Ofcom Discussion

(09-08-2013 20:28 )continental19 Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 01:19 )eccles Wrote:  {snip}

I'd rather they were disbanded if the tories lost the next election!!
Yet was it possible that OFCOM was the ITC re-branded as the government felt the ITC was too weak to operate?

(09-08-2013 21:05 )babelover48 Wrote:  I'd rather they were disbanded if the tories lost the next election!!
Yet was it possible that OFCOM was the ITC re-branded as the government felt the ITC was too weak to operate?

I suspect Ofcom and the ITC are two very different beasts, even if some of the staff worked in both. The ITC lacked independence, was small, secretive, and ruled with a rod of iron. If it said something was banned, it was banned, never mind detailed rules. Benny Hill was dropped by Thames because of a hint that the content no longer matched the sprit of the times - regardless of complaints. But if they approved something it stayed approved, newspaper campaign or not.

By claiming to be impartial and objective Ofcom paradoxically made it easier to get material banned. "No genital detail" can mean whatever they want to mean - inner labia, outer labia, thigh even - and if someone complains Ofcom say but it is all based on public consultation and published rules.

The other thing was that the ITC could issue blanket bans in advance as well as demanding to see a show before broadcast. Ofcom refuse to say in advance if a show breaks the rules, encouraging broadcasters to play safe.

A small tightly knit group of regulators, with no time for pissing about and proper jobs to get back to were replaced with an unwieldy committee of placemen and a small army of civil servants with nothing else to do. 2 years to evaluate a complaint and decide a fine for encouraging religious based killing? Nipple sucking allowed in ads for encrypted channels (TVX, on right now) but not in a free show? And what about the Confused.com advert where Brian the robot disturbs a couple having a blowjob in a country lane. I suspect the ITCs lack of transparency and accountability would have allowed them to cut right through dual standards and make their feelings well known. Did they pander to public opinion by harassing shows no one complained about? Course not. I doubt they would have given 10,000 complaints a year house room, and only bothered with 10 real, serious complaints a month.

I don't know about the ITC, but Ofcom and the Content Committee are not even remotely representative of ordinary people, as intended by Parliament, and also lack experience if the sort of program that will attract complaints, namely drama. Ex senior civil servants, management consultants, university lecturers, journalists, animation experts, radio editors, documentary makers, telecom experts, business administrators (at broadcasters), in what way are these people specially experienced to pronounce judgement on tricky offence issues in a child abuse scene in Eastenders, or sexual content during an important plot point in Game of Thrones? Or graphic but relevant violence in a docudrama about a serial killer? Any one see Apocolypse Now recently on ITV? A real life ox gets slaughtered for real and the cut open carcass can be seen while it lies dying. But that parallels the horror of war.

How does "leading editorial and business process change across the organisation as well as being responsible for performance measurement and evaluation" qualify someone to decide what is appropriate for broadcast, to pick just one example.

Different beasts, each with downsides, but different. Must go now, got an early flight. Any urgent questions to SB in my absence.

No Broadcasting Bulletin again today despite it being 2 weeks since the last one. Not necessarily good news as the last one after a 3 week interval hammered the babe channels.

What this does tell me is that the television compliance operation at Ofcom is so small, at least at senior level, that having one person go on holiday makes them unable to proofread and publish documents with confidence. Its a small cottage industry, not an unstoppable monster.

Ofcom Complaints Figures

Report covers complaints received between:
Tuesday, 27 August, 2013 to Monday, 2 September, 2013

Celebrity Big Brother - Channel 5 - 29 Aug - 24 complaints
Celebrity Big Brother - Channel 5 - 30 Aug - 15 complaints

This forms the basis of a unique social experiment that will keep sociologists busy for years to come. The publisher of adult magazines operates two sets of TV channels, one showing relatively explicit sexual content behind encryption, and with freeviews featuring straight and lesbian nipple sucking too strong to be shown on sex chat free shows, and also runs a well established reality show where everyone remains clothed.

Which of these channels attracts complaints, the sex show or the reality one?

Discuss in not more than 200 words.

It's been a while since I last commented on things ofcom. I'm actually surprised nobody has mentioned the performance of Miley Cyrus at the recent VMA Awards. The show has been shown frequently on the various MTV Channels at all times of the clock and guess what ofcom haven't even batted an eyelid

This was a performance where Miley is seen gyrating against Robin Thicke as shown below




To put this into context if any of the babes during the day or night were seen doing this to lets say the camerman then ofcom would come down hard on the channel in question like a ton of bricks and that would also apply if a dayshow babe was as scantly clad as Miley was.

