Access key 0 - Accessibility
Skip To Content | Skip To Navigation
 

Home > About Ofcom > Corporate Structure and Governance > Content Board > Notes of Content Board  > 24th


08|02|05

Minutes Of The Twenty-Fourth Meeting Of The Ofcom Content Board Held At Riverside House On 7 & 8 February 2005

Present

Richard Hooper Chairman

Sara Nathan Deputy Chairman

Sue Balsom Member (minutes 1 – 44)

Floella Benjamin Member (minutes 1 – 8 & 15 - 62)

Kevin Carey Member (minutes 1 – 44)

Jonathan Edwards Member (minutes 1 – 8 & 15 - 44)

Pam Giddy Member (minutes 4 - 62)

Matthew MacIver Member (minutes 19 - 62)

Adam Singer Member

Kath Worrall Member

Kip Meek Senior Partner, Competition and Content (Ofcom)

Tim Suter Partner, Content and Standards (Ofcom) (minutes 1 – 44)

In Attendance

[Withheld from published minutes]

Apologies

Rosemary Kelly Member

Chairman’s Introduction

1. The Chairman welcomed all present to the meeting.

Minutes of the Meetings held on 5 and 17 & 18 January 2005 ( Content Board Minutes 21(04)) and Matters Arising

2. The minutes of the Content Board meetings held on 5 and 17/18 January 2005 were AGREED, subject to a number of agreed amendments. [Withheld from published minutes]. Final copies of the minutes would be circulated to members in due course.

3. It was AGREED that the presentation on Electronic Programme Guides which had been given at the previous meeting, might be developed by the executive to be used as a way of advising stakeholders on this area.

Content and Standards Group Report

4. Tim Suter provided an update on the restructuring of the Ofcom Content and Standards Group; [Withheld from published minutes] [Withheld from published minutes]. He commented on the current work plan of the Content and Standards Group, highlighting the publication of the Public Service Television Broadcasting Review (PSTB) Final Report on 8 February 2005 . Future projects to be brought to the Content Board were NOTED as being the implementation of the results of the PSTB Review, a review of the production sector, and a review of its future. Praise was given for the way that the new Fairness and Privacy arrangements were working internally.

Rolling Forward Plan of Content Board Agendas

5. Graham Howell introduced the schedule CB 23(05) which set out the rolling forward plan of the Content Board agenda to September 2005, the contents of which were NOTED.

Ofcom Board Meeting of 11 January 2005

6. Kip Meek reported on the Ofcom Board meeting held on 11 January 2005. The main points to note were:

Members’ Interests

7. 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

8. It was felt that Jonathan Edwards and Floella Benjamin had sufficient interests in broadcasting to be excluded from the discussion of this item; they accordingly left the meeting.

9. Tim Suter, [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented papers CB 24(05) and CB 25(05), which had been prepared in relation to the requirement contained within the 2003 Communications Act (the Act) for commercial PSB services to publish annual statements and self assessment reviews and to consult Ofcom should their statement contain a proposal for significant change to programme policy.

10. Paper CB 24(05) related to the proposals by the ITV Network for significant change to religious, children’s and arts programmes. It was NOTED that the broadcaster had identified these proposed changes as proposals which could be considered as a significant change in the character of their PSB service, i.e. a change which would result in ITV being materially different in character. It was NOTED that the executive agreed with the ITV Network submission and considered that these proposals did represent ‘significant change’. It was NOTED, therefore, that such proposals could only be included in the statements when published if they had been agreed by Ofcom. It was FURTHERNOTED that as the proposed changes would have significant economic impact, and would have a direct effect on the value of licences, the Content Board was being asked to make a recommendation to the Ofcom Board on whether such proposed changes were acceptable

11. [Withheld from published minutes]. Tim Suter observed that it was important for the Content Board to consider whether Ofcom should agree to the changes, in relation to the character of ITV and the delivery of PSB objectives, by looking at the PSB channels together. [Withheld from published minutes].

12. [Withheld from published minutes]

13. [Withheld from published minutes]

14. After consideration of all the issues, the Content Board agreed to advise the Ofcom Board to ACCEPT the proposed changes, as it felt that on balance this would be in the best interests of viewers. [Withheld from published minutes]

15. Paper CB 25(05) related to the self assessment review and statement of programme policy for the ITV Network. Jonathan Edwards and Floella Benjamin rejoined the meeting. It was NOTED that these documents had been prepared in accordance with Ofcom guidance (approved by the Content Board) and during its discussion on this item the Content Board gave consideration to whether the broadcaster had shown adequate regard to Ofcom’s Guidance Note. The Content Board also considered whether important commitments made by the broadcaster in its 2004 statements had been fulfilled. It was NOTED that Ofcom was not able to comment on the broadcaster’s general plans or performance.

