wonkey_monkey post_id=7941 time=1618855782 user_id=1364 Wrote:As important an event as it is, does anyone else feel that the BBC News Channel sticking with uninterrupted courtroom footage of the Chauvin trial for 90 minutes to the exclusion of all else, including the main bulletin, isn't the right decision? The verdict will be news, but this is more like procedure.
I also disagree with the banner's use of the word "BREAKING", though the BBC has been making it clear for a while that they're happy to use that term very broadly. It's not even really a developing story right at this point; closing arguments are reiterations of what's already been stated in court.
I am not sure what the rules are anymore over allowing dignity in death etc. Clearly he suffered a horrific and undignified death in the first place but, whether it is already 'out there', as in it is being shown in a public arena, namely the court, does not to me mean that the BBC* should broadcast it on television. There are lots of things 'out there' that we don't allow on pre-watershed TV and IIRC there was a recent report of some celebrity's private info. on the front page of a popular newspaper but the BBC would not report it on its news. There is also use of what Ofcom considers "the most offensive language" 1.14 and, at times around an hour ago, what I would regard, and Ofcom probably would too, as frequent use of offensive language 1.16. At one time, many years ago, I was told that there was an exemption for news content, however I was never sure where that was stated in the broadcasting codes and more recently my understanding is that news is treated the same as any other content before the TV watershed - namely an absolute ban on the "most offensive language". There isn't any justification by context where that is concerned before the watershed.
In addition the scenes showing him suffering and this time including choking in the car close to death, I thought things like that were already sustained and unacceptable for television outright about three weeks ago. Some of the same material has been shown again, as a result of the court feed. Whilst I am sure the BBC probably does have a studio presenter available - it seemed there may not be one during BBC One's BBC News at Six but we can't see what is going on behind the scenes at Broadcasting House - it seems to be defended as outside its control due to being shown at the court. However, broadcasters are responsible for what they broadcast at all times and can't surrender editorial control to a third party in my view. So, no, I don't think it is the right decision - on account that the broadcasting seems to breach the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.
Although my view has mellowed somewhat due to the important public interest involved in the programming, I am not sure as children are available to view at this time of day, even if they might not do so in large numbers, and there is for me the question of causing psychological harm to children, and potentially also to vulnerable adults, seeing all this graphic content which to me is sustained and returned to being shown in extracts later. Having looked at the Code, I see 1.11 that says violence must be appropriately limited before the TV watershed. There is the question of whether it is "appropriately" limited as it may be appropriate if it is justified by the context etc. However, that rule ends by saying "...and must *also* [my emphasis] be justified by the context" so suggests that that is a separate issue in itself. Therefore, it seems to me that the mere not being appropriately limited in itself is a breach (regardless of whether there is justification by context).
It is a hugely important story, beyond the individual case. People generally have started saying in more recent years that it is important for news not to be censored, so there may well be some latitude we as a society would wish to give these days for such serious matter of arguable public interest to show. However, there is also a public interest in not harming children by showing them material that may be inappropriate for them or not suitable for them psychologically at their young age and, in my view, if sometimes sustained material as this is broadcastable in the early evening then I don't know where Ofcom's role over protecting children has gone. As you make the point that you think it is procedure and not a developing story right now, arguably this lessens there being public interest in showing it and maybe I revert to my own initial emotional reaction of three weeks ago that the content (for broadcasting) was unacceptable. If it is a "reiteration" of what's already been stated, then it is a reshowing of material that arguably was unacceptable for being shown with all its potential damage and harm to any children (even if small number, those small number that do could be harmed severely - then again they have access to all sorts of graphic material on the internet nowadays although that also doesn't make that right and there are concerns over that). Are children allowed into the courtroom in America to see all this there? Anyway, we are by UK standards not American ones. Maybe I am wrong as more than what I think is acceptable, as even some of the material shown recorded on the BBC News at Ten last time was a bit too much for me.
*Or any other UK broadcaster but our expectations are more stringent in relation to the BBC