Quote:New Content Board members and Chairmen of National Advisory Committees announced
May 6, 2011

Ofcom today announced the appointment of four new members of its Content Board and the appointment of a new Chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Wales. It has also announced the re-appointment of the Chairmen of the National Advisory Committees for both Scotland and Northern Ireland.

CONTENT BOARD


The Content Board is the committee of the main Ofcom Board with delegated responsibility for TV and radio content issues, including setting and enforcing quality and standards.

The Content Board includes members who represent each of the four Nations of the UK. Two of today’s appointments include new members to represent Scotland and Wales. The new appointments are:

Janey Walker

Janey worked at the BBC from 1982-95 and then Channel 4 from 1996-2010 where she was Commissioning Editor Arts and Performance until 2000, later becoming Managing Editor for Commissioning and Head of Education until 2010.

Dr. David Levy

David is Director of the Reuters Institute at Oxford University and had a distinguished career at the BBC from 1982 where he moved from editorial and programme making into wider-policy development becoming Controller, Public Policy from 2000-2007.

Glyn Mathias

Glyn will be the Content Board member for Wales. Between 1973-1994 he worked as Political Editor/Correspondent for ITN and then until 1999 was Political Editor for BBC Wales. He was the Welsh member of the Electoral Commission from 2001-9 and joined Ofcom’s Welsh Advisory Committee in 2007.

Iseabail MacTaggart

A fluent Gaelic speaker, Iseabail was a solicitor before moving to BBC Radio 5 as an assistant editor. She is now on the Highlands and Islands Enterprise Board and has been a Board member of MG Alba and the BBC Audience Council for Scotland. Iseabail will be the Content Board member for Scotland.

The appointments took effect on the 1st May 2011.

Advisory Committees

Ofcom has established Advisory Committees for each Nation of the United Kingdom. These Committees provide advice to Ofcom on a range of issues including the impact of Ofcom’s activities in each Nation.

Ofcom is delighted to announce that Glyn Mathias has been appointed as the Chairman of the Advisory Committee for Wales in addition to his role on the Content Board.

Professor Philip Schlesinger of the University of Glasgow has been re-appointed as Chairman of the Advisory Committee for Scotland and Professor Wallace Ewart has been re-appointed as the Chairman of the Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland.

Philip Graf, Chairman of the Content Board and Deputy Chairman of Ofcom, said:

“I am delighted that we have such a variety of experienced individuals joining the Content Board.”

“We continue to have important work to do in ensuring standards and quality on television and radio are maintained as we face the increasing challenges of content being delivered to people over a variety of platforms.”

“I am also delighted that Professor Philip Schlesinger and Professor Wallace Ewart have agreed to further terms as Chairmen of two of our Advisory Committees. Ofcom and the Advisory Committees have benefitted hugely form their advice and guidance. I am also very pleased that Glyn Mathias has taken on the additional role of Chairman of our Welsh Advisory Committee.”

Quote:“You can guess which group of broadcasters were frequently up before the committee: the pornographic or, as they prefer, adult channels. … Some channels were regulars. … Personally I don't think we should police what adults choose to view in privacy. But I do take seriously "the vulnerability of children and others whose circumstances appear to Ofcom to put them in special need of protection"
... And after a decade of viewing porn it's pretty obvious that there are some general concerns if anyone can stumble on what's available. If it was all encrypted and paid for – even at one penny per view – access would be effectively restricted to over-18s because a credit card would be needed. If a parent chose to give a six year old access, that would be in spite of reasonable efforts to protect. Just as if internet service providers have to reconfigure their sites so that a user has to opt in, not out, to accessing porn. Again, it's proportionate and reasonable protection of the vulnerable. Not what we have at the moment, although it's what any engaged home secretary could suggest.
… Suddenly what was "light and flirtatious chat" was extremely embarrassing when it came out of the mouth of a middle aged/elderly woman.
… They would also argue that if the channel was in the adult section of an EPG it should be allowed special privileges. Yet it's very easy to stumble on the wrong part of an EPG. The Ofcom code is still the code, no matter which electronic shelf the programme appears on. "There have only been a handful of complaints and we believe those came from our competitors," was another regular line. Well, the Communications Act empowers Ofcom to deal with breaches of the code. No complaints are needed. Numbers are irrelevant. During my time one of the most complained-about programmes was Jerry Springer the Opera, with in excess of 16,000 complaints. We threw out the complaint because the programme didn't breach the code.
… With the exception of specialist material for hair fetishists, there is no body hair. Waxing is universal. … Overall the effect is to suggest women are as different from the reality as was classical statuary from Effie Ruskin (whose pubic hair hence shocked her husband, John).”

Quote:Ofcom today [9 June] announced the appointment of Dame Patricia Hodgson and Dame Lynne Brindley as Non-Executive Members of Ofcom’s Board.

Dame Patricia Hodgson will join the Ofcom Board on 1 July 2011 and will become Deputy Chairman for a three year term, on the retirement of Philip Graf CBE, on 1 January 2012.

Dame Lynne Brindley begins her three year term on 1 September 2011.

Millie Banerjee CBE retires from the Ofcom Board on 30 June 2011.

