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  > 26


19|04|05

Minutes Of The Twenty-Sixth Meeting Of The Ofcom Content Board Held At Riverside House On 18 & 19 April 2005

Present

Richard Hooper Chairman

Sara Nathan Deputy Chairman

Sue Balsom Member

Floella Benjamin Member

Kevin Carey Member

Jonathan Edwards Member

Pam Giddy Member

Rosemary Kelly Member

Matthew MacIver Member

Adam Singer Member (minutes 24-60)

Kath Worrall Member

Kip Meek Senior Partner, Competition and Content (Ofcom) (minutes 24-60)

Tim Suter Partner, Content and Standards (Ofcom)

In Attendance

[Withheld from published minutes]

Apologies (items 1- 23 only)

Adam Singer Member

Kip Meek Senior Partner, Competition and Content (Ofcom)

Recommendation for consideration of BBC 2 Jerry Springer the Opera

1. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented Paper CB 61(05) which asked the Content Board to consider whether the Content Board itself (rather than the executive) should adjudicate on the complaints received by Ofcom relating to Jerry Springer: The Opera (“JS:TO”) to determine whether there had been any possible contravention of the relevant Standards Code; and if so, what further steps should be taken.

2. The Content Board NOTED that BBC 2 had broadcast JS:TO in January 2005 and that Ofcom had received 8,860 complaints after its transmission. It was NOTED that the BBC had given Ofcom a statement setting out its representations and that Ofcom was required to consider whether the programme contravened Ofcom’s (ex BSC ’s) Standards Code (“the Code”), taking into account the content of the programme and the complaints received. In addition Members were reminded that the Content Board had been delegated powers on purely content issues from the Ofcom Board (Ofcom Board Paper 96(03)) which included the application of standards to content under the Act. Ofcom’s current “Guidelines for the handling of standards complaints and cases (in programmes, advertising and sponsorship)” proposed that the executive adjudicate in the first instance and that if a dissatisfied party applied for review, the case could be referred upwards, ultimately to the Content Board . However, given the particular circumstances of this case: the number of complaints received, the high profile nature of its content, the strong emotions it had raised, the fact that it had already been considered at the highest level within the BBC and the need to avoid delay, the executive believed that the matter should be referred immediately, on recommendation by the executive, to the Content Board for adjudication. Any appeal against the decision taken by the Content Board on the case would be via application for judicial review.

3. After consideration of all the issues raised in the paper, the Content Board AGREED that it should determine whether the programme JS:TO contravened the Code. The Content Board NOTED in discussion that this decision was not taken because of the large number of complaints received. Rather the Content Board had taken account of the lengthy process of consideration which had been undertaken at various levels within the BBC , including consideration by the BBC Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee, and the time which had elapsed whilst the BBC completed its own processes before Ofcom considered the issue. It was NOTED that whilst the Content Board had every confidence in the Ofcom executive to consider complaints under delegated powers, given the high profile nature of this case it was likely to be appealed to the Content Board , which would further lengthen the process of consideration. It was therefore NOTED that the decision taken was based on the particular circumstances of the case and did not set a precedent.

BBC 2 Jerry Springer the Opera

4. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented Paper CB 62(05) which requested that the Content Board decide whether the broadcast of JS:TO on BBC 2 at 10pm on 8 January 2005 contravened Ofcom’s (ex- Broadcasting Standards Commission’s (“ BSC ’s”)) Code on Standards taking into account the content of the programme and the complaints received.

5. The Content Board NOTED that following the broadcast Ofcom received a total of 8,860 complaints (2,849 e-mails, 1,747 other contacts and 4,264 e-mails from one particular group) and 210 contacts in support of the programme. The Content Board NOTED the issues which were raised by the individuals contacting Ofcom on this matter.

