The US moralist campaign group One Million Moms has had a whinge about the TV show Glee featuring a sexy shirtless male Santa. The group whines:
Unfortunately not all Christmas TV features are wholesome entertainment. Glee 's previously Never Aired Christmas episode should have stayed just that and remained unaired, considering it was complete with a bisexual Santa, transgender
Virgin Mary and its fair share of drunkenness.
Other religions do not tolerate this behavior and as Christians we will not either. Why any producer or network feels mocking a sacred and religious holiday where Christians celebrate the birth of our Savior Jesus Christ is acceptable is beyond me. GLEE
should not and will not get a free pass to make a joke of Christmas.
Last week's episode went too far. The mockery of the Christmas story was blasphemous and an abomination. The show featured the transgender student, Unique, portraying the Virgin Mary in their high school's nativity scene and acts out giving birth to the
baby Jesus. The doll representing Jesus wore a sequin diaper and was thrown from singer to singer while they sang Love Child, Never Meant to be. Baby Jesus is tossed around like a rag doll and shown no respect.
In another scene, a bisexual Sexy Santa, gets two female characters and the show's gay male character drunk before robbing them blind - all this after making out with and tying the male character up in bed. These same females in a previous scene
are elves at the local mall and tell kids to ask for mobile devices they could download porn on while wearing skimpy elf costumes.
Glee is not a late-night program and is rated TV-14 DLSV. While it currently airs Thursdays at 9 p.m. ET/ 8 p.m. CT on FOX, in February it will be moving to Tuesdays at 8 p.m. ET/ 7 p.m. CT - well before many children's bedtimes
US moralist campaigners, One Million Moms are hyping a new US TV horror drama, Dracula. The group writes:
Warning! NBC's new program Dracula airs on Friday evenings at 10:00 p.m. ET/9:00 p.m. CT with a TV-14-SV rating. The gory series will air on weekends when children and teens usually stay up later. Not only is this show extremely violent, but it
also includes a high level of sexual content that should be considered pornographic material.
NBC's website describes the series with words like sex, style, mystery and adventure. Even the previews included several brief clips of sex scenes that would be considered soft porn. This program is entirely too graphic in too many ways.
Previews of this program also included: terrifying screams, a rotted corpse, death, murder, a woman burned alive while tied to a stake, spirits, satanic and occult elements, homosexual content, tons of blood (mostly on Dracula's face and victim's necks)
and other gore, including decapitated heads in boxes and pools of blood.
Please send an email letter to the sponsors of this week's episode of Dracula . This week's national sponsors were: Chili's (Brinker), Olive Garden, L'Oreal, Revlon, JELL-O (Kraft Foods) and Rolaids (Chattem). Urge advertisers to place the program
on their do not advertise list in protest of the attempt to desensitize America and our children by promoting inappropriate content.
US morality campaigners have called for the censorship of a family Guy episode:
It is a violation of Federal Law for broadcasters to air indecent material on the publicly-owned airwaves when children are likely to be in the viewing audience.
Yet that is EXACTLY what the Fox Broadcast Network (not to be confused with Fox News) did this past Sunday, November 10th, with its most recent episode of Family Guy.
The network brags to its advertisers that Family Guy is #1 with Teens ...and because it is a cartoon, the show is watched by tens of thousands of young children every week.
What were children exposed to on Sunday's episode of Family Guy? Unbelievably vile sexual content -- including jokes about child molestation, exploitation, rape, and the sexualized use of food and the perverse internal defrosting of frozen
Beyond the repugnant sexual content, the overall theme of the episode is that it is humorous for a boy to bully and beat up a girl.
This episode aired at 9:00 p.m. ET/PT -- only 8 p.m. in the Central/Mountain time zones.
As some American Chinese continued their protests over a supposedly offensive TV show, US broadcaster ABC has published an Open apology declaration and promised not to let it happen again.
ABC apologised for a 'mistake' in airing the talk show and promised to permanently delete all related content and cancel the Kids table talk show element of the program.
In Jimmy Kimmel Live aired on October 16, Jimmy Kimmel asked the kids about what to do with the huge debt owing to China. One boy replied, Kill everyone in China. Jimmy commented that it was an interesting idea.
Analysts said Jimmy Kimmel was wrong for not stopping the comment and for failing to explain to the kids that it was not the right notion.
The program sparked 'outrage' and protests from the Chinese communities. Protests were held in cities, including New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, demanding a formal apology from ABC and Kimmel's dismissal.
The Philippines Movie and Television Review and Classification Board called the attention of a television network after it aired on daytime a show that exposed the main character's behind.
MTRCB chairman Eugenio Toto Villareal said in an interview with Radyo Inquirer that they were shocked as the board's monitoring and inspection unit saw a nude Mr. Bean running in a corridor in its Monday morning episode that was shown on
What alarmed the MTRCB was the situation comedy Mr. Bean starring British actor Rowan Atkinson, was aired in the daytime:
We were shocked by the scene where Mr. Bean came running through a corridor only using a signage [board] to cover his private parts. Few minutes later, he exposed his behind.
We have always reminded the networks that the television hours 6 a.m to 9 p.m. are safe harbor periods for child viewers.
