Mediawatch-UK Watch

ITV faces a backlash after thousands of viewers protested about lewd performances on the X Factor final.

Critics called on TV censor Ofcom to launch an inquiry into why disgusting routines were shown before the watershed.

They challenged whether the performances by U.S. pop stars Christina Aguilera and Rihanna broke Ofcom's broadcasting rules.

'Horrified' parents also accused ITV of breaking the bond of trust with viewers by failing to tone down the performances for younger fans.

By last night ITV had received about 1,000 complaints about the routines with Ofcom understood to have received a further 1,000-plus.

During her Saturday night performance of What's My Name , Rihanna shed her gown and cavorted around the stage in underwear, performing a series of suggestive dance moves.

She was surrounded by an army of dancers who performed in a similar way. This was then followed by Aguilera's performance which saw her in an extremely low-cut black dress writhing around the stage with her troupe of scantily-clad dancers.

The TV pressure group Mediawatch UK said it too had received complaints from the public about Saturday night's final. Director Vivienne Pattison said: I don't think it was suitable for a pre-watershed broadcast, I think that's quite clear.

It was the simulated sexual stuff, that was the problem. I think Ofcom should look into this. Whether the X Factor like it or not they are commanding audiences of more than 19million. They are role models whether they like it or not.

She added: We have a broadcasting code that expects certain things to be post-watershed and I think that one crossed the line.

Former Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe, who appeared on this year's Strictly Come Dancing, said: It is before the watershed so parents are entitled to some consideration from the TV bosses. I think it is a pity. It isn't necessary and it should be a family show. If you are going to that sort of thing they should put it on after the watershed and it ceases to be a family show. I think Ofcom should take it seriously. What is the point of having a watershed? I think Strictly by comparison is serious family fun.

Not so Liberal Democrat culture spokesman Don Foster said: One of the routines was particularly inappropriate and it may lead a number of parents to consider whether or not next year's show is something that their younger children watch. It was unnecessary and I think they should have toned it down. I just think it went a step too far.

A spokesman for the programme maker Talkback Thames said: We are confident that the performances given by our guest artistes on Saturday were appropriate for the show.

An ITV insider said what was aired on the show was no worse than much of what goes out on dedicated music TV channels during the day.

It was also claimed that Aguilera's routine, based on her movie Burlesque , had been toned down from what was in the film, which has a rating of 12A. The source pointed out that there was no swearing or nudity in the routine.

The NHS has been slammed by nutters after a video designed to encourage youngsters to use contraception was branded pornographic by 'outraged' parents.

Several short videos uploaded to the YouTube website are modelled on the Channel Four programme Skins and are targeted at teenagers.

The interactive video, Condon, No Condom , is promoted on the NHS website and is expected to be circulated virally online and used by teachers.

Teenage boys are given the choice of how they behave in the bedroom with a girl they meet at a party. In the first clip, a group of teenagers are preparing for a party from the point of view of an unseen male character. They are given the choice of whether to buy condoms or not buy condoms when they visit their local newsagents.

The next clip allows viewers to choose the video whip out a condom . The clip shows a scene where the male character has sex with the young woman against a door in a hallway.

Another video, called Go Back to Jen's shows the girl splayed across a bed while the filmer of the clip has sex with her.

In some scenarios the couple have unprotected sex. If the male tries to ignore the question of using a condom he is rejected by Jen.

A final video portrays the outcome of not using a condom as an unfullfilling event followed by the news that the teenage boy has contracted an STD.

Nutters have complained that at no point in the video are teenagers advised that abstinence is the 'right option' . Norman Wells, the director of the Family and Education Trust, said the NHS should not be sending out the message that casual sex leaves no regrets . He said: It is grossly irresponsible of the NHS to present a graphic portrayal of unbridled lust in which a young woman is depicted as no more that a sex object and then to tell young men that they have "made the right choices" simply because they have used a condom."

Vivienne Pattisson, the director of Mediawatch, said she was concerned that there were no effective controls to prevent children from watching the clips.

The Westminster Media Forum is an opportunity for policy makers and government agencies to meet with key players in the media industry, academics and interest groups. The subject under discussion at the most recent event was video on demand, catch-up and online TV.

The Director of Mediawatch-UK was a panellist and she spoke about our concern that children are easily able to access post-watershed content on broadcasters' VOD sites and called for greater protection from potentially harmful material. It is bizarre that broadcasters are, quite rightly, unable to broadcast certain material on air until after the watershed but are quite free to broadcast the same material over the internet at any time without there being adequate protection mechanisms in place.

One of the suggestions she made was that post-watershed material should only be available to viewers who had been subject to a more rigorous age-verification check than the current tick box system on offer. She suggested a PIN number which could be provided by the viewer's internet service provider, telephone company or the TV licensing body each of which need to paid for, in the vast majority of cases, by an adult.

Much discussion then ensued on the financial cost to the industry of such a system. Unsurprisingly, there appeared to be little appetite from the industry to incur costs on a system of this kind.

According to reports, Coronation Street , will be screening its raunchiest ever sex scene on Friday 22nd October.

The episode will be screened before the 9pm watershed when plenty of children are likely to be watching.

A member of the production team has been quoted as saying these episodes will be, without a doubt, the hottest ever shown by any soap . Apparently the producers are bracing themselves for a backlash of complaints .

A new study into the effects of computer games has revealed that fast-paced action games turn us into faster and better decision-makers.

Scientists at the University of Rochester in New York conducted a series of tests to gauge whether regular bouts of high-speed gaming could help to improve our cognitive abilities.

The researchers tested dozens of 18- to 25-year-olds who were not ordinarily video-gamers, splitting them into two groups.

