ITV

Tag: Ofcom

  • TV tops news consumption in the UK

    TV tops news consumption in the UK

    MUMBAI: In the UK, TV is the most used platform for news (79 per cent) according to the 2018 News Consumption in the UK research report published by communications regulator Ofcom.

    TV is followed by internet (64 per cent), radio (44 per cent) and newspapers (40 per cent) among adults. However, internet is the most popular platform among 16-24s (82 per cent) and ethnic minority groups (EMGs) (73 per cent).

    Television being the most-used platform, BBC One is the most important news source and is used by 62 per cent adults in UK followed by ITV (41 per cent) and Facebook (33 per cent). When it comes to online news, social media is used by 44 per cent adults.

    BBC One is the most used source for news in Wales, Scotland and England, while UTV is most popular in Northern Ireland (NI). Facebook is the third most popular source across all nations. Welsh respondents are most likely to say they’re interested in news about their nation (55 per cent vs 49 per cent in Scotland, 37 per cent in NI and 32 per cent in England).

    One in seven adults (14 per cent) use all four main platforms for news (i.e. TV, radio, newspapers and the internet).

    Eighty two per cent of 12-15 year olds said that the news they heard from family was either ‘always’ or ‘mostly’ true, compared to 77 per cent for radio and 73 per cent for TV. Only one in three (34 per cent) think news stories on social media are reported truthfully.

  • Terry Burns appointed Ofcom chairman

    Terry Burns appointed Ofcom chairman

    MUMBAI: Lord Terry Burns has been appointed as the next chairman of Ofcom. This follows the digital, culture, media and sport committee pre-appointment hearing with Lord Burns. Karen Bradley, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, has now confirmed the appointment.

    Lord Burns was until January 2016 the chairman of Channel 4 having served for six years at the public service broadcaster.

    He has also served as chairman of a number of private and public-sector organisations, including Marks & Spencer, Santander UK, Welsh Water, the National Lottery Commission, and The Royal Academy of Music.

    From 2004 to 2006, Lord Burns was independent adviser to the Secretary of State on the BBC Charter Review. He sits as a cross-bench peer in the House of Lords.

    Dame Patricia Hodgson is stepping down as chairman of Ofcom at the end of the year. Lord Burns will take up the role from 1 January 2018.

    “I am very pleased to have the opportunity to take on this role at an important time for Ofcom. The UK communications sector provides essential services to everyone in the UK and is critical to the future success of the economy,” Lord Burns said.

    Sharon White, Ofcom Chief Executive, said: “Lord Burns brings with him a wealth of experience and I am looking forward to working together as we deliver on Ofcom’s priorities.

    “I am incredibly grateful to Dame Patricia Hodgson, who has provided expert stewardship to Ofcom as chairman and deputy chairman over the past six years. Colleagues across Ofcom thank her for the contribution she’s made.”

  • Sky buy: Fox disappointed at US secy’s statement, hopes for closure by 30 June

    Sky buy: Fox disappointed at US secy’s statement, hopes for closure by 30 June

    MUMBAI: 21st Century Fox (21CF) notes the statement by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport that she intends to refer the combination of 21st Century Fox and Sky plc to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on the grounds of both media plurality and genuine commitment to broadcasting standards.

    21CF had written to the Secretary of State expressing disappointment that she had changed her mind and decided not to follow the advice of the independent and expert regulator Ofcom regarding broadcasting standards, but informing her that it did not intend to make further representations and encouraged her to make a prompt referral.

    “We now, therefore, look forward to engaging constructively with the CMA, as independent authority, and hope that the findings of this process will be respected by the Secretary of State,” 21CF stated.

    “Subject to any further delays in the decision-making process, we anticipate that the transaction will close by 30 June, 2018,” 21CF added.

    ALSO READ :

    Fox-Sky deal: UK to assess implications by 29 June

    Star India’s ent. prog costs & De-Mon impact 21st CF even as revenue beats expectations

    Fox Asia appoints Mike Rich as EVP, Dawes departs

  • Ofcom registers plaint against ‘Joanna Lumley’s India’ as ‘materially misleading’

    Ofcom registers plaint against ‘Joanna Lumley’s India’ as ‘materially misleading’

    MUMBAI: The UK’s communications regulator Ofcom recently registered a complaint against “Joanna Lumley’s India” to be ‘materially misleading’. It has been registered under the “Complaints assessed, not investigated” section of Ofcom. Ofcom has decided not to pursue complaints recorded between 1 and 20 August 2017 because they did not raise issues warranting investigation. “Complaints assessed” fall under the procedures for investigating breaches of content standards for television and radio.

    TV show ‘Joanna Lumley’s India’ has been alleged in a section of the UK media for airbrushing history. Lumley had returned to the place of her birth to celebrate India and walk in her ‘family’s footsteps’. However, her show alleged overlooked British oppression in the former colony. In the final instalment of Lumley’s three-part travelogue adventure across India, she explored Rajasthan, Delhi and the mountainous North West ending in Kashmir, the place of her birth.

    Joanna Lumley’s India, shown on ITV, promise to “celebrate” modern India and “walk in my family’s footsteps”. Within minutes of the beginning of the first episode, there was reportedly an omission. Walking through Kolkata, then called Calcutta, Lumley notices the British-inspired architecture. She however fails to mention that the first Anglican cathedral on the subcontinent St John’s Church was built by James Agg, her great-grandfather and the first of her ancestors to arrive in India in 1777. She probably is unaware of the lineage, the Guardian reported.

    But. it was not hard to trace it. Or, it could be because of those four chilling words — British East India Company – the trading corporation turned “aggressive colonial power”, as the historian William Dalrymple pointed out, the activities of which brought the word “loot” (from the Hindustani ‘lut’) into the English dictionary, and from which Agg may have made his fortune.

    The Brit EIC was not just a group of merchants, but a military force that plundered India throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries. In Bengal, the first of the regions to fall to the British Raj, the immediate outcome was full pockets for the Westerners and poverty for the citizens. Indians were stopped from trading, were forced off their land by harsh taxes, and saw their world-renowned textile industry destroyed. 

    The poverty of this great city, Lumley says, was down to “conflict and politics”. Or, did she say: “conquest and policies” – such as the 50 per cent tax on income, the extraction of which was routinely helped along by torture. Defaulters could expect to be caged and left in the burning sun. Or, at worst, to quote Edmund Burke’s 1795 testimony in the Parliament about the horrors inflicted upon Bengali women, “they were dragged out, naked and exposed to the public view, and scourged before all the people … they put the nipples of the women into the sharp edges of split bamboos and tore them from their bodies,” the Guardian wrote.

    As Lumley’s camera crew panned over a child beggar, it began to feel like the presenter was in denial. Take the segment on the Dalits, or “untouchables”. It is hard to imagine, purrs a moralising Lumley, how “this modern country” can “tolerate such discrimination”. Yet, as Shashi Tharoor outlined in his new book “Inglorious Empire,” the British helped to entrench caste prejudice, giving a final shape to it as a means of control. “We had castes,” Tharoor says, “but we did not have the caste system.”

    Also Read:

    UK’s TV & online habits revealed, 40 mn watch episodes back-to-back 

    84 U.K. channels required to provide access services in 2018

    Fox-Sky deal: UK to assess implications by 29 June

  • UK’s TV & online habits revealed, 40 mn watch episodes back-to-back

    MUMBAI: The UK has become a nation of binge-viewers, Ofcom research has revealed, with eight in 10 adults now watching multiple episodes of their favourite shows in a single sitting.

    The findings are part of Ofcom’s annual Communications Market Report 2017, which reveals stark differences in how older and younger people watch television.

