[cma-l] is there anybody in there?

[Martin Steers]

Oh, inspired by the discussion on the list I decided to blog about it
(mostly saying what I have already said) http://goo.gl/jpBUj but would
welcome any further thoughts on the matter.. I am considering blogging about
each bulletin, if it might be useful to anyone we will see.

Martin

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Martin Steers <martin at martinsteers.co.uk>wrote:

> I dont think it directly came about because of the phone line scandal (to
> be honest it had been going on for years, it wasnt until the BBC got caught
> that it really hit the headlines)
>
> If there is anything in your programme that might suggest to your listeners
> that your show is live and it isnt, then you are misleading your listeners,
> if its meant to or not is a different issue entirely and not what this rule
> is about. (although I suspect if there was evidence that it was
> a deliberate ploy to mislead for what ever reason I imagine ofcom really
> wouldnt be happy).
>
> Its good that your presenters are not inviting listeners to call during a
> pre-recorded (although they still could as long as they say its
> pre-recorded, and what they will do with the calls.. assuming they will get
> answered or recorded) BUT if they are playing a jingle saying "send us xyz
> and said email blah blah" and its pre-recorded then yes that could be
> considered a break as its a direct call to action.. If its a jingle
> promoting the email for any other reason I dont see why that would cause a
> problem.. If your presenters are pre-recording they just need to be given
> guidance or not having calls to action and what would constitute..
>
> Ofcom after several of these types of incidents released a statement about
> the issue here (Page 17)
> http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb127/issue127.pdf
>
> Clearly states Ofcoms position on the matter and how they will treat it..
> Worth a quick read..
>
> In this case its a simple black and white matter, there was a pre-recorded
> call to action for which the listener couldnt interact with the programme
> live.. Regardless of if this was intentional or not (In this case it appears
> it was just a mistake) it was a breach of the code and Ofcom called it what
> it was. They have to be fair to all.. However I strongly doubt that the
> station will receive any fines or penalties as long as they dont do it
> again.. Like so often with community stations, they get a slap on the wrist
> and then told what they did wrong and why. Ofcom wants to work with
> Community Stations to make sure they are doing their best to meet the code,
> KC etc.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Phoenix Dark-Knight <
> phoenix.dark-knight at ne1fm.net> wrote:
>
>> 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 <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
>>> *************************************
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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/20110527/f8d779e6/attachment.html>