Liz Truss: An apology

Earlier this week, I wrote a post based on a short report about Liz Truss' comments on Eurovision where I assumed she didn't really know what she was talking about.

Having now seen seen her full quote I would like to apologise. I seriously underestimated how far from informed she was.

Earlier, the international trade secretary, Liz Truss, dismissed the idea that the UK’s nul points was a “post-Brexit snub”. She told LBC there was a “fundamental problem” with the way entrants are currently chosen and suggested the BBC shouldn’t choose future artists.

“I think we need to have more competition to get the right entrant, I think they need to be more tested with the public,” she said. “I’m here today at LBC responding to questions from listeners, that’s the kind of testing that we need our song contest entrant to go through. So maybe it should be LBC that’s running it, not the BBC.”

There's a lot to unpack here. I think we can safely say that Eurovision is not Truss' field of expertise. I'm not sure such a Trussian field of expertise actually exists. It might just be better to accept that Truss, like a confused sheep on an A-road, has somehow found herself outside a field.

It's perhaps unsurprising that Truss seems to think that going on LBC is somehow part of the democratic process and doesn't realise that, you know, she's an MP and should be listening to the public in the form of her constituents on a regular basis.

It's perhaps unsurprising that Truss also confuses what you hear being honked through the switchboard at Global Radio is a representative slice of informed public opinion and not merely the confused wheezing of people who are dull enough to tune into LBC and puffed-up enough to be bothered to call in. These are people using their time to put questions to you, Liz. That should be a big red flag for a start.

But let's put that to one side, and focus on the barely-beating heart of Liz's argument. Is the suggestion that LBC should choose the entrant Liz being playful, or is she seriously suggesting that a talk radio network ought to be choosing a song?

Taking that idea as being a sensible suggestion, and accepting that LBC listeners would probably choose Nigel Farage doing some skiffle as our entry, there's a bit of a problem with it. LBC is not, under its broadcast licence, allowed to play music except for "illustrative" purposes. So Liz is floating the idea that, in future, it would be better to have our entry for a song contest chosen by listeners to a radio station that cannot play music. 

That's probably not as unlikely as it sounds. LBC often invites its audience to vote on matters about which it is incapable of providing them the basics they need to make a valid opinion. But do we really think a song chosen on such a basis would perform any better at Eurovision, than the results of a Twitter poll asking "something something is it too woke" is at shaping public policy?

If we remove LBC from the mix, though, Liz is suggesting that the reason we flop on the big stage is because BBC clipboards are picking a winner and it would be better put to a public vote. We've already pointed out that Liz seems unaware of the involvement of BMG employees in the process - people whose business is driven by an understanding of what popular music with the widest appeal sounds like - but let's assume that Truss is mostly concerned about the lack of transparency in the process. After all, we're talking about a song contest here, not something trivial like the procurement of PPE during a pandemic.

Liz Truss is a cabinet minister in a government led by the apparent offspring of Humphrey Cushion and Arthur Daley who somehow managed to achieve an enormous majority in the last general election. It's clear why she might have more faith in the outcome of asking the Great British Public 'what do you think?' than those of us who have to live with the consequences.

That, though, isn't the real problem with Truss popping up to go 'why don't we ask the public?' Because, Liz, that's also been tried. It's been tried a lot. Asking the public, Liz, was what was done between 1957 and 2010, and then again between 2016 and 2019.

Now, fair enough, that means that The Public picked Bucks Fizz and Lulu and the Brotherhood of Man, but if we focus on their more recent form, you'd have to admit that the Public aren't really all that good at this selection business.

Joe And Jake? 24th in 2016.  Michael Rice? 2018's choice came bottom of the heap.

More curiously, although the public chose the tracks between 2016 and 2019, the chart positions of those songs suggests that, actually, nobody very much liked them. In fact, no public-selected Eurovision candidate has made the Top 20 since Scooch back in 2007, and there hasn't been a number one since Gina G in 1996. Michael Rice's single didn't even make the charts.

So asking the public to choose the song they like best simply results in them choosing a song they like well enough to send to Europe but not so much that they'd actually pay for it (or, in modern chart terms, even listen to it enough.) Which raises the obvious question: if it's a song that the UK public don't invest time or money in,  why would you expect the European public to give more of a shit when picking a winner?

Obviously, Liz Truss doesn't really give a raspberry tuppence about what happens in the Eurovision Song Contest, any more than I have any investment in who wins her local Conservative Association's Who Can Put The Most Spaghetti Down Their Trousers fund raiser, and the chance to attack the BBC over anything has ministers' knees jerking like they're auditioning for a spot in a Restless Leg Syndrome infomercial.

But, he says spinning to a close-up camera and pulling a serious face, this kind of rough-and-tumble over Eurovision, in which a woefully ill-informed person with a not-very-hidden agenda drives over the creative industries for a spot of sport is like a little microcosm of how the nation is now. There's no analysis, no understanding, no - god forbid - research. Just a stupid, unworkable proposal plucked from the air while Nick Ferrari is cuing up the next advert for a walk-in bath. If you really believe Eurovision deserves your opinion, Liz, could you do us all a favour and put some thought into shaping that opinion?

Anyway, this blog is on hiatus.

Radio 1 getting old again

GMG Radio has noticed that the average age of a Radio 1 listener is drifting upwards again, and aren't happy:

Stuart Taylor, chief executive of GMG Radio, said: "The trust has asked them to do something that they are patently not doing. The question is: what happens now?

