Home > TV > Broadcast Bulletins > Ofcom Broadcast Bulletins > Issue number 100 - 14|01|08

Standards Cases

In Breach

McFly Competition
BBC North West Tonight (BBC1), 6, 8, and 9 February 2007

Introduction

The BBC was approached by the charity Comic Relief to organise a competition on North West Tonight. The prize would be a visit to a primary school in the region by the pop group McFly who were undertaking a promotional tour in the area (the North West Tonight region comprises Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire and parts of Cheshire, the Lake District and the Peak District). Entry to the competition was free, via email.

The competition was trailed on the breakfast and lunchtime bulletins of North West Tonight between 6 and 8 February 2007 , with the intention of the band visiting the winning school on Friday, 9 February 2007 . However, on the 8 February 2007 , it became apparent to the BBC that the band would not be able to travel outside Greater Manchester. This meant that some of the schools which had entered the competition were no longer eligible to be considered.

The BBC was asked to comment with regard to Rule 2.11 of the Code (“competitions should be conducted fairly”).

Response

The BBC stated that viewers of North West Tonight were misled by a competition that started out fairly but changed part way through due to circumstances beyond its control.

The BBC said that the information provided to it on 8 February 2007 that schools outside of Greater Manchester would not be considered left the programme’s producers with three options all of which were less than ideal. They could have:

• cancelled the competition completely;
• told entrants that the prize could not be won by schools outside of Greater Manchester; or
• simply excluded those schools that were.

The producers chose the third option and the BBC asked that Ofcom consider the following issues:

All entries were solicited in good faith and the programme maker’s original understanding was that the group was prepared to visit any of the primary schools in the North West Tonight region.

On 8 February the BBC became aware that competition winners would be limited to Greater Manchester which was contrary to the BBC’s original understanding that anywhere in the region was an option.

On Thursday 8 February, a BBC broadcast journalist reviewed all of the entries and created a shortlist of five for the competition organisers. That shortlist included two schools approximately 35 miles outside of Greater Manchester. It was hoped that the best entrant would be selected by the competition organisers and the BBC did not express any particular preference for the winner. The winning school was chosen from this shortlist and was in Greater Manchester.

The BBC stated that at its conception the competition was fair. The producers of North West Tonight understood that the scope for the prize was any primary school in the North West Tonight coverage area.

However, on the final day of the competition, it knew that schools outside of the Greater Manchester area would not be considered which it accepted was unfair.

Decision

Having taken into account the BBC’s response, Ofcom noted that the original terms and conditions for the competition changed. Only schools within Greater Manchester would be considered and this came to light just before the competition was to be concluded, without viewers being made aware that this was the case. This was unfair to those viewers who entered the competition on the basis that they had a fair and equal chance of winning it, when in fact, due to the location of their school, they had no chance of winning.

Ofcom considers that the BBC should have made it clear to its viewers before the competition was closed that it was not going to be possible to honour the original terms and conditions of the competition.

We note that in this case there was limited harm to viewers as entry was free by way of email and that a genuine local school won the prize. The BBC wished to apologise unreservedly for its mistake.

Ofcom underlines to broadcasters that if a material problem arises with the conduct of a competition, viewers or listeners must be informed as soon as possible. Broadcasters must not proceed with the competition without informing the audience of that problem if it is likely to affect viewers or listeners’ decision to participate.

Breach of Rule 2.11

---

Dirty Cows
LIVING, 14 October 2007, 17:00

Introduction

Dirty Cows is a reality show in which city girls compete to be a young farmer’s date. Seven viewers complained about the use of the word “fucking” on a number of occasions in this pre-watershed programme. Some were watching with young children. Ofcom asked Virgin Media Television, which owns and is responsible for compliance at LIVING, for comments in relation to Rule 1.14 (the most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed or when children are particularly likely to be listening).

