Ofcom raps Quiz Call phone-insLeigh Holmwood

Monday March 26, 2007MediaGuardian.co.uk

Media regulator Ofcom said it has "serious concerns" about a growing number of complaints about call-TV quiz services after it found two Quiz Call programmes guilty of breaching the broadcasting code.

An episode of Quiz Call on Channel Five in September last year was censured after a presenter described a "difficult mathematics" game as "easy".

Ofcom ruled that this would have affected whether people chose to play and ruled the episode was not conducted fairly.

Five said the use of the word "easy" in describing the quiz was "not ideal" and said that it would be holding a seminar with the programme's staff to ensure they understand the detail of the broadcasting code.

Ofcom also ruled against the Word Association game on the Quiz Call channel, which was owned by Channel 4 at the time of the complaint in September.

Two viewers complained about the quiz in which they were asked to name "things in Australia", with one of the answers flagged up by the presenter as "Alice something" with the word "Alice" followed by seven asterisks on the screen.

However, the answer turned out to be "Alice Springs Camel Cup" which no viewer got correct.

Ofcom ruled that the correct answer was "almost impossible" for callers to have considered.

Channel 4 admitted that the clue on screen "may have suggested that a seven letter answer was required" and apologised for the error.

Ofcom said today that it had "serious concerns" about a "growing trend" in complaints relating to the conduct of some quiz TV competitions.

The regulator, which last week confirmed it would launch an official investigation into the quiz TV sector, told broadcasters it would consider the imposition of "statutory sanctions" against those who "seriously, deliberately or repeatedly" breach the code.

My Comments: the tv quiz are just a waste of money! lol.what is right witha quiz?!?! .. i mean theres so many things that could go wrong with it! technicial errors, presenters mis-reading... The fact that the question asked was imposssble to answer well.. those who construst these questions need to go bak to the basic and find out who their target audiences are!!! I wouldnt blame the presenters as much as the people who are specialised in organising the quizs. There will always be problems with this because its the INDIVIDUALS interpretation and everyone thinks differently. To solve this presenters need to be careful with their chioce of words and not say "difficult mathematics" game as "easy". "

Mirror cleared over Kelly complaint
Stephen Brook, press correspondentMonday March 26, 2007MediaGuardian.co.uk

The Press Complaints Commission has vindicated the Daily Mirror for revealing that Ruth Kelly, the communities secretary, decided to send her child to a private school.

Ms Kelly, took the Mirror to the PCC in January for revealing that she had opted to send her son, who has special needs, to a private school.

The story was broken by the Mail on Sunday on its front page in January, but the paper did not name Ms Kelly, identifying her only as a cabinet minister.

The following day the Mirror became the first media outlet to identify her by name and the rest of the media followed suit.

The Mirror was the only newspaper that Ms Kelly took action against.

"My sole concern throughout has been the welfare of my young son. I believe his right to privacy has been breached," she said in a statement at the time of her complaint.

In response, Richard Wallace, the editor of the Mirror, said: "We are confident that it was entirely right that we identify Ms Kelly so the public could decide whether her action was appropriate, given that they were clearly at odds with government policy."

Clause 6i of the PCC code states that "young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion".

But under its definition of the public interest, the code states: "In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to override the normally paramount interest of the child."

Ms Kelly argued that, by naming her, the Mirror had identified her child and interfered with his ability to attend his new school. She did not consider that the article served the public interest to the extent required by the code.

The Mirror said that it did not report the child's name, age and gender, nor the identity of the school.
The PCC said Ms Kelly, a previous education minister, had "understandable concerns" for her child's welfare but that the Mirror article highlighted a subject of "considerable public interest".

It said that Ms Kelly's removal of her child from the state system to be enrolled in a private school raised important issues for public debate.

"The fact that the complainant did not feel that the current state system could meet her child's requirements raised questions about the nature of publicly-funded schooling and its ability to cater for children with special needs (including those whose families would not be able to pay for private schooling)," the PCC said.

"The commission concluded that the newspaper had, in its handling of the story, correctly balanced the public's right to know on the one hand with the child's right to privacy on the other.

"Care had been taken to avoid unnecessary intrusion into the child's private life. As a result, it ruled that there was no breach of clause 6 (Children) of the code. The complaint was not upheld."

The Daily Mirror editor, Richard Wallace, said the PCC ruling was "gratifying".

