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  > 25


08|03|05

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

Present

Richard Hooper Chairman

Sara Nathan Deputy Chairman

Sue Balsom Member

Floella Benjamin Member

Kevin Carey Member

Jonathan Edwards Member (minutes 1 – 16 and 30 - 59)

Pam Giddy Member

Rosemary Kelly Member

Matthew MacIver Member (minutes 1 - 44)

Adam Singer Member

Kath Worrall Member

Kip Meek Senior Partner, Competition and Content (Ofcom)

Tim Suter Partner, Content and Standards (Ofcom)

In Attendance

[Withheld from published minutes]

Apologies

Draft Broadcasting Code: R18s (Adult Services)

1. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 33(05) and five annexes seeking a recommendation from the Content Board on whether Ofcom should permit the television transmission of “R18” (or “R18” standard) sex material on premium subscription channels (which recommendation would then go to the Ofcom Board for consideration when the Ofcom Board reviewed the draft Broadcasting Code). The Content Board NOTED that there were strict legal restrictions on the retail supply of “R18” video tapes and DVDs - they could only be purchased in licensed sex shops and only by adults aged over 18 - but that there was no restriction currently on accessing such material on the internet. Under the current draft Broadcasting Code the transmission of such material on television was prohibited. The Ofcom executive explained that there was increasing pressure to review this restriction - particularly as the UK was now one of only three countries (out of 25) in the European Union which restricted the availability of this material on television. Most European countries now permitted the broadcast of this material on subscription channels with adequate ‘pin’ protection to ensure that under18s could not have ready access to it. In making its recommendation the Content Board had to decide first whether continuing the prohibition was compatible with the terms of the Television Without Frontiers Directive (where the test was whether the material might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors) and then decide (if permitting this material was considered compatible with the TWF) whether adequate protection from offensive and harmful material (through encryption, subscription etc) could be provided for members of the public. If the answer to the second issue was in the affirmative then the final test was whether there were sufficient security systems in place to protect the under 18s. [Withheld from published minutes]. It was NOTED that all Members involved in making the decision had viewed material of R18 standard and were clear about the type of material which was being considered.

2. The Content Board NOTED that following the public consultation, legal advice, and consideration of the available evidence, the recommendation of the executive was:

It was NOTED that these recommendations followed detailed debate by the executive and had not been reached unanimously. It was also NOTED that there was very little available research on the subject either in the UK or Europe ; there was no conclusive evidence to support any justification of upholding a continuation of the ban due to potential physical, mental or moral impairment - equally there was no conclusive evidence to support the alternative argument. It was further NOTED that the executive had decided not to make a recommendation on the third test whether people under the age of 18 could be protected by means of adequate security mechanisms.

3. The Content Board gave consideration to the first test - whether the transmission of “R18” sex material should be prohibited under Article 22(1) of the TWF Directive. In order to address this question Members considered whether they believed that “R18” and “R18 standard” sex material might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors. During the discussion Members NOTED the lack of conclusive evidence available on whether R18 material might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors. The Content Board remained divided over the issue and the executive agreed to seek further clarification on the TWF test prior to the matter being discussed by the Ofcom Board.

4. Despite not reaching a definitive conclusion to the first test within the legal and technical framework, Members AGREED to give consideration to whether in the case of “R18” sex material, generally accepted standards could be applied, so that members of the public were adequately protected from offensive and harmful material. The Content Board felt that generally acceptable standards could be applied through technical and other security mechanisms and therefore AGREED with the executive’s recommendation on this test. This recommendation would be made to the Ofcom Board .

5. The Content Board then gave consideration to whether people under the age of 18 could be protected through security measures; taking into account that if such material was likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, then minors should be prevented from normally seeing or hearing such broadcasts by means of scheduling or technical measures. A paper was tabled which identified the methods of protection in place in other EU countries, the contents of which were NOTED. Members debated the current scheduling and technical measures in place to provide such protection. It was felt that due to advances in technology the protection afforded by scheduling was becoming increasingly limited. It was NOTED that the current technology used by Sky and the cable companies was not secure enough to protect minors in the context of this material. It was NOTED that the technology used by SKY was due to change, as reflected in the paper and that other platform providers could also provide technical and other security mechanisms. Members welcomed these changes and the increase in protection which should arise. In addition to Sky’s proposed changes consideration was also given to possible future technologies which could increase the level of protection provided. After considerable debate, the Content Board AGREED that the current level of protection available would not adequately protect people under the age of 18. A recommendation to this effect would be made to the Ofcom Board . It was NOTED that if the final published Code continued to prohibit the broadcast of R18 material, on the basis that there was not adequate current security protection for minors available, then Ofcom may need to identify what level/form of protection would be required to ensure an adequate level of protection. It was further NOTED that any such requirements would need to be potentially achievable by all broadcasters/platform providers.

