Thursday, 23 April 2009
Firstly, we would like to express how sorry we are at the offence you have taken towards this programme, we in no way set out to create such controversy but instead wanted to expose how the media blow things out of proportion. Brass eye uses many serious issues such as animal cruelty to expose these issues.
I would also like to point out that the broadcast of this documentary did not break any programme codes. It was shown at 10pm and so the programme has suitable language and content for that time. In regards of the celebrities and child with enhanced breasts this also abides by the codes as the privacy was protected. It also in no way promoted anti social behaviour nor glorified paedophilia.
Again, we are very sorry to offend you and any other viewers who are offended.
Mr A Strange
I am writing to inform you of my disgust at the recent 'Brass Eye' programme entitled 'Peadogeddon'. The fact it took such a serious issue and mocked it to the point where it no longer became funny. I found several aspects of the programme very offensive including the 'art' pictures of a child's face on a woman's body and the showing of a young child's supposedly enhanced breasts.
I understand that you wanted this programme to be perceived as humorous but it was in no way funny as I am sure many viewers would agree. The exploitation of many celebrities in this programme also caused me offence as I was aware many celebrities did not agree to the mocking of paedophilia.
I would like you to reconsider showing programmes like this in future as it causes offence to many viewers who previously enjoy channel 4 programming. I also think you should reconsider airing this programme again as it does not create a good impression for your company.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
to expect from commercial television services in the UK. It aims to ensure that
requirements covering programme content which Parliament stipulated in the 1990
and 1996 Broadcasting Acts are met, while allowing for and encouraging creativity,
development and innovation.
Violence and Respect for Human Dignity
Privacy, fairness and gathering of information
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
To justify the BBC's punishment of Ross and Brand, to put together a case outlining and supporting the BBC's handling of the incident and to prove that it was in keeping with the corporation's values and responsibilities.
"We also apologise to listeners for any offence caused."
Ross sends a personal apology to Sachs. It is understood Brand plans to do the same.
Monday, 6 April 2009
The Peacock Committee, was a review into financing of the BBC. It was initiated by the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher on March 27, 1985 and reporting on May 29, 1986. The committee was led by Professor Alan Peacock. The government had expected the committee to report that the television licence fee used to fund the BBC should be scrapped. However, the Peacock Committee favoured retaining the licence fee as they believed it was the 'least worst' option.The immediate recommendations of the report were:
BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2 should be privatised.
All television receivers should be built fitted with encryption decoders.
The television licence fee should be indexed to inflation and the BBC should become responsible for the collection of the licence fee.
The licence fee should be extended to car radios.
Pensioners dependent on benefits should be exempt from the licence fee.
Not less than 40% of the BBC’s and ITV's output should be sourced from independent producers.
The transmission space used by the BBC and ITV overnight should be sold.
Censorship should be phased out.
The Broadcasting Act, 1990
The aim of the Act was to reform the entire structure of British broadcasting; British television, in particular, had earlier been described by Margaret Thatcher as "the last bastion of restrictive practices". It led directly to the abolition of the Independent Broadcasting Authority and its replacement with the Independent Television Commission and Radio Authority (both themselves now replaced by Ofcom), which were given the remit of regulating with a "lighter touch" and did not have such strong powers as the IBA; some referred to this as "deregulation". The ITC also began regulating non-terrestrial channels, whereas the IBA had only regulated ITV, Channel 4 and the ill-fated British Satellite Broadcasting; the ITC thus took over the responsibilities of the Cable Authority which had regulated the early non-terrestrial channels, which were only available to a very small audience in the 1980s.
An effect of this Act was that, in the letter of the law, the television or radio companies rather than the regulator became the broadcasters, as had been the case in the early (1955-1964) era of the Independent Television Authority when it had fewer regulatory powers than it would later assume.
The Hutton Report, 2004
The Hutton Inquiry was a British judicial inquiry chaired by Lord Hutton, appointed by the United Kingdom Labour government with the terms of reference "...urgently to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly". On 18 July 2003, Kelly, an employee of the Ministry of Defence, was found dead after he had been named as the source of quotes used by BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan. These quotes had formed the basis of media reports claiming that Tony Blair's Labour government had knowingly "sexed up" the "September Dossier", a report into Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. The inquiry opened in August 2003 and reported on 28 January 2004. The inquiry report cleared the government of wrongdoing, while the BBC was strongly criticised, leading to the resignation of the BBC's chairman and director-general. The report was met with criticism by British newspapers opposed to the Iraq invasion, such as The Guardian and the Daily Mail, though others said it exposed serious flaws within the BBC.
The report was eventually published on 28 January 2004. It ran to 750 pages in 13 chapters and 18 appendices, though this was mainly composed of excerpts from the hundreds of documents (letters, emails, transcripts of conversation, and so on) that were published during the inquiry. The main conclusions were:
There was "no underhand [government] strategy" to name him as the source for the BBC's accusations
Gilligan's original accusation was "unfounded" and the BBC's editorial and management processes were "defective"
The dossier had not been "sexed up", but was in line with available intelligence, although the Joint Intelligence Committee, chaired by John Scarlett, may have been "subconsciously influenced" by the government
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) was at fault for not informing Kelly of its strategy that would involve naming him
The report exonerated the Government much more completely than had been expected by many observers prior to its publication. Evidence presented to the inquiry had indicated:
That the wording of the dossier had been altered to present the strongest possible case for war within the bounds of available intelligence
That some of these changes had been suggested by Alastair Campbell
That reservations had been expressed by experts within the Intelligence Community about the wording of the dossier
That David Kelly had direct contact with the dissenters within the Defence Intelligence Staff and had communicated their reservations (and his own) to several journalists.
That, following Kelly's decision to come forward as one of Gilligan's contacts, Alastair Campbell and Geoff Hoon had wanted his identity made public
That the Prime Minister himself had chaired a meeting at which it was decided that Dr Kelly's name would be confirmed by the Ministry of Defence if put to them by journalists
That Kelly's name had been confirmed after journalists had made multiple suggestions to the MOD press office
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
- Funny - not offensive to younger generation but older may find offensive. 40+ audience are about half of the license fee payers and the ones who may be offended.
- Blown out of proportion - 80 or so complaints when aired but 20,000 following press coverage
What is the BBC's ideology?
Reith's dream: "An independent British broadcaster able to educate, inform and entertain the whole nation free from political interference and commercial pressure"
Has it changed in the past 30 years? Should it change now? Should it be changeable?
It hasn't changed much as it still shows education, informing and entertaining shows, however they have become more entertaining than any of their other ideologies. I believe it shouldn't change as these are the original creators 'dream' but I do believe it should be changeable if they wish too.
To what extent has this debacle damaged the BBC? To what extent should it have damaged the BBC? What are the implications for British broadcasting?
I believe this hasn't damaged the BBC as they are still a thriving channel. I do not believe it should have damaged the BBC a lot however, I do think it should have a little as they should not have aired it knowing it may be very offensive.