The MTRCB, on Twitter, asked ABS-CBN to explain buttocks exposure scene in Mr. Bean daytime episode yesterday.
Chinese cartoon Pleasant Goat and the Big Big Wolf has kicked off another round of ever more repressive censorship.
China's State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television called out the popular cartoon , which made headlines earlier this year for episodes containing supposedly violent scenes, and the regulator said in a statement that it plans
to outline new content standards for TV animation to address violent programming content.
According to China's official Xinhua news agency, under the proposal, cartoons should promote good and lash out at evil, advocate social morality and family virtues, and resist egoism, money worship, hedonism, superstition, pseudoscience
and contents containing harmful thoughts and bad habits. It also said cartoons should avoid violent scenes, including depictions of attacks that children could easily imitate, and should not use daily necessities for dangerous purposes. More In
Free TV is an industry body which represents all of Australia's commercial free-to-air television licensees. The body has now made a call to scrap the TV watershed citing that it gives an unfair advantage to competing internet TV.
In a submission to the Australian Communication and Media Authority, Free TV Australia says the restrictions on what can be shown during children's viewing hours have become irrelevant with adult material available to any home at any time through the
internet or pay TV.
It has called for the removal on time zone restrictions which it says are out-dated and put free-to-air broadcasters at a disadvantage.
Free TV Australia says while the protection of children remains an enduring concept, there are now more effective tools to protect children, including parental locks.
But the South Australian Attorney-General John Rau says any change to the times when adult material can be screened would be:
Well out of line with community expectations. As a parent, I would be appalled if my children were exposed to programming that displayed
I believe it is unrealistic to expect parents to monitor every single program that their children watch on television, particularly during school holidays.
Bollywood songs and dance numbers featuring sexily dressed women displaying supposedly vulgar moves have been ordered to be pixellated or blurred on television. The Central Board of Film Censorship (CBFC) says that scenes 'objectifying' women
or displaying them suggestively will have to be blurred or pixellated.
The censorship has started with Tu Bhi Mood Mein , a playful raindance number from Indra Kumar's soon-to-bereleased adult comedy Grand Masti . The song is now being aired on music channels with pixels covering 'objectionable' parts of the
images. The uncensored promos of the film have gone viral on YouTube.
CBFC chief censor Pankaja Thakur explained:
Songs that are moderate in content are acceptable to the TV audience but the board is careful when it comes to something that is either too vulgar or inappropriate. Special instructions are thus given for toning down such songs,
According to directives of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, films with A certification (Adults only) have to be re-certified for TV viewing by the censor board. For this reason, the A-certified Grand Masti has been scrutinised for TV viewing.
A TV station in Thailand has agreed to allow government-approved 'Islamic experts' to censor the script for a TV serial after a small but vocal Muslim group whinged that the show 'misrepresents' their religion.
The soap opera Fah Jarod Sai (Desert Horizon) stars Thai actors in a romantic melodrama portraying an imaginary Arab-style royal officer who falls in love with a girl who is half-Thai, half-French, in a fantasy kingdom named Hinfara.
On August 22, a small, outspoken Bangkok-based group, Muslims for 'Peace', demanded Channel 7 cancel the series.
On August 24, in response, Channel 7's executives met Thailand's Muslim leader Aziz Phitakkumpon, who is the Chularatchamontri or State Counselor for Islamic Affairs, which is an advisory position approved by the prime minister and appointed by
The Muslims for 'Peace' presented their complaint to Channel 7, the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Ministry, and the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). The Muslims for Peace's petition claimed:
We are afraid that the lakhorn [soap opera] could eventually have large-scale and unpredictable effects on Muslims if the ICT Ministry and the NBTC do not cancel Fah Jarod Sai.
Apparently the complainants felt that it was misleading to show the Muslim religion allowing its believers to be cruel to women and children.
The station had already broadcast four episodes and had eight remaining episodes. These last episodes will now be censored prior to broadcast.
Ofcom published the following statement in the latest complaints bulletin:
Violence in pre-watershed programmes
Ofcom reminds television broadcasters of the need to ensure that all material broadcast pre-watershed which features violent scenes is appropriately limited. Broadcasters should consider whether individual acts of violence within a programme are
suitable, as well as where the overall tone is malevolent, menacing and threatening, that this also remains suitably limited.
Given the lack of recent detailed studies specifically into viewers' attitudes to violence on television, Ofcom has commissioned new independent research on this subject. This research will further inform us about the level of concern about violence
included in television programmes scheduled before and immediately after the watershed, and any areas of particular concern to viewers e.g. specific types of violence or genres of programme. The research should be complete this year and Ofcom plans to
publish the results as soon as possible in 2014.
The statement was related to Ofcom's censure of a fight scene in Hollyoaks.
Channel 4, 19 March 2013, 18:30
Hollyoaks is a long running British television soap drama set in a fictional suburb of Chester called Hollyoaks. It features a large cast of characters primarily aged between 16 and 35. Its main target audience is teenagers and young adults. The
programme is broadcast each weekday evening on Channel 4.