    Eight in ten adults in the UK (79 per cent) – or 40 million people – use catch-up technology such as BBC iPlayer, or subscription services such as Netflix, to watch multiple episodes of a series in one sitting, wiping out the wait for next week’s instalment. One third (35 per cent) do so every week, and more than half (55 per cent) do it monthly.

    public://f1_3.jpg

    Most binge viewers (70 per cent) find this type of viewing relaxing and enjoyable, and for others it’s an opportunity to discuss with friends (24 per cent). But around a third (32 per cent) of adults admit the temptation to watch another episode has cost them sleep and left them feeling tired.

    Perhaps as a result, more than a third (35 per cent) of binge viewers, and almost half (47 per cent) of young adults aged 16-24 are trying to cut down their viewing in some way. This includes rationing their viewing (19 per cent), finding an alternative hobby (10 per cent), or even cancelling a TV subscription (4 per cent).

    Binge viewing has such a strong allure that many viewers say they don’t intend to do it, but the pull of the next episode keeps them tuned in. More than seven in ten (74 per cent) say they sometimes watch more than they intend to, while 18 per cent say this always happens.

    Bingeing is most popular among young people: more than half (53 per cent) of those aged 12-15 enjoy weekly watch-a-thons, compared to just 16 per cent of over-65s. For that older age group, more than half (59 per cent) prefer a traditional release of one episode per week.

    The trend has been driven, in part, by the availability of faster home internet speeds, a rise in the number of connected TVs, and increased take-up of smartphones and tablets.

    public://f2_3.jpg

    11 per cent of people aged 16-24 watch TV every day, compared to 0 per cent of people aged 65 per cent

    Spoiler alert!

    For many binge viewers, the desire to keep up with programmes is driven by fear of someone spoiling a programme’s ending (25 per cent). This can result in some (16 per cent) feeling under pressure to keep up with the viewing habits of family or friends.

    public://f3.jpg

    And for some, the days of being tied to the TV schedule are fading, as UK viewers take advantage of being able to watch whenever, wherever they like. More than a third of people watch TV on the move – while on holiday (24 per cent), while commuting (16 per cent) or even in the pub (7 per cent).

    Just over a half of people (51 per cent) watch TV in their bedroom, while others watch in the kitchen (16 per cent), the garden (9 per cent) or the bathroom (9 per cent).

    Adults in the UK watch programmes/films on any service or device in the bedroom 51 per cent of the time

    For many, watching TV is now a solo activity. Two in five adults say they watch TV alone every day, and almost nine in ten watch programmes alone at least once a week. One third of people say members of their household sit together, in the same room, watching different programmes on separate screens.

    public://f4.jpg

    Despite this, nine in ten people watch live TV every week, and family viewing is still an integral part of family life. Three in ten (30 per cent) adults say their family still watches the same programmes or films together every day, while 70 per cent do so at least once a week. Nearly seven in ten (68 per cent) say watching TV can bring the whole family together for a shared viewing experience.

    public://f5.jpg

    Ofcom’s research also reveals differences between the viewing habits of older and younger people, with the latter far more likely to take advantage of streaming services such as Amazon Prime.

    More than seven in ten (76 per cent) young people aged 16-24 use a subscription streaming service, compared to less than two in ten (19 per cent) older people aged 65 and over.

    68 per cent of adults in the UK agree that watching TV programmes/films brings the family together

    However, BBC iPlayer is the most popular on-demand service with 63 per cent of adults saying they use it, followed by ITV Hub at 40 per cent and then YouTube at 38 per cent and Netflix at 31 per cent.

    The public service broadcasters’ on-demand services, such as All 4 and ITV Hub, are popular with all age groups – 75 per cent of young adults aged 16-24s, and 59 per cent of over-65s, use these services.

    63 per cent of adults in the UK use BBC iPlayer for watching TV programmes/films

    Meanwhile, nearly six in ten (59 per cent) over-65s prefer a TV series to be released in the traditional manner, week by week, compared to 40 per cent and 36 per cent of young people aged 12-15 and 16-24 respectively.

    Lindsey Fussell, Consumer Group Director at Ofcom, said: “Technology has revolutionised the way we watch TV. The days of waiting a week for the next episode are largely gone, with people finding it hard to resist watching multiple episodes around the house or on the move.

    “But live television still has a special draw, and the power to bring the whole family together in a common experience.”

    Sharenting – a modern dilemma

    This year’s Communications Market Report also examines our online habits – looking particularly at the sharing of images, and wide differences in people’s approach to online privacy.

    public://f6.jpg

    It reveals that more than half (56 per cent) of parents don’t indulge in ‘sharenting’, the common practice of sharing pictures of children on social media. Among those who do not share, the main reason (87 per cent) is a wish to keep their children’s lives private.

    In contrast, 42 per cent of parents do share photos of their children, and half of these share photos at least once a month.

    Of those parents who do share photos, just over half (52 per cent) say their children are happy for them to do so, and eight in ten (84 per cent) say they only share photos or videos their children would be happy with. A large majority (85 per cent) of these parents say they are careful about who can access the material.

    Privacy know-how

    Understanding the privacy implications of sharing images is a critical media literacy skill, and some people are aware that, once they post an image, they no longer have control over it.

    Half of people understand that an uploaded photo is difficult to delete because it may have been shared or saved by someone else, but 17 per cent think it is easy to delete, and a further 16 per cent didn’t know.

    Older people are far less confident about using privacy settings than younger internet users. The large majority (81 per cent) of 18-24s feel comfortable changing settings, but this falls to 37 per cent of over-55s.

    70 per cent of people do not think that it is OK to share a photograph or video of other people without their permission. 36 per cent strongly agree that personal photographs should only be shared with friends and followers

    Most people are aware of other people’s privacy, with seven in ten (70 per cent) saying they wouldn’t share photos of other people without their permission, and three-quarters saying that personal images should only be shared with friends or followers.

    And six in ten (62 per cent) people who post photos of themselves (‘selfies’) say they have ‘untagged’ themselves from someone else’s photos or videos of them.

    Younger people are more relaxed about sharing photos. Almost two in ten (18 per cent) people aged 18-24 don’t mind sharing with everyone, compared to just 5 per cent of people over 35.

    The power of self-image

    More than a third (34 per cent) of those aged 18-24 say the pictures they post and share most often are selfies – more so than landscapes/buildings (32 per cent) and holidays (31 per cent).

    But among the wider population, holidays are still the most popular online snaps (24 per cent).

    People who post/share photos online like to post/share holiday images the most (24 per cent)

    Most selfie-takers (71 per cent) say it’s important to look their best in photos, and nearly half (47 per cent) feel pressure to look good online. This is more common among young people aged 18-24 (77 per cent), and significantly more so among women (82 per cent) than men (58 per cent).

    Almost three-quarters (74 per cent) are cynical about the photos that other people post. Seven in ten say other people’s photos offer a ‘rose-tinted’ view of that person, or make their life appear more exciting than it is. This view is strikingly high among younger people – 85 per cent of 18-24s, and 88 per cent of 25-34s, agree with it, compared to only 65 per cent of over-55s.

    Unfortunately, despite knowing that these photos might not be realistic, viewing these photos can have a negative impact. One third (32 per cent) say looking at other people’s photos makes them feel that their life doesn’t match up, rising to more than half (53 per cent) of 18-24s.

  • 21st Century Fox says it expects Sky buy to be completed by June ’18

    MUMBAI: 21st Century Fox (21CF) has stated that it is going to continue to work constructively with the UK authorities as it goes ahead with the regulatory process for it to take over UK’s Sky. It made this announcement in a statement issued yesterday.  

    Media observers have been saying that its pounds sterling 11.7 billion acquisition of the television, broadband and telecom services provider received a setback when British Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Karen Bradley said she was inclined to encourage a second phase investigation by the UK’s Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) in respect of the media plurality ground.  However, 21CF and other interested parties have till 14 July to make their representations to her stated intentions before she finally decides to send it to the CMA.

    21CF has said in the statement that “in the event that the Secretary of State makes a final decision to refer to the CMA, we would expect that the review would take at least 24 weeks. In such an event, the transaction is expected to close by 30 June, 2018.”