"If Radio 1 was regulated by Ofcom and not the trust – if we were doing this – then it would be a breach of our licence and we would be taken off air."

Really, Stuart? Is that what would happen, or - as is more likely - would Radio 1 merely request a change of format, which Ofcom would be minded to approved. You know, like if a Jazz station suddenly started playing Smooth music, that sort of thing?

GMG claims that the average age of a Radio 1 listener has risen from 29 to 32 over the last three years. Spookily, in that time, a 29 year-old would have become 32.

It looks like the real problem - if you want to see it as a problem - is Chris Moyles, whose audience is larger than others, and also attracts a bunch of older listeners.

However, there is an aspect that Taylor seems to be missing: a lot of breakfast radio listening is done round toasters and on school runs; the price of producing a programme which attracts more teenagers might well be the collateral damage of their parents listening.

Ofcom thinks of the children; issues new pop video guidance

Ofcom has chucked out some fresh guidance to broadcasters about pop videos, having done a bit of research amongst parents:

regarding music videos, of all the parents surveyed, the main concerns were:
sexually explicit content (6 per cent)
and overtly sexual performances (6 per cent),
followed by offensive language (5 per cent),
nakedness/naked body parts (5 per cent)
and generally unsuitable content of a sexual nature (4 per cent).

Ofcom had surveyed 1,024 parents - it's worth noting that only 11% had actually said they were worried about music videos in the first place, fewer than had worries about soaps, films or reality programmes; and more were worried by violence than sex (20% against 17%).

They'd also asked a smaller selection of teenagers (768):

just under a quarter (23 per cent) said they had seen something on TV before the watershed in the previous 12 months that had made them uncomfortable or they had found offensive;

• the top five concerns measured as a percentage of all teens questioned were:
sexually explicit content (7 per cent), offensive language (4 per cent), violence (4 per cent), nakedness/naked body parts (2 per cent), news (1 per cent) and
animals being killed/mistreated (1 per cent); and

• the genres of programme causing most concern measured as a percentage of all teens surveyed were: film (7 per cent), followed by soaps (6 per cent) and reality
TV (5 per cent). Music videos came fifth (4 per cent) after dramas (4 per cent). This was followed by documentaries (3 per cent) and news (2 per cent)

After reminding broadcasters about observing the watershed for all programming, Ofcom turns to music videos:

Ofcom recognises that music videos in the Urban and R&B genres in particular are well known for including mild sexual content and innuendo, and there will be a certain level of audience expectation for this type of content. However, having taken into account factors such as the strength of the images, the genre of music and the time of broadcast (looking particularly at whether the video was broadcast at a time when children were likely to be watching), broadcasters must consider whether potential audiences (including both adults and children) would expect to see such content.

Did Ofcom just say 'well, you expect it with black music, don't you?'

But what about bondage, I hear you ask? Okay, maybe you're not asking, but apparently lots of people do:

Ofcom has been asked whether the Code restricts images of sexual bondage, dominance and sadomasochism in music videos before the watershed. The Code does not prohibit such images before the watershed.

However we advise broadcasters to take into account the nature and length of shots used and the overriding theme of the music video. Before the watershed broadcasters should take care to avoid any explicit images of sexual bondage, dominance and sadomasochism in music videos, or any inappropriate cumulative effect resulting from the repetition of these types of images that are unsuitable for children and likely to cause concern to parents.

Seriously, Ofcom? There are broadcasters ringing you up saying "look, I've got a video here with a lass tied up, ball-gag in mouth, and a naked bloke spreadeagled getting whipped - is that okay for teatime?" They need extra guidance on that sort of question?

And, let's make it clear, your video is not going out dressed like that:

It is important to note that in pre-watershed content, Ofcom would not expect to see singers and dancers wearing clothing that does not adequately cover their bodies (in particular their breasts, genital area and buttocks). As above, broadcasters should consider the length of shots used and the overriding theme of the music video

Not entirely sure if Ofcom's use of "breasts" is because they don't realise men have them too, or if it's just trying to spare us yet another R&B singerbloke taking his shirt off.

Ofcom adds a warning that lyrics which might be double entendres when heard lose at least 50% of their entendre when slapped on screen with a simple-minded 'show what they say' video:

For example, the lyric “You want some more baby? I love the way you do it cos you do it so crazy” does not contain an explicit sexual reference,
is ambiguous in its meaning, and is unlikely to be understood by children as specifically referring to sex. However, when combined with clear, sexualised images (for example, women in sexual positions) the strength of the material is raised in terms of its potential to cause offence and concern to parents.

There are also some reminders about dancing. You'd have thought that the rules about sex would have been the same whether someone was jiggying in tune to the music or not, but Ofcom thinks there's a category of dancing that is lewd of itself. Perhaps it saw Dirty Dancing, but left during the interval.

And, to wrap up, there's a reiteration that showing violence isn't all that cool.

It's all fairly sensible stuff, but has a massive "of course, they can go and see it on YouTube any time" hanging over it. It's not Ofcom's place to ask why we should just assume R&B videos will be fairly degrading to women, but perhaps they should prompt us all to ask the question.

