Вacklash – Sex and the Nanny State
BBC2, 5 November 2005, 18:45
Introduction
This was the third in a series of ‘authored documentaries’ in which people addressed
issues of ‘political correctness’. In this programme, Mariella Frostrup marked the
thirtieth anniversary of the Sex Discrimination Act. The programme explored what
she believed was the anomaly of the prevalence of sexuality in peoples’ daily lives
but its suppression in the workplace.
During the course of this programme, Mariella Frostrup’s narration was illustrated by
scenes from a country club where a group of female teachers, out of the workplace,
were letting their hair down and being entertained by male strippers.
One viewer complained that some of the material was unsuitable for broadcast
before the watershed.
Response
The BBC said that the early Saturday evening slot on BBC 2 has been established as
the home of programmes intended for an adult audience; this programme would
therefore not have gone beyond the general expectations of its likely audience. It
believed that the programme’s title and its subject matter would have alerted any
adult to the possible content of the scenes in question. There was no evidence of
children watching or that adults were concerned they might be.
Decision
While protecting those aged under 18 is an important element when considering
programmes that are broadcast before the watershed, some adults also rely on the
watershed as a guide to what they might encounter and arrange their viewing
choices accordingly. There is no question that the early scenes in the club created
the context to illustrate Mariella Frostrup’s point. These earlier images were
consistent with what broadcasters transmit pre-watershed. Initially, viewers saw
women enjoying what was, to all intents and purposes, a good humoured ‘Full Monty’
style performance. However, in our view, the imagery became far more sexual with
prolonged shots of simulated sex between the strippers and members of the
audience, visual references to masturbation and oral sex.
The cumulative effect of these sexual images went beyond what is generally
acceptable for a pre-watershed audience.
Breach of Rule 1.4
Live 8 Coverage
BBC1, 2 July 2005, 16:15
Introduction
We received 55 complaints about swearing (“fuck”, “motherfucker”, “bitch”, “shit”) and
offensive language (such as “nigga” and “blood claats” – an offensive slang term for
a woman) used by some musicians during their appearances and performances.
Complainants specifically mentioned Madonna, Razorlight, Green Day and Snoop
Dogg. A number of these viewers were watching with their children and were
surprised that the BBC had not used a delay system to prevent such language being
broadcast in the early evening.
The Code in force at the time was the former Broadcasting Standards Commission’s
(BSC) Code on Standards. We asked the BBC to respond to these complaints
bearing in mind the provisions of the Code. We also asked:
• whether the broadcaster was aware in advance of the tracks that the
musicians intended to perform;
• why an apology had not been given following Snoop Dogg’s performance.
The BBC submitted two statements, in addition to copies of The Live8 Story, a
programme broadcast just before Christmas about the build-up to the concert and
events on the day.
Response
The BBC regretted the offence caused to viewers by the use of strong language in
the afternoon and early evening of the concert, “particularly the stream of expletives
and racist terms used by the act Snoop Dogg.” Prior to the concert, BBC senior
management had considered the possibility of such material being broadcast. The
production team had been able to speak to some of the performers who might be a
risk, to remind them of the worldwide TV audience and the need for their
performances to reflect that. However, the broadcaster had been forbidden direct
access to some other performers. Aware that Snoop Dogg might pose problems, the
BBC had informally approached his record company, which had confirmed that he
would be playing the “TV versions” (i.e. excluding the swearing) of his songs.
Following the concert, the record company had apologised to the BBC and explained
that it was a case of the performer “going into gig mode and forgetting the time of
day.”
The broadcaster said that the question of whether to use a time delay had been
considered at a senior level but was rejected as “wholly inappropriate and
impractical”. It said that Live8 was planned, billed and taken part in by performers on
the basis that the television coverage of the event would be shown live to audiences
around the world. The use of any degree of delay would have violated these
expectations, seriously called into question the credibility of the BBC with its licence
payers and possibly jeopardised its involvement with this important event. Live
transmission was an obligation under the contract between the BBC and Live8.
Additionally, the BBC said that to use an editing process which was “guaranteed to
be effective” would have involved delaying the transmission by at least two hours.
Finally, as other UK media were covering the event in full or in part, a delay could
have baffled people who were following the concert by using more than one source
of coverage.
The broadcaster said that normal procedures had been put in place to deal with
unexpected strong language, including plans for an on-screen apology at the first
available opportunity if necessary. The BBC said that, as The Live8 Story
documented, tensions had existed even before the concert. On the day itself
however, one repeated theme was the problem of the concert potentially overrunning,
due to the number of bands performing, and, if it did, how people would get
home on public transport. During Snoop Dogg’s performance, as shown in The Live8
Story, an emergency meeting was held to discuss the problem. This placed great
pressure on the concert’s organisers which had repercussions for the BBC’s
production team. The timing of the meeting was not of the BBC’s choosing – indeed
no-one from the BBC was present at the meeting.
