|
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 28,238
|
Here is the text of the decision from Ofcom
Quote:
Big Brother 5
Channel 4 and E4, 17 June 2004.
Introduction
This was the fifth series of Big Brother which Channel 4 billed as “Big Brother gets evil”. The housemates were led to believe that Emma and Michelle had been evicted. However, they were simply in an adjoining room and able to watch and listen to everything going on in the house. On 16 June, they were re-introduced into the house. Early in the morning of 17 June, an argument broke out. In addition to verbal abuse and threats, there was spitting, destruction of property and some physical confrontation. Security guards were called in and the housemates separated. This was shown live on E4 and edited footage used in the Channel 4 Big Brother programme the following day. During some of these events the cameras cut to scenes of the garden, but for the majority of the time, the audio feed of events in the house continued.
As a result of the altercation, one of the contestants (Emma) was later removed from the house.
Throughout the live coverage on E4, text messages from viewers were invited and displayed at the bottom of the screen. During the most violent period, the question posed by E4 to viewers was “Has Jason lost it?” and then “Have they all lost it?”. The messages from viewers chosen by the channel ranged from “time to bring in an adult”, “GET TO THE HOUSE!” to “This is quality. LOVIN IT. COME ON J!”, “this is the bomb let them fight”.
We received 328 complaints that referred directly or indirectly to the fight. 55 of these were about the live coverage on E4 and 190 complaints referred predominantly to the Channel 4 edition of Big Brother the following evening. The remaining 83 complaints were about both programmes, the wellbeing of the participants and the eviction of Emma.
Viewers were upset and concerned about the level of violence (both verbal and apparently physical) in the Big Brother house, the effect of this on the contestants and the circumstances that allowed these events to take place.
Viewers felt that the conflict was ‘engineered’ by Channel 4, which chose to reintroduce Emma and Michelle into what would predictably be a volatile situation, and that the situation was fuelled by the supply of alcohol.
Referring both to the live coverage on E4, and the footage subsequently used on Channel 4, viewers said the level of implied and actual physical/verbal violence went beyond what they would expect from an entertainment programme.
As the scenes also included the obvious distress of some housemates, some viewers felt this was not only offensive and distressing to watch, but that it exploited certain housemates.
Viewers also said that the audio, which continued to run in most of the live coverage, was an additional cause of distress. In the absence of pictures to confirm what was happening, the continued shouting and occasional sounds that suggested objects were being thrown or used violently, amplified viewers’ concerns.
Viewers also felt that the length of time the situation was allowed to continue for was unacceptable. There was an apparent lack of a swift, effective intervention by Big Brother.
This was particularly offensive as there was usually a rapid response to relatively minor infringements of house rules and this appeared to encourage potential violence. The text messages that continued to run along the bottom of the screen appeared to confirm that Channel 4 was not taking the situation seriously and this implied that the participants could be in danger, which was distressing for viewers.
Many viewers were offended by the later decision to evict Emma, rather than any of the other protagonists. This was seen to condone unacceptable aggression, and unfair (and therefore exploitative) to Emma herself.
Response
Channel 4 said the dynamics of human relationships and the behaviour of real people in an unusual setting are important elements of interest to Big Brother viewers. Big Brother was therefore not solely about entertaining viewers or the prize at the end of the series, but was also intended to have, and was perceived by viewers as providing, an interesting insight into these aspects of psychology.
Channel 4 said that the audience deserved to see what happened in the house, even where it involved extreme behaviour, provided that the footage was responsibly edited for its slot and fair to the housemates, given that they had consented to appear on a very well known, high profile series.
On all series of Big Brother, the production team sought advice from an experienced psychologist on all aspects of the series and on the likely impact on the individual housemates.
That expert was independent of the production team, and their responsibility was to ensure the psychological well being of the housemates and to advise the production team accordingly.
In terms of the reintroduction of Emma and Michelle into the house, it was decided that it would be best to do that in the context of a relaxed and upbeat party. Although there was to be some alcohol provided, there was also a significant quantity of food. Full consideration was given to the possibility of some friction but it was genuinely believed that, in this environment, any such friction would be at a manageable level. Housemates had returned to the house before in previous series.
The conflict only arose very late at night. For the majority of the evening relations between the housemates were relatively cordial. At the first indication of a problem it was decided to deploy security staff in the camera runs which circled the house. The security guards, having closely monitored developments, entered the house at the point where it became apparent that the conflict was not going to peter out of its own accord.
The live programme on E4 contained footage of much of the conflict between the housemates. Channel 4 said that viewers would have been aware of the potential for conflict across the series, and the build up of tensions on this night.
Although feelings were clearly running very high, there was not very much physical contact, and certainly no injuries. The conflict primarily involved pushing and shouting, with others holding some housemates back. Although these were not comfortable scenes to watch, it was important that, unless absolutely essential, the events in the house should be relayed to viewers with minimal editing or sanitising.
Channel 4 said that the fact that the incident continued to be transmitted until the shouting and screaming had abated would have served to reassure viewers that the outcome was not as bad as they might otherwise have imagined. The decision to cut to the ‘safety shots’ of certain household and garden items was taken precisely at a point when the conflict had subsided.
Housemates gave fully informed consent to take part in the Big Brother experience and were aware that they were being filmed 24 hours a day. However Channel 4 accepted that they were entitled to be portrayed fairly and with due respect.
Channel 4 said that the conflict obviously had to be portrayed in the Big Brother programme broadcast at 22.00 hours the following day. However, the footage was very carefully edited to ensure that what was broadcast was both sensitive and responsible, taking into account both the expectations of the audience and the broadcaster’s responsibilities to the housemates. In order to alert viewers to the nature of the content, there was a pre-transmission announcement saying “…scenes of confrontation between housemates which some viewers may find disturbing, plus strong language throughout”.
