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

Home > TV > Broadcast Bulletins > Ofcom Broadcast Bulletins > 102


Broadcast Bulletin Issue number 102 - 11|02|08

Standards Cases

In Breach

Gold Breakfast
Gold (Birmingham), 15 October 2007, 07:30

Introduction

Gold Breakfast is the breakfast programme networked across all GCap Media plc’s Gold radio stations. During this particular show, the two presenters ran one of a series of daily competitions, offering a chance to win “a limited edition boxed set of all eighteen Elvis singles”. Listeners were invited to text the answer to a question and were also instructed to keep a note of each day’s correct answer for a chance to win a holiday to Memphis and Tupelo .

On previous days, listeners were informed that answers had to be submitted only within the duration of an Elvis Presley song. However, Ofcom received a complaint from a listener that at no stage before, during, or after the competition on 15 October 2007 did either presenter clearly state that listeners should text their answers during the Elvis Presley song played that day. It was therefore possible that people could have entered the competition before or after the song, when they had no chance of winning.

Ofcom asked GCap Media plc to comment on Rule 2.11 of the Code, which states:

“Competitions should be conducted fairly, prizes should be described accurately and rules should be clear and appropriately made known.”

Response

GCap Media plc (“GCap”) which owns Gold, regretted that the presenters did not “expressly point out that the lines were open at the start of the Elvis song”. However, when considering the fairness to listeners of this omission, the broadcaster believed “it [was] necessary to look at the totality of events rather than one incident in isolation”. GCap added that, “in the normal course of events, the lines would be declared open from the commencement of the song and would close once the song ended”. GCap admitted it was unclear in this instance but believed its “conduct over the whole period that the competition ran was such that the essence of Rule 2.11 was maintained”.

The broadcaster stated that entry into the competition was charged at premium rate but that Gold raised no revenue from listeners’ text entries. It added that the competition was therefore held only for the benefit of listeners and noted that the complaint to Ofcom had been the only concern expressed on the matter. Nevertheless, GCap apologised “for its oversight on this occasion”. It said that measures had been put in place to ensure that start and end times of competitions would be clearly stated on air in future, to avoid recurrence and reduce potential listener confusion.

Decision

Ofcom notes that an ongoing competition was taking place over a number of days (for a chance to win a holiday). However, the feature was primarily a stand-alone competition for a chance to win a boxed set of Elvis Presley singles. It should not therefore have been necessary for listeners to have heard any previous daily competitions to enter it. We therefore consider that clear information about when entries could be made should have been provided on air.

In this case, one presenter announced that the competition was, “coming up in a few moments”. A little later, the other presenter asked the competition question. This was followed by a news bulletin, a weather forecast and then an Elvis Presley single. When the song had finished a presenter talked about it, after which the other presenter brought the winner to air to announce the answer. Given that answers were supposed to be submitted during the song, it therefore appeared that listeners whose entries were received during the news and weather (before the song) or during the presenter’s discussion (after the song) stood no chance of winning the competition. A reliance on listeners having heard such information during previous competitions was unacceptable and unfair to listeners. Further, some listeners paid to enter a competition which they could not have won.

We welcome the action GCap has since taken to avoid recurrence. Nevertheless, the broadcast was in breach of Rule 2.11 of the Code. In the event of a similar breach, Ofcom is likely to consider further regulatory action.

Breach of Rule 2.11

Note to Broadcasters

The SMS shortcode (text) entry method used in the competition to which the previous finding (concerning Gold Breakfast) referred is a premium rate service. It is therefore used with an intention to raise revenue, which is shared, by agreement, between one or more of the following:

While a broadcaster may not raise revenue from a specific text or telephone service, it does not necessarily mean that the service is not charged at premium rate. Nor does it mean that entry is free or charged only at the standard rate of the individual listener’s network provider.

PhonepayPlus (formerly ICSTIS), the regulator of premium rate services, offers a ‘check a number’ service. This is available at: http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/

Jamie at Home
Channel 4, 18 September 2007 & 9 October 2007, 20:00

Introduction

Jamie at Home is a 12-part cookery series based at Jamie Oliver’s home. The series was not commissioned by Channel 4 but produced by Fresh One Productions, an independent production company owned by Jamie Oliver and Fremantle Media, and purchased by the broadcaster as an acquired programme. The series was made for an international market and not specifically for the UK .