Response

Virgin Media Television apologised for the inclusion of this seriously offensive language before the watershed. A mistake in the scheduling process had unfortunately led to this error. It explained that a fault with the sound had been identified in the edited ‘PG’ version of the programme, which had all the swearing correctly bleeped for pre-watershed transmission. Unfortunately staff had decided to use the post-watershed version at 17:00 without first checking its suitability for an early evening slot.

Virgin Media Television said it had introduced new and tighter procedures and enhanced training as a result of this incident.

Decision

Ofcom recently issued guidance to broadcasters (see Broadcast Bulletin, issue 89 at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb89) to remind them that they are under a clear duty to ensure that robust procedures are in place, supported by a sufficient number of appropriately qualified and trained staff, to ensure full compliance with the Code in respect to the broadcast of unsuitable material pre-watershed. Failure to have adequate compliance procedures in place to ensure compliance is a serious matter and can lead to regulatory action being taken.

Ofcom notes Virgin Media Television’s explanation for the error and the apology and acknowledges the steps taken to prevent any similar occurrence. However, the word “fucking” was used on four separate occasions in this programme. Ofcom appreciates the offence this would have caused viewers, especially those watching with children, and therefore records a formal breach of Rule 1.14 of the Code.

Breach of Rule 1.14

---

UK’s Toughest Jobs
Discovery +1, 20 October 2007, 16:00

Introduction

UK’s Toughest Jobs is a reality programme that follows unemployed youths who agree to take on demanding jobs in a variety of industries. This episode featured three young people who worked in the airline salvage business. A viewer, who was watching with his young son, objected to the inclusion of offensive language (“fuck”, “fucking”, “shit” and “bollocks”) at a time when he did not expect to encounter such language.

Ofcom asked the broadcaster to comment in respect of Rule 1.14 of the Code (the most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed or when children are particularly likely to be listening).

Response

The broadcaster said it very much regretted that there were incidents of swearing in this particular edition and apologised. Discovery traced the error to an outside company who were responsible for dealing with the broadcaster’s playout facilities. They had incorrectly transmitted a post watershed episode, Aircraft Salvage, instead of the intended pre-watershed episode, Boat Builders. The broadcaster said a number of steps had subsequently been put in place to ensure that this would not happen again.

Decision

Ofcom recently issued guidance to broadcasters (see Broadcast Bulletin, issue 89 at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb89) to remind them that they are under a clear duty to ensure that robust procedures are in place, supported by a sufficient number of appropriately qualified and trained staff, to ensure full compliance with the Code in respect to the broadcast of unsuitable material pre-watershed. Failure to have adequate compliance procedures in place to ensure compliance is a serious matter and can lead to regulatory action being taken.

In this case, the language was clearly the most offensive and not suitable for broadcast before the watershed. Ofcom welcomes the improved compliance procedures that the broadcaster has initiated in response to this complaint to ensure there is no recurrence of this problem . However, Ofcom considers it appropriate to record a breach of the Code.

Breach of Rule 1.14

---

Rich Kids’ Cattle Drive
E! Entertainment, 29 October 2007, 17:20

Introduction

Rich Kids’ Cattle Drive is a reality programme that features the children of celebrities working on a Colorado cattle ranch. A viewer objected to the repeated broadcast of offensive language (“fuck” and “fucking”) at a time that was unsuitable. Ofcom asked the broadcaster to comment in respect of Rule 1.14 of the Code (the most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed or when children are particularly likely to be listening).

Response

E! Entertainment said that it takes its obligations under the Code very seriously . With programmes such as Rich Kids Cattle Drive, two different versions are prepared: the ‘unmasked’ version to be broadcast after the watershed and the ‘masked’ version to be aired before the watershed. In ‘masked’ versions, bad language is 'bleeped' out. Unfortunately, in the case of this episode, the person in charge of logging the ‘masked’ version for broadcast at 17:20 mistakenly scheduled the ‘unmasked’ version and, consequently, the wrong episode version went to air. As a result of this incident, the person responsible had been disciplined.