Ofcom aside Miley knew exactly what she was doing and got exactly the attention she was looking for. She already had her defense speech written out prior to taking to the stage

Something today about one of these X-factor or similar shows, I think on ITV2, not the main channel. Apparently they got a slap from Ofcom for a striptease routine shown pre-watershed. No fine or similar sanction that I'm aware of, just a stiff telling off from Ofcom ... that should have them quivering in their boots

Sorry the details are vague, but those shows are of no interest to me, so I didn't pay too much attention, if anyone's interested in more details, I am sure google can oblige

Is it me or have Ofcon got bored with watching the 900s? If so can the producers please rediscover their cojones and take the odd risk? Censors only win if you don't fight.

(10-09-2013 18:46 )SCIROCCO Wrote:  Is it me or have Ofcon got bored with watching the 900s? If so can the producers please rediscover their cojones and take the odd risk? Censors only win if you don't fight.

If only that were true. We have seen Ofcom go quiet many times before, only to wake up and lash out. They seem to have a practice of themed investigations, reaching a bunch of decisions on similar cases and publishing them about the same time, usually after months of quietly investigating or sitting on their arses. (I cant believe it takes 6 months to invite the broadcasters comments and hold a meeting).

They also seem to feel the need to lash out and assert their authority from time to time

In August they fined not one but 3 ethnic minority channels for “Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services.” or going against "religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination must not be subject to abusive treatment.”

On 27/8 there were 6 findings against ethnic minority channels related to a suspect charity appeal (which turned out to be genuine) (ATN Bangla, Bangladeshi), homophobic content (Vox Africa, Pan-African), adult content before the watershed and sponsorship (Klear TV, Afro-Caribbean), political advertising (Bangla TV, Bangaldeshi, scrolling adverts (NTV, Bangladeshi) and the weather forecast (Ambur radio, Asian), as well as notification of the three fines.

On 5/8, barely a month ago, there were 9 findings against adult channels. Nine!

On 1/7 there were findings against 2 psychic channels, 2 ethnic ones, 2 gambling ones ("free" introductory bonus) and 2 against Channel 4. I can understand that the two gambling ones related to essentially the same issue and a decision had to be reached about whether it was against the rules or not, and the psychic ones were also linked, but why announce all the odds and ends at the same time? It smacks of clearing out the "other" tray all in one go to concentrate on what they see as routine.

Another special was 4/2 with 10 findings related to sponsorship. No way did the broadcasts occur as a bunch, so why group the investigations? Does Ofcom have to read up and remind itself what its own rules are?

As ive said before i think Ofcom have gone quiet on the babe channels because they have over regulated them to such an extent that there is not much proper adult content in them anymore,coupled with nervous producers,does make me wonder that if a mainstream channel ran a babeshow at night how much they would get away with without being fined.

(11-09-2013 10:42 )jimmyt73 Wrote:  As ive said before i think Ofcom have gone quiet on the babe channels because they have over regulated them to such an extent that there is not much proper adult content in them anymore,coupled with nervous producers,does make me wonder that if a mainstream channel ran a babeshow at night how much they would get away with without being fined.

Mainstream channels ought to be able to show erotic content for its own sake. No other area is off limits and there is an expectation that general TV channels cover a wide range of material, some of it controversial, and much of it that the customers - viewers - would not pay for. News, religion, hard hitting drama, arts. People of one religion can watch religious shows that other religions might find grossly offensive because they wear the wrong colour hat. Cookery shows are enjoyed by many but grossly offensive to vegetarians. Many action movies are simply a shallow excuse to show people being beaten up and killed in inventive ways. Basically mainstream broadcasters cover all human activity, except one, that is only shown obliquely and with carefully rehearsed justification.

It wasn't always like this. In the 1970s BBC satire shows had regular nudie slots for no better reason than they broke up heavy content and viewers like them. Monty Python thought nothing of throwing in the occasional nude chase. Popular family comedy shows like Benny Hill and Kenny Everett broadcast erotic sequences week in and week out that would push the boundaries on a modern adult channel after midnight today.

I am not suggesting that babeshows should be broadcast on the BBC at 8pm, there is value in having a cluster of channels that are reliable safe family viewing during family viewing time, safe for kids and gran, but if you can watch Jimmy Carr swearing his head off after 9 for comedy, Ricky Gervais making jokes about mongs, self mutilation in Jackass or Dirty Sanchez, torture in Hostel from 9pm why not have a woman in stockings and suspenders dancing between pieces on Newsnight?

Channel 5 and ITV flip over to gambling and teleshopping after midnight, would it not be a better use of valuable broadcast licences to broadcast sexy dancing girls that appeal to 90% of the male population instead?