Hollyoaks regularly deals with controversial storylines such as sexual abuse, domestic violence and drugs. A complainant alerted Ofcom to a scene in this programme, in which one of the main characters was violently killed by a speeding train. The viewer
considered this scene was unsuitable for broadcast before the watershed, particularly as children might have been watching. The scene in question marked
The scene in question marked the conclusion of a long running revenge storyline between two characters: the former undercover policeman, Walker, and the former drug dealer, Brendan. Walker believed Brendan was responsible for the death of his brother
Cam, who had died from taking drugs supplied by Brendan. This scene was broadcast at 18:54. From the point at which the characters first made physical contact with one another to the immediate aftermath of the train collision was one minute and nine
seconds in duration.
Although the intention was clearly to show an intense fight between these characters, Ofcom particularly noted that, overall, where punches and kicks were exchanged the movements of arms, fists and legs were tightly edited to avoid showing any shots of
the actual impact and the use of fast paced music gave the scenes a stylised tone.
In addition, there were no images depicting the impact of the train as it hit Walker, or its aftermath.
Ofcom considered, however, that the cumulative effect of the violent fight scene taken together with Walker being hit by the train, broadcast well before the watershed, raised issues warranting investigation under:
Rule 1.3: Children must...be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.
Rule 1.11: Violence, its after-effects and descriptions of violence, whether verbal or physical, must be appropriately limited in programmes broadcast before the watershed...and must also be justified by context.
Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rules 1.3 and 1.11
This episode featured a particularly aggressive fight sequence, ending with one character being pushed into the path of an oncoming train and so to his violent death. The fight sequence itself was carefully edited not to show the actual point of impact
of most of the numerous punches and kicks. However, it was clearly intended to leave viewers with the impression that both characters experienced violent punches to the head and the body, as was evident from the blood on their faces as a result of these
blows, the impact sounds of the physical contact between the characters, and the groans and moans from the characters as a result of the violence.
In this case it is Ofcom's view that this scene was both violent and shocking and had the potential to distress younger viewers as well as raise concerns about the level of violence amongst parents watching with their children regardless of the editorial
context presented or the signposting provided.
For all these reasons Ofcom considered that it was unsuitable for children. Ofcom then went on to consider whether this material was appropriately scheduled. We have set out above in some detail the nature of the violent content in this programme that
Ofcom considered unsuitable for children. Ofcom also assessed the nature of the violent scenes as part of its consideration of whether they were appropriately scheduled.
In summary, Ofcom's view was that while the fight sequence was limited in duration it was intense and the climactic scene where Walker was pushed into the path of a speeding train was both shocking and unexpected.
Ofcom acknowledged that the Licensee took steps in attempt to ensure that this sequence complied with the Code. These measures were however on balance insufficient. Ofcom concluded that cumulatively the violent content in this sequence exceeded viewers'
expectations for a drama transmitted long before the watershed when young children were available to view and in this case were watching in large numbers. Ofcom, therefore, concluded that the episode was in breach of Rule 1.3.
In summary, Ofcom's view was that the cumulative effect of the violence in the final scene was not sufficiently limited for this time of the evening, nor was it justified by context given that a significant number of younger children were viewing and
available to view. Ofcom therefore concluded that this episode was in breach of Rule 1.11.
Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch-uk, said there was a concern that because of the success of late-night dramas such as The Fall and Ripper Street, which deal with serial killers, there were signs that violence was beginning to be seen as more
acceptable before the 9pm watershed. She added:
I think it is good that Ofcom are coming in now and reminding broadcasters that violence is not acceptable, but I just hope that when broadcasters are found in breach Ofcom can show its teeth
Al Ehya Digital Television Ltd in respect of its service Noor TV has been fined £85,000 for inciting violence.
The programme Paigham-e-Mustafa was found to be in breach of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code rules:
Rule 3.1: Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services.
Rule 4.1: Broadcasters must exercise the proper degree of responsibility with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes.
Noor TV is a digital satellite television channel that broadcasts programmes about Islam in a number of languages, including English, Urdu and Punjabi. It can be received in the United Kingdom, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
The Finding related to the programme Paigham-e-Mustafa, broadcast on 3 May 2012. The programme featured a presenter, Allama Muhammad Farooq Nizami who answered questions about a wide range of issues and personal conduct relating to Islam and Islamic
At approximately one hour and 18 minutes into the programme Nizami answered a question from a caller, who was identified as brother Yasir Hanif who asked: What is the punishment for the individual who shows disrespect for Prophet Muhammad? Nizami
There is no disagreement about this [the punishment]; there is absolutely no doubt about it that the punishment for the person who shows disrespect for the Prophet is death. No one [among the Islamic scholars] disagrees about this. No one disagrees about
this. The Koran, hadeeth [orally transmitted quotes of Muhammad], the actions of the companions of Prophet Muhammad, all testify to this [punishment] and there is no room for doubt in it. Whoever shows disrespect for Prophet Muhammad will be given death
penalty. The procedure for carrying out the death penalty is that if there is an Islamic government operating in a country, then the Islamic government will carry out the implementation of this punishment to the one who shows disrespect for the Prophet.