Decision

Ofcom recently issued guidance to broadcasters (see Broadcast Bulletin, issue 89 at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb89) to remind them that they are under a clear duty to ensure that robust procedures are in place, supported by a sufficient number of appropriately qualified and trained staff, to ensure full compliance with the Code in respect to the broadcast of unsuitable material pre-watershed. Failure to have adequate compliance procedures in place to ensure compliance is a serious matter and can lead to regulatory action being taken.

Rule 1.14 makes clear that the most offensive language – like that broadcast in this instance – is unacceptable before the watershed. Ofcom notes that the present breach of Rule 1.14 is a repeated breach.

In Bulletin 52, a breach of Rule 1.14 was also recorded in relation to the same series. At that time, the broadcaster assured us that it would put in place additional checks to ensure no recurrence of the problem. In the current case, while we acknowledge that the inclusion of the most offensive language was a result of human error, Ofcom is very concerned that the broadcaster still did not have sufficiently robust compliance systems in place in October 2007 to prevent such mistakes. Ofcom therefore puts the broadcaster on notice that it will consider taking further regulatory action in the event of any future Code breach.

Breach of Rule 1.14

---

Ryanair.com POP POP POP
Bubble Hits, 9 November 2007, 14:00

Introduction

Ryanair.com POP POP POP is a programme featuring music videos. It is broadcast on Bubble Hits, a dedicated music channel. Throughout the programme, an on-screen graphic stating “Ryanair.com POP POP POP ” was displayed. Ofcom was concerned about this continuous reference throughout the programme to what appeared to be the programme sponsor. We requested comments from Bubble Hits in relation to Rule 9.5 of the Code (no promotional references to the sponsor; non-promotional references are permitted only where they are editorially justified and incidental).

Response

Bubble Hits confirmed that the programme was sponsored by Ryanair.com and the programme title incorporated the sponsor’s name. It said that the on-screen graphic displayed throughout the programme, “Ryanair.com POP POP POP”, was the name of the programme and not Ryanair’s logo.

Decision

The Code requires sponsored programmes to be identified clearly. One way broadcasters notify audiences of sponsorship arrangements is by incorporating the sponsor’s name into a programme title. While this is a legitimate way to identify

sponsored content, broadcasters need to take care over references within the programme to its title to avoid these references becoming promotional through giving undue prominence to the sponsor. While there is no absolute prohibition on references to the sponsor in sponsored programmes, references must not be promotional and must be editorially justified and incidental.

Ofcom considered that, in this case, the continuous reference to the sponsor by way of the on-screen graphic was excessive, not incidental and not justified by the editorial requirements of the programme. It was therefore in breach of Rule 9.5 of the Code.

Breach of Rule 9.5

---

Radio Ramadan (Bristol)
11 and 12 October 2007, various times

Introduction

Radio Ramadan was granted a Restricted Service Licence for 28 days to celebrate the holy month of Ramadan. We received a complaint from a listener who was offended by comments made by presenters on two separate occasions. We therefore requested recordings for the times and dates specified by the complainant.

Response

The station said that it was unable to provide copies of the material broadcast, due to a technical failure of their recording equipment.

Decision

In the absence of recordings, we were unable to investigate the complainant’s concerns further. It is a condition of a radio broadcaster’s licence that it has adequate procedures in place to ensure that it retains recordings of its output for 42 days and provides Ofcom with any material on request. Failure to supply the recordings for the 11 and 12 October 2007 is a serious and significant breach of Radio Ramadan’s licence. This breach will be held on record.

Breach of Licence Condition 8 (Retention and production of recordings)

---

Resolved

F1: Japanese Grand Prix
ITV1, 30 September 2007, 04:30

Introduction

Ofcom received two complaints about ITV1’s coverage of the Formula 1 Japanese Grand Prix. Both complainants objected to the use of the word “fuck” by Mark Webber, a driver who was interviewed ‘live’ after the race, at 07:05.

