Ofcom Broadcast Code Consultation

(03-12-2009 23:55 )DanVox Wrote:  There are 2 separate consultations, one looking at content, the other how channels are paid for.

The Broadcasting Code Review looked at how rude channels can be, and some tidying up of unclear wording. That review closed on 4 September and Ofcom are due to publish the results "in December". The 4th would make it a round 3 months, but perhaps that would be too obvious. The results will be wrapped in clear-as-mud Ofcom speak, but will decide whether knicker rubbing, flashes and fingering are allowed at all, and if special restrictions are needed.

So we've missed the boat as regards content then and given that both Sport and Elite have suddenly gone to being about as tame as they've ever been, it looks like grim news on that front.

(03-12-2009 23:55 )DanVox Wrote:  The Broadcasting Code Review looked at how rude channels can be, and some tidying up of unclear wording. That review closed on 4 September and Ofcom are due to publish the results "in December". The 4th would make it a round 3 months, but perhaps that would be too obvious. The results will be wrapped in clear-as-mud Ofcom speak, but will decide whether knicker rubbing, flashes and fingering are allowed at all, and if special restrictions are needed.

With respect, it did nothing of the sort. I've read that document numerous times in the past few months and it doesn't in any way look at how rude the channels can be or what activities the girls can engage in. If you know different and I'm going bat-eyed, please specify the relevant sections/paragraphs.

The Review seeks to do what you have dismissed almost as an aside in the words 'some tidying up of unclear wording'. What Ofcom are proposing is to clarify the meaning of certain rules and to place them in a more logical order so that connected items are placed together in the Code. They make this quite plain:

Quote:2.20 We are not proposing to change the regulatory effect of the rules on sexual material, rather we are proposing to clarify the rules in relation to sexual material. We do not believe that the other rules within Section One require amendment at this stage. Stakeholders’ views are welcomed on this approach in Part 8 of this document.

(05-12-2009 21:37 )vila Wrote:  

(03-12-2009 23:55 )DanVox Wrote:  The Broadcasting Code Review looked at how rude channels can be...

With respect, it did nothing of the sort. I've read that document numerous times in the past few months and it doesn't in any way look at how rude the channels can be or what activities the girls can engage in. If you know different and I'm going bat-eyed, please specify the relevant sections/paragraphs.

...What Ofcom are proposing is to clarify the meaning of certain rules and to place them in a more logical order so that connected items are placed together in the Code. They make this quite plain:

Quote:2.20 We are not proposing to change the regulatory effect of the rules on sexual material, rather we are proposing to clarify the rules in relation to sexual material. We do not believe that the other rules within Section One require amendment at this stage. Stakeholders’ views are welcomed on this approach in Part 8 of this document.

Took me 2 months to spot that Ofcom had slipped in another public attitude survey. It was buried in the small print. While it is technically true to say they are not changing the rules ("A football field must have goalposts set a reasonable distance apart"), the survey guides how they apply those rules - what they define as Generally Acceptable Standards (how far apart it is "reasonable" to have the goalposts).

At the moment Mr & Mrs Norris (retired) of Railway Cuttings, Cheam, can complain to Ofcom that they do no expect to see gratuitous sexual content on TV, the biassed 2004 survey says the public backs that up, and before you know it a channel gets warned, fined or closed for having sexual content late at night on a channel with XXX in the name in the Adult section of the EPG. If it is flagged 18 the channel has admitted it's guilt, and if it flagged 15 the channel has not given adequate warning or allowed content blocking to work. Catch 22.

The new survey will replace the old one, so without a single rule change the goalposts can move.

Also the consultation clearly asks if the rule banning R18 on encrypted channels should be changed.

And yes, you are right Villa, they do clarify some rules that were badly written and have probably been challenged by lawyers, but don't change the underlying intent. I think one such piece of crap was referring "encrypted" and "unencrypted" channels. All Sky channels are encrypted - and many more carried on the Sky platform - Sky1, BBC1, Hallmark - to protect European copyright. What Ofcom meant were channels with conditional access (I know that's not a watertight definiton, but I'm not a national regulator).

(06-12-2009 02:27 )DanVox Wrote:  Took me 2 months to spot that Ofcom had slipped in another public attitude survey. It was buried in the small print. While it is technically true to say they are not changing the rules ("A football field must have goalposts set a reasonable distance apart"), the survey guides how they apply those rules - what they define as Generally Acceptable Standards (how far apart it is "reasonable" to have the goalposts).