However, if there are no Islamic laws [implemented], if Islamic Law is not being abided by, if the Islamic Law is being shredded and is in tatters, and this environment prevails in Pakistan, then [drops the sentence]. You saw a few months ago, a man
specifically said that the Islamic law which was especially designed to protect the sanctity of Prophet Muhammad, whom Allah praises and protects, was a black law. By saying so, he slighted the law and committed insolence against Prophet Muhammad. Then
what happened? You saw what happened. The man who did it [killed the Governor] is Mumtaz Hussein. He is a Ghazi and we can absolutely not say that his act was a wrong act [because] the Koran and hadeeth [orally transmitted traditions], testify that the
punishment of the one who shows disrespect for the Prophet is death.
Ofcom considered the breach of Rule 3.1 in this case was particularly serious given the wide audience reach of the channel and the fact that the statements were delivered to a Muslim audience, in a religious programme, by a presenter who was held out to
be an expert on Islamic teaching; a person who holds a position of authority and respect within the Muslim community, speaking direct to camera. Taken together, these factors would have given the comments extra weight. The seriousness of the breaches was
further compounded by the fact that the Programme made no condemnation of any killing or violent action by individuals in response to a perceived insult to, or perceived blasphemy against, Mohammed.
The potential for these comments to be acted upon is demonstrated by evidence of a number of very serious threats and attacks having been made in Western countries against individuals or entities perceived as insulting or making pejorative remarks about
the Prophet Mohammed. Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered by Muhammad Bouyeri in 2004 following the condemnation of his film Submission by Islamic clerics, and in the same year Danish cartoonists received death threats following the
publication of illustrations which included depictions of the Prophet Mohammed. In November 2011, there was a fire bomb attack on a magazine in Paris for publishing a satirical cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed.
Takbeer TV Ltd has been fined £25,000 for breaches of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code:
Rule 4.1: Broadcasters must exercise the proper degree of responsibility with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes.
Rule 4.2: The religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination must not be subject to abusive treatment.
Two programmes, both of which were broadcast in Urdu:
Global Khatm-E-Nabuwat Movement – Broadcast on 9 June 2012 at 22:00, this was a two and a quarter hour ‘phone-in’ programme in which a panel of four people answered telephone callers’ questions on issues of Islamic theology;
Ofcom noted that:
members of the Ahmadi community were described in words that amounted to abusive treatment of the Ahmadiyya religion and the Ahmadi community more generally. For example, they were described as having monstrous intentions and being both lying
monsters and worthy of elimination by Allah, by using worms and vermin ;
one of the panellists and a caller made statements that were highly abusive to members of the Ahmadi community and their beliefs, by, for example, equating such beliefs to having piles and agreeing that Ahmadis require operating on ... without
... anaesthesia ; and
two callers made sustained, repeated and derogatory references to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, founder of the Ahmadiyya religion , stating, for example, that the whole world knows... Mirza died in a shit cubicle.
Khatm-E-Nabuwat – Broadcast on 3 July 2012 at 22:00, this was a two hour
programme that showed the proceedings of a symposium4 on Islamic themes held in Luton.
Ofcom noted in particular that the presenter:
stated that Ahmadi holy books were: replete with filth ;
Sangat TV is a general entertainment satellite broadcaster that broadcasts in English and Punjabi. It is based in Birmingham and broadcasts via the Eutelsat 28A, Sky UK satellite to the Sikh community. The licence for Sangat TV is held by Regis Ltd.
Ofcom had already found Sangat TV to be in breach of Ofcom rule 3.1 in finding published on 21 January 2013 in Broadcast Bulletin 2224. Rule 3.1 states:
Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services.
The Finding related to a programme about the attack on Lieutenant-General Brar, which was broadcast on 1 October 2012. This was broadcast almost entirely in Punjabi, was approximately half an hour in duration and comprised eight panellists, including a
presenter, who discussed issues surrounding the attack. It had been reported that on a date shortly before the broadcast, while on a visit to London, Lieutenant-General Brar and his wife had been attacked in a central London street by four men. Despite
suffering knife injuries, Lieutenant-General Brar survived the attack. In the Finding, Ofcom noted that, in relation to the attack, two men of Sikh origin had been charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Ofcom found that the programme was likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime. We considered that, cumulatively, statements in the programme were an indirect call to action to members of the Sikh community to take violent action against
Lieutenant-General Brar, other members of the Indian armed forces who had taken part in Operation Bluestar (the Indian Army's controversial military operation against the Golden Temple at Amritsar in June 1984)7 or those who supported this military
Ofcom decided it was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances to impose a financial penalty of £30,000 on the Licensee in respect of the breach of Rule 3.1. In addition, Ofcom decided it should issue a direction to the Licensee to
broadcast a statement of Ofcom's findings, on a date and in a form to be determined by Ofcom.
Ludicrous TV censorship in Thailand has again come under fire after a blogger posted blurred out content in scenes from Japanese cartoons, or animes, broadcast by MCOT Channel 9.
The blogger wrote his posting in a Japanese news website on Aug 9, including in it a video clip and two images. The posting went viral and has been attracting attention from many online communities.