6. Following consideration of all three tests contained within the framework, the Content Board AGREED that a balance had to be struck between Ofcom’s general duty to provide adequate protection for members of the public from offensive and harmful material and protection of under 18s, and the rights of individuals to freedom of expression including the right to receive information. It was recognised that the decision had to be proportionate and that Ofcom would need to be able to justify the level of restriction imposed. On balance (although the Board was very evenly divided), the Content Board felt that there was insufficient evidence to indicate whether or not the physical, mental or moral development of minors might be seriously impaired by the transmission of such material, and therefore until such evidence was available they should take a cautious approach to this issue. This being the case, the Content Board recognised that within the framework they had been inconclusive in their decision on the first issue. It was therefore AGREED that the Content Board ’s concerns regarding all three issues should be represented to the Ofcom Board , with the proviso that the Content Board were unable to make a clear recommendation to the Ofcom Board on the first issue within the framework. It was NOTED that 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: Watershed on Premium Subscription Services

7. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 34(05) and six annexes in relation to Section 319 of the Communications Act 2003 which required Ofcom to draw up a Code in relation to standards in programmes, in particular to ensure that persons under the age of 18 were protected (319(a)). The paper addressed questions raised in the public consultation of the draft Code regarding the transmission of films on premium subscription film services.

8. The Content Board NOTED that the recommendation of the executive was:

9. The Content Board debated the technical measures which would be relied upon to provide protection in relation to BBFC 15 rated films shown on premium subscription film services at any time of day. Members felt that the technological systems currently in place (i.e. ’pin’ number protection) provided an adequate level of protection for this level and type of material. It was recognised that due to advances in technology (i.e. personal video recorders) Ofcom could not rely on scheduling to provide protection as its adequacy was becoming increasingly limited. Consideration was given to possible future technologies which could increase the level of protection provided.

10. Content Board members considered all of the issues; taking account of the points made in the paper, and AGREED that it should recommend the executive’s recommendations to the Ofcom Board . It was RECOMMENDED that once improvements in technology in relation to the level of protection provided were available, the requirements on the standard of protection provided by broadcasters/platform providers should be reviewed. 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.

Assessment of the Quality of Regional News Services

11. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 32(05) in relation to Ofcom’s requirement under section 287 of the Communications Act 2003 to secure conditions under which channel 3 regional programmes (including regional news) were of a high quality. The paper contained an assessment which measured the quality of the channel 3 regional news services at present and it was intended that this would act as a benchmark for future comparison. The Content Board NOTED that ITV had undergone considerable change during 2004, in particular from the impact of the Granada/Carlton merger. Further changes relating more specifically to regional news were underway in 2005, such as the relocation of sub-regional news services in the Meridian and Central regions and the roll out of server-based technology in newsrooms across the English regions.

12. The Content Board NOTED that the executive had assessed the quality of the regional and national ( Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland ) early evening news services provided by ITV and the BBC , comparing the 6.00pm ITV bulletins with the 6.30pm BBC bulletins. Variations in coverage and the pattern of sub-regional services meant that not all programmes were directly comparable, but as far as possible the same time bulletins were used as had been used in the previous assessment. Fifteen regions and sub-regions were included out of ITV's 27 services and the BBC 's 18 services. The Content Board NOTED the conclusions of t he assessment, which considered the total number of stories and the number of live or recorded reporter packages filmed on location, the balance of hard to soft news, and the amount of sport. [Withheld from published minutes]. The assessment had also noted the level of other items such as promotions and competitions and any significant extra investment such as new sets or title sequences. An assessment of the differences in style and approach from one service to another had also been undertaken. [Withheld from published minutes].

13. The Content Board considered the data gathered by the assessment and queried whether other data had been collected as part of the qualitative analysis, such as whether the news stories had been timely, investigative and whether key stories had been missed. It was NOTED that during the assessment the executive had checked for any differences in coverage of stories across the services, and that no significant differences had been identified.