    The Murdoch owned media conglomerate has further stated  that is “pleased that she (Bradley) is minded not to refer the proposed transaction to the CMA in respect of the commitment to broadcasting standards.”

    However it explained that it was  disappointed that Bradley did not accept Ofcom’s recommendation stated in its report that “….the proposed undertakings offered by Fox to maintain the editorial independence of Sky News mitigate the media plurality concerns.”

    It additionally added  that it “is pleased that Ofcom recognizes that Sky, under full 21CF ownership, would remain a fit and proper holder of broadcast licenses.”

    Also Read: 

    Fox’ Sky buy: Representations to proposed merger invited by 14 July

  • Fox-Sky deal: UK to assess implications by 29 June

    MUMBAI: United Kingdom broadcast regulator Ofcom, on 20 June, submitted a public interest report to the Government on the proposed acquisition of Sky by 21st Century Fox.

    In mid-December 2016, Fox stated that Sky had agreed to a takeover offer worth USD 14.8 billion as the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch attempted to create a global media giant across the U.K., U.S, and Europe. Fox said it had reached an agreement with Sky plc on the terms of a recommended pre-conditional cash offer to buy the rest of the European pay broadcaster, beyond the 39 per cent it already owns. The terms of the formal offer, Sky News stated, meant Fox paying 10.75 pounds per Sky share, for the remainder 61% of Sky.

    On 16 March 2017, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had issued a European intervention notice, which asked Ofcom to report on public interest considerations in respect of plans by 21st Century Fox to acquire the shares in Sky it does not already own.

    Specifically, Ofcom was asked to consider whether there would be sufficient plurality of persons with control of the media enterprises; and whether the parties would have genuine commitment to the attainment in relation to broadcasting of standards objectives.

    Ofcom has now submitted the public interest report. The Secretary of State will now decide whether to refer the proposed deal to the Competition and Markets Authority for a ‘phase two’ inquiry. The Secretary of State hassaid she intends to announce – by 29 June – whether or not she is minded to refer the merger, and to publish Ofcom’s public interest report at the same time.

    Ofcom has an ongoing duty to be satisfied that broadcasting licensees are fit and proper holders of a licence. “This means that we can assess a licensee at any time, on our own initiative, as well as being able to respond to concerns raised by third parties. On 6 March 2017, we announced that we would examine any implications of a change of control over Sky for its holding of broadcast licences. Because, the issues we have considered in the public-interest and fit and proper assessments overlap, we have considered these matters within the same timeframe,” Ofcom stated.

    “We have today (on 20 June) provided our fit and proper assessment to the Secretary of State. Ofcom will publish that assessment when the Secretary of State announces her ‘minded-to’ decision and publishes the public interest report,” Ofcom added.

    Proposed merger between Fox and Sky:

    Culture Secretary Karen Bradley has confirmed receipt of Ofcom and Competition and Markets Authority reports on the proposed merger between Sky and 21st Century Fox.

    In a statement, the Culture Secretary said:
    “Today I can confirm that following my intervention in the proposed acquisition of Sky plc by 21st Century Fox Inc., I have received reports from Ofcom on two public interest grounds, and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on jurisdiction, as set out in the European Intervention Notice (EIN) issued on 16th March 2017.”

    “The EIN issued on 16th March required Ofcom to assess and report to me on two public interest grounds: 1) the need for there to be a plurality of persons controlling media enterprises; and 2) for those carrying on or in control of such enterprises to have a genuine commitment to the attainment of broadcasting standards objectives. It also required the CMA to report to me on jurisdiction. The reports were originally due on the 16th May and, on the 21st April, I extended this deadline to 20th June in light of the announcement of the General Election,” she added.

    “The decision before me now, which I am required to take acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, is whether – taking account of the specified public interest grounds – it is, or may be the case, that the merger operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest and therefore whether or not to refer for a fuller phase 2 investigation by the CMA. I will consider these reports in detail before coming to an initial view on whether or not I am minded to refer the merger,” she stated.

  • Arnab’s ‘The Newshour’ lands Times Now in soup in UK

    MUMBAI: United Kingdom broadcast regulator Ofcom has studied several episodes of Times Now’s nightly show ‘The Newshour’ from last summer, which was broadcast during the rising tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

    At the time of Ofcom’s investigation between August and September 2016, this programme was presented by the then Times Now editor Arnab Goswami. Each edition typically featured two debates, each of approximately an hour’s duration. The show was telecast live from India at 16:30 each weekday, and then repeated at 21:00 in UK. Goswami was accused of being biased towards India in the debates.

     

    In Breach: The Newshour

    According to the Ofcom newsletter dated 24 April, 2017:

    “Don’t brush aside the role of Pakistan in fermenting the trouble in Kashmir. Let us accept it. Let us acknowledge it. Let us not brush it aside”. We could not identify in this programme any content that could reasonably be described as reflecting the viewpoint of the Pakistani Government, or otherwise rebutting the criticisms being made of it. Times Global provided evidence that it had reflected viewpoints representing the Pakistani Government in further editions of The Newshour presented by Arnab Goswami. We also received complaints about the editions of The Newshour broadcast on 19 and 26 September 2016, which featured only contributors from India, but also dealt with India’s on-going relationship with Pakistan.

    Ofcom viewed the 18 additional episodes of The Newshour broadcast between 3 August 2016 and 30 September 2016. All these programmes dealt with: the on-going tensions between India and Pakistan during August and September 2016; the Pakistani Government’s policy towards Kashmir; and alleged terrorist activities towards India. However, the programmes also featured highly critical discussion about the Pakistani Government’s policies and actions in other areas such as its treatment of the separatist movement in the Pakistani province of Balochistan.

    Further, the 16 programmes cited by the Licensee each included three or four contributors that could reasonably be described as supporting the Pakistani Government or Pakistan more generally. These contributors included: Pakistani political analysts and commentators; retired Pakistani diplomats; retired senior Pakistani armed forces; Pakistani journalists; and both current and retired Pakistani politicians.

    Ofcom’s concern in this case was not whether the Licensee had reflected a range of viewpoints, but the manner in which those viewpoints were dealt with by the presenter, Arnab Goswami. We lay out below examples of how Arnab Goswami dealt with different contributors:

    1 August 2016

    In this programme there was a debate about the march to the Wagah border crossing featuring the Pakistani militants, Syed Sallahudin and Hafiz Saeed. There was the following exchange between Arnab Goswami (“AG”) and Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam (“MNI”). Arnab Goswami referred to two contributors in the programme who were described as being critical of Pakistan, G.D. Bakshi and Nalin Kohl (“NK”), the latter who was invited to speak during this exchange. Arnab Goswami also referred to Navid Hamid, a contributor who was described as being an apologist for Pakistan:

    AG: “Essentially you are down playing what happened in Wagah, the role of Hafiz Saeed, Sayeed Salahudeen, and the Jamaat-e-Islami because these people are saying ‘we will hoist the Pakistani flag in Kashmir’. And I want to know from Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, whether he agrees with such a statement. When these people say they, ‘we will hoist the Pakistani flag in Kashmir’. I want him to tell me whether he feels that’s a home grown problem. G.D. Bakshi, I will come back [to you] but let Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam reply to me please”.

    MNI: “Mr Arnab Goswami, do you, do you hear me?”
    AG: “I’m hearing you loud and clear”.
    MNI: “Ok. Let me begin by paying my tribute to Burhan Wami?–”
    AG: “Eh listen–”.
    MNI: “–and 70 others who were martyred”.
    AG: “No, no, no. Here you see. I will not, no, no, no one second, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. You, no, no, no, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam you don’t have to say things to provoke. I can tell you. I can, no, no, no, one second I will not allow you. Nalin Kohli’s on the debate!”
    NK: “Any innocent person is not somebody who can be idolised. Next you’ll be saying we should pay tribute to Osama Bin Laden. Another time he’s going to say we should pay tribute to somebody else. A terrorist is a terrorist! It doesn’t matter those, those who want [continues to talk over MNI’s attempts to talk] to participate in democracy and
    get the aspirations each one is welcome. Those who give up their weapons are
    welcome but all these tributes of terrorist please not on any show–”.