Dame Patricia Hodgson is Principal of Newnham College, Cambridge, a Non-Executive Director of the Competition Commission and Member of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. She was Chief Executive of the Independent Television Commission before it merged to form Ofcom in 2003. She is also currently a Member of the BBC Trust from which she will step down with immediate effect to take up her role at Ofcom.

Dame Lynne Brindley has been Chief Executive Officer of The British Library since 2000. She is a Member of the Arts & Humanities Research Council and a Board Member of the Creative Industries Knowledge Transfer Network. She is also a Member of the Strategic Management Board for super-fast broadband for Cornwall & the Scilly Isles from which she will resign on her appointment to Ofcom. She was formerly Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leeds, Director of Information Services at the London School of Economics and senior management consultant at KPMG.

The appointments were made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Ofcom Chairman, Colette Bowe, said: “I am very pleased to be welcoming Patricia and Lynne to the Ofcom Board. They bring a wealth of experience and expertise which will greatly benefit Ofcom and I very much look forward to working with them over the next few years.

“I would also like to thank Millie Banerjee, who leaves the Ofcom Board at the end of June, for her significant contribution to Ofcom’s work over many years. Philip Graf will remain on the Board as Deputy Chairman until the end of this year but I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Philip for his contribution to Ofcom as Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the Content Board, which we have greatly appreciated.

“We all wish Millie and Philip the very best.”

Quote:Why the TV watershed still matters
The watershed may not be the answer to all ills but it still plays an important role in maintaining public confidence in TV

Numerous column inches have been devoted to the 'watershed' recently, particularly around the publication of Reg Bailey's report on children.

To some, like Mark Lawson, the onset of technology which increasingly allows us to choose when and how we watch something has rendered the watershed meaningless, with those trying to uphold standards fighting a losing battle. To others, the current regulation is too liberal or Ofcom's application of it 'toothless'. Some hard facts might help inform this debate.

Despite the explosion of choice – including catch-up TV and PVRs – more people are watching more hours of linear television than ever before, an average of four hours per day – up from 3.6 hours. That's people sitting down and turning on the telly. However unfashionable it may be, the TV schedule is alive and kicking.

Twice a year, every year, we ask parents and the wider general public what they think about standards on TV. Pretty consistently about one in 10 people want tougher standards, while around one in 20 want something more permissive. But the vast majority — 72 per cent in our latest survey — think it is about right.

Almost everyone (93 per cent) understands the watershed and 74 per cent think 9pm is the right time. If you just ask parents, that number is 76 per cent. Since 2003, Ofcom has taken action on more than 300 occasions when broadcasters have failed to adequately protect children. These include two recent cases where inappropriate music videos — including Rihanna's S&M — were screened early in the afternoon.

The question underlying Mark Lawson's G2 article last week was: if you can find the same video online in seconds, why do we bother enforcing standards? First, to protect children from seeing harmful content. Second, to set expectations for all viewers, including parents, about what kinds of content can be found by using proxies like the 'watershed'. Finally, to keep the most inappropriate content, such as BBFC Rated R18 hardcore porn, off TV screens altogether and to ensure that other strong content is restricted from general viewing though parental controls.

Undoubtedly the online world makes addressing these kinds of issues more challenging. So far behaviours and expectations online and in front of the television have been very different. New Ofcom research that we'll present to the UK Council for Child Internet Safety Summit this week, reveals that only around half of young teenagers online say they know basic techniques for staying safe on the internet. One in 10 aged eight to 15 say they have seen something worrying or offensive online. That online world is colliding with traditional TV in a living room near you soon courtesy of a range of internet-connected TV devices.

The future debate about protecting audiences is going to depend on what kind of protection we as a society are trying to achieve. Stopping responsible content providers from showing material unsuitable for young children is normally a matter of guidance backed by the possibility of enforcement. Preventing a determined teenager from accessing adult material is another matter altogether. Stopping broadcasters from ever causing offence would also change the nature of television entirely. Should pre-watershed dramas avoid dealing with difficult issues or avoid comedy or pop music? As Reg Bailey notes, "clearly television cannot be indifferent to popular culture".

Bailey also insists that his recommendations need to be seen in the round. No one tool, be it what Bailey dubbed our "helpful" X Factor decision, greater online security or shielding magazine covers will entirely protect children. Nor should this be seen as a debate in which it's all down solely to parents or businesses or regulators to solve. There's a balance to be struck.

So where does that leave the humble TV watershed? The bottom line is, so long as parliament continues to value standards regulation we will enforce those standards. Even as we enter an even more complex converged market, the power of traditional television and viewer expectations endure. It is one tool, not the answer to all ills.

But nor do we think the time has come when technology has removed the watershed's relevance.

Broadcasting codes have always sought to reflect the standards generally accepted by the public at any given time. Broadcasters may need to be given guidance when they are in danger of misjudging those standards, as our decision on The X Factor shows. Such decisions will always be judgments with which some will disagree.

We believe they continue to play an important role in maintaining public confidence in television provided they are rooted in a strong base of evidence about the protection the public wants.

(01-11-2011 16:35 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  So that say's it all then, a very small panel of 5 people is enough to impose sanctions on the Adult Channels, if you ask me this is unconstitutional and .........