[cma-l] is there anybody in there?

Thu May 26 13:59:38 BST 2011

Hi all, I have to say the station being in breach over this doesn't sit
right with me either, the way (I imagine) most read the rule is directly
associated with the phone-line scandals of years past that mean "don't let
people phone up for a competition/equivalent if the show is repeated" not
these very wide interpretations of "misleading listeners".

Here at NE1fm we only repeat one show, that mentions it's repeat once or
twice when giving out information and doesn't invite calls or emails.
However, we also have a number of pre-recorded shows, that are presented as
live, and during those times, I know no-one will be in the studios to take
calls - now the presenter is not likely to slip a phone number in there if
s/he's pre-recording, but what if s/he puts a jingle in with our studio
email on? are we in breach?

Also with our open slot programming, we certainly will have presenters,
newbies and old hats, who will read out the phone number, txt number and
email/website addresses all to add to their content/links, and who might
forget or just not bother to check the 2nd computer screen.
I think it's very draconian indeed to suggest we're in breach for this last
point, and whilst I appreciate Ofcom's need to protect the listeners from
programming that *may* cost people a wasted phonecall or txt (n.b. All our
call/txt rates are standard) I can't get behind the logic of this decision.

Phoenix D-K

CBIT/NE1fm 102.5
Virginia House
Georges Road
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
NE4 7NQ

[T] 0191 240 1025
[E] phoenix.dark-knight at ne1fm.net
[W] http://www.ne1fm.net
NE1fm 102.5 is owned and operated by CBIT.
CBIT is registered in England & Wales, Company No. 05022142

On 26 May 2011 13:34, <cma-l-request at mailman.commedia.org.uk> wrote:

> Send cma-l mailing list submissions to
>        cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        cma-l-request at mailman.commedia.org.uk
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        cma-l-owner at mailman.commedia.org.uk
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cma-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re:  is there anybody in there? (Office - ccr-fm)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 11:36:50 +0100
> From: "Office - ccr-fm" <office at ccr-fm.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [cma-l] is there anybody in there?
> To: <martin at martinsteers.co.uk>, "'CMA-L'" <cma-l at commedia.org.uk>,
>        "'jaqui devereux'" <jaqui.devereux at commedia.org.uk>
> Message-ID:
>
>  <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAFLfoHySwD9Hi/viVsoHZf/CgAAAEAAAADr/XrlRix5PruKb9Lm8J/wBAAAAAA==@
> ccr-fm.co.uk>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> cma-l mailing list - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
>
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription please visit:
> http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
>
> End of cma-l Digest, Vol 46, Issue 41
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20110526/3d0017e3/attachment.html>