Hunt suddenly realises DEA won't work

To be fair, it's not entirely Jeremy Hunt's fault that the Digital Economy Bill is pointless and unworkable, what with it having been rushed through in the dying days of the last government, but I'm still not entirely sure why he stood up at the time and said 'this bill is riddled with holes, but, oh, go on, let's make it law'.

Having got the DEA onto the statute book, Hunt is now looking at easing it off by asking Ofcom to review if the powers it's been given and plans to somehow chase file sharers off the internet can work:

"I have no problem with the principle of blocking access to websites used exclusively for facilitating illegal downloading of content," Mr Hunt said. "But it is not clear whether the site-blocking provisions in the Act could work in practice so I have asked Ofcom to address this question."

Here's a clue, Jeremy: They won't. You might remember people telling you this back when you were helping make this act law less than a year ago.

Ofcom tells X Factor off; Cowell hugs money closer to make himself free better

That nice Dermot O'Leary isn't so nice. MediaGuardian reports:

Regulator says Dermot O'Leary should not have encouraged viewers to download songs by Diana Vickers and Michael Bublé

"Oh god, he shouldn't have done it" said the Ofcom findings, "especially the Bublé one - Jesus, that's more than any ear should have to endure."

Actually, the real transgression of the rules was that programmes aren't meant to flog stuff in their programmes:

Programme-makers blamed the references, which they admitted were "inappropriate", to "an unfortunate script error".

This mistake was initially not spotted in the episode broadcast on 17 October last year when O'Leary said: "If you want to download Diana's single, details at itv.com/xfactor."

Okay, so that was a terrible error - I mean, how would you expect anyone at all on the production team of one of ITV's biggest programmes to know one of the most basic and obvious rules about what you can and can't do under the broadcast code. Perhaps that explains the over-bawdy performances on the final - maybe nobody on the team knew you couldn't have women flashing their undies at teatime.

So, one week it was a terrible mistake. These things do happen. What about the next week, though?

The same script was used as a basis for the 24 October programme, when O'Leary said: "If you want to download Michael's single, all the details on itv.com/xfactor".

Oh, what a terrible mistake. Again.

Still, it does confirm a truth I think we'd all guessed at - week after week, pretty much the X Factor is the same but with a quick find and replace done on the script to put in the names of the songs being slaughtered and the guests being given a quick bunk-up and you're away. Indeed, some weeks, it's looks like that even the final outcome was prescripted.

Ofcom's piracy proposals as consumer-friendly as possible

Back in the UK, Ofcom has published a draft of its plans to "deal" with "piracy":

In passing the Act, Parliament’s intention was that Ofcom should apply the obligations in a proportionate way, with the code initially covering only the larger fixed-line ISPs, but with the clear message that, should levels of copyright infringement on other networks, including mobile, increase then those ISPs will similarly be required to comply with the obligations.

That's what it says on the Ofcom website - clearly, missing a word there, which I'm assuming will be "rise".

Those larger ISPs, in case you're wondering, will be defined by customer base:

Ofcom proposes, therefore, that fixed-line ISPs with over 400,000 subscribers will be covered initially.

This would mean that the seven largest ISPs – BT, Talk Talk, Virgin Media, Sky, Orange, O2 and Post Office – will be covered by the code from the outset.

The Post Office is the seventh biggest ISP in the UK? Whoever would have guessed?

So, in the short term, to avoid these measures you can just swap to a smaller ISP - although if everyone joins the same one, they'll find themselves back to square one.

ISPs will have to record the number of notifications sent to their subscribers and maintain an anonymised list of alleged serial copyright infringers.

Okay, so there will be a list, where everyone is given codenames. This list will be then shared with people who own copyrights - which would be, of course, anyone who writes anything at all, so we can all get a look.

Copyright holders can then request information on this list and pursue a court order to identify serial infringers and take legal action against them.

"Who is this Mr. Beaky, BT? Who is it really?"

Ofcom is proposing a three stage notification process for ISPs to inform subscribers of copyright infringements and proposes that subscribers which have received three notifications within a year may be included in a list requested by a copyright owner.

What's not clear here is how ISPs are supposed to identify the "copyright infringement" in the first place. It's almost as if Ofcom are doing the bare minimum forced on them by the DEA - there's a process, but it's as light-touch as they can get away with.

Not, I suspect, what David Geffen had in mind when he poured drinks for Lord Mandelson a third glass of desert wine.

Oxford Radio station attempts to shake youth, go older

FM107.9 in Oxford won its licence to broadcast on the promise of being a station aimed at the city's young and student population. It's decided that's a hiding to nothing.

At the moment, it promises to do this:

THE STATION WILL BE THE VOICE FOR YOUNG OXFORD THROUGH A MIX OF PRIMARILY NEW, CUTTING EDGE' AND CREDIBLE CHART MUSIC (eg URBAN, DANCE AND ALTERNATIVE) WITH NEWS, PHONE-INS, INFORMATION AND YOUTH CULTURE FEATURES TARGETING 15-29s IN THE CITY.

Of course it's in ALLCAPS. It does phone-ins.

Now, though, they want to do this:

THE STATION WILL BE THE VOICE FOR OXFORD THROUGH A MIX OF EASY-LISTENING SOFT MUSIC AIMED AT 45+ ADULTS WITH LOCAL NEWS, PHONE-INS, LOCAL INFORMATION AND CULTURE FEATURES TARGETING THE CITY

Management at the station suggest this would be a cosmetic change, just swapping one pile of CDs for another.