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

17. The Content Board gave consideration as to what could be done to encourage the production of more consumer friendly and strategically focused statements in 2005. [Withheld from published minutes].

18. It was AGREED that other feedback to the broadcaster would be conducted on the same basis as agreed for all other Broadcasters at the 17/18 January 2005 Content Board meeting. On the basis that action would be undertaken by Ofcom in line with the discussion, the Content Board APPROVED the self assessment review and statement of programme policy as having met with Ofcom Guidance in its preparation.

Draft Broadcasting Code: Under 18s

19. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 26(05) and two annexes in relation to proposed recommended changes to section 4 of the draft Broadcasting Code (the Code), which covered the protection of persons under the age of 18. The proposals to be debated covered five main areas – the scheduling and content of programmes, the coverage of sexual and other offences, smoking, alcohol and drugs abuse, exorcism, the occult and the paranormal, and cash prizes in programmes aimed at children. 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 Act. [Withheld from published minutes] outlined the strength and range of responses which had been received to the consultation, and stated that the executive had tried to take a balanced view when making their recommendations. It was clarified that Ofcom had decided to define children as ‘under the age of 15’.

20. The Content Board gave consideration to the first issue - scheduling and content information issues and in particular whether this section of the draft Code should maintain the watershed, and if so what rules should be applied. It was NOTED that some broadcasters felt that the watershed created a tension between the protection of children and the provision of a “commercial” schedule to attract adult viewers. Feedback suggested that some broadcasters feared that the draft Code, as written, would result in multiple watersheds and thus a tightening of the regulation in this area. There had been a huge variance in feedback received from non-broadcaster respondents to the consultation. Some believed the watershed was redundant, with the increase in multi-channel homes; however others felt that the watershed was an effective tool for the protection of children.

21. It was NOTED that it was the intention of the executive to publish web site guidance to clarify this area of the Code, which would acknowledge that the watershed as a practical tool could not be indefinitely maintained in a digital and non-linear future. It was NOTED that within rule 1.5 the definition of material which was unsuitable for children took into account the context/nature of the programme and audience expectation. Members discussed rule 1.2 in relation to appropriate labelling and recognised that the requirement to issue a clear verbal warning at the start of the programme was a minimum requirement as viewers tuning in after the start may miss such a warning. Particular concern was expressed about the some violence shown in programmes pre-watershed [Withheld from published minutes] and the lack of clear warnings about content. It was NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was to change the wording in a number of areas, to clarify the intention of the rules, which would hopefully allay broadcasters concerns while maintaining the protection for viewers and listeners that were currently well accepted and understood. Three specific changes were proposed:

  1. To make the Television Without Frontiers (TWF) requirement for television regarding encoding or verbal warnings for material that was likely to impair the development of children clearly separate from the obligation by all services to schedule unsuitable material appropriately.
  2. To alter the wording of new rule 1.3 so that it required that “Children must be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them”.
  3. To add new wording to the new rule 1.5 to clarify the requirement that the strongest material should appear later in the schedule.

It was AGREED that the executive would give consideration to including in the guidance notes advice to broadcasters in relation to:

22. The Content Board gave consideration to the rules surrounding the broadcast coverage of sexual and other offences. It was NOTED that some broadcasters were concerned that the draft Code failed to take account that the legal definition of an adult varied within the UK . They were also concerned about the relationship between the law and the draft Code and the practical implication of the rules. It was NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was to clarify the wording in a number of areas to meet broadcasters concerns. Due to the fact that statutory provisions dealing with indirect identification (what is known as ‘the jigsaw effect’ - being able to identify children from different pieces of information) had not yet been brought into force, rule 1.8 had been drafted to ensure broadcasters took particular care with respect to this ‘jigsaw effect’. In addition rule 1.9 concerning pre-trial investigation had been drafted to apply to the direct identification of those who were not yet adult, again as a result of legislation not being enacted in this area.

