See article from bbfc.co.uk

The latest episode 3 of the BBFC podcast series features the latest film and BBFC news.

The topic for discussion is classifying sex and sex references, across the age categories.

See article from mashable.com

Twitter is giving itself the facility to withhold content in specific countries, while keeping that content available for the rest of the world, the company has announced.

Until now, the only way for Twitter to censor content was to universally eliminate it from the site. This change means content deemed inappropriate by a specific government can be withheld locally, explains a blog post called The Tweets Still Must Flow.

When we receive a request from an authorized entity, we will act in accordance with appropriate laws and our terms of service, a Twitter rep told Mashable.

If and when content is withheld, affected users will be notified of either an account or tweet’s censorship. Twitter will make that decision public on Chilling Effects, through an expanded partnership that charts Cease and Desist Notices.

See article from telegraph.co.uk

The ASA is now investigating Snickers’ digital advertising campaign – in which Ferdinand, Price, Ian Botham and X Factor finalist Cher Lloyd posted messages on Twitter promoting the chocolate bar. They all received payment from the chocolate bar company to do so.

The ASA is now investigating whether the celebrities’ first teaser tweets should have indicated that they were part of an advert and whether the final reveal tweet alongside of themselves holding the chocolate, made it clear enough that the tweet was an advert.

The promotion of the chocolate bar via Twitter also ignores the Office of Fair Trading’s advice that celebrities should make it clear when they promoting or endorsing a product. The OFT has warned companies that deceptive advertising has to stop. An OFT spokesman said: Online advertising and marketing practices that do not disclose they include paid for promotions are deceptive under trading laws.

See article [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Ricky Gervais: Science
Channel 4, 14 October 2011, 22:35

Ricky Gervais: Science was a programme featuring a stand-up show by the comedian Ricky Gervais. This post-watershed programme focussed on Ricky Gervais’s outspoken thoughts on a variety of topics including racism, fame, obesity, religion and language.

At one point during his routine, Ricky Gervais referred to the singer Susan Boyle, and he made the following remark:

Look at Susan Boyle. If you can. Fucking hell! Jesus Christ. Oh. Shocking. Be fair though, „cause usually in the music industry it’s all about image isn’t it, you can’t just have a great voice and a great talent… but I don’t think she’d be where she was today if it wasn’t for the fact that she looked like such a fucking mong.

The comedian then proceeded to debate with an imaginary complainant who might object to his use of the word mong on television:

mong?. Yeah he did. Yeah. You can’t say „mong?. You can. It’s fucking easy. It’s one of the easiest words to say, it’s like [mouths the word while he says it] „mong?, it’s like, you just need lips, „mo…?, even mongs can say it, that’s part of the beauty of the word.

He continued in the same vein.

Ofcom received three complaints about Ricky Gervais’s comments. They concerned his repeated use of the word mong, which complainants regarded as offensive because of its derogatory association with Down’s Syndrome.

Ofcom considered Rule 2.3 of the Code, which states:

In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context… Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.

Ofcom Decision: Not in Breach of Rule 2.3

We noted that Ricky Gervais’s example about how the meaning of words changes by saying:

When I came here tonight I called you all „cunts?, remember? That used to be an insult, but now it’s a term of endearment. So words change. Okay.

In Ofcom’s view, while this clearly drew the focus of the routine on to the subject of how words change, thereby potentially minimising the offence, it was nevertheless clearly also done in a tongue-in-cheek way. This may have caused some viewers to question his assertion that he had not used either the words cunt or mong in an intentionally offensive way.

However we considered that the degree of offensiveness was reduced to some extent by many in the audience knowing Ricky Gervais’ reputation for acerbic, controversial and challenging humour, and understanding that Ricky Gervais was likely to have been being knowingly disingenuous when he said the word mong was no longer linked with Down’s Syndrome, and that the word cunt was now a term of endearment. Ofcom considered that the material would not have exceeded viewers’ expectations for Ricky Gervais’s type of humour.

Ofcom also had regard to the fact that Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster with a unique statutory remit to broadcast a range of high quality and diverse programming, and this may include programming that is provocative and controversial.

We noted that the programme began at 22:35, more than an hour and a half after the watershed, and that therefore most viewers of the programme would have been expecting stronger and more challenging content.

We also took into account that Channel 4 brought the challenging nature of the content to the attention of viewers with a warning at the start of the programme, which stated that it would contain strong language and adult humour.

