I thought it was interesting that the very first adjudication in Ofcom’s most recent Broadcast Bulletin (released yesterday) was one involving racist remarks. Click here for the bulletin. So, if you are interested in learning how Ofcom might approach the recent furore over certain Celebrity Big Brother housemates making allegedly racist remarks against Shilpa Shetty, you might want to check it out.
The complaint was against a channel called Fizz Music — obviously a channel with less social impact than Channel 4. It appears to be a music video channel with scrolling texts sent in by users at the bottom of the screen. Several of the texts apparently used the word ‘paki’ in an offensive manner. Similar to Celebrity Big Brother, the offensive remarks were not uttered or written by the broadcaster (nor contained as part of a scripted programme), but the broadcaster did not edit them out or properly screen them, and decided instead to let them form part of a ‘conversation’, albeit a very trashy one. Comment Is Free — it ain’t! Fizz Music apologised if any offence was caused and said it would revise its procedures to ensure such material was not aired again.

The upshot? Ofcom wrote:

Ofcom welcomed the broadcaster’s revised procedures to check text messages before broadcast and intention to edit out racist language from future text messages. However, given the strong racist tone and number of racist messages shown Ofcom did not believe that the inclusion of these messages was justified by the context. There was no editorial justification for transmitting such racist language and it was not acceptable.

Ofcom therefore considered that the programme was in breach of Rule 2.3 of the Code.

But — insofar as I am aware — Ofcom did not fine or punish Fizz Music in any other way. Unless other previously unknown facts come to light in the Big Brother case, I don’t see much legal difference between the two. In both cases the broadcaster aired what are considered offensive remarks uttered or written by others. In both cases the broadcaster did not appear to intend to cause any offence, but to instead spark a conversation or hold a mirror up to real life. Perhaps in both cases as well, the broadcasters were simply careless and unthinking.

The only material difference between these two ugly incidents is probably the political — not the racial — context. Senior U.K. leaders were not asked to comment on the Fizz Music incident and Ofcom only received one instead of 40000 complaints about Fizz Music. Fizz Music is also not in the process of seeking a large government subsidy as Channel 4 is doing at the moment.

I generally expect Ofcom to take a consistent approach, but we’ll see. Stay tuned…