6. The Content Board considered the BBC Governors ‘finding’, which the BBC Governors had requested that Ofcom should consider as its representation to Ofcom for the purpose of Ofcom’s adjudication. In addition the Content Board NOTED particular responses made either publicly or directly to Ofcom by various parties around the time of the broadcast. The Content Board decided to consider the requirements of each of the relevant Code sections in turn, and in doing so had regard to complaints received (as well as comments of support) and the requirement as set out in the Act to have regard to the need to secure an appropriate level of “freedom of expression”. It was NOTED that the Code under consideration was the ex-Broadcasting Standards Commission ( BSC ’s) Code on Standards, now adopted under the Act as an Ofcom’s Code.

7. The Content Board considered whether the programme which had been broadcast at 10pm was appropriately scheduled, given the nature of the programme (Section 7 of the Code). The Content Board NOTED in discussion that there were different viewers’ expectations of the nature of the programming which might be shown on BBC 2 as compared to other channels. However, it was also NOTED that BBC 2 was created as an alternative to mainstream offerings on BBC 1 and that section 7 of the Code acknowledged that more challenging material may be broadcast provided it was properly scheduled. It was CONCLUDED that the programme was appropriately scheduled.

8. The Content Board considered whether accurate information had been given to the audience about the nature and content of the JS:TO programme and whether the pre-transmission warnings and the context given by the programmes which preceded it had been adequate (Sections 23 and 24 of the Code). Following discussion it was CONCLUDED that the on air warnings had been adequate and the information provided on air had been accurate. It was also NOTED that the likely strength of the material was clear from the pre-publicity of the programme.

9. The Content Board considered whether the provisions of Sections 26 and 27 of the Code concerned with “respect and dignity” had been breached. It was NOTED that the Code says that challenging and flouting boundaries was permitted within limits, with drama and comedy having special freedoms. The issue was whether, having regard to the content, the JS:TO programme had humiliated particular group(s) in a gratuitous way. There was some initial discussion over whether the programme was intended to be a satire. However, it was AGREED that whatever may or may not have been the original intention of the programme, Ofcom should take its own view on whether the programme as broadcast, was presented as a satire. It was AGREED that it was a satire on television and the modern cult of celebrity. The use of religion in the fantasy sequence had made the satire more biting. A concern was expressed that the programme had been unnecessarily offensive to Christians. However, it was NOTED that although people with deeply held Christian beliefs were likely to have been offended by elements of the programme, adequate warnings had preceded the programme so that viewers could decide whether or not they wished to watch (see below).

10. It was NOTED that the decision reached by the BBC Governors’ Complaints Committee referred to the programme’s “outstanding artistic significance”. [Withheld from published minutes]. It was NOTED that the Code did not specifically refer to artistic merit but was framed to ensure that a balance was struck between freedom of expression and causing unjustified offence. Ofcom had regard to the need to apply the standards set out in the Code in a way which best guaranteed an appropriate level of freedom of expression. It was suggested that the BBC had been fully aware that the programme would be controversial. However, serious thought had clearly been given to the programme, its production and transmission. It was CONCLUDED by a majority of nine Members in favour and two against that the programme had not humiliated groups in a gratuitous way.

11. The Content Board considered whether swearing and offensive language used in the programme were justified by the context of the programme and had been transmitted at an appropriate time (Sections 36-38 and 40 of the Code). Following discussion it was AGREED that the programme was appropriately scheduled well after the watershed and the strongest language, which was directed at the character of Satan, was transmitted after 2300. The programme had also pointed out the absurdities of excessive swearing in many of the songs and exchanges rendering them on occasions, meaningless and ridiculous. Moreover, swearing and offensive language was common place on “confessional” tv shows of this type. It was therefore CONCLUDED that the swearing and offensive language used were justified in the context of the programme.

