Consenting Adults?

Consenting Adults?

Stirling Media Research Institute

May 2000

Foreword 1

The Research and the Research Team: A Note 3

Acknowledgements 5

Executive Summary 7

1. Introduction 11

2. Public Participation and its Discontents 13

3. The Programmes 19

4. Public Participation and Issues of Consent: An Audience Perspective 27

5. Selecting Participants and Assessing their Motivation 47

6. Informed Consent 57

7. Conclusion 71

Appendices

Appendix 1: References 83

Appendix 2: Notes on Hoaxing and Faking Allegations 84

Appendix 3: Extracts from Broadcaster and Regulatory Guidelines 85

Appendix 4: Focus Group Demographics 91

Appendix 5: Notes on the Researchers 92

Appendix 6: Broadcasting Standards Commission 93

Contents

The explosion of television talk-shows and other factual and documentary programmes over the past decade has seen the use of so called ‘ordinary’ people become a normal part of the television agenda. Sharing your life on air, getting advice from the studio audience orinviting a film crew into your private or professional world sometimes seems to havedeveloped into a kind of national therapy.

While the potential entertainment for the viewer is apparent, the implications for theparticipants, in terms of privacy and publicity, are not always so obvious at the outset.Many contributors are perfectly happy with their experience, giving their full and informedconsent to what happens. But on some occasions, individuals have expressed concern at the way they have been treated by programme-makers.

The purpose of this study was to learn more about why people decide to get involved with the programmes: what are their motives and what are the responsibilities of theprogramme-makers? Do they have a duty to safeguard participants’ interests? How, in fact,do programme-makers obtain informed consent?

In a more competitive environment, in which more and more is being produced for less andless, there remain important ethical considerations. It will be important to ensure that basichuman values of respect and dignity, not to mention privacy, continue to be a centralconcern for both audiences and broadcasters alike. The Commission’s research programmewill continue to encourage debate about these significant issues for both broadcasting andthe wider world. We all owe it to ourselves to ensure that the standards for which Britishbroadcasting is renowned are not sacrificed in the scramble for attention.

Rt Hon The Lord Holme of Cheltenham CBEMay 2000

Foreword

Consenting adults? 1

The researchand the research team: A note


Consenting Adults? is the result of a 14 month collaborative effort based at Stirling MediaResearch Institute (SMRI), funded by the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC).Following the completion of Men Viewing Violence, our last study for the BSC, theCommission’s Research Director, Andrea Millwood Hargrave, asked SMRI to develop aresearch proposal for the study of public participation programmes. The project wasdeveloped by a steering committee, chaired by Professor Philip Schlesinger, whosemembership consisted of Richard Kilborn, Dr Brian McNair and Dr Stephanie Marriott.

Dr Matthew Hibberd was the full-time researcher on the project and he began work inMarch 1999. In collaboration with the steering committee, he refined the project outline,devised the questionnaire, liaised with broadcasters and production teams, conducted mostof the interviews and observational work, and set up and ran the focus groups. Whilemembers of the committee have had different responsibilities and inputs into its drafting,Consenting Adults? is the product of collective deliberation. The quantitative data wereprepared by William Dinan, a Research Assistant in Stirling Media Research Institute.


Acknowledgements

This research would not have been possible without the help of many people. First andforemost, we are grateful to all our interviewees and focus group participants for givinggenerously of their time and opinions. We would also wish to thank the followingindividuals who helped this study:

Simon Doherty, GUVMA; Billy McChord, ACE, Cornton, Stirling; May Peat and MalcolmRichards, Royal British Legion, Scotland; Margaret Davidson, Karen Hotchkiss, MichelleLee, Nicky Lynch and Louise McKinsley, for transcribing interviews and focus groupdiscussions; Louise Womersley, for her efficient administration.

We are also grateful to Graham Kelly, BMRB, London, and William Dinan, SMRI, Stirling,for their help in designing the public attitudes survey, and Dr Richard Haynes, SMRI,Stirling, for his help in organising the focus groups.

The authors are also grateful to the Broadcasting Standards Commission for commissioningthe study. We especially appreciate the efforts of Andrea Millwood Hargrave, the BSC’sDirector of Research, for her very constructive and insightful discussions with us as theproject developed. We would also like to thank Andrea’s assistant, Lorraine Miller, for heradministrative support. This third collaboration with the BSC has been as positive anexperience for us as the first two. While the BSC funded this study, the authors are fullyresponsible for its contents.


Executive summary

� The past decade has seen a rapid rise in the number of programmes featuring ‘ordinary’members of the public. How, in the current broadcasting climate, do programme-makersobtain their informed consent? The main aims of this study were to learn more aboutparticipants’ motives for becoming involved; to consider how programme-makers thinkabout and carry out their responsibilities to safeguard participants’ interests; and toassess viewers’ attitudes on these issues.

� Our study found that most programme-makers do take their duties towards theircontributors seriously and normally supply sufficient information to allow people to giveinformed consent to their participation. We also established that most participants arehappy with the information they have received and with the procedures in place toenable them to give consent. We have included these instances of good practicethroughout the report.

� In a minority of programmes, however, we found that such good practice was notalways rigorously observed. A number of participants and some of their close relativeswere concerned about the treatment they had received from programme-makers.

� There were also a number of instances where the participants had not always acted ingood faith, either with their relatives or with programme-makers. In two programmesdealing with family conflict, allegations made by participants caused serious anguish totheir relatives and children. We also spoke to company employees who were neitherconsulted by their employer prior to filming for a documentary nor asked to give theirpermission to be filmed.

� There was strong support from the ‘viewing’ public for the requirement that participantsgive their informed consent. There was likewise a significant majority of people whobelieved that the privacy of participants and their relatives should remain paramount.There was concern to protect vulnerable groups such as the elderly, the infirm orchildren.

� Our report argues that every contributor should be required to give their informedconsent to their participation in a programme. We define informed consent as:‘Permission based on a participant’s knowledge and understanding of (a) a programme’sformat, aims and objectives, (b) how their contribution will be used and (c) the potentialconsequences for them or for third parties of their taking part.’

� This is a conclusion supported by viewers themselves. Seventy-one per cent of our surveyrespondents argued that the programme-makers should both inform participants aboutwhat is involved in making the programme and advise them about the possibleconsequences of transmission.

� Our research found that there was a wide gap between the participants’ motives forcontributing and audience perceptions of their reasons for appearing on television.Participants’ motivations included the desire to share with the wider public anexperience they had gone through, or to raise awareness of issues that can affect otherpeople’s lives. On the other hand, the audience characterisation of participants’ motivesincluded being labelled as ‘show-offs’ or ‘exhibitionists’. In short, viewers questioned themotives of both producers for the way they used people, and of participants, forwanting to appear on television.