The first group were told to play adrenalin-packed action games such as Call of Duty 2 and Unreal Tournament , in which participants dash around online arenas shooting each other. The second group were given The Sims 2 , a more sedate, strategy-based game that mimics the pace of everyday life.

After 50 hours of playing, both groups were given a series of tests to see whether they could make quicker decisions. Scientists discovered that those who had trained on the action games made decisions 25% faster than their counterparts. They also answered just as many questions correctly as their strategy game-playing peers.

It's not the case that the action game players are trigger-happy and less accurate – they are just as accurate and also faster, said Daphne Bavelier, a cognitive scientist at Rochester who has been testing how computer games affect the brain and eyes for much of the past 10 years. Action game players make more correct decisions per unit time. If you are a surgeon or you are in the middle of a battlefield, that can make all the difference.

This benefit, researchers suggest in a forthcoming edition of Current Biology , has repercussions in the real world, such as improving our ability to multitask, drive, read small print and keep track of friends in a crowd.

Decisions are never black and white, she said. The brain is always computing probabilities. As you drive, for instance, you may see a movement on your right, estimate whether you are on a collision course, and based on that probability make a binary decision: brake or don't brake.

Action-filled computer games – which force the brain to make a whole series of fast-paced decisions in a split second – appear to improve our ability to make those decisions quickly.

Shooting off a few rounds of nonsense sound bites

Based on article from  news.sky.com

But Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch-UK, told Sky News the study could send out the wrong message about shoot 'em ups:

I dont dispute the findings, it is going to improve you reactions if you click something enough, of course it is, but I'm not just talking about mental reactions - these games dehumanise violence.

There have been other studies that link them to violence and you could get the same reactions from a driving game.

The media is not to blame for sexualising teenagers, according to study which shows young people are more influenced by factors inside the home.

Young people seek out racy programmes and magazines to satisfy pre-existing appetites, which are determined in large part by how they are brought up.

While campaigners have long blamed the media for forcing sexualised imagery on children and teens, the study found that those teenagers with an interest actively seek it out.

Psychologist Laurence Steinberg, from Temple University, Philadelphia, analysed data from 2006 claiming that children between the ages of 12 and 14 who consumed a large amount of sexualised media including films, television, music and magazines were more likely to have sex by age 16.

Various aspects of the teenagers' lives were studied, including school performance, religiousness, parental relationships, and perceptions of friends' attitudes about sex.

Dr Steinberg claims his findings, published in the online journal Developmental Psychology , gives the mass media a strong defence over accusations of sexualising young children.

It may look like media exposure leads to sexual activity, but the relation between the two is artificial, he said: If a child reports being very religious, he or she will be less likely to have sex at a younger age, but will also be less likely to consume sexualised media. Instead of pointing a collective finger at the entertainment industry, the most important influences on adolescents' sexual behaviour are probably closer to home.

However, Vivienne Pattison of Mediawatch-UK unscientifically overruled the findings: The findings of these surveys tend to be very contradictory. It is very hard for anyone to avoid being exposed to sexual material these days. On my way to work this morning I went past a billboard with a semi-naked woman on it, even thought it had nothing to do with what it was advertising.

Exposure to sexually explicit media at a young age can lead to a range of problems, including low self-esteem, eating disorders and sexually transmitted diseases. While these problems are difficult for teenagers to cope with, we are particularly concerned by their impact on young children, who are becoming increasingly sexualised by the miasma of explicit material that they are surrounded by.

Channel 4 is creating a reality show that will see two people, one attractive and the other physically disfigured, share a house.

Beauty and the Beast intends to expose the different ways in which they are treated because of their appearance. In each episode a different pair will be followed by the cameras. The show will follow them at home and when they are out and about.

Vivienne Pattison, the director of the nutter group MediaWatch, said: It sounds like an extraordinary freak show and Channel 4 pledged an end to this kind of voyeuristic programming when they announced the end of Big Brother. She said putting a disfigured person in a mirrored house in the name of entertainment was not healthy .

But the six-part series is being made with the co-operation of disfigurement charity Changing Faces. The programme makers are understood to be in talks with a number of high-profile people who have suffered some form of disfigurement to take part and discuss the issues faced.

More than half of older viewers believe television has deteriorated in the past year because of the soaring number of repeats, bad language and violence.

TV censor Ofcom found that 53% of over-65s believe standards have fallen and the quality and range of programmes have worsened.

Almost two thirds of those surveyed said part of their dissatisfaction was down to the increased number of repeats on screens, while a quarter were unhappy with the level of bad language and the variety of shows available.

Violence was another reported problem, with 15% saying programmes were using endless fight scenes in a gratuitous manner.

Last year, the five main channels broadcast 30,485 hours of original programming - down almost 8 per cent on 2008, and the lowest level for more than seven years.

For the BBC, EastEnders was one of the most complained about programmes in 2009. Hundreds whinged about its violence.

ITV has repeatedly come under fire for its reliance on big talent search reality shows such as Britain's Got Talent , The X Factor and Dancing on Ice at the expense of original drama and comedy.

Vivienne Pattison, director of nutter group MediaWatch-UK, said: There has been an erosion of the watershed in recent years, with people seeing more and more inappropriate scenes before 9pm.

Eagle eyed viewers may have sniggered - or gasped in 'outrage' - when a list flashed up on screen in Emmerdale's Marlon's cottage, featuring jam rags .

Under the innocuous terms such as rice and apples , was another surprising entry - pile cream .

Vivienne Pattison, director of campaigning group Mediawatch, has slammed the decision to screen the list.

She said: I think it's vulgar and inappropriate. 'Pile cream' I can deal with. It was the use of 'jam rag' that got me. I can't imagine a woman writing that. It's really vulgar and unnecessary.

