Revision
Smut campaigner John Beyer, prompted to action by MWW’s highlighting his contradictory responses to Ofcom’s new Broadcasting Code, has issued a revised news release on the subject.
The revision amounts to a cautionary sentence added to an otherwise insanely upbeat statement:
The Code is a complex document that is open to wide interpretation and our fear remains that by emphasising freedom of expression and editorial justification by context, broadcasters have been given the ‘light touch’ regulation they want and will be able to show whatever harmful or offensive material they like as long as they adequately warn audiences.
This is more in line with his “sex and violence free-for-all” Daily Mail statement, but contradicts the sentence which immediately precedes it: “The onus is now very much on broadcasters to comply with the Code and stop screening violent and pornographic programmes that are likely to cause harm and offence”.
And claiming that the code is a “complex document that is open to wide interpretation” rather contradicts the opening sentence which says “it will end some of the the uncertainty and speculation […] because we now know what we have to work with”.
Oh dear.
It isn’t a particularly complex document. Freedom of expression is privileged provided it is appropriately contextualised; and “context” itself is clearly defined. The code, coupled with recent rulings in favour of complained-about programmes, make Ofcom’s position quite clear. As Julian Petley, co-chair of the Campaign for Press Freedom says in this week’s Broadcast,
Ofcom will give short shrift to those who drum up campaigns against shows they want banned.