� The report found that programme-makers often recruit repeat participants. Oneproducer defined this as the ‘repeat-performer syndrome’. Surprisingly, 47.5% of ourparticipant interviewees had appeared on two or more television programmes. Some hadappeared in as many as seven or eight programmes. This reliance on a narrow range of‘semi-professionalised’ participants may be due to a number of factors, including tightbudgets, and hence the use, by research staff, of lists of people who have previouslyappeared on television. While some people will never want to appear on television, areliance on a narrow range of participants might deter others from contributing or mayeven add to the audience’s doubts about the authenticity of what they are seeing.

� Given the recent spate of well-publicised incidents where individuals have appearedunder false pretences, programme-makers are now more likely to expose would-beparticipants to rigorous identity-checking procedures.

� The study also found that participants were not always given adequate informationabout a programme’s aims and objectives. This was especially evident in talk-showsappearing up to five times a week and with a tight production schedule. Recruitingpeople at very short notice means they do not always have time to reflect on theirdecision to take part or perhaps misunderstand the aim of the programme.

� Participants are sometimes unaware of the ways in which programme-makers might usetheir contributions. We found that this lack of awareness normally occurred indocumentary strands of programming where editing and other post-production workcould radically change the nature of a participant’s contribution.

� We found that there was less risk of participants feeling themselves to have been misledif they had had some input in the post-production process. Some participants did seetheir contribution prior to transmission and were able to make corrections orsuggestions, but the majority of participants were unable to exercise this right. Thegeneral lack of insistence on some input at this stage stems, in part, from a lack ofknowledge of the kind of post-production techniques that can affect their contribution.

Broadcasting Standards Commission8

� We therefore suggest that programme-makers encourage greater participant cooperationand feedback in the post-production phase. Participants have plainly benefited fromsuch an approach and fuller cooperation does not necessarily threaten programme-makers’ editorial independence.

� There was strong support for participants’ rights once a programme had been broadcast.Fifty-four per cent of our survey respondents argued that, if a participant had acomplaint, they should be able to discuss this with the broadcaster. Thirty-six per centsaid that complaints should be referred to the relevant complaints authority and 25% said that broadcasters should ensure that participants could publicly air theircomplaints on television.

� A clear majority of survey respondents also argued that consent should be sought fromindividuals who are not directly involved in a programme, but who still appear onscreen. Sixty-seven per cent argued that consent should be sought from individuals whoare filmed by surveillance cameras (CCTV) before such footage is used in anentertainment programme. However, members of the public were careful to differentiatebetween entertainment and investigative programmes. Only 45% said consent should besought if CCTV footage was to be used in an investigative programme, implying supportfor the public interest in uncovering potential wrongdoing.

� We argue in the light of this study that broadcasters and regulatory bodies need toreview their guidelines on participation in programmes and some of the privacy issues which ensue, including the protection of children and employee-participants; the implications of the rise in the number of repeat participants; how best to deal with the elderly or infirm; and the protection of third-party participants such as familyand friends.

� Finally, we strongly encourage broadcasters to introduce an explicit code of rights forparticipants, uniting current codes or guidelines for programme-makers withinformation explaining their rights and duties in the television-making process.


The report is based on 70 interviews held with programme-makers and participants from 12 selected programmes.

These programmes included daytime talk-shows, a docu-soap, one-off documentaries and video diaries. The project also

draws on the findings of a specially commissioned public attitudes survey, which asked people about their views on issues

relating to the study, and a series of focus group meetings.


Chapter 1: Introduction

OverviewThis study examines public participation across a broad spectrum of television programmes,with special emphasis on informed consent. The main aims of the report are as follows:

� To throw light on the nature of the public’s participation in programmes.

� To discover how individuals are selected to participate.

� To ask individuals about their motives for participating, and to discover whatunderstanding they have of a programme’s objectives.

� To consider how programme-makers think about and carry out their responsibilities to safeguard participants’ interests.

� To highlight instances of good practice in gaining participants’ informed consent.

� To work towards a clearer and more meaningful definition of the notion of ‘informed consent’.

‘Informed consent’: a working definitionAt the heart of issues alluded to in Consenting Adults? is ‘informed consent’, and weaccordingly gave it a high priority in the methodological design of the study. There are manyaspects to the securing and giving of consent, but before we examine these in later chapters wewould like to outline what we mean by informed consent in the broadcasting context.

The BSC’s 1997 Annual Review stated that the ‘informed consent’ of participants was thestandard to which the producers of such programmes should aspire. Though the reportcontains no definition of the term, the formulation recognises that, on its own, ‘consent’ istoo broad a concept to be of significant regulatory value. The qualified notion of ‘informedconsent’, on the other hand, permits one to ask what it is that participants assent to whenthey agree to appear on a particular programme, and whether programme-makers providepotential and actual participants with the information required for them to give meaningfulconsent. Similarly, it raises issues as to the eventual form, content and style of theprogramme, and the ways in which finished products might or might not correspond toparticipants’ expectations at earlier stages of the production process.

The concept of ‘informed consent’ has medical roots, meaning ‘to give permission, based onknowledge of facts and information’. In the case of television programmes, as opposed tomedical surgery or other contexts in which informed consent is sought, we would suggest thatparticipants might reasonably expect to be fully and honestly informed in advance about:

� The category of programme to which they are contributingIs the programme intended to be a serious documentary, or a lighter documentary strandin which, to quote a producer, one ingredient is the ‘embarrassment of participants intheir environments?’

� The uses to which their contribution is likely to be put Will an interview be broadcast in its entirety, or be edited? Will it be used in anotherprogramme strand at a later stage? Will a contribution be embellished with sound andvisual effects which might trivialise or sensationalise it, or betray (from the participant’sperspective) the spirit in which it was given? Are participants in live broadcasts likely tobe subjected to an unexpected and potentially distressing line of questioning?

� The possible implications for a participant’s life of appearing on television Are participants aware of the potential impact of television exposure on their family, oron workplace and other relationships, particularly when participation involves a degreeof self-revelation or intimate exposure?

� Their right to replyHaving given their consent to become involved in a particular programme, areparticipants made aware that there are channels open to them to voice objections if theyfeel they have been misrepresented or have other cause for complaint?

The majority of producers interviewed for this study accepted that addressing each of these issues was important for putting individuals in a position to give their informedconsent. As one producer put it:

‘People who haven’t set out to be celebrities have to be protected, to be kept well-informed of what it is you’re doing, what the likely impact would be on their life. Andwe have to help them to decide where they are going to draw the line as to how muchaccess to their lives they are going to give us.’

