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 53 - 06|02|06


Broadcast Bulletin Issue number 53 - 06|02|06

Standards cases

In Breach

Promotions for Sunday Surgery
BBC Radio 1, 19, 20 and 21 September 2005, various times

Introduction

Sunday Surgery is a radio advice programme aimed at young people. The BBC produced various different promotions for this programme.

The promotions ‘broke into’ normal programming (in these cases, music) with what sounded like radio interference and then promoted a telephone number in the style of a sex-line advertisement. These promotions were accompanied by sounds of graphic sexual moans and groans. Ofcom received complaints about three of these promotions transmitted at different times of the day.

The three versions were:

There was no other information around the promotions to explain the nature or context of the item or any reference to the promotions by the presenters. The promotions were scheduled at various points in the day.

Twelve listeners complained, given the style of the promotions, that they had heard an illegal broadcaster breaking into Radio 1’s transmission and promoting a sex phone line. Two listeners were aware that it had been a trailer for the BBC Radio 1 series Sunday Surgery. However, they considered that the content was too adult in nature and that the promotions were therefore inappropriate for broadcast at a time when children were available to listen.

Response

The BBC said that these promotions were part of a four week campaign based around Sunday Surgery, a live audience show designed to address the urgent need for sexual education among young people. The theme of the campaign was sexual health and sexual morality and the aim was to use Sunday Surgery’s relationship with young people to start, and inform, a debate about these issues. Careful consideration had been given to how to convey the safe sex message to the intended audience, and discussions with a wide range of agencies had taken place to establish the approach such a campaign should adopt.

Three particular points emerged: that large numbers of young people seemed immune to the more conventional sources of advice available to them: that in spite of public frankness about sexual matters, one-to-one discussion was still severely hampered by mutual embarrassment; and that (as suggested in a recent World Health Organisation report) any campaign should aim to target young people before they became sexually active - aiming to reach 9/10 -14 year olds as well as older children. Given the aim to reach the 9/10 - 14 age category, while minimising the exposure of those in younger age groups, discussions were held at senior management levels within Radio 1 and beyond. The result was trails which were unusual enough to grab the attention of those who would have understood them (anyone who followed up the invitation to dial the number had the campaign explained fully to them) but which would have passed over the heads of the younger, minority audience.

The promotions were scheduled to avoid times when the youngest children were particularly likely to be listening: no trails were broadcast in breakfast programmes, and the peak audience at 15:30 was also avoided. With regard to those trails that were broadcast at times when children were unlikely to be listening, the BBC argued that any potential offence was justified by the context. In this case the context was a serious increase in the levels of sexually-transmitted infections among young people over the past decade.

The campaign was felt to have a clear and serious educational purpose. Given the statistics for teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, the BBC believed that some explicitness was justified as a way of attracting the attention of those most at risk. It was for these reasons that it believed that the protection of children had a meaning rather wider than the one normally taken to apply in broadcasting.

Decision

We have no issue with the points that the BBC make about the merits of a campaign that seeks to address the important subject of sexual health among young people. However, we note that the campaign involved the BBC soliciting telephone calls from 9/10 to 14 year olds to what appeared to be an adult sex line.

Our concerns were with the style and sexual explicitness of the promotions. The material ‘came from nowhere’ and appeared to be genuine interference. The sexual tone of the script was re-emphasised by sounds of sexual moaning and groaning imitating adult sex-lines.

In particular, we note that such promotions aimed at 9/10 to 14 year olds were transmitted at, for instance 10:15 and 14:50, when most children of that age are likely to be at school. For the audience at these times, the promotion interrupted regular programming and gave no context whatsoever (unless the audience rang the number). Given the target audience for the promotions was unlikely to be listening, there appears to be limited justification for transmitting the trails at these times. The Code requires potentially offensive material to be justified by the context. The BBC argues that, in this case, the context was the serious increase in sexually transmitted diseases among the young. This is however, not the manner in which the term context is used within the Code. The Broadcasting Code states that potentially offensive material may be justified by the context, for example, the editorial content of the programme, the time of the programme and what other programmes are scheduled before and after. However, despite the lack of context and the clear confusion caused to some listeners, we do not believe that the material in itself was totally against audience expectations for this station, at a time when the vast majority of listeners would have been adults.

