Comments on: When is a watershed not a watershed? http://www.pulpmovies.com/gagwatch/2005/10/when-is-a-watershed-not-a-watershed/ Watching the watchers watching what we watch Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:36:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5 by: Steve http://www.pulpmovies.com/gagwatch/2005/10/when-is-a-watershed-not-a-watershed/#comment-33 Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:06:44 -0500 http://www.pulpmovies.com/gagwatch/2005/10/when-is-a-watershed-not-a-watershed/#comment-33 It was nine viewers out of around one and a half million! This is what I dislike most about Ofcom. If their judgements were based simply on the number of letters through the letterbox, that would be bad enough, because all we would have is Mediawatch simply photocopying one letter a thousand times. However, to completely ignore the level of public dissatisfaction in a judgement is to be blinkered in the extreme. The other problem I have with this is that Ofcom has hundreds of detailed instructions on exactly how to make all their judgements, yet big issues like 'what time can an extremely famous and widely-seen film be shown, if it features 18-rated content?' appear not to have been considered. It was nine viewers out of around one and a half million! This is what I dislike most about Ofcom. If their judgements were based simply on the number of letters through the letterbox, that would be bad enough, because all we would have is Mediawatch simply photocopying one letter a thousand times. However, to completely ignore the level of public dissatisfaction in a judgement is to be blinkered in the extreme.

The other problem I have with this is that Ofcom has hundreds of detailed instructions on exactly how to make all their judgements, yet big issues like ‘what time can an extremely famous and widely-seen film be shown, if it features 18-rated content?’ appear not to have been considered.

]]> by: Paul http://www.pulpmovies.com/gagwatch/2005/10/when-is-a-watershed-not-a-watershed/#comment-34 Tue, 01 Nov 2005 02:09:39 -0500 http://www.pulpmovies.com/gagwatch/2005/10/when-is-a-watershed-not-a-watershed/#comment-34 The number of complaints is a bit of a side issue. If there actually was a case to answer, then it would be quite reasonable for Ofcom to respond even if only one complaint was raised. My main objection is that there <em>isn't</em> a case to answer. The watershed is at 9:00pm. The BBC showed the film after 9:00pm. Case closed. What is concerning is that Ofcom have arbitarily moved the watershed back to some unspecified time for some vaguely defined set of films. So if Pulp Fiction is shown again at 9:45pm and someone complains, the watershed will be effectively pushed back another half hour, and so on and so on until no films can shown unless they're safe for six year olds. The 9:00 watershed is straightforward and easily understood. It's not up to Ofcom to invent vague extra rules as to how it should be applied. The number of complaints is a bit of a side issue. If there actually was a case to answer, then it would be quite reasonable for Ofcom to respond even if only one complaint was raised.

My main objection is that there isn’t a case to answer. The watershed is at 9:00pm. The BBC showed the film after 9:00pm. Case closed.

What is concerning is that Ofcom have arbitarily moved the watershed back to some unspecified time for some vaguely defined set of films. So if Pulp Fiction is shown again at 9:45pm and someone complains, the watershed will be effectively pushed back another half hour, and so on and so on until no films can shown unless they’re safe for six year olds.

The 9:00 watershed is straightforward and easily understood. It’s not up to Ofcom to invent vague extra rules as to how it should be applied.

]]>