All Commercial Broadcast Organisations are regulated to ensure that they ultimately don’t publicly release improper material.
Ofcom, otherwise called The Office of Communications, is the independent regulator that decides on complaints made against broadcast journalists on commercial TV.
Also every commercial broadcasting organisation in the UK must have a licence from Ofcom to ensure their programmes are ‘fit and proper’. (Hanna & Dodd, 2016)
It aims to make the UK’s media regulations more efficient and ‘user friendly’ to viewers. Ofcom now combines the old broadcasting standards commission (BSC) and a few others i.e (OFTEL). It highlights that decency on radio and tv matters and should be in the interest of of citizens and of consumers. They do not regulate adverts on tv. (Bignell and Orlebar, 2005) Ofcom’s aim can be compared to the medical oath, First do no harm, which really summarises Ofcom. (Stewart, Alexander and Boyd, 2008)
The reason for broadcast media being regulated is because it has the potential through moving images to have potentially a profound effect on their audiences. There is need for a balance between freedom and control. Regulation changes as society does i.e hanging someone used to watched as a event, but to broadcast that now would be unacceptable. (Stewart, Alexander and Boyd, 2008)
The Broadcasting code of states that commercial broadcasters should come from a neutral stance when covering politics and social issues, and must also be accurate, treat people fairly as well respecting privacy, avoid causing harm and offence, in particular under 18s and not encourage crime or religious abuse, overall there are ten sections in the Ofcom code, and if broken can lead to fines and potentially being taken off air. Even the BBC must adhere to these codes, however they do have there own self regulating system. (Hanna & Dodd, 2016)
There are many cases where broadcast regulation comes into play when a journalist or organisation has failed to keep to the ofcom code and receive complaints which is assessed against the Broadcasting code (2010) (Bignell and Orlebar, 2005)
In scenario one, the show ‘Wishing on a star’, is clearly breaking section one of the ofcom code for broadcasting. “Material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people under 18 must not be broadcast” Rule 1.1 (Ofcom,2017)
In this case from offensive language from the female contestant and the issue is that it is branded a family friendly show.
Rule 2.4 in section 2, states how offensive material which could encourage children in particular to imitate the behaviour in this case the offensive language must be avoided.
As the show starts before the watershed at 9pm, which breaks rule 1.4, with the offensive language specifically rules 1.14 to 1.16. Significantly more under 18s are likely to be watching the show meaning more exposure of the offensive language and this creates negative attitudes and behaviours in these children and the wrong message is portrayed. (Ofcom, 2017)
The issue lies in the fact, the presenter Jimmy Chuckles ‘swiftly moved on’,
not making any reference means ofcom would investigate and most likely punish the show, especially with this word being at the top of ofcom’s severity of offensive words and the lack of an apology. (Ofcom.org.uk,2016)
I would approach the situation by firstly applying rule 1.2, ‘Broadcasters must take all reasonable steps to protect those under 18. Meaning, informing everyone including contestants to not use offensive language being one of the main points, even if it’s not intended to be harmful and explain the audience of the show is they key factor. (Ofcom,2017)
Being live ,they don’t have one hundred per cent control of contestants.
As the show cannot bleep out or warn the audience as it’s live and before the watershed, an apology is the only way to increase acceptability of accidental offensive language, and it’s important to say that it must be sincere and immediate and also by the person who said it as the context is always considered by ofcom and if the show did take ‘all reasonable steps before the show they may have a defence. However, one quarter of complaints every year to ofcom are related to bad language so it shows the need for clamping down on shows. (Frost, 2010)
Not all audiences respond the same and that is considered but with this word being severe and children watching it makes it a breach.
No mention was made of the contestant again even later on, which would have been obviously apparent showing the producers knew it was wrong but is commonly seen as the right practice to apologise when something like this occurs, it’s unforeseen but the least the presenter can do is apologise and highlight it’s incorrectness. (Ofcom.org.uk,2010)
A case study to back this scenario up comes from 2016 on ITV’s show the X factor, where it has a similar audience and time of show to ‘wishing on a star. When a contestant was announced safe, another contestant said “I f*cking told you”. Afive minutes later, presenter Dermot O’leary issued an apology. Breaking rule 1.14, ofcom asked ITV for a justification and because there was an apology, no reoccurrence and all steps were taken as well as the ‘emotions running high’ being understood, the issue was resolved. (Ofcom.org.uk, 2017)
This shows that Ofcom codes must be adhered to and if something happens like offensive language, an apology should be made immediately in defence or at least taking forewarning show participants and minimising the risk, otherwise there are consequences
The next scenario mainly highlights Section 8 relating to Privacy. Alan Spacey who is an MP has been a victim of secret filming of his private life which has led to the footage being broadcasted on the BBC.
There are several issues with this scenario, firstly filming anyone in private without permission is an intrusion into private life which would break the rules of Section 8 in the ofcom code, directly related to privacy. (Ofcom,2017)
. Now you are allowed to film someone in a public place and the bar where he is kissing the secretary Patrick Holness may well be in a public place, but he has not given consent and the code states that you should not film someone if there is an expectation to not be filmed in their private life without consent.
The ‘surreptitious filming’ is an issue too, especially as Spacey is identified, he hasn’t given permission and is going to lead to suffering and distress along with intrusion to his private life at his home around his family and being an MP, this is because he will behave differently than his normal public persona, ‘letting his hair down’
The Human rights act 2000 – says a public place becomes private if ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ Strong public interest may not be enough flming isn’t allowed without his permission as he wouldn’t expect to be filmed. (Gary and Rowlands, 2012)
This scenario however is unique as it is broadcast on the BBC who are not directly regulated by ofcom and are self regulated, so could be fined but no more than that.
Likewise, so highlighting he is kissing a man when he is married, will damage his reputation being in his position as an MP. According to ofcom, you cannot intrude into an MPs life during an election period (. ), but you can if it can be justified in the interest of the public, which this could be. Section 7 fairness – the secretary – 7.12 about whether they chose not to appear (Ofcom, 2017)
I would approach this situation by looking to see if there is a level of public interest, this can be used as a defence, for example if he was cheating on his wife, it may be in the public interest as it may alter their political views of someone with responsibility. But the broadcaster must be able to justify why it is necessary for the public to know and how it outweighs his right to privacy, known as being warranted. (Hanna & Dodd, 2016)
There may be a ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’ in this case because Alan Spacey is in the public eye in his position, any information which discloses his home or family is not allowed. or getting permission, however this would most likely lead to no access for footage, so it would be better to keep Alan Spacey anonymous as it may effect nature of programme/ban.
It must be accurate and not misrepresent and could even be reconstructed for anonymity purposes. (Hanna & Dodd, 2016 p?)
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/109727/Issue-346-Broadcast-and-On-Demand-Bulletin.pdf
Ex england manager Sam Allardyce, was secretly filmed, however it gave satisfactory evidence for him to be sacked as England manager, which is case of being in the public interest or being warranted. (Press Gazette, 2016).
So the ofcom code can sometimes be overruled by the rule of public interest as a defence.
Take scenario four with the interview of Brett Speedie, an formula one driver to be broadcast on a youth orientated show on channel X.
As it is a youth programme, it is inappropriate and not a good influence to be explicitly showing the team sponsor Eagle Beer on the car in the background as, it is illegal for under 18s to consume beer and it gives them the wrong connotations with the sport.
Being emblazoned on the car behind may take away the focus on Brett and encourage young people to drink more. Also being in a sports bar adds to the concept that people will start to believe that Sport is an excuse to drink.
Owing to the fact that the sponsor Eagle beer was not specifically sponsoring this interview, show or Brett, it is breaking Section 9, Commercial references in TV. This code states that sponsorship credits must be distinct from advertising, meaning the focus of the credit must be the sponsorship arrangement itself. (Ofcom,2017))
I would approach this by filming the interview in a different part of the location – a more neutral background without commercial references. It depends whether it shows a call to action as to whether it is regarded advertising. In this interview, the broadcasters could defend themselves by the fact there was no call to action but just simply the paid sponsor of the driver in the background. (Hanna & Dodd, 2016)
This has happened on Ford Super Sunday by Ford, on sky sports 1 on 24th April 2016, when the credits that appeared around the programme featured footage showing the interior and exterior of the ford cars with the logo appearing at the bottom right of the screen. This was in breach of rule 2.22(a) ‘sponsorship credits must be distinct from advertising. Ofcom.org.uk. (2016).
This shows that ofcom will not tolerate sponsorship that has not been directly paid for especially if a news channel.
In scenario three, there is an issue relating to section 3 being crime. The blues fan calls out a 15 year old who he urges police to put jail, however he is underage to identify mainly because he has no evidence, he can’t defend himself and he may be biased
The 15 year old boy is identified as Harry Johnston, which is an issue as his identity should be protected owing to his age
A second thing that potentially breaks Ofcom regulation is the small airing time for the Redditch reds chairman walter Lancashire, in comparison to Bromsgrove blues ralph sims chairman. This may be bias towards one side or it may not be intentional or out of their control as Ralph sims may have kept talking for long periods, but ultimately the presenter is in control.
However the code states that impartiality means not favouring one side over another. Due impartiality explains that it does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view. The programme themselves must be neutral whilst also ensuring that represent both sides of an argument.
Rule 5.13 which directly applies to radio, says their broadcast, ‘should not give undue prominence to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on matters…
Therefore, the actual phone in may not have been one sided, just that one had more time which is not a breach. (Hanna & Dodd, 2016)
Instead I would pre warn any phone ins the ensure that any names especially under age are kept anonymous, however this could be justified in the case of public interest where if may lead to a rightful conviction for the 15 year old who may actually be guilt of the crime.
A real life similar event occurred on Panorama on BBC1 on 11 January 2016, when a young boy called Billy was identified in a programme about evidence of young people in the medway secure training centre. After taking into account the broadcaster’s and the audience’s right to freedom of expression from Article 10 in the European convention on human rights, but despite his name being mistakenly revealed, ofcom still ruled that is was a significant error which has the potential to undermine a vulnerable young person’s care and lead to negative consequences for him, a breach of rule 1.28. (Ofcom.org.uk, 2018)
After critically analysing both sides of how regulation can be enforced in the UK broadcasting industry, I have also looked at where the regulation may be justified against, i feel that the regulations in terms of all the sections and how they are enforced are all there for good reasons and help to prevent a lot of wrongdoing and keeps everything accurate, however it is not always possible to keep to regulations and complaints are then inevitable, but it’s up to ofcom to judge to then investigate as there can be a defence which prevents a breach. Many big organisations, however will still publish despite a breach, as the profits are far greater than the fine.
That said, there are resistances to regulation because (Feintuck and Varney, 2013)
No one perfect but that’s why there are several rules in one section such as public interest or freedom of speech.