23. The Content Board then gave consideration to the responses to the consultation and the proposed changes to the draft Code of the executive in relation to smoking, alcohol, drug and solvent abuse. It was NOTED that some broadcasters felt showing an adult having a drink with food could be acceptable and that the real concern should centre on the misuse of alcohol. Some broadcasters were concerned that ‘children’s programmes’ meant everything shown before the watershed and were concerned that the term “clear educational purpose” would result in material being overly prescriptive and prevent subtle representations. A number of respondents had made suggestions regarding the wording of the rule in relation to the glamorisation of such substances. It was NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was to make four changes to the draft rules as a result of representations:

  1. To change “drinking alcohol” to the misuse of alcohol.
  2. To change “children’s programmes” to “programmes made primarily for children”.
  3. To remove “clear educational purpose” and replace it with a test of ‘strong editorial justification’.
  4. To add new wording requiring that “The use of illegal drugs, the abuse of drugs, smoking, solvent abuse and the misuse of alcohol should not be condoned, encouraged or glamorised”.

It was AGREED that the executive would give consideration to the inclusion of gambling within this section of the Code. It was recognised that gambling could equally cause harm as well as smoking, alcohol, drug and solvent abuse.

24. The Content Board then gave consideration to the responses to the consultation and the proposed changes to the draft Code by the executive in relation to exorcism, the occult and the paranormal. It was NOTED that in relation to exorcism and the occult, some broadcasters felt that the draft rules could be considered to cover drama or comedy and suggested the inclusion of the word “actual”. Feedback from viewers established that exorcism and the occult were considered to be of serious concern. It was NOTED that the executive intended to define occult practices within the guidance.

25. It was NOTED that in relation to the transmission of paranormal programmes, PSB channels were prohibited from transmission prior to the watershed, but other channels were only prohibited from transmission when significant numbers of children could be viewing. This was felt by some PSB broadcasters to be unfair. Feedback from some respondents to the question raised in the consultation about the scheduling of paranormal programmes indicated that the rule should be changed to only prohibit transmission when significant numbers of children could be viewing for all channels. However other respondents were opposed to changing the current rules and some called for the rules to be tightened. The Content Board NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was that it was proportionate and correct to allow paranormal programmes to be transmitted on all television services only when significant numbers of children were not available to view. Tim Suter noted that guidance would define paranormal and the occult and further noted that the distinction between aspects of the occult - like voodoo - made the distinction between religion and the occult not always clear. In a sense programmes on the occult and paranormal for pure entertainment pre-watershed may be acceptable e.g. horoscopes but programmes which purported to reflect ‘reality’ would be post-watershed.

26. Lastly in dealing with this aspect of the Code, the Content Board gave consideration to whether cash prizes should be allowed in programmes for children. Feedback from some respondents to a proposed rule in the draft Code, that prizes should simply be proportionate to the age range of the target audience and participants, was supportive. However other respondents were opposed to the proposed rule and felt that cash prizes for children should be prohibited. It was NOTED that the executive had found no evidence of harm to children from receiving cash prizes and therefore recommended that cash prizes be allowed in programmes for children, with the proviso that prizes aimed at children must be appropriate to the age range of both the target audience and the participants. Members commented that children should be protected from undue pressure to win, which would happen if they were offered a prize which was considered to be of importance to them, be it cash or non-cash. In this content the level of appropriateness would depend on the value upon which the child placed upon the prize. It was recognised that this was a difficult area and that broadcasters usually acted in a responsible manner.

27. Content Board members considered all of the issues, taking account of the points made in the paper. On balance, the Content Board AGREED that it should advise the Ofcom Board to accept all of the Executive’s recommendations. 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: Sponsorship

28. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 28(05) and two annexes in relation to proposed recommended changes to section 9 of the draft Broadcasting Code, which covered the sponsorship of programmes and the maintenance of independent editorial control. It was NOTED that within this area any changes made to the Code must be consistent with the TWF Directive and other relevant international legislation. The Content Board NOTED that a number of the recommended changes were intended to aid clarity or to improve consistency with the requirements of the Communications Act. It had been the aim of the executive to harmonise rules surrounding television and radio sponsorship, to reduce the number of rules but retain the principles. Members NOTED that whatever was now recommended would be a ‘holding’ position and would need to be reviewed regularly as the blurring of advertising and sponsorship continued at a pace.

29. The Content Board gave consideration to whether this section of the Code should be changed to permit sponsorship of whole channels/stations. This idea had, to date, been considered unacceptable because of concerns over the sponsor’s possible influence on the editorial content of the whole service and the possibility that some services may carry content unsuitable for sponsorship, e.g. news. In response to the question, whether it was appropriate to retain the prohibition on the sponsorship of a whole TV channel or radio station, many respondents felt the current rule should be either removed in its entirety or relaxed. A smaller number of respondents wished to keep the current rule, believing that channel or station sponsorship would undermine the editorial integrity of the broadcaster.

