[James]

Big Brother cleared of neglect

Chris Tryhorn

Monday September 18, 2006
MediaGuardian.co.uk

Ofcom has cleared Channel 4 over complaints that Big Brother contestants' welfare was neglected and that the broadcaster had condoned inappropriate behaviour.

The media regulator received complaints from 272 viewers over the course of the programme's seventh series, which ran between May and August.

But Ofcom decided Big Brother had stayed within the bounds of acceptable programming and had not breached the broadcasting code.

Complainants felt that some contestants. such as Shahbaz Chaudhry or Pete Bennett, who suffers from Tourette's syndrome, should not have participated in the programme.

They suggested viewers were being invited to "laugh at others less fortunate than ourselves" and were concerned that Channel 4 was neglecting its duty of care towards contestants.

Ofcom said it was not its responsibility to override "informed decisions" made by adults to participate in reality TV shows.

Referring to Bennett, the show's eventual winner, Ofcom said: "There is rightly no reason why someone with a disability cannot and should not exercise the same degree of informed choice as any other adult - including choosing to enter the Big Brother house."

The watchdog also said Channel 4 had intervened in matters relating to its duty of care; for instance, through conversations with contestants in the Big Brother diary room.

Ofcom also cleared the programme of including and condoning inappropriate behaviour such as bullying and emotional distress.

It said viewers and contestants had got to know what the Big Brother formula was like after six previous series.

"It is to some extent expected that high emotion, disagreements, and separation into partisan groups may result," Ofcom said.

"By including scenes featuring individuals upset and in conflict with other housemates, Channel 4 offered viewers an insight into the housemates' characters. In Ofcom's view this is in line with both the audience and the contestants' expectations."

Ofcom said the material shown did not dwell on distress or humiliation longer than was editorially necessary and the production team had treated emotionally charged characters such as Chaudhry "sensitively and responsibly".

The watchdog also felt the programme had been edited to protect children from unsuitable material when shown before the watershed.

When it came to the eviction of contestants, which often saw them subjected to abuse from the baying crowds outside the house, Ofcom said it had become customary to treat unpopular housemates like a "pantomime villain".

"Although some may view this as unpleasant, we felt that this behaviour did not exceed generally accepted standards in the context of this particular programme."

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...src=rss&feed=1