Channel 4, 26 and 27 July 2001, 22:35-23:10 and
00:10-00:45
A particular story of interest regarding
industry guidelines happened in 2001 with Chris Morris’s satirical media
parody: ‘Brass Eye: Paedophilia’. The Channel 4 programme was made to celebrate
the rebroadcast of the original series of ‘Brass Eye’; where programmes such as
‘Panorama’ are poked fun at, often using real celebrities for ‘mock’ interviews
without their prior knowledge. After the programme was aired, BBC news reported
1,500 complaints in total; ranging from the subject matter (paedophilia), to the
inclusion of children in the show and unfair treatment of the unknowing
participants (Phil Collins). (1) The channel 4 head at the time, Michael Jackson defended the
screening of the programme; writing that ‘the
programme had a real sense of social purpose’. He applauded the programmes
intention to underline the way in which the media sensationalizes pedophilia. (2)
At
the time of broadcast, the ITC (Independent Television Commission) was in place
to regulate broadcasts; however Ofcom has now succeeded it. (3) Archives of the
decisions made regarding the show can still be found on Ofcoms website.
According to these archives Channel 4 tried to take all of the necessary steps
to fall into line concerning the industry guidelines. Firstly the programme was
scheduled at 10.35, which is past the watershed. Ofcoms updated regulations go
hand in hand with this decision. Rule 1.3 states that ‘Children
must also be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is
unsuitable for them’. (6)
The piece also featured an announcement beforehand,
which included the words “Now on 4, a Brass Eye Special which takes an
uncompromising look at the subject of paedophilia. This programme contains
scenes which some viewers might find disturbing”. (4) The ITC recognized that the
ambition of the programme was to create media outrage. The makers wanted to
raise awareness regarding the general medias constant over exaggeration of
subjects such as paedophilia, by using outrageous satire. In a direct statement
to the ITC, Channel 4 explained that the media furore that happened after the
programme was aired ‘only highlighted the validity of the issues raised by the
programme’. The makers of the program wanted to create a discussion about
pedophilia in order to put the matter in perspective. Because of this, offence
is warranted and Channel 4 believed it was in the public’s interest. In Channel
4’s defense according to the ITC ‘The question raised by the programme was
whether the media’s treatment of the issue of pedophilia was fair, responsible and
informed’. (5) The ITC did not dispute this line of reasoning and the complaints specifically
regarding the programmes general subject matter were not upheld. (6)
The programme showed several scenes of a
sexual nature. Some scenes showed children in a sexualized setting. One scene
shows a pedophile lusting over a child from a car, the child is shown through
the pedophiles imagination; the child is shown in a pair of swimming trunks and
fully clothed several times in quick succession. Another scene shows a
contestant of a beauty pageant being paraded in the dressing room by her proud
parents. The parents undress her slightly to reveal what appears to be breast
implants. The chest area is completely censored and the blur is coloured as if
skin and nipples lay underneath. The parent lifts the child up, wobbles her and
exclaims ‘look, they jiggle’. Another moment showed the programmes host present
a child to a pedophile in stocks, asking him if he wanted to have sex with the
child. It can be assumed that the very nature of these scenes are to shock; but
the question is if these images go too far and go beyond the publics interest. It seems that all complaints were not upheld apart from these
particular ones about the inclusion of children. Channel four explained that
any shots of a child in a sexual situation were digitally altered afterwards to
create the disturbing effect. The children were apparently not actually in scenes
and were filmed separately. Only reputable child casting agencies were used and
all participants were fully briefed beforehand. (8) Rule 1.28 states ‘Due
care must be taken over the physical and emotional welfare and the dignity of
people under eighteen who take part or are otherwise involved in programmes’. It
also mentions that this needs to be in place regardless of whether or not
consent is given. (7) Concerning the physical inclusion of child actors; the ITC
recognized that channel 4 was not in breach.
