
24/6/2006: Archwiliad Llythrennedd y Cyfryngau
plus older and ethnic research.

They then say "Ofcom also measures parents’ views about the time of the watershed and the amount of TV regulation**. " and link to
** http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadca...rep/psb11/
which yields "Public Service Broadcasting Annual Report 2011" Published 21|07|11
and that links to "F -The Ofcom Media Tracker survey: 2010 survey results PSB Report 2011 –Information pack July 2011" at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...ions-F.pdf

Media tracker is fine, but it is based on a weighted survey rather than in depth interviews, cause and effect analysis, comparative surveys between nations with different rules, and before and after studies.

Although results can suggest trends, some people would dispute that people with clipboards in shopping centres asking shoppers questions deserves to be called Research.

One problem with these surveys are that the questions just scape the surface, are badly worded, and inevitably people are reluctant to be honest about embarrasing subjects (like voting Tory in 1997).

Look at this question: "If people want to watch sexually explicit programmes they should be allowed to but ONLY on subscription channels".

Do you DISAGREE or AGREE?
Would the vicar AGREE or DISAGREE?

If you disagree, because you think sexually explicit programs should be allowed on FTA babe channels, your answer goes in the DISAGREE total and might be taken as support for tighter rules.

What channels does it refer to? BBC1 or Babe channels?

And what about people who accept occasional justified content like nude artists models on Channel 4, shagging in Diary of a Prostitute (BBC), Dont Look Now (various), Spiral (BBC4, serious detective show), educational documentaries to stop teenagers getting knocked up or Antichrist (Sky Arts, incidentally its on Sky Indie right now, but thats a pay channel), Women In Love (film, 1969, BBC from time to time) or the streaker summary in Al Murray: My Funniest Year (Channel 4, now, clear male full frontal nudity).

Are those people meant to DISAGREE with the assertion?

Basically the survey is worded in such a way that people with diametically opposed views can give exactly the same answer and there is no way to distinguish between them.

There is also no clear definition of "sexually explicit". For one person that might mean two apparently nude people apparently in contact, as seen in many big budget Hollywood films (with flouorescent masking tape over bits), or full frontal nudity from a distance, for someone else it might not count unless there were graphic closeups with no ambiguity. Probably not the sort of this researchers want to spell out in a busy shopping centre to mums doing the weekly shop.

Ambiguous questions. Two questions rolled into one. Ambiguous answers. No indication of direction (Yes but / No but). Unclear terminology ("explicit sex" rather than "full frontal nudity" "genitalia" "penetration").

However, bearing in mind the limitations, here is what the survey found:
"Sexually explicit programmes should never been shown on TV" - 51% DISAGREED, 25% agreed
"Sexually explicit channels in the 'adult' section of the electronic programme guide (EPG) don't bother me. I can block them if I want" - 60% agreed, 12% disagreed
"Sexually explicit programmes should be freely available on any channel after 9PM" - a staggering 23% agreed, 55% disagreed.

"If people want to watch sexually explicit programmes they should be allowed to but ONLY on subscription channels" - 54% agreed, 25% disagreed.
"If people want to watch particularly violent programmes they should be allowed to but ONLY on subscription channels" - 48% agreed, 29% disagreed.
So thats 6% fewer people wanting HOSTEL and SAW behind a subscription barrier than DEBBIES DOES DALLAS, and 4% more saying that violence is ok. OK, thats saying violence is more acceptable than sex, but not by much.

51% of the public say explicit sex can be shown on TV. Ofcom say so.
PDF page 24 (numbered 23 bottom right) http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...ions-F.pdf