Media watchdog Ofcom has so far registered no complaints about the list.

But ITV1 has apologised for any offence caused, saying in a statement: A shopping list featured in the background of a scene on Friday's episode of Emmerdale which included colloquial terms that some viewers considered inappropriate. We are looking into the matter and we apologise to any viewers if they were offended.

Update: A Red Rag to Middle England Whingers

28th July 2010. Based on article from theregister.co.uk , Thanks to Nick

Sadly, the ITV apology came a bit too late for Middle England, which was already shaken to the decent, upstanding foundations on which it rests. Traumatised Staffordshire mum-of-two Jean Walker recounted: I was stunned when my son, who is only seven, turned around and asked me what a jam rag was. It's not the kind of thing you want your kids seeing, so it was disappointing to see it on a programme like Emmerdale just after dinner.

You hear phrases like that used in the street or in the pub sometimes, but to use it in front of millions as part of a TV soap is a pretty silly thing to do.

An equally-rattled Sharon Kennedy, of Brum, reported: I couldn't believe my eyes when it appeared on screen - it's not the kind of language you expect to appear in one of our oldest soaps. I had to cover my young son's eyes because I didn't want to have to explain that kind of crass language to him at such a young age.

Maybe it was some kind of prank played on the cast by members of the production staff. If that was the case, I didn't find if particularly funny.

Ofcom have produced a league table of the most complained about TV.

Vivienne Pattison, director of mediawatch-uk said she was disappointed that Ofcom had not upheld more of the complaints and claimed it seemed to be on the side of the broadcasters .

Television's most complained about incidents:

1. Sky News: 2,093 complaints
   
   Exchange between Adam Boulton and Alistair Campbell where Boulton lost his cool and seemed on the point of fisticuffs. Also an interview conducted by an an unprepared Kay Burley who covered with an aggressive attack on democracy campaigner David Babbs.
    
2. Afternoon Live (Sky News): 891
   
   Interview in which she presenter Kay Burley left reality TV star Peter Andre visibly upset. Since cleared by Ofcom.
    
3. The Sky News Leaders' Debate: 674 complaints
   
   probed over fairness
    
4. Dancing on Ice: 484 complaints

   Celebrity ice-skating competition Dancing on Ice harrangued for comments made by one of its judges, who told Sharron Davies, the Olympic swimmer, that she looked like faecal matter . Commenting after she had performed a routine wearing a brown costume, he said: It was like watching faecal matter that won't flush – it goes around and around and around and in the end it doesn't go anywhere.

   Ofcom rejected the complaints noting that the judge Jason Gardiner is the acerbic 'nasty' judge on Dancing on Ice, and seems quite content to play up to his 'pantomime villain' image .
    

5. The Alan Titchmarsh Show: 301 complaints

   Complaints for a blatantly biased discussion on violence in video games.

   Also complaints for an item on sex toys as part of a pre-Valentine's day special. Sex toys being considered in appropriate for pre-watershed discussion.
    

6. Marie Stopes International advert: 236 complaints
   
   Innocuous advert harangued more for the subject matter than anything in the advert
    
7. Dispatches Britain's Islamic Republic: 208 complaints
   
   Complaints that the programme was biased
    
8. The Door: 203 complaints
   
   Viewers concerned about the portrayal/references of big aggressive German shepherd dogs as being dangerous.
    
9. Coronation Street: 200 complaints
   
   Various issues
    
10. Celebrity Big Brother: 190 complaints
    
    Various issues

Minor league nutters have accused Ofcom of giving broadcasters a green-light to swear after consulting almost 130 people who largely thought offensive language was acceptable.

A study by the watchdog, which included special input for minority groups like those who are transgender or travellers, suggested people were willing to tolerate various swear words on TV throughout the day.

While Ofcom insists there have been no rule changes about swearing as a result of the research, the likes of Mediawatch-Uk fear the report will pave the way for a more permissive attitude to the problem.

Vivienne Pattison of Mediawatch UK said last night the findings did not reflect what her organisation was hearing. She said: It just doesn't ring true. I find it really surprising because in all the conversations I have the general view is that swearing is not acceptable pre-watershed at all.

Also it is not acceptable in society per se, one can't go into a shop and say things like that. That's why it is does seem bizarre that people would think it would be okay on television. I have been totally bamboozled by the science behind the survey.

Don Foster, the Not So Liberal Democrat MP for Bath, who before the election was the party's culture spokesman said the report was bizarre . He said: Some of the things they are saying are acceptable is frankly amazing. I hope it won't be used to give licence to the broadcasters to totally ignore what I think are real concerns about good taste. We have a responsibility to set standards and I think it is important that broadcasters don't just operate at the lowest common denominator. Nobody but nobody has come to me saying we want to see more swearing, it is the reverse, they want to see less of it.

An Ofcom spokesman said: The research was conducted to ensure that Ofcom continues to remain in tune with public expectations of what they hear on TV and radio. Our research shows that audiences remain concerned about a range of language that they find offensive. For this reason we are not considering any changes to our robust rules which protect the public, and in particular children, from offensive material.'

For decades the late Mrs Whitehouse was the self-appointed moral watchdog of Britain. She saw television as the vanguard of the so-called permissive society of the Sixties, bringing violence, sex and bad language into the living rooms of the nation.

The puritanical campaigner warned of the de-sensitising effect of showing violence and gratuitous sex, saying it would create a more violent and sexualised society.

But Dame Joan was part of the 1960s generation who thought the old guard were foolish prudes.

Now, however, writing in Radio Times, the presenter said: The liberal mood back in the 60s was that sex was pleasurable and wholesome and shouldn't be seen as dirty and wicked. The Pill allowed women to make choices for themselves. Of course, that meant the risk of making the wrong choice. But we all hoped girls would grow to handle the new freedoms wisely.