In the video clip, female characters from the Sailor Moon animation series have their swimsuits blurred out. The girl Shisuka in the popular Doraemon cartoon also has her swimwear edited in the same way, while another picture portrays a
young Son Goku from the classic Dragon Ball Z anime with his chest censored as his clothes are ripped apart during a transformation.
The blogger pointed out that many viewers do not think about anything inappropriate when they watch cartoons. However, when censorship is applied it makes audiences assume that there is something unsuitable on screen and brings the content to their
New Year's Eve Countdown Concert
RTE‰ Radio 1, 31 December 2012
This magazine programme included a satirical review of the year's events with impressionist and comedian Oliver Callan who at one point impersonated the boxer Katie Taylor. His impersonation of Katie Taylor went as follows:
I wouldn't be who I am today if it wasn't for Jesus Christ and God and Marty Morrissey, they've been my inspiration, and you know I came over a lot of adversity, there was a lot of talk about how I tested positive for performance-enhancing prayers, then
there was the whole business about the wine being found in me urine sample but thank God, with the help o' God it turned out to be the blood of Christ so, em, I'll be fine and I encourage all people in 2013 if you want your dreams to come true, you know,
you can always, em, put faith in the Good Book. My Olympic Dream is out now in all good book stores and Easons, €12.99. I'll sign it for an extra two quid.
A priest objected to what he describes as the blasphemous reference in this programme to the Blood of Jesus being found in Katie Taylor's urine.
The Decision of Compliance Committee found:
The Committee noted that the trans-substantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus is considered a central tenet of religious belief for Irish Catholics. Therefore, particular care is required where it is referred
to in a programming other than in a religious context. For this reason, it was the view of the Committee that some listeners may have found the item offensive and a greater sensitivity to this source of offence than that shown in this item would have
However, having had regard to the programme about which the complaint was made, it was the Committee's view that it had been used in a humorous and playful manner in a comedy section of a New Year's Eve radio programme. The
Committee noted that the target of the comedy was Katie Taylor rather the religious symbols of Christianity and while this part of the comedy feature could be considered as being in poor taste and potentially offensive to some listeners on religious
grounds, it was its view that the item would not cause undue offence, contrary to the Code of Programme Standards.
It must be a bit confusing for the BBC to deal with amusingly inconsistent Daily Mail. If they include a little nudity they get lambasted for 'gratuitous sex' yet if they don't they get lambasted for censorship.
The White Queen is a co production by the BBC and the US Starz cable channel. It is based on Philippa Gregory's The White Queen, The Red Queen and The Kingmaker's Daughter and is set against the backdrop of the turbulent War of the Roses
The Daily Mail explains:
Few countries can compete with the UK when it comes to television costume dramas . . . but American audiences, it seems, prefer our dramas without the costumes.
A raunchy alternative version of the ten-part BBC1 series The White Queen has been created for screening in the US -- including graphic sex and nude scenes which don't appear here.
Bedroom scenes in which actors appear in the BBC version partly clothed are sexed-up for the American market -- and the actors complete the scenes naked.
As lead actor Max Irons put it: There's the BBC cut and the Starz cut. You get a lot more arse in the Starz version -- the cameras kept rolling after the BBC stopped the scene.
Eg, in episode two Queen Elizabeth, played by Rebecca Fergusson, was seen wearing a nightdress for her love scene with Edward IV, played by Max Irons. But when the clinch is broadcast on American television later this summer, the same actress will be
shown first topless and then completely naked in the marital bed.
Episodes one, two and three of the American version all contain nudity and the first programme includes at least four shots of the Queen's breasts and a scene showing her younger sister topless in a bath. By contrast, the BBC version doesn't include any
nudity until episode three, and even then only fleetingly.
New 'research' from morality campaigners of the Parents Television Council's 4 Every Girl Campaign claims that teenage female characters on primetime broadcast television are more likely to be presented in sexually exploitative scenes than
adult women, and the appearance of underage female characters in a supposedly sexually exploitative scene increased the probability that the scene would be presented as humorous.
Study results revealed that out of 238 scripted episodes which aired during the study period, 150 episodes (63%) contained sexual content in scenes that were associated with females and 33% of the episodes contained sexual content that rose to the level
of what the PTC see as sexual exploitation.
Topics that targeted teenage girls and were presented as humorous included: sexual violence, sex trafficking, sexual harassment, pornography, and stripping.
PTC President Tim Winter claimed:
The frequency with which viewers are able to watch and laugh at these sexually exploitative situations supports the notion that entertainment media is creating an environment that encourages and even facilitates the sexualization of women. When we laugh
about dead hookers, it becomes increasingly difficult to see the mistreatment of sex workers as a national civil and human rights issue. The same can be said for child molestation or sex trafficking.
The prevalence of images that trivialize sexual exploitation can be interpreted as sanctioning the sexualization of women. When these messages, images and ideologies are delivered via mass media, the definition of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors
are communicated both implicitly and explicitly to viewers. Similarly, when the media associates humor with sexual exploitation they are sending a strong message that these issues are harmless and require neither urgency nor a strong response.
We hope that these disturbing findings will spur concern, increased dialogue, and a collective responsibility to find answers that will result in a qualitative difference in the lives of young girls and women everywhere.