    For example, in the programme broadcast on 4 August 2016, Dr Farid Ahmed Malik of the Tahreek-eInsaaf party took part; and in the programme broadcast on 8 August 2016, Rana Afzai Khan, a member of Pakistan’s National Assembly for the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), and Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Finance, Revenue, Economic Affairs, Statistics and Privatization.

    AG: “[Interrupts and talks loudly over MNI and NK] The Indian state, the Indian state, also Nalin Kohli, as far as Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam is concerned, as far as Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam concerned, he is also a Pakistan apologist, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam takes security, the Mufti, Mufti, takes security. The question is and the question goes
    to Navid Hamid. The question is Navid Hamid of the All Indian Muslim Majlis-eMushawarat, I’m coming to you, and Mufti Nasir ul-Islam, just a quick reminder to you that as of this minute, as of this second, you are taking security funded by the Indian taxpayer. Never forget that OK.

    [MNI tries to talk but AG talks over him] Never forget
    that, so at least have a sense of loyalty. Don’t, I had to expose you today because of your duplicity, because of your hypocrisy, your opportunism. Does that not reveal something? Now you know something [talking over Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam] you have no, you are beholden to the Pakistanis and I will not allow this channel to become an instrument for your venom so I’ll cut you off for a while and when you behave yourself I’ll bring you back. Neither for your venom or your political aspirations. You say you are a mufti, your political aspirations [MNI tries to talk] and I don’t know why you are loyal to Pakistan”.

    MNI: “Ok, I don’t want to be a part of this–”.

    AG: “You don’t have the guts to answer my question so you are walking out like a typical opportunist [MNI tries to talk and AG talks over him] Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam calm down. Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam calm down. If it was a choice between having you on the show and letting you. Letting you use The Newshour for your duplicitous venom. I would be much happier asking you. I would be much happier, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, if you are on Newshour you must behave yourself and show the least amount of loyalty that someone who takes security from the Indian taxpayer should show. or if you don’t want to show that I have no problems if you walk out the programme. I have no problems if you walk out the programme. It doesn’t matter to me. I’m happy to ask you to leave the programme Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam you are obviously beholden to the Pakistanis. You can continue your act. I think you’ve revealed yourself.[raises voice and starts shouting] And the fact is Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, don’t you wag your finger at me Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. I have decently debated with you for the last
    ten minutes but the fact of the matter is there has been a terror group called the Lashkar-e-Taiba7 and Hizbul Mujahideen which carried out a march with Jamaat-eIslami.But you for the opportunist that you are cannot speak against the LET [i.e. Lashkar-e-Taiba] you are scared of them or in league with them. So drink that water and behave yourself. calm down. Calm down, I’m not going to waste my time. Look at Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam unable to control his loyalties. Has to show his real loyalty to Pakistan. Absolutely unable to control. Has to show his loyalty to Pakistan at every
    single opportunity. I’m so glad television being a transparent medium. Let this medium
    expose the real loyalties of these people one by one”.

    4 August 2016

    In this programme, there was a debate discussing whether the Pakistani Government had “hit an all-time diplomatic low”. There was the following exchange between Arnab Goswami (“AG”) and the Pakistani barrister Zahid Saheed (“ZS”) about perceptions of the level of media coverage about the visit by the Indian Home Minister of Rajnath Singh to Pakistan:

    AG: “…the only word I have for this is childish with a capital ‘C’. So childishly you try to ensure that the Indian media can’t cover Rajnath Singh. What did you think? We are not going to get access to what he says, for your kind information, I have with me the full details of what Rajnath Singh has said. I can understand that the Pakistanis don’t want to allow Rajnath Singh’s words to be heard on Pakistan television because you’re damn scared, that is if Rajnath Singh’s truth is heard by the people of Pakistan, then they start asking you questions. I hope they will. But, you don’t allow us to report on our minister. This is childish, this amateurish, this unacceptable, this is just absolutely ridiculous and I want an explanation, on behalf of every Indian citizen, an answer from Pakistani panellists on why on earth this happened, what were you trying to do? What were you scared of? Were you scared that Rajnath walked into your territory and your

    Ofcom’s concern in this case was not whether the Licensee had reflected a range of viewpoints, but the manner in which those viewpoints were dealt with by the presenter, Arnab Goswami. We lay out below examples of how Arnab Goswami dealt with different
    contributors:

    1 August 2016

    In this programme there was a debate about the march to the Wagah border crossing featuring the Pakistani militants, Syed Sallahudin and Hafiz Saeed. There was the following exchange between Arnab Goswami (“AG”) and Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam (“MNI”). Arnab Goswami referred to two contributors in the programme who were described as being critical of Pakistan, G.D. Bakshi and Nalin Kohl (“NK”), the latter who was invited to speak during this exchange. Arnab Goswami also referred to Navid Hamid, a contributor who was described as being an apologist for Pakistan:

    AG: “Essentially you are down playing what happened in Wagah, the role of Hafiz Saeed, Sayeed Salahudeen, and the Jamaat-e-Islami because these people are saying ‘we will hoist the Pakistani flag in Kashmir’. And I want to know from Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, whether he agrees with such a statement. When these people say they, ‘we will hoist the Pakistani flag in Kashmir’. I want him to tell me whether he feels that’s a home grown problem. G.D. Bakshi, I will come back [to you] but let Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam reply
    to me please”.

    MNI: “Mr Arnab Goswami, do you, do you hear me?”
    AG: “I’m hearing you loud and clear”.
    MNI: “Ok. Let me begin by paying my tribute to Burhan Wami?–”
    AG: “Eh listen–”.
    MNI: “–and 70 others who were martyred”.
    AG: “No, no, no. Here you see. I will not, no, no, no one second, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. You, no, no, no, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam you don’t have to say things to provoke. I can tell you. I can, no, no, no, one second I will not allow you. Nalin Kohli’s on the debate!”
    NK: “Any innocent person is not somebody who can be idolised. Next you’ll be saying we should pay tribute to Osama Bin Laden. Another time he’s going to say we should pay tribute to somebody else. A terrorist is a terrorist! It doesn’t matter those, those who want [continues to talk over MNI’s attempts to talk] to participate in democracy and
    get the aspirations each one is welcome. Those who give up their weapons are
    welcome but all these tributes of terrorist please not on any show–”.

    For example, in the programme broadcast on 4 August 2016, Dr Farid Ahmed Malik of the Tahreek-eInsaaf party took part; and in the programme broadcast on 8 August 2016, Rana Afzai Khan, a member of Pakistan’s National Assembly for the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), and Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Finance, Revenue, Economic Affairs, Statistics and Privatization.

    AG: “[Interrupts and talks loudly over MNI and NK] The Indian state, the Indian state, also Nalin Kohli, as far as Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam is concerned, as far as Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam concerned, he is also a Pakistan apologist, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam takes security, the Mufti, Mufti, takes security. The question is and the question goes
    to Navid Hamid. The question is Navid Hamid of the All Indian Muslim Majlis-eMushawarat, I’m coming to you, and Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, just a quick reminder to you that as of this minute, as of this second, you are taking security funded by the Indian taxpayer. Never forget that OK.

    [MNI tries to talk but AG talks over him] Never forget that, so at least have a sense of loyalty. Don’t, I had to expose you today because of your duplicity, because of your hypocrisy, your opportunism. Does that not reveal something? Now you know something [talking over Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam] you have no, you are beholden to the Pakistanis and I will not allow this channel to become an instrument for your venom so I’ll cut you off for a while and when you behave yourself I’ll bring you back. Neither for your venom or your political aspirations. You say you are a mufti, your political aspirations [MNI tries to talk] and I don’t know why you are loyal to Pakistan”.