However, our main concern was that such material was also transmitted at drive time (in one specific case around 16:20 ). The BBC argues that some of the target age group would be in the audience at this time. However, so would many younger children and even if, as the BBC claims, the material would have “passed over the heads of the younger, minority audience”, in Ofcom’s view it was totally inappropriate given the content and tone of the promotion (described above), for transmission at that time of the day, when younger listeners would have been in the audience.

Overall, despite the BBC’s intentions, we consider that the scheduling of such a promotion when younger children would have been in the audience was an editorial and compliance misjudgement.

Breach of Rule 1.3 (appropriate scheduling)

Adam Caterall
97.4 Rock FM, 8 November 2005, 21:50

Introduction

The presenter told listeners that he intended to call a woman that his male friend had met the previous weekend. The presenter then pretended to be his friend to try to find out the details of what had taken place between the couple. During the call between the presenter and the woman, there was a very detailed and sexually graphic conversation.

Two listeners complained that the telephone conversation between the presenter and the woman contained crude and offensive sexual remarks, which they thought were unacceptable.

Response

Emap, the station’s parent company, explained the background to the item. The presenter was new to this programme and, in an attempt to inject some character and humour into what otherwise would be a music intensive programme, had been including some new material to maintain and, hopefully, grow his audience. Some of his recent programmes had included innovative humorous features which had been well received by listeners. Spurred on by an initial positive reaction, he ‘set up’ a phone call with a female friend. Regrettably, the live discussion veered out of control, even though he realised it was venturing into dubious territory. Following the broadcast, the presenter was told that the content of the feature was unacceptable and internal measures were put in place to address the issues raised by this item. The presenter was acutely aware that what was intended to provide humour was a serious misjudgement and had caused offence, for which he apologised.

Decision

The station told us that the call, in which the woman was encouraged to discuss intimate details about her recent sexual liaison, was in fact a pre-planned set-up and not a genuine call. However we agree with the broadcaster that the extremely graphic sexual language was inappropriate and seriously misjudged.

We welcome that the broadcaster had subsequently taken internal measures and its assurance that the programme would, in future, be closely monitored. However we were particular concerned about the lack of production support available to a relatively inexperienced presenter who was attempting to move away from a music intensive slot to include more innovative material.

Breach of Section 2.3 (Generally accepted standards)

Lucy Ambache
Choice FM, 30 October 2005, 17:50

Introduction

A listener complained that a presenter read out a text which the complainant thought was offensive. In response to an item about dating younger people, a presenter commented that she had just got a “filthy” text, which she proceeded to read out in spite of acknowledging that it might “get her the sack”. The text read: “If they are old enough to bleed, they’re bleeding big enough, old enough”. 

Response

GCap, the station’s parent company, explained that the presenters had been having a tame discussion about a forthcoming item on dating younger men. Unfortunately one of the presenters was distracted by a text she had received on her personal mobile as she was about to ‘sign off’ on the show and, unwisely, she decided to read it out on air. The broadcaster said this was an unfortunate incident and not representative of the presenter’s usual standard of broadcasting. Nor was it a reflection of Choice FM’s attitude towards young people. The station sought to provide positive aspirations for young people and both the presenters involved appreciated that such ‘throw-away’ remarks were not in line with this.

Both the presenters had offered their sincere apologies for their careless comments, which had been dealt with internally. GCap also wished to offer its sincere apologies to the complainant and anyone else who may have been offended by such comments. 

Decision

The presenter’s comments before she read out the text indicated that she was aware that it was potentially offensive. We thought that her deliberate decision to relay the content of the text, with its apparent endorsement of under-age sex, was ill-judged, especially given that this slot typically attracts a young audience, including those under 15.  

