BBFC terrifying Postman Paddington and bloody bunnies

Most controversial examples of BBFC rulings or policy are linked to the 12/15/18 ratings (or outright bans); these are unusual cases with controversy over PG/U children's movies!

These cases, combined with controversies at older age ratings (Crash and more recently Human Centipede and sequels), give you a strong platform to discuss the effectiveness of the BBFC and this form of regulation: a quango with effective licensing power (just like OfCom); not formally a government body ('quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation' is what quango stands for) but nonetheless carrying out government policy, with its head appointed through government consultation (and generally an 'establishment' figure). Julian Petley (author of the book Censorship) argues that the BBFC effectively does what the government wants without the government being held accountable.


This 2010 BBFC article is a useful overview of how they can never please everyone, a simple but important point:

Archive cases; older films, can become controversial as the original rating is questioned - see the Watership Down example below, but also consider this example: the BBFC received a 2013 complaint about 1971 U-rated film The Railway Children, about the children playing along a railway line, and the dangers that copycat behaviour could pose. An important positive about the BBFC is that they pledge to respond to every complaint, and after consideration they altered the Insight entry:

Senior examiner Craig Lapper said the film had always been rated U - meaning suitable for all - but that the BBFC website now drew attention to the fact that the "playing on railway lines was in an archaic context". (BBC)

TRUSTED REGULATOR?
To be effective, surely a regulator must be trusted and its rulings respected by the public? The more the BBFC causes controversy the less effective it can be said to be. However, given the 100s of ratings the BBFC issues each year (almost 1,000 a year - see 2014 annual report for example), the very limited number of cases that attract any controversy is a sign of an effective regulator.

There is another way to look at this: the BBC is often seen to be doing its job of reporting in a balanced way when it gets attacked by both left-wing and right-wing critics, and there is a parallel here: the BBFC is attacked for being too liberal (Postman Pat, Watership Down, Dark Knight, Batman vs Superman: Justice League [2016]) and too harsh (Paddington, This is England, Sweet Sixteen). It can never satisfy everyone, and there are well organised pressure groups on both sides of the argument: pro-censorship (MediaWatch [Wiki], who successfully campaigned to have the R18 rating tightened in 2013 so that VoD providers had to put proscribed content behind firewalls) and free speech, anti-censorship (eg MelonFarmers [NB: site contains frank discussions of graphic content]). See this short filmreference.com overview for more examples linked to specific films, US and UK.




CASE STUDIES IN THIS POST:
2014's Postman Pat
This was rated U, but sparked media and online controversy after many reports of young children being terrified by the robot Pat villain (and a plotline much to complex for kids to follow). Should it have been a PG? Was the BBFC Insight entry specific enough? Should the BBFC have reacted even during the film's cinema release window to re-rate the movie? Or was this just another handy moral panic for the likes of the Daily Mail?

1978's Watership Down 2016 TV broadcast
This time it's OfCom, the super-regulator of broadcast and online media and telephony in the UK, who were attacked for allowing C5 to screen this on Easter Sunday and without warning for parents of young children. The BBFC (rather cheekily?) announced they would re-rate the 1978 film from U to PG if it were submitted to them today. The flipside here is concerns that children are being over-protected, and need to be exposed to frightening material for emotional development.


This is also an example of how social media to some extent displace formal regulators, with the issue arising through tweets initially:

2014's Paddington
Another iconic children's TV figure given a franchise-expanding movie spin-off, it was rated PG ... leading, ironically given the fuss over the U-rated Postman Pat, to criticism of the BBFC for being absurd: 'innuendo and infrequent mild bad language meant movie did not get a U rating' (Guardian sub-headline). If parents and media critics accused the BBFC of being too liberal with Pat they were bemused and derisive about the over-protective, fussy PG rating for this.

1: POSTMAN PAT (2014) TERRIFIES TOTS: PG NEEDED?

