(10-11-2010 10:03 )beller Wrote:  I recently received a long and courteous reply from someone reasonably high up at Ofcom. The phrase "generally accepted standards" was mentioned 5 times as a defence in 2 pages, so it is clearly in the public interest to know what these are and who determines them.

I have therefore offcially requested a copy and details of who is consulted in order to arrive at the "general" nature of these standards.

Much good may it do me, I know. After this it's an FOI request - which I'm sure has been made many times before. We'll see.

The least we can all do, perhaps, is bombard our MPs about Ofcom's lack of willingness to prove its accountability.

Page 4 Wrote:Note: the quantitative findings should be treated as indicative only, given the overall sample size (169 participants) and given that the sample was not selected with the aim of reflecting an exact representation of the population as a whole, rather with the aim of providing enough people in all the groups of interest to conduct qualitative discussion groups.

Page 7 Wrote:The context in which any sexual material was shown was extremely important in determining perceived acceptability. Contextual considerations discussed by participants focused on three key issues:Contextual considerations discussed by participants focused on three key issues:
o Were children likely to stumble across sexual content either unintentionally or intentionally?
o Would viewers know what to expect from the programme?
o Did the editorial context justify the content?

Quote:Clip 3 was taken from a serialised historical drama transmitted from 21:00 on BBC Two ["Rome", 9pm, a prestige BBC co-production].
The programme featured a scene showing a female character engaged in sexual intercourse with a man to the point of climax [not shown].
47% of participants thought it was acceptable, a further 28% were neutral and 24% found the clip unacceptable. Contextual factors including time of broadcast, historical context for accuracy and the perceived tasteful presentation of the images of sex and nudity influenced perceived acceptability.

Quote:Clip 7 was taken from a TV sex-drama series transmitted from 23:00 on Playboy One (broadcast without mandatory access restrictions) [Sex House, Playboy One, 11pm]. The full programme featured strong and repeated sex scenes, one of which was viewed in the clip shown to the participants.
This clip featured a male and female actor engaged in what appeared to be real sex acts including oral sex and full intercourse (although no sexual organs i.e. neither a penis nor vagina, were visible).
All participants considered this material to be “porn”. However they were divided on its acceptability. Some (40%) thought it was acceptable for reasons which included that it was on a channel associated with sexual content, so clearly signposted. Others (29%) thought it unacceptable, considering that the material was gratuitous and had insufficient context. Some considered that because it was “pornographic” material it should have been broadcast only with mandatory access restrictions. 21% were neutral.

Quote:Clip 9 was taken from a free-to-view trailer to promote an adult-sex channel (with mandatory access restrictions). The promotional trailer was broadcast at midnight on RedHot 40+. It contained material of a strong sexual nature including images of what appeared to be real sexual activity.
Just under half (43%) of participants thought the clip was acceptable given that it was shown very late at night. A further 21% were neutral. 26% found the material unacceptable, some were concerned about older children (12 years and above) intentionally seeking out this content, even at midnight.

Page 11 Wrote:stronger material becoming more acceptable after 22:00 and especially 23:00. At 21:00 participants said they did not expect to see much more than a brief sex scene or brief nudity

page 26 Wrote:o The standards participants expected the on-demand services (providing programmes and films) and the adult-sex channels (which are subject to mandatory access restrictions) to follow were much less strict. This was largely because they thought that viewers should know what to expect from these channels – which they felt reduced the potential for personal offence;
o Participants also considered that these services/channels could follow less strict standards of content because their audience size was perceived as smaller; and
o However, it was considered that they should still adhere to important conditions regarding how and when they could be accessed

Page 29 Wrote:Additionally, participants said that adults could just switch channels if they came across something they found offensive.

Page 39 Wrote:Male and female genitals
Participants were split in their perceptions of whether or not it was acceptable to show images of genitals on television without access restrictions (either mandatory or voluntary) in place. An approximately equal proportion of participants said they believed that images of male or female genitals should appear after 21:00 if the context demanded, compared to those who said that such images should not be shown without mandatory access restrictions.

Page 40 Wrote:Sexual intercourse
... covered a wide range of potential material .... a number of key factors ... which body parts would be visible ... drew the line in different places ... more private body parts (especially breasts, vaginas and penises, but also to some extent buttocks) were seen as less acceptable with the majority of participants saying they did not want or expect to see such material on television without some form of restriction.
... editorial justification ... believed that sexual intercourse should not just be shown as “sex for sex’s sake” [referring to mainstream TV] ... how long the scene lasted ... how tasteful the images were. Participants also felt that programmes showing scenes of sexual intercourse should either be signalled by information or guidance, or it should be reasonably implied from the programme title that stronger sexual material was likely to occur.

(13-11-2010 01:10 )eccles Wrote:  Ofcom have fined channels for advertising websites that contain hardcore content. Never fully understood their logic, but its something along the lines that by displaying the web address they are showing kids how to access porn. Be interesting to see if that argument stood up to challenge if only shown after 2am, but thats the situation as it stands.

