Who's On Heart breaches broadcasting code, and listener trust

Do you remember the competition that Heart ran for about 6 months during their daytime shows between 10am and 4pm?  It caused a lot of controversy on some radio forums, and apparently, OFCOM also recieved a complaint about it.

The complaint from a listener to Heart's Devon station, now mostly merged with Heart Cornwall, formerly Atlantic FM, to form Heart South West.  There were three incidents that the complainant reported where the presenter, in this case Toby Anstis, host of the Mid Morning slot from 10am to 1pm across the whole Heart Network, did not make clear that the competition was across the whole Heart Network, not merely the station that the listener was listening to.

OFCOM found that the station had been in breach of Rule 2.15, which states that...

“Broadcasters must draw up rules for a broadcast competition or vote. These rules must be clear and appropriately made known. In particular, significant conditions that may affect a viewer's or listener's decision to participate must be stated at the time an invitation to participate is broadcast.”

 Now, it has to be said, this I think is something of a harsh decision, as I believe the top prize on the competition was around £50,000, or maybe it had gone up to £60,000, but either way, that would be enough motivation for any listener to want to call in.  Also, as OFCOM noted in the decision, only the person who got through to the studio was charged for the call, and others would not be.

But there are a couple of interesting points that are worth remembering here.

The first is the issue of listener trust.  Now this is something that some people in the broadcasting industry either don't understand, or forget about, or think that it doesn't matter.  Yet, listener trust is one of the most important commodities that any station can have, as it helps to build ratings and credibility, two of a radio station's results.  It's very easy to destory listener trust, and once that trust has gone, it's very difficult to get it back.

And Heart, in its very construction, is a station that actively avoids being upfront with listeners.  The fact that 35 stations have become 17 all under a single brand, with 17 hours a day of network programming on weekdays, and 20 hours a day on weekends, yet tries to say with a straight face that it prides itself on it's localness, just doesn't ring true.  A listener to Heart South West in Penzance, wouldn't feel that a station based in Exter and London, is very local to them.  After all, Exeter is 110 miles away, and London is 289 miles away.  Not exactly local, especially when compared to Pirate FM, that is based in Pool, near Redruth, which is only 15.7 miles away, and does locally originated programming for all except 3 hours on a Sunday afternoon

Heart's words and actions are not congruent, and as such, to me as a listener, it does not make me want to trust them as a radio station.

The second point I'd like to make is one that would annoy a lot of the fans of Heart on the various radio forums and sites, but is a very pertinent point.

Heart's parent company, Global Radio, have set themselves up as the big guns in the industry, and with their intended purchase of the entity formerly known as GMG being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading, this breach of the broadcasting code doesn't help matters for them, even if it doesn't hinder them.  And even if this breach is counted against them in that process, which is unlikely, it's not exactly a big minus.  But when you set yourself up as the biggest company in the industry, there will be people who will not like what you do, just as there will be people who do like what you do.

However, some of the reactions that I have seen from Heart's fans, or as I usually call them, the Heartophiles, have been definitely derogatory towards the complainant.  Some of the thoughts about who the complainant might be, are logical and believable.  After all, in creating Heart Devon, Global took 5 different breakfast shows, 4 different daytime shows and 5 different drivetime shows, and replaced them with 1 countywide breakfast show and 1 countywide drivetime show, with network daytimes.  They basically fired a lot of people and  it's not inconcievable that some of them might have an agenda against Heart.  However, it has to be said that a number of those who used to work for those stations that became Heart Devon, still have some very strong friendships with those who still work at Heart.

But it is worrying that the attitude is that the person invloved is somehow either a professional complainer, or someone at a rival station, that's a very damaging attitude to hold.  When you are working at a radio station, you are busy doing so much, that you don't have time to dissect the opposition's output, much as you'd might like to.  I find the whole idea of a rival station getting a complaint submitted to OFCOM to be totally ludicrous.  The other idea of a professional complainer, whilst being more plausible, considering the past actions of organisations like MediaWatch UK, also seems unlikely in this situation.  The professional complainers, such as MediaWatch UK, go after the BBC, or Channel 4, or Sky.  The groups that are anti-Global and anti-Heart, are rag-tag Facebook groups of individuals, many of whom don't even have the time to actively monitor Heart's output all day.

The idea that "normal listeners" don't complain is something that broadcasters have been trying to use for years to discredit anybody who did complain about their output.  It's a dangerous attitude to hold, and is very insulting to listeners, who are the most important people for any radio station.  If you don't value the feedback you get from your listeners, then why should they listen to your station?

