Big Brother explains sound gaps
1 of 2
Quote:
“Originally posted by Exulus
Just saw it advertised on E4:
http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/sound/ ”
“Originally posted by Exulus
Just saw it advertised on E4:
http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/sound/ ”
The "libel" bit is bollox
(as an explanation)
Jack
off to get a drink, as he's so annoyed at channel 4
makes perfect sense actually. it's you who is talking so. But - nice of E4 to get something written on why.
Mark.
Mark.
Quote:
“Originally posted by Father Jack
The "libel" bit is bollox
(as an explanation)
Jack
off to get a drink, as he's so annoyed at channel 4 ”
“Originally posted by Father Jack
The "libel" bit is bollox
(as an explanation)
Jack
off to get a drink, as he's so annoyed at channel 4 ”
Why is it bollox? Newspapers get sued all the time for libel...papers can't call Tom Cruise or Jason Donavon gay for instance without getting hit with a libel suit.
I can understand teh privacy of freinds and family. I would not like to be a freind of Alexs' - who is happily married - and he comes out with the night we had a drunken fling. 
But as for strong language and stuff *This is Davina, it is late @ night but please do not swear!* WTF is all that about we have watersheds don't we??
We are just a nation of BBHM's that CH4 think they can take control over. IMHO they are not doing a bad job of it really
But I would rather be in Australia or Germany watching their BBHM's getting it on and none of this [censored] bollox
But as for strong language and stuff *This is Davina, it is late @ night but please do not swear!* WTF is all that about we have watersheds don't we??
We are just a nation of BBHM's that CH4 think they can take control over. IMHO they are not doing a bad job of it really
But I would rather be in Australia or Germany watching their BBHM's getting it on and none of this [censored] bollox
The libel bit is not 'bollox' - have you any idea how much it could cost Channel 4/ Endemol if any famous person heard some sort of allegation from one or more housemates (eg so and so is gay, so and so's a lesbian, so and so is a drug addict) and they decided to sue.
Quote:
“Originally posted by cerberus
The libel bit is not 'bollox' - have you any idea how much it could cost Channel 4/ Endemol if any famous person heard some sort of allegation from one or more housemates (eg so and so is gay, so and so's a lesbian, so and so is a drug addict) and they decided to sue. ”
“Originally posted by cerberus
The libel bit is not 'bollox' - have you any idea how much it could cost Channel 4/ Endemol if any famous person heard some sort of allegation from one or more housemates (eg so and so is gay, so and so's a lesbian, so and so is a drug addict) and they decided to sue. ”
I know all about it.
Okay, I don't want to get into a huge argument about what libel is in general, so I'll illustrate with a simple example and show that, *as an explanation for the silences*, the concept of libel is bollox.
Here's 2 examples: can you tell me which is the libellous one:
1. [3 minutes of silence]
2. [5 seconds of silence].." is a drunken, whore, thiefing, dishonest rogue" etc etc for 2 mins 55 seconds
Well, which one?
I think I've made my point, but 'll explain if you wish.
Jack
Oh, I know exactly what you mean, and I'd rather they did the latter. I don't think the concept of libel as such is bollox, but more the way Channel4 use it as an excuse. I can understand their point of view, but there are better ways (as you illustrated) for them to cut the libellous parts of a conversation.
Quote:
“Originally posted by cerberus
Oh, I know exactly what you mean, and I'd rather they did the latter. I don't think the concept of libel as such is bollox, but more the way Channel4 use it as an excuse. I can understand their point of view, but there are better ways (as you illustrated) for them to cut the libellous parts of a conversation. ”
“Originally posted by cerberus
Oh, I know exactly what you mean, and I'd rather they did the latter. I don't think the concept of libel as such is bollox, but more the way Channel4 use it as an excuse. I can understand their point of view, but there are better ways (as you illustrated) for them to cut the libellous parts of a conversation. ”
Thank you. Yes channel 4, you muppets, all you'd need to do to kill ANY POSSIBLITY of an action in libel would be to BLANK OUT THE NAME: there is NO NEED to BLANK whole segments of conversation. Muppets. Do you think no-one else has any knowledge of the law?!?!?!?!!?!??!?!!????????
The same also appplies to the privacy thing, which as I've said before is fair enough, though it is hard to believe that they need to have silence for such lengths of time.
Cerberus
I'm sure the legal profession will be most relieved that you don't think the concept of libel is bollox!!!
Jack
appears to know more about libel that channel 4.
(oohh is THAT libel???)
Semantics I know, but it's not libel anyway, as it's spoken it's Slander, which is a much lesser offence and harder to gain a conviction on - Its a spoken opinion and does not have the extra weight of being written down and published (which is Libel)
Basically the reason the gaps are so long is that the junior -sub - assistant-night-cover producer who monitors the conversations is too scared to take even the smallest risk.
