Ofcom’s Content Board Is Too Old Already

When Richard Hooper, Deputy Chair of Ofcom announced the appointees to the Content Board at the Westminster Media Forum a few weeks ago there was some surprise at its makeup.

Most contentious was the choice of Olympic Gold Medal long jumper Jonathan Edwards to represent the tastes and views of audiences in England.

Edwards is a vocal Christian and host of BBC�s Songs of Praise. Of his appointment the National Secular Society said, �we fear Mary Whitehouse may be being re-incarnated � but this time with real power to impose censorship rather than just demand it.�

Their demands for his withdrawal have as yet failed to muster a public response from the new regulator. Indeed, it’s early days for controversy.

However there is another worrying aspect to the Content Board. In his speech, Hooper made reference to Edwards age - 36 - as if by way of validating Ofcom’s commitment to recruit young people.

But does 36 really qualify to represent the key 16-30 demographic � the viewers and listeners to which risk-taking broadcasting generally caters?

Or is Ofcom�s Content Board too old already?

The personal merits of each appointee are not in doubt, they are experienced, likely capable and bring some (generally limited) industry experience. Five of the nine appointees have worked with or for the BBC at some time and place, whilst another has worked (lucratively) at a high level in the cable industry, and the others in various public roles.

However, they are also, at least on paper grouped in a very specific middle-aged, socio-economic and cultural band. This will impact the level of critical deliberation and likely make agreement on issues preferable to contested debate.

Indeed, by appointing such a homogenous group Hooper has served to highlight that the UK�s diversity may be as depleted as many cultural alarmists claim. There is someone from each of the nations but should this be accepted as a mode of diversity alone?

For a start where have all the UK�s young adults gone? When Ofcom advertised the Content Board positions they actively encouraged young adults to apply - this seemed sensible � after all here is the audience for the material that generates most complaints.

This material is risk taking and edgy. It may also sometimes be dire and tasteless but such programming needs an informed defence if the innovative is not to be confused with the offensive � they can of course also sit happily side by side at times.

Before making this distinction the board would surely benefit from the services of those with legitimate insight into the preferences of the audience � young adults.

It is impossible to know how many young adults applied to become arbiters of the UK�s taste and decency. Certainly, it�s likely more would have done so if the job advert hadn�t run with a short application deadline exclusively in executive sections of broadsheet newspapers.

On the surface the job looks appetising - �12,000 annually for opinion offering four days each month . But the waves may get choppy out on the converged, digital oceans � vast swirls of the innovative, the disturbing and sometimes the tasteless.

Siphoning off the �offensive� will prove arduous as well as contentious. There may be claims of censorship. And some of these claims may have validity, particularly when viewers offended by programming designed for young adults have failed in their duty to find the switch-off button.

Young adults want � need - to be challenged. On occasion, they want depictions of sex and violence (not usually together but let�s not close any doors) and the undiluted, raw, images and sounds of life as lived.

These might be challenging portrayals of race, crime and religion. Serious and searching material, programmes that hold no punches and that provoke emotion, anger, and often complaints.

Will such viewing and listening offend?

Sometimes

Will this be tasteless and indecent?

To some, sure.

But, most importantly, will it be relevant, representative and aim to innovate?

Definitely.

Successful broadcasters and producers understand these demands and work hard to meet the challenge.

The challenge for the Content Board will be to understand these demands also. Failing to do so will damage the UK�s unique broadcasting ecology and quickly undermine their own credibility.