Then everything came to be about money: so now sex is about money, too. Why else sexualise the clothes of little girls, run TV channels of naked wives, have sex magazines edging out the serious stuff on newsagents shelves? It's money that's corrupted us and women are being used and are even collaborating. Liberal: Joan Bakewell pictured in the Sixties

I never thought I would hear myself say as much, but I'm with Mrs Whitehouse on this one.

...Read the full article

Comment: Was Mary Whitehouse right all along?

7th June 2010. See  article from  timesonline.co.uk by William Rees-Mogg

One belief that I would share, both with Whitehouse and with Ms Bakewell, is that the media have a unique role in shaping the culture of society. Many fear that our culture is falling apart. They look at our society and see a series of social epidemics. Some of these, such as 24-hour drinking, have been the result of legislation, but many seem to have been self-generating, under the influence of media that do not recognise the social responsibilities of power.

These epidemics of violence, drugs, divorce, abortion, porn and debt have made Britain a less secure and less stable society, harder to live in, less attractive and much harder for the lives of children.

...Read the full article

Comment: Epidemics of Bollox

8th June 2010 from David

So rees-Mogg blames our troubles on epidemics of violence, drugs, divorce, abortion, porn and debt

Hm.

One of these things is not like the others. Porn, that is, which is obviously fictional - you tend not to bump into threesomes on the average high street.

Abortion's not like the rest either, and certainly isn't a factor on society.

Violence, drugs, divorce and debt. Ah. There we go. You'll probably find that two of those tend to follow on from the other two, neither of which are caused by porn, action movies, or swearing on TV...

Comment: In Defence of Mary Whitehouse

10th June 2010. See  article from  spectator.co.uk by Mary Kenny

Mary Whitehouse has often been represented as prejudiced, intolerant and homophobic. Yet her attitudes were rather archaic than malicious. She believed, like Sir John Reith in the 1920s and 1930s, that it was the duty of the BBC to edify the nation, rather than to roll back the boundaries of decency. Similarly, she attacked the Royal National Theatre for producing a play like The Romans in Britain , which included a scene of anal rape, which Sir Peter Hall rather pompously said was necessary to symbolise the penetration of Britain by Imperial Rome.

She claimed repeatedly that she was not hostile to homosexuals; she was unable, however, to accept that they were morally equivalent to heterosexuals. Equally, she protested against premarital intercourse and the sexual exploitation of children. In public entertainment she crusaded against violence, rape, full-frontal nudity, coarse language, and smoking and drinking.

Mrs Whitehouse did indeed protest too much; she saw slights against decency in everything, and especially took personally insults against Jesus Christ. Some of her complaints were just silly: she criticised a Beatles song in the Magical Mystery Tour because it contained the line You've been a naughty girl, you let your knickers down . She deprecated the innuendo in the sitcom It Ain't Half Hot Mum : and thought Top of the Pops anti-authority . She disliked Cathy Come Home because she thought it Left-wing propaganda, which she thought all part of the BBC's agenda.

Yet despite her over-statement and misjudged targets Mary Whitehouse was a significant figure. Some of her battles were justified, even prophetic.

...Read full article

An advert offering abortion services will be shown for the first time on British television next week.

Last year the authorities changed their code of practice to allow condoms to be advertised on television in an attempt to reduce teenage and unwanted pregnancies. However, they postponed a decision on whether to allow abortion, or post-conception , services to advertise because the issue was too controversial.

The new advert shows images of various women whose period is late and are wondering what to do. The first advert will run at 10.10pm on Channel 4 on Monday and the campaign will continue until the end of next month.

The organisation that pre-vets TV ads, Clearcast UK, has not imposed any restrictions on the time of day it can be aired except that it is not to be shown around children's programmes.

Marie Stopes International, a charity that carries out about 65,000 terminations a year at its British clinics, said that it wanted to encourage people to speak more openly about abortion, and reach the widest possible audience with information about its services.

Julie Douglas, marketing manager at Marie Stopes, said that the advert made clear that termination was one of the services that Marie Stopes offered, although the term abortion was not used. The ad features ordinary women who are not sure what to do if their period is late. All women will recognise that message. We do not use the term 'abortion' because we would never assume someone wants an abortion.

Anti-abortion campaigners said they deplored the campaign. I can only express utter disbelief that this is being allowed, said Michaela Aston, a spokeswoman for Life.

To allow abortion providers to advertise on TV, as though they were no different from car companies or detergent manufacturers, is grotesque. By suggesting that abortion is yet another consumer choice, it trivialises human life and completely contravenes the spirit of the 1967 Abortion Act. Whatever your opinion of the procedure . . . it is ending a human life.

Campaigners also claim that the availability of abortion has encouraged more teenagers to have sex without contraception, and prevented progress in reducing the number of teenage pregnancies. The British rate is among the highest in Europe.

Vivianne Pattison of Mediawatch UK, said: We are not a pro-life group but we do have issues with this because women with an unplanned pregnancy are in a vulnerable position.

Based on article from  dailymail.co.uk

Channel 4, as a publicly-funded broadcaster, needs to reassure people that it is not going to take sides on one of the most controversial issues in British culture, said Simon Calvert, of The Christian Institute.

He added: The public and Parliament are split right down the middle on this. Why on earth can't the regulator stop the advertising of abortion services on TV until there has been proper consideration?

Calvert said: People will be shocked to know how much public money is given to Marie Stopes to carry out abortions for the NHS: They will be more shocked some of that money is being used to promote the pro-abortion agenda.

