Access key 0 - Accessibility, Access key 2 - Jump to content, Access key 7 - Jump to navigation
Skip To Content | Skip To Navigation
 

Home > About Ofcom > Corporate Structure and Governance > Content Board > Notes of Content Board  > 23


18|01|05

Minutes Of The Twenty-Third Meeting Of The Ofcom Content Board Held At Riverside House On 17 & 18 January 2005

Present

Richard Hooper Chairman

Sara Nathan Deputy Chairman

Sue Balsom Member

Floella Benjamin Member (minutes 1 – 44)

Kevin Carey Member

Jonathan Edwards Member

Pam Giddy Member

Rosemary Kelly Member

Matthew MacIver Member

Adam Singer Member (minutes 1 – 18 and 44 - 56)

Kath Worrall Member

Kip Meek Senior Partner, Competition and Content (Ofcom) (minutes 19 – 56)

Tim Suter Partner, Content and Standards (Ofcom)

In Attendance

[Withheld from published minutes]

Chairman’s Introduction

1. The Chairman welcomed all present to the meeting.

Content Board Review Update

2. [Withheld from published minutes], an external consultant, led the Board and Graham Howell in a private discussion between members which reviewed paper CB 10(05); this paper summarised the outcome of the discussions held at the November 2004 Content Board meeting to review the Board’s effectiveness since inauguration and the interaction between the Content Board , Ofcom’s Executive, the Ofcom Board and the Ofcom Advisory Committees. The paper also suggested a number of actions which were considered by the Board.

[Withheld from published minutes]

3. It was AGREED that all the proposed actions should be followed up; Tim Suter and Graham Howell would progress.

Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 & 8 December 2004 (Content Board Minutes 21(04)) and Matters Arising

4. The minutes of the Content Board meeting held on 7/8 December 2004 were AGREED.

5. In reference to minute 37, a copy of the minutes of the Media Literacy research forum, which contained a list of the membership of the forum, was tabled for members’ information.

6. Graham Howell provided the Content Board with a brief update on issues in relation to the Content Board arising from the recent introduction of the Freedom of Information Act. [Withheld from published minutes]. It was NOTED that further guidance for Content Board members would be circulated in due course.

Content and Standards Group Report

7. Tim Suter provided an overview of the work undertaken by the Content and Standards Group in its first full year of operation, which had led to the successful publication of the Electronic Programming Guide ( EPG ) Code and the Access Services Code. Work had also been undertaken on Training and Advertising Co-Regulation. He noted that the Content Board was currently focusing on three key areas: the draft Broadcasting Code, Public Service Broadcasting ( PSB ) Tier 3 Self regulation statements and the PSB Review. Future projects to be brought to the Content Board were NOTED as being the implementation of the PSB Review, a review of the production sector, various EPG and multimedia issues and issues potentially surrounding the future funding of broadcasting and production.

8. Tim Suter outlined the way in which the Ofcom Content and Standards Group was being restructured to ensure that it was organised in an appropriate way to undertake its 2005 workload.

9. It was AGREED that Tim Suter would circulate a copy of his notes on this item to the Content Board .

Rolling Forward Plan of Content Board Agendas

10. Graham Howell introduced the schedule CB 16(05) which set out the rolling forward plan of the Content Board agenda to April 2005, the contents of which were NOTED.

Ofcom Board Meetings of 7 and 14 December 2004

11. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman reported on the Ofcom Board meetings held on 7 and 14 December 2004 . The main points to note were:

7 December 2004

14 December 2004

Members’ Interests

12. The following Members declared interests for incorporation in the Register of Members’ Interests:

Public Service Broadcasting ( PSB ): Self-assessment reviews and statements of programme policy

13. Tim Suter , [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 15(05), which related to the requirement contained within the 2003 Communications Act for commercial PSB services to publish annual statements and self assessment reviews. It was NOTED that the aim of this requirement was to provide for a significant degree of self-regulation by broadcasters in areas of PSB provision over and above Tier 2 quotas and that the self assessments and reviews were considered crucial in ensuring that the broadcasters’ public service remits were fulfilled. It was NOTED that these statements and reviews must be prepared in accordance with Ofcom guidance (approved by the Content Board ) and that proposals for significant change in the character of PSB services, i.e. a change which would result in a channel being materially different in character, may only be included in the statements if they have been agreed by Ofcom. The paper outlined the remit of Ofcom in the review of these documents. It was NOTED that it was not within Ofcom’s remit to approve or comment on broadcasters’ general plans or performance. The paper also contained programme, audience research and financial data which gave the Content Board a general overview of the performance in 2004 of the broadcasters under consideration.