14. The Content Board AGREED that the evidence did not suggest a lowering in quality of ITV’s regional news services between September 2003 and October 2004. [Withheld from published minutes]. Content Board Members representing the Nations and Regions stated that they felt the analysis was fair. In relation to Scotland , it was felt that information regarding trends in the quantity of sport on local news would be of interest. In general Members felt that the lack of promotion of regional news programmes was of concern. The Content Board NOTED the information contained within the paper and AGREED that a further assessment of the quality of regional news be made in due course, in order to assess any impact of the changes.

Updated Nations and Regions report for the year January – December 2004

15. [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 35(05) which updated the six month interim report presented to Content Board members in September 2004 on ITV regional services, local television and the relationship with the BBC . The report covered current and proposed structural changes across the country as well as content issues in news, current affairs and non news output. [Withheld from published minutes] provided Members with an update in relation to information contained within the paper, which had been received since circulation. It was NOTED that the Regional Advisory Groups had reduced their number of meetings and that their future could be under consideration by ITV. It was felt that if the Regional Advisory Groups were disbanded then ITV would need to replace them with another mechanism to provide public opinion on ITV’s services. Members were also updated on the informal relationship across the regions and nations with the BBC and the current position in relation to the Anglia studios.

16. The Content Board NOTED the information contained within the paper. It was REQUESTED that information regarding the number of Teletext job losses should be provided to Matthew MacIver . It was NOTED that in relation to the production fund a meeting with ITV was to be held to discuss the arrangements.

Draft Broadcasting Code: Offence Research

17. The Content Board received a presentation by [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes], which covered research undertaken in relation to offensive language and sexual imagery, broadcast pre and post watershed. The research was undertaken as part of a series of research projects to test changes proposed in the draft Code and provide guidance for future application of the Code. The Content Board NOTED that the objectives of the research were to:

It was NOTED that the research had been undertaken in two stages. Firstly 173 respondents took part in five context response sessions which gathered responses to 22 television and radio clips. Stage two involved 13 focus groups of key sub-group participants. The presentation covered the research findings gathered from both stages of the research and gave a summary of the participants’ attitudes to offensive language and sexual imagery.

18. The Content Board NOTED the results of the qualitative research and discussed a number of the themes raised by the research. A query was raised in relation to the sampling undertaken as the basis of the research. It was NOTED that the research had been undertaken on a qualitative basis and that despite there being a numerical representation of some of the results in the form of percentages, the research was not intended to be quantitative. It was REQUESTED that some thought be given to ensuring that all research published by Ofcom had undergone peer review.

19. It was AGREED that the research team would ensure that the Content Board received early sight of future research plans relating to content areas to outline research approaches and proposed methodologies, to ensure that Members were able to provide input. In addition the research team would ensure that the overall remit and context of research undertaken would be clarified to Members prior to the presentation of research results. In relation to peer review, the Content Board NOTED that Ofcom did not have a peer review process in place for all research projects, only for some specific projects such as the Media Literacy research. It was AGREED that this would be considered further, with input from Kevin Carey .

Minutes of the Meetings held on 7 & 8 February 2005 (Content Board Minutes 24(04)) and Matters Arising

20. The minutes of the Content Board meeting held on 7/8 February 2005 were AGREED, subject to a number of agreed amendments.

Content and Standards Group Report

21. Tim Suter commented on the current work plan of the Content and Standards Group. He updated Members on discussions which had been undertaken between Ofcom, the BBC and S4C in relation to regulatory arrangements and potential changes to SKY ’s EPG listings policy, which included a greater suite of parental controls. It was NOTED that in relation to the proposed production fund referred to in the PSTB Report a meeting with ITV was to be held to discuss the arrangements. Members NOTED that the consultation process in relation to the Nations and Regions proposals within the PSTB Report would be concluded shortly. Future projects to be brought to the Content Board were NOTED as being the implementation of the results of the PSTB Report and Food promotion and children. Members NOTED that the restructuring of the Ofcom Content and Standards Group had been completed and a new organisational chart would be circulated for information.

Rolling Forward Plan of Content Board Agendas

22. Graham Howell introduced the schedule CB 37(05) which set out the rolling forward plan of the Content Board agenda to September 2005, the contents of which were NOTED. Of particular note, was a forthcoming paper which would seek to provide greater clarity regarding Ofcom’s policy on radio formats; this paper would be published as part of the Radio Review. A query was raised in relation to Ofcom’s policy on radio format change requests, as previously confusing information had been given by Ofcom. Members received confirmation that the policy, agreed at a previous Content Board meeting, had not been altered and that clarification of the policy would be provided to other Ofcom executives.

