The BBC Trust ordered a review of acceptable standards following the row over obscene phone messages left for the actor Andrew Sachs by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand.

The report - written by BBC creative director Alan Yentob and director of archive content Roly Keating - calls for clear guidelines on intrusion, intimidation and humiliation to to ensure that everyone involved in programme making understands that such behaviours are unacceptable.

Of 2,206 adults aged over 16 were questioned for an Ipsos Mori survey.

The main findings were:

1. Where audiences are concerned about the area of taste and morality on television as a whole, this is often connected with broader concerns about falling standards in terms of quality and the over-reliance on reality formats.
2. Standards of morality, values and behaviour in the media in particular are not a top-of-mind issue for the majority of the public.
3. The BBC overall performs well in the audience's perceptions of standards of morality, values and behaviour, compared to other channels and broadcasters. The audience also has higher expectations of the BBC.
4. In general terms, the public do not want increased censorship or regulation. The majority value the creativity of the BBC and accept that it may sometimes lead to offending some people.
5. When prompted, a significant proportion of the audience have various concerns about standards of morality, values and behaviour in the media as a whole, including newspapers, magazines, broadcasting and online content.
6. Strong language is an area of concern for some audiences; they recognise when language is used for clear purpose or effect within a programme - including comedy and entertainment - but dislike 'unnecessary' or excessive use.
7. In certain genres, the offensive potential of strong language can be compounded when it is combined with apparently aggressive or bullying behaviour. This reflects broader public concerns about aggression and bullying within society as a whole.
8. There is little public consensus or agreement about what constitutes offence: it means very different things to different sections of the audience.
9. The context in which potentially offensive content is placed is of paramount importance to audiences, as are judgements of quality. Both can make the difference between whether something is acceptable to audiences or not.
10. Tone and intent can also make strong material acceptable: the 'twinkle in the eye' of a performer and their skill in delivery can make the decisive difference, even with potentially offensive material.
11. Age and socio-economic group go some way to describing who in the audience is more likely to have concerns, but they do not tell the full story.
12. Younger audiences (11-15 year-olds) are uniquely self-selecting in their choice of media content, through the web and magazines as well as broadcast material. Though strongly drawn to more sexual content, some express unease about the sexualised nature of the media world in which they live and the pressure to 'grow up fast.'
13. Sexual content on television and radio was a matter of relatively low concern for audiences. There was an expectation that the television watershed should be respected, and content on radio appropriately scheduled. There is no appetite for a watershed in radio.
14. Some respondents commented that the transfer of some successful series from BBC Two may bring a somewhat ‘edgier’ tone to BBC One.
15. Respondents expressed few concerns about standards on BBC Radio. However, of all the BBC’s services, Radio 1 has the most divided response in terms of morality, values and behaviour.
16. Audiences are conscious of the challenges presented by the growth of online and on-demand content, but there is little awareness of the BBC's 'G for Guidance' systems, or understanding that iPlayer has a parent password protection scheme which prevents children accessing adult content.

Conclusions

1. Audiences accept potentially offensive content but believe it should be there for a purpose. They have a sophisticated sense of different programme genres, from serious documentary to reality and entertainment. Producers should ensure that any potentially offensive material has a clear editorial purpose and ask themselves is it necessary? Does it enhance the quality of the experience for audiences?
2. Viewers understand and value the television watershed. The BBC must respect and maintain its significance as a crucial contribution to audience confidence in television standards. There is no audience demand for a radio watershed.
3. Of all BBC services, BBC One is the most sensitive, because of its ability to unite generations and families in shared viewing. The bar for the strongest language between 9pm and 10pm must therefore remain significantly higher than on other BBC television channels.
4. On all channels, producers, presenters, commissioners and controllers have a shared responsibility to ensure that the force and value of the strongest words is not weakened by over-use. The mandatory referral of the most offensive language to Channel Controllers reflects this and must be maintained.
5. Mischievous banter, practical jokes and formats, which include elements of confrontation and criticism, can all be legitimate – indeed the public tell us that they can add greatly to their enjoyment; but programme makers, on-air artists and presenters must ensure that they never tip over into malice, humiliation or harm.
6. Audiences admire performers who take risks but have the expertise to know when to draw a line. To support such talent, producers and controllers must always be candid and open with them about judgements of tone and content, and be prepared where appropriate to take and enforce tough decisions.
7. Risk-taking is as vital a part of the BBC's mission in comedy, drama and entertainment as it is in other genres. As with all programme making, the greater the risk, the greater the thought, care and pre-planning needed to bring something groundbreaking to air.