12. The Content Board considered whether the programme had been consistent with the guidance provided in Sections 43-45 of the Code in relation to “offences against religious sensibilities” which said that particular care should be taken when referring to religion in entertainment. [Withheld from published minutes]. It was also suggested in discussion that people who had wanted further clarification of the exact nature of the programme could have looked to various sources, including attending the theatre performance of the show and referring to relevant websites. It was suggested that whilst the programme would have offended some people, the requirements of freedom of speech were such that it must be permissible on occasion to cause offence. “It was suggested that the UK had a longstanding tradition of satirising political and religious figures and celebrities”. The Content Board did not believe that the characters represented were, in the clear context of the piece, conveyed as faithful or accurate representations of religious figures, but were caricatures of the shows’ participants. Moreover, it was not within Ofcom’s remit to uphold a contravention of the Code on the basis that Christianity, as opposed to another faith, was the subject of the programme. The Content Board also NOTED that it was not within Ofcom’s remit to consider whether the crime of blasphemy had been committed.

13. It was CONCLUDED [Withheld from published minutes] that the guidance given in sections 43-45 of the Code had been adhered to, in that particular care had been taken through the warnings provided and contextualising programmes which preceded the broadcast of JS:TO.

14. On balance, taking the full range of views into account set against the provisions of the Code, the Content Board AGREED, by a majority decision of 9 to 2, that the broadcast of Jerry Springer: The Opera was not in contravention of the Code. [Withheld from published minutes]. It was NOTED that the adjudication should make clear that in reaching its decision the Content Board had recognised the offence which the programme had caused to religious sensibilities but had judged that the programme was intended to be a commentary on modern society. It was AGREED that the draft adjudication should be circulated to all Content Board Members who had taken part in consideration of the case for their comments, with authority delegated to the Chairman of the Content Board to approve the final wording. It was NOTED that the adjudication was expected to the contained in the Complaints Bulletin due to be published on 9 May 2005 .

Draft Broadcasting Code: R18s (Security Considerations)

15. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented Paper CB 47(05) seeking a recommendation to the Ofcom Board from the Content Board as to whether in its view, there were sufficient means to protect the under 18s if the television transmission of explicit sex material (“R18”, and “R18 standard”) was permitted – given Ofcom’s conclusion that this material was “likely to impair the development of minors”. Such means were needed in order to protect the under 18s, in line with duties under the Communications Act 2003 (“the Act”). It was NOTED that in considering this issue Content Board Members must put their personal views on the type of material under consideration to one side and should bear in mind that considerations of freedom of expression were applicable to the material. It was NOTED that considerations of reputational impact for Ofcom were also not relevant when reaching a decision. It was NOTED that if the Content Board was not satisfied that current measures would be sufficient to protect the under 18s (through scheduling and/or security measures), then “R18” material should not be transmitted.

16. The Content Board NOTED that the Ofcom Board had determined that - in its view, and on the current evidence available - the transmission of explicit sex material (“R18” and “R18 standard”) would not – of itself - be in breach of Article 22 (1) of the TWF (which states that material that might “seriously impair” the physical, mental or moral development of minors must not be transmitted). However, the Ofcom Board considered that under the test set out in Article 22(2) such material was “likely to impair” the development of minors. It was NOTED that the outstanding issue to be decided was what standard would be best calculated to secure that the under 18s be protected and with that in mind, whether it would be appropriate to prohibit the broadcasting of R18 material in order to protect children.

17. Members of the Content Board NOTED the advice of Leading and Junior Counsel which was circulated with Paper 47(05). They NOTED the relevant legal requirements in the Communications Act as well as TWF Article 22(2) which set the minimum standard across Europe for the broadcasting of material “likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors”. That Article provided that protection of minors may be achieved if it can be “ensured” that by “selecting the time of the broadcast, or by any technical measure…. minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts”. Members NOTED the various combinations of technical and scheduling restrictions which were applied in other European countries. In addition Members NOTED the results of the (as yet incomplete) research into the effectiveness – or otherwise – of PIN protection systems and under 18 viewing habits in the UK which had been commissioned by Ofcom. They also NOTED that this research was breaking new ground (it appeared that no similar research on PIN protections had been carried out previously); and that whilst the research had some inherent limitations, nonetheless it was considered to be statistically robust for present purposes.

18. In the light of all the above, the Content Board considered, whether it was possible for a standard, short of prohibition, to be set with regard to R18 material which would secure the objective of protecting under 18s (section 319(2)(a)). [Withheld from published minutes].