Ofcom Board Meeting of 25 January 2005 and 1 February 2005

23. Kip Meek reported on the Ofcom Board meetings held on 25 January 2005 and 1 February 2005. The main points to note were:

  1. That the Board had been considering the responses received to Phase 2 of the Telecommunications Strategic Review;
  2. That a provisional statement on the regional rollout sequence and timing for digital switchover had been published and had received interest from the press;
  3. That the Board had considered the review of the ITV Networking Arrangements, which was to be completed in May 2005;
  4. That the Board had been updated on competition issues in relation to the English Premier League (FAPL);
  5. That Ofcom had conducted a colleague survey and was attempting to address cultural issues; and
  6. That the recruitment exercise for an Ofcom Board member to replace David Edmonds was continuing.

Members’ Interests

24. No interests were declared.

Draft Broadcasting Code: Harm and Offence

25. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 38(05) and two annexes in relation to recommended changes to section 2 of the draft Code, which covered the requirement of Ofcom to apply standards to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material in television and radio broadcasts, in a manner that best guaranteed an appropriate level of freedom of expression. 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 2003. It was also NOTED that the Introduction to the Code would cover the issue of freedom of expression.

26. The Content Board gave consideration to whether this section of the Code should make explicit reference to racial offence. It was NOTED that in drafting rule 2.3 the executive had used the term “discriminatory treatment and language” which was felt to embrace all discrimination issues and avoid mentioning some and omitting others. However, in response to the consultation some respondents requested that an explicit reference be made to racial offence and argued that under the Race Relations Amendment Act, Ofcom had a positive duty to have regard to the need to eliminate racial discrimination and to promote equality and good relations between different racial groups. This point was also made by the Ofcom Advisory Committee on Older and Disabled People who raised this issue with regard to those with disabilities. The Content Board AGREED with the recommendation of the executive, which was to incorporate into rule 2.3, as examples, the six areas of equality (age, disability, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation).

27. The Content Board gave consideration to whether this section of the Code should retain the rule which prohibited the broadcast of films refused BBFC certification. It was NOTED that in response to the consultation most broadcasters and pressure groups believed there should not be any rules linking the transmission of films to BBFC certifications or refusals to certify on the basis that over time attitudes changed, making BBFC decisions outdated. Respondents felt that as all broadcast material was governed by the general requirements of the rules in this section that there should be no special rule applying only to films. The BBC however recommended re-writing the rule so that ‘editorial justification’ was also considered. Other organisations believed the prohibition should remain and argued that if films were unsuitable for the cinema and home video viewing, then it would be anomalous to make them available through television to an even wider audience, potentially including children. [Withheld from published minutes]. The Content Board AGREED withthe recommendation of the executive, which was to retain the rule.

28. The Content Board considered whether a rule offering protection from demonstrations of hypnotic practices aimed directly at the television or radio audience should remain in the Code . It was NOTED that in response to the consultation, which asked respondents to provide any evidence that hypnotism put audiences at risk of harm, no such evidence was provided. Broadcaster replies ranged from those which said that they were not aware of any evidence, to those suggesting that Ofcom should keep protections in place unless evidence to the contrary was discovered. The Content Board NOTED that advice from professionals suggested that the risk of people being hypnotised by chance from such material being broadcast was minimal but possible. However, the possibility that the susceptible and vulnerable could be harmed by some direct attempt to hypnotise members of the public through programming remained. It was felt to be possible that the mere act of taking part in an attempt to hypnotise viewers or listeners might result in vulnerable viewers or listeners believing they had been hypnotised. It was felt that as hypnotism lifts inhibitions the effect on a viewer or listener who believed they had been hypnotised could be harmful. The Content Board AGREED with the recommendation of the executive, which was that a rule offering protection from demonstrations of hypnotic practices aimed directly at the television or radio audience should remain. The executive also suggested that in the longer term Ofcom could encourage broadcasters to take up the suggestion to set up a working party with medical experts to determine whether the risk was significant.

29. Consideration was also given as to whether a new rule, previously placed in another section of the draft Code, should be included in this section. The proposed new rule (2.9, formerly 5.5) attempted to prevent simulated news bulletins in other programmes leading to listeners or viewers believing they were listening or watching an actual news bulletin. It was NOTED that in response to the consultation there had been little comment received about the rule. It was further NOTED that if the rule was included in the Harm and Offence section, it would apply to programmes on the BBC whereas, if it remained in Section 5 of the Code, the BBC would not be required to comply with it. The Content Board NOTED that the executive had alerted the BBC to the possibility that this rule may be moved, to which the BBC had not responded. It was also NOTED that the rule did not relate to either impartiality or accuracy in any way. The Content Board AGREED with the recommendation of the executive, which was to move the rule to this section.