The reportConsulting Adults? is composed of seven chapters, including this introduction and theconclusion. Chapter 2 provides an historical overview of the development of publicparticipation programmes in Britain, and also highlights the steady rise in the number ofparticipation programmes shown on British television in the past decade. In chapter 3, we provide further information on the methodologies used in the preparation of this report.chapter 4 examines the results of our public attitudes survey and focus group meetings. In chapter 5, we examine what motivates people to take part in television programmes. Wealso examine how programme-makers go about selecting participants. In chapter 6, we lookat the key concept of informed consent and highlight the ways in which consent isnegotiated between programme-makers and participants. Finally, chapter 7 sets out someconcluding remarks and recommendations.



Chapter 2: Public participationand its discontents

Over the past few years, there has been a steady rise in the number of televisionprogrammes in which ordinary members of the public participate in an on-screen capacity.Whether as participants in the latest docu-soap or guests in a daytime talk-show or subjectsin a serious documentary investigation, the contributions of lay members of the public havebecome a regular part of viewers’ television diet. Appearing on television no longer seems tobe restricted to the small group of privileged professionals who once dominated the medium.

Getting ordinary members of the public to appear on screen is, of course, not an entirelynew phenomenon. It goes back to the earliest days of the medium. Historically, it has beenone of the strategies by which programme-makers and television executives have sought topersuade or reassure the viewing audience that the programmes on offer are relevant to thelives and concerns of ordinary people. An important part of the remit of public servicebroadcasters has, after all, been to educate and inform the public about a wide range ofcontemporary issues. Eliciting their opinions and securing the involvement of ordinarypeople has been in tune with this remit.

During the early days of television, the problem was that the public’s involvement did not,arguably, constitute truly meaningful participation. Certainly, it is true that members of thepublic appeared in many of the documentaries of the 1950s and 1960s, providingilluminating accounts of life in their respective communities, and ordinary people did appearon screen as participants in early game and quiz shows. These were, however, highlyconstrained forms of participation. If anything, they drew attention to the fact that thepossibilities of ordinary people gaining access to the airwaves were severely limited.

In the 1970s, broadcasting institutions slowly began to respond to criticism of publicexclusion by setting up various ‘access’ strands. The aim of these programmes was to allowindividuals and groups to voice opinions and views which might not have surfaced in therest of the schedule. Access television provided the opportunity for the expression ofalternative, unfashionable or simply different views to be expressed. It had a particular valuein pointing up the democratising potential of the medium and demonstrating to the audiencethat those who were normally cast in the role of relatively passive receivers could actuallybecome far more active participants.

It was during this period that the BBC set up its Community Programming Unit (CPU)which was responsible for some of the early access strands such as Open Door and OpenSpace. Access programming has remained a feature of broadcasting output up to the presentday, with Video Diaries and Video Nation as relatively recent products of the CPU stable.Likewise, when Channel 4 was set up in the early 1980s, an access requirement wasincluded in its broadcasting remit. The channel experimented with a number of CommunityVideo projects throughout the 1980s, such as the series of short five-minute self-filmedcontributions transmitted in 1989 under the title Me, A Video Diary. Such programminghas, however, frequently been consigned to late-evening slots and has, therefore, tended toremain at the periphery of mainstream television.

[1] Francis Wheen. Television: A History, pp. 220-21; Century Publishing, London, 1985.

[2] Richard Kilborn. ‘Shaping the Real: Democratization and Commodification in UK Factual Broadcasting’, vol.13 (2): pp.201-218;

European Journal of Communication, 1998.

[3] Sonia Livingstone and Peter Lunt. Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Debate. pp. 162-180; Routledge, London

and New York, 1994.

Early concerns about public participationFrom the earliest days of television, a number of concerns were expressed over the ways inwhich people were selected and treated. There were, for instance, a number of well-publicisedincidents involving collusion between broadcasters and members of the public who appearedon their shows. In the late 1950s, for example, evidence came to light that wide-spread ‘fixing’had occurred in American quiz shows, and several contestants admitted to being told thequestions in advance. A different kind of concern related to the exploitative treatment ofindividuals who appeared on the early game shows. It was felt by certain critics that someparticipants who were understandably nervous about appearing before a large televisionaudience were being made into objects of ridicule by supremely confident game-show hosts.Finally, there was the concern that some shows were beginning to indulge in forms of victimhumiliation in order to jack up the ratings. Criticism was, for instance, levelled at CandidCamera (a show initially developed in the 1940s in the United States, but popular in theUnited Kingdom during the 1960s). In targeting unsuspecting members of the public for arange of practical jokes, such shows were criticised for pandering to the pleasure the audiencemight gain at witnessing others’ discomfiture.1

The explosion of TV talk and ‘reality’ formatsPartly in response to the charge that large numbers of the viewing public felt under – ormisrepresented by the television programmes on offer, and partly out of the economicallyinspired recognition that more people-centred programmes could attract larger numbers ofviewers, from the 1980s, broadcasters began to develop styles and formats of programmingwhere ordinary members of the public gained a higher degree of visibility. Talk-shows andaudience discussion programmes have become a ubiquitous feature of television schedules,offering viewers the opportunity to see themselves, or others like them, apparently holdingtheir own in the company of television’s resident celebrities and presenters. Likewise, thedevelopment of the various strands of reality programming has ensured that the activities ofcertain members of the public – in particular those professionally involved in the work ofthe emergency services – have become the focus of sustained media attention.2

The rise in the number of programmes in which ordinary members of the public are seen as actively involved has led some broadcasters to claim that this is indicative of ageneral democratisation of the airwaves. For other observers, however, the proliferation of talk-shows has more to do with the media industry’s economically driven need to gainviewer attention. Television talk might create the illusion of democratic participation, but on closer inspection proves in many cases to be little more than an extended arm oftelevision entertainment.3



[4] John Corner. The Art of Record. Manchester University Press, 1996.

[5] Serious Documentaries on ITV. Campaign for Quality Television Reports, 1998 and 1999.

The entertainment imperativeDuring the past couple of decades, there has been a clearly discernible tendency to increasethe entertainment quotient across virtually all the forms that make up the factual genres. In an increasingly competitive multi-channel environment, broadcasters have discoveredthat, in some cases, suitably packaged factual programming could attract as many viewersas fictional material costing more to produce or to acquire.

Some cultural commentators believe that the borderline between information andentertainment is being progressively blurred, leading to a proliferation of ‘infotainment’.4

Certainly, in the past decade, we have seen a significant growth in the amount ofprogramming located at the ‘softer’ end of the factual/documentary spectrum. Likewise,there is apprehension in some quarters that the space once reserved in television schedulesfor serious and sometimes challenging documentary work is now being progressivelyoccupied by lifestyle programming and by the various reality formats.5 The frequentlyvoiced concern is that television executives now look to factual programming to deliver highaudience ratings and scheduling solutions.