Comment: Nutters 'Shocked'

From Dan

"Marie Stopes should not be allowed to 'ride roughshod over the widely held and deeply felt objections of a very large section of the British public', said Mr Calvert".

Yeah a bunch of God botherers who think their religious beliefs gives them the right to dictate what women can and cannot do with their bodies makes up a very large section of the British public.

"People will be shocked to know how much public money is given to Marie Stopes to carry out abortions for the NHS".

Or rather they might be reassured that the NHS is helping an organsation give help to young and frightened women who need help!

Update: ASA receive 300 complaints

29th May 2010. Based on article from  guardian.co.uk

The first totally innocuous UK TV commercial offering advice on abortion services has generated 350 complaints to the advert censor, the ASA.

Launched on Monday night on Channel 4 at 10.10pm, the ad for sexual health charity Marie Stopes simply asks the question Are you late? in reference to how missing a period could mean pregnancy.

The Advertising Standards Authority has received 350 complaints from viewers 'offended' by the commercial. The ASA will assess the complaints to see if there is grounds to investigate whether the TV commercial breached the advertising code.

No doubt the ASA simply won't want to get involved in the ongoing moral argument.

Maria Kerigan, teacher and campaigner, died in Alcester, Warwickshire on 6th February 2010.

What had struck Kerigan about television was that violent scenes could arrive in the home without prior warning. She felt that television had the potential to enlighten but also to undermine the education she was striving to provide in one of the poorest parts of London. So she volunteered for Mary Whitehouse's new National and Viewers and Listeners' Association.

Kerigan was the Association's first national secretary in 1970, sharing platforms with Whitehouse as they toured the country speaking to schools and at other public engagements. However, her approach to censorship and broadcasting standards was far more complex than Whitehouse's clear moralistic standpoint.

Unlike Whitehouse, she was careful to differentiate between a film depicting violence for its own sake and a film where the on-screen violence could be contextualised or even justified. Where Whitehouse's approach was absolute , Kerigan approached censorship from the perspective of information-provision, and the film's appropriateness for its intended audience. The Godfather , which she saw in 1972 by accident when her Catholic altar society misunderstood the film's name, became her favourite film; she felt that the scenes of violence were justified by the plot.

Their very different views of The Godfather may have been the first sign of the difference between the practical nature of Kerigan's approach with the more (some would say) dogmatic views demonstrated by Whitehouse. While Whitehouse was on television and radio making the moral case for taste and decency, as national secretary Kerigan quietly and effectively made the case for greater provision of information about what to expect from a film, TV or radio production.

Kerigan's pragmatism, as opposed to Whitehouse's absolutism, may have produced an unspoken tension between the two, and they parted company shortly after the Romans trial. Although there was no falling-out, and the two remained in contact, Whitehouse omitted any mention of Kerigan in her autobiography despite her 13 years of dedicated work.

The BBC has apologised after a radio DJ joked live on air that the Queen had died.

Danny Kelly began playing the national anthem and sombrely told up to a quarter of a million listeners he had some astonishing news to deliver. He then said: Queen Elizabeth II has now died .

The DJ had been half-way through his two-hour afternoon show on the local BBC WM station which broadcasts to the West Midlands from Birmingham.

Within seconds, producer Mark Newman jumped in, telling him: You can't say that .

Kelly then clarified that he had been referring to a friend on his show's Facebook page who went by the name Queen Elizabeth II , but who had vanished from the site.

Vivianne Patterson, chairman of nutter group Mediawatch-UK, said Kelly's remark was incredibly ill-conceived and added: It's a bit sick actually. I think because it's the Queen and they treated it like a big announcement it makes things worse. It's the BBC we are talking about here and there's a certain expectation from them. The use of the national anthem is a problem here as well - I really think it's pushing things.'

A BBC spokesman said: We can confirm that Danny Kelly made an inappropriate remark about the Queen during his radio show on BBC WM today. Although made as part of a light-hearted piece about social media friends, and corrected on air immediately after it was made, this comment was entirely inappropriate and the BBC apologises unreservedly for it. There was no intention to offend. BBC WM takes these comments very seriously. Action is being taken.

Ofcom said it had not received any complaints about the joke.

The Daily Mail seemed to have gone a little over the top with a particularly sad rant about Dr Who .

Paul Revoir wrote:

It is billed as one of the BBC's most popular family shows. But Doctor Who fans have accused the corporation of cynically trying to sex up the programme to attract more adult viewers.

Dozens have complained about an overtly sexual scene in last Saturday's episode, which saw the Time Lord being propositioned by his new assistant Amy Pond. Sexed up? The Doctor will face a group of scantily-clad vampires in this week's episode

Karen Gillan's character was shown lying seductively on a bed, before lunging at the Doctor, trying to undress him against the Tardis and kissing him.

She then joked about how long it had been since the 907-year-old Time Lord last had sex and claimed she didn't mind if they had a one-night-stand.

Afterwards, a trailer for a forthcoming episode, to be screened on Saturday, revealed the plot centres around a group of young women vampires, scantily dressed in low-cut nightdresses.

Last night, fans reacted angrily to what they claim is the sexualisation of the show, saying the material was totally inappropriate for a family drama.

Even the inevitable trivial sound bite from Mediawatch-UK didn't exactly support the Daily Mail nonsense:

Vivienne Pattison, of pressure group Mediawatch UK, who watched last Saturday's episode, which went out at 6.25pm on BBC1, said: I have to say the scene was slightly out of place in a children's programme. I thought it sailed pretty close to the wind.

But the Daily Mail can always fall back on a few internet forums to find a bit of nutter 'outrage':

One viewer told the BBC's messageboard: I wish to complain about the overtly sexual scene. This programme is designed as a family series, so showing Amy Pond trying to get the Doctor into bed was wholly inappropriate. As a life-long fan I thought the series was above all that. I trust this is not a trend that will continue.