30. It was NOTED that under current rules, a commercial company could become a licensee and name the broadcasting service after the brand (e.g. The Hallmark Channel), which could be viewed by the audience to be no different from channel sponsorship. It was also NOTED that, under current rules, a product or service could sponsor all ‘sponsorable’ content on a service, which could be seen to be indistinguishable from channel and station sponsorship. However, some of the respondents indicated concerns about editorial integrity. [Withheld from published minutes]

31. [Withheld from published minutes]. The Content Board felt that the sponsorship of a channel/station would result in increased transparency through clearer labelling and therefore be of benefit to viewers and listeners. It was AGREED that should this recommendation be accepted clear guidance should be issued, especially in relation to content unsuitable for sponsorship and unsuitable sponsors.

32. The Content Board gave consideration as to whether to allow sponsorship credits to be separated from the programme by spatial means e.g. spilt screen. It was NOTED that the Commission had stated that using the split screen technique was not prohibited by the TWF Directive and that the split screen technique may be used to identify the programme sponsor, but that the logo and/or name of the sponsor must not be presented in a way which could prejudice the integrity of the sponsored programme. The TWF Directive allowed split screen advertising consisting of the simultaneous or parallel transmission of editorial content and advertising content. The Content Board NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was to allow the spatial separation of sponsorship credits, subject to programme integrity and undue prominence considerations. The Content Board felt that spatial separation of sponsorship credits would result in increased transparency through clearer labelling and therefore be of benefit to viewers. It was AGREED that a future agenda item be planned for the Content Board to discuss the overall TWF review.

33. The Content Board considered whether the rules on sponsor references within programmes should be relaxed. It was NOTED that u nder current ITC rules, no reference whatsoever to the sponsor, its product or service was permitted in a programme. The majority of respondents to the consultation, which proposed that the rules be relaxed to allow non-promotional, editorially justified references (to be consistent with radio), welcomed the relaxation. However, some argued that the draft Code had not gone far enough or required clarification. The Content Board NOTED that the executive had therefore added the definition: “This includes, but is not limited to, references that encourage, or are intended to encourage, the purchase or rental of a product or service.” It was NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was that the Code should not contain an absolute prohibition on references to the sponsor, but that only non-promotional, editorially justified references should be allowed, which would also be subject to undue prominence rules.

34. Consideration was also given as to whether consumer advice programmes on television and radio should be sponsored. It was NOTED that the current rules for television prohibit sponsorship of consumer advice programmes, by prohibiting advertisers whose business involves the marketing or provision of products or services of the type featured, to prevent undue influence over editorial content. It was NOTED that there was no specific rules for radio. The Content Board NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was to retain the current rules for television. In relation to radio, the executive felt that there was no logical reason for an exemption; however it was felt that an informal consultation should be undertaken with radio broadcasters before making a final decision. The Content Board did not wish to recommend that the Code set different standards for television and radio and members were not in favour of introducing regulation for radio, especially as there had not been any concerns in this area. It was therefore agreed, on balance, that the current rules for television prohibiting sponsorship of consumer advice programmes should be removed.

35. Content Board members considered all of the issues, taking account of the points made in the paper. On balance, the Content Board AGREED that it should recommend the Executive’s recommendations to the Ofcom Board , with the exception of consumer advice programmes. 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: Commercial references

36. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 29(05) and two annexes in relation to proposed recommended changes to section 10 of the draft Broadcasting Code, which was intended to ensure that the programme and advertising elements of a service are kept separate and that programmes are not distorted for commercial purposes. It was NOTED that within this area any changes made to the Code must be consistent with the TWF Directive and other relevant international legislation. The Content Board NOTED that a number of the recommended changes were intended to aid clarity or to improve consistency with the requirements of the Communications Act.

37. The Content Board gave consideration as to whether to re-introduce an exemption, which had been included in the ITC Code of Programme Sponsorship, which recognised that films made for cinema, and coverage of sporting or other events taking place outside the UK , may deviate from the Code where it was unavoidable. In practice, this happened mainly in the area of product placement, which in countries such as the US was common (within the EU product placement was prohibited under the TWF). It was NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was to re-introduce the exemption in the draft Code and extend it to programmes acquired from outside the EU. It was NOTED that the proposed new rule recognised that programmes made outside the EU may have been subject to product placement but prevented Ofcom licensees benefiting from the arrangement in re-transmission. Further advice was being sought by the executive on whether the exemption could be extended to ‘re-transmitted services’ from outside the EU and subject to a different regulatory regime. However, it was felt this may be problematic since the Ofcom licensee (i.e. the re-transmitted service) would be directly benefiting from a product placement relationship. The Content Board discussed the role of labelling in providing clear messages to an audience regarding product placement. It was felt that provided clear labelling was undertaken then product placement may not be considered surreptitious advertising and therefore Ofcom could look to reduce its regulation in this area. It was AGREED that the implication of relaxing the rules on product placement in both economic and cultural terms was significant and so the Content Board would consider this area again, in full, when it reviewed the production sector and production funding.