14. A number of self assessment reviews and statements from Channel 4, Five, ITV Nations, ITV English regions, GMTV, Teletext and S4C were presented to the Content Board for consideration. It was NOTED that the self-assessment review and statement of programme policy for ITV Network would be considered at the February Content Board . During its discussion on this item the Content Board gave consideration to whether each of the broadcasters had shown adequate regard to Ofcom’s Guidance Note in the preparation of the documents. The Content Board also considered whether any of the proposals presented by the broadcasters constituted a significant change and whether important commitments made by broadcasters in their 2004 statements had been fulfilled.

15. It was AGREED that the comments of the Content Board in relation to each broadcaster would be communicated privately, as follows:

a) [Withheld from published minutes]

b) [Withheld from published minutes]

c) [Withheld from published minutes]

d) [Withheld from published minutes]

e) [Withheld from published minutes]

f) [Withheld from published minutes]

16. It was AGREED that feedback to all broadcasters would include a reference to an example of good practice as well as general comments to try and encourage the production of more consumer friendly and strategically focused statements in 2005. It was NOTED that a year on year comparison of data within the reviews and comments gathered from viewers would be very helpful to the public. It was also NOTED that Ofcom should undertake to increase the understanding of all broadcasters in relation to media literacy.

17. During consideration of Five’s statement of programme policy it was identified that a proposed change to their policy on repeats could be regarded as significant. The proposal was linked to an investment in original programming, which could then be repeated. The Content Board CONCURRED with the view of the executive that this proposed change did not constitute a significant change. [Withheld from published minutes]

18. The Content Board APPROVED all of the self assessment reviews and statements of programme as having met with Ofcom Guidance in their preparation. [Withheld from published minutes]

Ofcom Board meeting of 11 January 2005

19. David Currie , Ofcom Chairman, joined the meeting to brief the Content Board on a number of decisions made by the Ofcom Board at a Board meeting on 11 January 2005 , in relation to the PSB review Phase 3. He thanked the Content Board for their contribution to the development of the PSB review and in particular to the debate regarding the Nations and Regions and the Public Service Publisher (PSP). He explained the reasoning behind the decisions made by the Ofcom Board.

20. The Content Board agreed with the overall aims and strategy of the PSB review Phase 3 and acknowledged the decision made by the Ofcom Board regarding the Partnership Fund; however, members reiterated that Ofcom should ensure that the Partnership Fund be implemented as soon as possible. [Withheld from published minutes]. The Chairman thanked the Content Board for their comments.

21. The Ofcom Chairman then briefed the Content Board on recent external and internal developments in connection with proposals to improve the governance of the BBC . The Content Board NOTED that proposals in this respect would be reflected within the PSB Phase 3 Report.

Draft Broadcasting Code: Religious Research

22. The Content Board received a presentation by [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes], which covered research undertaken in relation to religious programming on radio and television. The research was undertaken via a number of diverse focus groups and in-depth interviews. The presentation covered the initial research findings gathered from the focus groups and gave a summary of the participants’ attitudes to the regulation of religious programming, and their opinions surrounding the Draft Broadcasting Code, in the areas of respect, fairness, recruitment and fundraising.

23. Generally participants felt that religious or faith-based programmes were a unique genre and therefore separate rules should apply to them; there was also concern about vulnerable and susceptible audience members. The participants felt that p rogrammes should never criticise others’ beliefs, that output should be well researched and reliable in their portrayal, and that programmes containing “personal” views should be labelled as such. Participants defined three types of religious programming:

24. The participants considered the regulation of religious programming on different categories of channels and platforms, the need to protect the “vulnerable” and the role of labelling for religious programmes.