Breach of Rule 2.3 (Generally accepted standards)

Resolved

Monk
BBC1, 5 November 2005, 14:15

Introduction

In this US detective series, the central character (Monk) uses his obsessive-compulsive tendencies to solve crimes. In this episode, Monk’s carer, Sharona, appeared to be the only person to see the body of a man who had apparently been murdered. The man’s bloodied body kept appearing to her but each time he met his death in a different method, including hanging and being stabbed in the chest. A viewer felt these images of the ‘murdered’ body were too strong for broadcast at this time of the afternoon when children could be watching.

Response

The BBC explained that this was essentially a comedy drama featuring a quirky detective. Although “dark deeds” may take place, regular viewers are aware that nothing is quite what it seems. In this episode, there were clear indications throughout the episode that there was more to these events than straightforward murder - Sharona was either delusional or someone wanted to make it appear that she was (which turned out to be the case).

The BBC said that it had edited three of the scenes showing apparently severe injuries before this transmission. However, additional edits would be made to adjust further the balance between the detail of the “injuries” and their effect on Sharona.

Decision

We welcome the BBC’s decision to edit some of the scenes for daytime broadcast. Although the light-hearted nature of the drama was apparent from the outset, some of the images of the “injuries” could be disturbing to younger children. Following the BBC’s actions, we consider the matter resolved.

Complaint resolved

The Mark and Jo Show
Beacon Radio, 25 November 2005, 06:00 – 10:00

Introduction

A listener thought that the presenter’s use of the word “poof” when she referred to a band was homophobic.

Response

GCap, the station’s parent company, acknowledged that the word can be discriminatory in certain circumstances, although it thought that in this instance, it was intended to be light-hearted and inoffensive. Nevertheless it had discussed the matter with the presenter and apologised for any offence the remark had caused.

Decision

The tone of the show is light-hearted and involves banter between the two presenters. While briefly discussing bands from the 80s, one of the presenters ridiculed her co-presenter’s claim that his favourite band was responsible for the ‘greatest record ever made’ and said he’d met the two men concerned. She responded with the remark: ‘They’re not men, they’re poofs’. While it appeared to have been made in a dismissive manner to goad the other presenter, such terms can have the potential to offend. However, in view of the fact that the matter had been brought to the presenter’s attention and the apology given by the broadcaster, we considered the matter resolved.

Complaint resolved

Baddiel and Skinner Unplanned
Paramount Comedy, 28 October 2005, 00:35

Introduction

This was a repeat run from the original ITV series in which Baddiel and Skinner discuss a range of subjects and add their own perspective. One issue they discussed in this edition was the risk of being mugged late at night. Frank Skinner demonstrated how he felt trouble could be averted by walking in a manner similar to someone with, it would appear, cerebral palsy.

One viewer complained that this sequence had been complained of when it was first broadcast and that the Broadcasting Standards Commission ( BSC ) had upheld those complaints; it was therefore inappropriate to show it again.

Response

Paramount apologised for any distress that the broadcast of the material caused the complainant. The edition in question was reviewed as part of standard compliance procedures without the benefit of the knowledge of the BSC Finding. The broadcaster said that it felt that the edition was suitable for transmission – it did not believe that Frank Skinner was intending to be derogatory to people with physical disabilities or to hold this group up to ridicule. However, it accepted that a greater degree of sensitivity should have been shown in this area and that the item should have been removed prior to transmission. Having reviewed its procedures, the broadcaster had implemented a number of changes with the intention of preventing a recurrence.

Decision

The broadcaster had initially considered the material within a previously broadcast package and it was not aware of the BSC finding. Having been made aware of the sensitivity involved in broadcasting sequences of this nature, Paramount acted promptly and in a way intended to prevent this kind of material being re-broadcast.