    MNI: “Ok, I don’t want to be a part of this–”.

    AG: “You don’t have the guts to answer my question so you are walking out like a typical opportunist [MNI tries to talk and AG talks over him] Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam calm down. Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam calm down. If it was a choice between having you on the show and letting you. Letting you use The Newshour for your duplicitous venom. I would be
    much happier asking you. I would be much happier, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, if you are on Newshour you must behave yourself and show the least amount of loyalty that someone who takes security from the Indian taxpayer should show. or if you don’t want to show that I have no problems if you walk out the programme. I have no problems if you walk out the programme. It doesn’t matter to me. I’m happy to ask you to leave the programme Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam you are obviously beholden to the Pakistanis. You can continue your act. I think you’ve revealed yourself.
    [raises voice and starts shouting] And the fact is Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, don’t you wag your finger at me Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. I have decently debated with you for the last ten minutes but the fact of the matter is there has been a terror group called the Lashkar-e-Taiba7 and Hizbul Mujahideen which carried out a march with Jamaat-eIslami. But you for the opportunist that you are cannot speak against the LET [i.e. Lashkar-e-Taiba] you are scared of them or in league with them. So drink that water and behave yourself. calm down. Calm down, I’m not going to waste my time. Look at Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam unable to control his loyalties. Has to show his real loyalty to Pakistan. Absolutely unable to control. Has to show his loyalty to Pakistan at every single opportunity. I’m so glad television being a transparent medium. Let this medium
    expose the real loyalties of these people one by one”.

    4 August 2016

    In this programme, there was a debate discussing whether the Pakistani Government had “hit an all-time diplomatic low”. There was the following exchange between Arnab Goswami (“AG”) and the Pakistani barrister Zahid Saheed (“ZS”) about perceptions of the level of media coverage about the visit by the Indian Home Minister of Rajnath Singh to Pakistan:

    AG: “…the only word I have for this is childish with a capital ‘C’. So childishly you try to ensure that the Indian media can’t cover Rajnath Singh. What did you think? We are not going to get access to what he says, for your kind information, I have with me the full details of what Rajnath Singh has said. I can understand that the Pakistanis don’t want to allow Rajnath Singh’s words to be heard on Pakistan television because you’re damn scared, that is if Rajnath Singh’s truth is heard by the people of Pakistan, then they start asking you questions. I hope they will. But, you don’t allow us to report on our minister. This is childish, this amateurish, this unacceptable, this is just absolutely ridiculous and I want an explanation, on behalf of every Indian citizen, an answer from Pakistani panellists on why on earth this happened, what were you trying to do? What were you scared of? Were you scared that Rajnath walked into your territory and your
    soil and confronted you with the bare truth about your support for terrorism. Have the courage to listen to him. Barrister Zahid Saeed open the debate. It’s a free debate after that. Yes, Barrister Zahid Saeed”.

    ZS: “Your home minister was welcome in Pakistan–”.
    AG: “[AG interrupts shouting] Why was he censored?”
    ZS: “I’m trying to, I’m trying to explain. Can you please keep quiet please for a few minutes. He left before they could even answer what he was saying–”
    AG: “[Interrupts shouting] Absolute lies! Absolute lies! Absolute lies! How can you lie on Indian television like that Sir? Sorry, but how can you lie? [inaudible]”.
    ZS: “You have so much venom in you that its bursting out of you. You must listen!”
    AG: “I am asking you why you sent home our home minister. And you know why Zahir Saeed because you’re scared because Rajnath Singh walks out of your hollow promises”.

    8 August 2016
    In this programme, there was a debate discussing international attitudes to Pakistan’s policy on terrorism, during a heated discussion about India’s involvement in Balochistan, Arnab Goswami (“AG”) allowed Amir MustaQim (“AM”), a Balochi panellist who was critical of Pakistan’s policy on Balochistan, an opportunity to challenge a Pakistani panellist, retired Group Captain Sultan Ali Hali (“SAH”):

    AM: “Baloch and India are one. We are one. Why shouldn’t India be involved in Balochistan? I say it is the right of India, not only the right of India, it is the moral responsibility of India to openly support Balochistan. The main foreign interference in Balochistan is the presence of your military boots”.

    AG: “[Shouting] Well said!”
    AM: “How many have you killed of my blood and bone?”
    AG: “[Shouting] Well said!”
    AM: “How many have you killed and how many do you want to kill?”

    AG: “[Shouting] Answer him, Ambassador, answer him!”
    SAH: “Do you know the Geneva Convention? Do you know the lines of diplomacy? If India supports Balochistan openly, this will amount to intervention–”.

    AG: “[Shouting] What about Kashmir?! What about Kashmir?! What about Kashmir ?!”

    SAH: “Kashmir is a disputed area”.
    AG: “Oh for God’s sake! For God’s sake”.

    22 September 2016
    In this programme, there was a debate discussing about whether “Pakistani apologists” should be allowed on Indian soil. There was the following exchange between Arnab Goswami and an Indian Supreme Court Advocate, Shabnam Lone (“SL”):
    AG: “If there was an attempt at trying to keep a divide, a line of plausible deniability, between the Pakistan Government, the Pakistan army and ISI and the group of Pakistan apologists in India, it collapsed in a heap yesterday. Shabnam Lone, when Nawaz Sharif mirrored the words you used about Burhan Wani and therefore my question is simple”.

    SL: “Yes, well everything is hunky-dory between India and Pakistan–”.
    AG: “–I haven’t asked my question–”.
    SL: “–Arnab, nothing has changed–”.
    AG: “–I haven’t asked my question–”.
    SL: “–I know what question you are asking–”.
    AG: “I haven’t asked my question. No, you don’t know, let the question come. The question is this: Do you condemn, and use your words carefully, do you condemn the Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif using his UN speech, using it to describe Burhan Wani as a peace icon and a young leader who was only armed with his beliefs? Do you
    condemn Nawaz Sharif?”

    Shabnam Lone tried to respond. While she spoke, Arnab Goswami continuously repeated the question “Do you still condemn Nawaz Sharif?” getting louder and more persistent each time she tried to talk. Arnab Goswami then said:

    AG: “[Pakistan] is a hostile terrorist nation and I’m asking you tonight. Old tactics will not work. Shabnam Lone’s inability to answer that straight forward question and respond in terms of ‘you’ and ‘them’ ‘us’ and ‘them’ reflects the hypocrisy of the pro-Pakistan brigade in India. Now we will get someone else in. [raises his voice] Shabnam Lone

    The Pakistani Directorate General for Inter-Services Intelligence or Inter-Services Intelligence (“ISI”). The Pakistani Prime Minister practices in the Supreme Court and refuses to condemn Nawaz Sharif. She is so paranoid that she will go and say anything, she is flustered and still speaking. Look viewers!”

    The Licensee said that the programme was an “internal debate and consciously did not have guest from Pakistan as it was the same day that Pakistan provoked India by allowing a march close to the Wagah border led by terrorists like Hafiz Saeed and Syed Sallahudin”. However, Times Global added that within the series The Newshour as a whole, the viewpoint of “Pakistan and its government” was regularly represented. It provided details of various Pakistani guests that had been featured on The Newshour, which included “representatives of the Pakistani ruling party, which heads the government”. On the issue of linked
    programmes, Times Global argued that “there is a clear nexus between the Pakistani establishment and the terror outfits operating out of its territory. And yet, despite the expressions we use in our debates when referring to this terror nexus, we have ensured Pakistani representation in the interests of fairness”.

    The Licensee also made representations about the various editions of The Newshour broadcast during August and September 2016. It argued that The Newshour “over this very difficult time in India, did its best to allow the various views to be heard through the debating structure used in this programming”. It added that although the programme “clearly does not follow the same pattern as UK based news services, it did not attempt to promote any particular view of the upheaval occurring at that sensitive point of time”.

    Rather, it said that, as a news channel “completely independent from Government, political parties, pressure groups and religious bodies” it had “tried to reflect the varying views that were mainly based both in India and Pakistan”.

