View Full Version : Channel 5 in trouble with Ofcom
RichardG
19-12-2011, 04:20 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/19/big-brother-f-words-channel-5?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038
Ofcom has ruled that Channel 5 broke the broadcasting code for repeatedly airing clips of Big Brother housemates using the word "****" immediately after 9pm – in once case the expletive was used just 11 seconds after the watershed.
Channel 5 argued that the use of the swearwords was "editorially justified" owing to a range of factors, including that the broadcaster felt that 11 seconds was not "immediately after the watershed".
In two episodes of the reality TV show – the Friday night eviction episodes of 23 and 30 September – clips rounding up events in the Big Brother house over the course of the previous week featured housemates using the word "****" or "****ing" a total of four times.
The four uses of the expletive occurred within 31 seconds of the 9pm watershed, which is designed to protect children from being exposed to more adult material such as swearing and violence.
One instance of the use of the expletive came just 11 seconds after 9pm and less than six seconds after the start of the show.
Channel 5 said that the weekly roundup clip at the start of each show was "essential" to remind viewers of the build-up to the eviction. The broadcaster added that the strong language reflected the "heightened tensions" and "represented the genuine feelings of the housemates".
Ofcom recently updated broadcasters on guidance for airing content around the watershed, noting that there should be a "smooth transition to more adult content. It should not commence with the strongest material."
The broadcasting code guideline in question, rule 1.6, is designed to "avoid a sudden change to material that would only be deemed suitable for a post-watershed broadcast".
Channel 5 defended the broadcasts, arguing that viewers are familiar with the type of content in Big Brother, and the fact there is an "unambiguous" warning at the start of the episodes that there is "strong language from the start".
The broadcaster said this "provided a clear context and sufficiently prepared viewers for the opening sequence".
Ofcom said that four instances of swearing within 31 seconds of 9pm meant that it did not accept Channel 5's argument that the programmes "did not include strong language immediately after the watershed".
The media regulator said that given there is an "absolute prohibition" on the most offensive language immediately before 9pm, a broadcaster would need "very strong reasons" to justify airing strong language straight after the watershed.
"Ofcom did not consider there was sufficient editorial justification to include repeated use of the most offensive language in these programmes so soon after the watershed," it said in its ruling.
"The two uses of the word '****' or '****ing' in each programme in the period directly after the watershed did in Ofcom's view constitute an 'unduly abrupt' transition to more adult material at the watershed."
:D
Niamh.
19-12-2011, 04:23 PM
Oh fgs :bored:
arista
19-12-2011, 04:23 PM
Got to give Ofcom something to do
Jamie.
19-12-2011, 04:26 PM
Ofcom are itching to get someone in trouble.
Parents are warned that after 9PM anything is aloud to be done, wether it is sexual, swearing, as long as it is after 9.
It's parents fault if their kids pick up these words for letting them stay up after 9PM
Ofcom need to grow up.
Jack_
19-12-2011, 04:28 PM
This is beyond pathetic. There's already a ****ing watershed, what more do they want? It doesn't matter whether it's 11 seconds after or not, they adhered to the 9pm watershed guideline and that's that. I wish they'd stop pandering to the wishes of old women who instead of allowing their children to watch these evidently adult programmes which also include prior warnings of such content (if they're really that dim), should do the right thing and either change the channel or send their children to bed, it really isn't that hard.
Censorship in this country is going too far now and this report is utterly laughable.
Ramsay
19-12-2011, 04:28 PM
Ofcom can **** off
Dirty load of *****
Mystic Mock
19-12-2011, 04:30 PM
Ok Ofcom allows shows like The X Factor to blatently rig the results,but C5 get told off for showing swear words after the watershed lol.
Ofcom you stink.
Jack_
19-12-2011, 04:31 PM
On a side note, as if hearing a few swear words is going to be detrimental to a child's life anyway. I hate this age-old assumption that it's the worst thing since the Holocaust if a child is heard swearing.
Niamh.
19-12-2011, 04:33 PM
This is beyond pathetic. There's already a ****ing watershed, what more do these OFCUNTS want? It doesn't matter whether it's 11 seconds after or not, they adhered to the 9pm watershed guideline and that's that. I wish they'd stop pandering to the wishes of old women who instead of allowing their children to watch these evidently adult programmes which also include prior warnings of such content (if they're really that dim), should do the right thing and either change the channel or send their children to bed, it really isn't that hard.
Censorship in this country is going too far now and this report is utterly laughable.
As a mother, I find this very insulting Jack. That article doesn't mention anything about "old women" complaining or anyone else complaining for that matter.
Tregard
19-12-2011, 04:35 PM
11 seconds after the watershed is still after the watershed.