Complaint resolved

The Great Big British Quiz
TTV, 20 August 2005, 22:30

Introduction

Nine road signs were shown on screen above a question which said: “Which are correct?” Two viewers challenged the answer subsequently revealed on air, which identified three correct signs.

Response

TTV said that its review of the programme had uncovered an error. Six of the nine signs shown on screen should have been altered but the wrong graphic had been shown in which only one sign had been altered. The answer given related to what should have been shown – not what was shown.

The broadcaster assured us that it had now instituted new procedures for checking and cross checking puzzles before they went to air to make sure that such an error did not happen again. This now involved four checks prior to broadcast, at various stages of production, and, in addition, some puzzles were run through a computer programme to check their veracity. The broadcaster also assured us that any type of puzzle “only ever has one rule set” (now deposited with an independent third party). While it believed that the manner in which it altered signs was generally fair to its audience, it was keen to ensure viewer confidence and therefore confirmed that there would be an increased degree of alteration in future puzzles based on changes to symbols.

Decision

We are keen to ensure that all aired competitions are conducted fairly. The errors in this case were unfortunate. However, we welcome the action taken by the broadcaster to ensure no recurrence and its assurances concerning future output, which we believe resolves the matter.

Complaint resolved

ICSTIS has now published A Statement of Expectations on Call TV Quiz Service s, following its recent consultation concerning premium rate TV quiz channels and TV programmes whose dedicated purpose is to run premium rate competitions.  The statement can be found at: http://www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs_consult/QuizTvConResponse06.pdf

Fairness and Privacy Cases

Resolved

National Car Parks Limited
Danny Baker’s Breakfast Show, BBC Radio London, 29 April 2005

Summary : Ofcom has not upheld this complaint of unfair treatment made by National Car Parks Limited (NCP). NCP complained that radio presenter Danny Baker broadcast unfair comments about the actions of a parking attendant in their employ.

Ofcom found that the programme did not result in unfairness to NCP as the programme was unlikely to have been capable of adversely affecting the reputation of NCP.

Introduction

During Danny Baker’s Breakfast Show the presenter, Danny Baker, gave an account of an incident in Camden which resulted in his car being towed away. Mr Baker commented on the manner he believed he was treated by the parking attendant and claimed that the parking attendant at the scene did not speak to him.

National Car Parks Limited (“NCP”), the company responsible for parking enforcement on behalf of Camden Council, complained that it was treated unfairly in the broadcast of the programme.

The Complaint

NCP’s case

In summary, NCP complained that it was treated unfairly in the programme as Mr Baker’s claim that the parking attendant would not speak to him while his car was being removed was incorrect and therefore misleading. NCP maintained parking attendants who are employed by NCP have very strict guidance concerning interaction with customers. On this occasion the parking attendant adhered to the guidance by telling Mr Baker the information he required: why his car was being removed; where he could pick it up; and, what documents he would require and how much his fine would be.

The BBC’s case

In summary the BBC responded to NCP’s complaint as follows:

The BBC said that Mr Baker stood by his claim that the parking attendant would not speak to him. Mr Baker had confirmed that neither the parking attendant nor the man who strapped his vehicle to the lorry said a word to him. They gave him no explanation and no verbal information.

In relation to whether the parking attendant adhered to very strict guidance concerning interaction with customers, by telling Mr Baker the information he required: why his car was being removed; where he could pick it up; what documents he would require; and how much his fine would be, the BBC said that Mr Baker confirmed what he said in the programme:

Decision

Ofcom’s statutory duties include the application, in the case of all television and radio services, of standards which provide adequate protection to members of the public and all other persons from unfair treatment in programmes included in such services.

In carrying out its duties, Ofcom has regard to the need to secure that the application of these standards is in the manner that best guarantees an appropriate level of freedom of expression. Ofcom is also obliged to have regard in all cases, to the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed.

In this case Ofcom found the following: 

Broadcasters should take special care when their programmes are capable of adversely affecting the reputations of individuals, companies or other organisations. Broadcasters should take all reasonable care to satisfy themselves that all material facts have been considered before transmission and so far as possible are fairly presented.

