(07-12-2009 20:19 )perana68 Wrote:  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the "complainers" were competitor babe channels trying to get their rivals fined

(07-12-2009 20:19 )perana68 Wrote:  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the "complainers" were competitor babe channels trying to get their rivals fined

(07-12-2009 20:49 )jackthemanc Wrote:  I've finally downloaded a copy of the Ofcom broadcasting code. I admit, I haven't read it cover to cover yet, but it does seem that there is a lot of freedom within the code as written. I suppose that specific complaints are then judged against that dreadfully vague term "context". I couldn't find an answer to a simple question however:

If the broadcaster thinks that they have breeched the code, are they required to report/declare the incident themselves?

In so far as most programming is well planned and scripted this would seem unnecessary, but live programming does have that extra dynamic. Did ITV receive a sanction over Holly Willoughbys childrens programme breast slip? It was clearly a breech, but it was also clearly an accident. Was it punished by the regulator? Simple solution, have miss Willoughby wear a bra. The babe girls are, for the most part nude or nearly nude, therefore accidental flashes of genitalia are almost certain dependant on outfit. Breasts are happily displayed on screen, and there is no reason I can find in the code why pubic hair, shaved labia, anus, vagina or clitoris cannot be shown either. The object of the shows is sexual arousal, performance and display, real or not.

The point of the babe channels/shows is clearly to make money from phone calls. Why, in that case, do we need to see the girls at all? As far as callers are concerned, they don't care who they're talking to while they wank, as long as they sound sexy and talk dirty. The draw is talking to the sexy girl on screen. The caller can see the girl, tell the girl what to do. The girl, and their resulting fanbases discussions, is far and away the greatest advertising feature at the producers disposal. In this case the move to define this type of programming as teleshopping is a prudent one. The girl has now become the advert and the product.

What we come down to in the end, once again is context. If we apply the teleshopping model, with performer as advert and product, then full nudity would become contextually correct. The caller wants to see "pussy", the caller gets to see "pussy". This is what the caller is paying for with his call. We would end up with shows basically the same as they are now, but with a little more graphic nudity whenever a caller specifically asks for it. As suggested above, actual output would be decided on a channel by channel, performer by performer basis. Some performers would probably continue as they are, whilst some would happily go further at a callers request. Each type of show would find it's own market and everything would soon settle down again.

With reference to the posting slips issue, is the material not technically copyrighted anyway? I know that in this world of PVRs and data-transfer, capturing and posting clips and caps is easy, but it's no different to video recording something in the eighties and lending it to your mates.

Jack.

(07-12-2009 21:09 )MARCCE Wrote:  But this is the thing, Ofcom published decisions frequently refer to the channels having gone beyond "viwere expectation." This is quite clearly not the case. Most people watching the channels want to see more, it really is as simple as that. The chances of someone watching the channel for some topless stuff, throwing a hissy fit because he gets to see some pussy instead are miniscule.

The consultation re the classification is fair enough as it should now allow the channels to operate under a clearly defined area whereas until now, they have always had to argue they are editorial in order to exist at all.

However, the previous consultation regarding attitudes to sexual content, nudity etc that seemed to slip through the back door, could mean that these channels end up neutered in terms of the actual content they are able to show regardless of whether they are permitted to be teleshopping or not.

(07-12-2009 18:46 )MARCCE Wrote:  Hasn't it long been the case that Ofcom seem to take more notice of one complaint aginst the babe channels than they do about far more complaints made against more mainstream shows?

I can't really remember any of their cases against any of the channels being brought about by more than one complaint. In fact, I'm almost incredulous at some of the complaints they act upon with someone deeply offended sitting there for more than half an hour or more logging stuff they are supposedly totally disgusted by. With these channels Ofcom seem to act in cases where individuals are watching purely to be offended and that's just total bollocks in all fairness.