Ofcom isn't having that, pointing out that swapping from playing The Courteeners to Jim Reeves is a "stark" one. They're inviting responses from the public.

Westlife fire lasers into people's eyes

Westlife's appearance on the X Factor has been the focus of an upheld complaint to Ofcom, as it turns out their flashing light show could have triggered epileptic fits amongst the audience:

Ofcom tested this segment of the programme against its published Guidance
concerning PSE. It found that for two sequences during the Westlife performance,
lasting just over three seconds in total, it contained flashing where the brightness,
frequency and screen areas exceeded the “intensity” limits as set out in the
Guidance. The sequences contained flashing at an average rate of approximately 15
flashes per second (the limit in Ofcom’s Guidance being no more than three flashes
per second).

It's a difficult balance - obviously, you have to consider viewers who are sensitive to flashing images, but on the other hand: how do you make something like Westlife interesting, assuming setting fire to them is illegal?

Also in the latest Ofcom complaints: A Cornwall-based radio station ran a competition offering valuables as prizes. The station said they were worth £100; they turned out to be worth less than half that. People complained, the station apologised and fixed the error.

However, given the station was Pirate FM, would people not be expecting some sort of buccaneering trickery? If you tuned in to Radio Highwayman or Talk Cutpurse, you'd be on your guard; surely the same should be true of a company which trades under the name of a group of brigands?

Galaxy told to shut up about iTunes

The commercial radio network chart show - now called bigtop40.com - has been told off by Ofcom for mentioning iTunes too much.

During the programme, listeners have been encouraged to head over to iTunes to buy downloads and "influence the chart" right up to the last minute. Ofcom has decided that this went a bit too far, and told them to stop doing it. ("Thus ruining its raison d'etre", as Simon T observes - indeed, there does seem to be a desire to earn whatever the referral fee is these days.)

Ofcom accepted that reference to “the iTunes top ten” was editorially justified as a means to explain the specific source and nature of the Big Top 40 chart’s top ten places. Likewise, Ofcom accepted that an occasional reference to the Big Top 40 chart being “powered by iTunes” could be editorially justified as a means to explain the nature of the entire chart, which was influenced by iTunes as a data source. However, Ofcom did not consider that the repeated references throughout the programme to iTunes (whether referring to the top ten or the chart more generally) served any further purpose and therefore appeared gratuitous. Ofcom considered there was insufficient editorial justification for the sheer number and frequency of these references.

What's equally interesting is that iTunes only "powers" the Top 10 of the chart:

While the top ten of the Big Top 40 chart reflect iTunes’ top singles download sales, positions 11 to 40 in the chart are informed by iTunes sales data but ultimately decided by Global Radio.

In other words, if I'm reading that correctly, three quarters of the chart is just made up? What sort of chart is this, anyway?

Also interesting is that Ofcom don't seem to have bothered themselves by asking if the claim that buying some downloads in the last hour of sales is really going to have any influence on the chart - set against a week's sales nationwide?

Only ten?

Ofcom have just published their weekly 'most complained about programmes chart' - you'd have to guess they have Eight Out Of Ten Cats built into the template - which reveals the regulator received ten complaints about the Michael Jackson memorial. Sadly, Ofcom doesn't reveal at this stage what the nature of the complaints were, so we don't know yet if it was people angry that they were left feeling a bit vomity by it all.

City Talk not all about the talk

Sorry, I'm incredibly late with this story, but it's worth mentioning now anyway. Back on May 12th, Ofcom allowed Radio City's City Talk station abandon its all-talk format:

Station director, Richard Maddock said that the news was a relief:

“Ofcom’s decision is welcome news as it provides clarity. The team will now look at the business plan, review our current market situation and consider the implications of the Ofcom decision."

“On behalf of everyone at all the City stations, I’d like to thank Ofcom for their decision and also thank everyone that has supported our format change request through the 30 day public consultation period. Our commitment to quality, well-produced speech broadcasting at key parts of the day continues as before and we will continue to work hard to deliver the best talk-focused station.”

"Provides clarity"? As if the idea of an all-speech network wasn't, you know, quite clear in the first place?

The suspicion has to be that Bauer have pulled a fast one, pitching a format it knew wouldn't work (as it's already closed down City Talk once, when it was an AM station) in a bid to win the last licence; having closed down the prospect of serious competition for Radio City, it's now effectively watering down its talk station into a "speech-focused" product.

Part of the talk will be a nightly phone-in - which can be simulcast on Radio City. Two FM networks broadcasting the same thing in one city? Well done with the protecting media plurality, Ofcom.

British public fined for Russell Brand's errors

So, Ofcom has decided that the BBC must pay for the Russell Brand phonecalls - or, rather, the licence fee payer has to stump up £150,000.

Given Jonathan Ross was suspended for three months without pay as a result of the phone calls, technically the BBC are still going to come out of the deal a few thousand ahead, but the sense of fining the BBC still makes little sense: that's the money we give them to make programmes with. So, in effect, we're having our money taken away and given to the government for something we didn't do. If there must be fines levied against the BBC, should they not come from management's wages - or the independent production company who made the programmes - and not from licence fee money? How does it fit with Ofcom's other work to ensure that there's enough money for public service broadcasting if it takes money away from the only place that is making it?