19. In the course of discussion concern was expressed that the use of PIN protection did not provide adequate security given the strength and nature of the material. Consideration was given to whether PIN protection combined with a requirement to use a credit card when accessing material would provide satisfactory safeguards, perhaps also combined with a post-midnight scheduling restriction. However, taking into account the research data available so far, the nature of the material in question and Ofcom’s statutory duties including the need to set standards to protect under 18s, having regard to “the vulnerability of children and of others whose circumstances appear to Ofcom to put them in need of special protection”, it was concluded that the Content Board was not satisfied that current protection measures would suffice for the material under consideration. It was NOTED in discussion that during its consideration of the Communications Bill, Parliament had placed greater emphasis than there had been in previous UK broadcasting legislation on the protection of minors and that emphasis should be borne in mind when balancing this consideration with the issue of freedom of expression. It was NOTED that whilst freedom of expression did apply to R18 material, so Ofcom must ask itself if it considers there is a sufficient justification for maintaining restrictions on its accessibility, this material received a lower level of protection than say political speech. [Withheld from published minutes]. Concerns were also expressed about the protection afforded to minors in abusive households who might be at risk of particular harm if they were to view “R18” and “R18 standard” material.

20. Following a full discussion and having specifically reviewed the points made in Leading Counsel’s advice (at Annex 3 to Paper 47(05)), the Content Board AGREED that it could not be satisfied that the current level of protection available would be sufficient to protect people under the age of 18. A recommendation to this effect would be made to the Ofcom Board . However, it was also AGREED that this recommendation should be made on the basis that Ofcom could decide to review it in due course in the light of future technical developments.

Draft Broadcasting Code: Final Code

21. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented Paper CB 48(05) in relation to Section 319 of the Communications Act 2003 which required Ofcom to draw up a Code in relation to standards in programmes. The paper requested that the Ofcom Broadcasting Code as amended, resulting from the consideration of all the points made in the public consultation, should be approved by the Content Board for formal recommendation to the Ofcom Board . It was NOTED that the Content Board and Ofcom Board had previously seen the draft Code in sections and provisionally APPROVED draft changes (with the exception of the Introduction to the Code). An additional bullet point was also included at 1.10 under the heading, “Drugs, smoking, solvent and alcohol use”, following representations made by Ash about the current regulatory position and how this had not been reflected in the draft Code, and in light of research evidence following a study which had looked at the amount of smoking, alcohol and drug misuse in programmes targeted at 11-17 years and which had found only low levels of each. In the course of discussion the Content Board NOTED representations made by the BBC in relation to the wording of rule 2.2 (Misleading material in factually-based programmes and items). The Content Board accepted the reasons set out by the executive in Paper CB 48(05) for rejecting the BBC representations. An alternative wording proposed by Channels 4 and 5 aimed at ensuring that programmes such as satires and comedies were not inadvertently caught by the rule. This was read to the meeting and AGREED. The proposed wording was “Factual programmes or items and portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience”. The Content Board asked that the ordering of the bullet points in the Introduction should be reviewed. The Content Board asked that the references in the Code to sections of the Code not applying to “ BBC services funded by the licence fee or grant in aid” be revised to make clear that responsibility for regulation in these areas rested with the BBC Governors.

22. Following discussion and subject to the points NOTED above it was AGREED that the Code as set out in Annex 1 to Paper CB 48(05) should be submitted to the Ofcom Board with a recommendation from the Board for approval. The Content Board congratulated the team involved in the Code review on an excellent piece of work. Content Board Members expressed the view that they had been very well served by the team throughout what had been a major exercise.

Draft Broadcasting Code: Launch Plans

23. [Withheld from published minutes] outlined the launch plans for the Broadcasting Code, including the involvement of Content Board Members. A point made in discussion was the importance of ensuring that producers and programme makers from all parts of the production community were made aware of the Code. Following discussion of the key messages to be communicated it was NOTED that the Code would be published on 25 May 2005 . It was NOTED that Richard Hooper and [Withheld from published minutes] were due to attend a meeting of the Central Religious Advisory Committee (CRAC) on 3 May 2005 and would discuss relevant sections of the Code with the Committee.

