Attention all show producers!

I've finally downloaded a copy of the Ofcom broadcasting code. I admit, I haven't read it cover to cover yet, but it does seem that there is a lot of freedom within the code as written. I suppose that specific complaints are then judged against that dreadfully vague term "context". I couldn't find an answer to a simple question however:

If the broadcaster thinks that they have breeched the code, are they required to report/declare the incident themselves?

In so far as most programming is well planned and scripted this would seem unnecessary, but live programming does have that extra dynamic. Did ITV receive a sanction over Holly Willoughbys childrens programme breast slip? It was clearly a breech, but it was also clearly an accident. Was it punished by the regulator? Simple solution, have miss Willoughby wear a bra. The babe girls are, for the most part nude or nearly nude, therefore accidental flashes of genitalia are almost certain dependant on outfit. Breasts are happily displayed on screen, and there is no reason I can find in the code why pubic hair, shaved labia, anus, vagina or clitoris cannot be shown either. The object of the shows is sexual arousal, performance and display, real or not.

The point of the babe channels/shows is clearly to make money from phone calls. Why, in that case, do we need to see the girls at all? As far as callers are concerned, they don't care who they're talking to while they wank, as long as they sound sexy and talk dirty. The draw is talking to the sexy girl on screen. The caller can see the girl, tell the girl what to do. The girl, and their resulting fanbases discussions, is far and away the greatest advertising feature at the producers disposal. In this case the move to define this type of programming as teleshopping is a prudent one. The girl has now become the advert and the product.

What we come down to in the end, once again is context. If we apply the teleshopping model, with performer as advert and product, then full nudity would become contextually correct. The caller wants to see "pussy", the caller gets to see "pussy". This is what the caller is paying for with his call. We would end up with shows basically the same as they are now, but with a little more graphic nudity whenever a caller specifically asks for it. As suggested above, actual output would be decided on a channel by channel, performer by performer basis. Some performers would probably continue as they are, whilst some would happily go further at a callers request. Each type of show would find it's own market and everything would soon settle down again.

With reference to the posting slips issue, is the material not technically copyrighted anyway? I know that in this world of PVRs and data-transfer, capturing and posting clips and caps is easy, but it's no different to video recording something in the eighties and lending it to your mates.

Jack.

(07-12-2009 21:19 )perana68 Wrote:  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the "complainers" were competitor babe channels trying to get their rivals fined

At last! Someone has worked it out.

(07-12-2009 21:19 )perana68 Wrote:  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the "complainers" were competitor babe channels trying to get their rivals fined

It's been a long held theory but I can't really see what they would gain from it. Sure, you may have the channels who have been pulled up by Ofcom in the past doing the "sir,sir, what about them" routine but surely it's in all these channels interests to be allowed to get a bit more raunchy? There'd be more money to be made if they were.

There's also been a suggestion that some of the encrypted channels may adopt the tactic but given some of the stuff they show, I can't really see them being concerned the fta's being able to show full nudity would be a threat to them. The fta's are never going to show actual intercourse taking place for example and neither are they ever going to show girls peeing, something which seems to feature in quite a few encrypted shows titles on the channel listings.

(07-12-2009 21:49 )jackthemanc Wrote:  I've finally downloaded a copy of the Ofcom broadcasting code. I admit, I haven't read it cover to cover yet, but it does seem that there is a lot of freedom within the code as written. I suppose that specific complaints are then judged against that dreadfully vague term "context". I couldn't find an answer to a simple question however:

If the broadcaster thinks that they have breeched the code, are they required to report/declare the incident themselves?

In so far as most programming is well planned and scripted this would seem unnecessary, but live programming does have that extra dynamic. Did ITV receive a sanction over Holly Willoughbys childrens programme breast slip? It was clearly a breech, but it was also clearly an accident. Was it punished by the regulator? Simple solution, have miss Willoughby wear a bra. The babe girls are, for the most part nude or nearly nude, therefore accidental flashes of genitalia are almost certain dependant on outfit. Breasts are happily displayed on screen, and there is no reason I can find in the code why pubic hair, shaved labia, anus, vagina or clitoris cannot be shown either. The object of the shows is sexual arousal, performance and display, real or not.

