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 60 - 15|05|06


Broadcast Bulletin Issue number 60 - 15|05|06

Standards cases

In Breach

More4 Trail
E4, 26 September 2005, 00:10

E4 transmitted a trail for its sister channel More4. The promotion, which lasted nearly a minute, started with two women, wearing only thongs, kissing, fondling and embracing each other. As they lay on a bed, they engaged in foreplay, only to be interrupted when one of them lent on the remote control, turning on a news report on More4. They began to watch and then became engrossed in a report about the price of postage stamps. They were then joined on the bed by the rest of the film crew who, it transpired, had been filming their activities.

A viewer complained that this trail, which was broadcast post midnight after Six Feet Under, featured offensive and demeaning content. The complainant said that as this was a trail, rather than a programme, they had no prior information about the content which would have enabled them not to watch it.

Response

Channel 4 said that its consideration of a new trail included not only the content, but also the time of transmission, the type of programming surrounding the trail and the likely expectations of the audience.

This trail was clearly aimed at an adult audience and was transmitted at a time during which it was expected that an adult audience would be watching. The majority of the audience at the time that the trail was shown were in the age group aged 35-54. The trail formed part of a series of advertisements promoting Channel 4’s new channel, More4. The strap-line of the marketing campaign was “Coming Soon: The New Adult Entertainment Channel from 4” and use was made of the double-entendre associated with the words “adult entertainment”. Through the campaign, More4 was attempting to reclaim the words “adult entertainment” in their literal context.

The broadcaster said that it was obvious from the outset that the trail was of an adult nature. While further into the trail it was made clear that the two women were partially naked, the images were not explicit or graphic. They simply showed two women engaging intimately.

Channel 4 said that the imagery was designed to emphasise the “adult entertainment” theme in a number of ways: that More4 was a channel aimed at adults; that even those who may be involved in the “other” adult entertainment industry would be attracted to the channel; and that More4 was not a broadcaster of that “other” adult entertainment.

E4, the channel on which the trail was broadcast, is principally an entertainment channel broadcasting a range of programmes reflecting popular culture and exploring a number of controversial themes. E4 had an established reputation for scheduling edgy drama series with often strong adult content. Six Feet Under was widely recognised for exploring adult themes and frequently contained content of an explicit and graphic nature not apparent in the trail. Given the provocative nature of the trail, its broadcast was restricted to a post 22:00 slot, to be scheduled with care between programmes with adult content.

Channel 4 said that it considered that the gentle, humorous although admittedly provocative approach, taken in the trail was in no way out of context with the material frequently seen in programmes around the trail and at that time of night.

Decision

Rule 2.3 of the Broadcasting Code states that in “applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context.”. The rule also notes that “appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.” The meaning of “context” notes that it includes (amongst other matters) “the effect of the material on viewers or listeners who may come across it unawares”.

E4 is a channel with an established reputation for exploring and broadcasting controversial material with adult themes. The likely expectation of its viewers is therefore that they will see challenging and provocative material. We note that the channel had scheduled the trailer early in the morning when it was likely that there would be a small audience aged over 15.

We appreciate the trailer’s creative approach and the content’s humorous treatment – which would help mitigate potential offence that might be caused.

While the images were certainly sexually strong in the context of a trailer, they were not as explicit as would be expected under encryption on “adult entertainment” channels. In itself, the imagery was not of a nature that could be described as unacceptable for transmission on a channel like E4 after midnight . However, in this case the material appeared in a trailer and the scenes lacked the sort of context that would be provided within a programme - for example that provided by storylines and character development in a drama. Viewers would therefore have had no likely expectation of what they would see. Furthermore viewers were not given the opportunity, through information about content to make an informed choice about whether to watch.

While the “adult nature” of the content may have been apparent from the outset, its purpose – and that it was a trail - was not made clear until 48 seconds in. The scenes of “foreplay” between the two women were detailed - as one woman lay between the other’s legs, there were close-ups of her crotch as well as of the other’s naked breasts.