There was a further on-air announcement immediately before the relevant part of the programme which said: “Now scenes of confrontation between the housemates which some viewers may find disturbing, plus strong language throughout”.
Channel 4 said that it was surprised that anyone took the view that the postponement of evictions could be designed to increase tension – it was a decision taken for exactly the opposite reason, and as such played its part in restoring relative harmony, indeed the police supported this decision.
Similarly, it was clearly not a reward for aggressive behaviour – it was merely a postponement.
Advice from the psychologist led Channel 4 and the production team to isolate Emma following the conflict, and subsequently remove her from the house. It was the psychologist’s view that Emma needed to be separated from the other housemates for a short period of time in order for there to be a chance for things to cool down. The psychologist and the production company felt that it was best to place her in the bed-sit, as this was an environment she was familiar and comfortable with.
The psychologist advised that in the circumstances the only viable option was for Emma to leave the house. This was explained to her and she understood and accepted the position. Subsequently, Emma had an enjoyable week appearing on Big Brother’s Little Brother and clearly was absolutely fine with the outcome. Although Channel 4 accepted that this may have led to a perception of unfairness to Emma, the harmony subsequently restored to the house immediately afterwards vindicated the action taken.
Channel 4 said that it operated a careful policy to exclude all libellous comments from the crawler captions. The majority of comments sent by viewers were critical of the behaviour of the housemates and some suggested that those involved should be evicted. The texts shown obviously reflected a range of opinions expressed by viewers on what they were viewing, and as such certainly did not constitute the production company’s or broadcaster’s perspective.
Decision
This was the fifth series of Big Brother, which is by now well established. Both the participants and the audience know the format and broadly, what they can expect from the programme. This understanding shapes how participants see their contribution to the programme and how audiences react to it.
Exploitation / welfare of participants The participants in Big Brother are consenting adults who have actively agreed to take part in the programme. The majority of adults can make informed judgements about participating in such programmes and it is not for Ofcom (or the general public) to make that decision for them. People that participate in programmes (and others directly affected by a programme) do have recourse, if they feel that they have been treated unfairly in the programme or their privacy has been infringed without justification, to complain to Ofcom. The general public cannot complain on their behalf.
Channel 4 has confirmed to us that none of the housemates have made any complaints to Channel 4 about the incident or their treatment. Neither Ofcom (nor its predecessors) has to date received a complaint about unfairness or unwarranted infringement of privacy in any Big Brother series from any of the participants.
Considering the now well known format of Big Brother, it is clear that participants know, to a large degree, what they are letting themselves in for. Of course, as Channel 4 agrees, this does not absolve the broadcaster from its duty of care towards those individuals, but it does indicate that participants feel that they get, to a greater or lesser degree, something out of the experience of taking part in the programme. We have no evidence that participants in Big Brother feel that they have been exploited.
The audience reaction We believe that Big Brother is generally regarded by the audience as an entertainment programme and a game show.
Part of the attraction is the insight the audience gets into the ‘private’ lives and emotions of the participants. The interactive format invites viewer participation, both within the programme and through additional services (interactive and website). This encourages an audience familiarity with the participants that is not necessarily present in other programmes. This to some extent explains the reaction of some viewers to the editions showing the live coverage on the 17 June and the re-cap of events the following evening.
We recognise that both the E4 live coverage and the Channel 4 Big Brother highlights programme were scheduled late at night and that the latter’s continuity announcements gave an indication of the type of content viewers could expect. The live coverage on E4 was preceded by an announcement warning of “strong language and adult content”.
Nevertheless, it does appear that the programmes containing the confrontation in the house exceeded the expectations of the audience.
Many of those who complained described themselves as ardent Big Brother viewers but said that they did not expect aggression to escalate, unchecked, to this point. The nature of the Big Brother programme – a reality programme with ‘real people’ interacting in ‘real time’ (the events were apparently unfolding as they watched) – meant that the audience related to the scenes in this entertainment programme in a different way to if they had seen them in a drama or soap opera. Viewers’ offence and distress arose from the images (and audio) on screen, but were compounded by their knowledge of the programme format (in that the situation was within the control of Channel 4).
The events shown in the Big Brother highlights programme on Channel 4 were appropriately edited and scheduled. This programme was not in breach of the Code.
However, we acknowledge the concerns of the viewers of Big Brother Live on E4, who knew the full background to the situation, and who saw a potentially dangerous situation develop and who had no way of predicting the outcome of this situation. This was frightening and concerning for some viewers, so much so that some called the police. Although the voice of Big Brother tried to calm the situation by summoning housemates to the Diary Room, it was approximately 20 minutes (in real time) from when the fight turned physical to when security guards entered the house.
The apparent absence of intervention by Channel 4 to prevent the situation escalating to this point, having ‘engineered’ the situation originally, clearly caused distress and offence to viewers. While accepting that security men may have been positioned, the production team’s eventual intervention appeared to be too late, particularly since the confrontation had turned physical. The offence was compounded by the text message captions running at the bottom of the screen, which gave viewers the impression that Channel 4 was continuing to treat as entertainment, a situation that had, from what viewers could see, become serious.
In this context, we feel that the intensity and repetition of verbal and physical violence exceeded viewers’ expectations.
Big Brother Live on E4 was in breach of Section 1.1 (General Offence) of the Programme Code.
|
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/pr..._20/192078.pdf
|
18-10-2004, 12:23 PM
Reply With Quote
Linear Mode
