REGULATION – OFCOM , ASA & IPSO
During a stage discussion , the woman was described as smelling of ‘ fish ’ and ‘ raw sex ’ was attention drawn to him , and Channel 4 contended that he was not recognisable due to the brevity of the clip , the poor quality of the footage and the fact that he was an incidental figure in the footage . Channel 4 News also pointed to the public interest in the issues of escalating gang violence and the increasing use of large hunting knives , which the footage demonstrated .
REGULATION – OFCOM , ASA & IPSO
Ofcom regulates the content of all television and radio in the UK , except for some content broadcast on BBC channels funded by the licence fee . IPSO is the main regulator for the press and magazine industry . The Advertising Standards Authority regulates advertising . All the regulators adjudicate on complaints with reference to codes of practice , with which those they regulate have to comply . The Ofcom Broadcasting Code is the main code relating to broadcast content , while IPSO judges complaints against the Editors ’ Code . The ASA ’ s main codes are the BCAP Code for broadcast advertising , and the CAP Code for non-broadcast advertising . Compliance with these codes is important . Regulators can impose penalties and sanctions for non-compliance . Regarding privacy matters , the regulatory codes also have wider legal significance because of provisions within the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998 . The result is that the Codes have a bearing not simply in a regulatory context , but also on how the courts should act when making any order affecting freedom of expression and the publication of journalistic , literary or artistic material . In this section , we report on some recent interesting regulatory decisions .
OFCOM – STANDARDS : The Jeremy Kyle Show - sexual content inappropriately scheduled
■ The Jeremy Kyle Show , broadcast on ITV , has been found to be in breach of Rule 1.3 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code , which states that children must be protected from material that is unsuitable by scheduling it at an appropriate time .
ITV said that the episode , which broadcast on Easter Sunday during the day , had been ‘ certifi ed for broadcast outside of term time school hours , as the main story focused on the issue of paternity , which is a very common issue that is often dealt with by the programme , rather than explicit sexual matters ’.
Ofcom disagreed and found several aspects of the programme combined to make the programme unsuitable for children . The episode centred on a woman who had had sex with three men in close succession and then conceived , leaving the paternity of her baby uncertain . During a stage discussion , the woman was described as smelling of ‘ fi sh ’ and ‘ raw sex ’, and
8 | zoom-in Winter 2016 a fellow panellist described how she sounded during orgasm . Jeremy Kyle also imitated the creaking noise of a bed and asked his on-stage security guard to show his ‘ orgasm face ’. The programme contained a high volume of swearing , which was dipped .
Ofcom took the view that the cumulative impact of the sexual references , threatening and aggressive confrontation and frequent use of masked offensive language resulted in the episode being unsuitable for children . Ofcom found the scheduling of this episode on a Sunday morning on ITV ’ s most widely watched public service channel , shortly before transmission of Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory , would have likely exceeded the expectations of viewers and particularly parents . In the circumstances , Ofcom found the material was not appropriately scheduled and breached Rule 1.3 of the Broadcasting Code .
OFCOM – FAIRNESS & PRIVACY : Channel 4 News
■ Ofcom decided not to uphold a complaint made against Channel 4 News by a ‘ Ms G ’ on behalf of her son . Ms G complained about a piece on gang violence in London , which included CCTV footage in which her son could be seen in the background . Ms G ’ s son was 14 at the time . She complained that he had been treated unjustly and unfairly , and that this was an unwarranted infringement of his privacy . She said that her son had been identifi ed and this had endangered him . Some of the individuals in the footage had their faces blurred , but Ms G ’ s son did not .
Channel 4 News set out the precautions they had taken with the footage , which had been given to them in accordance with the Crown Prosecution Service Media Protocol . The police had requested certain individuals ’ faces be obscured and had checked the footage . Individuals who were identifi able and were still facing criminal proceedings were obscured to avoid contempt of court . Identifi able victims , youths who had been convicted ( whose identities may be protected by reporting restrictions ), and identifi able innocent bystanders were also obscured . Ms G ’ s son was not named , nor
During a stage discussion , the woman was described as smelling of ‘ fish ’ and ‘ raw sex ’ was attention drawn to him , and Channel 4 contended that he was not recognisable due to the brevity of the clip , the poor quality of the footage and the fact that he was an incidental figure in the footage . Channel 4 News also pointed to the public interest in the issues of escalating gang violence and the increasing use of large hunting knives , which the footage demonstrated .