|
Bringing you regular news of key developments in broadcasting regulation.
OFCOM
Sponsorship: CNN YouTube Debate on Climate Change, CNN International, 16 December 2009
Sponsorship of an hour-long debate on climate change by Siemens breached Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code because it was a current affairs programme and the Code prohibits sponsorship of such programmes. Extensive visual branding references to Google and YouTube in the programme also breached the Code’s prohibition of product placement. In exchange for the branding references, Google had agreed to promote the programme on the Google and YouTube websites and to provide the YouTube platform for viewers to submit questions by video to be broadcast in the programme. The outright prohibition on product placement is due to be relaxed later this year, but there will be no relaxation of the prohibition on product placement in current affairs programmes.
Ofcom’s decision.
Advertising minutage, various broadcasters, various dates in February and March 2010
Ofcom has recorded a number of breaches of the Code on the Scheduling of Television Advertising (COSTA) against various broadcasters, after routine monitoring in February and March 2010. The time devoted to television advertising and teleshopping spots on any channel in any one hour must not exceed 12 minutes, and Ofcom expects the 12-minute cap to be rigorously observed (a breach of COSTA may be recorded for as little as a few seconds of overrun). The majority of the broadcasters against whom breaches were recorded in this instance had repeatedly transmitted more than 12 minutes’ advertising in an hour within Ofcom’s two-week monitoring period. In addition, some of those broadcasters had previously been warned by Ofcom to tighten up their procedures. Ofcom stated in a note to broadcasters accompanying its latest findings that it would consider imposing sanctions, including fines, against broadcasters if they continued to fail to comply with COSTA.
Ofcom’s decisions and its note to broadcasters.
Offensive language: Celebrity Big Brother’s Big Mouth, E4, 29 January 2010
After reviewing its original decision not to uphold complaints about the use of the word “retard” by Vinnie Jones and Davina McCall in an edition of Celebrity Big Brother’s Big Mouth, Ofcom has decided that the complaints should be treated as resolved. The comments made by Mr Jones and Ms McCall breached Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code: they were clearly capable of causing offence, and there was insufficient context to justify the offence that was likely to be caused. Ofcom found, however, that the steps taken by Channel 4 (which included removing the comments from the video- on-demand version of the programme relatively promptly and taking measures to seek to prevent recurrence) were appropriate in all the circumstances and decided that the complaints should be treated as resolved.
Ofcom’s decision.
Unfair treatment: Complaint by Islam Channel, BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast, 8 September 2009
It was unfair to Islam Channel not to give it an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond to a serious criticism (to the effect that it might be responsible for radicalisation of Muslims) made by a guest on the BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast programme. In recognition of the fact that it is not always possible or practicable to offer an appropriate or timely opportunity to respond to significant allegations made in a live programme, Ofcom found that, alternatively, the presenter should have intervened appropriately in the discussion, but had not done so.
Ofcom’s decision.
Teletext fined for revocation of public teletext licence, 29 January 2010
Teletext has been fined £225,000 for the revocation of its public teletext licence. The licence was a public service broadcasting licence, and such licences require the holder to provide the licensed service throughout the fixed-term licence period. Although the term of Teletext’s licence ran to 2014, it ceased to provide any of the public service content required under the terms of the licence in mid-December 2009. Ofcom revoked the licence on 29 January 2010, and the revocation meant that the imposition of a fine on Teletext was mandatory. Ofcom considered various factors when deciding the amount of the fine to be imposed, including Teletext’s failure to fulfil its licence obligations and its commercial reasons for ceasing to provide the public teletext service (the service was structurally loss-making), the need to incentivise public service broadcasters to continue to provide all elements of their licensed services throughout their licence period, the financial benefit to Teletext of not providing the public teletext service to 2014 (avoidance of losses that Ofcom considered would have been likely to be significant) and the harm caused to consumers of the public teletext service. After taking everything into account, however, Ofcom considered that a fine of £225,000, which amounted to 45% of the maximum £500,000 fine that could have been imposed, was appropriate and proportionate.
Ofcom's decision.
For further information, please contact:
Eleanor Steyn
336
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
|