We therefore concluded that several aspects of this content had the potential to cause considerable offence. However, on balance, this potential offence was justified by the context of this provocative comedy routine challenging the evolution of words, as broadcast with a warning as part of a late night comedy show on Channel 4. Channel 4 therefore applied generally accepted standards, and the broadcast of Ricky Gervais’ comments was not in breach of Rule 2.3.

Ofcom takes this opportunity to remind all broadcasters that its recent 2010 research shows that the word mong has the potential to be highly offensive to many people, and so broadcasters should take great care with its use.

See article from asa.org.uk

A magazine ad, for the clothing brand Bench, appeared in the spring 12 issue of Drapers Streetwear. It featured young people, who were on sofas in a backstage setting. There were crushed cups on the floor and various items, including more cups, drinks cans, fruit, bottled water and unlabelled alcohol bottles, were shown on a coffee table.

A complainant challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, because she believed it was likely to appeal particularly to people aged under 18.

ASA Decision: Complaint not upheld

The ASA noted the ad included scenes from a backstage setting, which we considered were likely to appeal to under-18s who saw it, by being associated with youth culture. We also noted, however, the ad appeared in a trade-specific publication that was targeted at those aged over 18 years. We considered it was unlikely that under-18s would see the ad and therefore that its appeal to that age group was limited by it being targeted. Because it was not directed at people under 18, we concluded that the ad did not breach the Code.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 18.1, 18.14 and 18.15 (Alcohol) but did not find it in breach.

In a Britain being impoverished by suffocating state fees and restrictions, is this the first minor improvement in actually letting entertainers earn some money?

See article from bbc.co.uk

A private member’s bill, introduced by Liberal Democrat Don Foster, will lift some of the state control and restrictions imposed on gigs by the 2003 Licensing Act.

The changes will mean that a licence will no longer be required for unamplified live music taking place between 08:00 and 23:00, and for amplified live music taking place between the same times before audiences of no more than 200.

The bill passed unopposed and will have to go back to the House Of Lords on the 10th of February before becoming law.

The MP from Bath was steering the bill through the House Of Commons on behalf of his Lib Dem colleague, Lord Clement Jones. The success is a relatively rare example of a House of Lords private member’s bill making it into law.

Foster explained:

It was said the Licensing Act 2003 was going to lead to an explosion of live music but, in the event, in small venues it was drastically cut.

We saw village halls, school halls, pubs and clubs reducing the the amount of live music, not increasing it.

Hopefully the bill, when it comes into law, will reverse that.

Separate to the private member’s bill, the government is conducting its own review of the Licensing Act.

See article from asa.org.uk

ASA has unveiled a new logo following a rebrand to coincide with the start of a year in which it celebrates 50 years of what it likes to consider as keeping UK advertising legal, decent, honest and truthful.

The ASA was established on 24 September 1962 to regulate non-broadcast advertising. Since then the remit has been extended to TV + radio ads and more recently to cover online ads.

The ASA will be marking this milestone through a variety of activities over the next 12 months.

See article from asa.org.uk
See video from youtube.com

A TV ad, for a Lady Gaga CD, Born This Way, featured clips from various music videos including shots of the singer dressed in stockings, suspenders and body harness, crouched on the ground in the same costume, and sensually rubbing her bare stomach with her hands.

The ad was cleared by Clearcast who considered a timing restriction was not necessary.

A viewer, who saw the ad with her children, aged four to 16 years, challenged whether the ad was suitable to be broadcast when children might be watching.

Universal Music said the ad was a compilation of clips from Lady Gaga videos, which were frequently aired on high rotation across UK music channels at all times of the day and therefore did not believe that a timing restriction was necessary. They said they scheduled the ad in programmes aimed at their target audience of 16 to 44 year-old women.

ASA Assessment: complaint not upheld

The ASA understood that the ad consisted of clips from Lady Gaga promotional videos and noted that although the images featured the singer’s trade mark outrageous costumes and performance style the majority of the clips were not overtly sexual. However, we noted the opening clip of the singer crawling on the floor with her cleavage in full view, and clips of Lady Gaga slowly rubbing her stomach with her hands, and of her kissing the floor were stronger, albeit brief, images. Although we considered that the images were suitable for a more general audience, we considered that a timing restriction would have been appropriate in order to keep the material away from programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to children. However, we noted Universal Music had specifically scheduled the ad in and around programmes that would appeal to their target audience of 16- to 44-year-old women.

Because the ad had been carefully scheduled, reducing the likelihood of children seeing it, we concluded that the scheduling had not breached the Code.

We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 32.3 (Scheduling), but did not find it in breach.