    Times Global also argued that “It cannot be the purpose of our channel to exactly balance the views from Pakistan or other countries in a rigid fashion to ensure that equal voice is given to all parties. It added that, in its view, over the range of its output it had “observed the spirit of the ‘Due Impartiality’ rule.

    The Licensee said it strives “to bring in as much objectivity as possible in our broadcasts”. It added that the various editions of The Newshour “had strong representations with guests
    present from Pakistan i.e. spokespersons of the ruling party, former members of the military establishment, former diplomats, and journalists”.

    Times Global also argued that The Newshour content needs to be “viewed in perspective and particularly in the overall context of our coverage over the last few months, primarily
    reflecting the public debate and political discussions on Pakistan. The relevant broadcasts complained about were therefore a continuation of the overall coverage of the channel, which at this time primarily focused on the terror attacks in India and India’s position on the same”.

    Concerning the presenter, Arnab Goswami, The Licensee said that “we can understand some people’s views that the presenter’s role on these programmes seemed to be rather overwhelming and confrontational”. However, it added that “he is no longer associated with the channel and has moved out of the organization”. Times Global also said that the presenters who had replaced Mr Goswami had “a very different approach” and had been “bringing in a wide range of reactions and comments from the participants on the show, while ensuring that no personal views” are included in the programmes.

    In conclusion, Times Global said that as a result of the Ofcom investigation, it had “conducted extensive discussions with the current team, specifically drawing attention to Ofcom Rules and Guidance” It added that it had also taken steps to “conduct training programmes” for its news teams and it stated its belief that “our coverage on sensitive issues such as these should always be undertaken keeping in mind the pertinent rules and guidance”.

    24 April 2017

    Decision

    Under the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom has a statutory duty to set standards for broadcast content as appear to it best calculated to secure the standards objectives, including that the special impartiality requirements set out in section 320 of the Act are complied with. This objective is reflected in Section Five of the Code.

    Broadcasters are required to comply with the rules in Section Five to ensure that the impartiality requirements of the Act are complied with, including that due impartiality is preserved on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy.

    When applying the requirement to preserve due impartiality, Ofcom must take into account Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This provides for the broadcaster’s and audience’s right to freedom of expression, which encompasses the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without undue interference by public authority. The broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression is not absolute. In carrying out its duties, Ofcom must balance the right to freedom of expression against the requirement in the Code to preserve due impartiality on matters relating to political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy.

    Ofcom recognises that Section Five of the Code, which sets out how due impartiality must be preserved, acts to limit, to some extent, freedom of expression. This is because its application necessarily requires broadcasters to ensure that neither side of a debate relating to matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy is unduly favoured.

    Therefore, while any Ofcom licensee should have the freedom to discuss any controversial subject or include particular points of view in its programming, in doing so broadcasters must always comply with the Code.

    Ofcom underlines that the broadcasting of highly critical comments concerning the policies and actions of any government or state agency is not, in itself, a breach of rules on due impartiality. However, depending on the specific circumstances, it may be necessary to reflect alternative viewpoints or provide context in an appropriate way to ensure that Section Five is complied with.

    The Code makes clear that the term “due” means adequate or appropriate to the subject matter. Due impartiality does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of the argument has to be represented. Due impartiality may be preserved in a number of ways and it is an editorial decision for the broadcaster as to how it ensures due impartiality is maintained.

    Rule 5.9 states:

    “Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of “personal view” or “authored” programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole. Additionally, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality. Presenter phone-ins must encourage and must not exclude alternative views”.

    The Code does not prohibit presenters of non-news programming from expressing their views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy.

    However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole (i.e.: more than one programme in the same service, editorially linked, dealing with the same or related issues within an appropriate period and aimed at a like audience).

    We recognise there is a long tradition of political interviewers and presenters of current affairs programmes, including discussion programmes like The Newshour, robustly challenging the viewpoints of interviewees and panellists to ensure all viewpoints are appropriately scrutinised. In our view, the role of a presenter in challenging the viewpoints of politicians, political commentators, experts and other contributors is an essential feature of current affairs programme as it exposes audiences to a range of viewpoints on political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, under the Code, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality.

    Ofcom acknowledged that during the two-month period when the 19 programmes in this case were broadcast, there was a period of notably heightened tension between the Indian and Pakistani Governments. As such, we recognised that Times Now, as a news channel broadcasting from the Indian perspective would want to cover the ongoing relationship between India and Pakistan. In such circumstances, we also recognised that as a channel broadcasting from an Indian perspective, Times Now may have been more likely to broadcast content that took a more critical perspective of the policies and actions of the Pakistani State.

    However, as an Ofcom licensee, Times Global had to ensure that it adequately reflected alternative viewpoints. We also recognised that Arnab Goswami, as the established presenter of The Newshour was known to audiences as having a unique hard-hitting style. He was also known for vocally expressing his views on the various matters under discussion in The Newshour.

    Ofcom first considered whether the requirements of Section Five of the Code should be applied: that is, whether the subject of the debate concerned matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy.

    In our view, the 19 programmes in this case all contained a number of highly critical statements about the policies and actions of the Pakistani Government towards Kashmir and alleged terrorist activities towards India. They also featured highly critical discussion about the Pakistani Government’s policies and actions in other areas such as its treatment of the separatist movement in the Pakistani province of Balochistan. We considered that the programmes clearly dealt with matters of political controversy and matters relating to current public policy. The Licensee was therefore required
    to preserve due impartiality to comply with Rule 5.9 of the Code.

    The programmes included a number of statements that were critical and gave a one-sided view of Pakistan’s policies and actions in relation to, for example, alleged terrorist activities towards India. Given the gravity of the various criticisms being made about Pakistan (for example, Pakistan was variously described as a: “failed state”; “terrorist nation” and
    “international pariah”), we considered that a key relevant alternative viewpoint was one that reflected the opinion of the Pakistani Government, in particular challenging the criticisms made about Pakistani Government within the programmes.
    As outlined in the Introduction, each debate on The Newshour included three or four contributors that could reasonably be described as supporting the Pakistani Government or Pakistan more generally. These contributors included: Pakistani political analysts and commentators; retired Pakistani diplomats; retired senior members of the Pakistani armed forces; Pakistani journalists; and both current and retired Pakistani politicians.

    However, our concern is this case was the manner in which any views that could be characterised as: either being representative or supportive of the Pakistani Government; or challenging the Indian Government’s policies towards Pakistan; or otherwise arguing that the Indian Government should be more conciliatory towards Pakistan, were treated. We considered that the role and actions of Arnab Goswami were the crucial factor in determining whether due impartiality had been preserved in this case. Throughout all the programmes, Mr Goswami made clear his position on the topic under discussion and consistently expressed views that were heavily critical of the Pakistan Government and correspondingly supportive of the Indian Government. Ofcom underlines that presenters in non-news programmes can express views that are critical or supportive of particular nation states but they must not promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality.

    In assessing Arnab Goswami’s role within the programmes, we noted the Licensee’s statement that: “With constant attacks being carried out on Indian soil, by terror forces from across the border, the pulse of the nation and sentiments in the minds of the Indian public and viewers were at a high pitch”. Therefore, it said that the programmes sought to concentrate on “what India should be focusing on at that juncture, in relation to Pakistan”. Further, such issues were “put out in the form of questions during these programmes and an open debate was conducted amongst the participants”. We noted, therefore, that the structure of the debates included within The Newshour followed a similar pattern, whereby Arnab Goswami would introduce the debate topic and then direct discussion during the debate by asking particular panellist questions related to the debate topic.

