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 > Issue number 63 - 26|06|06


Broadcast Bulletin Issue number 63 - 26|06|06

Sanctions

Kiss FM Radio Limited
Kiss 100 FM Fairness and Privacy: 5 July 2005 (taking into account 29 July 2005) Standards: 27 and 28 April 2005, 13 and 21 June 2005, 19 and 21 September 2005 and 15 November 2005

On 20 June 2006, Ofcom published its decision to impose a financial sanction on Kiss FM Radio Limited, in respect of its service Kiss 100 FM for breaches of the rules of Ofcom’s Programme Code (ex-Radio Authority) concerning the protection of younger listeners (1.2(b)) and wind ups (3.4.1), and for breaches of the rules of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code concerning: fairness (7.1); privacy (8.1); and protecting the under-eighteens (1.3 appropriate scheduling, 1.5 when children are particularly likely to be listening, 1.14 most offensive language, 1.17 discussion of sexual behaviour).

For the reasons set out in the Decision, Ofcom decided that Kiss FM Radio Limited should be fined the sum of £175,000 (all fines are payable to HMG and once received by Ofcom are forwarded to The Treasury).

The full text of this decision can be found at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/ocsc_adjud/kiss100.pdf

Standards cases

In Breach

ATN Bangla
ATN Bangla, 13 January 2006, 19:00 and 14 January 2006, 19.00

Introduction

A viewer complained about graphic images included in news reports about the crash of a minibus in Bangladesh .

The complainant also expressed concern about a young child being interviewed for the report while in a state of distress, stating that she was also filmed identifying her parents’ bodies.

Response

ATN Bangla supplied a recording of the news bulletin from 13 January 2006. However it was unable to supply a recording of the bulletin from 14 January 2006. It explained that, as programmes came from a play-out centre in Bangladesh , recordings were not retained in the UK and it had encountered difficulties obtaining this tape.

The broadcaster accepted that the material included in the reports had been “quite shocking”, but said that the programme makers had given an undertaking not to include similar images in future.

Decision

The minibus crash was reported in detail during the news programme of 13 January 2006 . The report included some medium distance images of dead bodies, laid out in a row close to the scene of the accident. Although the images were disturbing, we did not consider them to be overly graphic, within the context of a valid news report about such an horrific accident.

There were also some closer images of the bodies included in the report, but these were partially obscured by electronic blurring techniques, which lessened the impact. Again, within the context of a news bulletin, we consider that the treatment of this footage did not represent a breach of the Code.

However, it was not possible to complete a full investigation of the complaint because we were unable to view the bulletin broadcast on 14 January 2006 . In particular, the recording supplied did not include an interview with a child, as identified in the complaint, nor images of her identifying her parents’ bodies.

It is a condition of a Cable and Satellite Licence that the licensee retains recordings of its output for 60 days, and provides Ofcom with any material on request. Failure to supply the recording from 14 January 2006 is a serious and significant breach of ATN Bangla’s licence. This will be held on record.

Breach of Licence Condition 11

(See additional information)

Babeworld
Babeworld TV, 11 April 2006, 22:15

Introduction

A viewer complained about the explicit sexual content of this channel, which is transmitted free-to-air on satellite TV.

Response

Babeworld said that it was unable to supply a recording of the relevant part of the channel’s output for 11 April 2006 . This was due to a technical failure by the company administering the channel’s compliance recordings.

Nevertheless, it acknowledged that some of the content carried before midnight on Babeworld was “too explicit for our market”. As a result, it had changed its production and editorial partners, and the output was now being produced to revised guidelines.

Babeworld also confirmed that it was now producing its own compliance tapes, and was no longer dependant on outside contractors.

Decision

We welcome the steps Babeworld has taken to avoid any future failure to supply recordings.

It is a condition of a Cable and Satellite Licence that the licensee retains recordings of its output for 60 days, and provides Ofcom with any material on request. Failure to supply the recording from 11 April 2006 is a serious and significant breach of Babeworld TV’s licence. This will be held on record.