Although UK broadcasting is becoming an increasingly competitive arena, the generalconsensus is that we have so far avoided the worst of the excesses that can result fromhaving to operate in a totally commercialised environment, at least when compared to otherbroadcasting systems. In their less optimistic moments, however, even seasoned UKbroadcasters express considerable misgivings about the impact that competition is having onstandards and quality. As one executive producer we interviewed put it:

‘Nowadays in television there’s such a rush for sensation. It’s all so commercially drivenand I think it’s leading to a fall in standards. I may be terribly old-fashioned, but I thinkthat standards are dropping because of the pressures to Americanise British television.’

Similarly, at least some members of the public think that certain programmes which claim tobe raising levels of awareness about contemporary issues are in reality little more thanentertainment vehicles. A member of one of our focus groups, for instance, commented thatthe daytime talk-shows claimed to be encouraging serious debate, but he felt that all toooften the discussion was orchestrated in such a way as simply to stir up conflict betweenthose with opposing views.

‘Programme-makers need to decide what they are actually trying to achieve. Are theytrying to achieve entertainment or are they trying to actually have a proper discussionabout something?’(Female, aged under 30, Scotland, local community)


Concern about quality and standards The rapid and far-reaching changes in the broadcasting environment since the early 1980shave led to fears that quality and standards might be compromised in what is anincreasingly commercialised environment.6 Programme-makers often complain that theproduction of programmes against ever tighter deadlines, frequently with smaller budgets, is not conducive to the delivery of high-quality, innovative work.

In a recent attitude survey of those working in the television industry, 70% of respondentsfelt that in the period 1994 to 1998 the quality of television programmes had deteriorated,while 55% felt that ethical standards were lower than four years previously. Of particularsignificance for the present study were respondents’ views on how contributors to factualprogrammes were treated in the highly pressurised climate of contemporary televisionproduction. More than half (53%) of those working in factual programming felt that theyhad ‘experienced pressures at odds with how they believed contributors should be treated’.A similar number (52%) claimed that, during the production of factual programming, theyhad ‘experienced pressures to achieve an exciting, controversial or entertaining programmethat they felt were at odds with maintaining accuracy’.7

We can report examples of good practice in the course of our investigations. While several producer interviewees worried about the possible consequences of reduced time forprogramme research, there was also a widespread feeling that production teams were, in the main, highly responsible in the way they treated participants and contributors. As one executive producer put it:

‘In spite of recent reports of shortcuts taken in research in certain documentaryprogrammes, I think generally there is very good practice. That is why I like to workwhere I work, because people do feel a huge responsibility and this job is not about ego-crazed producers running about putting stunning stuff on telly. It is about feeling theweight of responsibility you have to your contributors, who are also your viewers, andabout trying to do the best job all round.’

However, programme-makers in our survey also conceded that it was becoming increasinglydifficult to find a satisfactory balance between the consciousness-raising aspirations and theentertainment components of the shows they were producing. In the words of one producerof a daytime talk-show:

‘We are very aware that we are making a show that has to be entertaining, but we don’twant to use people just for entertainment value ... We do want to do something that hasa positive feel about it, and addresses issues ... We are not social workers, but theintention is always to make something that is positive as well as entertaining.’

[6] Serious Documentaries on ITV. Campaign for Quality Television Reports, 1998 and 1999.

[7] BFI. Television Industry Tracking Study: Third Report. British Film Institute, 1999.


Other programme-makers we interviewed drew our attention to the possible consequencesof having to operate in a highly competitive production environment. As one series producerof factual programmes observed:

‘I think that what concerns programme-makers is that the kind of relationships whichwe strive to build take time and I think the big pressure on the industry at the momentis that time is money and money is short ... I know that our production periods arebeing squeezed and what concerns me is that the time pressures will almost inevitablyresult in some producers behaving less honourably than they should with contributors ...I do think pressures are such that the cracks are starting to show in certain areas.’

Undoubtedly, as these divergent quotations suggest, the programme-producing community isnot uniformly convinced that it is always achieving best practice. As this report makes clear,there are indeed occasions when questions might deservedly be raised about their performance.


In order to carry out the main aims and objectives of this study, we used a range ofmethodological approaches. Our main tool was the interview. We conducted a series offocus group meetings with the general public to discuss issues relating to the project. We also commissioned a public opinion survey to determine audience attitudes to publicparticipation on British television with special emphasis on the issue of informed consent.We selected 12 programmes involving public participants and interviewed programme-makers and participants from each programme. Finally, we undertook an in-depthqualitative analysis of the 12 programmes to reveal their formal features, including methodsof facilitating participation. The main aim of this chapter is to outline how the researchprocess was organised and carried out.

Questions of accessFrom the very outset of this project, detailed negotiations took place between Stirling MediaResearch Institute (SMRI) and broadcasters as to its broad remit. It was commonly agreedthat a project on public participation would require the active involvement and consent ofbroadcasters and producers, as well as their participants. But with new allegations of ‘faked’ participants and ‘hoaxed’ scenes in factual programmes making front-page headlinesin late 1998 and early 1999, when this study was first conceived, all parties were highlyaware of the sensitive timing of the project. When SMRI started research in March 1999,broadcasters and the regulatory authorities had already begun reviewing internal proceduresfor gaining public contributions to television programmes. Some commercial companies had initiated a review of their procedures for soliciting public involvement in the light of theallegations surfacing in the press (see appendix 2). The Independent Television Commission(ITC) asked all ITV licence-holders to review and submit procedures for soliciting publiccontributions. The BBC also tightened its own producer guidelines (published in February2000) in response, partly, to criticisms made of the Vanessa show in February 1999. In short, a review of procedures had begun prior to this research commencing.Unquestionably, this reform process had already begun to shape many of the programmeswe were to analyse.

Due to the sensitivities surrounding the Consenting Adults? project, a meeting was convenedin London on 30 March 1999 between the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC),broadcasters, producers and SMRI. The aim of this meeting was to present to broadcastersan outline of the project including its aims, objectives and methodological approach. Wehoped to gain some feedback on these proposals, and to encourage the active participationof the various broadcasters and producers present at the meeting. By and large, the meetingwas conducted in a friendly and constructive spirit; as we were soon to find out, somebroadcasters and producers were not entirely happy about aspects of the research proposal.In particular, some argued that the research was weighted against single documentarieswhere instances of good practice for soliciting public contributions might be more evident.In order to incorporate this and other suggestions made at the meeting in London, a revisedoutline of the project’s aims and objectives was drafted, modifying certain elements of the

Chapter 3: The programmes


project. Perhaps the most important change was the proposal to expand the project toencompass other genres of public participation programmes, including light entertainment(game shows), one-off documentaries and documentary series. Greater emphasis was alsoplaced on documenting the process of public participation (from pre-production to post-transmission), rather than focusing exclusively on public participation in certain high-profile programmes. With these alterations in place, a new attempt was made toengage with broadcasters in order to encourage their active participation.

