[cma-l] Offensive language on radio - how to avoid the pitfalls
Julian Mellor
julian at 10radio.org
Thu Sep 22 10:21:51 BST 2011
That's not really a like-for-like comparison. Broadcasting a song
with the f word at 10am is not the same as letting an unlicensed
driver take a minibus full of disabled kids at 90mph down a packed
urban street - or did I miss something? The better comparison would
be an insistence that all drivers have to have their licence with them
when they go out on the road. It avoids an offence, but that's it.
It's strange how this debate seems to have been polarised into "abide
by the rules" or "ignore the rules". I don't think I have said
"ignore the rules". What I was trying to highlight (obviously not
very effectively) was that systems of rules generally develop and
evolve to the point where they favour those with the greatest capacity
to implement them - and the fact that Ofcom want a special meeting
about offensive language in songs raises some concerns for me that
they might be wanting greater regulation.
Anyone who has studied sociology may have come across the concept of
'expert systems' - systems that implicitly bar the non-experts from
participating. The legal system is an obvious example, but in other
fields a system of rules that is formed to control and regulate will
tend to reflect the values and priorities of those who create the
rules. In a consultational environment where 'stakeholders' get to
have a say, it tends to be the largest organisations who have the
capacity to make heavyweight submissions, challenge the rules they
don't like, and push towards rules that preferably give them a
competitive advantage. Food hygiene is an obvious case - the
supermarkets will help devise rules to increase hygiene standards via
pre-packaging, sterile environments etc because they know that while
it will cost them a bit more, it will be an impossible level of
compliance for smaller competitors to achieve - so a system that is
set up to protect the public's health ends up forcing out smaller
players and consolidating the market position of the largest players.
Over time of course it levels out, smaller competitors re-emerge who
can absorb the regulations etc - but the rules still create
significant barriers to market entry. (and please don't take that to
read that I am proposing that poisonous food be sold on the shelves!)
My concern with the offensive language debate (or similar situations)
is that extensions (stress: extensions) to the rules / enforcement /
expectations will tend, possibly through unintended consequences, to
favour the larger players with the capacity to absorb the
requirements. Some community stations may have the capacity /
inclination / drive to digest that higher level of regulation and the
BBC obviously have the people with the time to do the auditable risk
analysis etc that gets them off the hook. But as a station that
broadcasts to a small rural community (where it's inevitable that
presenters know the listeners) we simply don't want to offend - it's
not good for business! 99.x% of the time I am sure that we don't, but
the reality of the situation is that sometimes we might, and if we do
we apologise, we take counter-measures, and we move on. And because
of where we are, that works. What I would hate to have is added
layers of intervention and bureaucracy that would support (possibly
lone or vindictive) complainants who have taken offence, that result
in investigations and in the process take up huge amounts of our
time, and ultimately curtail our ability to provide social gain and a
service of value to our community.
And the reality check on the whole thing: my 6 year old son is
probably exposed to language on his way to school that is infinitely
worse than anything we (or others) broadcast. In a world where media
is increasingly delivered by the unregulated internet, this could be
about layers of rules that actually make no difference whatsoever to
the world we live in!
Julian <ducks>
* In some ways this debate is not the best use of my time either, but
it concerns broad principles of regulation which I believe are
important so its worth spending a bit of time thrashing them out
On 21 Sep 2011, at 19:02, Richard Berry wrote:
> Nick,
> I’m sorry but the rules ARE the same for all. What differs is your
> ability to meet those rules. You could see this as a problem and try
> and fight it (a battle which you will never win) or you could apply
> your energy to working how you do comply.
>
> If you don’t have people to throw at the problem, use systems or
> technology.
>
> To use Ian’s comparison. if you were running a community transport
> charity would you let anyone turn up a drive the minibus and let
> them speed, double-park etc and then blame the law when the police
> came knocking? Of course you wouldn’t. You’d ensure training was in
> place and grant your volunteers with the sense to follow the law.
> Radio is no different. Train them, tell the rules and put whatever
> safeguards you need in place.
>
> Ofcom have been VERY clear here and we should take note of their
> advice.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> From: Office - ccr-fm
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:27 PM
> To: 'Richard Berry' ; 'CMA-L'
> Subject: RE: [cma-l] Offensive language on radio - how to avoid the
> pitfalls
>
> Peter n’ all
>
> I think all in all Peter is correct ……… infact a lot of people
> chipping in their threepennith have been right …….. however I would
> like to correct one thing (yep ! here I go again)
>
>
> Peter states ‘’the rules are the same for everyone’’
> er ? no they ain’t ? and it is because
> some of the rules are different as to why some of the stations can’t
> afford to have more hands on deck which would thus reduce the
> probability of music getting through that shouldn’t.
>
> The rules are not the same and that is basis of all of my whinging.
> The playing field isn’t level with the commercial boys, and to rub
> salt in the wounds it ain’t level within our own fraturnity either.