Kermode's take (Observer)

In The Observer, Mark Kermode gave it [2/5], criticising "bland digimation" and lack of the "charm" of the television series, and saying that the film had "little to entice the over-sixes and plenty to scare the under-fives". (Wiki)

Andy Lea of the Daily Star Sunday ... mentioned concern over children "seeing their loveable hero transformed into a sinister robot ... For especially sensitive kids, it could even be the stuff of nightmares." (Wiki)

Daily Mail headline.

One of the vagaries of film-reviewing is that you never know what an afternoon might throw up. For me it was Postman Pat followed immediately by Godzilla, and frankly I’m not sure which was the scarier. (Brian Viner, Daily Mail)

An adaptation of a classic children's TV animated show does not seem likely material for a BBFC storm, but the UK media swiftly picked up on stories of terrified youngsters screaming in cinemas, terrified at the sight of the villainous robot (see the poster) Postman Pat.

The BBFC rating was U, as in Universally suitable, and not the PG rating that many felt it should be after dealing with traumatised kids.



Did the BBFC fail in its duty here?

YES:
This simply needed to be a PG, the film was unsuitable for many younger children, and parents were caught unawares. Protection of children from unsuitable content and influence is meant to be a core function of the BBFC, but it clearly failed all those terrified youngsters. The PG would have been a clear message to parents that they needed to read the BBFC Insight guidance before taking children to see this. Even the now-scrapped Uc rating would have helped; Uc denoted suitability for younger children, with U effectively a slight step up; if the BBFC really judge this a U and not a PG they should not have scrapped the useful Uc rating as they did in 2009.

The extensive media coverage of this, plus further online postings on sites such as the IMDB, highlighting the incidence of children being terrified and traumatised should have led to a review of and change to the original rating; the BBFC got it wrong and need to be flexible enough to change ratings even when a film is in its main release window. The BBFC tweet, just like the Insight entry, did not reflect the potential impact on children. The interests of exhibitors or distributors (who might argue against the potential cost of this, with the need to alter marketing material), should not be prioritised over parents and children.


Lionsgate, a vertically integrated conglomerate big enough that some now argue that the 'big six' dominating the global film industry is now actually the big seven, is behind the film; would an Indie also have got the favourable U? BBFC guidance suggests 4 as a typical age for U suitability; 8 for PG suitability. For films like this, which lack any crossover adult/teen/tween appeal (as Shrek and many others have), the 4-8s (and younger) are crucial to box office prospects.

From the Wiki history of BBFC ratings.

A fairly typical IMDB user review (accessed 26.5.16)

BBFC tweet - note the low engagement, only 4 retweets!

NO:
Some versions of the poster include the controversial robot Pat (with one version even based on this characters, with the tagline 'Do the Pat-Bot!' - see below), and the BBFC guidance provided a clear warning about the precise nature of the villain robot Pat through their 'Insight' service on their website. In this era of near-universal online connectivity there is no excuse for parents not making use of this service - it would be wrong for the BBFC to take on too much parental responsibility; the Insight service is designed to empower parents to make informed choices [see Guardian Watership Down article: 'ratings aren’t meant to be child minders'].

Whilst the BBFC felt the tone was exaggerated, there was substantial media coverage of the response of some young children which parents could also have heeded. Social media sites, including popular sites with user comments like the IMDB, carried a mix of views including some which reported their views that the film had been frightening. Indeed, the BBFC used its Twitter account to tweet that the film contained 'mild comic threat', an account with 12k followers (at May 2016) with a link to the Insight entry.

