Beyer subdued at Ofcom ruling
Given that Ofcom is still using the ill-defined Broadcasting Standards Commission Code of Guidance it is not surprising that they have reached this conclusion and rejected the unprecedented number of complaints. The finding fails to take into account the BBC’s Producers’ Guidelines and it does not express a view on whether the production could be blasphemous within the terms of the criminal law. Ofcom does acknowledge that a very great deal of offence has been caused but the finding gives overriding priority to “freedom of expression” for broadcasters. This is not what might be expected from a regulator with a Content Board that was established by Parliament to represent the public interest.
Er, yes it is.
I doubt Beyer wants to draw too much attention to it – after all, it’s a pretty thorough demolition of his entire argument by a high authority.
Most of those offended by the Springer opera didn’t even watch it and were Christian and moral lobbyists winging to try and get it pulled before broadcast.
Beyer might want to consider whether forcing relegious views on others should come before freedom of expression.
Why assert when one can argue? If anyone has the figures for whether the public interest is accurately represented in this way, then quote them. Otherwise, by asserting that it is being accurately represented all you are saying is that you want this to be the case, not having done the statistical research yourselves.
There was a recent survey in the Express where 90% said there was too much sex on tv (details from Mediamarch). Obviously youre not saying that the 90% were people whose opinion doesnt count and the 10% were people who do count. But if that is not what you are saying, what is it that you are saying?
A survey in the Express. Do you consider the readers of the Express to make up a viable representative section of the British population?
People who respond to those surveys are more often than not those who have strong feelings on the subject. I’d wager that most people just don’t really concern themselves with such trivialties as the amount of sex on TV. I know I don’t.
Yeah, I’d have said the methodology of that survey left it with as much validity as coming up with the numbers using a dartboard.
For instance, a recent survey by Digital Spy indicated 90% of a self selected sample thought the amount of sex and violence on television was ‘okay’ or ‘should be increased’… Self selected samples really aren’t very relevant.
Besides, the term “in the public interest” has never, ever meant “what a majority of the public want”.
And of course, a survey by a newspaper of readers of that particular newspaper doesn’t really count for a whole lot given that people tend to choose a newspaper that roughly corresponds with their opinions. Doesn’t really provide a workable basis for any assertion, really.
Beyer was on Five Live briefly this morning – they were asking a whole swathe of people for their views on what they want from the new Government and he was calling for the Obscene Publications Act to be tightened. I wasn’t really paying much attention, though I kept wishing the interviewer would ask him if he still wanted the Black and White Minstrels back.
Hmm…maybe he should be lobbying ITV for it. They need something to replace Celebrity Wrestling.
Im not sure whether the survey was done on Express readers, though it was certainly done by the Express.
Even if it was done on Express readers, anyone who pooh-poohs them is clearly no democrat. The whole principle of democracy is that headcount is valuable, and each individual person and vote is valuable. (Im not a democrat, but then I never claimed to be whereas most English ppl do claim to be.)
On Adam’s point- I totally agree, in fact this is a point I often make. But the fact remains that the view is held by a constituency large enough to justify the printing of a national paper. Make that 2 or 3 national papers, including successful ones.
Andy –
I totally agree that ‘in the public interest’ does not mean ‘what the public want’. I have met ppl who confuse the two, including ppl working in broadcasting.
Given that the show was an intelligent satire on current television using fictional characters (the devil, jeebus etc) then I’d say it definitely is in the public interest to have such things aired.
How on earth one is supposed to produce figures to show whether the public interest is served is beyond me. You place far too much reliance on dubious stats doc. Either that or you are well aware that statistics about whether one individual tv show is in the public interest or not could never be produced and you are simply trying to frame the argument in a way that means you’re guaranteed to win without ever having to make a rational or persuasive case for your point of view
But if you can’t produce figures, then on what basis are you saying that the public interest is being served?
The truth is that you dont know whether it is or not. So why claim that you do know?
All that any one person can know is whether they and their friends are happy (and anyone’s friends constitute 0.001% of the UK population).
Who has said that the public interest is being served?
Beyer implied it wasn’t, but on what grounds? Where are his figures? Who is he to judge this?
I merely pointed out that it is impossible to produce the figures you mendaciously asked for (if it wasn’t mendaciosly then it was certainly foolishly, you pick whichever you think most applies), then tried to show by argument why i thought it was in the public interest.
Just out of interest, if you’re not a democrat, what are you?