Two viewers expressed concern that on several occasions during the episode broadcast on 18 September 2007, Jamie Oliver made references to, and used, a kitchen utensil trademarked as the ‘Jamie Oliver Flavour Shaker’. Ofcom noted a further reference to, and use of, the Flavour Shaker during the episode broadcast on 9 October 2007.

Rule 10.1 of the Code requires broadcasters to maintain the independence of editorial control over programme content.

Rule 10.4 of the Code provides that no undue prominence may be given to any product or service. Undue prominence may result from:

Ofcom asked Channel 4 to comment with reference to Rules 10.1 and 10.4.

Response

Channel 4 acknowledged that the two episodes included verbal references to the Jamie Oliver Flavour Shaker and that they were unduly prominent. As soon as this was discovered Channel 4 had contacted the production company to identify and remove all references to the product for any repeat broadcasts. Channel 4 stated closer scrutiny would now be applied to acquired programming. This would include viewing all episodes by a member of the commissioning team responsible for the acquisition and, if required, editing the programme prior to broadcast.

Although the verbal references were unduly prominent, Channel 4 argued that the actual use of the Flavour Shaker in the series was editorially justified, and suggested it was unrealistic to expect that new kitchen devices could not be used. The broadcaster stressed that references were made to other products such as a pestle and mortar or food processor which could achieve a similar result. In addition, no direct references were made to the Flavour Shaker being better than other devices and it said there was no specific call to purchase the product.

Decision

During the episode broadcast on 18 September 2007, there were two verbal references to the Flavour Shaker by name and there followed a sequence of almost two minutes in duration where Jamie Oliver demonstrated how to make an oregano oil using the product. During this segment there were several close up images of the product as the ingredients were placed into it, two shots of Jamie Oliver shaking the product to camera and two further shots of the Flavour Shaker open on the chopping board; full, and then afterwards, empty. During the episode broadcast on 9 October 2007 there was a further verbal and visual reference to the Flavour Shaker as Jamie Oliver prepared another meal.

Ofcom noted that during the segment broadcast on 18 September 2007 Jamie Oliver did state other products could be used to generate the same effect. He said: “I’m going to get my Flavour Shaker – you could use a food processor or you could use a pestle and mortar – get oregano – nice little handful into the Flavour Shaker…” Ofcom further notes that there was no specific call to purchase the device.

However, it is Ofcom’s view that there was insufficient editorial justification for the combined way in which the product was both visually presented and verbally referred to. Overall the focus on the product went beyond the level of prominence usually given to a basic kitchen utensil.

Ofcom therefore concluded that the references to the Flavour Shaker were unduly prominent and consequently in breach of Rule 10.4.

With reference to Rule 10.1, Ofcom considered whether the broadcaster maintained the independence of editorial control over the programme content. It is the responsibility of the broadcaster to ensure all programmes meet the requirements of the Code whether they are acquired or commissioned. By failing to apply appropriate compliance checks for Jamie at Home, Channel 4 were unaware that the unduly prominent references to the Flavour Shaker were included until after the programmes were broadcast. Channel 4 therefore failed to ensure full editorial control over the content and viewers could have reasonably perceived that the broadcaster’s editorial integrity had been compromised. This amounted to a breach of Rule 10.1.

Breach of Rules 10.1 and 10.4

Britain’s Next Top Model
LIVING, 13 August 2007, 21:00

Introduction

Britain’s Next Top Model is a series broadcast on LIVING, which follows a group of aspiring models competing against each other in a range of tasks to win the title and accompanying prize. The series is sponsored by Vauxhall Tigra.

Three viewers complained about the above programme, broadcast on 13 August 2007. In this programme, the contestants were set a task which involved a photo-shoot with a Vauxhall Tigra car. Viewers were concerned that Vauxhall Tigra was also the sponsor of the series, and that the car was described by make and model.

During the part of the programme featuring the Vauxhall Tigra photo-shoot, the car was visible on screen for several minutes. One of the programme hosts, Jonathan Phang, said to the contestants, “You’re going to be starring in an ad alongside this beautiful Vauxhall Tigra.”

Ofcom requested a statement from Virgin Media TV in relation to Rule 9.5 (formerly Rule 9.6) of the Code, which requires that there must be no promotional reference to the sponsor and that non-promotional references are permitted only where they are both editorially justified and incidental.

Response

Virgin Media TV responded that it believed that the references to the car were non-promotional. It also said that it considered the non-promotional references to be editorially justified and incidental. It confirmed that Vauxhall had no influence whatsoever on the editorial of the programme and that the appearance of the car within the show was not a condition of the overall series sponsorship. It also said that Vauxhall had not paid Virgin Media TV to include the shoot, and that the shoot did not exist solely for the purposes of the programme.

