Because their server is down, I've done a cut and paste.
(http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/pr...cb_20/?a=87101)
Some of the complaints are pretty daft, but as usual ofcom have made pretty fair and sensible decisions.
Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 18 October 2004
19
Big Brother 5
Channel 4, various dates
Introduction
Separate to the altercation (see previous finding), we
received 240 complaints about various other issues in Big
Brother 5. We asked Channel 4 to respond particularly to the
concerns listed below.
8 July, 22.00
We received 25 complaints about this edition, which
included the housemates playing ‘truth, dare or kiss’.
Complainants likened the content to a ‘porn’ film and said
that it was inappropriate, especially as Big Brother attracts a
young audience.
14 July, 00.20
One viewer complained about the use, in a text message
from a viewer, of the term ”jungle bunny” to describe Victor.
The complainant felt this was a racist term.
20 July, 22.00
Four viewers complained about this edition, which featured
Michelle and Stuart apparently having sex under the table.
The complainants felt that ‘real sex’ should not be shown on
television.
22 July, 22.00
We received nine complaints about offensive language and
Victor’s aggressive behaviour. The complainants noted that
while the first use of the word “****” was not bleeped,
subsequent occurrences were. Viewers also objected to other
strong language, including variants of “****”, which were
used in an “aggressive manner” throughout the programme.
Response
8 and 20 July
Channel 4 said that the sexual content of the programmes
was minimal and entirely appropriate for the time at which
they were scheduled for broadcast. There was clearly a
significant amount of nudity, and high-spirited behaviour
whilst naked, but that did not in the Channel’s view equate
in any way to ‘soft porn’.
14 July
The brief text message referring to “jungle bunny”
inadvertently appeared on screen and Channel 4 said it was
clearly regrettable. All text messages first passed through a
profanity filter that automatically scanned the message for
words that may be considered offensive, as contained in the
filter’s pre-defined list. Every text message that successfully
Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 18 October 2004
20
made it through the profanity filter was then reviewed
individually by a trained moderator. However a moderator’s
judgment will inevitably contained an element of
subjectivity. There is unfortunately always a risk that a
judgment made by even the most experienced moderator
may occasionally fall on the wrong side of the line. Channel 4
accepted that for many people the term ‘jungle bunny’ was
offensive and accordingly accepted that this message was
not an appropriate one for broadcast.
As soon as it was aware that this particular message had
gone out Tempero [the company supplying the moderation]
were contacted and an explanation demanded.
Unfortunately the profanity filter had not picked up the term
as it works by filtering single words only, and therefore
although the term ‘jungle bunny’ was on the list it was not
added to the filter because neither of the single words which
make up the phrase are considered offensive. Consequently
this message was left to be reviewed by the moderator. The
moderator in this case, although experienced, was a young
person who was not aware that the term ‘jungle bunny’ was
offensive. In the context of the topic she had genuinely
believed that the term was describing Victor as ‘gentle’ and
‘fluffy’ – a bunny rather than the ‘jungle-cat’ he professed to
be. ‘Jungle bunny’ as most people over 25 are aware, was a
term coined in the middle of last century and commonly
used in the 1960’s and 1970’s as a derogatory term to
describe people of native African origins. However the term
is no longer used with anything like the frequency it was.
22 July
In terms of language, Channel 4 was entirely satisfied that
Shell’s use of the word “****” in her confrontation with
Victor was editorially justified. It was Shell’s use of this word
that provoked Victor’s behaviour. It was therefore essential
for viewers to know what was said in order to understand
Victor’s reaction. This matter was given very careful
consideration editorially at the highest level and it was
concluded that it was justified to show the use of the word
by Shell. However, Channel 4 felt that further broadcast of
the word was unnecessary.
Decision
8 July, 22.00
The programme was shown at 22:00 and was preceded by a
warning referring to …“nudity and strong language from the
start”. These sorts of antics are now common place in the Big
Brother house and most viewers are likely to know what to
expect. Considering that the programme was broadcast well
after the watershed and preceded by a clear and
unambiguous warning, we do not think that this edition of
Big Brother exceeded viewers’ expectations.