At the moment Mr & Mrs Norris (retired) of Railway Cuttings, Cheam, can complain to Ofcom that they do no expect to see gratuitous sexual content on TV, the biassed 2004 survey says the public backs that up, and before you know it a channel gets warned, fined or closed for having sexual content late at night on a channel with XXX in the name in the Adult section of the EPG. If it is flagged 18 the channel has admitted it's guilt, and if it flagged 15 the channel has not given adequate warning or allowed content blocking to work. Catch 22.

The new survey will replace the old one, so without a single rule change the goalposts can move.

Also the consultation clearly asks if the rule banning R18 on encrypted channels should be changed.

And yes, you are right Villa, they do clarify some rules that were badly written and have probably been challenged by lawyers, but don't change the underlying intent. I think one such piece of crap was referring "encrypted" and "unencrypted" channels. All Sky channels are encrypted - and many more carried on the Sky platform - Sky1, BBC1, Hallmark - to protect European copyright. What Ofcom meant were channels with conditional access (I know that's not a watertight definiton, but I'm not a national regulator).

I see none of this in the Broadcast Code Review. Again, please specify the sections/paragraphs where you think this is being said.

What 'new' survey will replace what 'old' one?

It seems to me that you you're getting confused between the Broadcast Code Review and the Participation TV Consultation - two completely separate entities.


Edit: 'If it is flagged 18 the channel has admitted it's guilt, and if it flagged 15 the channel has not given adequate warning or allowed content blocking to work. Catch 22.' What on Earth does this mean?

Just read the conclusion for "Attitudes to Sexual Material on Television" and nudity is acceptable after 9pm.


4. Conclusions

In terms of the different types of sexual content, on the whole, participants were
comfortable with kissing being shown at all times of day, and were also reasonably
relaxed about the use of sexual innuendo. Nudity was deemed to be acceptable before
21:00 in the right context such as a documentary, but otherwise to be more appropriate
for broadcast after the watershed. “Straightforward” sex scenes were expected to be
shown after the watershed, to be justified by the narrative or editorial context, and to be
fairly brief and inexplicit. Anything other than this (e.g. longer sex scenes, more explicit
sex scenes or nudity, group sex, fetishes) was likely to divide participants and generally
to be seen as being more suitable for late-night viewing (at least after 23:00) or viewing
on channels with mandatory access restrictions.

Para 4.12 says "Strong sexual material – material of a strong sexual nature which is not broadcast for the primary purpose of sexual arousal, and therefore not subject to mandatory access restrictions, may be broadcast after the watershed provided there is a strong contextual justification"
~ bear in mind that the new attiudes survey says that there is greater public acceptance of babe type shows provided they are tucked away in the adult section of the EPG. The survey even says that this is context, something that Ofcom has never accepted before in complaints hearings.

Para 4.15 defines "factors broadcasters would need to consider in determining whether any material would be acceptable under this
rule would be provided. These would include:
 taking into account the explicitness of any sexual material and/or sexual language used;
 the purpose of any sexual material in a programme;
 whether any plot or narrative provides sufficient editorial context for its transmission; and/or
 whether there is any other strong editorial justification for its transmission."
~ which seems to kill the "it's in the Adult section" defence dead.

However the proposed new rules are laid out in para 4.21 and proposed new rule 1.19 is as above but ends with "(See Rules 1.6 and 1.18 and Rule 2.3 in Section Two: Harm and Offence which includes meaning of “context”.)"

So what does Rule 2.3 of the existing Broadcasting Code say ?
"2.3 In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context (see meaning of “context” below)...
Context includes (but is not limited to):
•the editorial content of the programme, programmes or series;
•the service on which the material is broadcast; is it a babe channel in the EPG?
•the time of broadcast; late at night is more acceptable
•what other programmes are scheduled before and after the programme or programmes concerned;
•the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in programmes generally or programmes of a particular description; less offence these days
•the likely size and composition of the potential audience and likely expectation of the audience; it's in the Adult section, not on the BBC
•the extent to which the nature of the content can be brought to the attention of the potential audience for example by giving information; the channel's name is clearly sexual
and
•the effect of the material on viewers or listeners who may come across it unawares. it's in the Adult section late at night on a channel called XXX Fuck Babes, not Care Bare Knitting Patterns"

Context is informed by Ofcom's own new survey says there is more tolerance of sexual content than 5 years ago provided it is the EPG late night and clearlyt labelled.

All clear as mud. I'm sure that's accidental.

[EDIT]
Para 2.26 and the whole of Appendix 11 (Executive Summary of research
findings: “Attitudes to Sexual Material on Television”, page 164 on) refers to new research.

See page 168:
"Channel: participants had different expectations of different channels and showed greater tolerance for stronger sexual content on non-public service broadcasting channels, with the strongest acceptance for sexual content on premium subscription adult channels with mandatory access restrictions;"
No co-incidence that the strongest outrage (48%) was generated by a Clip 1 from the Alan Titchmarsh lunchtime show. I'm not making this up.

