Good Morning Britain was found to be in breach of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code after ‘travel icon’ Judith Chalmers was a guest on the programme and plugged a tourism company on air. The presenter’s attempts to move the interview away from a commercial plug – including by interjecting, “Sounds great” – actually came across as an endorsement, Ofcom ruled. The programme was found to be in breach of two rules on commercial promotion. The case is detailed in the Ofcom Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin number 393 (December 2019), here.
A Christian radio station was found to be in breach of its licence when it stopped broadcasting to an area of London – because its power supplier knocked down the building from which its power was supplied, without warning. The station knew noting until it went off air. It was found to have failed to alert Ofcom, which found it to be in “serious and continuing” breach of its licence.
The case is detailed in the Ofcom Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin number 393 (December 2019), here.
A stump mic used on a Sky broadcast of an Ashes cricket match picked up the sound of a batsman swearing strongly after being bowled out. Commentator David Gower was also caught swearing when he believed his mic was switched off. Sky took action to prevent a repeat of swearing being broadcast on live TV before the watershed, including monitoring audio from mics, but was still found to be in breach of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.
The episode highlights the need to anticipate problems with live broadcasts and take steps to prevent them.
The case is set out in the Ofcom Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin number 343 (December 2019), here.
Emily Bell, one of the world’s most highly respected commentators on media, has written a post for the Columbia Journalism Review that draws together strands of important thinking on the dilemmas involved in terrorism fed by social media, and the emerging wisdom on the ethics involved for mainstream media in following it. Messages include: “Do not report facts until they are verified, do not focus on the perpetrator over the victims, do not use sensational language that might glamorize the terrorist.” Read it here (and find many more internationally-focused articles on the media in the same place).
Days after the New Zealand mosque shootings, copies of the killer’s live web footage were circulating online, despite attempts to remove it. Wired magazine said detecting such footage using artificial intelligence was “a lot harder than it sounds”, hence the use of human moderators trained to look for warning signs in Live videos, like “crying, pleading, begging” and the “display or sound of guns”. Facebook was tagging all footage removed to prevent it being reposted but Google said it would not take down extracts deemed to have news value, putting it, said Wired, “in the tricky position of having to decide which videos are, in fact, newsworthy”. The piece goes on to look at the ethics of YouTube and Facebook policies that mean offensive footage may be removed, unless posted by a news organisation. YouTube has been criticised for removing videos of atrocities that were valued by researchers. The article points to the lack of regulation, or “big stick” incentives for social media companies to solve the problem. Read the piece here.
“A video of a terrorist attack may be informative news reporting if broadcast by the BBC, or glorification of violence if uploaded in a different context by a different user.” – Google lawyer Kent Walker, writing in 2017. Read his op-ed here.
Talkradio host James Whale said he was “devastated” that listeners were upset by an interview in which he challenged a sex assault victim for not pressing her case – saying her attacker could strike again. It was seen as victim-blaming. The victim was a contributor who unexpectedly revealed she had been attacked. Ofcom said Whale’s “significant lack of sensitivity” could discourage sex offence victims from talking about their experiences. The complaint was dealt with under the Harm and Offence section of the Ofcom Code. Read more.
Talkradio host George Galloway earned a heavy rebuke for a “biased and unbalanced” show on the Salisbury poisoning affair. Ofcom found “serious breaches” of the broadcasting code. People who disagreed with his “dissident” views were dismissed as inmates of Broadmoor Hospital, which houses criminals with mental illness. Ofcom said Galloway’s fame as a radical did not exempt it from having to achieve due impartiality. Read more.
As of the middle of 2018, there was no regulator for social media in the UK, noted the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in its blog on 13 July 2018. A tricky topic: is it really feasible to regulate the content of individual users? Can platforms realistically keep on top of all the content?
Across the European Union, TV and on-demand video is regulated under the Audio Visual Media Services Directive (known as the AVMS Directive). In Britain the actual work of regulating broadcast and on-demand is carried out by Ofcom.
At the start of 2019, video on newspaper and magazine websites was not regulated by Ofcom: it fell under the ambit of the print and online regulators – IPSO for most publishers. The same was true for online-only publications signed up to IPSO.
The EU could change that.
Proliferation of multi-media content meant “newspaper websites could, in theory, start to resemble video-sharing platforms,” said the IPSO blog.
But this website notes that the ethical codes for newspaper sites are nowhere near as demanding as for broadcast media.
Read the full IPSO blog post here.
An LBC presenter said it was “stupid” that a guide horse was being trained for a blind man who was afraid of dogs – then questioned the BBC’s decision to employ a blind man at all. The station said the presenter was known for his ascerbic style, but Ofcom said that did not lessen the belittling of blind people. Staff would receive training. Read more.
A community radio station was fined £10,000 after a presenter turned up late, let himself into the unstaffed studio and broadcast a live programme in which he made derogatory comments – at length – about members of the Ahmadiyya community. Read more on the Radio Today website, here.