Ofcom asked ITV to comment in relation to Rule 1.3 (children must be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them) and Rule 1.14 (the most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed) of the Code.

Response

ITV stated that Mark Webber was interviewed after being hit by another car and forced out of the race. During the interview, he said:

“It’s kids isn’t it? Kids with not enough experience. Doing a good job then they fuck it all up” .

The interviewer closed the interview immediately and apologised for the language. The race commentator then also apologised and referred to “a very angry Mark Webber”.

ITV said that it was a regrettable and isolated lapse in a live interview with a professional racing driver “coming down” from pressure and feeling intense frustration. ITV said it did not choose to broadcast the offensive word and repeated the apologies already offered on air.

Decision

Research undertaken by Ofcom shows that the word “fuck” is considered to be very offensive. Therefore this language should not be broadcast before the watershed.

Ofcom accepts that ‘live’ broadcasting poses special compliance challenges for broadcasters. Nonetheless, a broadcaster must do its utmost to ensure compliance with the Code. In deciding what action to take in this case, Ofcom took into account that the broadcaster acted appropriately by ceasing the interview immediately and apologising twice, and that audience figures showed the number of child viewers at the time the offensive language was broadcast was very low. Ofcom therefore considers the matter resolved.

Resolved

---

Not Upheld

Hell’s Kitchen
ITV1: 4 and 6 September 2007, 21:00; 7 September 2007, 22:00; 8 September 2007, 21:40; 10 September 2007, 21:00

Introduction

The third series of Hell’s Kitchen featured the well-known chef Marco Pierre White training ten celebrities how to cook. Among the contestants learning how to become chefs were former Big Brother winner Brian Dowling and comedian Jim Davidson. The series was broadcast on consecutive nights over a two week period as the public voted for the celebrity they wished to remain in the kitchen.

Over the period 4-10 September 2007, Ofcom received 197 complaints about the programme. In summary, concern was expressed that Jim Davidson made bullying and homophobic comments, which were largely directed at Brian Dowling. For example, Jim Davidson referred to “shirt-lifters” and “poofs”. Some of the complainants also expressed concern that Jim Davidson made these offensive comments without being censured by ITV.

Ofcom asked ITV to comment with reference to Rule 2.3 of the Code which states “in applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context.”

Ofcom also received a further 31 complaints from viewers about the use of the phrase “pikey’s picnic”, said by Marco Pierre White during the episode broadcast on 6 September.

Response

ITV stated that the episodes of Hell’s Kitchen broadcast on 4, 7, 8 and 10 September followed generally accepted standards and complied with Rule 2.3 of the Code. The programmes undoubtedly contained language and terms that were potentially offensive. However, ITV believed that they were justified by the context.

It said that as a reality show it was necessary for Hell’s Kitchen to reflect fairly and accurately what was unfolding in the kitchen. The antagonism between Brian Dowling and Jim Davidson was central to the developing story. The broadcaster argued that it was editorially important to explore the issues of the perceived generation gap between some of the contestants, and of the acceptability of Jim Davidson’s behaviour and views.

ITV stated that viewers were given information about the potentially offensive nature of the content before the programmes broadcast on 7 and 10 September which included the offensive language complained of.

In terms of the degree of likely harm and offence, ITV argued that Jim Davidson’s language and behaviour were “forcefully challenged” in the programmes and therefore placed in context: Brian Dowling challenged him during their disagreements broadcast on 7 and 10 September; Jim Davidson was interviewed in the “wine cellar” about his language; and fellow contestants Paul Young and Adele de Silva questioned Jim Davidson’s behaviour on 10 September following the final confrontation with Brian Dowling. ITV said Jim Davidson’s language and behaviour were placed against a backdrop that made it clear that the contestants, ITV and society in general did not think it acceptable to use terms such as “shirt-lifter” or to make an issue of a person’s sexuality.