There were similar photo-shoots in the series involving other well-known brands and retailers, and Virgin Media TV said that it believed that viewers, and LIVING viewers in particular, understand and accept that this type of programme will inevitably contain product references. Without them, the show would not be a realistic representation of the modelling industry.

Virgin Media TV said that the programme did not refer to the car in a promotional manner. In the context of the programme, it did not believe that Jonathan Phang’s use of the word “beautiful” constituted a promotional reference. Further, this was the only verbal reference to the Vauxhall Tigra or Vauxhall in the sequence. Virgin Media said that the car was mostly seen in long shots, with the camera focussing on the models, and when shown in close-up it was not possible to recognise the make or model of the car.

Decision

There is no absolute prohibition on references to the sponsor in the programme it is sponsoring, provided they are not promotional. However, broadcasters should be aware that a reference to a sponsor within a programme may create a higher presumption of editorial influence by the sponsor. Non-promotional references are more likely to be acceptable if they appear to occur naturally within the programme.

However, in this particular case, the Vauxhall Tigra was featured within the programme as a result of a deliberate, scripted and advance decision by the programme maker. The presenter also clearly referred to “…this beautiful Vauxhall Tigra…”, and the programme featured a number of shots of the car. Given that Vauxhall Tigra sponsored the programme, the inclusion within the programme of these references could reasonably have been perceived by the audience as an attempt by the sponsor to influence the programme editorially.

Ofcom’s approach to visual or verbal references to a commercial product or service of a sponsor in a sponsored programme (such as those to the Vauxhall Tigra) will naturally be more rigorous than if those same references appeared in a programme which was not sponsored. This is a different – and stricter - test to that under Rule 10.4, which requires that references to products or services must not be unduly prominent.

In this case, the references to the car within the programme were not incidental and the programme was therefore in breach of Rule 9.5

Breach of Rule 9.5 (formerly Rule 9.6)

Amores Perros
TCM, 23 October 2007, 21:00

Introduction

The film channel TCM (Turner Classic Movies) is available as part of the general entertainment packages on both satellite and cable. The film Amores Perros was classified as an 18-rated film by the British Board of Film Certification (BBFC) in 2001 as it contained “strong violence, sex and coarse language”.

A viewer was concerned about dog fighting scenes at the beginning of the film and believed that dogs must have been harmed in the making of the film.

On viewing the film, Ofcom noted that it opened with a highly-charged car chase involving guns and a badly injured dog bleeding profusely on the back seat of one of the cars. At the end of this car chase, a badly injured woman is seen trapped in her car. The next scene shows an illegal dog-fight gathering, with shots of injured dogs; a brutal dog fight then follows. Seriously offensive language is used from the start of the film. There was no visual or audio warning before the film started about its content.

Ofcom asked Turner Broadcasting for its comments in relation to the following Rules of the Code:

Response

Turner Broadcasting explained that it scheduled its channels according to the audience make up. TCM is a channel with an audience made up almost entirely of adults. As a result, the broadcaster believed this BBFC 18-rated film was appropriate for its audience at 21:00. Viewing figures showed that the audience for this programme was exclusively over 35 years old.

In addition, to ensure that a younger audience did not inadvertently watch the film, a 1953 Western, Escape from Fort Bravo, was scheduled immediately prior to Amores Perros. The broadcaster believed that this film would have no particular appeal to children.

Decision

The comment made by Mr Mexted, although intended to be light-hearted, was based on pejorative stereotyping of Irish people and was therefore potentially offensive. This film is set on the streets of Mexico City amongst the illegal world of dog fighting. The car chase and dog fights at the beginning are just the start of this realistic portrayal of life in the Mexican underworld. The graphic violence and strong language reflect the harsh and brutal world they inhabit.

Ofcom acknowledges that audience demographics may be one of the criteria for considering if a programme has been appropriately scheduled. However, Rule 1.6 (transition to more adult material must not be unduly abrupt at the watershed) and Rule 1.21 (“BBFC 18-rated films or their equivalent must not be broadcast before 2100… and even then they may be unsuitable for broadcast at that time”) are in the Code to protect children and young people under 18 years of age from unsuitable, strong adult material.

