[Veri]

During the final years on C4, many people blamed C4 for pretty much everything even though most of the relevant decisions would have been taken by Endemol (or whichever of its sub-companies was involved).

Now that it's on C5, I again and again see C5 being blamed.

Why is Endemol getting off so lightly?

Is it because blaming Endemol would make it seem there was less hope for an improvement? If Endemol's not to blame, maybe Endemol's even on our side and it's only misguided broadcaster that's keeping BB from rediscovering greatness.

[Salv*]

Not sure. I seriously don't know who is the people responsible about the lack of feed, I hear it was Endemol BUT they run other BBs, including Italian BB which has around 10 feeds.

Also, I think Endemol come up with the tasks, the twists?

[CLL Dodge]

Jeff Ford works for Channel 5.

[Veri]

Originally Posted by CLL Dodge

Jeff Ford works for Channel 5.

Sorry, but I don't know what the significance of that is thought to be.

[Fried Kickin]

My main gripe was and still is the Live Feed being removed and that was/is a decision made by C4 and C5.
From a personal point of view I feel that is what has ruined BB:UK.
Endemol would provide a feed if the broadcaster wanted one.

[Digital Sid]

Originally Posted by Salv*

Not sure. I seriously don't know who is the people responsible about the lack of feed, I hear it was Endemol BUT they run other BBs, including Italian BB which has around 10 feeds.

Also, I think Endemol come up with the tasks, the twists?

They come up with everything, the only stuff they don't do is the promotion, the scheduling and paying for it. Endemol are the production company, they make the show, Channel 5 just air and oversee it. The live feed is up to the channel though, they don't produce it, but they decide if we have it, from what Jamie said on that couch potatoes show during CBB9 though, Endemol lost money from the online feeds in BB11 so probably told them it's not worth it.

[SG-1]

Originally Posted by Digital Sid

They come up with everything, the only stuff they don't do is the promotion, the scheduling and paying for it. Endemol are the production company, they make the show, Channel 5 just air and oversee it. The live feed is up to the channel though, they don't produce it, but they decide if we have it, from what Jamie said on that couch potatoes show during CBB9 though, Endemol lost money from the online feeds in BB11 so probably told them it's not worth it.

The idea of losing money for a feed is to me so confusing.
With the introduction of product placement on the show they could surely get in some revenue to support a feed,subscription is another way to bring in the money and on top of that showing a normal advert like they do on youtube for example would also bring in revenue.
Not to mention the added perks of promoting the channel with 1 inserted promotional clip for a tv show on 5 say every few hours or whenever you switch the net feed on.
The publicity from forums would certainly increase and if they offered on facebook to provide 1 hour free feed a day then surely it would encourage some on their chosen promotional vehicle to subscribe.

Jamie can say what he wants but if every other country has a feed then the cost arguement looks to be a silly and doubtful case to support having no live feed.

[qwertyell]

Didn't Jeff Ford categorically state that money was NOT the issue?

[CLL Dodge]

Originally Posted by qwertyell

Didn't Jeff Ford categorically state that money was NOT the issue?

And apparently we've moved on from watching people sleep.

[qwertyell]

We have - we now watch them wipe their arses on pillows.

[Tigerlily]

I've been a good obedient fan and moved on as I was told to do ......... Torchcam is compulsive viewing and it is live! Time to catch up on today's action

[Veri]

C5 can be blamed for some things, and the lack of a live feed may well be one of them, but my query is because C5, like C4 before it, is getting blame for all sorts of things.

As I said in another thread, I think C4 can reasonably be blamed for only two things: the reduced live coverage during the bb10 period and the summer series getting too long.

Pretty much everything else was decided by Endemol.

(C4 is sometimes blamed because of increased oversight after the Shilpa vs Jade CBB, but I'd say that's Endemol's fault too. C4 has to carry the can with Ofcom, and Endemol had dumped C4 in the poo by mismanaging that CBB while failing to keep C4 informed. The Ofcom judgement made increased oversight inevitable.)

[Kingsy]

Originally Posted by CLL Dodge

And apparently we've moved on from watching people sleep.

People let's be honest. We have.