Basically the reason the gaps are so long is that the junior -sub - assistant-night-cover producer who monitors the conversations is too scared to take even the smallest risk.
Quote:
“Originally posted by HTS
Semantics I know, but it's not libel anyway, as it's spoken it's Slander, which is a much lesser offence and harder to gain a conviction on - Its a spoken opinion and does not have the extra weight of being written down and published (which is Libel)
Basically the reason the gaps are so long is that the junior -sub - assistant-night-cover producer who monitors the conversations is too scared to take even the smallest risk. ”
“Originally posted by HTS
Semantics I know, but it's not libel anyway, as it's spoken it's Slander, which is a much lesser offence and harder to gain a conviction on - Its a spoken opinion and does not have the extra weight of being written down and published (which is Libel)
Basically the reason the gaps are so long is that the junior -sub - assistant-night-cover producer who monitors the conversations is too scared to take even the smallest risk. ”
Incorrect:
Defamation on telly is LIBEL: s.166, Broadcasting Act 1990.
And it isn't just words, so lip-reading something would also be libel.
And Libel and Slander are TORTS not CRIMES: you don't get convicted of an OFFENCE, you get sued for a TORT (civil wrong, not criminal)
(yes, I know about criminal libel, but that's something else...)
Jack
I think what it boils down to is the "easy option". It is easier to cut whole chunks out than to pick out the libelous words. In there defence is it a 24 hour 2 channel stream with only 15 mins to deal with it. If you think through how it is done you will see that although a skilled person could do a better job I think they went for the cheap easy option fo just cutting bug chunks out. As for the Chicken Cam I think this is for lip readers and to stop the posiblity of another "Penny" incedent (dropped towel at 10am) going out.
As for Davina saying no swearing, there are some words can never be broadcast. These include the C word. And the 8:30 show is before the main watershed anyhow.
As for Davina saying no swearing, there are some words can never be broadcast. These include the C word. And the 8:30 show is before the main watershed anyhow.
Yes, libel is written, but it can also be spoken :
Definition from here.
HTS, I think you're right - they want to take as few risks as possible.
Jack, LOL, although it was you that said the concept of libel was 'bollox' , I'd probably best not say what I think of some parts of the law...
technoflare - I think they're just trying to be 'extra careful' when dealing with the live pre-watershed shows.
Quote:
“2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression”
“2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression”
Definition from here.
HTS, I think you're right - they want to take as few risks as possible.
Jack, LOL, although it was you that said the concept of libel was 'bollox' , I'd probably best not say what I think of some parts of the law...
technoflare - I think they're just trying to be 'extra careful' when dealing with the live pre-watershed shows.
Remember how much trouble Chris Evans got into when that rock star swore on his show, it stopped being live after that. ITC are tough on swearing (ITC, television broadcaster's Big Brother...always watching).
Quote:
“Originally posted by cerberus
Yes, libel is written, but it can also be spoken :
Definition from here.
HTS, I think you're right - they want to take as few risks as possible.
Jack, LOL, although it was you that said the concept of libel was 'bollox' , I'd probably best not say what I think of some parts of the law...
technoflare - I think they're just trying to be 'extra careful' when dealing with the live pre-watershed shows. ”
“Originally posted by cerberus
Yes, libel is written, but it can also be spoken :
Definition from here.
HTS, I think you're right - they want to take as few risks as possible.
Jack, LOL, although it was you that said the concept of libel was 'bollox' , I'd probably best not say what I think of some parts of the law...
technoflare - I think they're just trying to be 'extra careful' when dealing with the live pre-watershed shows. ”
Oh my god, this is getting tedious: i'm feeling like I have to teach the word everything.
1. I never said the concept of libel was bollox, I said the concept of LIBEL AS AN EXPLANATION FOR THE SILENCES was bollox.
2. Libel/Slander is not to do with the way the information is TRANSMITTED but to do with the way it is PUBLISHED, that's why defamatory comments etc on telly or radio, even though initially spoken, are in fact LIBEL.
3. Technoflare, you totally missed the point of my earlier posting. Please re-read. The point is that all you need do to negate any chance of an action in libel is to remove the NAME: that's the only "libellous part" of a statement.
There is no libel in a statement such as "[random noise] is a big gay drug addict" becuase it doesn't refer to anyone.
Jack
crabby island
It is you that should re-read. I did not say they NEED to take out whole chunks, it is that it is EASIER to as the feed is only 15 mins delayed Obviously the edited footage on C4 has more time to fix.
Also if the did just cut out the name they would also have to cut to a cam not showing it spoken else it could be lip read. Doing all this in 15 mins 24 hours a do on 2 feeds it a lot more difficult than you think.
Having said that I find it annoying, but hey..life's a b*tch!
Also if the did just cut out the name they would also have to cut to a cam not showing it spoken else it could be lip read. Doing all this in 15 mins 24 hours a do on 2 feeds it a lot more difficult than you think.
