[cma-l] is there anybody in there?

Thu May 26 11:36:50 BST 2011

Martin n’ all

I forgot to mention in my rant)       we (CCR) plug all week long that some
of our programmes are repeated 
.. ie:- 60’s / 70’s / 80’s etc     by doing
so PROVES that we are not wishing to deliberately deceive our listeners.

I was on-air last week and mentioned that ‘’the next programme is a repeat
of Sundays seventies show’’  (as I do everyweek)           whilst the show
was playing, three people rang up in the first 20 minutes of the show, all
of them said ‘’oh nevermind I’ll ring back on Sunday’’ 

..

I fully understand the rules and I fully understand that they are there to
protect listeners and Joe public 

. It is unfair to encourage listeners
to text / ring shows knowing that they will get no reaction / no answer and
be charged 

 certainly if it is being charged at premium competition
rate.

We don’t have any charges at our station, that is not what we are about and
we take every opportunity and care to ensure that listeners are not deceived

..

So, my conclusion is this 

.. rule 2.2 needs changing !
it either states clearly that repeated shows are NOT permitted full stop, as
this argument will always rear up it’s ugly head or it is left alone and
everyone gets fined 

 I don’t think there is a community station in the
Land that hasn’t dropped a clanger on this one.

Volunteers simply do not have the time or the will to then finish there show
and go searching and editing out everytime they mention a phone contact.

However, having had my rant I do accept completely that rule 2.2 should
exist, but not if common sense can’t be applied.

The station in breach 

 have they been fined ??               damn shame if
they have.

Nick

  _____  

From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk
[mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk] On Behalf Of Martin Steers
Sent: 26 May 2011 10:26
To: Julian Mellor
Cc: CMA-L
Subject: Re: [cma-l] is there anybody in there?

Although I never like to see a station get breached, I must admit in this
case they did break the rules, if you read the previous cases and the
statement ofcom made at the time they where trying to clamp down on
recorded, non line calls to action, and I dont think I disagree with it.

If your doing any listener based show that relies heavily on listener
engagement be it song requests, thoughts and feelings or any form of voting
etc then this can not be pre-recorded, and if its repeated I think you need
to make that clear as often as you can to your listeners.

The case that got breached wasnt a repeat, as far as I can tell it was a
pre-record.. 

And not to be harsh.. but I am afraid "we don't have the capacity to
monitor, enforce and edit everything to the level they seem to be
requiring." goes against what the station signed up for when you applied for
your license and started broadcasting, as a station you have a
responsibility for everything you broadcast and it must all be code
compliant.

I dont know if I agree with having to use the time and date all the time, do
your volunteers have an extra 15 minutes to edit their shows? Would a
generic "Your listening to a repeat of XYZ show from the XYZ date, any
requests taken wont make it to this show but we will try out best to put
them in the next show" and get them to stick it at the start of the show,
and at regular points during the show (maybe over the original calls to
action). You might want to double check with ofcom, but you might find thats
a good step in the right direction and maybe all you need to do. Other
things you could do is make it clear on websites etc that its a repeat, but
use this as a positive to encourage people to listen to the live shows,
maybe also look at either auto replying to any incoming messages explaining
that its a repeat and you hope to get their request next time.. Either
automated or by hand..

The rules and code are there to protect the listeners and broadcasters, it
has to be the same rules for everyone regardless of the amount of listeners,
demographic or if your charging £1.50 a txt.

Martin

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Julian Mellor <julian at 10radio.org> wrote:

Earlier this week I saw Ofcom's ruling about a breach of the broadcasting
code by a community station not far from here.

Apparently a request show was repeated, a member of the public called in to
speak to the presenter, was told that in fact the show was a repeat, and so
the said member of the public complained to Ofcom that the station was in
breach of rule 2.2 (not to materially mislead).  Instead of find the
complaint malicious and trivial, Ofcom found against the station and said
that they had breached the trust of their listeners.

This raised alarm bells for me as we repeat most of our programmes and most
invite listeners to email or text in with comments (and sometimes requests).
However, rarely, if ever, do presenters give a date stamp during their
programmes so the repeat could be perceived to be live (although there is
absolutely no intent to deceive or mislead and most listeners know our
schedule well enough or look at the website to see if its live or not).
Equally some presenters, especially newbies, often read out the contact
details for want of something to say, but then forget to check the emails
(which could be construed as deception).

I raised the issue with Ofcom of this seemingly draconian interpretation of
rule 2.2 (introduced to stop broadcasters running pseudo competitions on
premium lines) and pointed out that, as a community station staffed entirely
by volunteers, we don't have the capacity to monitor, enforce and edit
everything to the level they seem to be requiring.  I said that it would be
likely to drive away presenters and stop us repeating anything.  Surely, I
said, Ofcom does not want to constrain community broadcasters in this way.

They came back the same day (preferring to call rather than write) and said
it is indeed their intention to constrain broadcasters.  The way around it,
they said, is for any repeated shows to give a date reference when inviting
listeners to make contact.  Furthermore,  presenters must not invite contact
if they are likely to forget to check the messages.

I sent out an instruction to our presenters and already one has come back
saying it will destroy his spontaneity and, given that he can't guarantee
that a date reference will always be given, he is withdrawing his repeats (4
hours of lost programming per week and many saddened listeners).   

I instinctively react against people banging on about nanny states, red tape
etc, but this seems absolute madness and inspires me to move to Tunbridge
Wells from where I shall write to my MP.

How does everyone else deal with the issue?  

(And for the avoidance of doubt this is written live at 9:15am on Thursday
26 May but I may be away from my desk when you reply)

Julian

............................................................................
.....

10Radio: community radio for the 10 parishes

1 Croft Cottage, West St, Wiveliscombe, Somerset, TA4 2JP

Hear us on 105.3fm & www.10radio.org

JM tel: 01984 623 104

Studio and office tel: 01984 624 137

For details of our training, team building, hire and broadcast services,
please go to www.10radio.com

10Radio CIC 

Registered Office: 1 Croft Cottage, West St, Wiveliscombe, Somerset, TA4 2JP

Registered in England and Wales Number: 6004252

_______________________________________________

Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk

The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community Media
Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
_______________________________________________

Mailing list guidelines:
http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
_______________________________________________

To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please visit:
http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20110526/6f064797/attachment.html>