The BBFC Insight stated (under 'Threat'):

2003 Commns Act: Blair-Murdoch deal?

For now, just this:

Leveson inquiry: Tessa Jowell quizzed Tony Blair over Murdoch deal

Former culture secretary sought assurances from then prime minister that there had been no backdoor deal with Rupert Murdoch on cross-media ownership rules

• Dan Sabbagh
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 May 2012 11.32 BST

Tessa Jowell gives evidence to the Leveson inquiry

Tessa Jowell, the former culture secretary, has told the Leveson inquiry that she sought assurances from then prime minister Tony Blair that there had been no backdoor deal with Rupert Murdoch when she was given the job in 2001.
The former Labour cabinet minister had the task of reviewing cross-media ownership law as part of the Communications Act that was due to go before parliament at that time – and wanted to be assured she had a free hand in rewriting the rules.
Giving evidence before the judicial inquiry into press standards on Monday morning, Jowell said she saw Blair "within a couple of days of my appointment".
She asked the prime minister about whether his relationship with the media mogul would colour her thinking.
"I asked him whether or not any deal had been done with Rupert Murdoch on … the cross-media ownership rules. He gave me an absolute assurance which I completely accepted that there had been no prior agreement," she said.
Given that, Jowell said that she told Blair that it was best "if you don't see the parties", by which she meant any interested media owners, and that it was her job to "take this and come back to you with proposals". She told Lord Justice Leveson that Blair was content with this approach.
Jowell steered through the Communications Act, which eventually saw a partial relaxation of cross media ownership rules – allowing US groups such as Disney and Murdoch's News Corporation to buy British free to air broadcasters. That could have allowed News Corp to buy Channel 5.
The former culture secretary also told the inquiry that Blair asked her to see if cross-media ownership rules could be relaxed to the point where News Corp could have bought ITV or Channel 5.
Jowell had presented proposals that would have prevented News Corp, or any UK newspaper owner with a market share of more than 20%, from taking over ITV or Channel 5.
However, at a private meeting in March 2002, Blair asked for "further discussion of the merits and effects of the different approaches we could take to the rule preventing anyone owning 20% of both the national newspaper market and a Channel 3 [ITV] or Channel 5 service", according to a note prepared by officials at Jowell's Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Jowell told the inquiry that said she had no detailed recollection of the conversation at the meeting. But she acknowledged that when it came to cross media ownership rules Blair's "instinct in relation to this were, I think, more deregulatory than mine".
Shortly after, a second meeting between Jowell and Blair concluded that it was appropriate to allow News Corp to buy Channel 5 – but not ITV. An official note from April 2002 confirms this final, agreed position.
Jowell said the change in thinking was an example of the normal policy development process and that the proposed change in rules as regarding Channel 5 was not a big development.
The Channel 5 proposal went forward and became part of the Communications Act which was passed by Parliament, while the ITV restriction remains today.

More to follow

OfCom question future of PSB - can't sanction ITV/C5?

The following article is incredibly useful for solid info on 1 of the strands of this exam topic: the FUTURE shape and direction of media regulation. In essence the current national TV licenses (for ITV + C5) are set to expire in 2014. These media companies already argue that the financial benefits they once got from access to the analogue signal (meaning every TV could receive them, without need of subscribing to Sky, Virgin etc) are already too small these days, never mind when digital switchover is completed for the end of 2012. ITV bluntly told OfCom they'd continue to cut regional news, part of their required PSB output under the license agreement, regardless of any sanctions from OfCom - if they had to hand back their license and continue as a digital-only company, they'd do so.
The article also mentions 'the next communications bill, due before the next general election in 2015'. Given the huge public outcry over Hackgate, this should be a major shakeup of the way our media are regulated. We will discuss likely outcomes of this, something you need to be able to provide an informed opinion on for your exam.

[Read more Guardian articles on PSB here]
  
ARTICLE SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/02/ofcom-itv-channel-5

Ofcom 'could not stop ITV and Channel 5 cutting PSB programming'

Media regulator says licence renewal is approach most likely to ensure continuing delivery of key public service objectives

• Mark Sweney
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 September 2011