[CLL Dodge]

Is it not also the case that the Channel 4 of 2010 was not the Channel 4 of 2000? Andy Duncan took over in 2004. He had no background in programme-making, he's a marketing man and founding Chairman of Freeview. He was the man who handled the Jade/Shilpa situation and Ofcom's repsonse to it.

Can the programme producers be immune from such fundamental changes at the broadcaster?

[CLL Dodge]

Originally Posted by Kingsy

People let's be honest. We have.

We've moved on to reading tweets saying "The housemates are still asleep", whilst he day's action is left relatively tweet free.

[Veri]

Originally Posted by CLL Dodge

Is it not also the case that the Channel 4 of 2010 was not the Channel 4 of 2000? Andy Duncan took over in 2004. He had no background in programme-making, he's a marketing man and founding Chairman of Freeview. He was the man who handled the Jade/Shilpa situation and Ofcom's repsonse to it.

What do you mean by saying he handled the situation and Ofcom's response?

Do you think he was making the production decisions during that CBB? That he decided to do what Ofcom made clear they should do, but before he took over Ofcom would have been ignored?

Can the programme producers be immune from such fundamental changes at the broadcaster?

Sorry, but what do you think actually happened as a result?

I can't even guess what you think can therefore be blamed on c4.

[Agent F]

People seemed to dislike the fact C4 had a tighter rein over the show after CBB7 but that was a natural and inevitable consequence of the Ofcom ruling.

[SG-1]

Originally Posted by Agent F

People seemed to dislike the fact C4 had a tighter rein over the show after CBB7 but that was a natural and inevitable consequence of the Ofcom ruling.

You mean CBB5?
It was a consequence of hysterical viewers and non viewers alike who jumped on a bandwagon that became political.
Shame on anyone that followed like sheep to complain to OFCOM just because they didnt like a particular housemate.

I dont think there was anything natural about it but absolutely it was inevitable.

In one way I could see why a LF now might feed the hungry PC brigade who feel offended by everything that strays from tasteful.
Imagine if the freezergate incident had been shown on LF,I can just imagine the amount of threads with shouts of Im ringing OFCOM.
The thing is,I may be wrong but am I right in thinking it was not the live feed footage of shilpagate that they got in trouble over but the fact they didnt disclose everything.
It was so long ago I cant remember..I know Veri would remember this because he has mentioned this in the past.

[Veri]

Originally Posted by Agent F

People seemed to dislike the fact C4 had a tighter rein over the show after CBB7 but that was a natural and inevitable consequence of the Ofcom ruling.

Yes, and I don't think it's made nearly as much difference as people often think when talking of BB being "sanitised" or "complianced to within an inch of its life".

For example, it's sometimes claimed that a rule about not saying or doing anything that could cause offence to other housemates or to viewers was added after the Jade/Shilpa CBB, but in fact it goes back at least as far as bb4.

Unfortunately, the link doesn't work any more, but the bb4 rules included this:

Big Brother may ask any housemate to leave the House if they behave inappropriately while in the House. Inappropriate behaviour would include, for example:

* Behaving in a way that could cause offence to either their fellow inhabitants or members of the viewing public,

It's just a rule that reflects the Ofcom code.

[Kingsy]

Originally Posted by CLL Dodge

We've moved on to reading tweets saying "The housemates are still asleep", whilst he day's action is left relatively tweet free.

I don't disagree, the online coverage should be increased, but I do think they have the right attitude. Social media didn't exist back when Big Brother started, at all. Transitioning from a live feed to tweets and video clips is a natural progression. Whether or not they execute on it properly, that remains to be seen - this is only their second civilian series.

I remember back in something like BB3 I would get a text alert that someone had fainted. That was far more exciting to me (as a young boy) than watching a live feed. It's more accessible, it's more interesting. Tweeting is the new text alert.

[happybbfan]

Originally Posted by Kingsy

I don't disagree, the online coverage should be increased, but I do think they have the right attitude. Social media didn't exist back when Big Brother started, at all. Transitioning from a live feed to tweets and video clips is a natural progression. Whether or not they execute on it properly, that remains to be seen - this is only their second civilian series.