Ofcom doesn't seem interested, either, that most of the complaints came from people who hadn't heard the programme, and only were outraged at the descriptions of the event they read in the papers. It acknowledges, but doesn't comment:

After the programme of 18 October 2008, the BBC had received 2 complaints from listeners. However, on the Monday (27 October) after the programme of 25 October 2008 and following articles in the national press, the BBC received a further 546 complaints. The total number of complaints finally received by the BBC about Russell Brand was 42,851.

It doesn't alter the question if the programme should have been broadcast, but shouldn't Ofcom at least be starting a debate about this? People were upset not by the radio programme, but by the Mail's coverage of the radio programme. Should Ofcom really be responding to complaints from people who have only been alerted by a newspaper piece? 42,849 complainants had learned about Baillie's private life from the Mail On Sunday, not from Radio 2. Who was the actual broadcaster here?

It's especially odd that Ofcom seems most upset about the invasion of Georgina Baillie and Andrew Sachs' privacy - although she didn't actually complain herself, and he explicitly didn't want to:

In response to Andrew Sachs’ agent, Ofcom acknowledged receipt of the copy of the complaint and noted that Ofcom had “not received any Fairness or Privacy complaint from Andrew Sachs or his granddaughter.” Andrew Sachs’ agent then informed Ofcom that Mr Sachs “has no further complaint he wants to make.”

And in fact, given that within a few days Baillie was signing off on a nationwide poster campaign for a Channel Five programme which said "Now we'll give Georgina the chance to screw them both", it doesn't seem that Baillie was that bothered at all. It doesn't excuse what Brand and Ross did, but it's a bit weird protecting the privacy of someone who doesn't appear to be that upset at the supposed invasion and of another who made it clear they wouldn't be making a formal complaint about privacy.

If I'm understanding this correctly, then, the invasion of the pair's privacy was investigated not because the victims complained, but because a bunch of newspaper readers complained. An ugly public mob demanding that people who had elected to try and move on have their privacy defended, whether they wanted it or not. Let's go and drag Sachs into the street, bring him out his house, and make sure we protect his privacy by kicking off another round of stories about how his Granddaughter had poor taste in men.

One further piece on the affair: Ofcom have also issued a judgement against a Chris Moyles show for an interview he did with Brand. No fine for this, but it is another public drubbing for Moyles. Perhaps Parfitt might need to call him in again.

Move on, Moyles

Ofcom has just published a page with advice on how to complain about broadcasting. They've illustrated it with a photo of Chris Moyles.

The regulator was also busy today posting a bumper edition of its complaints bulletin, which - once past objecting to a massive pile of sponsorship break bumpers - gets down to considering Moyles' birthday song for Will Young:

He then imitated Will Young by singing alternative versions of two of the singer’s well known singles: ‘Evergreen’ and ‘Leave Right Now’. During the imitation the presenter adopted an effeminate and high pitched voice.

When singing his alternative version of ‘Evergreen’, Chris Moyles broadcast the lyrics: “It’s my birthday, gonna wear my new dress tonight. And I smell nice. I’ve had a shower and I’ve shaved my legs. Going out later, might go to Nob-oooh for dinner.”

During the alternative version of ‘Leave Right Now’, Chris Moyles broadcast the lyrics: “Oooh Will Young here, mmmmh. I’m here, it’s Will’s birthday and as the years go by I get more very gay. When you saw me years ago you didn’t know, but now I’m the gayest fella you probably know. mmm I like to wear a silly hat, I get camper by the hour, oh would you look at the muck in here. I’m Will Young and I’m gay.”

The BBC - with a straight face - tried to insist that this wasn't a joke at the expense of Young's sexuality.

The Corporation did allow that, you know, maybe the comments were "unacceptable". Although this seems a bit confusing: if the 'jokes' weren't about his sexuality, what does the BBC think was unacceptable about them?

Ofcom decided this humour was not just unacceptable, but offensive as well; it pointed out this isn't the first time that it's upheld complaints about Chris Moyles.

It's sparked a piece by John Plunkett in MediaGuardian which first lambasts Moyles' humour, before changing tack and suggests that just maybe it's time for Moyles and some of his chums to step down from Radio One regardless of their record:

Moyles, 35, has presented the breakfast show since January 2004 and remains hugely popular with listeners. Jo Whiley, 43, joined Radio 1 in 1993 and has presented the lunchtime show since 1997. And don't even get me started on Westwood. Okay then, he's 51.

There are good DJs. And there are old DJs. And there are good, old DJs. But should they be on Radio 1?

Plunkett suggests its time for a Bannister-style Year Zero. And you'd think he might have a point, were he not suggesting this:

"Radio 1 chiefs are believed to be keen on rising star Reggie Yates," said the Sun. And if he wasn't co-hosting the chart show with Fearne Cotton, 25-year-old Yates might be able to get a word in edgeways.

A younger voice is already on its way, with weekend breakfast host Nick Grimshaw about to fill the weekday evening slot being vacated by Colin Murray - aged 32, if you must know - who is off to BBC Radio 5 Live.

Nick Grimshaw and Reggie Yates? Bloody hell, you'd be better off bringing back Adrian Juste and Steve Wright, wouldn't you?

Ofcom remembers it's a regulator; Global not happy

GWR Bristol, part of the clumsy Global Radio behemoth, has been warned by Ofcom for not actually playing the music it promised to. Ofcom sampled the station and wasn't happy:

This Spot Sampling report arose after Ofcom received complaints that GWR FM is not delivering the music proposition set out in its Format, which is to play ‘contemporary and chart’ music.

