🇬🇧 BBUK 2025 - starts 28 Sep

[Rison]

I assume he's tidied them up a bit in the retelling, since apparently he wants to become a full-time YouTuber - and if (or more likely, when) that flops, he doesn't risk his biggest video being demonitised. The original comments in the house were probably worse.

 

[Tim]

I only got 13 minutes in. It's all very first year uni debate team / just asking questions / devils advocate / why won't you have a conversation with me type crap.

 

[kamui]

I assume the original comments in the house were worse.

Even in this case, they could have broadcast it. Ofcom does indeed not allow a lot of things, but those rules usually come with an "except where it is justified by the context" exemption.

And that's how they define context:

Key contextual factors may include, but are not limited to:

• the genre and editorial content of the programme, programmes or series and the likely audience expectations. For example, there are certain genres such as drama, comedy or satire where there is likely to be editorial justification for including challenging or extreme views in keeping with audience expectations, provided there is sufficient context. The greater the risk for the material to cause harm or offence, the greater the need for more contextual justification;
• the extent to which sufficient challenge is provided;
• the status or position of anyone featured in the material;
• the service on which the material is broadcast; and
• the likely size and composition of the potential audience and likely expectation of the audience.

Ofcom said multiple times that controversies are within the audience expectations for a show like Big Brother. So if they make sure that the content is not portrayed in good light.


I haven't done it in a while, but reading Ofcom complaints and investigations used to be a favourite activity of mine. For one, many of the complaints used to be completely ridiculous and along the lines of "I'm watching this drama and I don't like that there is violence despite it being known for violence". But I also like how throughly they investigate things when there is some merit to complaints and how they really try and understand the nature of the programmes.

Here's the one on whole race row incident on the 2007 celebrity season:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/about-ofcom/bulletins/content-sanctions-and-adjudications/channel4_cbb.pdf?v=333808

I think it's a good read to understand what Ofcom would (and would not) expect from Big Brother. And it contains some gems like "
“the Big Brother audience expects to see all aspects of the housemates’ characters exposed during their stay in the House. Channel 4 would not have been expected to keep key character information from viewers, since it is the viewers who decide who to vote for.” that show that Ofcom understood the show better than some broadcasters do today.

ITV's comments should really have been more like "We don't want to go through the trouble of potentially having to justify ourselves and explain the context" and not "It just can't be broadcast under any circumstances".

 

[Kingston]

At minimum they could have issued a press release that included the details.

I find it funny that in an attempt to avoid controversy that they’ve ended up being just as, if not more controversial. I do have to wonder if this sort of self censorship is just the reality of producing a BB in a modern UK or whether we would have seen Channel 4 take more of a “warts and all” approach.

 

[Brekkie]

Well we saw last year with Watermelon gate ITV lied about compliance by editing out a T-shirt online whilst firstly OFCOM doesn't actually cover streaming broadcasts and secondly they laughed off any complaints made about it's appearance on the show itself.

Broadcasting rules aside I've not liked how since the early C5 years they've glossed over the ejected HMs, often only showing the HMs finding out about it. Generally find that actually leaves a vacuum of information and viewers assumptions are often worse than the reality and does those involved in the incident no favours.