[Withheld from published minutes]

24. The Board NOTED that this was [Withheld from published minutes] last Content Board as she was retiring. A farewell dinner had been arranged for the evening.

Content and Standards Group Report

25. Tim Suter commented on the current work plan of the Content and Standards Group. It was NOTED that a document setting out the proposed scope of the Review of the Television Production Sector would be circulated to the Content Board for comments between meetings. It was NOTED that work Contract Rights Renewal Adjudicator, [Withheld from published minutes], was assisting with a project which was looking at what the implications might be of allowing product placement.

26. It was NOTED that an article by [Withheld from published minutes] which had appeared in the Press a few weeks previously had quoted the Chairman of CRAC as expressing disappointment that CRAC had not been formally consulted before Ofcom agreed to accept ITV’s proposal to cut its religious output. Ofcom had responded by making clear that it was not required to consult on changes to Tier 3 requirements, but rather ITV was required to consult Ofcom on its plans. ITV could consult others on its plans if it chose to do so.

Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 & 8 March 2005 (Content Board Minutes 25(05)) and Matters Arising

27. The minutes of the Content Board meeting held on 7/8 March 2005 were AGREED, subject to deleting the penultimate sentence in paragraph 3 (“Some Members felt …… impairment might occur”).

Rolling Forward Plan of Content Board Agendas

28. The Content Board NOTED the schedule CB 49(05) which set out the rolling forward plan of the Content Board agenda to October 2005.

Ofcom Board Meeting of 22 February 2005, 1 March 2005 and 15 March 2005

29. Kip Meek reported on the Ofcom Board meetings held on 22 February 2005 , 1 March 2005 and 15 March 2005 . In the course of discussion Rosemary Kelly said that she had a couple of specific points relating to Northern Ireland which she would like included in Ofcom’s response to the Green Paper on the future of the BBC . Richard Hooper suggested that she should forward her comments to him and he would ensure they were passed to David Currie and Stephen Carter . Following discussion the minutes were NOTED.

Members’ Interests

30. The following declarations were NOTED for inclusion in the published register of Members’ interests:

  1. Sue Balsom said that she had agreed to be a Member of the Design Skills Panel of the Design Council of the UK .
  2. Jonathan Edwards said that he would be involved in making a science documentary for Radio 4 which would be in production in autumn 2005.

31. Richard Hooper said that Members would shortly be sent a letter asking them to declare the proportion of their income received from broadcasting, in accordance with arrangements previously agreed. Members would also be asked to complete and sign the annual declaration of interests.

Ofcom’s Approach to Radio Regulation – Formats

32. Kip Meek and [Withheld from published minutes] presented Paper CB 50(05). A need had been identified to set out more precisely how Ofcom would apply radio regulation through formats and in particular the approach which would be taken to requests to modify formats. Formats described the character of a station, including the requirements for achieving localness. Subject to approval by the Content Board and Ofcom Board, the proposals would be included in and implemented through the Radio Review. It was NOTED that there was some further work to be done on the drafting, for example, to define what was meant by “substantially” in “substantially alter the character of a service”. The paper had previously been reviewed by the Radio Licensing Committee.

33. In the course of discussion it was NOTED that the proposal was that as a general rule no format changes would be permitted in the first two years after a station launched and, in the period subsequent to that and up to five years after launch, only changes that did not substantially alter the station’s character would be permitted. After a five year period since launch, stations would be considered long established although even then applicants and licensees would not be able to assume that they would be permitted to dispense with the fundamental proposition on which the licence award was based. If a licensee determined that its proposition was not working it could decide to hand back the licence and the licence would be readvertised. [Withheld from published minutes]. Subject to consideration of the points made in discussion it was AGREED to submit the proposals to the Ofcom Board with a recommendation for approval.

