Ofcom Watch

Going to the Dogs
Channel 4, 12 June 2014, 22:00

Going to the Dogs was an observational documentary about dog fighting broadcast on Channel 4. Ofcom received 1,736 complaints in relation to the programme. They covered a range of issues but focused broadly on offence or concern caused by:

• scenes of dog fighting and other cruelty to animals (the programme also included footage of battery farming, horses being killed and pheasant shooting);

• contributors who were involved in dog fighting having their identities protected and not being reported to the police; and

• the possibility that contributors involved in dog fighting had been paid for their participation in the programme.

A number of complainants also considered that the programme glamorised dog fighting.

Ofcom assessed the programme, which was of 75 minutes duration. It was a documentary featuring individuals involved with dog fighting in the UK, and discussing the moral and legal issues surrounding various activities that involve animals (such as battery farming, hunting and horse racing). In particular, the programme included three pieces of footage of dog fights that the programme makers had filmed. Each was recorded in what appeared to be a disused building, and the footage clearly demonstrated both the violence of the dog fights and the injuries caused to the animals involved. In addition, the programme also included clips from a video of a particularly bloody dog fight that had taken place in what was purported to be Kashmir.

Ofcom considered rules of the Code:

Rule 2.3: In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context. Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs and sexual orientation). Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.

Rule 2.4: Programmes must not include material (whether in individual programmes, or in programmes taken together) which, taking into account the context, condones or glamorises violent, dangerous or seriously antisocial behaviour and is likely to encourage others to copy such behaviour.

Rule 3.3: No payment, promise of payment, or payment in kind, may be made to convicted or confessed criminals whether directly or indirectly for a programme contribution by the criminal (or any other person) relating to his/her crime/s. The only exception is where it is in the public interest.

Ofcom Decision: Complaints not upheld

Rule 2.3

while the footage of animal suffering included in the programme was shocking and distressing to some viewers, Ofcom considered that it would not have exceeded the expectations of the majority of the audience for this Channel 4 documentary.

Ofcom also assessed complaints that viewers were offended that contributors featured in the programme who were involved in dog fighting had their identities protected and were not reported to the police.

We noted Channel 4's comments that it is not its policy to hand over untransmitted rushes of programmes to the authorities. The Licensee also told Ofcom that it was a condition of the access secured by the production team that those involved in dog fighting would not have their identities disclosed.

Ofcom recognised that the protection from identification provided to the contributors involved in dog fighting may have been offensive to some viewers. However, in accordance with the right to freedom of expression, there are some circumstances in which journalists need to protect their sources to investigate and report on criminal activity. Importantly in this case, Ofcom also noted that the programme makers acted and filmed in an observational manner: at no point did it appear that any criminal activity had taken place for the specific purposes of the programme or as a direct result of the programme makers' presence. Taking all of the above into account, Ofcom concluded that Channel 4 applied generally accepted standards and there was no breach of Rule 2.3.

Rule 2.4

Rule 2.4 requires that programmes must not include material that condones of glamorises violent or dangerous behaviour and is likely to encourage others to copy such behaviour.

Ofcom noted that those individuals involved in dog fighting were given the opportunity to explain their reasons for being involved in the activity. However, as described in the Introduction, the sustained sequences of dog fighting included in the programme were unflinching and clearly demonstrated the grim reality of the practice. This was reflected in the descriptions used by complainants to Ofcom who described the footage variably as: distressing ; horrendous ; and, sickening .

We also noted that the programme included numerous references to the criminal nature of dog fighting. Ofcom therefore considered that the programme did not present a glamorised depiction of dog fighting and was unlikely to encourage others to copy the behaviour shown. The programme was therefore not in breach of Rule 2.4.

Rule 3.3

Rule 3.3 requires that payment may not be made to a convicted or confessed criminal for a contribution to a programme relating to their crimes unless it is in the public interest. Ofcom received confirmation from the programme makers, through Channel 4, that none of the contributors featured in the programme involved in dog fighting was paid for their contribution. We were therefore satisfied that Rule 3.3 was not breached.

UK TV censor Ofcom has received six complaints following a lesbian kiss on Doctor Who, reports Gay Star News.

