Ofcom Discussion

Found a heart warming (?) tale from someone who wanted to set up a small community TV channel only to be blocked by Ofcom. But did it anyway.

Quote:The problems arise with Ofcom, which has a grandiose idea a local TV station should have the same reach and operational standards and production content as conventional mainstream TV.

Ofcom is long past its sell by date
...
A main digital channel, as envisaged by the authorities, needs a patron with deep pockets or a well-heeled sponsor to start up and keep going.

I considered that would leave a niche for a local broadcaster ... about 8,000 people. ...

Nothing could better illustrate what is wrong with Ofcoms approach to general broadcasting. Bureaucratic. Hidebound. Institutionalised. Big business orientated. Anti innovation.

Full article about Ventortv.com, in the Isle of White and now in its 8th year of operation, at Isle of White County Press

Can Big Brother show uncensored nudity? I thought they had to blur things out, but it seems as if Harry Amelia showed full frontal uncensored. Is that correct?

Interesting you brought that up mrmann, well the answer has always been yes just so long that it's after the watershed. However in recent years they have chosen to blur out full nudity if it's a female but allowed the males to go out uncensored.

Big Brother had previously stated that it was because of Ofcom rules but I think we all know now that it was a bollocks all along as it was Channel 5 that had chosen to self censor themselves and not ofcom which has been proven and guess what the ofcom rules are exactly the same as what they were last year at this time. Nothing has changed, only the policy of Channel 5.

Hopefully this will rub off on the babe channels next as they are also long overdue a change in policy too

Agree totally with SB.

Full frontal nudity is allowed sufficiently after the watershed provided it is justified by context. The stronger the content the higher the hurdle. Being later at night, on a program or show where nudity or sexual content can be expected reduces the scope for reasonable offence. If someone is in the habit of habitually walking around in the nude, or a film is establishing that a detective is in a steamy relationship that may cloud their judgement that is justified. Nudity can reasonably be expected in fiction or documentary about a strip club or nude cabaret, like the behind the scenes documentary about the Crazy Horse cabaret that Sky Arts shows at regular intervals.

Going naked in the bedroom or shower in a reality TV show isnt a great stretch.

Going naked in a contrived situation to titillates viewers? There is a balance between what is shown, how graphic, close up, how lingering, lateness, channel, warnings and expectation. Unbelievably soft furnishings, mood lighting, music and the absence of "sex noises" makes it more acceptable.

An impression that the scene is gratuitous for ratings makes content less acceptable, as does a feeling that it is filmed in an exploitative way.

The threshold for genitalia is higher than bums or breasts, but not impossible. Provided they are not aroused or touched. If they are the guideline, if there were one, would be almost never. You had better have a very good reason.

I reckon a TV show could feature a topless dance line up after 10 without breaking rules, with adequate warnings, provided the title made it clear and it was not on a channel regarded as "safe" - BBC, ITV, Discovery, Sky Sports, Muslim World.

BUT Babe channels are advertising, and the law is different. Section 319.2(f) of the Communications Act says rules for entertainment must provide "adequate protection" against offensive and harmful material. That has leeway. However section 319.2(h) says the rules must "prevent" "advertising" which "may" be harmful or offensive. That rule pits the balance of probability against adverts, and "prevent" is very different from "adequate protection".

That said, if every ad that "may" cause harm or offence were banned, there would be none. The Dyson fan ad features an unveiled woman. The Kia Sorento ad features a twat with a ponytail. The Galaxy chocolate advert features Audrey Hepburn, who is dead. The Stork cake baking advert shows a cake rising in an oven, a clear reference to male election inside a vagina. The Kenco advert associates tattoos with violent gang membership, which must be seriously insulting to people with tattoos. The McDonalds ad showing a hairdresser nattering to some kids mum suggests hairdressers and/or women are vacuous morons who talk endlessly. Need I go on?

Some of the above examples are more credible than others, but all "may" cause offence. My point is that the supposedly rigid rule is actually interpreted flexibly.

Complaints

Report covers complaints received between: Tuesday 26 May 2015 to Monday 01 June 2015 (10 or more only)

Big Brother, Channel 5, Thursday 28 May 2015 : 20
Big Brother, Channel 5, Friday 29 May 2015 : 11
Big Brother, Channel 5, Monday 1 June 2015 : 16
Britain's Got Talent, ITV London, Wednesday 27 May 2015 : 25
Britain's Got Talent, ITV, Thursday 28 May 2015 : 126
Britain's Got Talent, ITV London, Friday 29 May 2015 : 27
Britain's Got Talent, ITV, Sunday 31 May 2015 : 314
EastEnders, BBC 1, Monday 1 June 2015 : 10

No babeshows again this week. Two broadcasters, three shows. Wonder where Ofcom will concentrate its effort.

What makes my blood boil about ofcom is have a look through the 900's tonight, what a fucking hideous joke, channels on the Adult section yet they aren't allowed to broadcast Adult content because Ofcom has classified them as teleshopping.

Yet on Comedy Central it would appear to me that they can broadcast what they want at any time of the day, if anybody has ever seen Impractical Jokers they'll probably agree with me that it's very funny but going out during the dayhours, WTF

It's hardly what you'd call kids telly as it's filled with adult humour and adult content from the onset. Ofcom are clearly incapable of being impartial. Also what's the point of them even listing any of the BBC Channels, the BBC regulates itself so why would ofcom even entertain such a complaint when all they can do is whinge to the Beeb who will most likely tell them to get to fuck. Politely ofcourse

And its clear to see that Ofcom aren't going to gun down any of Rupert Murdochs SKY Channels such as the one I have already mentioned above as they know they'd lose. Ofcom are here only for one reason to censor all the small channels and to edge ever more closer to censoring the Internet next, well that is the grand plan if the UK leaves the EU, let's not kid ourselves here.

Well I'm just watching the return of TFI Friday in which Chris Evans referenced ofcom being the reason as to why Channel 4 were heavily fined and told to never broadcast another live show before the watershed again after the infamous Shaun Ryder interview

Chris Evans was technically inaccurate as it was Ofcoms predecessor the ITC, I just laughed out loud when Shaun Ryder came onto the live show with masking tape on his mouth

Queens Birthday Honours 2015

Commanders of the Order of the British Empire (CBE)

Edward Charles RICHARDS
Lately Chief Executive, Office of Communications. For services to the Media, Telecomms and Communications Markets.

^ aka Government Toady Award.

Partly-rehashed profile of Sharon White after her first public speech as Ofcom head.

http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/j...ef-profile

The odd new bit of info on her but nothing pertaining to the channels.