Another added: Amy Pond literally wanted to have sex with the Doctor, on the bed, right there and then. It is totally inappropriate for what is essentially children's TV.

Viewers have also posted messages on parents' website Mumsnet criticising the episode. One read: Just watched this on tape and am very disappointed. Why on earth do they have to have her asking him for casual sex?

And at east the BBC get a chance to add a little perspective:

A BBC spokesman confirmed it had received 43 complaints, saying: Millions of Doctor Who fans watched and enjoyed last Saturday's episode, including the lighthearted and humorous scene in which Amy kissed the Doctor.

For no particular reason, the Daily Mail decided that now was a good time to list recent instances of strong language on TV.

The Daily Mail wrote:

Record numbers of TV viewers and radio listeners are making official complaints about unacceptable levels of swearing in programmes.

Television watchdog Ofcom fielded 500 complaints in the first three months of this year, and has been asked to rule on 1,159 during 2009. This represents a dramatic surge since 2006, when 841 complaints were made.

Critics last night described the amount of bad language on television and radio as unacceptable and called for clearer guidelines and tougher penalties for broadcasters.

And then proceeded to list a few recent examples of strong language on TV. Then they revealed that the 'critics' are in fact, just the perennial whingers of Mediawatch-UK.

Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch-UK, said: This kind of language is not tolerated in the office or in the playground, so why is it on television?

Ofcom's guidelines should also be tightened up so it is really clear what is acceptable and what is not. And when a company breaches the guidelines there should be real sanctions.

An Ofcom statement rather summed up the Daily Mail's non-story

A spokesman for Ofcom said it had no evidence that offensive language is increasing on TV or radio. He added: We think our sanctions are sufficiently strong and that the Broadcasting Code is sufficiently clear.'

The topless fire-eater who impressed the two male judges last night on Britain's Got Talent has appeared in pornographic films.

Exotic dancer Tia Brodie advanced to the next round of the ITV talent show after singing the Kasabian song Fire while running a burning torch over her skin, wearing only high heels, knickers and two patches over her breasts.

The show's creator Simon Cowell said he loved it , while fellow judge Piers Morgan said he would like to see more of her act.

Ms Brodie, 33, who has worked in the sex industry for nine years, said she was not ashamed of her past.

But nutter campaigners last night criticised ITV, saying the sexualised performance was inappropriate for Saturday night family entertainment.

Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch UK, said: This show is watched by thousands of children. ITV push the boundaries and push them again. It's an erosion of standards that we have to resist.

An ITV spokeswoman said: Britain's Got Talent aims to reflect the diversity of talent in the UK. It offers equal opportunities to all performers who operate within the law.

Maybe to wind up the Daily Mail?

Jonathan Ross has predictably 'shocked' the Daily Mail at a charity gala for Great Ormond Street Hospital with a foul-mouthed routine using the c-word repeatedly.

Ross told the audience to scream the word so they could break the record for the most people saying it at once.

Appearing at the Channel 4 Comedy Gala for the children's hospital, Ross also made lewd comments about Lady Gaga.

The main butt of his jokes was show-business friend Ricky Gervais, who he branded a lazy cunt twice.

His behaviour 'angered' the 'taste and decency' mob as well as a spout-a-quote MP.

Vivienne Pattison, of pressure group Mediawatch UK, said: You have to worry about someone, who the only way they can get a laugh is to use language like that. It is kind of pathetic really. I would say he is totally out of step with public opinion, people don't like it.

Tory MP David Davies added: If you are trying to get money out of people for a good cause then it is not good to have people using humour like that.

Comment: Yeah Yeah Yeah

From Dan

And the Daily Mail is happy to put him back into the headlines! Whilst being ever so outraged about him of course!

The Daily Mail is following everything Ross does and everything he says just so they scream outrage about him and take offence on behalf of their middle England readers over his antics!

Viv Pattison couldn't miss out to give her two pence worth: I would say he is totally out of step with public opinion, people don't like it.

Yes because the views of the director of Mediawatch UK, a few Tory MPs and the Daily Mail represents public opinion!

Yeah yeah yeah!

An Ofcom investigation has suppoedly revealed 'millions' of children are bypassing strict guidelines and parental controls and watching shows meant for adults by using popular TV internet services such as BBC iPlayer.

Most TV catch-up websites, like iPlayer, ITV Player, and Channel 4's 4oD, operate a voluntary system which makes parents responsible for setting up a PIN or password to block access by children if they wish. Channel Five's web player Demand Five requires a log in and email address to access content which cannot be broadcast on TV until after 9pm when young children are in bed.

But TV regulator, Ofcom, found that 3% of children from five to seven have internet in their own bedrooms, which they can use to watch the TV-on-demand websites. It also discovered that only 12% of parents with children aged five to 15 had bothered to set up a PIN or password, and almost 40% of parents had no idea the safeguards even existed.

There are 19 million households with an internet connection in Britain, so this means that millions of children are downloading post-watershed adult material every day, sometimes without their parents' knowledge. [I think the Sunday Express really need to explain their nonsense reasoning here]

The Sunday Express has been shown exclusively a document on catch-up websites from the TV watchdog, Mediawatch. It details how easy it is for young children to access post-watershed shows featuring sex and violence and gives a comprehensive list of programmes they could access without a PIN or password. These include documentaries on sex and violence, dramas like Being Human, Misfits and Wallander and comedy such as Live At The Apollo .

I'm very disturbed by what I was able to access, said Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch. I don't want these shows banned, just access to them restricted. It makes a mockery of the watershed.

