|
DONATE ON-LINE! |
|
Support the work of mediawatch-uk - make a secure credit card donation below:
|
|
Make a Stand! |
|
Office of Communications (Ofcom): Send your comments about programmes to Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator. Your opinion is important. Ofcom monitors and keeps a record of all complaints and publishes frequent bulletins of its findings.
E-mail: contact@ofcom.org.uk
Web: www.ofcom.org.uk
Tel: 020 7981 3000
Ofcom's Guide to Complaints here
Online complaints form here
BBC: If you want to comment on BBC TV and Radio programmes you can praise or protest here
Web: www.bbc.co.uk
Tel: 03700 100222
BBC Trust: To improve accountability the BBC Trust has its own website. Information is here
ITV: If you want to comment on ITV programmes:
E-mail: dutyoffice@itv.com
Web: www.itv.com
Tel: 0844 881 4150
Channel 4: Comment on Channel 4 programmes here
Web: www.channel4.com
Contact information here
five: Comment on five programmes
E-mail: customerservices@five.tv
Web: www.five.tv
Tel: 08457 050505 or 020 7421 7270
BSkyB: Comment on programmes here
Virgin Media: Comment on programmes here
Association for Television on Demand here
How to complain here
BBFC: Comment on films here
IWF: Report illegal internet content here
The Advertising Standards Authority: considers complaints about all advertisements including those on TV and Radio.
Complaints form here
Tel: 020 7492 2222
Web: www.asa.org.uk
Members of Parliament can be contacted here |
|
|
|
Mediawatch-UK Autumn 2009 Newsletter |
|
|
Mediawatch-UK Autumn2009 NEWSLETTER
INTRODUCING THE NEW DIRECTOR!
.jpg "Image") I'm delighted to be able to introduce myself to you as the new Director of mediawatch-uk. I'm looking forward with anticipation - and some trepidation - to continuing the wonderful work John Beyer has done, helping to create good media values and making sure that your voice is heard by those that can do something about it.
I thought you might like to know something about me:
I live in Kent, not too far from the mediawatch-uk offices, and I'm married with two small children, a daughter aged six and a son aged two. It was concern for the media that my children are going to be exposed to which led me to mediawatch-uk and made me think seriously about the media in this country
I've spent the last 17 years working in the publishing industry and worked at or for most of the big publishers. My role was always to represent authors, books and the companies I worked for to the media.
Sometimes this meant seeking media coverage and sometimes it meant damage limitation when things didn't go exactly as we'd hoped. I was in touch with journalists, producers and editors on a daily basis and so I know how the media works and I also understand how the pressure to increase market share can lead to boundaries being pushed and inappropriate, unacceptable and harmful material being produced.
Thank you so much for all your messages of support and I look forward to speaking to, and working with you in the future. There's lots to be done and together, we can make a difference.
GREAT EXPECTATIONS
By John Milton Whatmore, Acting Chairman
We have been working very hard here at mediawatch-uk over the Summer period planning for the future. We have Great Expectations. A New Director and an Administration Assistant have been appointed. We have strengthened the Executive Committee and we are looking for a new Honorary Treasurer.
Vivienne Pattison our new Director who has replaced John Beyer who has retired, has a difficult act to follow. For many years John has been the conscience of the silent majority who care about taste and decency in the media. I have every confidence though, that Vivienne and the team will engage with a younger generation and reinforce the principles of taste and decency and the morality that makes sense of it.
I urge all of you to support the new Team and to continue to have Great Expectations. One should never underestimate the power of the consumer. If the product is not liked or fit for purpose, it won't sell.
Likewise if we do not like what the media is churning out day after day, we should not buy into it.
Mediawatch-uk will continue to monitor, lobby, research, campaign and highlight all the major issues in the future. Thank you for supporting us. We look forward to a continuing and fruitful relationship.
In recent years mediawatch-uk has been indebted to members and supporters who have kindly arranged to leave us legacies. This income has enabled us to continue confidently with our most important work.
VIEWERS BEWARE!
 In an astonishing U-turn, the government announced that advertising on television using product placement would be allowed in Britain, which it hopes will offer a lifeline to struggling commercial broadcasters in a time of declining traditional advertising revenues.