The revised outline of the project enjoyed better results. Channel Four and ITN immediatelysignalled their formal cooperation with the project and began to speak to producers on ourbehalf; after two months, the BBC and ITV Network Centre had also signalled their formalcooperation. Given the sensitivities surrounding the project, however, our agreement withbroadcasters has expressly precluded certain high-profile programmes and issues from beingstudied. We fully acknowledge that the 12 programmes selected for this study do notrepresent the full range of public participation programmes currently found on television,although they do encompass key examples of this kind of output. Nor have we attempted tolook at the issues arising from the hoaxing and faking scandals, the ‘dumbing down’ debateor the use of set-ups and reconstructions in factual programming. By agreement withbroadcasters, we have not mentioned any programmes by name, nor have we identifiedthose involved in making them. This guarantee was offered in order to encourage trustduring interviews, and for fear that responsible broadcasters and producers who allowedacademic scrutiny to take place might unfairly bear the brunt of any negative critique onfinal publication of the report. We have also withheld programme names in order to protectour participant interviewees, some of whom have been the victims of terrible tragedies; wefelt that it would be unfair to expose them to further publicity. Finally, we have alsoincluded in the report key regulatory guidelines for soliciting public contributions (asappendix 3), which outline broadcasters’ current duties and obligations towards participants.

Surveying audiencesSMRI commissioned a quantitative public opinion survey in the form of a questionnaire,which aimed to ‘determine public attitudes to television programmes in Britain involving the public, with special emphasis on the issue of informed consent’. A representative sampleof the general public (2000 people) was interviewed face to face and asked a series of 21 questions. A discussion of our public opinion survey and focus group meetings follows in chapter 4.


Focus group interviewsIn addition to the survey questionnaire, we also undertook six focus group meetings. Using data from the survey questionnaire, focus groups were organised to explore issuescovered by the project. These groups represented a broad spectrum of age groups and socio-economic categories. Due to time constraints on the project, however, focus groupmeetings were limited to two regions: London (and Surrey) and Scotland. London andScotland were chosen for very specific reasons. Using data from the survey, we discoveredthat Scotland was among the nations and regions with the highest viewing figures for publicparticipation programmes, whereas London was among the lowest. It could be reasonablyargued, therefore, that focus groups from these two areas would offer a broad range ofopinions and comments.

Each focus group was shown four clips from factual or documentary programmes and wasthen asked a set of questions relating to each programme. The first clip lasted seven minutesand was taken from a morning talk-show about absentee fathers. The programme featured adivorced couple talking about custody arrangements for their children. In the clip, themother of the children complained that the father did not pay maintenance for the children’supkeep and rarely contacted them. The father denied these allegations and claimed thewoman was using the maintenance issue to stop him seeing his children. Towards the end ofthe clip, the presenter took issue with the woman over the access question. The final part ofthe clip showed a child speaking to the woman and relating to his own parents’ divorce.

The second extract lasted six minutes and was taken from an episode of a domestic-conflictdocumentary series. This clip showed a woman speaking about her marriage breakdownand the effects it had had on her and the family. The clip also used photographs and videofootage of the couple and their children. A second part of the clip showed the womanangrily confronting her husband and his new partner, to the intermittent accompaniment ofbackground music and voice-over narration. We consider this clip further in the discussionof the programme material which follows at the end of this chapter.

The third clip lasted three minutes and was taken from a one-off documentary about anational tragedy and the friendship that developed between bereaved families. The clipshowed two fathers talking about bereavement and about the friendship that had sprungfrom their grief. There was no background music or voice-over.

The fourth clip lasted two minutes and was taken from a video diary. It featured a womanwho was eight months pregnant. The woman was shown caressing her stomach whilsttalking about the baby’s impending birth. The clip was self-filmed.

Demographic information on the focus groups can be found in appendix 4.

It should also be noted that we were able to interview participants featured in the second, third and fourth programme clips. This allowed us to compare participants’ own motivesfor appearing on television with focus groups’ perceptions of their motives.


Interviewing programme-makersGiven the time constraints placed on the project (14 months), and the period of protractedconsultation with broadcasters and programme-makers, our main aim was to study a broadlyrepresentative sample of programmes involving public participation. Under these conditions, atotal of 12 programmes was selected for the project. These programmes covered all five mainterrestrial channels and the satellite channel SKY One: two programmes were transmittedon BBC1; two on BBC 2; four on the ITV Network; two on Channel 4; one on Channel 5;and, finally, one programme was transmitted on SKY One. As well as selecting a range of programmes from each of the main broadcasters, we were also careful to selectprogrammes from different parts of the television schedule. We selected two morning talk-shows and one afternoon discussion show. We also chose an early evening game-show(light entertainment). From the prime-time schedules, we selected five programmes: onedocu-soap, one documentary series (three episodes), one domestic-conflict documentary andtwo single documentaries. Finally, we chose two late-evening programmes, a short two-minute video diary and a programme on exotic collectors.

The 12 programmes also covered a broad range of lifestyle and social issues, as well aslooking at business professions, natural disasters, bereavement and serious illness. Issuescovered in the daytime discussion programmes included family conflicts, relationships,religious faith and star-struck children. The docu-soap was part of a well-known animalseries and the domestic-conflict documentary examined marital breakdown. Our one-offdocumentaries and documentary series looked at natural and man-made disasters, humantragedies, terminal illness, management professions, exotic collectors and viewpoints ofeveryday life. The light entertainment programme was a gameshow for couples. Althoughmany of these programmes were produced in London and the south east, we were able tospeak to programme-makers in various parts of Scotland, the north of England, the WestCountry and East Anglia.

Our next task was to interview senior producers and other production staff from each of the12 programmes. Each interview concentrated on the process of public participation andissues of informed consent. The main aim here was to study the ways in which producersgained consent from participants. In addition to our selected programme interviews, we alsoarranged seven interviews with noted documentary film-makers and broadcasting executivesto talk about issues of consent and public participation in British television. A total of 40programme-makers and broadcasters were interviewed for this project. Of these 40interviewees, 20 were of senior producer level (executive producer or series producer), and20 were production staff responsible for contacting participants (producers, associate orassistant producers and researchers). Although the main part of each interview concentratedon the specific programme under study, interviewees were also encouraged to talk aboutother programmes on which they had previously worked. This additional information gaveus details of public participation in another 20 programmes.


Interviewing participantsAn essential element of the research project was to speak to participants from our selectedprogrammes about their experiences in the production process. Each programme-makercontacted participants on our behalf in order to gain their consent to be interviewed. Ourparticipants generally played a central role in a programme, although for talk-shows we didspeak to members of the studio audience. In exceptional cases, we also spoke to closerelatives about a participant’s contribution where those relatives were directly referred to inthe broadcast. We identify these individuals as third-party participants. As far as possible,we tried to speak to participants of different age groups, from different regions or nationswithin Britain, and from different socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. We were able tointerview people from Barnsley, Bristol, Eastbourne, Glasgow, Inverness, London, Norwich,Manchester and Penzance. Among the occupations held by our participants were farmer’sassistant, housewife, househusband, management consultant, nurse, pensioner, privatedetective and teacher.