25. In relation to the draft Code, participants felt that:

26. The Content Board NOTED the results of the research and discussed a number of the themes raised by the research. It was commented that due to the importance placed on religious education by respondents, it may be appropriate to specifically mention religion in the PSB purposes. It was NOTED that it would be appropriate to investigate the views of children in relation to religious programmes in future research. It was AGREED that the key findings would be borne in mind when reviewing the section of the Broadcasting Code in relation to religious programming, which would be presented for consideration by the Content Board in February.

Draft Broadcasting Code: Fairness

27. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 13(05) and two annexes in relation to proposed recommended changes to section 7 of the draft Broadcasting Code, which covered the avoidance of unjust or unfair treatment in programmes. The Content Board NOTED that a number of the recommended changes were intended to aid clarity or to bring the Code closer in line with the requirements of the Broadcasting Act 1996 and had resulted from the consideration of points made in the public consultation.

28. The Content Board gave consideration to whether this section of the draft Code should contain “rules” or “guidance”. During the consultation a number of broadcasters had stated that it was possible to breach any one of the rules and yet not be unfair. It was NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was to change the wording, so that after the initial rule requiring that “Broadcasters should avoid unjust or unfair treatment in programmes of individuals or organisations” all other ‘rules’ would be described as “practices to be followed”.

29. The Content Board NOTED that several respondents proposed that the age at which an adult’s consent was not required for a child to contribute to a programme be reduced from 18 to 16. It was argued that using 18 as the age at which a person would give consent was unduly restrictive in relation to their rights to freedom of expression and their rights under the United Nations Children’s Charter. It was NOTED that the executive had taken into account the Standards Objective, 319(2)(a), which required that persons under the age of 18 were protected, when preparing the consultation document. The Content Board NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was that the age at which young people could give consent to their participation in programmes be reduced from 18 to 16.

30. Content Board members considered both issues, taking account of the points made in the paper. Discussion of the recommendation to reduce the age at which young people could give consent to their participation in programmes centred on the careful balance between protection and freedom of expression. A strong point was made that some under 18’s needed protecting and might be taken advantage of; their consent was necessary in these cases. On balance, the Content Board AGREED that it should recommend both of the Executive’s recommendations to the Ofcom Board , noting that “vulnerable” individuals were protected elsewhere within the Code. It was NOTED that this was a provisional recommendation since this section of the Code would return to the Content Board for further discussion as part of the complete draft Code and statement before proceeding to the Ofcom Board for final approval before publication. It was AGREED that the Executive would investigate and update the wording contained within section 7.1, in relation to section 8.1 of the draft Code.

Draft Broadcasting Code: Privacy

31. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 15(05) and two annexes in relation to proposed recommended changes to section 8 of the draft Broadcasting Code, which covered the avoidance of unwarranted infringement of privacy in, or in connection with the obtaining of material included in, programmes. The Content Board NOTED that a number of the recommended changes were intended to aid clarity or to bring the Code closer in line with the requirements of the Broadcasting Act 1996 and had resulted from the consideration of points made in the public consultation.

32. The Content Board gave consideration to whether this section of the draft Code should contain “rules” or “guidance”. During the consultation a number of broadcasters had stated that it was possible to breach any one of the rules and yet not infringe privacy in an unwarranted way. It was NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was to change the wording, so that after the initial rule requiring that “Any infringement of privacy in programmes, or in connection with obtaining material included in programmes, must be warranted” all other ‘rules’ would be described as “practices to be followed”.

33. The Content Board NOTED that several respondents proposed that it should be permissible to record telephone conversations secretly if they were not intended for broadcast, in that recording a telephone conversation in itself was not necessarily an infringement of privacy. It was NOTED that the Act required Ofcom to consider complaints about unwarranted infringements of privacy in connection with the obtaining of material included in a programme which included secretly recorded telephone calls; however it was recognised that many journalists and production staff used telephone recording routinely as a method of ensuring factual accuracy in their subsequent broadcasts. The Content Board NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was that a call may be recorded as long as the broadcaster had identified itself and the purpose of the call. It was recommended that the broadcaster would not be required to say that call was being recorded unless it was intended for broadcast or surreptitious recording was warranted.