Screw you, Ofcom, go do something useful for christ sake.
Jack_
19-12-2011, 04:38 PM
As a mother, I find this very insulting Jack. That article doesn't mention anything about "old women" complaining or anyone else complaining for that matter.
Well I'm sorry if it offended you then, but let's be honest the chances are that most people that complain to OFCOM about anything are either elderly people or the mothers (perhaps fathers) I guess who are supposedly 'worried' about the content their children view. I seriously doubt there is a lot of 18 year old men that complain if they hear the word 'sh*t' at 9:01pm on Big Brother.
I know there'll be exceptions to the rule and I'm aware that yes it's most likely a generalisation, but we're all aware that I'm not the only one that thinks this and that's probably for good reason.
Good for Ofcom - it's just common sense - C5 are trying to push the boundaries of controversy because the program content itself failed to attract an adult audience but depended on impressionable pre-teens and juveniles ..... :idc:
Niamh.
19-12-2011, 04:43 PM
Well I'm sorry if it offended you then, but let's be honest the chances are that most people that complain to OFCOM about anything are either elderly people or the mothers (perhaps fathers) I guess who are supposedly 'worried' about the content their children view. I seriously doubt there is a lot of 18 year old men that complain if they hear the word 'sh*t' at 9:01pm on Big Brother.
I know there'll be exceptions to the rule and I'm aware that yes it's most likely a generalisation, but we're all aware that I'm not the only one that thinks this and that's probably for good reason.
Well, all the mothers I know have better thing to do then complain about bad language on TV :hmph:
Jack_
19-12-2011, 04:44 PM
Good for Ofcom - it's just common sense - C5 are trying to push the boundaries of controversy because the program content itself failed to attract an adult audience but depended on impressionable pre-teens and juveniles ..... :idc:
No, Channel 5 are trying to reflect an aspect of reality (the use of swearing in every day life) correctly in what is a reality TV show. Censoring such words would mean that's not a reflection of real life, when someone swears in real life you don't hear the bleep machine appear from nowhere to mask the word do you?
Someone will probably mention that Channel 5's attempt at Big Brother took away from the 'reality TV' aspect anyway, and whilst that might be true, the use of expletives is still an aspect of reality.
Jack_
19-12-2011, 04:45 PM
Well, all the mothers I know have better thing to do then complain about bad language on TV :hmph:
The same for me, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Pretty sure there's been stories in the paper about parents/the elderly complaining :p
Samuel.
19-12-2011, 04:45 PM
Good for Ofcom - it's just common sense - C5 are trying to push the boundaries of controversy because the program content itself failed to attract an adult audience but depended on impressionable pre-teens and juveniles ..... :idc:
By airing people swearing after the watershed? How controversial :laugh:
Well I'm sorry if it offended you then, but let's be honest the chances are that most people that complain to OFCOM about anything are either elderly people or the mothers (perhaps fathers) I guess who are supposedly 'worried' about the content their children view. I seriously doubt there is a lot of 18 year old men that complain if they hear the word 'sh*t' at 9:01pm on Big Brother.
I know there'll be exceptions to the rule and I'm aware that yes it's most likely a generalisation, but we're all aware that I'm not the only one that thinks this and that's probably for good reason.
I'm normally one for controversy but I'm completely with Niamh on this one, you're missing the obvious point. A lot of people leave the channel they're watching on for a good 5-10 minutes after the programme they were watching has finished. This could easily have happened there especially with kids watching whatever was on at 8pm, and 11 seconds is pushing it before finding something else to watch. Its nothing to do with watching BB just to complain.
BB just isn't a 9pm show to begin with. The move to 9pm was when it started its rapid decline and one of the only things Channel 5 got right was keeping it on at 10pm. I'll never understand people who complain though. Don't see the point or what it achieves.
Doogle
19-12-2011, 04:46 PM
No, Channel 5 are trying to reflect an aspect of reality (the use of swearing in every day life) correctly in what is a reality TV show. Censoring such words would mean that's not a reflection of real life, when someone swears in real life you don't hear the bleep machine appear from nowhere to mask the word do you?
Someone will probably mention that Channel 5's attempt at Big Brother took away from the 'reality TV' aspect anyway, and whilst that might be true, the use of expletives is still an aspect of reality.True. I agree that while C5 haven't done the best job, the swearing aspect is accurate.
I find this whole thing utterly pathetic though.
Niamh.
19-12-2011, 04:48 PM
I'm normally one for controversy but I'm completely with Niamh on this one, you're missing the obvious point. A lot of people leave the channel they're watching on for a good 5-10 minutes after the programme they were watching has finished. This could easily have happened there especially with kids watching whatever was on at 8pm, and 11 seconds is pushing it before finding something else to watch. Its nothing to do with watching BB just to complain.