    In reaching our Decision, we considered the various ways in which Arnab Goswami treated the various viewpoints being expressed in the programmes. Times Global said the debates featured in The Newshour programmes “were represented by as many factions as possible and multiple views were put forth by the panellists who participated on these shows”. However, in our view, throughout the programmes, Arnab Goswami took a position that was consistently highly aggressive towards those panellists that could be described as taking a position that was either supportive of the Pakistani Government or suggesting that the Indian Government should adopt a more conciliatory attitude towards Pakistan. For example, when dealing with panellists who were supportive of the Pakistani Government, Arnab Goswami would consistently adopt a highly aggressive and confrontational tone. Frequently, when asking a question to such panellists, he typically afforded them very little opportunity to answer his question, and aggressively interrupted them, such as in the following example from the 4 August 2016 programme:

    AG: “What were you scared of? Were you scared that Rajnath walked into your territory and your soil and confronted you with the bare truth about your support for terrorism.Have the courage to listen to him. Barrister Zahid Saeed open the debate. It’s a free debate after that. Yes Barrister Zahid Saeed”.

    ZS: “Your home minister was welcome in Pakistan–”.
    AG: “[AG interrupts shouting] Why was he censored?
    ZS: “I’m trying to, I’m trying to explain. Can you please keep quiet please for a few
    minutes. He left before they could even answer what he was saying –”
    AG: “[Interrupts shouting] Absolute lies! Absolute lies! Absolute lies! How can you lie on
    Indian television like that Sir? Sorry, but how can you lie? [inaudible]”.
    ZS: “You have so much venom in you that its bursting out of you. You must listen! –”
    AG: “I am asking you why you sent home our home minister. And you know why ZAHIR Saeed because you’re scared because Rajnath Singh walks out of your hollow promises”.

    Similarly, in the 28 September 2016, there was the following exchange between Arnab Goswami and a Pakistani contributor, Shafqat Saeed:

    AG: “Is becoming a regional pariah enjoyable situation for you? Shafqat Seed is it for you?”
    SS: “To whom are you asking the question. Address your panellist?”
    AG: “You decide which one of you is speaking. This is the problem, Shafqat Saeed, you
    answer. Today, know your situation. You–”
    SS: “My situation is alright [inaudible]You have a stupid reason to undo this SAARC. This
    region is nothing without Pakistan”.
    AG: “One second, Shafqat Saeed, one second. Understand today you are globally notorious and you are globally notorious because you are an international pariah. You understand the seriousness of it? Never before has a country hosting a multi-lateral event faced a combined black out and boycott by other countries. This has never
    happened before. It’s not India anymore. Bhutan doesn’t trust you–”

    SS: “Who will be [inaudible] paid back? [inaudible due to AG shouting] you will–”
    AG: “[shouting over SS] What do you mean paid back? Don’t threaten people, are you
    declaring war? You are declaring war on South Asia because you have been boycotted.
    You have become an international embarrassment!”

    There were also examples when Arnab Goswami, after posing a question to a panellist supporting the Pakistani Government, would aggressively interrupt them, and then immediately allow a panellist from a viewpoint that was critical of the Pakistani Government to speak uninterrupted and at length, such as in the 1 August 2016 programme:

    AG: “And I want to know from Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, whether he agrees with such a statement. When these people say they, ‘we will hoist the Pakistani flag in Kashmir’ I want him to tell me whether he feels that’s a home grown problem’. G.D. Bakshi I will come back but let Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam reply to me please”.

    MNI: “Mr Arnab Goswami, do you, do you hear me?”
    AG: “I’m hearing you loud and clear”.
    MNI: “Ok. Let me begin by paying my tribute to Burham Wami?–”
    AG: “Eh listen–”.
    MNI: “ –and 70 others who were martyred”.
    AG: “No, no, no. Here you see. I will not, no, no, no one second, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam. You, no, no, no, Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam you don’t have to say things to
    provoke. I can tell you. I can, no, no, no, one second I will not allow you. Nalin Kohli’s on the debate!”

    NK: “Any innocent person is not somebody who can be idolised. Next you’ll be saying we should pay tribute to Osama bin Laden. Another time he’s going to say we should pay tribute to somebody else. terrorist is a terrorist! It doesn’t matter those, those who want [continues to talk over MNI’s attempts to talk] participate in democracy and get the aspirations each one is welcome. Those who give up their weapons are welcome but all these tributes of terrorist please not on any show–”.

    Arnab Goswami also voiced his enthusiastic support for panellists who were critical of the Pakistani Government, as shown by the following example from the 8 August 2016
    programme:

    AM: “Baloch and India are one. We are one. Why shouldn’t India be involved in Balochistan? I say it is the right of India, not only the right of India, it is the moral responsibility of India to openly support Balochistan. The main foreign interference in Balochistan is the presence of your military boots”.

    AG: “[Shouting] Well said!”
    AM: “How many have you killed of my blood and bone?”
    AG: “[Shouting] Well said!”
    AM: “How many have you killed and how many do you want to kill?”
    AG: “[Shouting] Answer him, Ambassador, answer him!”
    SAH: “Do you know the Geneva Convention? Do you know the lines of diplomacy? If India
    supports Balochistan openly, this will amount to intervention–”.
    AG: “[shouting] What about Kashmir?! What about Kashmir?! What about Kashmir?!”
    SAH: “Kashmir is a disputed area”.
    AG: “Oh for God’s sake! For God’s sake”.

    In our view, throughout the 19 programmes in this case, Mr Goswami adopted a markedly different approach when interacting with panellists who were critical of the policies and actions of the Pakistani Government, compared with panellists who supported the policies and actions of the Pakistani Government.

    Ofcom underlines it is an editorial matter for broadcasters how they preserve due impartiality, including the format of any programmes they may broadcast dealing with matters of political controversy and matters relating to current public policy. Therefore, in principle it is possible for presenters in panel discussion current affairs programmes to robustly put forward their own views and challenge different viewpoints. However, the editorial format of a programme, and in particular the manner in which a presenter moderates a panel discussion, must not compromise due impartiality.

    We took into account that Times Global argued that it had “tried to reflect the varying views that were mainly based both in India and Pakistan”. The programmes did include guests who represented the viewpoint of the Pakistani Government and/or opposed the various criticisms being made of Pakistan more widely. However, we did not consider that over the series of programmes taken as a whole these viewpoints were given sufficient opportunity to be expressed to ensure that the audience was presented with the various sides of the topics under debate.

    We also considered the various other representations made by Times Global. First, the Licensee said that The Newshour “clearly does not follow the same pattern as UK based news services”. We agree. Ofcom’s published Guidance states that Ofcom research has demonstrated that in relation to due impartiality “there are greater expectations for news
    channels that are perceived to be aimed at a UK audience than there are for channels with a global audience”.

    However, the Guidance goes on to state that: “Broadcasters can criticise or support the actions of particular nation-states in their programming, as long as they, as appropriate, reflect alternative views on such matters”.

    Second, Times Global also argued that “It cannot be the purpose of our channel to exactly balance the views from Pakistan or other countries in a rigid fashion to ensure that equal voice is given to all parties. It added that, in its view, over the range of its output it had “observed the spirit of the ‘Due Impartiality’ rule. As mentioned above, the Code makes clear that due impartiality does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. However, alternative viewpoints must be reflected as appropriate. For the reasons described above, we did not consider this happened in this case.

    Finally, the Licensee said that The Newshour content needs to be “viewed in perspective and particularly in the overall context of our coverage over the last few months, primarily reflecting the public debate and political discussions on Pakistan. The relevant broadcasts complained about were therefore a continuation of the overall coverage of the channel, which at this time primarily focused on the terror attacks in India and India’s position on the same”.

    However, in order to comply with Rule 5.5, alternative viewpoints had to be reflected, as appropriate in programme or series of programmes taken as a whole. Therefore, a television broadcaster cannot rely on its coverage over its schedule as a whole as evidence of how it may have reflected alternative views on a particular matter.

    In reaching our Decision, we took into account that the Licensee told us that the presenter “…is no longer associated with the channel and has moved out of the organization”.