Some experts estimate that this arrangement could raise as much as £125 million annually for the industry. It is understood the prohibition will remain in force for children's, news and religious programmes across all networks. The shift in the rules will only apply to commercial broadcasters, with the BBC still prevented from promoting products, even when programmes are made by independent companies.
We understand that the BBC will probably favour this arrangement because it removes pressure for the commercial sector to benefit from license fee revenue. However, if traditional television advertising revenues continue to decline then there will be more and more pressure from the commercial sector to increase advertising in this way.
This is the beginning of the blurring of the line between entertainment, information and commercial interest. Advertisers will be working to influence a consumer's perception of their product without being upfront about the commercial arrangement. Looking further down the line, how much control will advertisers have over content and script? The traditional relationship between the viewer and television is to undergo a major shift.
 When this story broke the mediawatch-uk office was inundated with calls from journalists wanting our opinion on the subject. We were able to raise concerns about responsibility to audiences, loss of editorial control and placing of inappropriate products - such as the sponsorship of Big Brother by a condom manufacturer at a time of rising teenage pregnancies.
John Beyer did a lengthy interview with BBC Radio Wales in which he expressed these concerns and we were quoted in newspapers including The Guardian and The Daily Mail. In the final analysis, if broadcasters were producing original, quality programmes that viewers wanted to see, advertisers would be only too happy to pay to reach the resulting large audiences.
With a general election due next year you might like to ask your prospective parliamentary candidate their thoughts on this issue. All three main political parties now have now declared that they are in favour of product placement advertising. Are there any politicians fighting for the public interest on this important issue which will affect all of us?
We will be responding to the government's consultation as soon as the details are announced. If you wish to respond too, details of how to go about it will be on our website as soon as they are available.
YET MORE SWEARING ON TV
 The amount of swearing on television became big news last year owing to the abusive phone calls Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand made to Andrew Sachs. Michael Grade, the Executive Chairman of ITV admitted that swearing had become ‘indiscriminate' and ‘unrestrained' and Jana Bennett, director of BBC Vision, promised a reduction in swearing saying ‘there will be less effing'.
But how much has changed? Last autumn The Sunday Telegraph monitored a 25 post-watershed programmes for serious expletives and found they were used 127 times. The paper has repeated its analysis a year later and, despite the assurances of senior executives a year ago, it found that swearing had increased by over 20% with serious expletives used 155 times.
The Sunday Telegraph quoted John Beyer of mediawatch-uk ‘broadcasters have paid lip service, made all the right noises, but they haven't actually done anything to reduce the level of swearing.'
Despite the fact that research by Ofcom, the BBC and others has shown the majority believe there is too much swearing on TV, broadcasters are still not responding to the public's concern. Although The Office of Communications (Ofcom) found Channel 4 were in breach of the broadcasting code in relation to an episode of Ramsay's Great British Nightmare shown in January 2009, no sanction was imposed. Indeed, Ofcom has never fined a broadcaster for excessive swearing after the watershed.
STOP SWEARING ON TV PETITION
.jpg "Image") Our online petition ‘Stop Swearing on TV' attracted nearly 6,000 signatures. Thank you to everyone who signed. This is the response that we received from the Number 10 Petition Team:
"The Government believes that it is important that we have high standards across our broadcasting sector particularly in public service broadcasting. However, it is a long-standing principle that the Government does not interfere in programme matters, either on arrangements for scheduling or on content, as it is important to maintain the principle of freedom of expression which political interference could undermine.
For this reason, Ofcom, the BBC Trust and S4C are independent of the Government and are responsible for safeguarding the public interest in broadcasting. They set out the rules and guidance with which broadcasters must comply. Within this framework, it is the broadcasters' job to make judgements about what individual programmes should contain and the time at which they are broadcast."
GET INVOLVED!
 It is vital that we continue to keep letting broadcasters and Ofcom know when programmes offend or fail to reach standards. mediawatch-uk has responded to Ofcom's review of the Broadcasting Code (see opposite) we continue to lobby for a tightening up of the terms of the Code in relation to swearing.
Send your comments about programmes to Ofcom. Use out special postcards, available on request, or online here.