Oh I don't agree with Offcom, I was just saying that Old women/mothers complaining wasn't mentioned in that article
most people that complain to OFCOM about anything are elderly people
What do you mean by "elderly"?
I seriously doubt there is (sic) a lot of 18 year old men that complain if they hear the word 'sh*t' at 9:01pm on Big Brother.
Of course not, but the debate is about those who are much younger, the pre-teens and juveniles ..... ;)
By airing people swearing after the watershed? How controversial :laugh:
Well, you're getting heated about it ...... :joker:
Oh I don't agree with Offcom, I was just saying that Old women/mothers complaining wasn't mentioned in that article
Just saw the bolded bit and didn't read your whole post :blush2:
No, Channel 5 are trying to reflect an aspect of reality (the use of swearing in every day life) correctly in what is a reality TV show.
In my "real life", swearing is not a regular part of the vernacular ..... :nono:
Someone will probably mention that Channel 5's attempt at Big Brother took away from the 'reality TV' aspect anyway, and whilst that might be true, the use of expletives is still an aspect of reality.
Your reality, not mine ..... :nono:
Niamh.
19-12-2011, 04:57 PM
Just saw the bolded bit and didn't read your whole post :blush2:
It was only a couple of lines long :nono:
;)
Vicky.
19-12-2011, 05:10 PM
LOL how ridiculous.
They would have a (still quite pathetic) point if it was 11 secs BEFORE the watershed...but it wasnt
LOL how ridiculous.
They would have a (still quite pathetic) point if it was 11 secs BEFORE the watershed...but it wasnt
They probably WOULDN'T have a point if it was 10 MINUTES AFTER the watershed:
OFCOM say :
Rule 1.4 Watershed (including trails)
The ‘watershed’ is a well understood concept and audiences are concerned if they believe programme content is ‘pushing the boundaries’ of what is generally accepted close to the watershed. Audience research shows strong support and recognition for the watershed on all television channels. The watershed plays a crucial role for parents and carers with children aged 5 to 8 and trust in pre-watershed programming is essential, particularly leading up to 1930. It is also important that the content of pre watershed trails is appropriate for the time of broadcast. Although the watershed is a useful tool for regulating viewing amongst older children, it is one of many factors taken into account when regulating their viewing. Some programmes scheduled to start before the watershed and finishing after 2100 may be of special appeal to children, especially during school holidays. Depending on the channel and audience it attracts, viewers can be concerned at strong, adult material immediately after the watershed when a significant number of children could still be watching television.
Rule 1.7 Information
Even with appropriate scheduling, some additional information about pre-watershed and post - watershed programmes may be necessary. Where appropriate, viewers appreciate information about content that may be problematic for certain ages – particularly if a programme appeals to a wide-ranging audience.
BBC say:
Television Scheduling and the Watershed
5.4.6
Television scheduling decisions need to balance the protection of young people and particularly children with the rights of all viewers, including those without children, to receive a full range of subject matter throughout the day. They must also be judged against the requirements of the watershed.
The 9pm television watershed is used by broadcasters to distinguish between programmes intended mainly for a general audience and those programmes intended for an adult audience. However, parents and carers share in the responsibility for assessing whether programme content is suitable for their children, based on their expectations of that content.
The 9pm watershed signals the beginning of the transition to more adult material, but the change should not be abrupt. Programme makers and schedulers should also take into account the nature of the channel and viewer expectations. The strongest material should appear later in the schedule. If sudden changes of tone are unavoidable they should be clearly signposted, for example by giving clear information about scenes of a sexual nature, violence or the use of strong language.
5.4.7
Programmes broadcast between 5.30am and 9pm must be suitable for a general audience including children. The earlier in the evening a programme is placed, the more suitable it should be for children to watch without an older person. Programmes in later pre-watershed slots may not be suitable for the youngest children or for children to watch without an older person.
Only in exceptional circumstances can there be any departure from this practice, and then clear content information should be given. Exceptions may include, but are not limited to, images that some children might find distressing in natural history programmes or items in pre-watershed news bulletins. Any proposed exceptions must be referred to a senior editorial figure or, for independents, to the commissioning editor.
5.4.8
Programmes that straddle the watershed, that is start before 9pm and finish sometime after 9pm, should normally be pre-watershed compliant throughout.