38. The Content Board NOTED that the consultation had requested responses in relation to whether all services should be allowed to appeal on air for funds to make programmes and fund the service. The consultation had also asked the same question in relation to religious services. It was NOTED that historically this had been permitted on radio, but not on television. Due to the difficulties of separating a decision in relation to all services from a decision in relation to religious services, it was AGREED that consideration of this area would be undertaken as part of the discussion of section 4 of the draft Code (Religion).

39. [Withheld from published minutes]

40. [Withheld from published minutes]

41. The Content Board considered whether Ofcom should remove rules contained within the current television sponsorship code which prevented programmes based on pre-existing brands and prohibited manufacturers of programme-related merchandise from funding the programmes that their merchandise was based upon. It was NOTED that these rules restricted the extent to which income from merchandising could be used to fund a programme. The majority of responses to the consultation believed it was unnecessary to retain rules on merchandising arrangements. During its deliberations the Content Board considered whether removing the rules would affect the editorial independence of the broadcaster and whether the viewer/listener would be affected by an increased amount of surreptitious advertising.

42. It was NOTED that th e proposed Commercial References section of the draft Code required broadcasters to maintain the independence of editorial control over programme content (rule 10.1). In addition, products and services must not be promoted in programmes (rule 10.3) and no undue prominence may be given in any programme to a product or service (rule 10.4). The executive felt that these rules would prevent programmes from being used as advertising platforms for merchandise and therefore recommended that separate, specific rules on merchandising arrangements were not required. The Content Board felt that liberalising these rules would have a beneficial effect on the future of children’s television and therefore were supportive of the recommendation.

43. Content Board members 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.

January Content and Standards Report

44. [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.

Draft Broadcasting Code: Religion (recruitment and fundraising)

45. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 27(05) and two annexes in relation to proposed recommended changes to section 4 of the draft Broadcasting Code, which covered the degree of responsibility which should be exercised by broadcasters with respect to the content of religious programmes. The Act specifies that religious programmes should not involve any improper exploitation of any susceptibilities of the audience for such a programme; or any abusive treatment of the religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination. 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 Act. In its considerations the Content Board referred to research undertaken in relation to religious programming on radio and television, on which the members had received a presentation at its last meeting. The research had given 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.

46. The Content Board considered whether this section should deal with non-religious belief systems in addition to religion. It was NOTED that the draft Code defined a ‘religious programme’ as a ‘programme which deals with matters of religion or belief, as the central subject, or as a significant part, of the programme.’ Some respondents welcomed the reference to ‘belief’ in the definition of a ‘religious programme’. However others took the opposite view, arguing that ‘religious programmes’ in terms of the implementation of standard objectives should be clearly restricted to programmes dealing with matters of religion only, to ensure that all groups with a systemised set of philosophical principles, e.g. the Boy Scouts, did not fall under the rules. The Content Board NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was to amend the definition of a ‘religious programme’ in line with section 319(2)(e) of the Act and therefore to remove the words ‘or belief’. It was NOTED that other belief systems, including humanists, would be covered under section 2 of the Code: Harm and Offence.

47. The Content Board considered whether religious programmes on television should be allowed to appeal for funds on air to make programmes and fund the service. The Content Board NOTED that responses had also been requested in relation to whether all services should be allowed to appeal for such funds. Due to the difficulties separating a decision in relation to all services from a decision in relation to religious services, it had been AGREED that consideration of both areas would be taken together. It was NOTED that historically appeals for funds, goods and services on behalf of others had been permitted on radio, but not on television. On radio it was also permissible to appeal for funds to make programmes and if the service was “listener-funded”, then it was also permissible to appeal for funds to fund the radio service itself. Radio licensees were prohibited from making profits from appeals and the current Code required that money, goods and services should be carefully controlled. In contrast, television services were only permitted to make charitable appeals on behalf of others but they were prohibited from appealing for funds to support programmes or services. The Content Board was advised that Ofcom intended to undertake a production funding review and a consultation on community television in due course which would enable a more detailed analysis of funding.

