Channel 4 told to apologise for 'Brass Eye'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Television watchdogs ordered Channel 4 to apologise yesterday for causing gratuitous offence with the broadcast in July of the Brass Eye spoof on paedophilia.
The Independent Television Committee (ITC) and the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) both ruled that it had gone beyond the realms of acceptability in its satirising of child abuse.
Channel 4 is required within days to issue an on-air apology phrased by the ITC for breaching two sections of its strict programme codes on taste and decency. Channel 4 said it would screen the apology but said it stood by the show.
Tim Gardam, the director of programmes, criticised the watchdogs' judgements as "unclear and contradictory", praised Brass Eye's maker, Chris Morris, for his innovation and intelligence, and said the channel would not hesitate to broadcast the programme again.
Brass Eye prompted more than 1,200 complaints to regulators, a further 3,000 to Channel 4 and the condemnation of the Home Office minister Beverley Hughes.
The ITC said yesterday that a warning that preceded the programme failed to prepare viewers for the documentary-style spoof investigation. It had gained an air of authority by duping celebrities such as Phil Collins into taking part. The "inadequate" warning meant that the programme had caused "an unnecessary degree of offence to many people".
The BSC, in a separate judgement after its most extensive discussions yet, concluded that the cumulative effects of scenes involving children in a sexual context had generated offence and distress that far outweighed any defence of public interest.
Both the ITC and BSC upheld Channel 4's right to produce disturbing material and accepted that satire was an effective way of making statements on difficult issues.
The ITC's penalty falls far short of the fine it could have imposed but it angered Channel 4 executives who maintained they had taken great care in the making and scheduling of the programme and with the warnings preceding it.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments