Latest Ofocm Findings - Complaints about sex on TV down!

"However, the proportions stating that levels of sex, violence and swearing on TV were ‘too much’ has significantly decreased since 2010.
The results suggest that over time, attitudes towards the amount of sex, violence and swearing on TV have changed, with the proportion of respondents stating “about the right amount”’ having steadily increased since 2005 and the proportion stating “too much” having declined."

Read the full guff here:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...d-research

All the best

Shylok

'The main reaction on seeing something that offends is to switch channel (56%).
Almost a quarter (23%) said they switch off, 16% continue watching the programme
and 12% discuss it with others'.

This one really pissed me off why would 16% of people continue to watch a programme if they are offended by it. Can anyone explain that, as it boggles my mind.

Thank God 79% of people have a bit of common sense saying they would change channel or switch off the tv if they were offended.

Why can't everyone have that common sense, instead of running to Ofcom and complaining, which ruins it for others.

If some of these people are having trouble understanding that then I will gladly swim across to Britain and explain it to them. I will even draw a diagram if it makes it easier for them

Apologies for absence, unplanned hol at short notice with elderly relatives.

Interesting report. Based on a sample of 1,700 adults - unlike the 40 or 50 people interviewed when setting assessing detailed attitudes and setting rules.

Difficult to know what to make of some of the results, like the number of people saying standards have got better/worse/same over the past year, then comparing that with 2005. The only thing that measures is perception.

Besides, what does it mean when people say standards have got worse? For me things got worse when Sophia Knight left. Standards got worse when 241s were banned.

Older viewers were more likely than younger ones to say things had got worse. Surprise, but nice to see it quantified. (46% vs 18%).

Details: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...itudes.pdf
Page 6 "Do you feel that over the past year television programmes have improved, got worse or stayed about the same?" The answers can be taken either way.

Top 5 reasons for programs getting worse in 2011:
More repeats 71%
Lack of variety 43%
Too many reality progs 34%
General lack of quality 28%
Other 16%
More bad language 12%
More violence 11%
Its generally a bad sign if "other" makes it into the top 10 responses.
Note that sex is not one of the top 5.

Levels of offence in the past year have gradually dropped year on year from 42% in 2001 to 28% in 2009 and 19% in 2011 (slides 12-14), with a blip from 2006 (30%) to 2007 (32%). This is despite growth in the number of babe channels, a brief period of FTA pussy rubbing and dildo use in 2006 (offence dropped compared to 2005) and increased availability now that babe channels are available on Freeview. Thats right, just 19% of people have been offended by anything.

In 2010, 38% of who been offended cited sex/sexual content, well behind bad language (46%) and just ahead of violence (34%). Nakedness accounted for 16% (slide 16). Not sure how nakedness differs from sex, unless they mean the likes of Embarrasing Bodies and other nonsexual flesh. Unclear why this data is from 2010 and not 2011.

Reaction - 56% change channel. 23% switch off. Sensible people. 12% discuss with others - whats that? "I say Jeeves, that young filly on BangXXXExtremeMilfs is putting a dildo where the sun doesnt shine, thats grossly offensive dont you think? Lets watch a bit more so we can decide just how offended we are." Another 16% kept watching. Whats going on there? Were they watching with partners/parents/kids who would not let them turn over? Or were they just idiots too thick to use the remote? Stangely the number of people who continue watching has nearly tripled since 2001 from 6% to 16%. (Slide 19)

80% felt that things that offended them should be shown - other people should be allowed to see them (32%) or they should only be shown when people expect to see them (48%). (Slide 20)

3% say there is too little sex, 66% about right, 25% too much. Bear in mind this refers to all TV and there are people who complain about sex in Come Dine With Me (30/6/2012) and Eastenders (4/7/2012) as well as the Sam and Amy radio show (Gen 106, 25/6/2012). (Slide 22)

Also bear in mind that the figures for violence are 2% too little, 57% about right and 36% too much. People are more concerned about violence than sex. (Slide 25)

36% listed Sex/Sexual Content under the Seen Something Harmful heading, but this could refer to any type of show, including Eastenders, making it difficult to interpret. Nudity did not feature in the 11 specific categories listed. (Slide 29)

There were several questions specifically about banning sex:

"Sexually explicit programmes should never been shown on TV" got these responses: 26% agree, 22% neutral, 50% disagree, 2% unk.