After listening to three days of GWR FM’s music output, we found that the overall mix of music being aired by the station was too old for it to be consistent with the Format’s Character of Service.

GWR FM is not operating within its Format and a Yellow Card warning has been issued.

Ofcom was quite fair to GWR - it didn't count The Time Tunnel in its calculations but still found that more than half the music played on the station is over two years old. And it didn't do anything more than issue a warning: play what you were promising to when you were given a licence allowing you access to the finite FM spectrum.

Matter closed?

Oh, no: Global are having a hissy fit and stamping their pretty, London-based feet:

“GWR Bristol was asked to supply music logs to Ofcom by today, Friday 13 March. The requested information was supplied by yesterday, 12 March. Ofcom’s decision was made without reference to either the station, or by talking to its owners, Global Radio.

“This is an extraordinary way for a regulator to behave by issuing a judgement before a deadline has passed. We do not accept this finding, and are considering our position.”

But Ofcom didn't issue a judgement, they issued a warning that if things don't improve, they might issue a judgement. And they didn't really need to wait for the logs - perhaps Global don't realise that their programmes are on the radio and you can find out what they're doing by listening to them.

There is a wider background to this, though, as Global rebrand as many of their stations Heart as they can get away with. Ofcom isn't bothered about the change of name, but is keeping a close eye on Global trying to change Top 40 stations into oldies stations by stealth. Something which it has form for, as Ofcom points out:

This warning concerns GWR Bristol, but we received similar complaints about a number of Global stations and we advise the licensee to take this finding into account for programming across all its CHR stations. Ofcom has had conversations with the licensee about content on its CHR stations in the past.

Of course, if Global really wants to change its format, it can simply hand back the licenses and reapply.

[Story discovered on Mr Trick's Twitter]

X Factor cleared

Ofcom has considered the complaints generated by the last season of the X Factor, including these:

1. they experienced problems getting through when attempting to vote and thus, they believed, some of the results were unfair. The highest volume of complaints of this nature related to editions broadcast on 1 and 8 November 2008, on which contestants Austin Drage and Laura White were eliminated respectively;
2. the number they dialled did not correspond with the message advising which contestant a vote had been recorded for;
3. during one particular recap of the voting numbers broadcast on 18 October 2008, the telephone number allocated to contestant Ruth Lorenzo was incorrect and as such, she may not have received all of the votes intended for her; and
4. contestant Diana Vickers was unable to perform in the contest on 8 November owing to illness and therefore automatically went through to the subsequent week. Some complainants thought this was unfair on the other contestants.

Channel TV - who, in a sleight of hand designed to minimise ITV's exposure to fines, do all the compliance - report that they can find no evidence of people being unable to get through:

In its response, the broadcaster included several examples of complainants who had contacted them claiming the automated message advising of their vote did not match the telephone number they had dialled. However, it transpired they had either misdialled or used the number allocated to the same contestant the previous week. (The contestants’ identifying final phone digits change from week to week.)

Aah. Things are so bad at ITV now, they're quite happy to defend themselves by pointing out that their audience is a bit dim. It's unclear if the phrase "look, they're voting for the X Factor, it's a miracle they can punch the keypad at all, much less get the numbers right" made it into the official submission to Ofcom, but the sense is there.

Ofcom pointed out that the decision to let Diana Vickers through fell, somewhat substantially, outside its remit:

Ofcom is not responsible for the design of ‘reality’ or talent shows. We will intervene in circumstances only where we consider viewers to have been misled or otherwise improperly disadvantaged.

Ofcom are, though, cool with viewers being disadvantaged in a proper manner.

Absolute: Somehow, it's not payola

Absolute radio has been following up its playing of the new U2 single with ten second "blipvert" suggesting you buy the track from iTunes.

So. That's a piece of editorial - playing the U2 single. And a piece of advertising - "buy the U2 single".

Isn't that, at best, a little grubby?

“We had to get approval from Ofcom because we are in uncharted territory,” says Absolute Radio chief operating officer, Clive Dickens. “The song was already in the highest rotation it could have on Absolute Radio - 27 to 30 times a week - so they were confident any commercial relationship between us and [U2’s record label] Universal was not influencing the number of times we play it.

“And they wanted to be confident that the consumer would know when they were being advertised to. We felt we came up with a creative that made it clear this was an advert. U2 typically don’t market their stuff on the radio, and we sold it at a significant premium over normal spot advertising.”

Obviously, with Absolute having so few listeners, it's hard to see imagine that too much undue influence is being thrown about, but it's still the principle, isn't it?

Yes, Absolute is the sort of the station which would unthinkingly wedge its schedule with squillions of plays of the U2 song. But does that really suddenly mean that slapping an advert on each time isn't chasing a bit of money? And while U2 might always be on Absolute anyway, what if another band came along who might not normally get those thirty plays a week, but whose label might be interested in investing? With this precedent, would there not be a temptation to, for example, ramp up the plays for tracks from the new Genesis Snog Exodus album a couple of weeks prior to release? So that when the record hits the charts, data can be presented to Ofcom showing how the station has been playing Genesis Snog Exodus loads anyway, so why not not take a few quid for every play?