Thanks to Nick
See article [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

This Morning
ITV1, 7 October 2011, 10:45

This Morning is ITV1′s weekday morning topical magazine programme which is hosted on a Friday by presenters Eamonn Holmes and Ruth Langsford.

This programme featured an item at 10:45 about a survey which reported that one third of Britons do not know the location of the three largest cities in the UK. Studio guest Jonathan Wilkes said he believed that he was in that third because he thought Manchester was one of the three. Eamonn Holmes responded incredulously:

what are you … retarded? Don’t be stupid, don’t be stupid … if you follow football, which you do, you know from the league tables … where everywhere is.

Several viewers contacted the broadcaster directly to complain about Eamonn Holmes using the word retarded and, following the commercial break, he made the following on screen apology at 11:10:

Very good to see you again. Sorry to the three or four of you who have got in touch this morning because I have used the word retarded during the newspaper review – and you seem to take it personally…or you seem to say that I am insulting all sorts of people who have all sorts of conditions. I used it as a term…that someone…so, I don’t know what you would use instead of the word – but obviously I would never want to do that – cause any sort of offence for that and having done so much work – particularly, there is this the man who has an autistic child, who says that somehow I have insulted his child, so I really hope it hasn’t. I certainly wouldn’t use it in that context but sorry if that caused you offence sir. I’ll get your name and address in a moment and reply to you.

A complainant alerted Ofcom to the use of the word retarded. Ofcom considered the word was capable of causing offence and raised potential issues under Rule 2.3 of the Code, which states:

In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context.

ITV accepted that the word retarded did have the potential to cause offence. However, in the context of a spontaneous reaction made during a live discussion programme, the Licensee did not consider it exceeded generally accepted standards. Insofar as any offence was caused, ITV said it took rapid and effective steps to mitigate that offence by broadcasting a prompt apology. ITV considered the apology was appropriately worded to convey Eamonn Holmes’, and the Licensee’s, sincere regret for any offence caused.

Ofcom Decision: Resolved

Ofcom took account of the fact that This Morning is a live programme, and the comment made by Eamonn Holmes was clearly unscripted and made in response to a spontaneous situation. However, on balance and in the circumstances of this particular case, Ofcom considered that this was insufficient context to justify the offence that the word retarded was capable of causing to the audience.

Ofcom, however, took account of Eamonn Holmes’ broadcast of a personal apology as soon as practicable after the subsequent commercial break, in which he stated that he had not intended to cause any offence. On balance, Ofcom considered this case to be resolved.

See article from media.ofcom.org.uk

Ed Richards, the boss of Ofcom made a speech to the Oxford Media Convention on the 25th January 2012.

He repeatedly alluded to more censorship for the internet and video on demand in particular. He said:

In between the twin poles of linear TV and the open internet, it becomes quite interesting.

When something looks, feels and acts like TV, but is delivered over the internet and into people’s living rooms, we need something that meets audiences’ expectations and provides the right degree of reassurance.

It is here that such services intersect with the views and concerns expressed by the participants in our research and where greater assurance than currently on offer may need to be considered.

It seems undesirable for these services to be subject to full broadcasting style regulation — by and large they belong to a different form of service and come from a very different context. But we do need to consider whether to develop the approach in relation to existing co-regulation for video on demand to offer greater assurance and to ensure there is public trust in the approach to regulation as these services become more and more pervasive and significant.

In the case of video-on-demand services, our research shows that protection of minors and the risk of harmful content is the most likely focus. And our experience of broadcast regulation suggests that privacy and fairness for individuals are also areas that need careful exploration.

In this context I wonder therefore whether there may be a fairly simple opportunity to establish a core set of principles and aims which are held in common across a diverse media terrain with different regulatory environments.

Such a set of core principles could be established between the regulators that emerge from the current debate. They might aim to articulate the minimum standards which we would like to see in the UK, regardless of the nature of the service or its specific regulatory setting.

This is not as far-fetched as it may seem. The Ofcom Broadcasting code is remarkably close to the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The PCC Code and the Ofcom Broadcasting Code share many of the same objectives, principles and indeed requirements, although the range of issues in the Ofcom Code is, for obvious reasons, significantly more extensive.

…

But we take an interest in the debate because over time, and quite quickly in some cases, the difference between video on demand content and that of increasingly video rich digital newspapers may well diminish. In thinking about an approach to media regulation for the next decade or more, it is as well to have an eye on the direction in which the tide is flowing.

More prosaically, we might be able to offer some assistance from what we have found to be necessary for regulation to be effective.

In our experience there are some critical features of regulatory systems which need to be present, or largely present, in order to ensure effectiveness and in turn to build and sustain public trust.

…Read the full article