34. The Content Board NOTED that surreptitious recording and filming including recording telephone calls and doorstepping had traditionally been associated with investigations and obtaining such material had been allowed (with protections) where there was a public interest justification; however some broadcasters pointed out that these techniques could also legitimately be used for gathering material for entertainment purposes e.g. set ups or wind up calls. In such cases establishing a public interest justification was usually not possible and so the rules included in the consultation document might have the unwitting effect of stifling such programmes. They argued that this sort of use was justifiable as long as consent was gained prior to broadcast.

35. It was NOTED that the law required Ofcom to consider unwarranted infringement of privacy in the making of programmes and in the broadcast; however it was accepted that there was a long standing broadcasting tradition of set ups, wind ups and other forms of surreptitious filming and recording for entertainment purposes which relied on this technique. The Content Board NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was that non-disclosure of identity/purpose when recording a telephone call, surreptitious filming or recording or doorstepping in order to gather material for entertainment programmes might be justified if it was (i) intrinsic to the entertainment and (ii) did not amount to a significant infringement of privacy. It was recommended that the resulting material should not, however, be broadcast without the consent of those involved (though this restriction could be overridden if it was warranted e.g. by the public interest).

36. The Content Board NOTED that several respondents wished this section to spell out more explicitly the difference between gathering material and broadcasting material. Some suggested that for major news stories such as 9/11 there should be no restriction on filming/recording people suffering, or in distress, as long as there was no infringement of privacy in the broadcast itself or consent to broadcast was obtained. They were concerned that the pressures on camera/sound operators at the scene of disasters and emergencies would make it difficult for them to judge at the time whether filming/recording was an unwarrantable infringement of privacy.

37. It was NOTED that the Act required Ofcom to consider complaints about unwarranted infringements of privacy in connection with the obtaining of material included in a programme, as well as in a programme itself. In making its recommendation the executive did not wish news organisations to feel that they were inhibited in gathering news material. The Content Board NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was to include an explanation in the forward that Ofcom would take into account, when adjudicating, the pressures on broadcasting crews filming/recording in emergency situations and the strong public interest in broadcasting material regarding disasters in the news.

38. The Content Board NOTED that several respondents proposed that the age at which an adult’s consent was not required for a child to feature in a programme or to answer questions on private matters or matters likely to be beyond their capacity to answer properly be reduced from 18 to 16. It was argued that using 18 as the age at which a person could give consent was unduly restrictive in relation to their rights to freedom of expression and their rights under the United Nations Children’s Charter. It was NOTED that the executive had taken into account the Standards Objective, 319(2)(a), which required that persons under the age of 18 were protected, when preparing the consultation document. The Content Board NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was that the age at which young people could give consent to their participation in programmes and talk about private matters be reduced from 18 to 16.

39. Content Board members considered all of the issues, taking account of the points made in the paper. Consideration was given to the definition of “in the public interest”, and it was AGREED that this was not the same as items of interest to the public. It was NOTED that as soon as information was in the public domain then privacy had already been invaded. On balance, the Content Board AGREED that it should recommend all of the Executive’s recommendations to the Ofcom Board . It was NOTED that this was a provisional recommendation since this section of the Code would return to the Content Board for further discussion as part of the complete draft Code and statement before proceeding to the Ofcom Board for final approval before publication.

Draft Broadcasting Code: Due impartiality

40. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 11(05), which outlined the issues identified as a result of consultation on section five of the Broadcasting Code which dealt with impartiality. The objective of the Code in this area was to ensure that news included in television and radio services was presented with due impartiality and reported with due accuracy and that the special impartiality requirements of Section 320 were complied with. The Content Board NOTED that a number of the recommended changes were intended to aid clarity or to bring the Code closer in line with the requirements of the Communications Act 2003 and had resulted from the consideration of points made in the public consultation.

41. The Content Board considered the Code’s principles relating to, and definition of, “due impartiality”. It was NOTED that many of the respondents felt that the requirements of fairness, accuracy, objectivity, dispassion and even-handedness were not essential to achieving “due impartiality”. The Content Board NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was that the principles and rules relating to ‘due impartiality’ should not incorporate additional obligations of accuracy; fairness; objectivity and even-handedness. However, a simple and workable meaning of “due impartiality” was felt to be necessary.