We received complaints from listeners who were offended by comments made by John Inverdale about Marion Bartoli's appearance.
The BBC's response
John Inverdale is one of our most experienced presenters, however we do accept that in the run-up to Saturday's Wimbledon Ladies' Final John made an insensitive comment regarding Marion Bartoli. John has apologised for this remark and acknowledges that
it was clumsy . Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live subsequently, John went on to explain that, The point I was trying to make, in a rather ham-fisted kind of way, was that in a world where the public perception of tennis players is that they are all
six feet Amazonian athletes, Marion, who is the Wimbledon Champion, bucks that trend and she is a fantastic example to all young people that it's attitude and will and determination, together obviously with talent, that does in the end get you to the top
. John has also written a personal apology to Marion Bartoli to express his regret if any offence was caused.
Ofcom has fined the muslim channel DM Digital £105,000 for 2 transgressions of Ofcom's programme code.
DM Digital is a television channel primarily aimed at an Asian audience in the UK, which features broadcasts in a number of languages including English, Punjabi, Urdu, Sindhi, Kashmiri and Hindi. The service is also received in the Middle East and parts
of Asia. The licence for this channel is held by DM Digital Television Limited.
The first fine was £85,000 over the programme Rehmatul Lil Alameen broadcast on 9th October 2011 at 18:30.
The programme was in Urdu and was approximately one hour in duration, featured a presenter who introduced an Islamic Pir (a religious 'scholar') who delivered a live televised lecture about points of Islamic theology with reference to the shooting dead
in early 2011 of the Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer by his bodyguard Malik Mumtaz Qadri. Salmaan Taseer had been a vocal critic of Pakistan's blasphemy law.
Ofcom noted in particular the following remarks from Abdul Qadir Jilani's lecture:
Under the guidance from Islamic texts it is evident that if a Muslim apostatises, then it is not right to wait for the authorised courts; anyone may kill him . An apostate deserves to be killed and any man may kill him. For this, you do not need to
contact the authorised courts. Because the prophet did not question Omar's act.
...if someone denies the existence of God, you may have a defensive war with them but if someone insults the Prophet, you should not be defensive but you should aggressively attack them. You should go to their homes and fight them there .
The man who has killed [Salmaan Taseer] has done an act of great love and proved his loyalty. It was his duty to do so. Some people say that he was supposed to guard [Salmaan Taseer] but a man's first duty is to protect his father and Abu Ubaydah killed
his own father because the latter denied the apostolate of Prophet Mohammed….When Abu Ubaydah killed his father, Allah praised him because he had killed in the love of the Prophet Muhammed. Such an act does not fall into the category of terrorism .
I hail those who made this law [i.e. Pakistan's blasphemy law] which states that one who insults the Prophet deserves to be killed – such a person should be eliminated .
The programme was found to have breeched Rule 3.1: Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services .
Having regard to the serious nature of the Code breach, the Licensee's representations and the Ofcom Penalty Guidelines, Ofcom decided it was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances to impose a financial penalty of £85,000 on the
Licensee in respect of the breach of Rule 3.1.
The second transgression was by the programme POAF Conference on DM Digital, 25th November 2011 at 19:00 and 4th December 2011 at 21:00. Ofcom found this programme fsimilarly in breach of their rules and imposed a financial penalty of
Comment: So why have there been no criminal charges?
A question reflecting other comments to Melon Farmers too.
Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said:
Inciting murder is against the law. Why aren't the police knocking on Mr Jilani's door? Why is he not under arrest? Surely he cannot be allowed to get away with such blatant call to kill innocent people? Other people have been sent to prison for far less
Actors were briefly shown vaguely waving bloody knives and cleavers like killers Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. This occurred as a a throwaway reference to the UK in a spoof of the Eurovision Song Contest.
A spoof compere was doing the rounds interviewing people sitting at tables representing a few European states. When he approached the UK table he asked those sitting there to wave to the camera. They were shown to be holding knives as per the Woolwich
terrorist. The compere then pretended to run away screaming.
The show was Saturday night's Langs de Leeuw show on Holland's publicly-owned VARA channel. The same programme caused 'ourtrage' last week with a presenter sampling breast milk direct from a participant.
The latest sketch sparked a little 'outrage' from Dutch viewers via the inevitable Twitter.
Niet Mohammed wrote: Has Paul de Leeuw no shame?
DCorleone59 added: For almost 400,000 euros a year, Paul de Leeuw makes fun of the brutal killing of Lee Rigby.
Edin Mujagic wrote: Someone killed with a machete is NOT, I repeat NOT funny!
Comedy Central has been banned for ten days for airing supposedly obscene and vulgar words and being derogatory to women.
Stating multiple clauses that the channel has breached, the I&B Ministry asked Comedy Central to go off air from May 25 till June 4 for a comedy broadcast during Stand Up Club and Popcorn programmes on May 26 and July 4 last year.
The order issued by Delhi High court claimed that the programme showed a stand up comedian mouthing supposedly vulgar words accompanied by obscene and suggestive gestures and gyration.
Jokes during his performance supposedly denigrated women, indecently and crudely referred to sex organs of men-and women and the sing-song rendition by the man sought to pornographically describe male lust, whilst depicting women as a commodity of sex.