Pattison has written to the Government, broadcasters and Ofcom urging that the Digital Economy Bill is amended to force catch-up sites to install compulsory PIN or password access.

A Culture Department spokesman said: Parental controls do already exist for video on demand services. Parents should be aware of what their children watch online and use these controls.

Pattison responded: Banning post-watershed material on catch-up players is a blunt instrument, but that may be the only way to do it.

Labour MP Barry Sheerman, Chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee, said: Our broadcasters who put this sort of filth online should be forced to ensure children are unable to access it.

Film censors were blasted by rent-a-quote nutters last night for handing a 15 rating to a film peppered with obscenities and violence.

Kick-Ass , co-written by Jonathan Ross's wife Jane Goldman, is billed as a comedy action adventure.

Tory MP David Davies, who sits on the home affairs select committee, said he was horrified the film would be seen by 15-year-olds.

And Vivienne Pattison, of Mediawatch UK, said: It just sets up a context of behaviour for 15-year-olds that they can go and see this and it reinforces this sort of behaviour.

In the film, a teenage boy decides to make a stand against street crime by becoming a superhero called Kick-Ass . The most 'shocking' scene shows actress Chloe Moretz, who was aged 11 at the time, playing heroine Hit Girl, using obscene language. She tells a group of assailants: OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now. She also repeatedly calls other characters motherfuckers .

On its website, the BBFC defends the swearing saying: Although some people might be offended by a child using this type of language, the predominant effect is comic.

Comment: Online Daily Mail Readers Kick-Ass

26th March 2010. From Shaun

It is interesting to note that in the Daily Mail, that the Kick-Ass film article reader comments get marked well down when someone suggests it should be censored.

Many respondents on the Daily Mail website seem to be against censorship rather than for it, when the subject comes up, which is often.

Not that that paper seems to learn anything from this.

MediaWatch-UK have just published their Spring Newsletter.

They are leading of the lack of an effective age verification method for post-watershed TV programmes which are available 24/7 on iPlayer and the like.

Mediawatch-UK contend that Audio Visual media law mandates age verification:

If an on-demand programme service contains material which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of eighteen, the material must be made available in a manner which secures that such persons will not normally see or hear it.

But their argument was easily countered by Ofcom who said that :

they consider there is no requirement under these Regulations for broadcasters to use protections for post-watershed content because material which has previously been broadcast on television without regulatory intervention is, by definition, not ‘material which might seriously impair'.

Mediawatch also highlight their legal contention that the infliction of point in the TV series Balls of Steel is a matter for the police:

Mediawatch-UK has been working with a lawyer whose legal opinion is that, whilst this infliction of pain may not have been in breach of the Broadcasting Code, it may well have been in breach of the Offences Against the Person Act regardless of whether or not the performers consented to this abuse.

Mediawatch printed this story as an ongoing campaign but it must have just missed the deadline that police quickly dismissed their notion and said that a criminal investigation was not appropriate .

Mediawatch also have a  piece about the strong language review by the BBFC. But nothing the BBC will ever do can keep Mediawatch happy with their uncompromising view:

We do not think strong language should be used at all before the watershed or in programmes likely to appeal to children. We believe the strongest swearwords should be barred at all times. Can there ever be a justification for using them? Are there really no other words which would suffice?

Lads mags also come under the nutter spotlight. Mediawatch are running a campaign to get MPs to sign up for:

From edmi.parliament.uk

That this House believes that politicians, retailers, publishers and distributors have a collective responsibility to protect children and young people from displays of sexually graphic material that they are not emotionally equipped to deal with; calls for an urgent review of existing guidelines drawn up between the Home Office and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents; further believes that such a review must consider the availability of sexually graphic publications to children and young people, the positioning of these publications on the shelves of retailers, and the potential for concealing these publications in bags and consider the question of age-rating such publications; and further believes that failure to follow the revised guidelines could lead to calls for legislation covering all aspects of the availability and display of sexually graphic material to children and young people throughout the retail and publishing industries.

It is currently signed by 149 censorial MPs

Those tuning into This Morning , eager to see their favourite cookery and fashion features, were instead confronted by two couples simulating sex live on air.

In one scene a young couple were shown testing out how to have sex when there is a height difference, while an older pair revealed the best positions to adopt when one party is tired.

It then featured a short interview with 23-year-old Dannii Frost, who complained she had never had an orgasm with her partner of three years. Although presenter Philip Schofield kept a straight face as the spectacle unfolded, it was too much for co-host Holly Willoughby, who spent most of the time giggling and pulling faces.

But not everyone was laughing last night. A few viewers have turned to internet message boards and to media groups to complain about the ITV daytime programme, which is dedicating much of its output this week to dealing with viewers' sexual problems and questions.

Vivienne Pattison, director of MediaWatch UK, said: I've had people ringing in to complain about this and they are right to do so. Lots of people were offended. This was broadcast well before the watershed and when young children are likely to be watching. It is not appropriate. ITV have crossed a line here.

However Schofield was unrepentant, writing on his Twitter page: I am loving the "outrage" at This Morning's sex week. It was all perfectly decent and you got two warnings. And he warned that the rest of the week would cover sex toys, sexual taboos and infidelity.

Update: Ofcom's Position

17th March 2010. From broadcastnow.co.uk

Ofcom is not planning to investigate viewers complaints about This Morning 's sex-themed week, Sex Up Your Life.

The regulator confirmed this morning that complaints had been made about models simulating sex positions on the morning television programme. A spokesman said there were no plans to investigate the complaints, which focused on the suitability of the show pre-watershed.

Scotland Yard has received a complaint about a Channel 4 alternative comedy series in which two men inflict pain on each other for fun.

