Flawed Ofcom Research - broadcast code

lordgarretty

If you wondered how some of the decisions regarding the newly installed broadcast code were arrived at this document makes painfully interesting reading - it also highlights the incompetence of our chums at Southwark.

http://www.ofcomwatch.co.uk/2005/09...nt-and-guidance

From Ofcomwatch:

'Ofcom’s latest batch of documents was of interest from a number of angles. The way in which some of the research (Language and sexual imagery in broadcasting a contextual investigation) was carried out was certainly worthy of comment:

“The research was qualitative in nature. This means it explored in some depth the views of respondents in order to give broadcasters and Ofcom directional steers. It was not a quantitative study and so the results cannot be extrapolated to represent the views of the wider population. As such it contributes to Ofcom’s understanding but is not in itself conclusive about how any individual issue should be treated. Nor can it be used to create hard and fast rules about when and how content can be broadcast. What the research can do is indicate issues that broadcasters may need to consider in scheduling content and in deciding whether to broadcast information about content. It may also indicate issues Ofcom may need to take account of in considering cases and complaints.”

It is unclear why Ofcom would wish to be guided by a non-representative sample in any policy matters that affect the population at large. In particular why were a disproportionate number of women (56%) and ethnic minority groups (35%) represented? The stated purpose was to indicate what broadcasters may need to consider when scheduling content and what Ofcom may need to take into account in considering complaints, but it is difficult to understand why this purpose would not have been more fully met by choosing a representative sample of the population.

The following paragraph pointed out some of the limitations of the research where audience expectations were concerned:

“In particular, it is worth pointing out that the participants who took part in this research were not necessarily the likely viewers or listeners for the extracts used in the research and so their expectations were not necessarily those of the actual viewers and listeners for the programmes in which the material was originally used.”

If the intention was to consider the likely audience when setting standards (as is specifically required under the Communications Act) why not carry out research amongst the actual viewers of these programs? Why were people who would never choose to watch reality TV shows asked to comment on them for the purpose of giving Ofcom a directional steer?

“As with the language clips, women were far more offended than men in general (though again, it should be pointed out that there was a high proportion of British Asian women in the session, which would have boosted the ‘offensiveness’ rating among women).”

So why were there a high proportion of British Asian women in the session?

The new release of the guidance notes for the protection of the under eighteens gives no guidance concerning sex or nudity merely references to research documents, unlike most other areas of the code which have been commented upon. Possibly the degree of controversy and disagreement in this area has left Ofcom with little to say on the matter. It is interesting to note that the research findings in this area were not considered worthy of comment in the guidance (again from Language and sexual imagery in broadcasting a contextual investigation):

“For all groups, a clear distinction was made between nudity and sexual imagery. Most were keen to emphasise that nudity, where it is non-sexual, was not offensive at all.”

Perhaps Ofcom did not want to highlight that nudity was no longer considered offensive in case broadcasters might be tempted to include further nudity which would be seen by some as a move in the wrong direction…?

Another comment from the same report was also worthy of comment:

“Finally, even if not personally offensive, the use of strong language was considered uncomfortable for those viewing in a family situation. This was true for parents, empty nesters with grandchildren and younger people, all of whom view from time to time in the family context.”

“It’s awfully embarrassing getting up and turning a programme off in the middle - if someone else is there - just because you don’t like it.” (Female, non-parent, 55+, BC1, terrestrial)”

Why is this so embarrassing? Answer because the person switching off is effectively deciding what is appropriate for everyone else. They are making viewing decisions for other people based on their own levels of offence.

It is a great pity that television regulation in general is not perceived in a similar light - an embarrassing intrusion that may sometimes be necessary but that is more often than not simply unwelcome. Ofcom effectively act in loco parentis for the entire adult population making the experience for some reminiscent of watching television with an ever-present vocal elderly relative in charge of the remote. No doubt some would disagree, but all I would say is roll on IPTV, then we can have some interesting debates!

rolfw

Very interesting, so that is how decisions are made.

__________________

Rolf If you enjoy our site, you can help support it by wearing our unique branded merchandise, you can do this by clicking on my baseball cap, making a direct donation with Paypal by clicking on the Donation button below, or using our site supporting advertisers, to do this, click on the central image below