However, it was the impact on the viewer that
warranted the ITC’s concern as the commission explained the programme had ‘generated strong and genuine distress in viewers to the programme,
who would have been unaware of the circumstances surrounding their filming’. (6) In other words,
the public would have no idea it was special effects and superimposition; the
viewer would simply see scenes as if there were no precautions to the dignity
of the child actors; hence they wouldn’t know the true context of the scenes
and would get offended. Regarding offence, Rule
2.3 of Ofcom guidelines mention; ‘broadcasters must ensure that material which
may cause offence is justified by the context’. Ofcom guidelines go on to
explain that ‘context’ can mean ‘the effect of the material on viewers or
listeners who may come across it unawares’. Further exploration of this rule show
Ofcom also takes into account ‘the degree of harm or offence likely to be
caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in programmes
generally’. (9) It seems that not enough care was taken by Channel 4 before
the airing of the programme to ensure the public was made fully aware of the
unsettling scenes involving children. Instead of the aforementioned warning, Channel
4 should have given more detail as to exactly what sort of things the audience
may find disturbing. Thus according to the ITC report ‘The
Commission considered that, on balance, this outweighed the public interest
purpose of the programme’. And concluded that this aspect of the complaints
should be upheld. (6)
Using
this explanation the ITC found the complaints to be ‘partly upheld’ and forced
Channel 4 to issue an apology. This decision may have been politically
influenced due to the increased pressure on the ITC to react to the programme.
The ITC was challenged by the then culture secretary Tessa Jowell to do
something about the programme. In a article for the Guardian she is quoted
saying: "As there are more broadcasters, there has got to be a swifter way
of adjudicating on programmes...there has to be a regulatory process the public
can have confidence in." (2)
Child protection minister Beverley
Hughes was also quoted describing the programme as "unspeakably
sick". (10) Coincidently, the programme and the inevitable debate
afterwards coincided with a change in law regarding sex offence regulations
involving offenders leaving prison and a larger number of people added to the
sex-offenders register. (2) The programme certainly managed its objective and came
through the resulting aftermath relatively unscathed.
Concerning the unjust treatment of
celebrities; Phil Collins was reported to have been seeking legal advice
regarding the incident. (11) Ofcoms guidelines explain what efforts producers must take
to make such things like hoax interviews ‘fair’; in section 7, Ofcom explains
that ‘material involving celebrities and those in the public eye can be used
without consent for broadcast, but it should not be used without a public
interest justification if it is likely to result in unjustified public ridicule
or personal distress.’ (12)
In the report the ITC doesn’t really
take a stance on this matter, simply stating in very obscure terms ‘that it would
be inappropriate for it to reach a conclusion on this aspect of the standards
complaints prior to its consideration of the fairness complaint.’ (6)
Regardless of the ITC’s stand it can be assumed that Collins was appeased as
BBC News reported the show was ‘held back’ due to a threat of legal action. (1)
(1) BBC News, 2001,
‘TV satire sparks 1,500 complaints’ [online] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1459590.stm
(2) The Guardian,
2001, TV spoof to bring tougher regulation’ [online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/jul/30/broadcasting.politics
(4) ITC Archive,
2001, ‘Brass Eye Special’ findings [online] Available at: <http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/bsc/pdfs/bulletin/brasseyespecialfinding.htm> found under heading: ‘Scheduling and
Warning’.
(5) ITC Archive,
2001, ‘Brass Eye Special’ findings [online] Available at: <http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/bsc/pdfs/bulletin/brasseyespecialfinding.htm> found under heading: ‘Public Debate’.
(6) ITC Archive,
2001, ‘Brass Eye Special’ findings [online] Available at: <http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/bsc/pdfs/bulletin/brasseyespecialfinding.htm> found under heading: ‘The commissions
finding’.
(7) Ofcom
Guidelines, 2001, Section 1 [online] Available at: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/protecting-under-18s/
(8) ITC Archive,
2001, ‘Brass Eye Special’ findings [online] Available at: <http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/bsc/pdfs/bulletin/brasseyespecialfinding.htm> found under heading: ‘The use of
children’.
(9) Ofcom
Guidelines, 2001, Section 2 [online] Available at: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/harmoffence/
(10) Mail Online,
2001, ‘TV watchdog demands apology for Brass Eye paedophile spoof’ [online]
Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-71037/TV-watchdog-demands-apology-Brass-Eye-paedophile-spoof.html
(11) Mail Online,
2001, Phil Collins seeks legal advice over Brass Eye stunt’ [online] Available
at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-61271/Phil-Collins-seeks-legal-advice-Brass-Eye-stunt.html
(12) Ofcom
Guidelines, 2001, Section 7 [online] Available at: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/fairness/
No comments:
Post a Comment