The point of the babe channels/shows is clearly to make money from phone calls. Why, in that case, do we need to see the girls at all? As far as callers are concerned, they don't care who they're talking to while they wank, as long as they sound sexy and talk dirty. The draw is talking to the sexy girl on screen. The caller can see the girl, tell the girl what to do. The girl, and their resulting fanbases discussions, is far and away the greatest advertising feature at the producers disposal. In this case the move to define this type of programming as teleshopping is a prudent one. The girl has now become the advert and the product.

What we come down to in the end, once again is context. If we apply the teleshopping model, with performer as advert and product, then full nudity would become contextually correct. The caller wants to see "pussy", the caller gets to see "pussy". This is what the caller is paying for with his call. We would end up with shows basically the same as they are now, but with a little more graphic nudity whenever a caller specifically asks for it. As suggested above, actual output would be decided on a channel by channel, performer by performer basis. Some performers would probably continue as they are, whilst some would happily go further at a callers request. Each type of show would find it's own market and everything would soon settle down again.

With reference to the posting slips issue, is the material not technically copyrighted anyway? I know that in this world of PVRs and data-transfer, capturing and posting clips and caps is easy, but it's no different to video recording something in the eighties and lending it to your mates.

Jack.

But this is the thing, Ofcom published decisions frequently refer to the channels having gone beyond "viwere expectation." This is quite clearly not the case. Most people watching the channels want to see more, it really is as simple as that. The chances of someone watching the channel for some topless stuff, throwing a hissy fit because he gets to see some pussy instead are miniscule.

The consultation re the classification is fair enough as it should now allow the channels to operate under a clearly defined area whereas until now, they have always had to argue they are editorial in order to exist at all.

However, the previous consultation regarding attitudes to sexual content, nudity etc that seemed to slip through the back door, could mean that these channels end up neutered in terms of the actual content they are able to show regardless of whether they are permitted to be teleshopping or not.

I have always felt that the forum is too open for unrestricted access. I agree with most things that Nigma has said. I have in the past contacted admin and various mods to discuss the matter. Fanzones appeared but are rarely used by most. One quick fix solution would be to move all caps and vid threads to these restricted access fanzones.

Any search engine will show the various threads available on this forum. This site is easier to stumble upon then the 900 channels themselves.

I guess it's up to admin on how he runs this site. If it stays the way it is, users will be less inclined to post any further caps and vids due to them being removed anyway.

Anna Elite Vids. ::: .EliteTV Vids. ::: .Kylie Tyler Nights Vid. ::: .Last Danica vid. ::: .Lolly/Paige 2-4-1. ::: .Last Paige Vid. ::: .Fernanda NightShow 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ::: .Elite-Fancy Footwork. ::: .Elite-Freaky Like Me. ::: .Elite-It's Like That. ::: . *Evelyn Highlights Vid 1,2* ::: .My video bam Vids.

(07-12-2009 22:09 )MARCCE Wrote:  But this is the thing, Ofcom published decisions frequently refer to the channels having gone beyond "viwere expectation." This is quite clearly not the case. Most people watching the channels want to see more, it really is as simple as that. The chances of someone watching the channel for some topless stuff, throwing a hissy fit because he gets to see some pussy instead are miniscule.

The consultation re the classification is fair enough as it should now allow the channels to operate under a clearly defined area whereas until now, they have always had to argue they are editorial in order to exist at all.

However, the previous consultation regarding attitudes to sexual content, nudity etc that seemed to slip through the back door, could mean that these channels end up neutered in terms of the actual content they are able to show regardless of whether they are permitted to be teleshopping or not.