Recommendations

1. New series on television and radio For new series where questions of taste and standards are likely to arise, there must be a discussion with the commissioning executive early in the production cycle to agree appropriate parameters of tone and content, to ensure that all involved – including presenters and performers – have given thought to questions of channel, context and slot. Even when a returning series has established expectations of strong language and content, there should be a similar discussion before the start of each run.
2. Greater care over cross-channel transfers When a TV series moves to a more mainstream channel - especially to BBC One - producers and controllers should be sensitive to its new context, and give careful consideration to adaptations of tone or format if necessary.
3. Clearer policy on bleeping of strong language A clearer policy should be set for the use of bleeping in TV and radio programmes. In general, where strong language is integral to the meaning or content of a programme – and other questions of slot, context channel etc have been resolved – it should not be disguised. But when in other circumstances a sequence that is editorially necessary happens to contain the strongest language, it may be right to bleep or disguise the words, even after the watershed.
4. New guidance on malicious intrusion, intimidation and humiliation BBC programmes must never condone malicious intrusion, intimidation and humiliation. While they are all aspects of human behaviour which may need to be depicted, described or discussed across the BBC’s factual and non-factual output, they must never be celebrated for the purposes of entertainment. New guidance is needed to ensure that everyone involved in programme making for the BBC understands that malicious intrusion, intimidation and humiliation are unacceptable.
5. Clearer audience information and warnings The BBC should always recognise that some sections of its audiences are more readily offended than others. We owe the public the information they need to make informed choices about viewing and listening and to avoid material they may regard as unsuitable for themselves or their families. Each channel must make even greater efforts to ensure that appropriate content information (eg. billings and presentation announcements) is provided which enables informed judgements to be made by all audiences, both pre- and post-watershed, about programme content.
6. Music radio Music radio thrives on strong personalities, and young audiences value BBC Radio 1 highly; but editorial teams must be reminded that particular care needs to be taken at times of day, such as school runs, when different generations may be listening together.
7. Major awareness campaign about online guidance The BBC has pioneered content guidance and child protection mechanisms provided by the iPlayer. Audiences are concerned about the internet as a space of unregulated content and are insufficiently aware of the protection available for BBC content. A major campaign of public information is needed as soon as possible to raise awareness of the content guidance and offer reassurance to audiences. The BBC should also work to ensure that the next generation of Freeview and FreeSat PVRs have PIN protection functionality.
8. More regular audience research In-depth audience research, along the lines of the findings in this paper, should be conducted more often to ensure that the BBC maintains a full and detailed understanding of audience attitudes to taste and standards. To keep up with changes in audience taste, research should be commissioned every two to three years. Careful attention should be given to key tracking questions that will enable the BBC to identify changes in audience and societal attitudes.
9. Revision of Editorial Guidelines and Guidance The BBC’s Editorial Policy department should use the research, general principles and recommendations in this report to inform the current general revision of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and, in particular, to clarify audience expectations of tone and context. In addition, new Guidance will be required to keep programme and content makers up-todate with audience expectations of BBC content.
10. Increased commitment to training The research findings offer new opportunities to illuminate the understanding of taste and standards for programme makers across the BBC. The findings should be briefed to leadership groups in all content divisions by the Director and Chief Adviser, Editorial Policy. The Colleges of Production and Journalism should develop new training material that explores audience attitudes specific to each of the key genres, which will be rolled out to programme makers both in-house and independent. The audience research and the conclusions of this report should also be made available through normal Editorial Policy channels to all programme makers. The findings of this study and the materials used in it should inform online courses, which will be used to maintain editorial policy standards.

One of the biggest films of the 1990's was James Cameron's True Lies. A film that proved that Cameron could deliberately do comedy (not accidentally, see Piranha 2, he may have disowned it, but its still out their), and that Arnie's Last Action Hero, was simply a bad call (a fact that would be cemented in 1995, when its director gave us arguably the best Die hard sequel). However, what made True Lies even more of a point of interest was when Joe public was renting it on video, it had a strange message on the back of the cover, quite small, but big enough to see. This film has been formatted to fit your television. Ok, nothing wrong with that, Those Hollywood boffins tinker with films all the time for home video release (check out early pan and scans of Die Hard, half the terrorists are missing for most of it. I thought their was only 4 until I watched the widescreen version), So there's nothing strange there. Except underneath that sentence, their was another sentence. James Cameron's own bitter sentence: It has also been edited for censorship purposes. I'm amazed the video even got rented, as it was a massive box office hit, and young men in their early teens like myself, saw it Theatrically several times, (and knew exactly what was missing). Something that would haunt Arnie's next big release, Eraser, but that's a different story.

