[RichardG]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...=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."

[Niamh.]

Oh fgs

[arista]

Got to give Ofcom something to do

[Jamie.]

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_]

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]

Ofcom can **** off
Dirty load of *****

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Christmas Neeve

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Christmas Neeve

Well, all the mothers I know have better thing to do then complain about bad language on TV

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

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Tom

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

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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 .....

[Mystic Mock]

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_]

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.

[Tregard]

11 seconds after the watershed is still after the watershed.

Screw you, Ofcom, go do something useful for christ sake.

[Omah]

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 .....

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Omah

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 .....

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.

[Doogle]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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 .....

Originally Posted by Jack_

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 .....

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Tom

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.

Originally Posted by Omah

What do you mean by "elderly"?

By definition (mine obviously, people have differing ones) - people that have retired around the average retirement age.

Originally Posted by Omah

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?

Originally Posted by Omah

In my "real life", swearing is not a regular part of the vernacular .....

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.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Jack_

So you're trying to say that 13 year olds would perhaps complain about this sort of content?

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 .....

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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 .....

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Jack_

You can bring your own 'real life' into it as much as you want.

Well, you certainly are ......