The second case was an episode from the reality show titled Popcorn wherein members of the Comedy Central crew are seen playing pranks on the general populace. In this case, one of the Comedy Central crew members was seen mimicking the act of
intercourse with a set of dummy legs, in different locations.
A division bench of the Delhi High Court has stayed an order of the information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry that prohibited transmission and re-transmission of the television channel, Comedy Central.
The HC bench stayed the order after hearing Sujeet Jain, executive vice-president, of Viacom, who had challenged the ban.
Dutch TV host Paul De Leeuw generated a little 'outrage' during is chat show Langs De Leeuw , which focused on breastfeeding.
The audience was made up of breastfeeding mothers who donate excess milk to women who are unable to produce enough of their own. The openly gay comedian was asked if he wanted to taste the milk from one audience member who had expressed milk into a
But De Leeuw joked to the woman, known as Wendy, that he would rather try it direct from the source. Wendy, then unhooks herself from the pump and tells him he can so long as he doesn't bite .
Video footage then shows him suckling from one breast and then the other before telling Wendy:
I find the second one better tasting, but I can taste that you've eaten asparagus yesterday.
But the stunt sparked 'outrage' with people saying it was disgusting. Probably just a few trivial tweets, hyped up by the local tabloid.
US morality campaigners of the Parents Television Council have launched #NoIndecencyFCC Week, May 6-10. They are hoping to encourage moralists to file public comments to the FCC's proposal to limit broadcast indecency complaints.
PTC President Tim Winter said:
We are focusing on #NoIndecencyFCC to let the FCC know that we consider its proposal to limit broadcast indecency complaints extremely troublesome. Only pursuing so-called 'egregious' complaints from the public about indecent TV or radio content will
lead to broadcasters pushing the decency limits even further -- including the airing of nudity or harsh profanity when millions of children are in the audience.
Federal law limits the broadcast of indecent material to the times of day when kids are much less likely to be in the audience, making no distinction for 'egregious' instances. Either material is legally indecent or it is not, and the 'egregious' nature
of violating the law should only dictate the punishment a broadcaster faces for breaking that law. It is unnecessary for indecent content to be repeated many times in order to be actionable, and it is unwise for the FCC to pursue a new course that will
guarantee nothing but a rash of new litigation.
We are encouraging the public to share its concern with the FCC in a public comment by the deadline of May 20. To date, over 90,000 public comments have been filed, most of them expressing outrage that the FCC would even consider such a proposal.
If this proposal is adopted, the greatest harm will fall upon our children and grandchildren, who already face waves of explicit content when they use the airwaves of which they, too, are co-owners. The FCC proposal erodes a parent's recourse for
broadcast decency enforcement and, instead, cedes control of our airwaves entirely to the entertainment industry. It's time to say #NoIndecencyFCC!
The PTC is also encouraging people to take to Twitter using the #NoIndecencyFCC hashtag.
China's international news propaganda channel is looking to expand into Taiwan. But local authorities have given a strict requirement that CCTV can only be aired in the country if Taiwan's Central News Agency (CNA) is allowed to air freely in China.
Air freely is a pretty tough sell to Chinese authorities, and CCTV-style censored stories don't exactly resonate with the Taiwanese, as South China Morning Post reports:
If the mainland grants our television channels landing rights, then yes, we have basis for discussion but if the other side does not allow us landing rights, then unfortunately, we have no basis for discussion, Lung [Taiwanese Culture Minister]
said on the sidelines of a Legislative Yuan committee hearing.
Upset over the broadcast of supposedly indecent visuals on Fashion TV, a committee of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry ordered that the channel be taken off air for 10 days.
The ministry said it had issued a show cause notice to FTV after it telecast programmes like Midnight Haute & Designers in High Definition ,'Chantellie Lingerie, Paris' and Lingerie in September 2011. It claimed that the visuals
offended good taste and decency and were obscene and vulgar and not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition and also for children.
According to the panel, the programme Designers in high definition showed models walking on the ramp while a man in an underwear was clinging to a woman in an embrace in the background:
Both are shown insinuatingly swaying their bodies and making suggestive postures. Such a portrayal appears to offend good taste and decency and also appears obscene.
Again in April 2012, the channel telecast another programme 15th Anniversary- Top Designers . The committee claimed:
The programme showed nudity of female bosom, which appeared obscene and vulgar, showing form and figure of women in an indecent way. The visuals did not appear suitable for unrestricted public exhibition and also not suitable for children.
Representatives of FTV during a personal hearing at the panel said there was no nudity in the content. When the committee offered them to show recorded instances where buttocks and breast were fully exposed, they replied that these instances would have
happened due to improper blurring.
This is the third time that the government has ordered FTV to be taken off air.
China's top media censor will expand pre-broadcast vetting to cover television documentaries, in a further extension of TV censorship.
China's State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) told TV stations and producers that all documentaries would have to be approved in advance of being shown, the Beijing Morning Post reported.
The notice would bring censorship of TV documentaries into line with requirements on non-fiction films, it said. A notice posted on SARFT's website said that TV production companies including joint Chinese-foreign co-productions should report documentary
topics in advance.
