Ofcom Discussion

(20-02-2013 01:34 )RCTV Wrote:  you are failing to look at the seriousness of those, could be something that isn't serious compared to babe channels, and how many of those complaints are for the same thing. I haven't looked at the bulletin that Mr Mystery says however.

When it comes to seriousness Ofcom are far from consistent.

One broadcaster repeatedly breached election rules by giving one controversial candidate unbalanced publicity, but time and again they have received nothing more than a mild telling off.

Money equals power. Manpower equals power. A maverick candidate potentially subverting the democratic process to gain a high degree of control over a £1.2 billion budget and 6,000 staff is a serious matter.

A channel showed a foreign talent show at kids tea time during school holidays where a man bit the head off a snake then skinned it with his teeth. The show was repeated the next day. They got a telling off, no more. A year or so later they showed a similar contest where a man bit the head off a live chicken.

This sort of imagery could seriously traumatise children, unlike a flash of fanny. Despite this they got no more than a "breach" finding.

Other channels transmit "strong" swearwords during kids time, blame it on operator error or the wrong tape and the case is Resolved, basically meaning the broadcasters excuses are accepted and they are let off.

Other channels have broadcast religious hate messages and gay hate messages that could be seen as endorsing religious killing or gay bashing. Relatively minor telling off, no fine.

The vast majority of complaints are dismissed after the briefest review of the complaint, despite the fact that offence in the viewers eye is genuine offence and exactly what Ofcom is required to minimise by law.

By contrast the vast majority of complaints against babe channels proceed to full investigation. It is only in the past year that this has dropped below 90%.

Rules are then applied with pedantry even where the complaint is relatively minor - skimpy clothing on an adult channel at 9pm instead of 10pm? Oh come on. A day time model dressing as a nurse? A tiny advert so small nipples cannot be seen for mobile phone clips that can only be received by adult registered phones?

There has never been a single instance of a complaint against an Adult channel being Resolved even when staff have been suspended, retrained or even sacked and procedures have been changed.

There is institutional leniency towards the BBC, and to a lesser extent towards ITV, Four, Five and Sky, tolerance of other channels with plenty of second chances, but intolerance and harsh application of rules against babe channels.

BTW Scottishbloke, if the Playboy encryption you mention is what I think, Playboy "voluntarily" introduced it some years ago when they were being investigated for their free to air content. At the time they told Ofcom they were planning to do it anyway to strengthen their sales package. Just a coincidence then.