Also on page 168:
"Participants across demographic groups did not seem to distinguish whether the material broadcast was real sex or simulated sex."
In the past Ofcom has fined shows because real sex was happening out of sight. If viewers can't tell the difference between real and simulated, eg sitting on a dildo or sitting in front of one, then Ofcom can't punish a channel on the grounds that the action is real. Or rather, to be consistent, it has to punish every show that has fake sex equally - and that's going to include a lot of TV drama and Hollywood films. So they can't really punish shows unless they show close up detail.

~ Clip 3 from the BBC drama Rome showed a woman "engaged in sexual intercourse with a man to the point of climax". Real or simulated ? Most viewers cannot tell. So real sex is now legal.

Only 26% of viewers found Clip 9 unacceptable. This was a RedHot 40+ trailer showing real sexual activity (no closeups). 43% found it acceptable given the context.

[EDIT]
"What 'new' survey will replace what 'old' one?"
The full report can be found via the bottom link on the consultation page at Attitudes To Sexual Material on Television

[EDIT]
"'If it is flagged 18 the channel has admitted it's guilt, and if it flagged 15 the channel has not given adequate warning or allowed content blocking to work. Catch 22.' What on Earth does this mean? "
~ there have been several adjudication cases where the broadcaster has argued that the content is not "Adult-Sex" or "Strong Sexual Content" where Ofcom has come back and quoted on-screen warnings that the content is exactly that. So by being responsible and warning viewers that they might be offenced, the broadcaster has lost the defence of saying the content is not offensive. Lunacy.

I read the public consultation survey document regarding "Attitudes to Sexual Material on Television" and it appears the majority are in favour of harder content broadcast after 9pm and more explicit sex scenes or nudity, group sex, fetishes) after midnight. So if my understanding of the documentation is correct, we should be seeing more explicit viewing once the lawyers have also read the paperwork.

(12-12-2009 14:28 )fatsoburger999 Wrote:  I read the public consultation survey document regarding "Attitudes to Sexual Material on Television" and it appears the majority are in favour of harder content broadcast after 9pm and more explicit sex scenes or nudity, group sex, fetishes) after midnight. So if my understanding of the documentation is correct, we should be seeing more explicit viewing once the lawyers have also read the paperwork.

I read it too, and I ended up with a different interpretaion. Every single clip they tested the panels on was from a free to view show, whether it be a soap, documentary, or trailer for adult channel. There was NO clip of a babeshow, and NO clip from and encrypted adult channel.

The discussion of the participants then went through whether they thought each clip was acceptable as it had been broadcast, and where and when such material should have been broadcast (and with or without pin protection).

There was no discussion of what should be allowed if a PIN is required to view it. The fetish/group sex/more explicit bit referred to (I think) things like sex education type programmes, which they said should be late at night on non public service channels.

The worrying bit (from my point of view) is that time and time again the research said people felt that sexual content with NO editorial context or justification was MUCH LESS acceptable. That COULD be twisted by Ofcom into making the babe channels go PIN protected.

I guess if that were to happen it would be interesting to see how many of them used this new freedom to show more, and how many tried to charge a subscription, rather than just requiring a PIN.

2 words. Gok Wan, one rule for one and one rule for the other!

The new Broadcasting Code was announced on Wednesday and took immediate effect.

No Earth shattering changes, but a few nugdes in the right direction.

There seems to be more acceptance the being on a Babe channel counts as context, hence justification under the infamous "Generally Accepted Standards" rule.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, potty talk may be allowed. Then again, this may go agaist the Advertising Code (for now anyway).

Babe channels are still limited to softer material, though a lawyer might be able to trawl through the updated public attitudes survey and argue that the boundaries have moved a bit. Annoyingly Ofcom don't spell out what the limits are.

"Adult sex material at 18" still has to be encrypted. If it's hot enough to give the man on the Clapham omnibus a hard on (or storke material) then it has to be encrypted, not free.

Curiously Ofcom don't just say it has to be encrypted, they say "Premium subscription channel or pay per view/night", so they have created a rule saying strong material has to be paid for, not just encrypted.

The odd flash might be OK. If it's too quick to get hard it can't be "Adult Sex", can it ? Can it ? One for the lawyers.

R18 and R18-equivalent is still banned.

By my reckoning that means open fanny is allowed on encrypted channels (no change), wet juicy wide open fanny probably isn't (it's a "strong sexual image"), penetration and ejaculation is also still banned (no change). Not sure if lesbian licking in close up or dildo action counts as R18.

So - fewer grounds for complaint
Brief flashes might be OK
No tightening up
No major relaxation either.