34. The Content Board asked that Members should in future receive the weekly licensing update and the note on format changes which was circulated monthly.

Overview of PSB Assessment Framework – Focus on Stakeholder Symposia

35. [Withheld from published minutes] gave a presentation of Ofcom’s planned approach to PSB assessment. The Content Board was reminded of the three statutory requirements made of Ofcom in assessing the performance of licensed PSBs, namely:

  1. To assess the effectiveness of public service broadcasters in delivering the range of PSB public purposes.
  2. To provide objective information for Ofcom’s assessment of whether licensees had conducted their annual statements of programme policy and self-assessment reviews in accordance with statute and guidance.
  3. To publish an overview of broadcaster and market trends.

36. The proposed approach was to use a flexible assessment system, using a range of predominantly quantitative tracking and measurement tools. The system would integrate existing and new tools into three areas of assessment, namely:

  1. Output: the volume and value of broadcast hours delivered.
  2. Reach: the quantity and balance of broadcasts viewed, both in terms of the programmes being watched and who was watching.
  3. Impact: the quality and performance of broadcasters according to viewer and expert opinion.

37. [Withheld from published minutes] presented the proposals for stakeholder symposia which were summarised in Paper CB 52(05). The intention was to hold two symposia a year. The key purpose would be to engage both practitioners and other informed commentators in in-depth investigations into how well PSB purposes were being achieved by the broadcasters, focussing on particular issues. The two key outputs from the symposium itself would be:

  1. A summary of the symposium (presentations and minutes) to be circulated to all participants.
  2. A report – symposium summary and Ofcom analysis – to be discussed at the Content Board. It was intended that a version of the report would subsequently be published.

38. [Withheld from published minutes] said that the aim was to hold the first symposium in September/October 2005 so that the outputs would feed into the PSBs’ self-assessment of performance in achieving Tier 3 PSB goals. This would also inform development of statements of programme policy for the following year. The intention was that ahead of the symposium, research would be carried out, with that research being designed with input from an expert panel. The findings from the research would then be presented and discussed at the Symposium.

39. The Content Board discussed the overall methodology and approach, as described in the presentation. It was NOTED that the assessment would cover the BBC as well as the licensed PSBs. [Withheld from published minutes]. It was NOTED that overall the new approach should not represent an additional cost burden for the broadcasters but the costs would be differently spread. The broadcasters had asked for a more flexible approach with a move away from “box ticking” and the new framework would achieve that. It was suggested that it could be put to the broadcasters that the more they could be relied on to fulfil their PSB obligations the less assessment would have to be done by the regulator.

40. In answer to a question [Withheld from published minutes] confirmed that the Act set out 15 PSB genre. The proposed Output Tracker approach to assessment would take a flexible approach so that it would be possible to reflect the full intention of a programme and richness of the schedule, e.g., a programme might be both arts and history, whilst avoiding double-counting of hours of programming. It was NOTED that reference was made in the presentation to the fact that it would be, “increasingly necessary to compare PSB output with that provided by non- PSB channels”. It was suggested that this was an important issue in terms of accessibility for audiences. [Withheld from published minutes].

41. Following discussion the Content Board ENDORSED the proposed approach to the PSB Assessment Framework [Withheld from published minutes]. The Content Board asked that further consideration be given to the issue of how information might be obtained on the amount of promotion of public service programmes, for example regional, carried out by broadcasters.

42. The Content Board discussed the proposals for stakeholder symposia. During the course of discussion Members expressed some concerns about the proposals, including where the symposia would fit into the assessment process. [Withheld from published minutes]. The Content Board ASKED the team to return with more detailed proposals for consideration at a future meeting.

Cross Promotion Research Findings

43. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented the initial findings from research which had been undertaken on cross promotion. The objectives of the research had been to look at the following issues:

The research methodology was described and a summary of the findings was presented.