A total of 40 public participants were interviewed for this project. Each interview took placewithout representatives of production companies or broadcasters being present. In the caseof two talk-shows, participant interviews were held immediately after filming had finishedand supplementary interviews were also held with those participants after the programmehad been transmitted. The vast majority of interviews, however, took place weeks or monthsafter programmes were made. While the central focus of each interview was on theparticipant’s contribution to the programme under study, we did ask them whether they hadbeen involved in other television programmes. An astonishing 19 out of 40 participants(47.5%) had indeed appeared on other television programmes, so we were able to ask themsupplementary questions concerning their participation. Some participants had appeared ina broad range of programmes covering different topics. When one participant was askedhow many programmes he had appeared in, he answered, ‘I suppose about seven or eight.’These seven or eight programmes included talk-shows discussing personal issues,documentaries about collections and variety shows. The interviews with both programme-makers and participants are discussed in chapter 5.

Qualitative analysisIn this section, we provide an overview of the qualitative analysis which was carried outduring the study. The aim of the analysis was to reveal the structural and formal features ofthe programmes, and the ways in which they packaged and presented the contributions ofparticipants. In particular, we were interested in examining the differing extent to whichprogrammes might shape or mediate an individual’s contribution, either while a segmentwas being made (by means of the kinds of interventions produced by a talk-show host, forinstance, or through the choice of camera angles when filming a documentary), or in post-production (through the addition of particular kinds of background music, voice-overs orgraphics, say, or through particular editing choices which might set one contribution againstanother or construct a particular pathway through a participant’s story). What was


principally at issue in this part of the study was the extent to which individuals were able tomaintain control over their own material, a critical factor in determining whether an initialact of consent can be said to be meaningful in terms of the eventual uses to which thecontribution will be put.

The analysis allows us roughly to rank the programmes we studied in terms of these factors.At one end of the scale, clearly, come segments based around a video-diary-type approach(see chapter 6), where the participant not only addresses the camera, thus establishing adirect relationship with the audience, but also manages their own filming and is in controlof post-production editing decisions, generally with some assistance from professionals. In such cases there is, at most, a minimal intervention on the part of the series producers inthe contribution as it is structured by the participant. Where we begin to see suchinterventions in operation they may or may not be entirely benign. In one programme weexamined, for instance, the flavour of a video diary was maintained through a direct addressto camera by participants and through the absence of voice-overs or background music. Thestyle of particular segments, however, allowed the programme-makers to deliver an implicitbut unspoken commentary on the material, with wide-angle lenses being deployed in onesegment to produce an overall ironic tone, and a hand-held camera being combined withrapid editing in another in a way which was distinctly at odds with the content. Similarly,though arguably to less damaging effect, the docu-soap we studied again permitted itsprincipal personae to address the camera directly on occasion, but here the narrative wasfirmly kept on track via a disembodied voice-over which directed the viewer’s attention torelevant aspects of the situation. Other relatively minor incursions into a participant’scomplete control over their own material included the interventions made by a talk-showhost, which worked consistently towards a middle ground of compromise, consensus andreconciliation, defining and redefining the participant’s own view of the situation throughthe choice of questions, statements and prompts.

When we turn to those cases where a greater degree of intervention by programme-makersis in evidence, the material can again be considered in terms of the degree to which the finalform of the programme permits participants to define their own view of the situation. Inone documentary on a particularly sensitive topic, for instance, there was no direct addressto camera, but participants were nevertheless left to deliver their own narratives without thebenefit of a voice-over. The style of the piece, too, was generally restrained, with no obliquecamera angles or rapid editing, and with no captions or graphics in evidence with theexception of an occasional simple line detailing a name, place or date. There was little useof background music, apart from a segment at the end where church music in one scene wasused to provide a bridge over a subsequent montage of pictures. Overall, the programme’snarrative was left to unfold through shifts in topic which developed gradually over thenumerous talking-head shots. The programme was, in short, highly deferential to theparticipants’ own definitions of the situation.


Elsewhere in the material there were varying degrees to which contributors ended up, in the words of a recent docu-soap participant, as ‘puppets on the editing floor’.8 In onedocumentary, contributors were slotted into a multi-sourced narrative, either as on-the-spotparticipants in a developing disaster, or as witnesses reflecting retrospectively on theirexperience of the event. Their control over their own definition of the situation, while apparently absolute, was also highly localised, extending only over the very limited slots they had at their disposal. Here again the programme-maker’s control over theparticipants’ own telling of their stories seems relatively benign. In other programmes, thiswas less the case. One programme brought a variety of mechanisms into play to mildlyundercut the reliability of particular contributors. The voice-over in this case, rather thansimply introducing and contextualising individual participants, cast itself in an investigativerole; certain contributors were openly introduced as critical of others; the narrative wasstructured in such a way that the voices heard in the final third of the programme wereincreasingly hostile to the practices delineated in the first two-thirds of the programme; and,at particular critical junctures, formal stylistic devices were again employed to indirecteffect, most notably the use of wide-angle and fish-eye lenses to accompany a montage ofshots of new and extravagantly architectured buildings when the voice-over wascommenting on the ‘bonanza’ for this particular profession of the ‘lucrative’ Thatcher years.Similarly, while participants critical to the profession were invariably shot with normallenses, an interview with an individual highly successful within the field was shot with awide-angle lens and a low camera angle, providing once again a slight distortion of theimage. The programme concluded, post-credits, with this interviewee evading a query as tohis earnings and the interviewer leaning forward into the frame (thus indirectly emphasisingthe distortion of the image) to thank his subject, in an ironic tone, for ‘skilfully avoiding’the question.

Most serious from our point of view was the treatment meted out to one contributor in adomestic-conflict documentary. This programme teasingly pointed up increasingly self-destructive aspects of the participant’s behaviour, taking the viewer in a steady progressionfrom a set of initial restrained interviews in a domestic setting through gradual revelationsof the participant’s desire for ‘revenge’ on her unfaithful partner, to a final angry andrelatively out-of-control sequence outside her ex-partner’s new home. The way theprogramme chose to handle this final sequence is particularly interesting, not least because itwas one of the clips shown to our focus groups. Shots of the participant shouting in thestreet were intercut with shots of local children crowding around to watch the action andwith views of her private detective, arms folded, shaking his head and grinning in thedirection of the camera. The song Stand by Your Man was phased in and out throughoutthe sequence to clear ironic effect, and the final shots of the participant being driven away,shouting and gesticulating out of the car window, were accompanied by a caption revealingto the viewer that she had later pleaded guilty to a charge of harassment. It is difficult toavoid the conclusion that the dignity of the participant was not the first priority here.