A Venezuelan television channel that takes a critical stance toward President Hugo Chavez accused the government of excluding it from a new digital television system, and it warned that the action could force it off the open airwaves.
Globovision is the sole remaining television channel in Venezuela that takes a stridently anti-government line. The channel said in a statement that it was arbitrarily excluded from the digital TV system despite having taken steps to be included
during meetings that officials held to launch the project.
Vice President Nicolas Maduro announced the launch of the digital TV system saying that state channels will be participating as well as private channels including Venevision, Meridiano and Televen. He and other officials did not address the complaint
raised by Globovision.
Globovision has long clashed with Chavez's government, and in recent years the National Telecommunications Council has opened eight investigations against the channel.
BBC 2 showed the Germans episode of Fawlty Towers last Sunday evening
The BBC cut dialogue from a scene involving Basil Fawlty and the major, played by actor Ballard Berkeley.
The conversation moves from Basil's wife Sybil to women in general. The major tells Fawlty about the time he took a woman to see India play cricket at the Oval. He then says:
The strange thing was, throughout the morning she kept referring to the Indians as niggers. "No, no, no," I said, "the niggers are the West Indians. These people are wogs".
But this time around the major's words were edited out by the BBC.
Some fans took to the BBC's Points Of View message board to say they despaired at the unnecessary editing. One wrote:
You can't airbrush history away and I doubt if anyone but the terminally thin-skinned could be offended by the major, a character we're clearly supposed to laugh at rather than with.
The point is that the major is a racist old bigot, incongruous with modern society -- even in the Seventies. The audience isn't supposed to agree with him, they're supposed to laugh at him. The whole episode is about xenophobia in various forms -- it's
social satire. I instinctively dislike the airbrushing of history.
A BBC spokesman spewed:
We are very proud of Fawlty Towers and its contribution to British television comedy... BUT ...public attitudes have changed significantly since it was made and it was decided to make some minor changes, with the consent of John Cleese's
management, to allow the episode to transmit to a family audience at 7.30pm on BBC2.'
Comment: Littlejohn, The BBC, Comedy Censorship and Total Hypocrisy at the Daily Mail
India's government has directed all cable and television platforms not to carry SS TV channel for a fortnight from the midnight of 15 January to the midnight of 30 January for telecasting the trailer for the supposedly 'adult' film Friends
with benefits on 30 September 2011. The film is a comedy romance that is 15 rated in the UK.
Television transmission platforms have also been prohibited from carrying Zing and Enterr 10 television channels for one day from midnight of 12 January for telecasting 'adult' films in violation of the programme code.
While Zing TV had telecast the adult film Hawas in January, the Enterr 10 channel telecast three Hindi feature films -- Musafir on 29 September 2011, Plan on 19 October 2011 and Aashiq Banaya Apnne on 31 January 2012.
In the case of Hawas , the directive noted that the film showed visuals of passionate love making and kissing scenes between a couple, who were shown to be clinging to each other and writhing in bed in an explicit portrayal of sexual desires
overpowering them. Such a portrayal is distinctly meant for adult audience, for which CBFC had appropriately given A certification to the said film.
Thai Government figures have denied any political intervention in the abrupt termination of a controversial TV series on Channel 3, which was unexpectedly replaced last night with a new drama series.
Channel 3 announced in an onscreen message last night that Nua Mek 2 (Above the Clouds 2) had been replaced earlier than scheduled because of supposedly inappropriate content.
The storyline focuses on a corrupt politician keen on profiteering on a satellite launch and a sorcerer who performs black magic to manipulate politics, and of course lots of soapy romance.
Comments on social media, have it the series was cut short at the orders of people in power who were stung by its content.
Suranand Vejjajiva, the prime minister's secretary-general, claimed that the government had never interfered with any TV drama or news report. The prime minister has nothing to do with the abrupt end of the drama, he said in a phone interview with
The original schedule for Nua Mek 2 called for 12 episodes. Episode Nine aired last Sunday. As controversy mounted the producers hastily edited the last 3 episodes into a single episode to at least provide a presumably uncontroversial end to the
series. However even that edited last episode was cancelled, leaving the show's story unfinished.
Leading broadcasters from Europe, Japan, the United States and Australia have signed a declaration to fight what they believe is the growing censorship of the Internet and jamming of TV signals by authoritarian political regimes.
The following broadcast organisations say that international journalism is facing unprecedented challenges from countries that seek to deny their own citizens access to information from outside their borders in violation of Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights:
Audiovisuel Exterieur de la France (AEF),
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC),
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC),
Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) [US],
Deutsche Welle (DW),
Nippon Hoso Kyokai (NHK)
Radio Netherlands Worldwide (RNW)
They note and condemn without reservation certain government's control of the flow of information such as blocking the Web and most notably intentional jamming of satellites as practised recently by Iran. Furthermore, they have denounced efforts to
identify and track Internet users in order to stifle free expression, inquiry and political activity.
In a call to action, they have agreed to increase, whenever possible, support for efforts to circumvent Web censorship through the use of new and innovative hardware and software tools and have agreed to increase our advocacy for Internet freedom.