C4 say :
ii) Strong Language
The most offensive language i.e. the words ‘****' and ‘****' and their derivatives (e.g. ‘****ing' and ‘mother****'), cannot be used before the 9pm watershed as this would breach the Ofcom Code and must be removed or obscured by bleeping or dipping. This includes the words in written form (including subtitles) and gestures. Any proposed use of the word ‘****' or any of its derivatives after the watershed should be referred up by the commissioning editor to the relevant editorial head for approval in writing before transmission and arrangements for an on-air warning must be made. A ‘swear form' (commonly referred to as a ‘**** form') must be completed, copied to the programme lawyer where appropriate. Because of its greater potential to offend, any proposed use of the word ‘****' post-watershed should be referred up by the commissioning editor to the Head of Channel 4 or relevant channel and/or Controller of Legal & Compliance, copied to the editorial head, for approval in writing before transmission, following advice from the particular programme lawyer.
Remember: these words and their derivatives must never be broadcast before 9pm in any form.
Note: If the word ‘****' is to be included within a programme, the warning must refer to "very strong language", rather than merely "strong language".
C5 themselves say :
4A Protecting Under 18s and Harm and Offence : Key Points
Under 18s must be protected from potentially harmful and offensive material. One of the main ways of achieving this is through the appropriate scheduling of programmes.
The watershed is 9 pm. Nothing unsuitable for children should, in general, be shown before 9pm or after 5.30 am. After 9 pm, there should then be a gradual transition to more adult material, not an abrupt change. Generally, the more adult in nature a programme is, the later in the schedule it should appear.
Potentially harmful or offensive material includes strong language, violence, sexual behaviour etc.. Its inclusion must be justified editorially and by the context i.e. taking into consideration the editorial content of the programme, its scheduling, the audience's likely expectations, any warning that has been given etc..
Audience expectation is key. Viewers should be clearly forewarned of any potentially harmful or offensive material so they can make their own informed choices about what they and their children watch. This usually requires clear on-air pre-transmission warnings.
So what makes C5 special enough to ignore the guidelines and break the rules ?
Jack_
19-12-2011, 07:16 PM
I'm normally one for controversy but I'm completely with Niamh on this one, you're missing the obvious point. A lot of people leave the channel they're watching on for a good 5-10 minutes after the programme they were watching has finished. This could easily have happened there especially with kids watching whatever was on at 8pm, and 11 seconds is pushing it before finding something else to watch. Its nothing to do with watching BB just to complain.
BB just isn't a 9pm show to begin with. The move to 9pm was when it started its rapid decline and one of the only things Channel 5 got right was keeping it on at 10pm. I'll never understand people who complain though. Don't see the point or what it achieves.
If I'm watching TV with my younger brothers or other family/friends that are young and something comes on that I know would be inappropriate for them, I turn over onto a random channel and then begin browsing to see what's on, that way they can't see the said programme at all.
It's not the fault of Channel 5 if other people choose to leave channels on for 5/10 minutes after 9pm, they are fully aware of the fact that the watershed begins at that hour and so really, if they don't want their children to see any post-watershed content, they should change channel or switch off immediately. I see your point, but laziness isn't an excuse.
What do you mean by "elderly"?
By definition (mine obviously, people have differing ones) - people that have retired around the average retirement age.
Of course not, but the debate is about those who are much younger, the pre-teens and juveniles ..... ;)
So you're trying to say that 13 year olds would perhaps complain about this sort of content? :conf:
In my "real life", swearing is not a regular part of the vernacular ..... :nono:
Surprise, surprise...I knew this statement would pop up at some point from somebody, it always does whether in real life or on this forum. It doesn't matter whether you hear swearing in your social group or not, it still exists in many other social groups and to try and deny that would be beyond stupid.
If you went to any pub and stayed there all night, you'd struggle to find one where there wasn't any cases where you heard someone swear. That's almost certainly the case with football grounds - try going there and not hearing anyone swear.
You can bring your own 'real life' into it as much as you want, perhaps you and your friends/family don't swear - but a lot of people do, and so as such it is part of reality because it happens in real life for a lot of people. That's the end of that discussion.
Jords
19-12-2011, 07:19 PM
These people need marching off a plank into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
So you're trying to say that 13 year olds would perhaps complain about this sort of content? :conf:
No ..... the watershed guidelines are there to protect the under 14's, who, nominally, are under the control of a parent or guardian
Surprise, surprise...I knew this statement would pop up at some point from somebody, it always does whether in real life or on this forum. It doesn't matter whether you hear swearing in your social group or not, it still exists in many other social groups and to try and deny that would be beyond stupid.
If you went to any pub and stayed there all night, you'd struggle to find one where there wasn't any cases where you heard someone swear. That's almost certainly the case with football grounds - try going there and not hearing anyone swear.
You can bring your own 'real life' into it as much as you want, perhaps you and your friends/family don't swear - but a lot of people do, and so as such it is part of reality because it happens in real life for a lot of people. That's the end of that discussion.