[8] Guardian G2. p.4. 4 January 2000.


In these last two cases, in particular, programmes appeared to deploy the material at theirdisposal selectively in order to align or counteralign the viewer with, or against, specificparticipants. In such instances, the structure of the narrative worked to produce a dominantview of the situation which may well have overridden the participants’ own account ofthemselves. Despite many examples of good practice in the material examined by the study,such cases clearly give rise to a real concern over the extent to which participants are able toretain control over their own narratives. The extent to which viewers of these programmesare aware of these issues in their reading of individual programmes is a matter to which we now turn.


IntroductionThis chapter presents the results of a public attitudes survey on public participation onBritish television with special emphasis on informed consent. We also examine findings froma series of focus group meetings held in London and Scotland, which discussed issuesrelating to the project.

By and large, our survey participants and focus group members had little or no day-to-dayexperience of the television industry or the production process. They were also unfamiliar with the process through which participants become involved with television. Finally, theywere unaware of factors such as falling budgets for programmes, or the tight deadlinesplaced on producers to complete programmes for broadcast, both of which may affect thedegree of participant involvement in the production process. Put simply, public opinionsgave an external viewpoint as to what might constitute good or bad procedures forsoliciting public contributions.

In this chapter, we first look at audience perceptions as to why people take part in televisionprogrammes. Secondly, we look at public attitudes as to what rights programme-makersshould give participants during the production process. Thirdly, we ask what rightsbroadcasters and regulatory authorities should give to public participants who might feelunhappy over how they have been portrayed on television. Finally, we investigate the issueof the right to privacy.

Motives and selection of participantsIn chapter 5, we examine in some detail the reasons which participants provided for wishingto take part in a television programme. Here we focus on the motives that might be ascribedto them by viewers. With this in mind, our public attitudes survey asked the question:

� What do you think motivates people to appear in [public participation] programmes?

Unsurprisingly, this provoked a wide range of answers. The most popular response to thisquestion was ‘to be famous’ (36%). The second most popular response was ‘don’t know’(22%). Among the other answers given to this question were ‘show-offs’ (15%); ‘for money’(14%); ‘publicity’ (5%); ‘to share experiences’ (3%); ‘mad’ (2%); ‘gullible’ (2%); ‘nosey’(1%). These responses were very different from the set of answers given in interviews withprogramme-makers and participants, as chapter 5 will demonstrate.

Chapter 4: Public participationand issues of informed consent: An audience perspective


The differences in responses between, on the one hand, our participants and, on the other, the public attitudes survey may be accounted for, in part, by our sample of programmes. A quarter of the selected programmes took as their central concerns a human or naturaldisaster and major illness. It is unlikely that a quarter of all programmes involving publicparticipation are centred on such themes. The differences may also be accounted for, in part, by the fact that the survey was conducted at a time (May 1999) when hoaxing andfaking allegations were still making front-page headlines. Unemployed actors and modelsseeking work and, arguably, publicity might have unduly affected public perceptions as towhy participants want to appear in programmes. Finally, participants in a survey of thiskind would have insufficient time to make lists of possible motives. Arguably, focus groupmeetings would allow us to explore these answers in greater depth. The next step, therefore,was to ask our focus groups the same question.

Among the focus groups, responses to this issue varied in accordance with the programmeclips shown. Many of our group members linked the issue of motivation to whether theyliked or disliked a particular programme genre. On a positive note, many argued thatappearing on television programmes could be beneficial for the participant as a means ofresolving a problem or conflict. A female member made the following remark about thetalk-show genre:

‘It may make discussing a problem or a situation easier. They may not feel able to gointo a room, sometimes the tension or problems are so bad that they may not feel ableor safe to go into a room with the other people involved under any other circumstance.It does create a safe environment to some extent.’(Mixed group, under 30, Scotland, student community)

In addition to the potential benefits such programmes could have for participants, somegroup members saw value for the viewing audience. As one focus group member put it:

‘There may be people who are in that situation and it might just make them think,“Hold on a minute, I’m doing something wrong here”. It could help other people in theaudience or people watching.’(Mixed group, aged under 30, Scotland, student community)

Of the other programmes screened, the documentary on bereavement generated a great dealof positive feedback from all of our focus groups. The following quotes highlight the type ofcomments made:

‘I think it’s great television, because it’s showing the strength of human spirit. This isn’tjust another television programme, it’s something that really happened, it affected realpeople and I think that is very important for us, when we spend so much of our timewatching garbage, that we realise that there is a key difference between Dallas and reallife. It does show the strength of human spirit and that’s really humbling.’(Male, aged 30-50, Surrey, local community)


‘It shows you that you can get through anything; if they can get through something asterrible as that, it puts your own problems into perspective. You sit back and take a lookat your life and you think what am I worrying about this for when you look at whatthey have gone through.’(Mixed group, aged under 30, Scotland, student community)

When each focus group was asked to speculate on the reasons why people would want toappear on television after bereavement, the most common response was to share theirexperiences, to commemorate the loss of loved ones and to demonstrate that friendship canblossom from tragedy. To other group members, the chance to talk so publicly about deathwas a form of therapy. This introduced a new motive for participation not cited in oursurvey responses: the therapeutic or cathartic value of talk. As one female member argued,‘talk was the best form of counselling’.

One of the clips shown to the focus groups, that of a pregnant woman caressing her stomach,provoked many different reactions. One common response was to note that the participantseemed to be a very happy expectant mother. Among the main reasons cited by focus groupsfor her participation were pride, joy and happiness. As one group member noted:

‘She’s ecstatic; she’s elated that she’s ready to give birth and the excitement of having the baby inside her.’(Female, aged under 30, Scotland, local community)

One focus group even saw a broader message for women in the two-minute clip. Oneworking-class woman drew on personal experiences, arguing:

‘Years ago, you didn’t show your bump, you kept your bump covered, you wore baggy clothes; nowadays, it’s a proud thing to be able to produce and you don’t feelupset by the shape or form, and this is what they are trying to portray. So maybe inshowing that video diary they were trying to tell other women, “Don’t be embarrassedby your bump.”’ (Female, aged under 30, Scotland, local community)

This may well have been an unintentional consequence of that particular programme, but,arguably, it does demonstrate audiences’ need to identify with the subject matter andparticipant. Other group members also used the term ‘identity’ when discussing the clip. Infact, some of the more positive reviews of this video diary came from middle-class men.While some male group members were able to compare and contrast the diary clip withtheir wife’s or partner’s experiences, one member identified with the ‘ordinariness’ ofeveryday situations as depicted by video diaries:

‘It’s a very normal thing we can all identify with. There’s no news. All you’ve seen is,“Yeah, that’s cosy, I can relate to that.”’ (Male, aged 30-50, Surrey, local community)


