Ofcom - Current Investigations

Ofcom had 4,500 complaints about an episode of the X-factor - that's quite impressive.

Just turned to Sorority Girls and heard the words fu3k and sh&t without any censorship. The ADULT channels still can't have swearing for some reason.

The complaints process is entirely one sided. Anyone can make an anonymous complaint and Ofcom investigates, but there is no process for the other 99.9% of the public to say that they found the content acceptable. Give it a few years and content before 9pm will be totally bowlderised, even Shakespear will be banned.

On a related note, about the devastating effect of anonymous complaints:

Lady Ford [Olympic Park Legacy Company Wrote:also attacked the "sickening" and "vindictive" anonymous complaint which led to the collapse of the stadium deal. The decision exposes taxpayers to the full £95million cost of converting the venue, which will now be kept in public ownership and rented out after the Games.

She said: "It was quite sickening that the complaint was anonymous. If someone had a complaint they should have the backbone to make it. It would have worked without a vexatious and vindictive complaint."
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-o...dictive.do

Thats the daily reality of babe channels.

(08-11-2011 22:00 )mrmann Wrote:  Just turned to Sorority Girls and heard the words fu3k and sh&t without any censorship. The ADULT channels still can't have swearing for some reason.

Watching Outnumbered on GOLD at 8pm when the female lead said Bollovks Billocks Bollocks about 6 times. Its a kids show.

Ofcom research* places single use pre watershed in Group 2 (Higher acceptability to some/medium acceptability to others), less acceptable than Arse/Tits/Breasts (Group 1) but more acceptable than Dick/Wanker/Slag (Group 3). Generally Ofcom says repetition makes something worse. Acceptability is also impacted by the likely audience. GOLD is seen as a safe family comedy channel, and as Outnumbered features primary school age child actors, the audience may contain many young children.

Is billhooks a word parents or schools would be happy with children using?

For those of you unfamiliar with the show, its this one


* Audience attitudes towards offensive language on television and radio" Synovate, August 2010 reissued
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...e-lang.pdf

(08-11-2011 20:10 )eagle_si Wrote:  Stan, did you actually read the article? The guy said "fucking" live on ITV before the watershed, it's a pretty open and shut case. Also, you may get hammered at Christmas but you're not appearing on a TV show that loads of teenagers watch every week (more fool them). It's the fact that the X Factor made a big thing of it that Ofcom are investigating.

This is exactly the sort of thing that Ofcom should be going after (if they should be going after anything at all) instead of targeting the babe channels. And if the investigation had anything at all to do with this attention-seeking prick leaving the show and on the way to obscurity, then it's a job well done.

They might have booted him off the show anyway. It's hard to know for sure. But instances of the word 'fucking' live on air have happened before the watershed in other programmes and Ofcom have accepted that these things can sometimes happen on live TV, so I don't think the X-Factor will be in big trouble over this and most likely wouldn't have got rid this boy because of Ofcom's investigation. The usual defence to this kind of charge is to say that programme makers can't control live TV absolutely but apologise unreservedly.

Except babe channels. The BBC used to be a repeat offender with avoidable incidents, interviewing known volatile musicians live at festivals during the day when preschool kids and school kids off sick could be watching. The BBC gets a slap on the wrist. A babe show has a late night mike slip in a sex show and gets threatened with a fine or closure.

(08-11-2011 23:05 )eccles Wrote:  Watching Outnumbered on GOLD at 8pm when the female lead said Bollovks Billocks Bollocks about 6 times. Its a kids show.

Are you going to complain about it to Ofcom?

(12-11-2011 20:11 )Sootbag1 Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 23:05 )eccles Wrote:  Watching Outnumbered on GOLD at 8pm when the female lead said Bollovks Billocks Bollocks about 6 times. Its a kids show.

Are you going to complain about it to Ofcom?

No becuase they use any complaints to justify their regime even if they reject them.

Lets see what deranged controlling garbage they come up with on Monday.

Basically they want TV in 2011 to follow rules that the cinema threw out in 1961 when Michael Winners Some Like It Cool nudist film was approved with an A certificate (meaning children must be accompanied by an adult).

Apart from formally announcing the Playboy fine, todays Broadcast Bulletin had almost no content. Sod all ongoing invesigations, very few complaints even made and rejected. However the few findings published were worring even if not babe related.

Sky Sports was done over for a cricket sponsorship comment. They were sponsored by Jaguar Cars and the commentator said "Well, that bit of rain hasn‟t changed the performance at all.". Whats worrying is that Ofcoms own guidance says that double ententres are permitted. Ofcom said "yes but" it could be seen as endorsing the cars.

So yet again the idiots at Riverside House dont understand their own rules.

It would be interesting to see if anyone involved in the case has any legal training.

Mercedes-Benz sponsored travel news on Forth Radio with this message "Forth One Travel with Mercedes-Benz of Edinburgh at Willowbrae Road, your Mercedes-Benz dealership in the City with 100% after-sales customer recommendation in 2011." The sponsorship message had been pre-cleared with the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre. Ofcoms case was that this was based on a survey not a 100% sample of all dealerships or all customers. In other words pedantic fine print for something that had already been checked.

A lorry driver was shown on Motorway Cops. He was caught drinking super strength lager while driving and using his other hand to gesture to an undercover policeman. He claimed the filming and broadcast was an invation of his right to privacy both while being questioned at the roadside (a public place) and being shown to the cells. Ofcom conceded the second point but decided there was an overriding public interest in seeing drink drivers getting caught. Im not sure I entirely agree with the sentiment that some sod is fair game for the TV just because a camera crew decides to shadow a police team, but my opinion in beside the point. Ofcom took over 10 pages to convey what I have compressed into one paragraph.

A woman complained that a documentary about Dr David Southall included 20 year old footage of a woman in a studio audience discussing cot death. Ofcom ruled that as the original broadcast was with her consent then including the footage in any program ever was also ok. Her point was that at the time she was young vulnerable and coming to terms with her babys death, but she had put that behind her in the intervening 20 years, and was suddenly faced with questions from students who had seen her on TV. Its tempting to say "Get over it" and "Come on, TV companies cant ring round everyone who was in a studio audience 20 years ago", but is there an issue about whether people can be allowed to put painful episodes behind them? Would the response be the same if it were a murder victims school mates confronting someone they thought could have stopped it? Or a Hillsborough relative? Will the Dowlers be faced with their TV appearances being trotted out in 10 or 20 years time when they dont expect it? Rather than acknowledge that this raises difficult issues about moving on and practicality, Ofcom took the narrow technical line that implied consent to broadcast was given 20 years ago by a young nieve grieving teenager, so further consent was unnecessary.