As I said, your reality, not mine ..... we obviously move indifferent social circles with different social standards ..... as for being "stupid", I would suggest that only the "stupid" swear, since they lack the education, the inclination or the imagination to construct expressive and meaningful sentences from the wealth of words that the English Language has to offer ..... :idc:
If I'm watching TV with my younger brothers or other family/friends that are young and something comes on that I know would be inappropriate for them, I turn over onto a random channel and then begin browsing to see what's on, that way they can't see the said programme at all.
It's not the fault of Channel 5 if other people choose to leave channels on for 5/10 minutes after 9pm, they are fully aware of the fact that the watershed begins at that hour and so really, if they don't want their children to see any post-watershed content, they should change channel or switch off immediately. I see your point, but laziness isn't an excuse.
Completely get what you're saying but the watershed isnt an immediate time for things to happen, e.g. a graphic sex scene isn't appropriate for 9.01pm just because its after the watershed. I've got no problems with the content personally but I do think this is the reason why BB is more suited to a 10pm slot, the slot it had for years and the slot it had when BB was at its height.
King Gizzard
19-12-2011, 08:46 PM
Where's Gavin when you need him
If I'm watching TV with my younger brothers or other family/friends that are young and something comes on that I know would be inappropriate for them, I turn over onto a random channel and then begin browsing to see what's on, that way they can't see the said programme at all.
It's not the fault of Channel 5 if other people choose to leave channels on for 5/10 minutes after 9pm, they are fully aware of the fact that the watershed begins at that hour and so really, if they don't want their children to see any post-watershed content, they should change channel or switch off immediately. I see your point, but laziness isn't an excuse.
The "watershed" is NOT an immediate concept - it's a flexible one (see the guidelines issued by OFCOM and all the terrestrial TV channels) to allow viewers without the benefit of your unwavering and lightning control of all the TV channels on all the TVs, PCs and media servers in your house to make their own (somewhat slower, maybe impeded) decisions about equipment and programs in their house ..... ;)
Completely get what you're saying but the watershed isnt an immediate time for things to happen, e.g. a graphic sex scene isn't appropriate for 9.01pm just because its after the watershed. I've got no problems with the content personally but I do think this is the reason why BB is more suited to a 10pm slot, the slot it had for years and the slot it had when BB was at its height.
Exactly ..... :thumbs:
thesheriff443
19-12-2011, 09:34 PM
if ofcom was to look at this forum they would shut it down and they would be right to!
this forum is being run by forum members so called mods, that are posting on this forum id call that a conflict of interest!
You can bring your own 'real life' into it as much as you want.
Well, you certainly are ...... :laugh:
Niamh.
19-12-2011, 09:39 PM
if ofcom was to look at this forum they would shut it down and they would be right to!
this forum is being run by forum members so called mods, that are posting on this forum id call that a conflict of interest!
:suspect:
Doogle
19-12-2011, 10:09 PM
if ofcom was to look at this forum they would shut it down and they would be right to!
this forum is being run by forum members so called mods, that are posting on this forum id call that a conflict of interest!
So the job of a mod is to read every thread and look out for any insulting posts, and they're not allowed to voice their own opinion on post anywhere?
Piss off back to DS or wherever you're from.
King Gizzard
19-12-2011, 10:47 PM
if ofcom was to look at this forum they would shut it down and they would be right to!
this forum is being run by forum members so called mods, that are posting on this forum id call that a conflict of interest!
Yeah because people would actually moderate on here and not post for free wouldn't they?
Samuel.
19-12-2011, 10:51 PM
What kind of forum has mods that don't post? :suspect:
Fetch The Bolt Cutters
19-12-2011, 10:52 PM
thats thomas
King Gizzard
19-12-2011, 10:55 PM
What kind of forum has mods that don't post? :suspect:
DS if I remember correctly
Samuel.
19-12-2011, 10:59 PM
DS if I remember correctly
Weird. I don't see how having posters as mods would be problematic; it's worked for every other forum I've been on.
How boring for the DS mods. And what's to say they wouldn't be just as opinionated as a poster would be.
thesheriff443
19-12-2011, 11:12 PM
So the job of a mod is to read every thread and look out for any insulting posts, and they're not allowed to voice their own opinion on post anywhere?
Piss off back to DS or wherever you're from.
thanks for your insult! i rest my case!
Doogle
19-12-2011, 11:14 PM
thanks for your insult! i rest my case!
No problem. :love:
Hold on, how does that rest your case, I'm not a mod.
thesheriff443
19-12-2011, 11:20 PM
my case is,if you cant put your opinion across without haveing to insulting me!,
then you show your ignorance to all on here,
Incensed
19-12-2011, 11:21 PM
PC gone mad, and if you think kids don't know swear words then I give up!
Quite how this thread has become a mods v FM's is another point I don't understand.
You can be the best parent in the world and vet your childs viewing habits, but they will still hear it in the big bad world out there. Much better imo is to acknowledge real life, and educate your children about what is acceptable and what isn't! Don't try and wrap them in cotton wool and pretend it doesn't exist, it does, deal with it appropriately.
PC gone mad, and if you think kids don't know swear words then I give up!
You can be the best parent in the world and vet your childs viewing habits, but they will still hear it in the big bad world out there. Much better imo is to acknowledge real life, and educate your children about what is acceptable and what isn't! Don't try and wrap them in cotton wool and pretend it doesn't exist, it does, deal with it appropriately.
Erm, isn't that the Watershed is all about ?
Swearing is not acceptable before the watershed but is acceptable, under certain conditions, thereafter .....
Whether you let your young children watch programs with swearing in after the watershed is your business .....
Jack_
19-12-2011, 11:42 PM
No ..... the watershed guidelines are there to protect the under 14's, who, nominally, are under the control of a parent or guardian
Still don't understand what that's got to do with my example that chances are that an 18 year old man wouldn't complain.
As I said, your reality, not mine ..... we obviously move indifferent social circles with different social standards ..... as for being "stupid", I would suggest that only the "stupid" swear, since they lack the education, the inclination or the imagination to construct expressive and meaningful sentences from the wealth of words that the English Language has to offer ..... :idc:
You know it's funny, I refrained from insulting you on your quite frankly prudish, ignorant views on the basis that I thought you wouldn't sink to such petty levels, how wrong was I?
If I, and people around me choose to swear that doesn't mean we have low social standards, it just means we aren't as uptight as you are about such irrelevant issues. There are many excuses for swearing (not that anybody needs excuses for saying a word anyway), one of them being when you've hurt yourself or you're annoyed, going by what you're saying if someone fell over in the street, snapped their leg in half and blood was shooting everywhere and they shouted '******!' you'd look down upon them with disgust and disregard them because they have 'low social standards'. It's such a pathetic stance to take upon such a silly issue.
And no, swearing doesn't mean you lack a wide vocabulary either, that's another overused, ignorant cliche. Stephen Fry swears but he certainly isn't some ill-educated Essex chav.
Completely get what you're saying but the watershed isnt an immediate time for things to happen, e.g. a graphic sex scene isn't appropriate for 9.01pm just because its after the watershed. I've got no problems with the content personally but I do think this is the reason why BB is more suited to a 10pm slot, the slot it had for years and the slot it had when BB was at its height.
Fair point I suppose, although there are varying degrees of severity. A graphic sex scene compared to a few uses of the word '******' aren't really on the same level. I do agree 10pm works better for BB though, but it still annoys me how '*****' is bleeped out at such a late time, not only in BB but in other shows too.
Still don't understand what that's got to do with my example that chances are that an 18 year old man wouldn't complain.
18 year old "boy", in many cases, but still nominally adult and therefore free to make lifestyle choices, for better or for worse, uninhibited by experience .....
You know it's funny, I refrained from insulting you on your quite frankly prudish, ignorant views on the basis that I thought you wouldn't sink to such petty levels, how wrong was I?
Regrettably, you sank to the petty insult level first ..... and you're at it again - ...... :nono:
.....
more abuse
.....
:idc:
Niall
19-12-2011, 11:52 PM
That's just silly. Oh for **** sake. :bored:
Jack_
19-12-2011, 11:55 PM
18 year old "boy", in many cases, but still nominally adult and therefore free to make lifestyle choices, for better or for worse, uninhibited by experience .....
I'm sorry but you're really not making any sense. My original point to Niamh was that, although there'd be exceptions to the rule, I expect (as I'm pretty sure most people do) that the large majority of those who complain are either elderly or parents who are concerned about the type of content their children watch, not 18 year old guys. What 13 year olds and younger children have to do with that, I have no idea. The point I made was about who was complaining, not who people were complaining about the protection of.
Regrettably, you sank to the petty insult level first ..... and you're at it again - ...... :nono:
I don't recall insulting you once before that post of yours in this thread :conf:
Kerry
20-12-2011, 12:13 AM
Keep ontopic please
calyman
20-12-2011, 12:42 AM
The "watershed" is NOT an immediate concept - it's a flexible one (see the guidelines issued by OFCOM and all the terrestrial TV channels) to allow viewers without the benefit of your unwavering and lightning control of all the TV channels on all the TVs, PCs and media servers in your house to make their own (somewhat slower, maybe impeded) decisions about equipment and programs in their house ..... ;)
Flexibility cuts both ways. For those offended by unwarranted combinations of vowels and consonants, coming up to nine should be the time to prepare yourself to switch off or switch over. Most progs do not finish at 9pm exactly, you can expect your show to finish with a few minutes to spare. So use this flexibility to the best of your pre-watershed ability. There are always killjoys telling the rest of us what we should see, hear and what we should think.