14 July, 00.20
Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 18 October 2004
21
The transmission of the term ‘jungle bunny’ appears to be a
genuine mistake by someone who was simply not familiar
with the term. It is an expression, while still offensive, that
has ceased to be commonly used. We are confident that the
broadcast of this term was an isolated one. We welcome
that, as a result of this incident, the general issue of
potentially offensive terms for minority groups in Channel 4’s
interactive services output has been discussed at a senior
level and Tempero has researched a more comprehensive list
of racist expressions and circulated it to the attention of all
their moderators.
As an added back up, Channel 4 said that all future
moderation staff would be made aware of this incident and
reminded of the importance of not releasing any text
message they had any doubt about or were unfamiliar with.
The broadcaster did not in any way seek to condone or
justify the general use of the phrase 'jungle bunny' as an
abusive term. Given the circumstances and the manner in
which Channel 4 has handled it, we consider this matter
resolved.
20 July, 22.00
Stuart and Michelle were seen constructing and entering a
‘tent’ under the table. The broadcast shots of the ‘tent’, with
the couple inside, were selected very carefully to ensure they
were not gratuitous or explicit. Viewers could see very little.
No nudity or actual sexual activity was broadcast. Viewers
were left to speculate as to exactly what went on in the
‘tent’.
Considering that the programme was broadcast well after
the watershed, preceded by an appropriate warning and
contained no sexual nudity, we don’t believe this edition of
Big Brother breached the Programme Code.
22 July, 22.00
The use, by Shell, of what some consider the most offensive
language was the key to understanding Victor’s reaction. We
recognise that some viewers find this language unacceptable
in any circumstances. However, in this incident we recognise
there was editorial justification in explaining the storyline to
the audience. Without it, viewers may not have understood
what provoked Victor’s behaviour. Therefore, on balance, we
felt the use could be justified given the context of this
programme, the scheduling of the edition and the clear
warning before the programme along with the editorial
rationale.
14 July: Complaint resolved.
8, 20 & 22 July: Not in Breach.
(http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/pr...cb_20/?a=87101)
Some of the complaints are pretty daft, but as usual ofcom have made pretty fair and sensible decisions.
Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 18 October 2004
19
Big Brother 5
Channel 4, various dates
Introduction
Separate to the altercation (see previous finding), we
received 240 complaints about various other issues in Big
Brother 5. We asked Channel 4 to respond particularly to the
concerns listed below.
8 July, 22.00
We received 25 complaints about this edition, which
included the housemates playing ‘truth, dare or kiss’.
Complainants likened the content to a ‘porn’ film and said
that it was inappropriate, especially as Big Brother attracts a
young audience.
14 July, 00.20
One viewer complained about the use, in a text message
from a viewer, of the term ”jungle bunny” to describe Victor.
The complainant felt this was a racist term.
20 July, 22.00
Four viewers complained about this edition, which featured
Michelle and Stuart apparently having sex under the table.
The complainants felt that ‘real sex’ should not be shown on
television.
22 July, 22.00
We received nine complaints about offensive language and
Victor’s aggressive behaviour. The complainants noted that
while the first use of the word “****” was not bleeped,
subsequent occurrences were. Viewers also objected to other
strong language, including variants of “****”, which were
used in an “aggressive manner” throughout the programme.
Response
8 and 20 July
Channel 4 said that the sexual content of the programmes
was minimal and entirely appropriate for the time at which
they were scheduled for broadcast. There was clearly a
significant amount of nudity, and high-spirited behaviour
whilst naked, but that did not in the Channel’s view equate
in any way to ‘soft porn’.
14 July
The brief text message referring to “jungle bunny”
inadvertently appeared on screen and Channel 4 said it was
clearly regrettable. All text messages first passed through a
profanity filter that automatically scanned the message for
words that may be considered offensive, as contained in the
filter’s pre-defined list. Every text message that successfully
Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 18 October 2004
20
made it through the profanity filter was then reviewed
individually by a trained moderator. However a moderator’s
judgment will inevitably contained an element of
subjectivity. There is unfortunately always a risk that a
judgment made by even the most experienced moderator
may occasionally fall on the wrong side of the line. Channel 4
accepted that for many people the term ‘jungle bunny’ was
offensive and accordingly accepted that this message was
not an appropriate one for broadcast.
