The Office of Communications (Ofcom) is the UK’s Television and radio guidance and regulator. (Dodd, M, Hanna, M, 2016 p 24) Ofcom was formed in 2003 in which it replaced its previous five different regulators, also becoming 25% more expensive to run (BBC 2003). TV, radio and broadcast are regulated now, as people of any age can see more ‘real’ images and videos, this can be more effective than print images. From it being more effective, it can be more harmful, dangerous and disturbing for the viewer. Ofcom is independent of the UK government, which means that the government can't force Ofcom to make a decision or take an action. Members of the public can make complaints against programmes which have already been broadcasted. The public can complain about anything in which they may have been aggravated by. Under The Communications Act, 2003 and The Broadcasting Act 1996, Ofcom is required to make standards for the content made (Dodd, M, Hanna, M, 2016 p 24). Ofcom have made 10 different codes in which broadcasters must follow. When the public makes a complaint, Ofcom will look at the codes to see if the broadcaster has broken any of them. If so, then Ofcom have the power to fine, suspend or even terminate a license. Since Ofcom has started procedures, they are currently dealing with their 337th issue (Ofcom 2017). Not all of these issues are found in breach of the codes, sometimes broadcasters are found not guilty and the case is closed. Ofcom takes their code very seriously. Protection is very important to them. This essay will be focusing on the protection of people, both the audience and the content makers. Protecting the audience falls under section 1, protecting under 18s and section 2, harm and offence. Protecting is to stop material that can cause harm or offence, being viewed by the public. Also protecting under 18s from material which is not suitable to them. Protecting the content creators fall under section 7, fairness and section 8, privacy. Protecting the content creators is making sure that they know what they are being involved in, that they have given content, and that they are treated fairly. This essay will be looking into and understanding the ethical issues involved in protecting, why it is so important to protect and to look if broadcasters have broken the code but have a good reason for doing so.
Firstly, under section two of the Ofcom code is ‘harm and offence’. The principle of this section is to ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content of television and radio services to provide adequate protection for members of the public (Ofcom 2017). Generally accepted standards are standards that what most people think is acceptable to be broadcasted. Under this code, there are 16 different rules in place to protect the audience. Under section 2.12 of the code, it states that television broadcasters must take precautions to maintain a low level of risk to viewers who have photosensitive epilepsy (Ofcom 2017). On the 10th of November 2011 at 13:55, a Kelly Rowland music video ‘Down for Whatever’ was played on the music channel Flava who is owned by CSC Media Group Ltd. For approximately 40 seconds of the music video contained flashing that exceeded the brightness limit set out. Furthermore, there was no before or during warning text throughout the music video, only a warning text “Flashing Warning” 20 seconds after the music video ended. This can be seen as an ethical issue as it isn’t a moral principle, viewers can be seriously affected by flashing images as they could have photosensitive epilepsy. It’s also seen as an unacceptable standard to the public. Not knowing about the levels of brightness could have caused harm to them. Through CSC’s defence, they said that re-editing the video would have been “extremely time-consuming” and that “the release of music videos are eagerly awaited by fans”. They felt that a warning would be suitable for long-term programmes, not lots of different clips in different music videos. Ofcom responded to each of their points made, stating that; there is a greater editorial justification for a verbal warning to be made. Any programming item must include a warning at the start, including music videos. And as that there were no warnings in sound or vision at the beginning, viewers wouldn't have been aware of the flashing images. In this case, Ofcom found CSC media in breach of rule 2.12 (Ofcom 2017) From Ofcom’s outcomes it is clear that they protect the audience from harm and offence and that the statement given is accurate. It shows that even if the complaint is made against a short clip, Ofcom will intervene and resolve the issues, putting order back into place.
