mediawatchwatch.org.uk

The Lord God Almighty has finally answered all those prayers by the Christian Institute and their supporters who wanted to bring the BBC to justice for broadcasting the blasphemous Jerry Springer: The Opera: “No,” He boomed, in that mysterious way of His. “Don’t be so bloody stupid,” He might well have added. We don’t actually know.

In an email circular sent to supporters, Colin Hart of the CI explains,

It appears that under the Human Rights Act (introduced by the Blair Government in 1998) the BBC’s freedom of expression trumps any offence which may be caused to Christians.

We are naturally very disappointed by the news. It is a tragedy for our nation that such a blasphemous anti-Christian show has been deemed to comply with broadcasting regulations. What a decadent culture we live in!

As you may remember, their action was based on two grounds: the first that the BBC breached its Royal charter; the second wavering between “discrimination” against Christians, or breaching their Article 9 of the Human Rights Act. It seems they plumped to the discrimination line in the end. Good call.

Hart also takes a swipe at Ofcom’s new code, branding it “much weaker”.

Though we are very saddened by these developments, we must go on praying that justice may be done and that evil may be restrained in our land. The act of complaining honours God, is a witness to the truth and will make the BBC more cautious in the future. We fight on.

Yes, you keep on praying and whining. It’s really effective.

Another Christian group is pursuing a private blasphemy prosecution. We support this action.

So do we, actually. It’s quite gratifying to see their pious pounds being frittered away on expensive and hopeless court cases.

From the BBC today.

Sher Khan of the Muslim Council of Britain said:

This is not protection of faith, it is a protection of those who are attached to a particular identity marker.

The BBC Director-General Mark Thompson gave a speech to the Churches’ Media Conference this week. He defended the BBC against the familiar charges of dumbing down, falling quality, and – a favourite of the CCTV – denigration of “traditional values”.

It’s a long speech, but worth a read.

In response to the dumbing-down charge, he cites Steven Johnson’sEverything Bad For You Is Good For You, and points out the multi-layered sophistication of modern TV shows like The Sopranos and The Simpsons, compared to their equivalents 20 years ago.

People forget that a generation ago the spine of BBC ONE was mainstream American entertainment: The Virginian, A Man Called Ironside, Kojak, The Thorn Birds. Yes, Kenneth Clark was on BBC TWO with Civilisation, but so too was an alarming amount of Demis Roussos.

He also dismisses the moral depravity claims:

I think the answer to the moral pessimist is that it depends what your moral yardstick is. If it’s swear words and sex and not much more, then yes – things probably have slipped both on screen and in society since the good old days, though even here the watershed, that in some ways anachronistic sign-post to family viewing, seems to be holding up rather well.
 
But if you define moral and social concern more broadly, then things look rather different. Whether it’s Africa or Iraq or Terry Schiavo, broadcasting has become very interested in moral questions again and broadcasting’s ubiquity means that those questions are projected into pretty much every household in the land.

A proposed scheme in Manchester to fit black boxes to cars and lorries, and charge a pay-as-you-go tax on each journey has prompted criticism from Christian Voice.

A “spokesman” for CV – which is described by the Manchester Evening News reporter as a “civil liberties action group” – said,

The technology they depend on will track every vehicle fitted with the `spy-in-the-car’ black box.

Motorists will be paying for the transmitter and for the miles they drive, but the spin-off is that the government will know where every car is at every moment.

So that is what God told Stephen Green last week when he cried out “Here am I, send me!”.

It does chime with the paragraph of the fantasy Queen’s Speech devoted to “restoring justice to motoring law” by banning speed traps and building roads. Amazing how Green’s obsessions are so in sync with those of the creator of the universe, isn’t it?

UPDATE: Green confirms that CV does “also monitor assaults on civil liberties” with a new post on the website. You don’t think Stevie-boy has been done for speeding in the past, do you?

Smut campaigner John Beyer, prompted to action by MWW’s highlighting his contradictory responses to Ofcom’s new Broadcasting Code, has issued a revised news release on the subject.

The revision amounts to a cautionary sentence added to an otherwise insanely upbeat statement:

The Code is a complex document that is open to wide interpretation and our fear remains that by emphasising freedom of expression and editorial justification by context, broadcasters have been given the ‘light touch’ regulation they want and will be able to show whatever harmful or offensive material they like as long as they adequately warn audiences.

This is more in line with his “sex and violence free-for-all” Daily Mail statement, but contradicts the sentence which immediately precedes it: “The onus is now very much on broadcasters to comply with the Code and stop screening violent and pornographic programmes that are likely to cause harm and offence”.