ITV added that the programmes on 4, 7, 8 and 10 September 2007 needed to be viewed in the context of the series as a whole. In particular, the broadcaster pointed to the episode broadcast on 11 September, which showed Jim Davidson being asked by the broadcaster to leave the programme and apologise for overstepping acceptable boundaries during the disagreement with Brian Dowling the previous evening.

ITV said that robust compliance procedures were in place and that all contestants were briefed by the producers before the series started as to what language and behaviour was deemed to be unacceptable for broadcast. Events on set were viewed as they went out live by the production team, who had been briefed to look out for and note unacceptable behaviour or language and ensure contestants were challenged when required.

Taking the overall context into account, ITV believed that the material broadcast on 4, 7, 8 and 10 September did not exceed the expectation of the audience of a post-watershed reality show such as Hell’s Kitchen.

Decision

The Code does not, in itself, prohibit the broadcast of offensive language or behaviour. Such material can be transmitted, provided that members of the public have adequate protection from its inclusion.

In providing adequate protection, Rule 2.3 of the Code requires that broadcasters must apply generally accepted standards and that the inclusion of any offensive material is justified by context. Context includes, but is not limited to:

• the editorial content of the programme or series;
• the extent to which the content can be brought to the attention of the audience;
• the time of broadcast;
• the degree of offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material; and
• the likely expectation of the audience.

In addition Ofcom must exercise its duties in a way which is compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This provides for the right of freedom of expression and the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public body. Applied to broadcasting, Article 10 protects the broadcaster’s right to transmit material as well as the audience’s rights to receive material as long as the broadcaster ensures compliance with the Rules of the Code and the requirements of statutory and common law.

Ofcom believes audiences now have a fairly clear awareness of the conventions of ‘reality’ programming: it is unscripted, places together people with different personalities and opinions and observes how they interact with one another. It is often set in a challenging and confined environment and, as such, one can expect tensions and conflict.

Ofcom therefore accepted that it was an integral part of the context of the programme that viewers could accurately see the contestants’ behaviour and beliefs unfolding without the broadcaster’s editorial intervention. Indeed, as the audience could vote for their favourite contestant it was a key element of the programme that viewers gained an unedited insight into the contestants’ personalities. Further, it would be a disproportionate limitation on freedom of expression to require that the contestants on Hell’s Kitchen could only express views that met generally accepted standards. Therefore, even if viewers felt that certain behaviour was offensive, this did not mean that ITV was not able to broadcast it in context.

In terms of context, Ofcom noted the programmes were all broadcast after the watershed. Further, clear information was given to viewers before the start of the programmes that some of the material they were about to see could cause offence.

In terms of the likely degree of harm and offence, Ofcom further noted that during the episodes broadcast on 4, 7 and 8 September Jim Davidson did not direct offensive comments at Brian Dowling. For example, during the programme broadcast on 7 September, the terms “shirt-lifter” and “poof” were used by Jim Davidson to illustrate words that might be deemed unacceptable, not as personal comments. Further, Ofcom noted that during these three programmes Brian Dowling did not accuse Jim Davidson of directing offensive homophobic comments towards him.

Ofcom also considered the concerns raised by some complainants that ITV condoned or encouraged the offensive comments. We noted that Jim Davidson’s comments were restricted by ITV and importantly were challenged by the other contestants. Where Jim Davidson's comments appeared to become more personal and potentially offensive ITV ensured that any offensive material was justified by the context within the programme as broadcast.

Ofcom also noted that there was a consensus view on the programme that Jim Davidson’s behaviour towards Brian Dowling was not acceptable and that he was in the minority. As well as the contestants expressing their opinions, presenter Angus Deayton made several observations about the perception of Jim Davidson outside of Hell’s Kitchen and his popularity “going up in smoke”.

Taking all these considerations into account, Ofcom reached the view that ITV took appropriate care to ensure adequate context for Jim Davidson’s views. Ofcom therefore considers there was no breach of Rule 2.3 on this occasion.