Ofcom has said it does not have the power to stop commercial broadcasters cutting back public service programming, such as ITV News
Ofcom has said that the best option to guarantee that ITV and Channel 5 continue delivering news and their other public service broadcasting commitments is to renew their licences. But the regulator also admitted that it will not have the power to stop broadcasters cutting back on PSB programming if they want to.
The admission came on Friday as Ofcom published its government submission on options for renewing Channel 3 (ITV) and Channel 5 licences, which expire at the end of 2014.
Ofcom said that the three options given to Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, give him the "choice between stability and disruption" by either maintaining the status quo and renewing the existing licences or tearing them up and rethinking how, and in what form, public service TV content might be delivered in future.
Ofcom said that the first option, that of renewing the existing licences with the same broadcasters for another decade, is probably the best bet if viewers want to continue to see PSB content on TV.
"In the medium term licence renewal is the approach most likely to ensure the continuing delivery of the key public service objectives of supporting investment in original programming and news provision," Ofcom said in its 36-page submission to Hunt.
However Ofcom notes that there is a "high degree of uncertainty" surrounding the commercial sustainability in a volatile UK broadcasting market of a licence running for 10 years from 2014.
Ofcom's commercial PSB licences give holders benefits which have historically been financially very valuable, primarily reserved access to broadcast on strictly limited terrestrial spectrum and more recently on digital terrestrial TV, or Freeview. Licensees are also guaranteed prominence in the digital TV electronic programme guides.
In return broadcasters have had to guarantee delivery of a range of PSB content, such as national and regional news for ITV licensees, and investing in original UK programming.
However, broadcasters such as ITV have vigorously lobbied, and Ofcom has concurred, that the value of the PSB licences are less than the cost of delivering PSB programming that is often expensive to make and delivers low audiences.
The PSBs have already moved to cut back on some of their obligations – under former executive chairman Michael Grade ITV threatened to pull out of regional news altogether – despite the sanctions at Ofcom's disposal to punish licence breaches.
"It is uncertain whether the regulatory enforcement mechanisms currently in place would be sufficient to prevent licensees from seeking to pare back delivery of public service content in the future in response to unfavourable market conditions," said Ofcom.
The media regulator admitted that "some form of agreement" would have to be reached with broadcasters to make sure PSB content was delivered "until the mid-2020s" – meaning some reduction in obligations agreeable by both sides.
This option might also allow parliament to amend the structure of Ofcom broadcast licences covering the UK to look at options such as the creation of a separate licences for Channel 3 in Wales and Scotland, which is covered currently by three licences (Border, owned by ITV plc, and STV and Grampian, owned by STV).
The second option is to cancel the existing PSB licences and retender to the market for the next period from 2014.
This would give the government a chance to rethink what obligations should be included in the new licences and may also encourage the emergence of new players beyond the traditional PSBs.
"A decision by the secretary of state to block licence renewal would lead to an award process that could lead to the development of new and innovative forms of public service content and drive efficiency," said Ofcom.
Analysts at Citigroup said that such a move could lead to companies including Facebook and Google investigating the potential advantages of PSB provision.
However, Ofcom also notes that it will be difficult for government to change or modify the existing PSB obligations and that it is "unclear" what new bidders would be interested.
Nevertheless Ofcom says that the second option "remains a credible possibility".
The third option is to extend the existing licences to allow for public service broadcasting to be given "full consideration" in the next communications bill, due before the next general election in 2015.
Ofcom said this would allow parliament to assess what the PSB licences should cover in light of the remits of both Channel 4 and the BBC, as well as initiatives such as Hunt's plans for a new network of local TV services.
"For instance, developments in the provision of local TV services in the next few years may lead parliament to reassess the continuing need for English regional programming on Channel 3," Ofcom said.
This option would also allow the government to "clarify and tighten" the regulation around prominence of PSB channels on the EPG "to create additional public service value".
However, Ofcom admits that forcing the existing PSBs to continue delivering on licence obligations they find loss-making may lead them to "consider becoming a fully commercial UK-wide broadcaster". The media regulator admits that ITV for one is set to find the costs of PSB status outweighing the benefits before 2014.
"In those circumstances, it may not be possible to secure a replacement licensee given both the high fixed costs of providing a fully regional service with the existing range of obligations and the short term nature of any licence that Ofcom would be able to offer," said the media regulator.