The programme – Balls Of Steel – features Michael Locke and Matthew Pritchard, who perform masochistic acts including giving each other electric shocks and stapling paper to their tongues.

The pair – who go under the name Pancho and Pritchard, The Pain Men – are shown trying to outdo other performers to win an audience vote. The Pain Men. In one episode, entitled Kitchen Nightmares, one of them pressed raw onion into the open eyes of the other. In a further scene, called School Discipline , one of them beats the other's buttocks with a whip.

43 complaints were previously made to the TV censor when the shows were first televised, Ofcom ruled Channel 4 had not breached its code.

Nutter group Mediawatch-UK claims Channel 4 has breached an 1861 law which forbids people from inflicting bodily harm on each other, even by consent.

The nutters have now written to the Metropolitan Police asking the force to investigate further. But Scotland Yard said a criminal investigation was not appropriate .

Mediawatch-UK are whingeing about an American TV series about the Roman Empire.

Spartacus: Blood And Sand has featured full-frontal nudity, violence and sex scenes of orgies since it first aired in the US in January.

The show, which stars Scottish actor John Hannah and pulled in more than a million viewers this week, is looking for a post-watershed UK home.

But Mediawatch-UK says the programme should not be allowed in Britain, even late at night.

We can no longer ignore the fact that what viewers see on television has an impact on society, said 'outraged' director Vivienne Pattison: Even the Government is asking the producers of soap operas to include safe-sex messages in their programmes now. There are numerous studies linking exposure to violence on TV with violent behaviour at large and if there is the slightest possibility that explicit sex and violence on screen can cause this harm, is it worth the risk in the interests of entertainment?

The lobby group also said it was concerned that children might eventually find the programme online. Once this programme is shown on television it will be much easier for children to access – particularly via video-on-demand online services, she added.

The TV show focuses loosely on the historical figure of Spartacus – a Thracian gladiator who led a major slave uprising against the Roman Republic in 73BC.

Update: Slaves to Nonsense

9th March 2010. Based on article from entertainment.timesonline.co.uk

Forget stoic legionaries marching along spear-straight roads; never mind glorious mosaics and monumental architecture; as for heroic literature — no chance. The Romans, to judge by this new version of Spartacus, were mainly preoccupied with sex, intrigue, bloody violence and more sex.

As well as full-frontal nudity, the show features scenes of extreme gore. In one gladiatorial fight, the winner slices off his opponent's face and wears it as a mask.

Perhaps not surprisingly, not everyone is keen to tune in and last week there were calls for the show to be banned even before it has arrived. Vivienne Pattison, director of the campaign group Mediawatch UK, said: I'm not saying the Romans weren't violent. And I don't have a problem with bodies per se. But porn is filtering into society and it's worrying. This programme absolutely encapsulates this problem.

Broadcasters can tell us they're holding a mirror to that society and reflecting back on our own; but I'd argue we are just taking all that in and becoming immune to it.

Is it necessary to see the knife go in, turn round, come out, blood spurt, all the rest of it? You've only got to look at how casual violence has grown to a level that didn't exist before it was so widespread on television. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The British satellite broadcaster Bravo has bought the show, and has rights to show it online. It means that for up to seven days after its transmission on television, viewers will be able to watch episodes online at any time. The so-called watershed is then ineffective and Mediawatch UK fears Spartacus could be easily watched by children.

Pattison said: Why is it entertaining to watch people being slashed like that with blood everywhere? In no place in society would that be acceptable other than on television. It doesn't even add to the storylines. She plans to campaign for a ban.

Comment: Ban this Filth!

10th March 2010. Thanks to Dan

Just been reading Viv Pattison's bollox about the programme Spartacus.

Like Beyer before her she seems completely unaware she's being used to further the publicity of sex and violence laden TV shows.

Or that her cries to BAN THIS FILTH will only get more people to tune in!

Psychiatrists are to give official recognition to dozens of new mental disorders, including a condition nicknamed Mary Whitehouse syndrome — the thrill of being appalled by pornography and other obscenities.

Absexuality appears to have been inspired by the zeal of Whitehouse, the campaigner who railed against smut on television.

Although there is no evidence that Whitehouse got a kick out of salacious viewing, there is no disputing her passion for attacking broadcasters if she felt their standards had slipped

emark points out though: Sadly I think the Times have got it wrong - I don't think this is in the DSM proposal (I can't find it on www.dsm5.org ), rather it's a proposal by someone else, Carol Queen.

The condition is one of many mood disorders and personality traits that are likely to be added to the next edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the psychiatrists' bible.

The disorders, which also include hypersexuality — the desire for multiple partners, perhaps characterised by the golfer Tiger Woods — reflect changing social patterns. Critics believe, however, that their classification as psychiatric problems may lead them to be exploited for profit by drug companies.

emark notes: The Times also falsely define hypersexuality as merely "the desire for multiple partners". It's sad to see this level of misreporting, especially on an issue that many people won't know much about.

Other new conditions include sluggish cognitive tempo disorder, which some would regard as simple laziness, and relational disorder, in which two people — often a separating couple — struggle to get on. People who whinge constantly may be suffering negativistic personality disorder. Intermittent explosive disorder — otherwise known as adult tantrums — is also defined for the first time.

Comment: Self Diagnosis

Dan adds

How to diagnose Mary Whitehouse Syndrome....

• Do you get a kick out of watching sex, porn and filth on TV just to get offended?
   
• Do you feel the need to write to the Daily Mail in utter outrage every time you see a bare breast on TV?
   
• Do you often get offended by things you haven't seen or heard and which you just read about in the right-wing tabloid press?
   
• Have you ever thought of joining Mediawatch UK?

If the answer to any of the above is yes then you have Mary Whitehouse Syndrome!