OFCOM REVIEWS ALL IMPORTANT CODE
In response to Ofcom's review of the Broadcasting Code mediawatch-uk called for some serious rethinking about how the code is currently drafted and we were critical of the quite limited scope of the review.
 We said: "The Code, as it is currently drafted, reflects the "light touch" approach to regulation advocated some years ago by the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Rt Hon Chris Smith MP.
In practice this "light touch" approach has done nothing to improve overall standards of broadcast content. Indeed, mediawatch-uk would argue that in some respects standards are now very much worse because of the ill-defined Code and the way broadcasters have been able to interpret it in their own interests. Far too much emphasis has been placed on ‘freedom of expression' with little or no emphasis on the corresponding responsibilities that should flow from these freedoms.
"If the purpose of this consultation is to clarify the Code, phrases like "the degree of harm or offence" really must be explained. In an important Code such as this, such ambiguous phrases can mean what anyone wants them to mean! It is a great pity that clarification is not also being made with regard to the rights of audiences.
"It is not enough to guarantee "freedom of expression" for broadcasters, and their so-called "right to offend", which contradicts the intention of the Communications Act 2003 on "offensive and harmful material" without also guaranteeing the rights of audiences. Whilst we recognise that these rights are "at times competing" surely the first priority for a regulator is to safeguard the rights of audiences?
"With regard to "rules relating to offensive language" it is evident that the existing rules simply do not work. It is not enough to say that "the most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed" if there is no definition of "the most offensive language". Ofcom's own research published in the Communications Market reports has established that the majority of people believe there is too much swearing on TV.
"In 2008 and 2009 a number of polls on this subject were conducted by, among others, The Radio Times (24-30 May 2008), The Sunday Telegraph 26/10/2008 and 9/11/2008), The Sunday Times (16/11/2008), Channel 5 (28/11/2008), BBC1 TV Panorama: ‘Have I Got Bad Language For You?' transmitted in February 2009 and a ComRes poll commissioned by mediawatch-uk published in May 2009. All found that the majority said there is too much swearing on TV.
"The present Code does not reflect this public concern and is so poorly defined that few people have any confidence that this part of the Code is of any real significance."
We also called for clarification of the Code on the showing of violence and due impartiality.
The full response is available here.
TIME FOR A CHANGE?
By Pauline Webborn
It's been a challenging but sad time in the office! Archaic files with tales of great battles have been dusted down, sorted out and thinned down; old computers have been juddering with fear as discussions of new systems have been discussed; and well worn chairs have been adjusting to the shape of their new occupants! But there is excitement in the air!
As part of the new thrust forward, we have been examining various new hardware and software to update the database information; produce more professional literature and speed up our new network of computers. With the great plethora of products available this has been quite a challenge, but we are confident that these are important to help us move forward with our campaigns and help us become more efficient.
Please bear with us, though - it's bound to be my fault if you receive two subscription reminder letters even though you've paid! Hopefully within a couple of months the niggles will have been ironed out and we'll be back to normal!
Alongside the evolution of office systems, I am excited to report a challenging new conference that I have developed for 16-18 year olds. The one day conference, entitled ‘Brave New World - Imagine a Revolution in Value' has been developed to fulfil the criteria of such conferences within the framework of religious education in Sixth Forms. The conference aims to develop knowledge, understanding and skills to think spiritually and ethically about the impact of the media on society.
.jpg "Image") The first conference held at the Archbishop's School in Canterbury was a real success with pupils admitting that it had been very engaging, fun and yet had challenged them to think again about the effects of the media on themselves and society.
If you are aware of any 6th form teachers or schools who may be interested in hosting this event, please let me know, or ask them to contact me on 01233 633936 or email info@mediawatchuk.org.
It is still our hope that we can increase the number of speaking engagements out in the community. Please do get in touch if you would like to book me to come and speak to your group or organisation. The message is challenging, but is also an engaging and lively presentation.
If you would like to contribute to either of the projects mentioned above, we would be pleased to receive your donation.
MORE THAN JUST PROFITS...
James Murdoch, the Sky chairman and senior News Corp executive, gave the keynote MacTaggart speech at this year's Edinburgh Television Festival in which he roundly attacked the BBC.