"It was most regrettable that a complaint was made to the PCC in the first place, over a story that was quite clearly of the highest public interest," he said.

"However, the commission's unanimous decision to reject the complaint - and its decision that naming Ruth Kelly was 'necessary' in the context of a story which was 'a matter of considerable public interest' - is gratifying.

"As the Daily Mirror said at the time, when it comes to important issues the public has a right to know whether politicians are as sound in deed as they are in word."

Ms Kelly said she was "very disappointed" by the PCC ruling.

"I have always accepted the scrutiny, both personal and political, which comes with being a politician and minister," she said.

"But this case was not about me but about a nine-year-old child. I brought the complaint because I do not see why the protection that the code rightly gives to children in general should not extend to the children of politicians.

"My sole intention throughout was to protect my son."

In its ruling, the PCC said Ms Kelly's concerns about the effect that publishing the article would have on her child were "entirely understandable".

It said that in reaching a decision on her complaint, it had to decide whether the newspaper struck an "appropriate balance" between avoiding unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of the child and publishing a story which served the public interest.

My Comments: Yet again the media is digging to keep into issues that really do not concern the public. I think that the media really need to step out of people's private space, especially when its concerning a disabled child, and making it public knowledge.. how is that helping the public :S There was no need for the media to pin point names and gender etc... i think more important matters should be addressed rather than making people feel sorry for diabled children.. treat them like normal. yes people with disabilities need to educate the public but..this was just out of order! it was her job as the mother to protect her child, the media should not have intruded on that privacy and decision from the mother. Updates on the war, the global state of the world are issues wihch neeed to be addressed more!!!

Virgin Media has been confirmed as the sponsor of Big Brother 8 with the company's mobile arm to be the main service promoted.

Virgin Media has signed on for the main summer series - as revealed by MediaGuardian.co.uk - but not next year's Celebrity Big Brother version.

Channel 4 has not yet announced if there will be a Celebrity Big Brother in 2008. However, it is understood that Virgin Media will be given first refusal on extending the sponsorship if the trouble-laden show runs without a hitch this summer.

"Of course we had worries [about this year's Celebrity Big Brother], we would have been foolhardy if we didn't," said James Kydd, the managing director of marketing at Virgin Media.

"We spent a lot of time talking to Channel 4 about how they were sorting out their internal processes to make sure there wouldn't be any sort of escalation again. But Big Brother is always controversial, it is the nature of the beast. We just wanted to be reassured that there wouldn't be a situation that got out of control again."

Carphone Warehouse pulled out of its £2.5m a year sponsorship of Big Brother following the Shilpa Shetty racism row in January.

The Big Brother sponsorship package includes branding and advertising opportunities across TV, video-on-demand, online, radio and mobile.

"The sponsorship will be split between our mobile and media services," added Mr Kydd. "What Big Brother does is give a fantastic opportunity to bring to life quadplay in action and the core 16-34 demographic BB reaches is a bullseye for mobile. Virgin Mobile will be the lead sponsor but we will absolutely push Virgin Media messaging."

My comments: i honestly feel that if there is a BigBrother 2008, i thin there needs to be stricter rules and regulations as i felt that this year there was a international controversy about whether the housemates where racist or not. i think that car phone warehouse did the right thing to withdraw their sponsorship. i just hope this year.. there aare no regrets.

Viacom sues Google and YouTubeBobbie Johnson, technology correspondent

Tuesday March 13, 2007Guardian Unlimited

Media conglomerate Viacom has broken cover against Google by suing the internet giant and its YouTube video sharing website for $1bn (£517m).

The company, which owns TV channels including MTV, Nickelodeon and Paramount Comedy, today filed a suit with a US district court in New York, attacking Google for "massive intentional copyright infringement" and asking for an injunction to prevent users posting more of its videos to YouTube.

"YouTube is a significant, for-profit organisation that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google," said New York-based Viacom in a statement.

"Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws.

"In fact, YouTube strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site, thus generating significant traffic and revenues for itself while shifting the entire burden – and high cost – of monitoring YouTube onto the victims of its infringement."

The $1.65bn acquisition of YouTube by Google last year led many industry insiders to speculate that a slew of lawsuits could follow from angry broadcasters.

Viacom's is the first major lawsuit to hit the Silicon Valley giant.