    Times Global also said that the presenters who had replaced Mr Goswami had “a very different approach” and had been “bringing in a wide range of reactions and comments from the participants on the show, while ensuring that no personal views” are included in the programmes. In addition, the Licensee said, as a result of the Ofcom investigation, Times Global had “conducted extensive discussions with the current team, specifically drawing attention to Ofcom Rules and Guidance”. It had also taken steps to “conduct training programmes” for its news teams.

    However, for all the reasons above, we considered that the presenter used the advantage of his regular appearances in the 19 programmes in this case to promote his views in a way that compromised the requirement for due impartiality.

    Our Decision, therefore, is that the programmes Breaches of Rule 5.9.

    Ofcom understands that Arnab Goswami resigned from Times Now in early November 2016.

    Also Read

    Republic TV buzzing with pre-launch teasers featuring ‘soft’ targets, issues

    Copy-right vs right: Who can stop Arnab from using ‘nation wants to know’

    Times TV gets into a gunfight with CNBC TV18 on Budget Day claims

  • Google, MS agree to crack down on online content piracy site

    NEW DELHI: A global war on content piracy, including in India, just got a leg up. For the first time, global tech giants Google and Microsoft have agreed to tighten up their search engines as part of a crackdown on content piracy websites illegally streaming events and films with the UK regulator Ofcom backing it.

    Google and Microsoft’s search engine Bing have signed up to a voluntary code of practice and will ensure offending websites are demoted in their search results, according to a PTI report from London, which goes on to state that he entertainment industry reached the agreement with the tech giants after talks brokered by the UK government.

    The initiative will run in parallel with existing anti-piracy measures, which includes initiatives by PIPCU or the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU), which is a specialist national police unit dedicated to protecting the UK industries that produce legitimate, high quality, physical goods and online and digital content from intellectual property crime.

    PIPCU operationally independent and launched in September 2013 with £2.56million funding from the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) of the UK until June 2015, got additional funding from the IPO in October 2014 till 2017. The unit is dedicated to tackling serious and organized intellectual property crime (counterfeit and piracy) affecting physical and digital goods (with the exception of pharmaceutical goods) with a focus on offences committed using an online platform.

    The PTI report, quoting BBC and dwelling on Google and MS moves, stated that the code said to be the first of its kind in the world is expected to be in operation by the middle of this year.

    Jo Johnson, the UK’s minister for universities, science, research and innovation, was quoted in the report as saying that the search engines’ “relationships with our world leading creative industries needs to be collaborative”. He added: “It is essential that (consumers) are presented with links to legitimate websites and services, not provided with links to pirate sites.”

    Google has indicated that the effort would provide a way to check that its existing anti-piracy efforts were effective, rather than committing it to adding new measures. “Google has been an active partner for many years in the fight against piracy online. We remain committed to tackling this issue and look forward to further partnership with rights holders,” a Google spokesperson was quoted by PTI as saying.

    The UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) led the discussions, with the assistance of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Britain’s communications watchdog, Ofcom, supported the talks by exploring techniques that could be used to ensure internet users avoid coming across illegal content.

    Trade body Alliance for Intellectual Property director-general Eddy Leviten told the BBC, according to the PTI report, “Sometimes people will search for something and they will end up unwittingly being taken to a pirated piece of content. What we want to ensure is that the results at the top of the search engines are the genuine ones. It is about protecting people who use the internet, but also protecting the creators of that material too.”

    Besides demoting copyright infringing sites, search engine auto-complete functions, a time-saving feature that suggests what users may be looking for, are also expected to remove terms that may lead to pirated websites. Compliance with the code will be monitored by the IPO over the next few months.

  • Pubcasters still account for more than half of broadcast TV viewing, claims Ofcom

    Pubcasters still account for more than half of broadcast TV viewing, claims Ofcom

    NEW DELHI: Even as Prasar Bharati continues to struggle with the Sam Pitroda report which was largely a reiteration of earlier reports, the British Broadcasting Corporation last year brought out a Green Paper to review its working and make changes.

    Now, a report by the British media regulator Ofcom says public service broadcasters (PSBs) still account for more than half of broadcast TV viewing and around three in four viewers are satisfied with their services.

    Investment by PSBs in programmes on their public service channels appears to be stabilising after several years of decline and spending has increased on new factual programmes and original drama. However, spending on children’s shows, the arts and classical music and religion has continued to decline.

    Ofcom has said in is latest PSB Annual Research Report published this week that has shown that 16 to 24 year old people have particularly embraced on-demand services, and spend around a third of their daily viewing time watching free (e.g. BBC iPlayer, All 4, ITV player) or paid (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Video) on-demand services. Live TV accounts for 36% of daily viewing in this age group, a 14 percentage-point decrease in two years.

    The study was based on BBC, ITV, STV in Scotland, UTV in Northern Ireland, Channel 4, S4C in Wales and Channel 5.

    The main five public service channels provided by PSBs1 reached 84% of the TV population in a typical week, and accounted for 51% of all broadcast TV viewing in 2015, according to a report on the OfCom website.

    This share is similar to the last three years but represents a decline from ten years ago when PSBs held a 70% share of viewing. When PSBs’ ‘portfolio’ channels – such as BBC Four, ITV2 or E4 – are included, their share of viewing was 71% in 2015.

    Overall, TV viewing has fallen in recent years with viewers now watching 26 minutes less a day than in 2010. While the average person watched three hours and 36 minutes of TV per day in 2015, there is a widening generational gap in the viewing habits of the youngest and oldest audiences.
    People under 25 are watching around a quarter less broadcast TV than in 2010, while the average viewing of those aged 55 to 64 has only declined by 5%.

    The PSBs spent £2.50 billion on new UK programmes3 on their public service channels in 2015, a 2% increase since 2013; the most recent comparable year due to the absence of major sporting events4 .

    PSBs’ spending on new UK factual programmes rose by 8% to £522m, more than any other genre and the highest investment in this type of programme since 2008. They also spent more in 2015 on original UK drama (up 12% to £311m), and showed more of it – 416 hours, up from 371 hours.

    However, the hours of original UK children’s programmes decreased in 2015 – from 672 in 2014 to 580. This was the first time fewer than 600 hours of original UK children’s programmes have been broadcast since 1998. Spending on this genre was £77m, 13% down on 2014.

    The PSBs also spent less on new UK arts and classical music programmes in 2015 – £36m, down 14% from 2014 – as well as religion and ethics (down by 6% to £12m). Original UK comedy also decreased (by 4%, to £99m).

    Audiences continue to value programmes from the public service broadcasters: 73% of viewers said they were satisfied with PSB public service broadcasting overall, while 7% were dissatisfied.
    Nearly nine in ten (86%) viewers of public service channels cited trustworthy news programmes, and showing programmes of a high quality, as an important purpose of public service broadcasting.

    This was the most-cited purpose, followed by programmes that help viewers understand what is happening in the world (83%).

    The BBC, along with ITV, STV and UTV (the ‘Channel 3′ licence holders), spent a combined £270m on programmes specifically directed towards viewers in the particular nations and regions of the UK in 2015.

    At least seven in ten regular viewers are satisfied with BBC One and Channel 3’s delivery of nations and regions news.

    S4C spent £63m on original Welsh-language programmes in the 2015/16 financial year, a slight increase from the previous year.

    Jane Rumble, Director of Market Intelligence at Ofcom said: “Our research shows that UK audiences still watch and value public service broadcasting. But there are significant differences in the viewing habits of older and younger audiences.

    “As media and technology continue to evolve, it is important that broadcasters respond to these changes, so they can keep meeting the needs and expectations of viewers.”

    OfCom clarified that its data was from Ofcom Digital Day research 2016 as there is currently no single industry-wide measurement for understanding the share of viewing to all forms of viewing across all screens.

    It also found that Public service channels typically spend more in even-numbered years (2014), which contain major sporting events such as World Cups, European Championships, Olympic or Commonwealth Games. Spending here covers new UK network programming only, and excludes nations and regions content.