Secondly, another example of Ofcom dealing with another case of ‘harm and offence’ is in issue 200. On the Matthew Right Show, 7th of December 2011, Matthew Wright made some comments in which can be seen as harmful and offensive. 2,358 complaints were made to Ofcom regarding this comment. Matthew Wright commented on the murder of a teenager boy. On the island in which he was murdered on, the Western Isle, there hasn't been a murder for 43 years (BBC 2011). Comments made by Matthew in the conversion he had with Charlie Baker caused harm to the family and friends of the Liam Aitchison who was murdered. Causing further offence to the public, being disgraced at how the pair of men reacted to the death. Matthew Wright had mocked the Scottish accent and said: “theres been another murder” “well thats another one then, another murder” with Matthew Wright laughing after both of these comments were made. Ethical reasons show that it is not in the right to laugh over someones death, which many of the public felt Matthew did. With the complaints made, Matthew apologised the next day in which at the end of the apology he said: “I mean, grow up, folks, I’m very sorry all the same”. Which lead to more controversy, until the next day after the Matthew issued another warning. Ofcom found that what has been said could be in breach of section 2.3 which states that material which may cause offence is justified by the context (Ofcom 2017). Content can include many different factors. Ofcom found there was not enough context to justify Matthew Wright’s comments. It is difficult to regulate and protect the audience what is said live on air, as when live on air anything can happen that you wouldn't expect. Ofcom want to protect the public from harm and offence, in this case, a lot of harm and offence was committed. Ofcom haven't been able to protect the audience that much, only in the sense that they are confident that an issue like this won't happen again. This is proven through what Channel 5 had done to lessen the harm of the offence. Such as; issuing an apology, Matthew Wright apologising to the family, taking down the programme of demand and reviewing the editorial guidelines and procedures (Ofcom 2017). This shows that protecting the audience from what happens live on air is difficult as something always unexpected can happen.
Along with protecting the audience in section 2 of the Ofcom code, Ofcom can also protect under-eighteens in section 1 of the Ofcom code. On the 27th of January at 09:46 images of a violent hit and run were broadcasted before a commercial break on Sky News (Ofcom 2016). The footage lasted 14 seconds in which no caption was on the footage and the footage appeared after a ‘coming up’ sequence about RBS bank. Ofcom found that it broke code 1.3 in which children must be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable to them (Ofcom 2017) This can be seen as an ethical issue as it can be harmful to under eighteens. Through Sky News defence, they said that as it was aired on Wednesday 09:47, it was unlikely that a lot of under eighteens would have watched the footage as they would be in school at this tome. However in this case, when it can be said that not many children would have affected by this, Ofcom still show that protection is very important to them. They found Sky News in beach of code 1.3, stating that the material shown should be given an advance warning, the clip should had been appropriately scheduled. Ofcom show here that children must be protected at all times, regardless if many children saw the clip as even one child was likely to see it and be affected by it.
Furthermore, from protecting the audience, Ofcom also protect the contributors of the programmes made. They can protect them through section 7 of the Ofcom code, called fairness. on The basis being that, they ensure that broadcasters don't use unjust or unfair treatment on individuals or organisations. It is important for them to protect the contributors. An example of where an issue has occurred against a contributor is in Issue 240. The occurrence happened on the 8th of November 2012 on the show This Morning (Ofcom 2017). In a part of the interview between David Cameron and Philip Schofield, Philip Schofield passed over a list alleged paedophiles to David Cameron, when the exchange happened, a part of the list of names could be seen. In the list, Lord McAlpine name appeared. 473 complaints were made (Ofcom 2017). Ofcom found it to be a breach of code 7.1 which states that broadcasters don't use unjust or unfair treatment on individuals or organisations (Ofcom 2017). Along with 7.1 breach, Ofcom also found codes 7.9 and 7.11 to also be in breach. It was seen unfair to the Prime Minister at the time, to hand him these names in which he did not expect to be given the list. He was put under pressure and shocked by what he had been given. Also receiving a complaint from Lord McAlpine, Ofcom looked into account to see if Lord McAlpine had been treated unfairly. It can be an ethical issue to accuse someone of being a paedophile which can be seen as treating one unfairly. This was an unusual case for Ofcom to deal with, and a lot of investigation went into it. Ofcom show they protect the contributors, ITV failed to avoid unfair treatment. Ofcom found that Lord McAlpine’s name being shown could have done damage to him. The allegations made against him were false. He wasn't offered the opportunity to respond, which breaks code 7.11 (Ofcom 2017). Ofcom took all this into factor and found that ITV breached code 7.1.
Sometimes a broadcast can be in breach of the code, however they can justify the reason for breaking the code.
In conclusion,