Watching Big Brother Part 2

As the ITC does not pre-censor it is absolutely impossible to know what they would have made of the subverts, or indeed the Billboard image. To this extent it is a judgement call by C4. While we can only speculate that the ITC might have taken exception to the subvertised pics it seems more likely C4 could have end up with a libel writ than a ticking off from the ITC. Even then, many corporations are now choosing to ignore subverted pics either because they adhere to the old adage 'there is no such thing as bad publicity' (really?) or the subverted pics are, in effect, fair comment on well documented dodgy practices carried out by the corporation.

From a reading of the ITC codes it would also appear unlikely they would have had a problem with the Billboard image, after all Mark Thomas has done a lot worse and C4 have not faced an ITC complaint.

Just who are Channel 4 afraid of?

Jess Search has stated on the Indymedia site that 'Channel 4 is not afraid to challenge major multi-national corporations'.

Fair enough, but what then makes these pics different? Jess Search cites Sections 3 (on Impartiality) and Section 5 (on Crime and Anti-social behaviour) of the ITC code as particularly relevant to the C4 decision.

Section 3 of the ITC code states 'matters relating to current political issues, those of a current industrial relations nature, and current public policy which is subject to opposing points of view should be regarded as 'controversial'. The due impartiality requirement does not apply to every topic where differences of opinion may exist.' It goes on to say this does not mean broadcasters need to be absolutely neutral on every controversial issue and the code makes provisions for allowing individual contributors to put forward personal or subjective views and for those views to be reflected in a programme.

Would an image of the pulling down of a billboard hoarding by Billboard Activists really be such a 'controversial' issue? Would it really break C4's impartiality?

Certainly old C4 media hands find it difficult to imagine how the Billboard shot would infringe the ITC code. In fact, the code appears to provide a great deal of leeway in relation to this particular image. We asked Jess Search if concern for advertisers has played any part in the C4 decision, unfortunately as he/she declines to comment we can only take a wild, stabbing guess in the dark with a double blindfold on.

It is certainly disappointing that Channel 4, a non-profit publisher-broadcaster which is required, legally, to be innovative and to cater for different tastes and interests from those served by ITV believed it could not screen the pics submitted by i-contact.

Was this down to some strange naivety at C4? After all subverting is all about sticking two fingers up at the corporations and it would be impossible to cover such issues without a wee bit of contention. On the other hand, is this just another example of dumbing down and playing it safe to satisfy the advertisers? 'Around the world in 80 raves', 'Eurotrash', ..it seems it is fine to show women as naked bimbos, out of it kids on E, but not legitimate issues of protest. Is Big Brother really the best it will get?

It is also ironic given the amount of sponsored programmes now on C4. Such sponsorship means advertisers contribute to the production of a programme targeted at a specific audience in return for airtime. For example 'The Lynx Voodoo Eclipse' show funded by those well known animal lovers Unilever. But we think the Sunday Times sponsored 100 Greatest TV Adverts says it all really.

The Ethicalll Mann loves to wear ethical clothes from either that shop or from this green shopping portal!