Absolute might be confident that listeners know what they're hearing is an ad, and not editorial. But it all reminds me of those Laser 558 "spins" which the station would admit afterwards were "pay-ed ad-vert-ise-ments".

George Lamb's anti-Travellers 'joke' doesn't bother Ofcom

Ho-ho: Although George Lamb compared travellers to "asbestos", Ofcom have accepted his apology for this little exchange:

George Lamb: “He's now said ‘I'll give my land to travellers before I give it to Trump’

Marc Hughes: Did he say that? Brilliant

George Lamb: And you ain't moving travellers off basically. Travellers is [sic] like asbestos basically. The whole gaff is getting condemned."

Over to you, BBC:

The BBC stated that George Lamb’s show is an established feature of the 6Music schedule and the show has a “loyal following of listeners who understand and enjoy its somewhat quirky format and direction”.

Well, yes. But you could say the same about the Daily Mail.

Still, Lamb apologised, and Ofcom will consider the matter closed.

Also in the latest regulatory round-up: Alex Zane's date rape joke was up for consideration. This is where XFM attempted a pastiche of Mike Sarne's Code Of Love called Won't Take No For An Answer. Ofcom could see what they were trying to do:

It is clear from the introduction to the song that the programme was aiming to make a pastiche of Sarne’s original song. The presenters were attempting to satirise what used to be acceptable in the 1960’s but would now be considered totally inappropriate by today’s standards. If was therefore always possible that the result could be offensive and therefore the context that such material was presented would be particularly important.

However, the extract from Sarne’s song played by the presenters bore little relation to the pastiche they attempted. The subject matter and tone of “Code of Love” were vastly different to the presenters’ own song (which was supposedly inspired by the former). In Ofcom’s view, the presenters’ song was likely to have been perceived by listeners as recounting a physical and sexual assault. As such, the actions of the man in this song shared little resemblance to those of the suitor in the “Code of Love” extract played by the broadcaster. Ofcom also noted that the subject matter of the presenters’ song was portrayed as a light-hearted joke and the material was transmitted at breakfast-time, when children may be in the audience.

XFM had taken action before Ofcom started investigating, which helped matters - although it might have been a bit more convincing had it not offered up a justification in saying that the network wasn't "aimed at a conservative audience". What does that mean? There's meant to be something progressive in snickering at jokes about a bloke taking a woman down "where there ain’t no big lights" and ripping her underwear?

Viking FM somehow slipped up and invited a tea-time audience to call in with "stories about dogging" - Bauer apologised. And Northern Media Group's Northern Ireland radio stations and Your Radio in Scotland both invited listeners to text in to a pre-recorded programme, offering the excuse that it made the programme "more interesting" and "more interactive" respectively. More interactive? How is spending money sending a text to an empty studio more interactive? Was the station hoping to generate some sort of faith, where people communicated with an entity they knew in their hearts was a fiction? Ofcom was having none of it, and have issued a statement that this sort of thing will be cracked down on. In future.

Oasis get XFM into trouble

It's a bumper Christmas special sized Ofcom complaints bulletin this month, kicking off with TalkSport's £20,000 fine for James Whale endorsing Boris Johnson for London mayor. It would have been more but Ofcom were worried that a larger fine might make it difficult for TalkSport to make the kind of programmes its known for - which, you might think, would be reason alone to fine at least into six figures.

Then, XFM gets rapped after its Scottish service broadcast a live Oasis gig at 8pm:

On reviewing a recording of the material provided by GCap Media Ltd. (“GCap”), which controls and provides compliance for the station, Ofcom noted that the programme contained the word “cunt”, as well as several instances of the word “fucking”.

XFM apologised and has bollocked the producer responsible, but did try a half-hearted defence:

GCap asked Ofcom to note, however, that listeners to Xfm Scotland expected edgier content and that very few children would be listening to the station at that time.

Why would someone seeking "edgy" content be listening to an Oasis gig?

More trouble for Global over at soon-to-be-sister station Heart, which got carried away promoting Mama Mia! The Musical at the same time as taking sponsorship money from the filmmakers:

Heart said that it is a music and entertainment station primarily targeted at women in their thirties and that it aims to provide them with interesting and relevant lifestyle features. The broadcaster believed that the launch of ‘Mamma Mia! The Movie’ was “a massive showbiz event which presented an outstanding opportunity to engage with the lives and lifestyles of [Heart’s] target audience.” It added that not only was it editorially justified for Heart to have provided extensive coverage of the event, but its audience would have expected it.

Good lord - if you were running a radio station during a commercial downturn, would you really want to portray your target market as a bunch of people whose week would be wrecked if they didn't keep getting reminded about Meryl Streep lipsynching to Super Trooper?

Ofcom asked them to tone it down in future:

In conclusion, Ofcom accepts that there was some editorial justification for references to ‘Mama Mia! The Movie’ in Heart’s programming during this period. However, in this case, the sheer volume, nature and tone of references resulted in the references appearing to be contrived and in some places, gratuitous. This resulted in the station giving undue prominence to the film and also promoting it as a product. Ofcom considered that the station output went beyond informing listeners about the recent release of a film that was likely to interest them. This resulted in breaches of the Code.

I'm not sure what the sanction will be - possibly every member of the audience has to be given a bottle of Lambrini or something.

6Music's Nemone came to grief during an interview with Doug Stanhope, who called two of Sarah Palin's children "retards":

Doug Stanhope: [Ms Palin] is a 44 year-old mother of five, two of which are retarded.

