|
Bringing you regular news of key developments in broadcasting regulation.
OFCOM
Designation of ATVOD, 18 March 2010
The Audiovisual Media Services Directive was implemented in the UK on 19 December 2009. It requires the extension of statutory, TV-like regulation to certain types of video on demand (VOD) editorial services. Ofcom designated the Association for Television on Demand (ATVOD) as the co-regulator for VOD content on 18 March 2010 and is now consulting on the regulatory fees to be paid by providers of VOD services to ATVOD. These fees are designed to enable ATVOD and Ofcom to meet the likely costs of regulating VOD services.
Ofcom’s consultation
Promotion of products and services: GMTV with Lorraine (GMTV), 22 March 2010
References by a guest presenter, Martin Lewis, to discount vouchers available on or through the GMTV website breached the Ofcom Broadcasting Code (Code). The vouchers were not available on the GMTV website itself, but through links on the GMTV website to Martin Lewis’ own website, www.moneysavingexpert.com. By inviting viewers to obtain further information and vouchers on the GMTV website, and then re-directing them to Martin Lewis’ site, the programme was effectively promoting Martin Lewis’ business, which is prohibited under the Code.
Full text of Ofcom’s decision
Sponsorship: Stabbed: The Truth About Knife Crime (Bravo), 8 March 2010
A documentary about knife attacks was sponsored by an 18-rated film, “Ninja Assassin”, which chronicled a martial artist’s “bloody quest for revenge”. Ofcom found that the sponsorship was not suitable. The broadcaster accepted that the sponsorship had been inappropriate, and explained that it had arisen because of a delay in the cinematic release of “Ninja Assassin” (with which sponsorship of programmes on Bravo was to coincide). While “Ninja Assassin” had been a suitable sponsor for the programmes scheduled on the original dates, due to human error further checks to ensure its suitability for programmes on the revised dates had not been carried out.
Full text of Ofcom’s decision
Viewer competitions: Dickinson’s Real Deal (ITV1), 22 March 2010
When programmes that include competitions are re-edited for repeat broadcast, it is important to ensure that the competitions continue to comply with the Code requirements (i.e. that they are conducted fairly, and that viewers are not materially misled about them). In an edition of Dickinson’s Real Deal broadcast on 19 January 2010, a competition within the programme had been re-edited to include new competition questions. On three occasions during the programme, the competition was promoted correctly, but on one occasion the voiceover did not match the question that appeared on screen. The production team had identified the issue, but due to human error in the dubbing process, it had not been corrected, and the ITV compliance adviser responsible for the programme had not detected the discrepancy when clearing the programme for transmission. Immediately upon becoming aware of the issue, ITV cancelled the competition and implemented a refund process.
Full text of Ofcom’s decision
Offensive language: Big Brother’s Big Mouth (E4), 22 March 2010
Ofcom previously decided not to uphold complaints about the inclusion of the word “retard” in an edition of Big Brother’s Big Mouth broadcast on 29 January 2010. After receiving a number of emails expressing concern about this decision, Ofcom has decided that its Broadcasting Review Committee should review the case. Unusually, Ofcom has published a statement confirming its decision to grant a review, which suggests that it received a very large number of emails from viewers who were dissatisfied with its original decision.
Full text of Ofcom’s statement
Assurances given to contributors: Mr G (Big Trouble in Thailand (Bravo)), 22 March 2010
Assurances given to programme contributors should be honoured to avoid breaching the Code. Mr G had signed a consent form agreeing to be filmed, but had specified on the consent form that his interview was not to be broadcast. Mr G’s instruction that his interview was not to be included in the programme was overlooked by the production team, and his contribution was included in the programme. This resulted in an unwarrantable infringement of his privacy.
Full text of Ofcom’s decision
Privacy: Ms Emma Makey (Dispatches: MPs, Planes and Gravy Trains (Channel 4)), 8 March 2010
Ms Makey’s privacy was not infringed by the incidental disclosure of her work contact details in a document included in the programme which advertised notices for parliamentarian delegates to take part in various fact-finding trips abroad. Her contact details were already in the public domain and were therefore not private, and nothing of a personal or sensitive nature about her was revealed in the programme.
Full text of Ofcom’s decision
BBC Trust
Accuracy and impartiality – Panorama: what’s next for Craig? (BBC1), 12 November 2007
While current affairs programmes often take one angle over another, it is important to ensure that a programme does not become so polarised that it is inaccurate and partial. An edition of BBC1’s flagship current affairs programme, Panorama, which reported on new scientific research into the treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) seriously breached the BBC Editorial Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality.
The BBC Trust found that the programme, which was broadcast in November 2007, had failed to report accurately the findings of a three-year follow-up study in the USA to the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA). The programme-makers should not have relied solely on the views of one of the authors of this follow-up study. The programme had distorted some of the known facts in its presentation of the findings of the follow-up study, and failed to report the follow-up findings in context. As a result the programme-makers took insufficient care to avoid worrying the audience about health issues.
The BBC Trust also found that the programme-makers had not been fair and open-minded when examining and weighing the material facts. The audience should have been (but was not) informed that there was a wide range of views. Arguments that medication still has an important part to play in the treatment of ADHD should have been included.
Full text of the BBC Trust’s decision Eleanor Steyn
329
Simkins' early warning bulletins are for general guidance only. Legal advice should be sought before taking action in relation to specific matters. Where reference is made to Court decisions facts referred to are those reported as found by the Court. Please note that past bulletins included in the Archive have not been updated by any subsequent changes in statute or case law.
<< back to articles & bulletins
|