As soon as it was aware that this particular message had
gone out Tempero [the company supplying the moderation]
were contacted and an explanation demanded.
Unfortunately the profanity filter had not picked up the term
as it works by filtering single words only, and therefore
although the term ‘jungle bunny’ was on the list it was not
added to the filter because neither of the single words which
make up the phrase are considered offensive. Consequently
this message was left to be reviewed by the moderator. The
moderator in this case, although experienced, was a young
person who was not aware that the term ‘jungle bunny’ was
offensive. In the context of the topic she had genuinely
believed that the term was describing Victor as ‘gentle’ and
‘fluffy’ – a bunny rather than the ‘jungle-cat’ he professed to
be. ‘Jungle bunny’ as most people over 25 are aware, was a
term coined in the middle of last century and commonly
used in the 1960’s and 1970’s as a derogatory term to
describe people of native African origins. However the term
is no longer used with anything like the frequency it was.
22 July
In terms of language, Channel 4 was entirely satisfied that
Shell’s use of the word “****” in her confrontation with
Victor was editorially justified. It was Shell’s use of this word
that provoked Victor’s behaviour. It was therefore essential
for viewers to know what was said in order to understand
Victor’s reaction. This matter was given very careful
consideration editorially at the highest level and it was
concluded that it was justified to show the use of the word
by Shell. However, Channel 4 felt that further broadcast of
the word was unnecessary.
Decision
8 July, 22.00
The programme was shown at 22:00 and was preceded by a
warning referring to …“nudity and strong language from the
start”. These sorts of antics are now common place in the Big
Brother house and most viewers are likely to know what to
expect. Considering that the programme was broadcast well
after the watershed and preceded by a clear and
unambiguous warning, we do not think that this edition of
Big Brother exceeded viewers’ expectations.
14 July, 00.20
Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 18 October 2004
21
The transmission of the term ‘jungle bunny’ appears to be a
genuine mistake by someone who was simply not familiar
with the term. It is an expression, while still offensive, that
has ceased to be commonly used. We are confident that the
broadcast of this term was an isolated one. We welcome
that, as a result of this incident, the general issue of
potentially offensive terms for minority groups in Channel 4’s
interactive services output has been discussed at a senior
level and Tempero has researched a more comprehensive list
of racist expressions and circulated it to the attention of all
their moderators.
As an added back up, Channel 4 said that all future
moderation staff would be made aware of this incident and
reminded of the importance of not releasing any text
message they had any doubt about or were unfamiliar with.
The broadcaster did not in any way seek to condone or
justify the general use of the phrase 'jungle bunny' as an
abusive term. Given the circumstances and the manner in
which Channel 4 has handled it, we consider this matter
resolved.
20 July, 22.00
Stuart and Michelle were seen constructing and entering a
‘tent’ under the table. The broadcast shots of the ‘tent’, with
the couple inside, were selected very carefully to ensure they
were not gratuitous or explicit. Viewers could see very little.
No nudity or actual sexual activity was broadcast. Viewers
were left to speculate as to exactly what went on in the
‘tent’.
Considering that the programme was broadcast well after
the watershed, preceded by an appropriate warning and
contained no sexual nudity, we don’t believe this edition of
Big Brother breached the Programme Code.
22 July, 22.00
The use, by Shell, of what some consider the most offensive
language was the key to understanding Victor’s reaction. We
recognise that some viewers find this language unacceptable
in any circumstances. However, in this incident we recognise
there was editorial justification in explaining the storyline to
the audience. Without it, viewers may not have understood
what provoked Victor’s behaviour. Therefore, on balance, we
felt the use could be justified given the context of this
programme, the scheduling of the edition and the clear
warning before the programme along with the editorial
rationale.
14 July: Complaint resolved.
8, 20 & 22 July: Not in Breach.