A handful of moaners and complainers should not have undue influence.
Flexibility cuts both ways. For those offended by unwarranted combinations of vowels and consonants, coming up to nine should be the time to prepare yourself to switch off or switch over. Most progs do not finish at 9pm exactly, you can expect your show to finish with a few minutes to spare. So use this flexibility to the best of your pre-watershed ability. There are always killjoys telling the rest of us what we should see, hear and what we should think.
A handful of moaners and complainers should not have undue influence.
OTOH, extremists should not hold sway ..... ;)
calyman
20-12-2011, 12:58 AM
OTOH, extremists should not hold sway ..... ;)
When you mentioned extremists, I immediately thought of Mary Whitehouse......and of course, others of her ilk. The hypocrisy of faux morality is not for me.
When you mentioned extremists, I immediately thought of Mary Whitehouse......and of course, others of her ilk. The hypocrisy of faux morality is not for me.
Some morality is better than none at all ..... :idc:
It's odd that it's fine that for Channel 4 to televise full frontal nudity at 8pm yet Ofcom are kicking up a fuss at swearing happening after the watershed
It's odd that it's fine that for Channel 4 to televise full frontal nudity at 8pm yet Ofcom are kicking up a fuss at swearing happening after the watershed
What was the incident of "full frontal nudity at 8pm" ..... ?
What was the incident of "full frontal nudity at 8pm" ..... ?
How to look good naked & Embarrassing Bodies are always allowed to do it
How to look good naked & Embarrassing Bodies are always allowed to do it
OFCOM say :
The inclusion of nudity, sexual behaviour, sexual imagery and references to sex should be editorially justified and defensible by the context in which they appear.
Before The Watershed
Nudity in a sexual context is unlikely to be acceptable before the watershed unless strictly limited, whereas nudity in the context of an item about health or education e.g. a beauty treatment or medical examination, is less likely to exceed viewers' expectations, for obvious reasons, although a flagging should be considered.
Full frontal nudity (both male and female), even in a non-sexual context, is unlikely to be acceptable before the watershed, unless there is a serious educational reason for showing it.
Since I've seen neither of the programs you mention, I can't say whether they stick to the guidelines .....
arista
20-12-2011, 05:17 PM
It's odd that it's fine that for Channel 4 to televise full frontal nudity at 8pm yet Ofcom are kicking up a fuss at swearing happening after the watershed
Yes Ofcom are Odd
OFCOM say :
Since I've seen neither of the programs you mention, I can't say whether they stick to the guidelines .....
Not that bothered what the official Ofcom stance is, but given that those programs still get aired I'd presume they don't consider it a problem, just pointing out a strange inconsistency in their guidelines
thesheriff443
20-12-2011, 05:45 PM
Not that bothered what the official Ofcom stance is, but given that those programs still get aired I'd presume they don't consider it a problem, just pointing out a strange inconsistency in their guidelines
same as there is on this forum!, it all depends if your a jay or aaron fan!
same as there is on this forum!, it all depends if your a jay or aaron fan!
Well I'm a Mod and a Jay fan while some other Mods are Aaron fans so I'd say not
Not that bothered what the official Ofcom stance is, but given that those programs still get aired I'd presume they don't consider it a problem, just pointing out a strange inconsistency in their guidelines
I see no inconsistency - nudity is not the same as swearing - nudity can be educational or artistic - swearing can be neither
bananarama
27-12-2011, 01:50 AM
The raving idiots at Ofcom have generated a broadcasting code that broadcasters have to second guess if or when they are braking it......Ofcom have the intelligence of a rotting rat.
A water shed should be just that clear and defined. It should be the resposibility of parents to ensure a transition time for their children.......But no Ofcom in their usual stupid wisdom creat a set of ifs and buts and what evers for broadcaster to trip over and some moaning half wit that complains to ofcom give the stupid gits the chance to play at being stupid gits......
Ofcom half wits have not yet caught on to the fact of life that young children behind their parents back and some times in front of them swear like bloody troopers.......
The Ofcom silly dick heads are protecting no one from anything........The corruption of the young is already truly embedded in our crazy drug taking knife weilding society.....To late to shut the stable door the horse bolted decades ago.......