All in all, this is small fry, this is a minor infraction.  In the NFL, you'd call this a 5 yard penalty.  It's nothing.  But the reaction of the Heartophiles online, is very disconcerting.  They're treating it, like they've given up a 15 yard penalty, a major infraction, and they've basically attacked the motivation of the complainer, without having any proof, or any eveidence, or even anything slightly circumstancial.  Rather than accept that Heart made a few mistakes, they throw some quite wild unprovable accusations, just so they can feel better.  Such behaviour is unjustified, unwarranted and does not help Heart from a public relations standpoint. 

It's a shame that these so called fans cannot just accept the fact that Heart go caught out on some minor infractions of the broadcasting code and let things be.  But any big company can be regarded as a target, as the BBC, ITV, Sky and NewsCorp have all found out.  And now Global are starting to realise that as the biggest commercial radio company, you are there to be shot at, and some people will take potshots at you, and some will hit the target.  The measure of a company is how you react and recover from those hits and do you make your product better as a result.

My "Countdown" of today's top stories.

In homage to Keith Olbermann, who has filed a lawsuit against Current TV for wrongful termination, I present to you my "Countdown" of the top stories.  So I suppose I ought to begin with the immortal words...

...Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?

5: George Zimmerman's lawyers and a forensic audio expert, both claim that Zimmerman used the word "punks" on that now infamous cellphone call.  CNN aired the "cleaned-up" audio, which if I'm honest, as an audio man myself, didn't sound that different to the original, but on listening back to it myself, I can't hear the word punk.  What I do distinctly detect is an "ooo" sound, that might come from a particular racial slur, and that "ooo" sound definitely is not present when you pronounce the word "punk".  Listen to it yourself, and see if you agree.



4: Sky News has become the latest part of the NewsCorp clan to have been caught up in hacking.  Now we know why James Murdoch resigned this week.  Sky News today confirmed that two email accounts, one belonging to a suspected paedophile,and one belonging to 'canoe man' John Darwin were hacked.  Both resulted in information that was passed onto the police.  Sky News claimed the hacking was done in the public interest, but hacking emails is a crime under the Computer Misuse Act, and that act does NOT have a public interest defence attached to it.

With Ofcom investigating British Sky Broadcasting, there is a number of possibilities now rearing their heads, and I'll talk about them in a future post.

3: Rick Santorum obviously doesn't know when to quit, or indeed how to lose with good grace.  The Republican Party establishment has been telling him to leave the race, but Santorum, much like Newt Gingrich, has stuck two fingers up to the establishment.  And he met with supporters to discuss the way forward. 

Mathematically, it's getting beyond the realms of possibility, especially given that the only remaining state with a winner takes all race, California, looks like a certainty for Mitt Romney.  But it does appear right now that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are both in line for a fairly major Republican Party smackdown, before we get to Tampa, maybe even before we get to the end of the primary process. 

2: Is it ethical for a journalist to express their own political viewpoints through signing a petition?  Apparently, some TV stations in Milwaukee don't think it is.  WTMJ, WISN and WITI have confirmed that journalists on their payrolls have signed the recall petition against controversial Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.  WTMJ went as far as to say that they took this matter seriously and would be dealing with it internally.  Apparently, one of the people who signed the petition was an on-air anchor at WTMJ.

One thing is for certain, Scott Walker has done incredible damage to Wisconsin.  Any attempt by these stations to censure their staff for signing the petition would be a direct contravention of the First Amendment.  And no news station, no matter how good their checks and balances are, could ever claim to be totally unbiased.

1: Current maybe now being sued by Keith Olbermann, but they may soon have bigger problems.  A report from Reuters indicates that Current needs to hit ratings benchmarks every quarter.  Should they miss those benchmarks two quarters in a row, they could be dropped by Time Warner Cable.  So far they have not missed those benchmarks, thanks to Keith Olbermann, but with his sudden departure last week, Current's ability to hit those benchmarks consitently maybe in doubt.

NewsCorp: How much longer can it survive?

So today, we've had 6 more arrests in this NewsCorp saga. One of those arrested, Rebekah Brooks, has been previously arrested in relation to this ongoing saga, the other 5, including her husband, the racehorse trainer Charlie Brooks, and News International's Head of Security Mark Hanna, are new arrests in the case.

Rebekah herself has also been a victim of the scandal, after it emerged at the end of February that her phone had been hacked by News Of The World journalists, whilst she was Editor of The Sun. Incredibly irony or poetic justice? One thing is for sure, the old adgae of there being no honour amongst thieves, seems to hold true for Murdoch employees too.

Does anybody else think she is never going to return to NewsCorp after this? More by her own choice though I believe rather than Murdoch not wanting her back. After this episode, she'll want to stay out of the public spotlight for as long as she can.

And with Ofcom currently investigating to see if NewsCorp are a fit and proper company to hold a broadcast licence, for BSkyB, how long will it take before Rupert Murdoch finally gives up and slowly dissolves the whole company, selling off assets for as much as he can so he can live out some form of retirement in relative peace, rather than ending his days in a prison cell and his assets sold off for the mere pitance of their real worth.