A theocrat?
Isnt the point that no-one has the figures – yet- to show whether it is in the public interest or not – and until we have, then whenever we claim that we know whether it is or not we give ourselves away for what we are. We give ourselves away as ppl who think (or rather hope) the majority is like us. Wishes dressed up as facts. I hope I dont do this too often myself.
If the truth is ‘I dont know’, why do ppl so often claim that they do know? Propaganda for their own point of view is the probable reason. But if ppl are thus exposed as propagandists, all the less reason to listen to them.
As Im not a democrat I dont think stats of what ppl think are necessarily a good basis for a course of action. The majority is not always right. Besides, many many people are convention-bound, and will follow the crowd (or their friends, or fashion, or ‘cool’). So in a sense the stats are less important to me than they would be to democrats. They are still very important to me, because I believe the more info the better.
Im a meritocrat, though this involves being a democrat on a good many issues. I also doubt whether the UK is wholly a democracy anyway. Ppl are controlled by all sorts of things, which is not necessarily always bad, but often is.
Christopher….. here you say “no-one has the figures – yet- to show whether it is in the public interest or not – and until we have, then whenever we claim that we know whether it is or not”
Here you want the stats, yet elsewhere you say that the stats are rotten and highly flexible.
So why do you want the stats if they’re, as you say, rotten?
No, you fucktard, it isn’t. My point, as clearly given above is that it would be impossible to provide figures as to whether or not the public intererst is being served by a particular show. In fact, it is impossible to provide any statistics to show whether or not anything is in the public interest. Ever. Such things must be arrived at by reasoning and persuasion – argument.
Given your claim elsewhere that stats are rotten, I’m tempted to think that your call for figures here is mendacious rather than simply foolish. You’re asking us to build you a straw man that even your limited critical faculties can destroy.
To address the point that nobody can claim to know what’s in the public interest, if you read what I typed in #10, you’ll see that I didn’t claim to know, but was making a case for why I though it was in the public interest. You utterly failed to respond to this with any reason(s) why it’s not and carried on banging on about figures.
In conceding that stats are ‘rotten’ Im being nice (conceding a point) to those who are suspicious of them. Actually (as I have repeatedly demonstrated in the past by appealing to stats) Im essentially pro-stats. Why? Because, as I said in the bit from the same posting which you didnt quote, they are ‘the least bad criterion’.
Tom-
I think that if that was all there was to it about JSTO, then youd be right. But many watchers wont have had the sensitivity to satire to analyse it so thoroughly and correctly. Presenting dubious material in the interests of satire can be counterproductive – rather like writing a book against pornography replete with images thereof.
So you’re pro stats even though you think they’re rotten?
Does that make sense to anybody?
Read my point #16. They’re highly susceptible to abuse, but they are still the best (or ‘least worst’) criterion we have. Does that make sense to anybody?
I think I know what you mean…..
Any stats that “prove” your side of the argument are reasonable, well thought out, and well researched stats.
Any stats that don’t “prove” your side of the argument are rotten and highly susceptible to abuse.
Maybe I’m reading you wrong, but I find it strange that someone who frequently insists on stats to back up an argument doesn’t seem to hold them in much regard.
I do actually. I was just being nice to those who dont, by conceding that stats are fallible.
‘In much regard’: I would compare it to a class test where the top mark that anybody gained was 34%. The top mark was ‘not much’. But it was still higher than any of the other marks.
I disagree when you say that “most watchers won’t have had the sensitivity to satire to analyse it so thoroughly and correctly”.
*There was a documentary before it where it was pointed out exactly what it was and how the authors intended it to come across.
*Most people are Jerry-literate and thus get the basic references and starting points.
*Pretty much all of the population are also bible-literate (to the extent that they recognise the characters of god, the devil, jeebus and mary).
*The audience (it should only have been an adult audience, being screened at that time of night and with that many warnings and that much publicity – if there were any children watching then it’s the parents who are at fault, not the broadcasters) should have a good understanding of satire (given how much of it there is available).
So all in all, I reckon that most people understood it and enjoyed it intelligently, rather than just laughing at the swearing
I certainly hope so. I only spoke to a small sample most of whom clearly didnt – but a small sample is just that: small.
Out of interest, where your sample mostly fellow CV members? Had many of them watched Jerry Sringer before?