Having said that I find it annoying, but hey..life's a b*tch!
Quote:
“Originally posted by technoflare
It is you that should re-read. I did not say they NEED to take out whole chunks, it is that it is EASIER to as the feed is only 15 mins delayed Obviously the edited footage on C4 has more time to fix.
Also if the did just cut out the name they would also have to cut to a cam not showing it spoken else it could be lip read. Doing all this in 15 mins 24 hours a do on 2 feeds it a lot more difficult than you think. ”
“Originally posted by technoflare
It is you that should re-read. I did not say they NEED to take out whole chunks, it is that it is EASIER to as the feed is only 15 mins delayed Obviously the edited footage on C4 has more time to fix.
Also if the did just cut out the name they would also have to cut to a cam not showing it spoken else it could be lip read. Doing all this in 15 mins 24 hours a do on 2 feeds it a lot more difficult than you think. ”
And the watershed is 2100hrs BTW.
Not easy? That's their problem and they should sort it. Otherwise if it's "difficult" for the poor darlings, perhaps they shouldn't do the show at all, and go and have a lie down!
jh
Why couldn't they just tell the housmates not to make libellous comments, in the same way they tell them not to make comments about nominations?
You do realise that if say, PJ, made a libellous statement, HE would be liable to be sued AS WELL as channel 4, don't you? It is in their interests to NOT TELL LIES basically.
and your comment about having to cut to a different camera if they only cut the name, in case someone lip reads? They'd have to do that ANYWAY if someone could lip read the whole edited portion.
Jack
Quote:
“Originally posted by Father Jack
And the watershed is 2100hrs BTW.
Not easy? That's their problem and they should sort it. Otherwise if it's "difficult" for the poor darlings, perhaps they shouldn't do the show at all, and go and have a lie down!
jh
Why couldn't they just tell the housmates not to make libellous comments, in the same way they tell them not to make comments about nominations?
You do realise that if say, PJ, made a libellous statement, HE would be liable to be sued AS WELL as channel 4, don't you? It is in their interests to NOT TELL LIES basically.
and your comment about having to cut to a different camera if they only cut the name, in case someone lip reads? They'd have to do that ANYWAY if someone could lip read the whole edited portion.
Jack ”
“Originally posted by Father Jack
And the watershed is 2100hrs BTW.
Not easy? That's their problem and they should sort it. Otherwise if it's "difficult" for the poor darlings, perhaps they shouldn't do the show at all, and go and have a lie down!
jh
Why couldn't they just tell the housmates not to make libellous comments, in the same way they tell them not to make comments about nominations?
You do realise that if say, PJ, made a libellous statement, HE would be liable to be sued AS WELL as channel 4, don't you? It is in their interests to NOT TELL LIES basically.
and your comment about having to cut to a different camera if they only cut the name, in case someone lip reads? They'd have to do that ANYWAY if someone could lip read the whole edited portion.
Jack ”
Lol!! Fight!! Fight!!
But Jack, did you notice the way technoflare said, "Ewwww!!!!!!" after you made your original comments about the similarity between slander/libel, which apparently suggests that you are positively 'minging'?? I think you should 'deck him', because he's a 'backstabber', and.......
But the housemates could say something that they believe to be true, for eg, a rumour or someone could have told them its true. But its not actually.
Am I making sense? Nope. Thought not.
Am I making sense? Nope. Thought not.
Let me ask you guys one thing...
If Jade and Adele ended up scrapping would the producers have stuck with it or gone immediately to chicken cam?
If Jade and Adele ended up scrapping would the producers have stuck with it or gone immediately to chicken cam?
Quote:
“Originally posted by Father Jack
Oh my god, this is getting tedious: i'm feeling like I have to teach the word everything.
”
“Originally posted by Father Jack
Oh my god, this is getting tedious: i'm feeling like I have to teach the word everything.
”
Any chance of singing lessons after this, chief?
And does anyone else find it mildly diverting to try and figure out what they're saying in the sound gaps by wathcing the hand movements etc (Jade is particularly expressive in this regard, imo).
--
WildStyle24_7
Who appreciates the explanations.
fair enough, the sound cutting during the day is ok, but after 10pm the sound shouldn't be cut with the watershed being enforced
1 - father jack is 100% correct. They are making enough money so they should finance enough 'editors' to do the job properly.
2 - Never mind 'would they chicken-cam a fist-fight' . . when would security go in to separate them????
2 - Never mind 'would they chicken-cam a fist-fight' . . when would security go in to separate them????
. . . . presumably any physical contact would be an 'assault' with many witnesses (if not the veiwing public then at least the BB studio people) so they would be obliged to call Plod? Hey lets debate the meaning of the word 'assault' . . . . . . . . on second thoughts . . .
1 of 2