42. The Content Board considered the proposed signalling of ‘personal view’ and ‘authored’ programmes to the viewer. It was NOTED that previous Broadcasting Codes required labelling and the provision of an appropriate and adequate response from others, which was felt to be too restrictive by television broadcasters. It was NOTED that some of the respondents argued that the proposed rules, to use signalling at the beginning and end of programmes, could continue to restrict authored journalism and polemical documentaries on controversial matters. The Content Board NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was that signalling a ‘personal view’ and ‘authored’ programmes at the outset was normally sufficient for the audience and it was unnecessary to mandate broadcasters to make announcements in addition at the end of the programme.

43. The Content Board considered all of the issues, taking account of the points made in the paper. On balance, the Content Board AGREED that it should recommend all of the Executive’s recommendations to the Ofcom Board . It was NOTED that this was a provisional recommendation since this section of the Code would return to the Content Board for further discussion as part of the complete draft Code and statement before proceeding to the Ofcom Board for final approval before publication. It was NOTED that a third issue in this section of the draft Code, the labelling of retransmitted news services not originally intended for a UK audience, was to be addressed in a separate paper.

Regulation of Retransmitted Overseas Services

44. [Withheld from published minutes], [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 12(05) which considered whether Ofcom should develop a specific policy for the regulation of overseas (non-EU) television services, which were re-transmitted in Europe under UK licences. [Withheld from published minutes]

45. [Withheld from published minutes]

46. [Withheld from published minutes]. After due consideration, the Content Board AGREED that it should recommend the Executive’s recommendations to the Ofcom Board .

The Future of Electronic Programme Guides: Opportunities and constraints for development

47. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] gave a presentation on the future potential development and regulatory implications of Electronic Programme Guides (EPGs). The presentation covered the current availability, appearance and functionality of a variety of EPGs and the relationship between EPG providers and set top box providers. The drivers for change and implications of future technology in this area, including the delivery of non-broadcast content, were presented. Consideration was also given to the possible regulatory responses which could be made by Ofcom in this area. Throughout the presentation the Content Board were given practical demonstrations of current and developing technology in this area.

48. The Content Board commended the informative presentation. It was observed that the development of a Public Service EPG would be essential for public access to PSB content. Consideration was also given to the options for labelling in relation to EPG ’s and it was NOTED that currently Ofcom did not regulate such content under the Communications Act.

Television Without Frontiers Directive: Outcome of consultation on quota guidance

49. [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 17(05) which advised members of the outcome of consultation on quota guidance, commissioned as part of the Television without Frontiers Directive. The Content Board and Ofcom Board had previously agreed that guidance on this area would be published. It was NOTED that the Ofcom Board on 25 January 2005 would be asked to consider this paper and decide whether to amend the guidance, ahead of publication. The Content Board was content with the executive’s recommendation that the guidance, as amended, be published on the Ofcom website.

December Content and Standards Report

50. [Withheld from published minutes] updated the Content Board on programmes which had been attracting complaints. The Content Board was also updated on the status of current Fairness and Content Sanctions cases.

Radio Licensing Committee (16 December 2004)

51. Pam Giddy and Matthew McIver updated the Board on the Radio Licensing Committee ( RLC ) meeting held in December; when decisions on the award of the Edinburgh and Blackburn licences were made. It was NOTED that the notice of these awards would be published by Ofcom shortly. It was NOTED that the RLC meeting in January would make a decision on the award of the Ashford licence, would initially consider applications for the Belfast and Cornwall licences and would consider a paper on how ‘format changes’ should be dealt with in the future.

Matters for External Communication

52. [Withheld from published minutes] outlined Ofcom’s recent activities and forthcoming announcements.

Any other business

a) GMTV advertising minutage

53. [Withheld from published minutes] informed the Content Board of a decision which had been made by the Executive, and noted at the Ofcom Board, regarding GMTV minutage.

b) ITV Networking arrangements

54. [Withheld from published minutes] informed the Content Board of the review of the ITV networking arrangements which was being taken to the Ofcom Board for consideration on 25 January. It was AGREED that the papers going to the Ofcom Board would be circulated to members for their information.

c) Future meetings

55. Content Board members were advised of the arrangements for events planned for the 7 and 8 February 2005 .

Date of next meeting

56. It was NOTED that the next meeting would be held on Monday 7 and Tuesday 8 February 2005 at Riverside House.


Back to top Back to top


Further information

Help

Keep up-to-date