OFCOM and ‘sexy’ phone-in channels

OFCOM has repeatedly had problems regulating the kind of sexy phone in channels that appear on Sky in the 900s section of the EPG. 

Just recently, OFCOM fined two companies for broadcasting sexy material straight after the watershed on FTA channels.  Now, bear in mind, the watershed is 9pm.  By OFCOM’s own definition…

“…The watershed only applies to television. The watershed is at 2100. Material unsuitable for children should not, in general, be shown before 2100 or after 0530.”

It was material unsuitable for children, and it was broadcast after the watershed, yet they were still fined.

Additionally in the same Broadcast Bulletin, OFCOM found the channels in breach on about 10 separate occasions, despite the fact that only 1 of these occasion actually contravenes OFCOM’s own rules about R18-strength material.  All other incidents related to material comparable to those seen in movies rated 18 by the BBFC.

This is why I find the whole business of regulation these days to be totally out of sync with reality.  We see more violence on television dramas and movies than we see sex, and sex is regarded as the more corrupting, yet there has been many occasions when words encouraging violent acts have brought those acts about.  That’s called Incitement, and its against the law.  Yet the right wing will say, “NO, sorry, you can’t encourage someone to commit a violent act.”, yet in the same breath, they will say that the depiction of sex is a “…corrupting influence…”.  There’s only one thing to say to a viewpoint like that.

“THAT’S A TOTALLY HYPOCRITICAL AND NONSENSICAL VIEWPOINT.  The facts do NOT back up your views.”

But then the right wing doesn’t seem to let facts get in the way of their own delusions.

In OFCOM’s case here, they are trying to walk what they consider to be a tightrope, when in fact, beneath that “tightrope” is a canyon the size of the Grand Canyon, with the pro-censorship brigade on one side, and reality (and just about everybody else) on the other.  There’s no fine line between the camps, there’s a huge gap, and you’re NEVER gonna satisfy the pro-censorship camp, so don’t waste your time trying to. 

Besides which, the Virgin Media, Freeview, Freesat and Sky platforms all have a facility called PIN protection.  Basically, you can block access to programmes and channels you don’t want kids to watch by setting a PIN. 

This smacks of censorship by stealth, and to be frank, it is not OFCOM’s job to be am self-appointed censor.  That the BBFC’s job.  And if material is shown that IS comparable to material shown in films that have been rated by the BBFC as 18, then OFCOM HAS NO BUSINESS TRYING TO CENSOR IT.

OFCOM investigates UK pay TV

At the request of BT, Setanta, Virgin Media and Top Up TV, OFCOM are to investigate the world of UK based pay television.



Whilst I am all in favour of an investigation, I do have my doubts as to whether anything will happen as a result. Ofcom have yet to take any deicisions that have real impact on the industry, and in pay TV, there needs to be something that has to happen.

You see, BSkyB is THE dominant force in UK pay TV , and it is the only one with national coverage across the UK. Virgin Media has a lot of coverage in the cities, but because of the prohibitive cost of cabling rural areas, has no coverage outside of the cities. Digital Terrestrial currently only has about 70% coverage, but that will grow as the analogue signals are switched off in the various areas until 2012.

Sky have already seen off two potential opponents in the pay TV market, first by merging with British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB) in November 1990, and second with the collapse of On/ITV Digital in March 2002. It's only with the recent-ish meger of the NTL and Telewest cable operations that cable has emerged as any kind of a powerhouse in the pay television arena, and it is still limited by the fact that not every house in the UK has a cable connection.

I would like to see Sky undergo some kind of limitation, possibly have them lose control of their EPG. After all, they cannot control who broadcasts on the satellites, as Sky do not own the satellites. The Satellites themselves are owned by a company called Societie European De Satellites, based in Luxembourg.

I would also like to see Sky denied permission to create a pay TV service on DTT. They want to have Sky One, Sky News, Sky Movies and Sky Sports, available on a subscription only basis on DTT, much in the same way that when they started on Astra 1A back in February 1989, they had Sky Channel, Sky News, Sky Movies and Eurosport (at the time they were a partner in the EuroSport operation, but left it after merging with BSB.)

Sky are like Microsoft, they are too dominant in the market, and do need to be reined in. Sky have behaved in a very anti-competitive way, in forcing all the channels in their package to accept much lower subscriber rates, including the Virgin Media channels, whilst at the same time, trying to force up the rates that Virgin Media pay for the Sky channels. If this isn't classic anti-competitiveness, I don't know what is.

I would like to see Ofcom actually do something about Sky, but I don't actually believe that Ofcom will do anything. Such a lack of action, in a market that actually demands it, would be postitively criminal.