Breach of Licence Condition 11

(See additional information)

You TV
You TV, 8 June 2005 and 28 July 2005

Introduction

In the course of other investigations, we requested recordings of the output broadcast by You TV on 8 June 2005 and 28 July 2005.

The broadcaster was unable to supply the recording of output from 8 June 2005.

Although the broadcaster did provide a recording of output from 28 July 2005, this was not in a readable format. The broadcaster was unable to provide a replacement.

Response

8 June 2005 - You TV said that, following a company reorganisation, there had been a misunderstanding between the broadcaster and the company that provided its uplink services. Although You TV thought that the uplink company was providing a recording facility, in fact it was not. As soon as the broadcaster became aware of the situation, it had rectified the situation and taken the recordings of You TV in-house.

28 July 2005 - In relation to the unreadable recordings, the licensee regretted that its playout operator no longer had copies of the relevant transmissions.

Decision

We acknowledge that a communication failure during the company’s reorganisation led to the inability to supply a recording for 8 June 2005.

With reference to the recording of 28 July 2005, the recording originally provided was in a format that we could not read. Although we requested a replacement after the 60 day period for which Cable and Satellite Television broadcasters are legally obliged to retain recordings, the broadcaster had been on notice from 4 August 2005 that this matter was being investigated. It should therefore have been in a position to provide the recording.

It is a condition of a Cable and Satellite Licence that the licensee retains recordings of its output for 60 days, and provides Ofcom with any material on request. Failure to supply the recordings from 8 June 2005 and 28 July 2005 is a serious and significant breach of You TV’s licence. This will be held on record. Given the licensee’s failure to produce a readable recording of the relevant output – despite being on notice - any future similarly serious compliance issues may result in the consideration of further regulatory action.

Breach of Licence Condition 11

(See additional information)

Evening Blessing
Asian Gold, 19 April 2006, 18:00

Introduction

This is a regular Christian-focussed programme. One listener complained that the presenter:

We wrote to the station requesting a recording of the relevant content. The broadcaster did not supply the requested recording.

Response

Asian Gold said that it had experienced technical difficulties and therefore recordings had not been made of the content. The broadcaster said that it took this matter very seriously and had gone to the extent of asking listeners to supply the relevant recording, if they had made a copy themselves.

Decision

We welcome the steps that the broadcaster took to try and obtain a recording.

However it is a condition of the Radio Licensable Content Service licence that broadcasters retain recordings of their output for 42 days, and provide Ofcom with any material on request. Failure to supply the recording from 19 April 2006 is a serious and significant breach of Asian Gold’s licence. This will be held on record.

Breach of Licence Condition 8 (Part 2 General Conditions)

(see additional information, page 9)

Additional Information

In bulletin 46, published in October 2005, we reminded broadcasters that “It is a licence requirement that a licence holder retains, or [in the case of a television licensable content service] makes arrangements for the retention by others, of recordings of its output. Failure to do so is a serious breach of licence conditions. “

This bulletin records four further instances when broadcasters were unable to provide Ofcom with recordings of their output. Broadcasters should also note that once they are aware that an investigation is ongoing, they should retain all relevant material, including recordings, even if copies have been provided to Ofcom.

Although we have not proceeded to the consideration of a statutory sanction in any of the cases above, licensees should be fully aware of our concerns and should know that if we encounter similar compliance issues, these may result in the consideration of further regulatory action.