The statement accuses Google of failing to make positive steps to redress the situation.

"After a great deal of unproductive negotiation, and remedial efforts by ourselves and other copyright holders, YouTube continues in its unlawful business model. Therefore, we must turn to the courts to prevent Google and YouTube from continuing to steal value from artists and to obtain compensation for the significant damage they have caused."

Earlier this month a stand-off between the two companies looked to have been solved after Google agreed that it would remove thousands of pieces of copyrighted content from YouTube.

Viacom recently agreed a deal with Joost, a new peer-to-peer TV company from the creators of Skype, to distribute the company's TV shows and channels online. That agreement could have paved the way for the latest action, which builds on increasing pressure over Google's approach to copyright.

The internet company's stance has come in for criticism from broadcasters, publishers and newspaper groups in recent weeks – and last week Microsoft launched a broadside at its rival for what it called a "cavalier" approach to copyright.

Using the comparison of these two texts as your starting point explore the media issues and debates which they raise:

• Key concepts
• Contextual factors – wider contexts
• Media theory
  

‘The Revolution Will Not Be Televised’ (text 1) by Gill Scott–Heron discusses the representation of black people whilst critiquing the ‘white media’. ‘Your Revolution’ (text 2) by Dj Vadim ft Sarah Jones explores the rebellion of black females. Both texts explore the concept of the 'Black Power'.

Text 1 portrays the conflict between the white and blacks, portraying ethnic minorities inferior within the media, which is encouraged by the marxist theorist Karl Marx who is concerned with the idea of instituions such as the media being a form on hegemony. This is shown through the line “There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down brothers in the instant reply” The diction ‘pig’ has been used to describe police whilst referring to the “brothers” as victims, also emphasising on the quantity of black victims, therefore creating a sense of unity. Heron uses the diction “brother” to strengthen the relation between the black people and also re-emphasising the fact that the majority feel the same. This theme of victim is also present in Jones’ ‘Your Revolution’ she is taking a feminist stance, portraying the black females as victim of patriarchy “Your revolution will not make you feel bombastic, and really fantastic” the representation of black males are now being reversed, and exaggerating this male characteristics in a negative way. Jones successfully presents her views through the use of parody, as she makes fun of the black males that have been shown in the media

Both texts also use the effective technique of repetition. Text one repeats his core argument “your revolution will not be televised” therefore implying that there is a lack of positive representation of blacks in the media due to the ethnocentric system. Similarly, Jones also repeats the theme of revolution “your revolution will not happen between these thighs” this has more of a literal meaning, suggesting that men see women as sex objects, which is explicitly presented in the line “The real revolution ain’t about bootie size” this is therefore implying that a women’s assets are important. Which is emphasized by the theorist Laura Mulvey who talks about women being the object of the ‘male gaze’ being stereotypical shown and fulfilling the qualities of being ‘to be looked at ness’ and referring to women as second class citizens. She explores the perception of women through the male’s perspective. She also repeats the idea of women living in a patriachal society.

Both texts refer to the process of advertising, whilst parodying the intentions. In text one, “The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal. The revolution will not get rid of the nubs”, similarly in Jones she discusses similar idea’s of the revolution not being about “The versaces you buy or the Lexus you drives” Both texts explore the consumers response to advertising, as they are left feeling products/services are necessary. Jones also dwells on the point that the black people have been so materialised that they are now treating women as bad as they were once treated, this is shown through the black artist such as 50 cent and P diddy. Which also emphasising the point that the glamour and false consciousness the black people maintain.


‘Your revolution’ by Sarah Jones is seen as post-modern text, as it makes reference to other texts for example “Doing it and doing it and doing it well” this has been extracted by a well known black artist LL Cool J. By this intertexuality she parody’s other black people, who have taken advantage of the glamour, fame and money. Therefore implying that these men are not satisfying her “and me, [sigh] faking between these thigh’s” unlike Heron’s song this also has a humorous field to it, by mocking the male intentions and treatment of women almost making these men feel ashamed and embarrassed. By talking well known phrases from other black artist also shows how the audiece firmiliarity and identification with these artists, this encourages the 'use and gratification' theory that audiences look up to these artist.

Both texts talk about the unfair treatement of the black people, however text one appears to display the inequal status and representation in the media whilst text two takes a more of a feminist approach. Although both texts are discussing a revolution of black people.