:-(
A former member
or ident I take it?
WH
Possibly a misuse of PP in Big Brother?
I'd argue that this sort of thing:
is in breach.
EDIT: Also, I'd say the sugar content of some of the above products is pretty close to (if not exceeds) the category of 'high sugar foods' which is prevented from PP.
Whataday
Founding member
Spotted at the end of today's OfCom Broadcast Bulletin under the heading "Investigations launched under the General Procedures for investigating
breaches of broadcast licences" is listed Channel 5. Wonder what that could be about.
breaches of broadcast licences" is listed Channel 5. Wonder what that could be about.
Possibly a misuse of PP in Big Brother?
Quote:
There must be ‘editorial justification' for a product to be placed in a programme. That means the product must be relevant to what the programme is about. The content of programmes shouldn't seem to be created or distorted, just to feature the placed products. Programmes also can't promote placed products or give them too much prominence.
I'd argue that this sort of thing:
is in breach.
EDIT: Also, I'd say the sugar content of some of the above products is pretty close to (if not exceeds) the category of 'high sugar foods' which is prevented from PP.
Last edited by Whataday on 3 February 2015 10:34am
GO
Possibly a misuse of PP in Big Brother?
I'd argue that this sort of thing:
is in breach.
EDIT: Also, I'd say the sugar content of some of the above products is pretty close to (if not exceeds) the category of 'high sugar foods' which is prevented from PP.
Arguably that placement is relevant to the show given that housemates do have to eat, there are plenty of kitchen scenes and cut-aways of various items in the house when the time is being read out are a long-term feature of the show.
But I agree the sugar thing probably will be the killer.
Spotted at the end of today's OfCom Broadcast Bulletin under the heading "Investigations launched under the General Procedures for investigating
breaches of broadcast licences" is listed Channel 5. Wonder what that could be about.
breaches of broadcast licences" is listed Channel 5. Wonder what that could be about.
Possibly a misuse of PP in Big Brother?
Quote:
There must be âeditorial justification' for a product to be placed in a programme. That means the product must be relevant to what the programme is about. The content of programmes shouldn't seem to be created or distorted, just to feature the placed products. Programmes also can't promote placed products or give them too much prominence.
I'd argue that this sort of thing:
is in breach.
EDIT: Also, I'd say the sugar content of some of the above products is pretty close to (if not exceeds) the category of 'high sugar foods' which is prevented from PP.
Arguably that placement is relevant to the show given that housemates do have to eat, there are plenty of kitchen scenes and cut-aways of various items in the house when the time is being read out are a long-term feature of the show.
But I agree the sugar thing probably will be the killer.
PF
Or perhaps it is due to complains from last nights 2 hour show? It was billed as two separate shows but was essentially one long show and after 9pm there were F words and some MF's thrown in too. Aren't there rules for any shows that start before the watershed and extending past it having to abide by pre-watershed rules for the entirety? Think of all those kiddies watching who heard such dreadful language!
GE
thegeek
Founding member
I can't quite tell if you're being facetious - that sort of breach would be dealt with as an individual complaint against a breach of a specific rule (eg generally accepted standards); and it also wouldn't make it into a bulletin published the next day.
"Breaches of broadcast licences" sounds like something more serious, such as not adhering to the terms of their licence; or possibly some slip-up with paperwork, like not properly notifying Ofcom of a change of ownership.
"Breaches of broadcast licences" sounds like something more serious, such as not adhering to the terms of their licence; or possibly some slip-up with paperwork, like not properly notifying Ofcom of a change of ownership.
WH
A bit of research online suggests it could be a General Breach of the licence. This means it isn't really covered by other procedures such as offensive programming etc
Various offences include:
Falling short of a programming quota.
Missing a licence fee payment.
Failing to provide sufficient subtitles/audio description/ EPG info.
Failure to respond to an Ofcom request for information.
Whataday
Founding member
"Breaches of broadcast licences" sounds like something more serious, such as not adhering to the terms of their licence; or possibly some slip-up with paperwork, like not properly notifying Ofcom of a change of ownership.
A bit of research online suggests it could be a General Breach of the licence. This means it isn't really covered by other procedures such as offensive programming etc
Various offences include:
Falling short of a programming quota.
Missing a licence fee payment.
Failing to provide sufficient subtitles/audio description/ EPG info.
Failure to respond to an Ofcom request for information.
PF
I can assure you I'm not, and am surprised you would think that I am. Considering the amount of swearing in last nights show, and a remark about someone saying they "wanted to slit that motherf***ers throat" at around 9:30pm amongst many other instances of F words, I'm pretty sure there were plenty of complaints about last nights Big Brother programme.
Excuse me for not knowing exactly what the breaches of a broadcast licence are/could be and coming to a (sensible in my eyes) conclusion that turned out to not be the case. Not everyone has such extensive knowledge of the broadcast industry as you seem to.
I can't quite tell if you're being facetious
Excuse me for not knowing exactly what the breaches of a broadcast licence are/could be and coming to a (sensible in my eyes) conclusion that turned out to not be the case. Not everyone has such extensive knowledge of the broadcast industry as you seem to.