The complaints came after a scene in which Madame Vastra helps to keep her wife Jenny alive in response to a threat from droids that only move when they can sense breath.

A few worthless tweets were also dredged up.

Update: Ofcom will not investigate the whinges

28th August 2014. From strangethingsarehappening.com. Thanks to Nick

A spokesman for TV censor Ofcom has now responded to the complaints:

Ofcom can confirm it received six complaints about a kiss broadcast in an episode of Doctor Who on Saturday 23 August.

Having assessed the complaints, we can confirm that they do not raise issues warranting further investigation. Our rules do not discriminate between scenes involving opposite sex and same sex couples.

Update: Censored in Asia

31st August 2014. See article from dailymail.co.uk

The BBC cut a lesbian kiss scene from Doctor Who to avoid offending audiences (and TV censors) when it was screened in Asia.

The feature-length edition was broadcast to viewers in Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore last Monday. BBC insiders say the scene, which lasted just a couple of seconds, was cut to avoid falling foul of a broadcasting code in Singapore which says programmes should avoid any content that could justify homosexual and lesbian lifestyles.

George Dixon, BBC Worldwide's global editorial director, said:

When preparing shows for international transmission, we occasionally have to make edits to ensure we're not breaking any local broadcasting rules.

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell was not impressed. He said:

The BBC should not bow to censorship demands from other countries. If these countries are bigoted and are not willing to show same-sex love, they have no right to demand that the BBC conforms to their standards of prejudice.

Deadly Women
Investigation Discovery, 16, 18 & 20 August 2013 at various times during the day

Deadly Women is a true-life crime series about female killers. Each episode, which had a scheduled duration of 60 minutes, relayed the crimes of three different murderers through dramatic reconstructions of specific crimes and interviews with experts in criminal behaviour, including forensic pathologists. It is TV-14 rated for US TV.

A complainant alerted Ofcom to graphic depictions of violence contained within an episode broadcast at 09:00 on 20 August 2013. Ofcom assessed this episode, along with another seven episodes shown between 06:00 and 17:00 on 16 and 18 August 2013. We noted that each episode was preceded by variations of the following warnings:

• The following programme contains scenes of a violent nature which some viewers may find disturbing ; or

• The following programme contains scenes of murder or violent crimes that have been re-enacted.

We had concerns about a large number of the dramatic reconstructions included within the series.

Ofcom considered rules:

• Rule 1.3: Children must...be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them .

• Rule 1.11: Violence, its after-effects and descriptions of violence, whether verbal or physical, must be appropriately limited in programmes broadcast before the watershed (in the case of television)...and must also be justified by the context .

• Rule 2.3: In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context... .

Discovery apologised for the broadcast of this content. The Licensee stated that: We accept that some of the content in these episodes was beyond the expectations of a daytime audience, even on a specialised crime channel such as [Investigation Discovery]. The Licensee also said that upon being alerted to the original complaint in this case, the content was reviewed and then immediately taken out of the daytime schedule.

It said that all the programmes in this case had been from series six of Deadly Women and none of these programmes were intended for transmission in daytime . While all the other series of Deadly Women had been correctly certified as post watershed , Discovery said that this had not happened in the case of series six. The Licensee stated that this deeply unfortunate incident had occurred as a result of an error of judgement by a less experienced member of the re-versioning team during the certification process for series 6 [which] meant that it was accidentally certified as suitable for audiences with a low child index .

Initial Ofcom Decision: Breach of rules 1.3, 1.11 and 2.3

Ofcom considered that these programmes were unsuitable for children, and that a number of the episodes would have been likely to have greatly troubled younger viewers in particular.

Ofcom reminds all broadcasters to ensure they are adequately resourced to ensure all their programming complies with the Code. Further they must have sufficient resources and appropriate arrangements in place to monitor as necessary output as it is broadcast to ensure that if, as here, a compliance mistake is made the licensee has a reasonable opportunity to spot the error and correct it before broadcast. In this case, the Licensee was seemingly unaware that it had broadcast wholly unsuitable material before the watershed until it was alerted by Ofcom.

We considered that the repeated broadcast during the daytime of very violent material in the form of prolonged and disturbing dramatic reconstructions of torture, mutilation and murder resulted in serious contraventions of the Code. Ofcom therefore put the Licensee on notice that it would consider these breaches of the Code for the imposition of a statutory sanction.