Although Six Feet Under does contain adult themes (including strong language), it does not frequently contain sexual scenes of a type shown in this trail. An audience for Six Feet Under would, therefore, not necessarily be expecting to encounter material of this nature. Therefore although accepting that E4 has an established reputation for showing programmes with strong adult content, we consider that viewers of the channel at this time would not necessarily expect, or accept, such sexually strong material during a trailer.

In these circumstances, we consider, given the context in which the material was broadcast, that information should have been provided to the audience. The trail was therefore in breach of Rule 2.3.

Breach of Rule 2.3

The original decision to find this trailer in breach was appealed by the broadcaster, leading to a review by the Content Board. This finding is the result of that review.

Additional Guidance to Rule 2.3

Given the complexities of the issues the above case raises, we considered that additional guidance would be helpful for the interpretation of Rule 2.3.

Trailers and Programme Promotions

The following guidance note to broadcasters will appear in Ofcom’s web-based Guidance which accompanies the Broadcasting Code.

Trailers come upon audiences unawares, so that people are not able to make informed choices about whether to watch or listen to them.  Broadcasters should bear this in mind when scheduling trailers which may include challenging material (which includes but is not limited to, the use of the most offensive language, graphic violence or sexually explicit scenes).

The requirement in Rule 2.3 that broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context, equally applies to programme trailers. Therefore, trailers including challenging material (see above) may, in principle, be permitted post-watershed, provided they are sufficiently contextualised. It is therefore expected that:

In such cases, where the content of the trailer is substantially similar to the programming either side of it, then, it is not likely to be necessary for broadcasters to provide further advance information if either:

*Broadcasters should note the use of the term “substantially similar” Simply because programming either side of a trailer contains adult themes does not mean that any trailer would be permitted e.g. audiences watching a programme containing offensive language would not necessarily expect a trailer broadcast during that programme to contain graphic violence or sexually explicit scenes.

Resolved

Classic Comeback
UKTV Gold, 2 April 2006, 19:00

Introduction

A viewer believed the content of the broadcast, which included offensive language (e.g. “bollocks”, “tits”) was unsuitable for the time of broadcast.

Response

UKTV Gold agreed that the programme contained language that was unacceptable for the time of broadcast. The programme had been commissioned for broadcast post-watershed - its earlier broadcast was due to human error. Not only had the broadcaster explained the gravity of the situation to those responsible, but also decided to issue an on-air apology at approximately the same time one week later.

The broadcaster said that it had introduced a new combined planning and scheduling broadcast system that should make any recurrence “technically impossible”. This programme had been broadcast as a late schedule change in the last week of the previous system’s operation. It offered its apologies for the mistake.

Decision

The programme’s repeated use of offensive language made it unsuitable for broadcast at 19:00 on this channel. However, we believe that the broadcaster’s apology, actions and assurances resolve the matter.

Resolved

Cash Lounge
Men & Motors, 1 February 2006, 16:00

Introduction

Viewers were given a choice of solutions to the question “How many times is the word “WINNER” written here?”. A viewer claimed that none of the answers given were correct.

Response

ITV, which owns Men and Motors, told us that solutions for this particular type of game were computer-generated. The software automatically counts all possible combinations of words within a given layout. However, in the course of a routine review following the broadcast, it was discovered that, on this occasion, the counting process had failed. The broadcaster had identified a fault in the software but had now rectified it, to ensure there was no recurrence.

In the programme, the solution said by the software to be correct, was accepted in good faith when given by a caller who was awarded the prize. However, none of the callers who were put to air ever said what really was the correct solution, and therefore none had been wrongly denied a prize. Nevertheless, the broadcaster apologised, adding that it could imagine the complainant’s frustration and assuring us that it did not seek to anger its viewers in this way.

Decision

We accept that the incident was an unfortunate mistake. We welcome the review procedures undertaken by the broadcaster, which led to prompt action. We believe that this, together with its subsequent apology, resolves the matter.

Resolved

The Full Print Version is available below



Back to top Back to top

 Accessibility tools


Further information

Help

Keep up-to-date