I’m not trying to score a cheap point here, but am genuinely interested
where? where? ‘tatd! obviously i meant were. damn that lovely rum.
christ! I can’t even insult myself accurately tonight. “‘tatd!” should, of course, have read “‘tard!”
No- my sample were prospective viewers.
aaah, so they were only prospective viewers who hadn’t had the opportunity to view the preceding documentary. It certainly put the show into context. And context is everything
Context is a lot, albeit not everything. Content (ie unanalysed content) and perception also come into the equation.
What do you think the viewer-figures for the documentary were like compared with those for the show?
I’d wager that they compared favourably, especially as it went out before the show was broadcast.
Anyone know the comparative figures?
Of course, one didn’t need to see the preceding documentary to understand it anyway. It was quite clear that it was satire on the television culture, if only from its title
What proportion of the viewing population would even be able to define the word satire? Though I agree that a higher proportion would recognise satire when they saw it, even if they couldnt assign it a generic name.
What proportion, I wonder, would successfully identify what was neing satirised? Wouldnt a good few think Jesus was being satirised to an extent?
No, considering the title, the main character and the setting mean only an idiot would think it wasn’t a satire/mickey-take of Jerry Springer and that type of TV show in general.
Exactly, they will all see that. But that’s not the point – cos why cant a show be a satire on JSpringer and on Jesus simultaneously?
Nobody is denying that a show can’t be a satire on Springer and Jesus simultaneously. JS:TO does not fall into this category however.
Nor would there be anything wrong if it did. The whole point of satire is to lampoon people/ideas. Jesus (wether fictional or not) falls into the category of things that deserve satire.
Yes: JSTO does not fall into that category, but less sophisticated ppl could be forgiven for forming the impression that it did. They turn on, and they see less-than-reverent behaviour towards Jesus.
And it’s hard to argue that less-than-reverent behaviour -other than historical reconstruction- can ever be part of great art, anyway. If one doesnt have reverence one has missed the point, & is in denial about the fact that we live in an awe-inspiring reverence-inspiring world. Note that it is never the best ppl that lack reverence. Why not? COnclusion: even the more sophisticated viewers have a case to answer.
I felt ‘deserve satire’ was a bit strong. The only ppl that ‘deserve’ it are those that need to be taught a lesson.
One should only be reverent towards jeebus if one genuinely believes him to be the son of god (let alone to have ever existed, but i’ll leave that debate for the other comments columns).
It’s also a nonsense to argue tyhat great art is always reverent. Revering what, precisely?
Always its subject? What if its subject is not worthy of reverence in the eyes of the artist. Think of Dali’s Lobster Telephone, which was a satire on the failed telephone diplomacy of the 1930s, that was hardly reverential, now was it?
Anyway, nobody ever claimed that JSTO was great art, it looks like you’re trying to build up a great straw man that you can take down a peg or 2.
Why the hell should a show satirising Jerry Springer have any reference to the “awe-inspiring” world? It’s utterly irrelevant to the show it’s satirising’s focus, which is all about disagreements between big-mouthed small-brained, american slappers.
Your position that less sophisticated viewers might mistake it for a historical account of jeebus, is ludicrously condescending, and is reminiscent of the film censors, who claim they are able to view images that would warp a lesser person’s mind because they are strong-willed intelligent people who are above that sort of thing. It’s a nonsense (but at least it’s consistent with your meritocratic position).
The fact that we live in an awe-inspiring world intricate beyond our imaginings is the massive and inescapable factual foundation for our life and attitudes. Any attitudes which are out of synch with this foundational fact are either simply incorrect/inaccurate, or naive, or deliberately rebellious: just inauthentic & inappropriate.
By the way, I agree with you on the film censors. There is no need for either them or the public to view the images.
re #38: what? how is this relevant? JSTO was sending up something that has nothing to do with this wonderful world of ours and everything to do with bigmouthed small-brained yankee slappers shrieking at each other, and it did so with wit and style. what possible place does this world of wonder have in such work? none, that’s what. and nor should it.
If it had been attempting to talk about the beauty of the wider world and had turned into jsto, then it would have failed, but it didn’t. to have the likes of you dictating what things programmes should be about is disgusting, ludicrous and utterly abhorrent to anyone with a brain.
#38 doesn’t describe the way one compartment of life is. It describes the way that everything is. The way the real world is is something we cannot escape from unless by escaping from the world we live in – which would be impossible. Irreverence, therefore, is always inappropriate. It would be inappropriate even if the universe were a million times less marvellous than it actually is.