The Sanction Decision

First, Ofcom found the breaches of the Code by the Broadcasts were serious principally because of the graphic and extended depictions of extreme violence which they contained and which were transmitted at various times before the watershed in the school holidays. The Broadcasts were unsuitable for children and highly likely to have caused distress to any children in the audience.

Second, the breaches were repeated in that this unsuitable content was spread across 8 episodes of the series Deadly Women, shown on 16, 18 and 20 August 2013. 12.

Last, the pre-watershed broadcasts were made in error and, by the Licensee's own admission, in an entirely inappropriate time-slot . The errors were blatant and repeated over a period of 5 days. Ofcom considered that the breaches in this case demonstrated that the Licensee failed to ensure that it had robust compliance procedures in place.

In arriving at its Decision of the appropriate type and level of sanction, Ofcom also took account of the Licensee's recent compliance record. Prior to the Broadcasts, the Licensee did not have a history of contraventions on the Investigation Discovery service. However, it operates a centralised compliance unit for all 73 of its licensed broadcasting services. Ofcom has found the Licensee in breach of the Code in relation to broadcasts on other licensed services, most recently, in relation to the programme Embarrassing Bodies (TLC Poland6, 25 July 2013, 14:00). This was found in breach of Rule 1.3 as the programme, which contained full screen images of an invasive vaginal examination, was unsuitable for children and had not been appropriately scheduled.

Ofcom's Decision is that the appropriate sanction should be a financial penalty of £100,000. Ofcom also considers that the Licensee should be directed to broadcast a statement of Ofcom's findings, on a date and in a form to be determined by Ofcom.

Ofcom writes in a press release:

Ofcom has published research on consumer attitudes and trends in violence shown on UK TV programmes.

The research supports Ofcom in its role in protecting TV viewers, especially children. It looks at how violence on TV has changed since Ofcom issued guidelines to broadcasters in 2011 to avoid programmes being shown before 9pm that might be unsuitable for children.

The research comprises two separate reports. The first study focused on public attitudes towards violence on TV among people from a range of ages and socio-economic groups.

The second was an analysis of four popular UK soap operas, which looked at instances of violence, or threats of violence, and people's views on them. Research findings

The first report, on the views of audiences, found that different demographic groups showed subtle differences in their views about violent content. However, all agreed that children should not be exposed to any sexual violence on TV before and straight after the watershed.

People considered the time of broadcast to be the single most important factor in determining the acceptability of violent content on TV. Viewers were prepared to tolerate moderately violent scenes before the watershed; however, all agreed that strong scenes with a vulnerable victim were unacceptable before 9pm.

The research also found that viewers have a sophisticated ability to analyse contextual factors when assessing whether violent scenes were acceptable. Many people said they watched violent content for a number of reasons. Some said it made genres, such as action or drama, seem realistic and provided tension, therefore contributing to their TV viewing experience.

The study of soap operas not only looked at violent scenes, but also measured those with menacing or threatening behaviour, and violence that was implied off-screen.

It found that violence in soaps was usually clearly indicated in advance, so viewers were unlikely to be surprised when it took place. The research showed 79% of violent scenes were judged credible and rarely surprised viewers. Broadcasters have also used violence in soap operas to help raise awareness and generate public debate around social issues such as domestic abuse.

Instances of strong scenes, portraying violence that might make the viewer uncomfortable, were very infrequent, at 6% overall. Depictions of terror during violent scenes, such as the imbalance of power in a fight, near fatal violence and post-traumatic stress flashbacks, varied between 3% and 5% in the soaps covered.

The report also found that the amount of violence, or threats of violence, has varied over the years. EastEnders has shown a decline from 6.1 violent scenes per hour in 2001/2002 to 2.1 in 2013.

The level of violence in Coronation Street has remained fairly steady, at around three scenes per hour over the same period. There was an increase in Emmerdale, from 2.5 to over 4 scenes per hour, while Hollyoaks has also shown a rise, from 2.1 scenes per hour between 2001 and 2002 to 11.5 scenes per hour in 2013.