>
> Regards
>
> Nick
> From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk [mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk
> ] On Behalf Of Richard Berry
> Sent: 21 September 2011 15:50
> To: 'CMA-L'
> Subject: Re: [cma-l] Offensive language on radio - how to avoid the
> pitfalls
>
> Without risking repeating what's been said already, the message here
> from ofcom is quite clear: swearing on the radio is not acceptable.
> However, you will notice that in 2 of the cases the matter was seen
> as 'resolved' due to the efforts made by the station to ensure
> compliance.
>
> Those looking for conspiracy will no doubt see it here and complain
> that community radio is been beaten with a stick and those who get
> paid to do radio have escaped. But the point to see here is actually
> that if you have robust and appropriate compliance systems ofcom
> will recognise what you've done.
>
> Part of the deal of taking on a licence is you follow the rules and
> those rules are the same for everyone. Obviously, by its nature
> community radio takes more risks. Capital will only play around 140
> different tracks at any one time and it those are picked very
> carefully indeed by their music team. Community stations will play
> much more than that and so the risks are increased of playing
> something a bit naughty.
>
> You could tackle this in one of a number of ways. Insist only tracks
> on a playout system are played and these can only be added by a
> single person… or presenters can add tracks but won't be released
> for automation until they've listened to and approved. Presenter
> contracts emphasising their compliance role may also be a useful
> check. You may of course be of the view that the important part of
> what you do as a station is what the presenters say and where they
> come from – not the music they play – and so a locked-down schedule
> of music is not only useful but sometimes desirable. As you will
> note that the live swearing on Radio 1 escaped sanction because they
> had audit-able evidence of the steps they took to ensure compliance.
>
> This goes back to my often made point in this field that if you make
> the effort to ensure compliance and something goes wrong then ofcom
> will be more understanding. Training and development is at the heart
> of this. This may be time consuming and generally a pain but it's
> what we're all about – or at least it should be.
>
>
>
>
> Richard Berry
> Senior Lecturer in Radio
> University of Sunderland
> Tel: (+44) 0191 515 2239
> Social: @sunderlandradio
>
>
> From: Office - ccr-fm <office at ccr-fm.co.uk>
> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:35:43 +0100
> To: 'Julian Mellor' <julian at 10radio.org>, 'CMA-L' <cma-l at commedia.org.uk
> >
> Subject: Re: [cma-l] Offensive language on radio - how to avoid the
> pitfalls
>
> Dear All
>
> Could I go back to my absolutely square one, point one, the
> beginning etc etc and point out that if weren’t scratting our
> backsides for funding because of the restrictions we could lighten
> the load of the unemployment service / job seekers by about 600
> persons and knock all the skittles down with one bowl by having one
> or two more hands on deck (possibly professionals) (which = better
> training)
>
> This I believe is the point ………….. we will never find the remedy if
> we don’t understand the symptoms. The symptoms are VERY IMPORTANT
> ………. If they are caused by and created by us (Community Radio) then
> we have to take it on the chin when the big chiefs come down on us
> …….. if however they are part of theblame (which the restrictions
> are) then a re-think needs to happen. Preferably sooner rather
> than later.
>
> Everyone is trying to do their best under the circumstances, us
> included. I personally think we all deserve a medal operating in the
> main very good services with little help from people who live in
> Ivory Towers and have no idea of what is actually going on. These
> people get my gander right up and one day very soon I shall bump
> into one or two of them and they will not like it up em’ Mr
> Mainwaring ! J LOL
>
> Regards
>
> Nick
>
> Soldier on chaps and do your best !
>
> From: cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk [mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk
> ] On Behalf Of Julian Mellor
> Sent: 21 September 2011 12:31
> To: CMA-L
> Subject: Re: [cma-l] Offensive language on radio - how to avoid the
> pitfalls
>
> Interesting debate.
>
> It does seem that there are two models of community radio.
>
> One is a radio station that happens to use community and voluntary
> resources. The operational style is probably very similar to
> commercial radio.
>
> The other is a community project that happens to produce radio.
>
> It's not to say one is better than the other, and I'm sure some
> stations combine both. But we very much fall into the second model.
>
> Hardly anyone had previous radio experience before we setup six
> years ago, but we had lots of community development experience. We
> setup primarily to do community development. In that context, we're
> not going to be negligent and we're not going to ignore what we have
> signed up to do. But we are going to be realistic about what
> volunteers can be expected to do, and what they can achieve and
> deliver in the absence of full-time hands-on management. From the
> conversations I've had, people from the more commercial and possibly
> top down model really struggle with this approach. But it works for
> us, it works for our community, and from what Ofcom have said having
> monitored our output, it works for them as well.
>
> So getting back to the original point, a regulatory system which
> relies upon stations having fully resourced staff and management
> teams presents extra challenges for volunteer run stations such as
> ours. If, at the meeting in October, Ofcom seem inclined to move
> towards increased regulation or expectations, I would ask that the
> Jaqui and the CMA represent the difficulties that this will pose for
> stations operating with minimal resources.
>
> 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_mediahttp://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
> Visit http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/tv to see the University's new TV
> ads
>
>
>
> Visit http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/tv to see the University's new TV
> ads
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20110922/0bf89df4/attachment.html>
More information about the cma-l
mailing list