With regard to the comment “pikey’s picnic” made by Marco Pierre White during the episode on 6 September 2007 , we note that the phrase was used to describe the standard of presentation of food by the contestants. In response, one of the contestants, Lee Ryan, expressed his unhappiness about the phrase and subsequently took this up with Marco Pierre White, explaining that he perceived it as offensive to Travellers.

Ofcom recognises that the word “pikey” is an offensive and pejorative term. However, through a participant, it was clear in the programme that such a term can be offensive and unacceptable for some. We therefore considered that, on balance, and within the specific editorial context of a programme such as Hell’s Kitchen, the comment did not breach Rule 2.3 of the Code.

Not in Breach

---

Weekend “Nazis”
BBC1, 27 August 2007, 20:30

Introduction

In the documentary Weekend “Nazis”, reporter John Sweeney investigated people who spent their leisure time re-enacting incidents and activities from World War Two. The report focused, in particular, on those who chose to wear Nazi uniforms. Filming took place at a World War Two re-enactment weekend in Kent . Towards the end of the programme, undercover filming revealed that a minority of the people involved had extreme racist views.

Two viewers contacted Ofcom to complain about uncensored offensive language broadcast in the programme, including the words “nigger” and “coons”. This language was also included in on-screen subtitles which accompanied the undercover filming section. The complainants, who were watching with children, objected that these words were not edited from the broadcast when other strong language (for example “fuck”) was masked.

Ofcom asked the BBC to comment with reference to Rules 1.16 (offensive language should not be broadcast before the watershed unless it is justified by the context).

Response

Whilst not disputing the offensive nature of these terms, the BBC replied that their inclusion was justified by the context of the programme and there were editorial reasons behind leaving these terms of racial abuse within the programme whilst bleeping out other forms of offensive language.

The BBC argued that John Sweeney’s revelations as regards a disturbing side to a World War Two re-enactment were made apparent early on and were reinforced in the second half of the programme. Therefore viewers would be aware soon after the commencement of the programme of its potential to “disturb and offend”. The BBC’s view was that to have bleeped out the racially offensive terms “would have risked confusing the audience and obscuring the programme’s findings”.

Decision

Rule 1.16 of the Code states that: “Offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed…unless it is justified by the context. In any event, frequent use of such language must be avoided before the watershed”.

Recent Ofcom research (Language and Sexual Imagery 2005) confirms that “nigger” and “coon” are considered highly offensive words. They were not broadcast frequently in this programme. The issue is therefore whether their use before the watershed was justified by the context. Ofcom’s conclusion was that, on balance, it was justified for the following reasons.

This documentary was in part a serious investigation of an important issue – extremist views (and in particular racist views) among certain people involved with a World War Two re-enactment. A recent Ofcom finding on the Channel 4 documentary Dispatches: Undercover Mosques, published in Broadcast Bulletin 97 ( http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb97/), underlined Ofcom’s recognition that: “Investigative journalism plays an essential role in public service broadcasting and is clearly in the public interest. Ofcom considers it of paramount importance that broadcasters...continue to explore controversial subject matter. While such programmes can make for uncomfortable viewing, they are essential to our understanding of the world around us.” Although the use of offensive swear words was masked, the unedited broadcast of the racist terms underlined one of the main purposes of this documentary – to expose racist views among certain people involved in a World War Two re-enactment. If the racist words had been edited out, this section of the programme would have had significantly less impact.

Although the programme began at 20:30, the offensive words were broadcast towards the end of the programme, after a build-up of revelations about the extreme views of some participants. For example, just before the words complained of were broadcast, viewers saw the presenter discover concentration camp memorabilia and anti-Semitic pamphlets openly on sale at the re-enactment event. Viewers were therefore prepared to a great extent for the use of the offensive words.