44. In answer to a question [Withheld from published minutes] said that the data could be further analysed to look at particular issues raised in discussion, including competition concerns such as the BBC promoting its commercial interests. It was NOTED that the consideration of competition concerns would be complicated by the public policy commitment to promoting digital switchover. [Withheld from published minutes] [Withheld from published minutes]. It was suggested that that the key issue of concern when considering cross promotion was the potential distortion of competition. Following discussion the Content Board thanked the team for an interesting presentation and NOTED that proposals for revised Cross Promotion Guidelines would be put to the Content Board for consideration in June 2005.

Rules on the Amount and Scheduling of Advertising

45. [Withheld from published minutes] said that Ofcom had said in the draft Annual Plan that during 2005 it would review the Rules on the Amount and Scheduling of Advertising (RASA). However it had since been decided to postpone the review until 2006 when it could be conducted alongside the review of the Contract Rights Renewal Remedy and when the direction of the Television Without Frontiers Directive Review should be clearer. The RASA review would also be conducted alongside the Advertising Sales Market Review. [Withheld from published minutes] said that in the next few weeks the current version of the RASA rules (which had been inherited from the ITC ) would be reviewed to remove any rules which for historical reasons were no longer applicable but the changes would not be subject to consultation. The decision not to carry out the full RASA review until 2006 meant that there would be no change for the time being to the rule which currently restricted public service broadcasters to showing an average of seven minutes of advertising per hour whilst other broadcasters were permitted to show up to nine minutes. In discussion the Content Board NOTED that appropriate linkages should be made between work on RASA and the work being done on cross promotions and on product placement.

Media Literacy: Audit Research Scope

46. [Withheld from published minutes] gave a brief update on strands of media literacy work which were in progress and said he could provide more detailed briefing to Members who wished to receive it outside the meeting. [Withheld from published minutes] and [Withheld from published minutes] presented Paper CB 54(05) and a supporting presentation which set out proposals for Ofcom’s Media Literacy Audit. A draft of the research questions had been circulated as Annex 1 to the paper. Proposals for the sample sizes and proposed boosts for the Media Literacy Audit were outlined in Annex 2 and in the presentation.  

47. In answer to a question [Withheld from published minutes] said that it would be possible to drill down on the findings for the over 65s and report separately on the 65-75 group, but it was unlikely that the sample could support separate reporting on the over 75s. It was NOTED in discussion that it would be preferable to refer to “culturally diverse groups” rather than “minority ethnic groups”. It was suggested that boost samples for culturally diverse groups should be conducted in Bristol and Southampton where different views were likely to be expressed than in larger cities such as London , Birmingham and Manchester . It was suggested that if possible it would also be helpful to analyse income level although it was NOTED that the scope for doing so was limited.

48. The Content Board AGREED that, subject to the points NOTED in discussion, Ofcom should carry out a Media Literacy Audit as described in Paper CB 54(05) and the accompanying presentation. It was NOTED that a more refined version of the questionnaire would be circulated to Members for comments within the next few days. The aim was to start the field work in mid-May 2005 and to bring the initial top-line findings to the Content Board in July 2005. The core findings would then be presented to the Content Board in September 2005 with the aim being to present the findings to EU Ministers at the UK Presidency Conference to be held in Liverpool on 20/21 September 2005. The report would then be published. Further analysis would then be conducted to maximise the information obtained from the research by looking in detail at specific groups so that stakeholders in various areas could be given the key messages which emerged for them. The Content Board thanked the team for the presentation and welcomed the early sight which they had been given of the research proposal. [Withheld from published minutes].

Review of the Television Without Frontiers (TWF) Directive

49. [Withheld from published minutes] gave a presentation on the review of the TWF Directive. The TWF had not been reviewed in detail since 1989 and therefore did not take account of several significant developments since, including the growth in the number of channels across Europe, the arrival of digital, the internet, interactivity, expansion of the EU to 25 members, convergence (including of regulators) and the threat to advertiser funded television through PVRs etc. The current expectation was the EU would publish Issues Papers in June 2005 which would set out the direction of their thinking. A consultation on the Issues Papers would run until 15 September 2005 . Ofcom was working closely with DTI/DCMS to try to shape the content of the Issues Papers. The UK Presidency Conference to be held in Liverpool on 20/21 September 2005 was expected to focus on the review of the TWF and on media literacy.