I remember back in something like BB3 I would get a text alert that someone had fainted. That was far more exciting to me (as a young boy) than watching a live feed. It's more accessible, it's more interesting. Tweeting is the new text alert.

Seems a little odd that other countries that show BB can have twitter,Facebook and 24/7 live feed.
Ii seems to me that C5 have gone backwards not progressed at all.
If you watch football,would you be happy to read that your favourite player had just scored a goal instead of seeing it as it happened,i would beg to differ that many football fans would agree.
So a few clips and tweets instead of a live football match is progress and far more exciting then.

[Veri]

Originally Posted by SG-1

You mean CBB5?
It was a consequence of hysterical viewers and non viewers alike who jumped on a bandwagon that became political.
Shame on anyone that followed like sheep to complain to OFCOM just because they didnt like a particular housemate.

I dont think there was anything natural about it but absolutely it was inevitable.

In one way I could see why a LF now might feed the hungry PC brigade who feel offended by everything that strays from tasteful.
Imagine if the freezergate incident had been shown on LF,I can just imagine the amount of threads with shouts of Im ringing OFCOM.

As often in these discussions, I have to ask: do you think BB should have to obey the broadcasting code, like every other show on tv, or not?

The reason why C4 holding a tighter rein is a natural consequence of the Ofcom ruling is that Endemol failed to keep C4 adequately informed, and didn't do enough about what was happening, yet it's C4 that has to defend the show to Ofcom and take the consequences -- and Ofcom's judgement said "Channel Four’s compliance processes were clearly not adequate".

So I think it's fair to say that tightened compliance was natural and inevitable. Basically, having been dropped in the poo once by Endemol, and been told that the its compliance processes were inadequate, C4 didn't want it to happen again.

The thing is,I may be wrong but am I right in thinking it was not the live feed footage of shilpagate that they got in trouble over but the fact they didnt disclose everything.
It was so long ago I cant remember..I know Veri would remember this because he has mentioned this in the past.

Ofcom found against C4 because of things show in the main show, but not because they didn't disclose everything.

(Surprisingly, given the idea that the live feed shows more than the highlights, C4 didn't get in trouble over E4's live coverage because those incidents either weren't shown or had the sound masked.)

Ofcom did "exceptionally" ask to see relevant untransmitted footage, but that wasn't to see whether it should have been shown; it was to help them assess C4's compliance procedures. From the full document:

Originally Posted by Ofcom

As well as providing recordings of broadcast material, Channel Four supplied Ofcom with untransmitted footage from the House. Since this material was not transmitted, it is not relevant to whether or not there was a breach of the Code. However, untransmitted material may be relevant to whether or not the broadcaster had in place adequate procedures and maintained sufficient processes and safeguards to prevent breaches of the Code from occurring.

The untransmitted material included conversations that had been logged as "racist". However, C4 wasn't told until at least 3 days later. And, from the summary:

Originally Posted by Ofcom

In our view, if Channel 4 had seen this material, at the time it was recorded, it would have handled the unfolding situation in the House very differently in order to ensure compliance with the Code.

BTW, we can learn some interesting things from the Ofcom judgement about how things worked between Endemol and C4 at the time. For example:

Originally Posted by Ofcom

Ofcom notes that Channel Four say that Brighter Pictures was responsible for the oversight and management of day-to-day events in the House, and the referral-up of any issues of concern to the senior producers at Channel Four.

And there's an example of something decided by C4. After Jade said "Shilpa Poppadom", she was called to the DR. However,

Originally Posted by Ofcom

In this Diary Room discussion, Big Brother did not put the matter of racism to Jade Goody directly and she left the room and carried on for the rest of the show with activities in the House. It is Ofcom’s view that at this point, the broadcaster did not meet the generally accepted standards required by the Code which expected that potentially racist language and/or behaviour would be effectively challenged.

It is only on the following day that Big Brother called Jade Goody back to the Diary Room for the second time and made clear what it considered acceptable and not acceptable in the House. In this second reprimand, Big Brother stated clearly that:

“Big Brother will not tolerate any racist behaviour or anything that could be seen as racist behaviour” [emphasis added] (by Ofcom).