Also Weekend “Nazis”, although broadcast pre-watershed, was aimed at an adult audience. Viewing figures show that under-eighteens comprised only a small minority of the total audience. Given the title of the programme and the information available in listings publications and accompanying publicity, there was likely to be an awareness of the type of material to be included in such a broadcast. This, we believe, shaped the expectations of the audience and helped prepare them for the limited amount of offensive content. Viewers were likely to have recognised that such a documentary may not be suitable for young children. Further, the programme was in the timeslot normally occupied by Panorama which is known for its challenging and often hard hitting content.

On balance therefore, Rule 1.16 was not breached.

Not in breach

---

Crash Test Dummies
Sky One, 7 October 2007, 09:00

Introduction

Crash Test Dummies is an entertainment show featuring two presenters, comedians Dan Wright and Steve Marsh, who carry out bizarre experiments and test objects which are claimed to be “indestructible”. The narrator sets out the premise of the programme at the outset, noting the presenters have a “mission to destroy the indestructible, to defeat the invincible, living the dream and testing to destruction.”

One segment in this episode – typical of the irreverent nature of the programme - showed the presenters attempt to discover which sausage is most able to withstand a bullet. The narrator said: “Using their trusted Glock 17s firing 9mm shells, the lads’ plan is to find out which type of sausage is better in stopping a bullet, a French Toulouse or a German Frankfurter.”

Ofcom received one complaint which objected to the use of hand guns in a programme felt to be aimed at children, particularly in the present social climate. The complainant also said that to feature guns in a light-hearted way was irresponsible.

We asked for the broadcaster’s comments in relation to Rule 1.13 (dangerous behaviour easily imitable by children must not be broadcast in children’s programmes or shown before the watershed without editorial justification) and 2.4 (programmes must not condone or glamorise violent, dangerous or seriously antisocial behaviour or encourage others to copy such behaviour) of the Code.

Response

Sky said that Crash Test Dummies is aimed at a general family audience and not specifically at children (which Ofcom classifies as people under the age of 15 years). It noted that on average over 75 per cent of the programme’s audience is aged 16 or over when broadcast during this timeslot.

Sky argued that it was clear the item with the hand guns was carried out under controlled conditions – the experiment took place in an enclosed concrete room – and as such did not portray the act as occurring in ‘normal’ daily life. It said the paramount importance of safety was emphasised throughout, through the safety equipment worn by the presenters and the controlled environment in which the experiment was carried out. Sky also said a strong warning was given at the start of the programme and before the item to advise viewers not to copy the activities shown.

The broadcaster argued the item did not glamorise or condone violence, or show irresponsible gun use. It was clear these experiments were dangerous and should not be attempted, and were not likely to be easily imitable by children.

Decision

Regarding Rule 1.13, the actions depicted were not easily imitable by children, requiring for example access to a hand gun. The weapons were also used solely to carry out the experiment shown. As such, the gun use was carefully positioned within the context of an experiment under what were clearly controlled conditions. Ofcom was also mindful that Crash Test Dummies is not a children’s programme but is intended for a more mixed audience, indicated by its transmission on Sky One, a channel known for appealing to a wide variety of tastes.

Concerning Rule 2.4, given the context of the programme and the reasons for the use of guns in this item, Ofcom did not judge the actions went so far as to condone or glamorise anti-social behaviour. While the experiments in the programme were clearly far-fetched and conducted in a humorous manner, it did not alter the importance placed on safety or advising viewers of the danger in weapon use. Both presenters wore safety equipment during the experiment and the guns were not mishandled.

Viewers were also given information about the nature of the content. An announcement was given at the start of the programme which said: “Our Crash Test Dummies always use safety equipment and sometimes call in their stunt doubles for the really dangerous stuff”. One of the presenters then said straight to camera: “So if you feel like trying one of these stunts yourself, don’t bother. Not only would you look stupid, you’d probably end up dead”.

This programme was therefore not in breach of either Rule 1.13 or 2.4 of the Code.

Not in breach

The Full Print Version is available below

• Issue 100 - 14|01|08 [pdf]
  Full Print Version

Back to top