48. The Content Board NOTED that when considering whether all television services should be able to appeal for funds on air to support services or programmes respondents had mixed views. Some did not support appealing for money and some said that such an issue required a full consultation. Two respondents believed that community or local television should be permitted to appeal to the relevant community and other respondents felt that specialised religious services should be allowed to make such appeals. When considering whether to allow religious programmes to appeal for funds on air some respondents felt strongly that fundraising should not be extended to television services. Other respondents felt that, in addition to radio, fund raising should be allowed on television specialist religious services. Only a few of the respondents, agreed with permitting fundraising on all television services without some qualification.

49. It was NOTED that the qualitative research demonstrated strong resistance to the idea of religious programmes on television appealing for funds for programmes and services. Some participants questioned why any community would want to raise money for itself rather than for a charity; others were suspicious about ‘con men’ and asked how Ofcom would ensure that the cause was legitimate. Some felt there might be an argument for allowing appeals on specialist television services where viewers had subscribed to the service. However, there was concern that this could lead to the improper exploitation of any susceptibilities of the audience for such a programme.

50. [Withheld from published minutes]

[Withheld from published minutes]. It was AGREED that the Content Board would reconsider the issue of funding as part of the production funding review and community television consultation.

51. The Content Board considered whether religious programmes on general television services should be allowed to seek recruits, as permitted on religious programmes broadcast on radio and specialist religious television services. Such recruitment would be in the form of direct appeals to the television audience. The majority of respondents were uncomfortable with extending recruitment to all television services, either believing that recruitment should not be permitted at all or offering only qualified support. The qualitative research generated very strong feelings to this subject, commenting that television was so powerful that there was a significant risk of the vulnerable being exploited. [Withheld from published minutes]

52. The Content Board considered how the Code should address misrepresentation within the rules. Respondents were concerned with the wording of new draft rule 4.3 which stated that descriptions of religious views and beliefs must be presented with due accuracy and fairness. It was felt that accuracy in describing religion was a particularly difficult test and respondents objected to the concept of fairness being applied to ideas as opposed to individuals and organisations. It was NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was to remove draft rule 4.3, as the executives’ concerns regarding misrepresentation would be covered by rule 4.1, which required that a proper degree of responsibility must be exercised by broadcasters regarding the content of religious programmes. It was NOTED that non-religious programmes which could be viewed as having an impact on the religious sensitivities of the audience would be considered under the harm and offence section of the Code, and a different test in relation to misrepresentation would be applied to religious programmes. It was AGREED that the executive would consider whether to include “young people” as well as “children” within draft rule 4.6.

53. Content Board members considered all of the issues; taking account of the points made in the paper, and on balance 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.

Advertising Co-regulation

54. The Content Board received a brief oral update from Ian Blair regarding the co-regulatory arrangement with the Advertising Standards Agency.

Radio Licensing Committee (20 January 2005)

55. Pam Giddy and Matthew McIver updated the Board on the Radio Licensing Committee ( RLC ) meeting held in January; when a decision had been made on the award of the Ashford licence. In addition the Committee had made an initial consideration of the applications for the Belfast and Cornwall licences and had considered a paper on how ‘format changes’ should be dealt with in the future. It was NOTED that the RLC meeting in February would make a decision on the award of the Kidderminster licence and would initially consider applications for the Durham licence.

Matters for External Communication

56. The Chairman outlined Ofcom’s recent activities and forthcoming announcements.

Any other business

a) Federation of Entertainment Union

57. The Chairman informed the Content Board of the forthcoming meeting with the FEU on 8 March 2005 , following the next Content Board meeting. It was NOTED that any members wishing to attend the meeting should let the Chairman know as soon as possible.

b) Digital switchover

58. A brief was tabled for information, providing details on digital switchover. It was NOTED that [Withheld from published minutes] was happy to take queries from members.

c) Internet Watch Foundation

59. Members were advised that Floella Benjamin and [Withheld from published minutes] had attended the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) Corridor Exhibition in the House of Commons at the end of January.

d) Content Board meetings

60. It was AGREED that the executive would ensure, as far as practically possible, not to schedule other events which involved Content Board members, at the same time as Content Board meetings.

e) Programme complaints

61. Concern was expressed about the perceived level of domestic violence in soaps and it was AGREED that the executive would consider the issue further.

Date of next meeting

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


Back to top Back to top


Further information

Help

Keep up-to-date