Hjem Fora Nyhedslinks og debat “Baronessen flytter ind” brød reglerne

Indlæg om piratsider, piratudstyr og lignende er ikke tilladt. Reklame/salgs indlæg er ikke tilladt.

Dette emne indeholder 6 svar, har 0 stemmer og blev senest opdateret af  martin 7 år, 1 måned siden.

“Baronessen flytter ind” brød reglerne

Login Registrer
Viser 7 indlæg - 1 til 7 (af 7 i alt)
  • Forfatter
    Indlæg
  • #55776

    martin
    Participant

    Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin

    Kilde: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb168/issue168.pdf

    Side: 18

     

    In Breach 

     

    Baronessen flytter ind  

    Kanal 4 Denmark, 1 August 2010, 19:00  


    Introduction 

     

    Baronessen flytter ind is a series broadcast on Kanal 4 Denmark, a television 

    channel that operates under an Ofcom licence and transmits to audiences in 

    Denmark. The licence is held by SBS Broadcasting Networks Ltd (“SBS” or the 

    “Licensee”).  

     

    This is a lifestyle swap programme which features a celebrity Baroness going to live 

    with an „ordinary? Danish family. The wife of the family then spends time in the 

    Baroness? castle. The Baroness for her part aims to change the attitudes of the male 

    members of the family, rethink their approach towards helping out around the family 

    home and improve their overall family life. 

     

    The husband of the family, Jonny, works in a sex shop. In this episode the Baroness 

    visits him at his place of work and discusses the nature of the business in a bid to 

    understand him and what motivates him. 

     

    Ofcom received a complaint from a viewer who objected to the sexual content of the 

    broadcast.  

     

    Ofcom noted that, during the broadcast, footage from within the sex shop showed 

    adult DVDs, the covers of which showed images of naked and scantily clad women. 

    There was also some discussion about the sex toys on sale and the camera 

    focussed on several dildos. At one point the Duchess removed a large fist shaped 

    dildo from the shelf and asked Jonny: “Can you explain this?” Jonny answered: “Yes 

    it’s for both vaginal and anal use, you use it as your hand.” Jonny then briefly made a 

    fist and demonstrated a thrusting motion. 

     

    Ofcom wrote to SBS for comments with regard to Rule 1.3 (“Children must be 

    protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them”) and 

    Rule 1.20 (“…Any discussion on, or portrayal of, sexual behaviour must be editorially 

    justified if included before the watershed…and must be appropriately limited”). 

     

    Response 

     

    The Licensee explained that the channel appeals to a female adult audience and the 

    programme attracts only a small percentage of children. It said that the channel is 

    seen only by a Danish audience, who generally have a more liberal attitude towards 

    sexual matters than UK viewers. 

     

    SBS argued that the scenes from within the sex shop were both editorially justified 

    and appropriately limited as required by Rule 1.20. It said they were needed to show 

    an insight into Jonny?s work in order to understand his attitude towards his home life, 

    and that the shots of DVD covers and other material were brief and that there was no 

    detailed or prolonged depiction of nudity.  

     

    With regards to the discussion about a sex toy, the Licensee acknowledged this may 

    possibly be contentious but argued it was editorially justified because it allowed 

    Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 168 

    25 October 2010 

    viewers to see how the Baroness copes with an environment very different to her 

    usual surroundings, and how her reaction to the husband?s unusual profession 

    colours her attitude towards Jonny and the tasks she assigns his family. SBS 

    considered the discussion involving the dildo, including the explanation of its use, 

    was appropriately limited. 

     

    Decision 

     

    Rule 1.3 of the Code states that children must be protected by appropriate 

    scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them. 

     

    When setting and applying standards in its Code to provide adequate protection to 

    members of the public including under eighteens, Ofcom must have regard to the 

    need for standards to be applied in a manner that best guarantees an appropriate 

    level of freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the European 

    Convention of Human Rights, as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998. This is 

    the right of a broadcaster to impart information and ideas and the right of the 

    audience to receive them. Accordingly, Ofcom must exercise its duties in light of 

    these rights and not interfere with the exercise of these rights in broadcast services 

    unless it is satisfied that the restrictions it seeks to apply are required by law and are 

    necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. 

     

    We appreciate the reasons of editorial justification put forward by SBS who have 

    explained that the interview in Jonny?s workplace, was an important part of the show, 

    helping give the audience a greater understanding of the individuals featured and 

    their personal motivations. However, Ofcom?s concern in this instance was the time 

    at which this programme was broadcast. Taking into account the right to freedom of 

    expression as outlined above, we do not believe that the footage from a sex shop 

    featured in this particular programme was suitable for pre-watershed broadcast. 

    While many of the camera shots within the sex shop did not focus on nudity and the 

    shots of the DVD covers were not especially graphic, we were concerned by the 

    discussion on, and shots of, sex aids set out above. 

     

    We accept that this programme was broadcast at 20:00 local time in Denmark. 

    However this is still well before the 21:00 watershed. It was broadcast at a time when 

    we would expect broadcasters to be mindful of the sexual content of programming in 

    order to protect children who may be in the audience. Ofcom considers that the 

    series is a light-hearted entertainment programme which viewers would not normally 

    expect to feature material of an overtly sexual nature. Ofcom?s view was that the sex 

    aids part of the interview was unnecessarily detailed and not sufficiently editorially 

    justified. 

     

    We do not consider that this content was appropriate for a pre-watershed programme 

    of this kind which is available to a general audience including some children. The 

    programme therefore breached Rules 1.3 and 1.20. 

     

    Breach of Rules 1.3 and 1.20

    #59135

    martin
    Participant

    For at uddybe. Dette viser hvor lavt baren er sat, når tv-kanalerne vælger at sende fra England. Noget som måske ikke virker synderligt anstødeligt på danskerne, er ikke tilladt, når man sender fra England.

    #59136

    Martin_DK
    Participant

    Skimmede kun lieg teksten på engelsk. Ja, det er ret lavt… Men spørgsmålet er så hvad tid på aftenen det blev sendt. For hvis det er hensigten at hel familien skal se det, kan jeg godt se at nogen vil synes at det er et problem.

    #59137

    Tvilling
    Participant

    Det sætter TV 2's gentagende beklagelser over de “gode” forhold SBS og Viasat har i et lidt andet lys. Tænk hvis Bubbers SM eller hash programmer skulle sendes efter samme regler.

    #59138

    martin
    Participant

    De benytter et begreb, som de kalder watershed. Det betyder at fra kl. 21 ændres reglerne, da det forventes at børnene er lagt i seng. Baronessen blev sendt kl. 20 dansk tid.

    Hvis vi havde samme regler i Danmark, ville TV 2 først kunne sende Lærkevej efter kl. 21.

    Markedet er også en smule anderledes i Danmark. Big Brother 2 på TV Danmark blev kanalens død, efter at Big Brother 1 havde givet kanalen liv. Danskerne gad simpelthen ikke at se på nøgne mennesker i badet eller sexscenerne fra soveværelset.

    #59139

    Tvilling
    Participant

    Ja Martin, det ses tydeligt med Paradise Hotel at “danskerne” ikke gider den slags  Cool

    #59140

    martin
    Participant

    Big Brother 1 og Paradise Hotel har det til fælles at de ikke viser nøgenhed halvdelen af tiden. Big Brother 2 viste derimod mange nøgenscener, hvilket jeg tror blev for meget for mange af seerne.

Login Registrer
Viser 7 indlæg - 1 til 7 (af 7 i alt)

Du skal være logget ind for at svare på dette indlæg.