Going beyond viewer expectation isn't necessarily bad. Sure it was a bit of a shock during series one of Spooks when a female agent was killed by having her head stuck in a deep fat frier, that definitely went beyond viewer expectation. A naked woman showing her bits is what most people expect from channels like Babestation though. So many times friends have said, "Yeah, but it's shit, they only get their tits out." They are expecting much more. I think the channels are consistently below viewer expectation. I think most of the excited discussion on this site comes from the surprise of seeing something that actually meets expectation. Now I admit the lollypop incident was a surprise, but I wasn't offended. It wasn't obscene. The two girls were obviously enjoying themselves. The real difficulty comes from there being no difinitive "line in the sand" for nudity. That said, explicit sexual activity needs to be PIN coded.

I've just downloaded a copy of the June 2009 report on sex TV:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/.../sextv.pdf
So I'll have to get back to you about slipping things in the back door. fnar fnar.

Jack
PS. Probably wasn't too clear by the way, I'm happy with more nudity.

(07-12-2009 19:46 )MARCCE Wrote:  Hasn't it long been the case that Ofcom seem to take more notice of one complaint aginst the babe channels than they do about far more complaints made against more mainstream shows?

I can't really remember any of their cases against any of the channels being brought about by more than one complaint. In fact, I'm almost incredulous at some of the complaints they act upon with someone deeply offended sitting there for more than half an hour or more logging stuff they are supposedly totally disgusted by. With these channels Ofcom seem to act in cases where individuals are watching purely to be offended and that's just total bollocks in all fairness.

3 cheers for that man.

Under the Broadcasting Act Ofcom's response has to be "proportionate". 1 complaint should attract a much lower level of investigation than 5,000, but the reality is that a single complaint against a babe channel can result in 6 months of wondering if they will be fined to death, a lengthy hearing and a long wordy adjudication. 5,000 complainsts against Big Brother probably causes less anxiety at the broadcaster, a less detailed investigation and a published adjidication the same length. It's as if the police put the same effort into dropping a fag end and drug dealing.

There's also the difficult area of "viewer expectation". The 900s can be locked out. The naughty content is after 10:30. Anyone who deliberately tunes in to be outraged by the filth, then forces themselves to sit through it for an hour until a slip occurs has a misplaced sense of altruism. They can no more claim to be outraged than someone who walks past the "Explicit content - do not pass if you may be offended" signs and bead curtains in sex shops.

Anyone who tuned in accidentally, saw naked women wrestling, and stayed tuned in also has no grounds for complain. Why didn't they change the channel ? Did they think it was a BBC play featuring Billy Piper or an Patsy Kensit film and were waiting for incisive dialog and rivetting acting ? No, no excuse for accidentally seeing more than a few seconds toplessness.

How often are the slips ? Even if there is one an hour (3600 seconds), it takes under 5 seconds to realise that one is not watching Songs of Praise and change the channel: That's odds of 5:3600 or lower than 1 in 720 odds against accidentally seeing a slip. Nah, I reckon anyone who says they personally were offended has gone out of their way to be offenced. Ofcom should recognise that they are vexatius complainants, send them packing, and do no more than send the channel a short off-the record warning email.

It would be far better for all the viewing population if Ofcom concentrated its efforts on the increasing amount of unmitigated tripe on the other channels. Dumbing down, Americanisation and short attention spans will have a far more serious effect.

How far we have come in a couple of years! I remember watching daytime channels and we would all get excited about a panty flash - now we think nothing of babes in their knickers and bra.

The night shows were a boob out for a bit and we were happy - now we wait for inevitable "pussy slip".

This is evolution my friends, be patient - don't blame OFCOM, they have relaxed a lot in a short space of time. Blame the industry that fights amongst itself for our £1.50's

It must be getting bad, this thread has run for 3 pages and I haven't seen one photo of any of the babes even topless.

Its an interesting debate and it will always continue as there is no right or wrong answer to it. The power of censorship is there to protect, but like all power it can be manipulated and abused so that even the likes of this forum are threatened by it.

Most of us are aware that the channels have toned down their content in the past and can only hope that this measure is cyclical again. I am disappointed that members are being asked to remove certain caps (usually because I always seem to miss those vital moments), but would still prefer to see the babe channels continue to be on air.

Maybe everyone should stop watching these channels? They are all a pile of shit these days anyway.