We accept that TCM attracts a mainly adult audience. However, this is not a premium subscription film service and is available to many multi-channel homes which purchase a general entertainment package. 18-rated films are, therefore, not protected by a mandatory PIN. Given the graphic violence and offensive language in the opening scenes, the transition immediately after the watershed to more adult material was unduly abrupt. For this reason, this 18-rated film was not suitable for broadcast at 21:00. The scheduling of the film was therefore in breach Rules 1.6 and 1.21 of the Code.

In 2006 Ofcom published research into programme information - An investigation of current attitudes and behaviours towards programme information

(http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/pirinvestigation/)The research found that many viewers considered programme information helpful. Over half of all adult television viewers who took part in the study claimed that pretransmission information helped to reduce potential offence. The ability of programme information to mitigate offence was felt more strongly by parents and those in multi-channel households.

Offensive material may be shown on television, but Rule 2.3 requires broadcasters to assess the likelihood of this potential offence to viewers by ensuring it is justified by the context. A number of factors need to be taken into account when considering context including the extent to which the nature of the programme can be brought to the attention of the potential audience. In this case, the broadcast of this film carried no audio or visual warning.

Given the content of the film, including the graphic violence, seriously offensive language and savage dog fights, Ofcom considered that information about this content would have been of great help to viewers when making a decision to watch this film. In this case, in particular the lack of clear information before the film was shown about its content, was the most significant factor in Ofcom’s decision overall that the potentially offensive material was not justified by the context. There was therefore a breach of Rule 2.3.

The original complaint concerned the treatment of the dogs in the film. When classifying this film, the BBFC had investigated the staging of the dog fights. It had been satisfied that no harm had come to any of the dogs in the making of the film.

Breach of Rules 1.6, 1.21 and 2.3

Top Minx, video for ‘Smack My Bitch Up’ by The Prodigy
Chart Show TV, 30 December 2007, 13:45

Introduction

Chart Show TV is a pop music video channel. Two viewers complained about the inappropriate scheduling of this music video, which showed scenes of alcohol abuse, nudity and a simulated sex scene.

Ofcom asked the broadcaster to comment on the broadcast in relation to Rules 1.3, 1.10, and 1.17 of Section One of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code which relate to protecting under-eighteens.

Response

CSC Media Group, which operates Chart Show TV, apologised for the broadcast of this video and acknowledged that it was unsuitable for a pre-watershed broadcast. This was scheduled in error because of a software problem, which has since been rectified. Also the software in question has since been updated and the entire library of post-watershed material was subsequently rechecked and additional procedures put in place to increase the level of security around the scheduling of post-watershed videos to ensure compliance with the Code at all times. The broadcaster assured Ofcom that it took its obligations under the Code very seriously and regretted this isolated error.

Decision

The content of this music video - with scenes of alcohol abuse, nudity and simulated sexual activity - was clearly unsuitable to be broadcast at lunchtime on a pop music video channel when it is likely that a number of children could be watching. This is particularly the case on a weekend during the Christmas holidays. Ofcom welcomes the broadcaster’s apology and its assurances of improved compliance. Chart Show TV has, to date, a good compliance record, but in view of the explicit nature of some of the scenes, we consider it appropriate to record a breach of the Code.

Breach of Rules 1.3, 1.10 and 1.17

Chop Shop: London Garage
Discovery Channel, 18 November 2007, 16:00

Introduction

Chop Shop: London Garage was a series which followed two individuals as they designed and manufactured cars. Ofcom received a complaint from a viewer concerning the broadcast of the word “fuck” during the episode broadcast on 18 November 2007.

Ofcom asked the Discovery Channel (‘Discovery’) for comments in relation to Rule 1.14 of the Code (the most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed).

Response

Discovery said that it apologised to the viewer for any distress caused. The problem arose because the producer had not identified all incidents of swearing in the initial viewing and had not reviewed the programme in real time, after edits had been made, to bleep out the remaining very strong language. Discovery said that it was disappointed that its internal policy had not been adhered to in this case and has taken steps to improve its compliance procedures as a result.

Decision

Broadcasters are under a clear duty to ensure that robust procedures are in place to ensure full compliance with the Code. The language broadcast in this episode of Chop Shop: London Garage was the most offensive and should not have been broadcast before the watershed.

Ofcom welcomes Discovery’s additional measures to ensure compliance in this area. However, Ofcom also notes that UK’s Toughest Jobs, broadcast on Discovery+1 was recently found in breach of Rule 1.14 (see Broadcast Bulletin 100). Although Ofcom notes that the inclusion of offensive language in that case was due to errors traced to an outside company, it is the responsibility of broadcasters to ensure compliance. Ofcom is therefore concerned about this second similar failure to ensure compliance with the Code.