NCP complained that the programme was unfair in that Mr Baker stated the parking attendant did not speak to him, which was false and therefore misleading. The broadcaster said that Mr Baker stood by his comments made during the programme that the parking attendants did not speak to him while his vehicle was being towed away.

In cases where there are varied accounts of events between the complainant and broadcaster, it is important to note that Ofcom does not have remit to act as a fact finding tribunal. Rather, Ofcom is responsible for determining whether a particular broadcast resulted in unfairness to an individual or organisation.

In relation to this specific complaint Ofcom was asked to decide whether the item resulted in unfairness to NCP. Ofcom concluded that the programme did not result in unfairness to NCP as the programme was unlikely to have been capable of adversely affecting the reputation of NCP. In coming to this decision Ofcom noted that during the programme Mr Baker did not refer to NCP by name nor did he identify the parking attendant present on the scene. Further, it was Ofcom’s opinion that listeners would have clearly understood that the item was a personal account of events by Mr Baker, rather than an actual measured critique of NCP, it’s parking enforcement policies or their employees’ abilities to interact with the public when a car is to be towed away.

Accordingly, Ofcom has not upheld this complaint of unfair treatment.

Complaint by Mr Peter Harris on behalf of Care Connect UK Limited
Panorama: a Carer’s Story, BBC1, 16 November 2003

Summary: Ofcom has not upheld a complaint of unfair treatment about this documentary which investigated home care provision for the elderly. Care Connect UK Limited (“the Company”) a provider of home care services was one of the companies investigated and featured in the programme. Members of staff and clients were secretly filmed and some of the footage was included in the programme.

Mr Peter Harris, Director of the Company, complained that the programme was unfair to the Company.

Ofcom found the following:

  1. In the circumstances of this particular case, Ofcom considered that it was legitimate for the programme-makers to secretly film the Company’s employees. Ofcom accepted that earlier research had led the programme-makers to be concerned about the possibility that the Company might have been employing individuals without appropriate experience and providing them with inadequate training.
  2. Ofcom did not consider that the Company was unjustifiably impugned in the programme. Further, Ofcom did not consider that there was evidence to support the complainant’s contention that the programme included falsehoods, deliberate misinterpretation and misleading innuendo.
  3. It was legitimate for the programme to present comments by a member of staff about the need to treat clients roughly as it appeared to be illustrative of conduct that fell below what the public might expect from providers of essential care to vulnerable individuals.
  4. It was legitimate for the programme to include the footage of the Company’s recruitment manager given the important position that she had held and given that the programme was presenting concerns about the recruitment process which might have led to the Company employing individuals without appropriate experience. Ofcom noted that the programme also made clear that this employee had since left the Company
  5. The Company was offered an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond to the allegations and evidence contained in the programme, which they declined.

Introduction

This documentary investigated home care provision for the elderly. Care Connect UK Limited (“the Company”), a provider of home care services, was one of the companies investigated and featured in the programme. Members of staff and clients were secretly filmed and some of the footage was included in the programme. Ms Fran Baker, an undercover reporter, was shown, amongst other things: being hired with faulty references and no apparent experience; undergoing a brief induction process conducted by the recruitment manager; being told by an experienced carer on one occasion that a service user needed to be treated roughly; and required to operate a hoist she was not qualified to operate.

Mr Harris, a Director of the Company, complained to Ofcom that the Company was treated unfairly in the programme.

Complaint

Mr Harris’ case

In summary, Mr Harris complained that:

  1. The programme-makers secretly recorded and broadcast the Company’s operations. The public was invited to draw conclusions about the Company’s service based on evidence obtained by an unprincipled clandestine operation.
  2. The Company was unjustifiably impugned as a result of programme including falsehoods, deliberate misinterpretation and misleading innuendo. Specifically:

 Accessibility tools


Further information

Help

Keep up-to-date