Over the years, True Lies has appeared in all sorts of shapes and forms in the UK. From the (quite) neatly trimmed VHS (its a Rembrandt compared to the editing Die Hard with a Vengeance, Eraser & Judge Dredd would suffer), to the butchered edit of the first gen DVD, to being released totally uncut on DVD (as a dual region 2/4), without anyone batting an eyelid (although it was quickly withdrawn). The TV versions are even funnier................. Except ITV 2. A few months back they screened a version of True Lies that had some of the best (and sneaky) editing for this film to date (the way Bill Paxton's bloodied nose was cut around was VERY shrewd). Although it had some holes (why's Arnie walking away from a dead guy slumped over a crate?), but it was barely noticeable.

Now. ITV 2 are probably the most Ofcom friendly channel you can get. Their films always seem to adhere to what the pre-millennium BBFC deemed safe for the UK, this is handy as none of their films seem to breach the millennium mark, and therefore their big actioners are from a time when James Ferman and his group of Hollywood fearing, scissor happy chums, were at their peak of saving humanity from reality (Cliffhanger, it could happen you know). Until tonight. But, I'm not quite sure what's happened.

A while back, it was reported that True Lies had again been released uncut, this time as part of a DVD action box set. No alarm bells were rung, the set wasn't yanked from shelves (to my knowledge) in a bitter outcry of negligence, and humanity didn't crumble. Fair enough, the BBFC may have granted it an uncut certificate on the quiet. Happened with Cliffhanger, the Blu-ray of Eraser, and apparently Die Hard with a Vengeance (although the last 2 have yet to surface on shelves). Just because we didn't hear about it, didn't mean it didn't happen.

However. And here's where I get hazy, tonight, ITV 2 screened a NEAR complete True Lies Yep, Bill Paxton's bloodied nose graced the screen for its full 3 seconds of youth corrupting glory, the scalpel in the eye was intact too. BUUUUUUUUUUUUT, in the same scene as the scalpel, the neck break of the (would be) torturer was missing, as was the cracking of the guards ribs with the crow bar. The ear clap in the toilet fight was present, yet the headbutt was missing (still very cleverly cut around). Language has never been an issue with this film, so that was all intact, and the film went out at 21.30. So all the precious kiddiewinks were in bed. Was the DVD action set UNCUT? or did it just have some of the more memorable cuts reinstated? or have the BBFC been submitted yet another version? As their website doesn't acknowledge any cuts waived. Either way, very odd.

Update: Action Heroes Collection

25th June 2009. Thanks to Simon

I recently wrote about the uncut version of True Lies on the Action Heroes Collection.

After reading about the showing on ITV 2, I thought I would check the DVD against what was missing from the ITV 2 showing. All the footage missing is present on the DVD.

It would make it a lot more clearer if the BBFC would say weather the box set contains the uncut version or not.

JThe Top Gear presenter, Jeremy Clarkson, with co-star James May, offended both the Scout Association and the Catholic Church while reviewing the Skoda Scout car.

May said: I suppose every summer it goes off to the country somewhere and is touched inappropriately. Clarkson added: No, no, James, that's the Skoda Catholic Church.

Simon Carter, a spokesman for the Scout Association, said it had submitted a formal complaint to the BBC. He said the remarks were tasteless, adding: We have had dozens of calls and emails from Scout members not happy at all. It's a shame they decided to have a dig at two organisations that do a lot of good in the community. And there is no real excuse because [Top Gear] is not live and is clearly scripted, so producers have heard it and given it the nod anyway.

TV censor Ofcom confirmed it had received complaints following the remarks made on Sunday night's show. But the BBC denied it had received a complaint from the Scout Association.

The Paranormal Channel on UK Sky Digital (Channel 201) is going to be showing the video nasty The Mountain of the Cannibal God (aka Prisoner of the Cannibal God) in the next week!

It will be shown on Saturday 13th June at 10pm, and then repeated several times throughout the rest of the month.

Other hopefully uncut features showing in June, include:

- DEMONS
- DEMONS 2
- THE CORPSE-GRINDERS
- THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA
- ASYLUM (1972 Roy Ward Baker version)
- NIGHT TRAIN TO TERROR

Update: Slaves

10th June 2009. Thanks to a Melon Farming reader

The Sky Electronic Programme Guide has this listed under the title Slave of the Cannibal God. That would suggest it is the cut US version missing an explicit castration scene.

Update: Diamond Version

11th June 2009. Thanks to Dark Angel

Actually Slave of the Cannibal God has been shown several times on that channel over the last year or so.

The print they show is indeed mostly uncut. It's of the theatrical version, so it misses out the "orgy" scene that was included in the extended versions released by Anchor Bay and Blue Underground.