It was only at the point of this second reprimand that Ofcom believes that the broadcaster reacted appropriately to Jade Goody’s comment and applied the appropriate standards. It is acknowledged by Ofcom that it was the senior editorial executives at Channel Four that initiated the second reprimand of Jade Goody, which resulted in the matter eventually being dealt with in the appropriate manner.

[Agent F]

Originally Posted by SG-1

You mean CBB5?

Oops, yes. I was thinking '2007' haha.

Originally Posted by Veri

Yes, and I don't think it's made nearly as much difference as people often think when talking of BB being "sanitised" or "complianced to within an inch of its life".

For example, it's sometimes claimed that a rule about not saying or doing anything that could cause offence to other housemates or to viewers was added after the Jade/Shilpa CBB, but in fact it goes back at least as far as bb4.

Unfortunately, the link doesn't work any more, but the bb4 rules included this:


It's just a rule that reflects the Ofcom code.

That's interesting. I didn't realise that rule had always existed, so you learn something new everyday.

I think Big Brother might have become a lot more interventionist if there was any possibility of tension getting out of hand, but I would say that really came in after the BB5 fight night - after that they were much more on the ball when it came to arguments potentially escalating.

[CLL Dodge]

Originally Posted by Veri

What do you mean by saying he handled the situation and Ofcom's response?

Do you think he was making the production decisions during that CBB? That he decided to do what Ofcom made clear they should do, but before he took over Ofcom would have been ignored?



Sorry, but what do you think actually happened as a result?

I can't even guess what you think can therefore be blamed on c4.

Forget Ofcom and that incident.

The Channel 4 which launched in 1982 is a different beast from that which was around in 1999 when Big Brother was commissioned.

And the Channel 4 of a decade later was another different beast.

Those changes impacted both the type of programming being commissioned (and cancelled) and the way in which those programmes were presented and evolved.

Big Brother was part of that evolution. There are times in Channel 4 history where it would not have been commisioned, times when it would have been presented as innovative programming, times when it presented as purely entertainment and times when it was seen as stale, in decline and not worth renewing.

The production company will supply what the channel requests. Richard Desmond himself is said to be "seriously involved" in the production. When a programme is the cash cow for the channel, the channel bosses are likely to get involved to a greater extent.

[Veri]

Originally Posted by CLL Dodge

...
The Channel 4 which launched in 1982 is a different beast from that which was around in 1999 when Big Brother was commissioned.

And the Channel 4 of a decade later was another different beast.

Those changes impacted both the type of programming being commissioned (and cancelled) and the way in which those programmes were presented and evolved.

Big Brother was part of that evolution. There are times in Channel 4 history where it would not have been commisioned, times when it would have been presented as innovative programming, times when it presented as purely entertainment and times when it was seen as stale, in decline and not worth renewing.

The production company will supply what the channel requests. Richard Desmond himself is said to be "seriously involved" in the production. When a programme is the cash cow for the channel, the channel bosses are likely to get involved to a greater extent.

That's all very well, but you haven't suggested even one thing that would be down to C4, and you haven't given any reason to think that the broadcaster interferes to the extent of making a significant difference in tasks, house design, housemate selection or any of the many other things people tried to blame on C4. Endemol must do something, you know!

Richard Desmond may be an interfering sort -- though the only source I can find for the "seriously involved" quote also has the anonymous source saying that Desmond has frequently deferred to Endemol -- but I find it very hard to believe that the head of C4 would get involved in production decisions.

The ways BB changed while on C4 almost all make sense as responses to what happened earlier (such as the perceived failure of bb4) and natural developments over time. There's never been any gap in the explanations that C4 was needed to fill.

Moreover, the beginnings of the post-C4 changes in BB could be seen while it was still on C4. Are we supposed to believe that Richard Desmond was already telling Endemol what to do.

So this takes us back to what I said at the start: I suspect that people are inclined to blame C4 and C5 because that leaves open the hope that Endemol would do the "right" thing if only it weren't being told not to.

Can you find any reputable stories of Richard Desmond making any significant production decisions?