Jack_
27-12-2011, 02:01 AM
The raving idiots at Ofcom have generated a broadcasting code that broadcasters have to second guess if or when they are braking it......Ofcom have the intelligence of a rotting rat.
A water shed should be just that clear and defined. It should be the resposibility of parents to ensure a transition time for their children.......But no Ofcom in their usual stupid wisdom creat a set of ifs and buts and what evers for broadcaster to trip over and some moaning half wit that complains to ofcom give the stupid gits the chance to play at being stupid gits......
Ofcom half wits have not yet caught on to the fact of life that young children behind their parents back and some times in front of them swear like bloody troopers.......
The Ofcom silly dick heads are protecting no one from anything........The corruption of the young is already truly embedded in our crazy drug taking knife weilding society.....To late to shut the stable door the horse bolted decades ago.......
First real case of some sense I've seen in this thread.
Mystic Mock
27-12-2011, 04:01 AM
I see no inconsistency - nudity is not the same as swearing - nudity can be educational or artistic - swearing can be neither
Nudity is worse for TV as it offers nothing.
thesheriff443
27-12-2011, 11:01 AM
its never too late,to learn right from wrong!
Kazakh
27-12-2011, 11:31 AM
That Ciaran Ferguson certainly had something to say. Probably too forthright for BB. Stick on a ****** and a 18 year old with NICE HAIR!
Nudity is worse for TV as it offers nothing.
.... and swearing offers ?
Pyramid*
27-12-2011, 12:54 PM
This is beyond pathetic. There's already a ****ing watershed, what more do they want? It doesn't matter whether it's 11 seconds after or not, they adhered to the 9pm watershed guideline and that's that. I wish they'd stop pandering to the wishes of old women who instead of allowing their children to watch these evidently adult programmes which also include prior warnings of such content (if they're really that dim),should do the right thing and either change the channel or send their children to bed, it really isn't that hard.
Censorship in this country is going too far now and this report is utterly laughable.
As a mother, I find this very insulting Jack. That article doesn't mention anything about "old women" complaining or anyone else complaining for that matter.
It is very insulting and I suspect, a comment purely designed to be exactly that.
Well I'm sorry if it offended you then, but let's be honest the chances are that most people that complain to OFCOM about anything are either elderly people or the mothers (perhaps fathers) I guess who are supposedly 'worried' about the content their children view. I seriously doubt there is a lot of 18 year old men that complain if they hear the word 'sh*t' at 9:01pm on Big Brother.
I know there'll be exceptions to the rule and I'm aware that yes it's most likely a generalisation, but we're all aware that I'm not the only one that thinks this and that's probably for good reason.
The same for me, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Pretty sure there's been stories in the paper about parents/the elderly complaining :p
Re the complaints: it's after the watershed - so I'm not sure why anyone should have issues either way. If they don't like it - turn it off - the show always comes with a warning.
With regards to all your other comments Jack: it's about time you got rid of this chip off your shoulder you have when it's about anyone who is over the age of 16........ if you were making sexist, homophobic or racist comments: you'd be infracted - but it's fine to make ageist comments right left and centre just because you feel like being a bit contraversial.
You have NO idea of the demographics of those who complain to OFCOM - but I bet there are plenty stuck up younger generations without kids who are quick enough to do it - just because they can - most mothers/fathers of young kids will be too busy working & running their family lives to spend time phoning/writing/emailing OFCOM.
It's about time you grew up a bit - and realised that some of the ones complaining about those reporting to OFCOM - such as yourself - fall into the teenager bracket - and you are in effect: doing the same thing yourself as you are accusing the older generation of doing.
Bit of irony there Jack - given that you are moaning about the older generation moaning. Time you got that chip off your shoulder: the world is a far nice place without having to lug it around. With or without the expletives that you found it necessary to include in your posts.
Mystic Mock
27-12-2011, 04:05 PM
.... and swearing offers ?
Well sometimes it can be funny if used in the right context imo,but no overall I dont think it adds much either but it certainly adds more to a show and in real life than nudity does,like I wouldnt be seeing strangers naked in real life would I.:joker:
RichardG
27-12-2011, 05:30 PM
Well sometimes it can be funny if used in the right context imo,but no overall I dont think it adds much either but it certainly adds more to a show and in real life than nudity does,like I wouldnt be seeing strangers naked in real life would I.:joker:
Depends where you go. :evilgrin:
Nudity is worse for TV as it offers nothing.
http://userfiles.steadyhealth.com/sites/steadyhealth.com/modules/infocenter/data/images/how_to_increase_your_semen_production.jpg
Mystic Mock
27-12-2011, 06:01 PM
Depends where you go. :evilgrin:
:joker:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.