Nemone Metaxus: These are your, [laughs] obviously, your views…

Doug Stanhope: One’s got Down’s Syndrome and the other volunteered for Iraq . So that’s two retards out of five.... Oh nothing. They give me nothing, nothing but blank looks.

Nemone Metaxus: Doug this is your opinion, your opinion of what’s happening back home, so obviously, if something kicks off in America …

Doug Stanhope: For Pete’s sake, don’t stare at me like that. The woman has a baby with Down’s Syndrome; how can America get behind her when even God obviously hates her. [laughs]

Nemone Metaxus: I think we’ll leave that to you. That’s obviously what you think about I’m sure there are some….

Doug Stanhope: So that’s some of the stuff we’ve been dealing with.

The only way you could make this more unpleasant would be to suggest there was something 'edgy' about calling people with Down's "retards":

The broadcaster pointed out that BBC 6 Music is aimed at an adult audience and that Friday’s edition of Nemone in particular, regularly features guests with edgier, more adult orientated material.

What does that mean? It's okay to call people retards providing the audience is over 18? Surely the point is that this is offensive - in the thoughtless, cruel sense of the word - rather than a naughty swearword?

I think Ofcom might have issued its first ever sarcastic response in this case:

Ofcom acknowledges that BBC 6 Music attracts a predominantly adult audience and that regular listeners who are familiar with the irreverent style of its presenters and guests may not necessarily find the use of words such as “retard” offensive.

... "I mean" said Ofcom, "if people are tuning in for the George Lamb show it's not like they're going to be that sophisticated in their tastes, is it?"

Finally, perhaps in the interests of political balance, Guardian Media Group's 96.3 Rock Radio had its own jaw-dropping moment:

Donald Macleod, a Scottish music industry entrepreneur and newspaper columnist, presents a show on weekdays from 18:00 to 22:00 .

During the broadcast in question, the presenter said the following when introducing the song ‘Black Hole Sun’ by Soundgarden:

“Barack Obama’s favourite song. Your Mum’s got a big black hole, son” .

Don, in his offensive, insisted that he didn't mean this to sound racist and explained that he'd been "under some pressure within the studio". And he does seem pretty angry with himself that something so unpleasant slipped out.

Oddly, nobody seems concerned that it was also unpleasantly sexist, too. Perhaps that's something for another time.

Locked out of the love-in: Consumers missing from copyright deals

The Open Rights Group has made a formal complaint to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform about the lack of a consumer voice in discussions between Ofcom, copyright holders and government over responses to file-sharing:

“None of the regulatory solutions have satisfactory consumer safeguards,” ORG warns, “Consumers have been locked out of the negotiations between ISPs and rightsholders currently being chaired by Ofcom. As recent news reports show, rightsholders are already levelling false accusations of file-sharing at consumers. Without proper safeguards, many more consumers will suffer. The clandestine negotiations are a disgrace.”

“We are deeply dissatisfied that no consumer voice is sat around this negotiating table, and that Ofcom are instead expected to represent the consumer interest, at one and the same time as chairing the meeting,” the organisation continues.

Having said that, though, even if Ofcom weren't taking a dual role, you'd not be expecting them to act in much of a consumer protection role anyway, given their track record.

The ORG also points out the current approach - of trying to ban stuff - only inspires new workarounds; it suggests that maybe talking to customers could be a more useful approach.

Channel U's flirty fishing

The latest Ofcom complaints bulletin includes a ticking off for the digital music channels U and Fizz, for fiddling their on-screen text features.

Channel U text moderators were caught posting up messages inviting responses - like:

where r the essex gals? send me a pic xx ”

while Fizz ran "fun quizzes" (no prizes were offered, unless you count the cash that Fizz was making out of it) that even the regulator could see through:

a moderator asked “Which football star is married to Alex Curran?” Over a period of approximately 16 minutes, during which further invitations to enter the “fun quiz” were made to viewers, multiple wrong answers, including David Beckham and Ashley Cole, were broadcast before the moderator confirmed the correct answer. Numerous correct answers were then broadcast.

As Fizz is a pop music channel aimed at young people who were likely to have known the answer to the question, Ofcom sought the broadcaster’s comments on why it had taken so long to reveal the correct answer.

The broadcaster admitted that "on some occasions" correct answers might have been "held back" - or, in other words, the marks were encouraged to carry on entering even although the quiz had been finished; while at U, "unauthorised" instructions from the "Interactive Sales Manager" had led to the texts being made up. He's got the sack, some new rules are in place; it won't happen again.

What's surprising, though, is the company's apparent belief that it did nothing wrong:

The broadcaster pointed out that its viewers are part of a regular community and are aware of the costs involved in contacting the channel. It noted that Ofcom had received no complaints from viewers and stated that, since the withdrawal of the quizzes, many viewers had sent in messages asking for them to return.

Given that the channel has a history of creating its own text messages pretending to come from viewers, I wouldn't have reached for a slew of messages of support from the audience to try and bolster my case. And the suggestion that since none of the people happily sending texts to what they thought was a sexy Essex Girl or whatever never complained isn't actually a justification, is it? If you're being conned, and don't know you're being conned, then how would you know you're supposed to complain? All that means is that you're good at deception, not that your audience would be happy to know they're being deceived.