Quote:Draft Broadcasting Code: Under 18s
...
20. The Content Board gave consideration to the first issue - scheduling and content information issues and in particular whether this section of the draft Code should maintain the watershed, and if so what rules should be applied. It was NOTED that some broadcasters felt that the watershed created a tension between the protection of children and the provision of a “commercial” schedule to attract adult viewers. Feedback suggested that some broadcasters feared that the draft Code, as written, would result in multiple watersheds and thus a tightening of the regulation in this area. There had been a huge variance in feedback received from non-broadcaster respondents to the consultation. Some believed the watershed was redundant, with the increase in multi-channel homes; however others felt that the watershed was an effective tool for the protection of children.

(11-07-2012 22:01 )eccles Wrote:  Came true didnt it.

(11-07-2012 22:41 )dan g 27 Wrote:  I'm not understanding the contents of the quote, can someone explain it?

Quote:15. The Content Board AGREED that it should play a prominent role during Phase 2 of the project in examining different approaches to providing a safe environment for younger
viewers. It was NOTED that this would also be a significant element of the Board’s work on drawing up the new broadcasting codes during summer 2004. Members were concerned that the work on providing a safe environment for children should be firmly evidence-based and should embrace an analysis of how safe other environments (e.g. school and other social settings) were for children. Members were concerned not to enforce an unreal world on children solely in the context of PSB.

Quote:Ofcom chief Ed Richards has hit out at plans put forward by Lord Black to create a new press regulator, arguing that having serving editors involved in adjudications on complaints would be unworkable.

Richards ... said it was completely indefensible to have people involved in the industry in the same room as those making decisions about complaints...

"We would draw a very strong distinction between advice and the presence on decision-making of people actively involved in the industry being present ... I think that is quite the wrong thing to do and makes effective ... decision-making extremely difficult and to be honest in our context would be unimaginable."
...
Richards, who made an unsuccessful application to take over from Mark Thompson as the next director general of the BBC [], said that the involvement of working editors would not produce an independent and transparent regulator.

"The idea that we could stand up in public and defend decisions made if we had serving broadcasters," he said, before being interrupted by Lord Justice Leveson, who inquired whether he thought editors should also be excluded from a committee setting up a code of practice.

Richards argued that editors could be involved in an advisory capacity but they should not be involved in setting the code.

"I think, yes, I would say in terms of code-setting, in terms of sanctions, in terms of corrections and in terms of policy-making overall, you need to have a bright line to separate between those who are regulating and making decisions and those that are regulated," said Richards.

He added that anything else "immediately undermines the perception, and in all minds, the actuality of your independence".
...
He explained to Leveson that the equivalent body for setting codes for broadcasting is the content board, which consults with serving broadcasters but remains independent of them.

Quote:The BBC had accused the regulator of refusing to accept evidence that would overturn its judgment, and took issue with the fact Ofcom’s Kath Worrall, a former dog show judge, oversaw both the initial investigation and a subsequent appeal.
...
They claim Ofcom is undermining its own authority by allowing a single person to oversee the entire process, despite claims it has already been botched.
...
However, Ofcom has vowed to keep Worrall on the case if it decides on a second appeal, despite plans to change the appeals process for future investigations. ...
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/bbc/ofcom-play-down-dogs-furore/5008306.article

(12-07-2012 09:18 )Tonywauk Wrote:  Of course the re-classifcation of the so-called 'Babe' channels so that they fit within the pre-defined limits designated for shopping channels demonstrates a total lack of flexibility, an inability to consider different channels by different criteria and is total nonsense. Mind you the channels modus operandi of using the on-screen visuals as a teaser for the telephone service rather plays into the regulator's hands.