50. [Withheld from published minutes] referred to the key content issues for inclusion in the Review under the headings:

The current understanding was that the EU was minded to aim for a Directive which would expand content regulation to cover all audiovisual content services, irrespective of the way they were delivered to end users. It was proposed that a distinction would be made between the regulation of ‘linear’ and ‘non-linear’ services, with a lesser degree of regulation applying to the latter. (‘Linear’ services were defined as audiovisual services delivered point to multi-point, whilst ‘non-linear’ services were on demand point to point audiovisual services.) It was NOTED that the proposal was in conflict with Ofcom’s drive to reduce regulation where possible.

51. The Content Board discussed issues highlighted in the presentation. [Withheld from published minutes].

52. The Content Board thanked [Withheld from published minutes] for the helpful briefing which was NOTED. [Withheld from published minutes] said that the Content Board would be kept updated on developments. The aim was to put an initial issues paper to the Ofcom Board in May.

Content and Standards Report

53. [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 ( 7 April 2005 )

54. Pam Giddy reported back on matters considered by the Radio Licensing Committee at its meeting on 7 April 2005 including:

  1. The award of the local radio licence for Durham to Durham FM Limited.
  2. Initial consideration of the 19 applications received for the Manchester local commercial radio licence.
  3. Initial consideration of the five applications received for the Norwich local commercial radio applications.
  4. The approach to be taken to the licensing award process for community radio. It had been agreed that in respect of unsuccessful applications for areas where frequencies were available, feedback should be given on the reasons for non-award to inform any subsequent re-application. It had been decided that in circumstances where there was only one applicant, but the Committee was not satisfied that the application was of sufficient quality in relation to the statutory criteria to merit an award, no award would be made.
  5. Community radio licences had been awarded for the Solent Area (Angel Radio Havant), for Pontypridd (GTFM) and for Port Talbot (AfanFM).
  6. It had been agreed to add a further three ‘smaller’ FM commercial licences to the published timetable ( Andover , Exeter and Oxford ) and a further three ‘larger’ licences (North East England, Hull and Bristol ) for advertisement in 2005/2006.

Matters for External Communication

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

Minutes for noting

56. The following minutes were NOTED:

  1. Advisory Committee for Nations and Regions Northern Ireland , Minutes of 23 February 2005 – Paper CB 55(05).
  2. Advisory Committee for Nations and Regions Scotland , Minutes of 2 March 2005 – Paper CB 56(05).
  3. Radio Licensing Committee Minutes of 17 February 2005 and 7 March 2005 – Papers CB 57(05) and 58(05).
  4. Consumer Panel Minutes of 24 February 2005 and 22 March 2005 – Papers CB 59(05) and 60(05).

Any other business

a) Content Board Dates 2006

57. The proposed dates for Content Board meetings in 2006 had been circulated by email. Members were asked to let [Withheld from published minutes] know by not later than close of business on 22 April 2005 if they had diary clashes with any of the dates. If no comments were received by this deadline it would be assumed that the dates could be confirmed.

 b) PSB Review

58. It was NOTED that responses to the Phase 3 PSB consultation were due by close on 19 April 2005.

c) Arrangements for future Content Board meetings

 59. A concern was expressed that the plans for the July Content Board meeting included two working lunches and a working dinner within the space of 36 hours. It was NOTED in discussion that whilst it was valuable to have opportunities to meet stakeholders, consideration should be given to the right balance to be struck so that Members were not overloaded. Following discussion it was AGREED to bear this point in mind when planning 2006. So far as the July meeting was concerned, it was NOTED that Members who were due to attend the lunch with the BBC on 18 July 2005 should not feel obliged to attend lunch with ACOD on 19 July 2005 .

Date of next meeting

60. It was NOTED that the next meeting would be held on Monday 16 and Tuesday 17 May 2005 in Cardiff.


Back to top Back to top


Further information

Help

Keep up-to-date