In his speech James Murdoch talked about the provision of news and attacked the BBC for ‘dumping state sponsored news' into the market. He then went on to say that the only ‘reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit' - not standards, quality or diversity, just profit.
Of course the news that Mr Murdoch accused the BBC of dumping is exactly that for which News Corps would like to charge. So instead of ‘state sponsored news' he advocates big business sponsored news. However, broadcasting has a greater impact and influence on society than just profits.
Broadcasting can have a significant influence on people's psychology and behaviour so profit should never be the sole factor in decisions relating to content and scheduling. This is why a broadcasting regulator is vitally important and unelected, unaccountable media owners with the sole aim of making a profit should not be allowed to control broadcasting and, rather arrogantly, set the agenda.
Mr Murdoch went on to say that it was not "the job of a regulator to invent sources of potential harm and forstall them". We would argue that this is exactly what Ofcom should be doing and we told them so when we met them recently.
The tragic case of the 10 and 12 year old brothers from Edlington who have recently pleaded guilty to robbing, abusing and intentionally causing grievous bodily harm to their 9 and 10 year old victims perfectly illustrates this. These boys were themselves the victims of parental neglect and you have to wonder what sort of TV programmes, games and DVDs they were exposed to in their dysfunctional home environment.
Recent research from the teachers' union ATL has shown that 86% of teachers feel that TV programmes have had a negative affect on the behaviour of children in their schools. This is why it is so important to protect the young and vulnerable from unsuitable material because their parents may be neither interested nor capable of so doing.
CHILDREN IN PERIL
 In 2007 the Prime Minister expressed concern about pornography and violence in the media describing this as a "terrible issue" to be tackled. He appointed Professor Tanya Byron to make recommendations on how children can be protected from such material on the internet and in computer games.
Professor Byron's report was published in March 2008 and one of her recommendations was that a UK Council on Child Internet Safety be set up - which it duly was later that year. The Council was to develop a strategy for better regulation in the games industry and better information and education for children and their parents. You can read more about it on our website.
However, not much has happened since then. A meeting of the Council to produce a national strategy was due to take place in spring 2009 failed to happen and will now take place in December this year. A safety campaign was due to take place in summer 2009 but it too has to materialise.
Now plans to adopt the pan-European video games classification system, which would enable parents to check that games were age appropriate, may not happen because the existing legislative framework could make it hard to adopt.
Tanya Byron is understandably frustrated at the lack of effort to implement her action plan and has now taken matters into her own hands visiting schools to warn teachers and children of the dangers at a grass roots level. She said ‘I think we have got to stop procrastinating. Children and their safety are at stake.'
mediawatch-uk is a member of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety and shares Professor Byron's frustrations. We are also concerned that the emphasis for protecting children in the online environment seems to have been shunted onto parents which doesn't take into account those who are unable or unwilling to manage this responsibility. We've written to her offering our full support.
We recently took part in a government pilot scheme in Hampshire, contributing to a series of workshops for year seven parents to help them help their children in the transition from primary to secondary school.
We looked at the influence of the media and particularly the internet, on children and talked about strategies to deal with the more unhelpful and dangerous issues arising from them. We were really disappointed that this pilot was not taken any further because we, and the parents we met, found it an overwhelmingly positive experience.
In the meantime, copies of our really useful booklet Children and the Media are still available for £1 from the mediawatch-uk office. It offers practical advice to parents wishing to protect their children in this new media world.
WHEN IS OFFENSIVE NOT OFFENSIVE?
 "Of course regulation needs to evolve as consumers' habits change. The key is to move with the public. They expect broadcasters to have a duty of care when running phone-in programmes. They still value the watershed. They still expect protection against offensive material beamed unbidden into their living room, as opposed to what they actively go and get from walking to the newsagent or surfing the internet. "
Ben Bradshaw speaking at the Royal Television Society on 16 September 2009.
mediawatch-uk wonders how much broadcasters value the watershed. How much protection viewers are afforded by Ofcom against offensive material beamed into their living rooms, and why offensive material should be acceptable just because it's found at a newsagent or online!
|
|
|
|
|