"If people want to watch sexually explicit programmes they should be allowed to but ONLY on subscription channels" got: 58% agree, 17% neutral, 23% disagree, 2% unk.

"Sexually explicit channels in the 'adult' section of the electronic programme guide (EPG) don't bother me. I can block them if I want" got: 64% agree, 20% neutral, 10% disagree, 5% unk.

Someone has been reading the petition, and asked "Sexually explicit programmes should be freely available on any channel after 9PM". The responses were: 23% agree, 18% neutral, 55% disagree, 2% unk. Thats staggering.

There were 2 comparable questions for violence.

"If people want to watch particularly violent programmes they should be allowed to but ONLY on subscription channels" got: 50% agree, 18% neutral, 30% against, 2% neutral. Thats more support for violence than sex.

"Particularly violent films should be freely available on any channel after 9PM" got: 32% agree, 20% neutral, 46% disagree, 2% unk. Thats slightly more support for particularly violent films than sex, but not much more (46% and 55% disagree). Particularly violent films are routinely shown on mainstream large audience channels. (Slide 32, based on 1,723 people)

Support for the watershed has grown every year. 77% think it is about right, up from 60% in 2001. 12% think it is too early - down from 33%. A small number think it is too late (9%, was 6%). (Slide 37)

75% of parents are aware they can block channels but only 33% chose to do so. Thats a deliberate parental choice. (Slides 39,40)

Good analysis eccles. I didn't have the patience or inclination to do it! (plus I get angry reading too much OFCOM propaganda!!!)...

I read this as an ever so slight 'mood swing' in 'our favor'...?

Bearing in mind that the stats are massaged in OFCOM's favor is there a glimmer of hope for the future? *edit I just watched back some recordings from last night.....there is NO hope!!!*.....

Thanks

Shylok...............

The lack of complaints are more likely due to pathetically tame output by the babe channels. Came in from a night out and had a flick thru the channels AT 4AM and only 2 girls were fully nude and both face down so you couldn't even see their breasts. Utter rubbish.

You have to wonder what world theses Ofcon types inhabit.
The world (and the UK) has moved on since "Sunday Night at the London Palladium" and "Terry &June".

I actually believe in the concept of a tv regulator; I think it has great merit in society.

What, of course, I don't believe in is a regulator who continually make things and arguments up to suit their own agenda. In the sphere of adult entertainment our curent regulator has "form" for doing just that. I have to say that, in all areas of their work, it is the only area where they blatantly lie to the British public.

To do this they must be backed by the Westminster govenment otherwise it could not happen.

One day we will get explicit, full R18 on UK television. It'll be a very lengthy process, I'm sure, but someone will emerge who will take Ofcon on and challenge their pathetic lies and gain full adult entertainmemt.

Infact I'd go as far to suggest that it'll be within the ofcom team that we finally see our day come. In many ways a TV regulator can work so long as common sense is used in the process.

SKY Movies for example should be taken to the cleaners. Back in the old days once a movie had been released and shown at the cinema 12 months later it would automatically be shown on the movie channel so why then do customers have to pay extra to watch it on the box office.

The same too could be said about the sports channels when a big boxing match comes up SKY have the audicity to charge £14.99 for the privilege to see it especially when the match could be over in the first round. I have a SKY Sports subscription and refuse to pay extra. The murdoch empire has been scamming customers for years and this is what ofcom should be focusing on. It's daylight robbery.

So yes if we had a fit and proper regulator who instead of pushing more and more censorship was tasked with looking afters the customers interests then I would also agree that a regulator could also work to our advantage.

Yes also had a flick through the channels last night and yet another horror story, the least said about them the better. To think ofcom has reduced them to this, not even a spectacle anymore, one day our day will come and soon hopefully, this shit surely can't continue, the channels have hit rock bottom, it has to only improve, they cannot get any worse if they tried. Lucy Summers, wonderful model, total bag of shit last night, enough said

All the channels are pretty dire but there is definitely a problem with films. Part of the problem is that News International has strong studio rights giving it first run rights on many films leading to distortion of the older film market. If only there was some sort of regulator that could step in.