Breach of Rule 1.14

Smallville
TV3 Sweden, 4 November 2007, 16:15

Introduction

Smallville is a well-established US series about the exploits of the superhero Superman. In this episode, the villain Lex Luthor is creating an army of ‘super demons’. These demons try to possess human beings. Together with Clark Kent , Lois Lane investigates where these creatures are being bred.

A viewer was concerned about scenes in which the demons appeared to take organs from human beings and Lois Lane is stabbed in her efforts to find these creatures. He felt that these scenes were not suitable at this time of the afternoon when many children would be watching television.

TV3 Sweden is a Swedish language channel operated by Viasat Broadcasting UK Limited. Ofcom asked Viasat for its comments in relation to Rules 1.3 (children must be protected by appropriate scheduling) and 1.11 of the Broadcasting Code (violence must be appropriately limited in pre-watershed programmes).

Response

Viasat explained that TV3 does not aim its Sunday afternoon programming towards children. Audience figures show that generally this slot only attracts about a 7% child audience (3-15 year olds).

The broadcaster believed that the scenes showing the removal of body parts were acceptable within the context of programme and the general fantasy genre of this series. The series is well-established and, in its view, the broadcaster did not believe the scenes were excessively graphic. For these reasons, it considered that these scenes were not in breach of Rules 1.3 and 1.11.

However, after carefully considering the scene in which Lois Lane is stabbed, the broadcaster reviewed its decision to air the programme unedited before the watershed. TV3 therefore apologised for any distress that may have been caused and this episode now carries a post-21:00 restriction. TV3 will also be reviewing the scheduling of this series in the light of this complaint.

Decision

We acknowledge TV3’s apology and note the action taken to restrict this episode to post-21:00 broadcast.

Smallville is a fantasy series with the main characters possessing supernatural powers. Against this background, most viewers would not be surprised or disturbed at the more bizarre elements of the violent scenes. However, this series does appeal to some children, even though the majority of viewers are young adults. Therefore, broadcasters need to take care in scheduling this series at a time when children are available to view in large numbers as some scenes may be unsuitable.

Ofcom was concerned about the generally violent and dark tone of this episode and, in particular, the scenes concerning the stabbing of Lois Lane and the shots of her removing the knife shown at this time of the afternoon when large numbers of children are available to watch television. We concluded that this episode was in breach of the Code as it was not appropriately scheduled and the violent scenes were not appropriately limited.

Breach of Rules 1.3 and 1.11

Wednesday Drive Time
Oban FM, 9 January 2008, 17:00

Introduction

A listener complained that contributions from guest presenter John Macgregor were biased against the local authority, and infringed the privacy of their representatives. The complainant also objected that the presenter, as a local businessman, was able to give undue prominence to his personal views and business interests. Ofcom asked Oban FM to provide a copy of the output.

Response

The station was unable to provide us with a copy of the broadcast as it stated it had experienced problems with its logging system, which have since been rectified. 

Decision

In the absence of a recording we were unable to investigate the complainant’s concerns further. It is a condition of a radio broadcaster’s licence that recordings of its output are retained for 42 days after transmission, and provides Ofcom with any material on request. Whilst we note the station has amended its logging system, the failure to provide a recording is a serious breach of a licence. This will be held on record.

The station was in breach of Condition 8 of its Licence (retention and production of recordings).

Resolved

Channel 4 News
Channel 4, 13 August 2007, 19:00

Introduction

A viewer complained that in an item about the environmental issues surrounding aviation, it was stated that aviation contributed only 2% of the UK ’s emissions of carbon dioxide. The complainant said this was inaccurate and that the true percentage was closer to 6% of UK emissions.

Response

Channel 4 said that this news report  examined whether carbon fuel emissions affected the flying habits of the general public, together with the issue of carbon trading of aircraft emissions. During the report a number of statistics were quoted, one of which was that aviation accounts for 2% of the UK ’s carbon dioxide emissions.

The broadcaster acknowledged this figure was given in error and that the statistic should have been 6%. Channel 4 said this matter had been corrected on the Channel 4 News website.

Decision

Rule 5.1 of the Code states: “News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.”

We welcome Channel 4’s recognition that the figure quoted was inaccurate and we acknowledge its subsequent action. We therefore consider the matter resolved.

Resolved

The full document is available below



Back to top Back to top

 Accessibility tools


Further information

Help

Keep up-to-date