30. The Content Board considered all of the issues, taking account of the points made in the paper. It NOTED that the executive had met with the Church of England to clarify their issues and planned to meet with them again prior to the publication of the Code. The Content Board AGREED that it should recommend all of the Executive’s recommendations and suggested changes to the draft Code 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: S4C

31. [Withheld from published minutes].

32. [Withheld from published minutes].

33. [Withheld from published minutes].

34. [Withheld from published minutes]

[Withheld from published minutes]

35. The Content Board considered all of the issues, taking account of the points made in the paper and AGREED that it should recommend 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. During the discussion of this item, it was AGREED that the Content Board would benefit from a deeper understanding of the issues in relation to broadcasting in the Welsh Nation. It was therefore AGREED that Sue Balsom would work with Sarah Thane and Steve Perkins to arrange meetings/visits with S4C and BBC Wales and include an item on the Content Board Agenda to discuss this topic, during the May Content Board meeting, which was to be held in Cardiff.

Draft Broadcasting Code: Payment to Criminals

36. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 40(05) and two annexes in relation to an outstanding issue from section 3 of the draft Code, which section covered the requirement of Ofcom to ensure that material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder should not be broadcast. The Content Board NOTED that a number of recommended changes to this section had received provisional approval at the Content Board meeting in December 2004.

37. The Content Board gave consideration to the outstanding issue which was whether rule 3.3 should be amended to remove the requirement that payment to criminals should be declared on air. It was NOTED that the requirement to make a declaration was new and had not been in any of the preceding codes. In response to the consultation the BBC , ITV, ITN , Channel 4 and Five all argued that this new requirement to declare any payments made to criminals for their contribution to a programme on air should not be imposed. They were concerned that declaring payment to criminals for interviews etc on air could, in practice, lead to people being encouraged to commit crime in the knowledge that they may receive payment from broadcasters. No respondents specifically endorsed the rule. The argument by the executive for requiring such a declaration had been that it might act as a brake on broadcasters paying criminals because of the general public distaste for payment and the probability that a payment without a sound public interest justification would be hotly debated.

38. [Withheld from published minutes]

39. The Content Board considered the key issues which were that:

40. Following consideration of the legal advice and key issues, Members AGREED to recommend the executive’s recommendation to the Ofcom Board ; which was that broadcasters were not required to broadcast either that they had made a payment or the amount that they had paid convicted or confessed criminals (or those associated with them) for an interview or other contributions relating to their crime and broadcast in the public interest. It was also AGREED that guidance on this issue, encouraging broadcasters to disclose where appropriate to assist transparency, would be included within Code guidance. 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.

Media Literacy Research Update: Setting the Scene Project

41. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 42(05) and a video presentation of the findings from a pilot research study which had been undertaken in relation to Ofcom’s statutory duty to promote media literacy as set out in section 11 of the Communications Act 2003. The purpose of the update was to advise the Content Board on progress which had been made with the Media Literacy project and the next steps which were to be undertaken. It was NOTED that the first stage in the research, a literature review, had been completed and published.

42. The Content Board reviewed a video of a selection of the findings from a small-scale observational study of individuals’ media consumption called Setting the Scene which had been commissioned in December, from The Knowledge Agency, with fieldwork having been conducted in January and February 2005. The Content Board NOTED that the purposes of the pilot project had been:

43. The Content Board NOTED that 12 individuals had taken part in the pilot and that the sample provided a broadly representative spread of the population. Half-day sessions had been carried out with each participant, involving observation, semi-structured interview, video, and capturing of media consumption behaviour. To ensure that individuals responded openly from the outset, the agency used previously-recruited participants with whom they had already built a rapport.

44. Following consideration of the video findings, the Content Board discussed the pilot research study and considered any implications for the forthcoming media literacy audit. The research team were congratulated on the diversity of the participants chosen to take part in the pilot study. The Content Board was advised that children would be included in the full audit. Concern was raised in relation to the lack of consideration for structured learning, through the educational system, which was featured in the media literacy project. It was NOTED that the educational system in Northern Ireland had included media literacy within its educational curriculum. It was AGREED that some thought would be given to this area within the research. It was felt that the findings of the pilot study formed a good foundation for a piece of social history regarding media literacy. It was NOTED that Ofcom intended to use sections of the pilot findings as a demonstration of media literacy to various stakeholders. It was RECOMMENDED that games technology should be included in the project.