However, all the scenes cut by the BBFC are intact, including the animal violence. Though it misses out the castration scene.

It appears to be the same slightly cut print that grey market label "Diamond DVD" were releasing in the US a few years ago

A BBC news presenter was forced to apologise today after a minor transgression during a major interview with a Cabinet minister.

John Humphrys was grilling International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander on the political crisis engulfing Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Raising the idea that Labour are embroiled in civil wa', Humphrys said: We have got elements of Number 10 actually turning on MPs in their own constituencies. We have Barry Sheerman telling us that he's got people from Number 10 ringing his own constituency, talking to his own officials, telling them that they have got to get him to attend a meeting so that he can be given a bollocking.

Later, the presenter apologised for his inadvertent outburst while discussing ghost stories with John Sutherland, professor of English literature at University College London.

He said: Can I get guidance from you? I used a word earlier on this programme that was supposed to be 'rollicking' but it came out slightly differently and had a 'b' at the front instead of an 'r' at the beginning.

Professor Sutherland insisted it was an entirely innocent word.

But Humphrys said: It's alright with a 'b' or an 'r'? To those listeners who were offended by it, my humble apologies.

A BBC spokesperson said: Whilst John didn't use the best turn of phrase this morning, these slips occasionally happen in a live radio situation. John didn't mean to cause any offence to his listeners and did offer his apologies towards the end of the programme.

Ofcom is set to investigate the treatment of Susan Boyle on Britain's Got Talent after complaints from viewers.

The 48-year-old singer was last night being treated at a private clinic after suffering an emotional breakdown in the aftermath of the show.

Nineteen million viewers watched the beginning of Miss Boyle's meltdown on Saturday night as she was beaten to first place by dance group Diversity. Within 24 hours, police officers and TV producers had forcibly escorted her to The Priory clinic in North London.

TV censor Ofcom is considering an investigation into whether ITV has breached the broadcasting code after viewers flooded phone lines with a large number of complaints.

Section eight of the code states: People in a state of distress should not be put under pressure to take part in a programme or provide interviews, unless it is warranted.'

Britain's Got Talent producer Talkback Thames last night admitted that contestants are not psychologically tested. It has now said it will review this policy.

Update: Ofcom, a Talent for Censorship

3rd June 2009: Based on article from ofcom.org.uk

Ofcom have just published a notice to say that the media has jumped the gun in suggesting that Ofcom are already investigating Britain's Got Talent:

There has been a lot of public interest in the semi-final and final of ITV's popular Britain's Got Talent programme.

A number of people have contacted Ofcom to make comments and complaints about aspects of the programme.

With Britain's Got Talent, we are reviewing the complaints we have received against the Broadcasting Code. As with all such cases, our assessment will help us to decide whether we need to investigate or not, however at present we are not investigating.

Update: Few Complaints

4th June 2009: Based on article from news.bbc.co.uk

Almost 350 people complained to Ofcom about Britain's Got Talent last week, but fewer than 20 were concerned about the treatment of runner-up Susan Boyle.

Only 16 complaints were received after Saturday's final. Ofcom says most of them were about the winners, Diversity.

In contrast, 331 viewers got in touch after Friday's semi-final. More than half were annoyed that Hollie Steel was allowed a second chance to perform. Ten-year-old Steel performed a second time on the talent show after bursting into tears during her first attempt at Edelweiss. Ofcom said around 50 complaints were received about the welfare of the young singer.

The incident sparked debate over whether children should be allowed to participate in such programmes because of the pressure involved.

Update: Psychological Testing to Ensure that Contestants are Crazy Enough to go on TV

5th June 2009: Based on article from broadcastnow.co.uk

The UK government is preparing a major public consultation on the use of children in TV shows such as Britain’s Got Talent, which last week saw 10-year-old semi-finalist Hollie Steel break down on live TV.

Broadcasters and indies are among producers to have met with the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) in the lead-up to the full consultation, due later this summer.

The DCSF’s review, which is also canvassing the modelling, stage and film industries, centres on legislation that has remained unchanged since 1968, when the Children’s Entertainment Regulations came into force. It is being led by junior children’s minister Delyth Morgan.

A DCSF spokesman said: We want children to develop and have exciting opportunities to participate in television and other forms of entertainment. However, while they are doing that, we have a duty to ensure that children are safeguarded appropriately, and that the regulations we have make sure that this happens.

Silver River boss Daisy Goodwin said: There’s an interesting moral question for everyone in telly about why the most popular programme on TV is one where children cry and where a woman with learning difficulties is shown at the end of her tether. If I was making the show, I would consider raising the age limit. I’d also question why there was no psych testing.