Perhaps as a result, there was a confrontation between the organisers and senior
editorial figures from the BBC which meant that the two key BBC editorial personnel
missed much of the performance by Snoop Dogg and were unable to set the apology
procedure in motion. At the same time, other BBC personnel were involved in dealing
with other serious operational problems (such as the virtual collapse of the cellphone
system which made any communication extremely difficult) and the difficulties which
the overrunning of the event would have caused with relation to link-ups with other
broadcasters. Therefore no apology was made as the key BBC personnel were
unaware of the problem until approximately twenty minutes later, as they were fully
occupied dealing with other issues. Had they been, Jonathan Ross would have been
instructed to make a full apology on behalf of the BBC. By the time the extent of the
problem during Snoop Dogg’s performance became apparent to the senior BBC
editorial team, it was felt that the moment for a full apology had passed and that to
have returned to the issue would have merely drawn further attention to the original
offence.
The BBC said that it intended to ensure safeguards were “even more robust” for any
future event of this scale and importance. Usually a host broadcaster would have
some say in the choice of acts, their running order and the material to be performed –
it was not so in this case. However, to guard against recurrence, the broadcaster said
that if similar constraints applied again, it would consider the possibility of using a
time delay for bands performing pre-watershed which might use offensive language
in their acts. It would also consider using the studio to pull away from a performance,
should expletives occur unexpectedly.
Additionally it would take further precautions to protect its production staff from
unwarranted interference by third parties to ensure that they were able at all times to
monitor and react to events on air as they unfolded. To ensure the immediate
reporting of serious on-air issues, and a rapid response to them, it would arrange to
have “an additional, dedicated editorial figure within the control vehicle, monitoring
the output at all times … with easy access to both the senior production team and the
presenter.” It would also consider insisting on a post-watershed slot for acts which
may cause problems, like Snoop Dogg.
Decision
This one-off, live concert was a significant global event. By its very nature, the
coverage was bound to attract a considerable child audience. We welcome the
BBC’s apologies and assurances, and recognise that it experienced a variety of
unexpected difficulties during the concert. The BBC programme, The Live8 Story,
which followed the event chronologically, documented that Snoop Dogg’s
performance occurred at the same time as a crisis meeting which had required the
participation of Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It is
therefore apparent that the BBC had to cope with a number of tensions that day.
The swearing and offensive language referred to by the complainants started at just
before 18:00 when coverage from Berlin of “Green Day” performing “American Idiot”
included the word “fuck”. This was followed at approximately 18:30 by Snoop Dogg’s
performance, which included swearing and racially offensive terms almost from the
start (“motherfucker”, “fuck”, “nigga”, “shit”, “bitch” and “blood claats”). This set lasted
for nearly 15 minutes. Following that, expletives (“fucking”) were used by two
performers at 18:56 and 19:18. The subtitles for these performers’ speech (at 18:56
and 19:18) also included the words “fucking”. The BBC state that it was not possible
for it to apologise for Snoop Dogg’s performance as it was not aware of the content
until twenty minutes later. Yet, as noted above, there were other incidents that
occurred over a period of nearly one hour and twenty minutes and for which
apologies were not given. The latter incidents occurred during a time when,
according to the BBC, it had regained control of its compliance arrangements.
We recognise that the BBC encountered difficulties as a consequence of its various
contractual arrangements. However, the BBC remained responsible for ensuring that
its output did not contravene the Code.
The BBC is a broadcaster with vast experience of covering live events. However, we
noted that:
• a short delay was not implemented – despite the reputation of some of the
performers. Broadcasters typically use delays of between 7 seconds and 5
minutes when broadcasting live material with the potential to cause offence,
yet the BBC did not do this;
• when unforeseen problems occurred, the BBC did not ensure that a senior
editorial figure retained responsibility for monitoring the output from this very
high profile event. Given that the broadcaster knew it had been unable to
liaise satisfactory with all the performers prior to the concert, the need for this
should have been foreseen;
• there was no senior editorial figure responsible for monitoring output at the
time of Snoop Dogg’s performance who could have authorised a broadcast
apology or a cutaway to the studio;
• although various offensive words were broadcast over a period of more than
an hour, it was not felt appropriate to give a more general apology later in the
coverage, even taking into account the BBC’s position that this could not have
been given just after Snoop Dogg’s performance.
The Code notes that “the television watershed….is well established as a scheduling
marker to distinguish clearly between programmes intended to be suitable for family
viewing and those intended primarily for adults.” In relation to swearing and offensive
language, it states that “the repeated use of expletives can cause significantly greater
offence than isolated incidents which are justified by the context.” The Code
continues: “Broadcasters must be alert to, and guard against, the use of such
language in live programmes.” We consider the BBC should have anticipated an
audience for this event which would include a significant number of children; and we
therefore consider that the broadcast of this material was inappropriate, compounded
by the lack of any apology.
For these reasons, we consider that the BBC failed to take sufficient steps to guard
against the use of swearing in this live coverage, as required by the Code.
These aspects of the Live8 coverage were in contravention of the Code