(12-11-2010 01:58 )eccles Wrote:  [quote='beller' pid='662334' dateline='1289383406']
I recently received a long and courteous reply from someone reasonably high up at Ofcom. The phrase "generally accepted standards" was mentioned 5 times as a defence in 2 pages, so it is clearly in the public interest to know what these are and who determines them.

I have therefore offcially requested a copy and details of who is consulted in order to arrive at the "general" nature of these standards.

Much good may it do me, I know. After this it's an FOI request - which I'm sure has been made many times before. We'll see.

The least we can all do, perhaps, is bombard our MPs about Ofcom's lack of willingness to prove its accountability.

Page 4 Wrote:Note: the quantitative findings should be treated as indicative only, given the overall sample size (169 participants) and given that the sample was not selected with the aim of reflecting an exact representation of the population as a whole, rather with the aim of providing enough people in all the groups of interest to conduct qualitative discussion groups.

Page 7 Wrote:The context in which any sexual material was shown was extremely important in determining perceived acceptability. Contextual considerations discussed by participants focused on three key issues:Contextual considerations discussed by participants focused on three key issues:
o Were children likely to stumble across sexual content either unintentionally or intentionally?
o Would viewers know what to expect from the programme?
o Did the editorial context justify the content?

Quote:Clip 3 was taken from a serialised historical drama transmitted from 21:00 on BBC Two ["Rome", 9pm, a prestige BBC co-production].
The programme featured a scene showing a female character engaged in sexual intercourse with a man to the point of climax [not shown].
47% of participants thought it was acceptable, a further 28% were neutral and 24% found the clip unacceptable. Contextual factors including time of broadcast, historical context for accuracy and the perceived tasteful presentation of the images of sex and nudity influenced perceived acceptability.

Quote:Clip 7 was taken from a TV sex-drama series transmitted from 23:00 on Playboy One (broadcast without mandatory access restrictions) [Sex House, Playboy One, 11pm]. The full programme featured strong and repeated sex scenes, one of which was viewed in the clip shown to the participants.
This clip featured a male and female actor engaged in what appeared to be real sex acts including oral sex and full intercourse (although no sexual organs i.e. neither a penis nor vagina, were visible).
All participants considered this material to be “porn”. However they were divided on its acceptability. Some (40%) thought it was acceptable for reasons which included that it was on a channel associated with sexual content, so clearly signposted. Others (29%) thought it unacceptable, considering that the material was gratuitous and had insufficient context. Some considered that because it was “pornographic” material it should have been broadcast only with mandatory access restrictions. 21% were neutral.

Quote:Clip 9 was taken from a free-to-view trailer to promote an adult-sex channel (with mandatory access restrictions). The promotional trailer was broadcast at midnight on RedHot 40+. It contained material of a strong sexual nature including images of what appeared to be real sexual activity.
Just under half (43%) of participants thought the clip was acceptable given that it was shown very late at night. A further 21% were neutral. 26% found the material unacceptable, some were concerned about older children (12 years and above) intentionally seeking out this content, even at midnight.

Page 11 Wrote:stronger material becoming more acceptable after 22:00 and especially 23:00. At 21:00 participants said they did not expect to see much more than a brief sex scene or brief nudity

page 26 Wrote:o The standards participants expected the on-demand services (providing programmes and films) and the adult-sex channels (which are subject to mandatory access restrictions) to follow were much less strict. This was largely because they thought that viewers should know what to expect from these channels – which they felt reduced the potential for personal offence;
o Participants also considered that these services/channels could follow less strict standards of content because their audience size was perceived as smaller; and
o However, it was considered that they should still adhere to important conditions regarding how and when they could be accessed

Page 29 Wrote:Additionally, participants said that adults could just switch channels if they came across something they found offensive.

Page 39 Wrote:Male and female genitals
Participants were split in their perceptions of whether or not it was acceptable to show images of genitals on television without access restrictions (either mandatory or voluntary) in place. An approximately equal proportion of participants said they believed that images of male or female genitals should appear after 21:00 if the context demanded, compared to those who said that such images should not be shown without mandatory access restrictions.

Page 40 Wrote:Sexual intercourse
... covered a wide range of potential material .... a number of key factors ... which body parts would be visible ... drew the line in different places ... more private body parts (especially breasts, vaginas and penises, but also to some extent buttocks) were seen as less acceptable with the majority of participants saying they did not want or expect to see such material on television without some form of restriction.
... editorial justification ... believed that sexual intercourse should not just be shown as “sex for sex’s sake” [referring to mainstream TV] ... how long the scene lasted ... how tasteful the images were. Participants also felt that programmes showing scenes of sexual intercourse should either be signalled by information or guidance, or it should be reasonably implied from the programme title that stronger sexual material was likely to occur.