Furthermore, Ofcom will be consulting later this year on its procedures for the handling of standard cases and its procedures for the imposition of statutory sanctions. Ofcom will be considering whether it would be appropriate to include in the consultation for those licensees that fail to meet these licence requirements:

Both TV and radio licences oblige licensees to “ adopt procedures acceptable to Ofcom for the retention and production of recordings…of any programme which is the subject matter of a Standards Complaint[(-1-)] …”

In particular, Licensees are required to:

  1. [Television licensable content services]: make and retain or arrange for the retention of a recording in sound and vision of every programme included in the Licensed Service for a period of 60 days from the date of its inclusion therein; and

[Radio services]: make and retain for a period of 42 days from the date of its inclusion therein, a recording of every programme included in the Licensed Service together with regular time reference checks; and

  1. at the request of Ofcom forthwith produce to Ofcom any such recording for examination or reproduction; and
  2. at the request of Ofcom forthwith produce to Ofcom any script or transcript of a programme included in the Licensed Service which he is able to produce to it.

Resolved

Praise or Grumble
BBC Radio Sheffield, 8 April 2006, 18:45

Introduction

This is a phone-in programme on BBC Radio Sheffield, which allows callers to comment on that afternoon’s football matches. One away fan rang in and described the goalkeeper of the home side as a “fucking cunt”.

A listener complained that this language was offensive.

Response

The BBC said that it very much regretted the offence caused. The caller had spoken in reasonable terms when talking to the production team before being put on air. The caller had then exploited this opportunity by insulting the opposing team’s goalkeeper.

The presenter, with speed, firmness and clarity, closed down the call in a way that the broadcaster felt was exemplary. He made it clear that the language was unacceptable and offered an unreserved apology to the audience.

Callers using this type of language were rare as calls were always carefully vetted. At times when emotions ran high, the station had a practice of warning would-be callers against the use of strong language. As a result of the incident, programme teams were asked to take particular care at all times, but especially at contentious moments, before allowing away fans to give their views. During the rest of the season, fewer such contributions were used.

Decision

We agree with the broadcaster that this language was unacceptable in this context. This language is considered to be among the most offensive, but we recognise that this was unprovoked and would have been very difficult for the broadcaster to have anticipated. In view of the steps the broadcaster has taken to try to prevent anything similar happening in future, we consider the matter resolved.

Resolved

Malcolm in the Middle
Sky Two, 26 February 2006, 19:00

Introduction

In the opening scene of this family drama, a father finds his young son playing with a plastic dry cleaning cover. Taking it away from the child, the father then warned him about the danger of playing with plastic bags. In demonstrating the associated dangers, the father put the bag over his own head but started to have difficulties breathing. When he asked his son to fetch help, the boy misunderstood and laughed and clapped at his father’s predicament.

A viewer felt that this scene gave the wrong impression to children of the dangers of plastic bags as it was treated in a light-hearted way.

Rule 1.13 of the Broadcasting Code states that “…the portrayal of dangerous behaviour, that is likely to be easily imitable by children in a manner that is harmful …must not be broadcast before the watershed…unless there is editorial justification.”.

Response

Sky said that the programme was not aimed primarily at children. The scene did not show dangerous behaviour as it was performed by an adult who was demonstrating the potential dangers of suffocation – this also provided the scene’s editorial justification. The scene was in context as it was accompanied by a warning from the father beforehand. The father’s decision to physically illustrate the dangers of playing with plastic bags was a stupid one, but entirely consistent with his character. His reaction when he first spotted his son playing with the bag and his own distress when he himself became trapped reinforced the danger and did not encourage it.

However, Sky said that it had decided to edit the scene out of the programme prior to broadcast. This instruction had been issued to a member of the editing team but, due to human error, the scene had not been removed. As soon as Sky became aware that the scene had not been removed, the programme was immediately re-edited and the member of staff was reprimanded.

Decision

We acknowledge that Sky’s instruction to remove the scene prior to broadcast had been overlooked due to human error. We welcome the prompt action taken to re-edit the programme and the advice given to staff. We consider that this resolves the matter.

Resolved

The Full Print Version is available below

Footnotes:

1.-Derived from sections 325 and 334 of the Communications Act 2003.



Back to top Back to top

 Accessibility tools


Further information

Help

Keep up-to-date