Daily Politics
BBC 2, 22 May 2014, 12:00

Daily Politics is a live political discussion programme that broadcasts on weekdays at lunchtime.

Two of the guests featured in the episode shown on 22 May 2014 were Conservative MP Nick Herbert, the former Minister of State for Police and Criminal Justice, and Peter Kirkham, a former Detective Chief Inspector. During a discussion about the tense relations between some in the police force and the Government, Mr Herbert said:

I'm afraid there have been a minority who have been outspoken and they are very active on Twitter and so on. Peter [Kirkham] himself, just a day ago, described the Home Secretary as 'a fuckwit' on his own Twitter line .

Ofcom noted that the presenter, Jo Coburn, immediately said to Mr Herbert:

we won't have any more of that .

In addition, Ms Coburn apologised at the end of the programme by saying:

I have to apologise for the earlier expletive used and expressed by the former Policing Minister Nick Herbert. Unacceptable, won't be repeated .

Ofcom received five complaints from viewers who objected to Mr Herbert's use of the word fuckwit and considered it unsuitable given that the programme was broadcast during the day.

Ofcom considered Rule 1.14:

The most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed

The BBC told Ofcom that no briefing of Mr Herbert had taken place before the broadcast. It said it is not usual practice to give such briefings to MPs and former Government ministers as it is reasonably assumed that figures in political life are aware of the need to avoid using offensive language .

Ofcom Decision: Resolved

While this was clearly a case of the most offensive language being broadcast before the watershed, Ofcom recognised that the programme was broadcast live and Mr Herbert used the word when directly quoting the online comment of another guest to illustrate the tense relations between some in the police force and the Government. Ofcom also recognised that the likelihood of a significant number of children watching was very small, given that Daily Politics is a programme of limited appeal to younger viewers and this episode was shown at lunchtime during school term time. These factors reduced the potential for offence caused by the use of fuckwit .

Further, Ofcom noted that the programme's presenter, Jo Coburn, made it immediately clear to Mr Herbert that the use of offensive language should not be repeated, before apologising to viewers at the end of the programme.

Given the above, Ofcom considers the matter resolved.

Ofcom reminds all broadcasters that they should consider carefully their processes for briefing guests appearing on live programmes.

Ofcom writes:

The watershed is 50 years old this month. In July 1964, Parliament passed the law that led to measures to protect children from seeing harmful or offensive material on TV in the evenings.

Fifty years on, new Ofcom research shows that most adult TV viewers are aware of the 9pm watershed as a valued way of indicating what is suitable for young viewers.

Ofcom's research shows that 98% of adults in the UK watch TV. Among TV viewers, 94% are aware that the watershed requires broadcasters only to show programmes unsuitable for children after a certain time (compared to 91% in 2008).

Today, more TV viewers believe the watershed is at about the right time (78% in 2013 compared to 70% in 2008), Ofcom's report on UK audience attitudes to broadcast media shows.

In the past five years, there have been falls in the number of viewers saying there is too much violence (35% of adult viewers in 2013, down from 55% in 2008), sex (26% in 2013 versus 35% in 2008) and swearing (35% in 2013 versus 53% in 2008) on TV.

One reason for this is a change in attitude among older viewers. The number of viewers over 65 who believe there is too much swearing (78% in 2008 compared to 55% in 2013) and violence (75% in 2008 compared to 52% in 2013) has fallen over the past five years.

Among those adults who had been offended by something on TV in the last 12 months (18% of adult viewers), nearly four times more people are likely to continue watching the programme than in 2008 (5% in 2008 versus 19% in 2013) and less likely to turn off the TV altogether (32% in 2008 compared to 19% in 2013). Protecting viewers in the future

While on-demand TV is estimated to account for only 2.5% of TV viewing, Ofcom recognises this poses new challenges.

Ofcom is working with Government, other regulators and industry to ensure that children remain protected if they choose on-demand TV over traditional broadcast TV, where Ofcom's strict watershed rules apply.

This would mean that consumers have a clear understanding of the protections that apply on different platforms and devices, and know which regulatory body to turn to if they have any concerns.

Of course the moralist campaigners are not impressed by the decline in whinges.

Pippa Smith of Safermedia said the report showed x-rated content has become normalised and viewers are desensitised to it.