And claiming that the code is a “complex document that is open to wide interpretation” rather contradicts the opening sentence which says “it will end some of the the uncertainty and speculation […] because we now know what we have to work with”.

Oh dear.

It isn’t a particularly complex document. Freedom of expression is privileged provided it is appropriately contextualised; and “context” itself is clearly defined. The code, coupled with recent rulings in favour of complained-about programmes, make Ofcom’s position quite clear. As Julian Petley, co-chair of the Campaign for Press Freedom says in this week’s Broadcast,

Ofcom will give short shrift to those who drum up campaigns against shows they want banned.

Ofcom continues its run of brushing off complaints from the religiously “offended” by finding the Christmas episode of The Vicar of Dibley “not in breach” (.pdf download). It had received 66 complaints that

some of the material denigrated Christianity, that similar material would not have been used if another religion had been featured, and/or it was unsuitable for Christmas night, one of the biggest festivals in the Christian year.

Ofcom sensibly concluded that the overall message of the show was positive, that it was post-watershed, and that the comedy was in a long-established tradition of farcical sitcoms and “comedy vicars”. Here is an html version of the report if you are interested.

CRAC head Graham James the Bishop of Norwich, who thought the episode was “more offensive than springer”, won’t be pleased. Which is nice.

BBC’s animated comedy Popetown is set to get its world premier on New Zealand’s C4. The BBC pulled the show last year after complaints from Catholic organisations, although insiders subsequently suggested that the main reason for the cancellation was that it wasn’t actually very funny.

Family Life International are campaigning against it.

Apparently one of the episodes depicts a member of the clergy becoming sexually aroused by animal porn, and another shows the pope painting a picture with his own faeces.

What’s not funny about that?

UPDATE: According to the NZ Herald the Catholic Church in NZ have dubbed the show “too stupid to be offensive.” (Thanks to David P in the comments). That didn’t stop a grand total of two viewers phoning C4 to complain. Some enterprising Catholics have also put up a Stop Popetown website:

Our love for our faith is what calls us to action, and we must continue to show New Zealand that it is not acceptable to mock Catholicism.

Boo hoo.

According to the BBC, charity blackmailer Stephen Green of Christian Voice has threatened legal action against the Birmingham Hippodrome, which plans to run Jerry Springer: The Opera. Just as he said he would in this letter.

If you wanted to be deliberately offensive and provocative to Christians, you couldn’t do much better than put Jerry Springer: The Opera on at the Birmingham Hippodrome

He told the BBC

Fortunately, the Hippodrome’s chief executive Stuart Griffiths is paying no heed. Given the difficulty Green is having raising funds for his doomed blasphemy prosecution against the BBC, it is highly unlikely he will be taking any theatres to court. The most he can muster will be a handful of pickets, which will only serve to advertise the show.

A contrasting reaction to the news comes from “Bishop” Michael Reid of CCTV, who graciously said freedom of speech should be allowed:

I do think it’s different if people want to pay to go to a theatre, as much as I find the whole thing totally offensive. That is their choice and we’re against censorship.

What we are against is people using the airwaves, a public corporation, broadcasting it.

Because when it’s on TV people don’t have the choice not to watch, and banning it isn’t censorship? Never mind – CCTV won’t be on the picket line this time. Shame.

The Church of England Newspaper has published some more reactions to Ofcom’s new Broadcasting Code (see below).

Nigel Holmes, a member of the C of E Synod’s Religion in Broadcasting group, has reservations:

It talks about protecting those under 18, but simply by imposing a watershed. In truth, most 18-year-olds have access to TVs and computer sets after that hour. Why should material inappropriate to children of this age therefore be broadcast immediately after 9pm.

The code actually states that “The transition to more adult material must not be unduly abrupt at the watershed” (Section 1, 1.6). Nige must have missed that bit.

He also expresses concern that decisions about broadcasting were being made by the “metropolitan liberal elite”. As opposed to what? The provincial authoritarian hoi polloi? Dear boy, are you sure they even own “computer sets”?

The KFC Zinger Crunch TV advert (see below), officially the most complained-about advert in UK history with 1671 complaints, has been exonerated by the ASA (1 June .pdf doc). The commercial featured three call centre ladies singing the praises of the salad with their mouths full. All the complainants apparently thought this encouraged children to copy them. 108 also thought it showed call centres in a bad light, and 28 thought it mocked people with speech impediments or hearing difficulties.

The impeccably mannered John Beyer thinks the regulator should have been “more accommodating”:

Advertising on television is about promoting lifestyles and good manners are part of showing respect to one another. If the viewing public continues to be ignored and overruled confidence in the system of regulation that has been put in place by the industry will be undermined. Much more notice ought to be taken of public concerns.