Codes on Electronic Programme Guides & Television Access Services: standard abbreviations for television access services

45. [Withheld from published minutes] presented paper CB 41(05) which contained a summary of the responses received to Ofcom’s consultation on the requirement for Electronic Programme Guide ( EPG ) providers to use standard abbreviations to denote subtitling, signing and audio description. When approving the Code on Television Access Services, the Content Board (on 15 June 2004) agreed that Ofcom should make clear that EPGs would be required to use standard abbreviations to denote subtitling, signing and audio description, subject to consultation with interested parties. Informal consultations had indicated that, while there was more support for some acronyms than others, there was not a consensus and therefore Ofcom had sought views on a range of possible abbreviations.

46. The Content Board NOTED that responses to the consultation had shown that t here was broad support for the use of the abbreviations. Some disability groups would prefer the use of longer abbreviations to denote subtitling (Sub, SubT, ST), but the Press Association pointed out that briefer acronyms would make it far more likely that they would be used in printed listings. It was also NOTED that i n addition to ensuring that EPG providers and broadcasters were made aware of changes to the Codes, the executive would also contact EPG data suppliers and those providing listings for the printed and online media to encourage them to make use of the standard abbreviations. The executive also intended to explain to disability groups that, for technical reasons, changes to EPGs may take time to implement. The Content Board NOTED that the abbreviations recommended in the paper would be practicable for use by those publishers of printed and online listings willing to use them and were found to be acceptable to disability groups and most broadcasters.

47. The Content Board considered the information contained in the paper and AGREED that changes should be made to the Codes on Television Access Services and EPG ’s requiring that the recommended abbreviations for subtitling (S), signing (SL) and audio description (AD) be used, and that EPGs label all programmes with access services using these abbreviations. It was NOTED that as various EPGs used different (and mutually exclusive) abbreviations, changes would need to await business-driven software updates. However, all EPG providers would be able to use the standard abbreviations in programme synopses straight away.

Radio Licensing Committee ( 17 February 2005 )

50. Kip Meek updated Members on the Radio Licensing Committee ( RLC ) meeting held in February; when a decision had been made on the award of the Kidderminster licence. In addition the Committee had made an initial consideration of the applications for the Durham licence and had considered the paper on ’formats’ which was coming to the Content Board in due course. It was NOTED that the RLC meeting in March had been held the previous day when a decision had been made on the award of the Belfast and Cornwall licences and initial consideration had been made of the applications for the Banbury licence. In addition the Committee had made a decision regarding the award of the first Community radio licence award, for Forest of Dean . The Content Board NOTED that the award of the Ashford local commercial radio licence made by Ofcom in January 2005 was the subject of a Judicial Review application.

Matters for External Communication

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

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.

51. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented a number of clips which had been considered by the Content and Standards Group relating to Fairness and Privacy issues and others which had arisen from complaints regarding content. Following each video clip the Content Board discussed the issues raised and the outcome of the complaint.

Any other business

a) Federation of Entertainment Unions

52. The Chairman reminded the Content Board of the forthcoming meeting with the FEU which would be held that afternoon. It was NOTED that Sue Balsom and Adam Singer had agreed to attend the meeting.

b) Consumer Panel Audit project team

53. Pam Giddy notified Members that she had agreed to sit, as a representative of the Content Board , on the Consumer Panel Audit project team.

c) Board Diversity

54. Floella Benjamin requested that Ofcom should endeavour to give consideration to age diversity when recruiting members of its Boards and Committees.

d) Content Board Member invitations to events

55. It was NOTED that Content Board Members had been invited to attend events on an adhoc basis. It was REQUESTED that Ofcom’s External Engagements Group gave consideration to more detailed planning of events where representation from the Content Board would be appropriate.

e) Green Paper

56. It was AGREED that a copy of the Government’s Green Paper: Review of the BBC ’s Royal Charter, would be circulated to Content Board members.

f) Good Governance Standard for Public Services

57. Members were advised of a Guide which had been published by the Independent Commission on Good Governance in Public Services. It was AGREED that the executive would review the recommendations within the guide.

g) Forthcoming Board Dates

58. Members were advised that the date of the November Board meeting required changing; a revised date would be circulated in due course.

Date of next meeting

59. It was NOTED that the next meeting would be held on Monday 18 and Tuesday 19 April 2005 at Riverside House.


Back to top Back to top


Further information

Help

Keep up-to-date