In addition to the positive motives for public participation in television programmes, all ofour focus groups were quick to cite examples where they felt involvement had taken placefor the wrong reasons. These comments tended to be made where there was strong dislike ofa particular programme genre. Taking the clip of the talk-show, for example, some focusgroup members could not hide their dislike for the genre as a whole:

‘For me, they’ve just publicly humiliated themselves and their kids.’(Mixed group, aged 30-50, Scotland, local community)

‘You start to feel that those sorts of clips start to become like “trial by television”, people are making judgments over something that somebody says in a very short period of time.’(Male, aged 30-50, Surrey, local community)

‘It’s very easy to construct these programmes; you get a contentious issue like divorce, orwhatever, bung two opposing opponents in the ring, bit of egging on and an instantprogramme. That’s what I think is a boring programme.’(Mixed group, aged over 50, London, local community)

Direct references were also made to American ‘confessional’ shows, which one focus groupcompared to freakshows. While some group members noted significant differences betweenthe British talk-show and the American ‘confessional’ show, programme-makers neverthelesswere criticised for actively seeking to create conflict in talk-show programmes in order toachieve higher audience ratings (see chapter 2). Where comments like this were made, focusgroup members would look at motives for public participation with considerably moresuspicion. Some group members argued that talk-show participants were showing off orwere outright exhibitionists. Typical of these comments were the following quotes:

‘Whether they’re exhibitionists or not, I don’t know? But why else would they go onthese shows to air their grievances in public? For me, it’s unbelievable.’(Mixed group, aged over 50, London, local community)

‘I would imagine that researchers do quite a bit of social engineering beforehand, don’t they, to match people up and work out who they have got to gee-up a bit, don’t they?’(Male, aged 30-50, Surrey, local community)

It is interesting to note that one group also mentioned revenge as a possible motive forparticipation after watching the talk-show clip. Four groups also mentioned this motive in relation to the third clip, a documentary where a wife confronts her husband and his new partner.


‘I think she was playing up. I think it was all about revenge and she looks likeshe has got that.’(Mixed group, aged under 30, Scotland, student community)

The participant in this case did not disagree, as chapter 5 makes clear. Although revengewas commonly cited in relation to this programme clip, some group members argued that itwas not a premeditated act of revenge. In other words, they argued that the woman did notbecome involved in the programme with the explicit intention of seeking revenge. Instead,they argued that revenge might only have become a clear motive once the woman haddiscovered details of her husband’s whereabouts and activities from a private detective. Asone female group member argued:

‘I suppose revenge, I don’t know, I don’t know why she’s done it, I think she’s just lostit. I think she’ll regret it.’ (Mixed group, aged 30-50, Scotland, local community)

Once again, this also led other group members to question whether the programme-makerswere partially responsible for provoking or encouraging their participants to behave in thismanner. Other group members linked this development to the rise of the docu-soap genre,and to what they perceived as its major drawback: stereotyping. Members of one focusgroup questioned whether programme-makers were too interested in portraying socialstereotypes, rather than complex individuals.

‘I think this is an area that definitely needs very careful monitoring from the peopleinvolved. I get a really strong feeling that all these docu-soaps are biased in their set-up,they are patronising to the people and they just cast the people involved as socialstereotypes, so she is like [a] fairly poor, uneducated woman living with her children.You don’t get to know the kind of personalities because they just don’t get into thepeople’s personality; they don’t seem to be interested. They just ride along the surface ofthe problem; it just seems damaging to the people involved.’ (Mixed group, aged under 30, Scotland, student community)

In conclusion, therefore, our survey respondents and focus group members could identify abroad range of reasons why participants might wish to appear in television programmes.They argued that many participants might want to appear for positive reasons or to sharetheir own experiences with a broader audience. They also, however, highlighted othermotives for participation. These included a need on the part of some participants to seekfame or to show off. Focus groups also criticised programme-makers for promoting conflictand introducing drama for narrow reasons, and questioned whether the best interests of theparticipant could ever be served in such cases.


Information, consent and the production process

We next turned our attention to the production process. Our survey asked:

� Which one of the following statements comes closest to your own viewpoint?

The four possibilities were:

� The programme-maker should both inform participants about what is involved in making the programme and advise them about the possible consequences of transmission.

� The programme-maker should inform the participant about what is involved in themaking of the programme, but the participant is responsible for thinking about theconsequences of transmission.

� The programme-maker does not need to inform or advise because it is up to the participant to seek out the information.

� Don’t know.

Of our 2016 respondents, a clear majority (71%) chose the first statement. Twenty-one percent chose the second statement and a small minority (4%) chose the third statement.It is interesting to compare these answers to another survey question. We asked:

Figure 1: Which of the following comes closest to your own viewpoint? n = 2016

The programme-maker should both

inform participants about what is

involved in making the programme and

advise them about possible

consequences of transmission.

The programme-maker should inform

the participant about what is involved in

the making of the programme, but the

participant is responsible for thinking about

the consequences of transmission.

The programme-maker does not need to

inform or advise because it is up to

the participant to seek out the information.

Don’t know.

Other.

71%

21%

4%

2%

1%


� What information should participants be told before they agree to be on a programme?

The most popular response to this question was ‘don’t know’ (26%). Other answersincluded: ‘programme content’ (15%); ‘warned about possible consequences’ (10%);‘problems of recognition’ (8%); and ‘right to edit contribution’ (7%). While there wasstrong support for the notion that information should be given throughout the productionprocess, our survey respondents seemed very unsure as to what that meant in this context.

When we asked our focus groups what information participants should be given before theyagreed to be on a programme, they were able to identify a set of common points that shouldbe flagged to participants. These included the aims and objectives of the programmes, howparticipants’ contributions would be used and the potential consequences of theirparticipation. Other keywords cited by our focus group members were protection andvulnerability. As three group members argued:

‘They need to know the downside as well as the upside. They need to know that theother person might put things to them that they might find difficult to answer or mightput them on the spot. The presenter might put them on the spot.’(Male, aged 30-50, Surrey, local community)

Figure 2: What do you think people should be made aware of before

they appear on such programmes? n = 2016

Negative publicity

Attracts criticism

Probing questions

Loss of privacy

Embarrassment

Editorial control

Public recognition

Consequences

Programme content

Don’t know

Other

3%

3%

5%

5%

6%

7%

8%

10%

15%

26%

30%


‘Aye, how it would affect her later on, too. What may come out of this, do youunderstand, how you might feel at the end of this or what reaction your ex-husbandmight take or the public might. They might scorn you, your neighbours might say,“What an idiot”, because obviously she’s in a vulnerable situation as it is.’(Female, aged under 30, Scotland, local community)

‘I think you have to be protected against getting exploited. You get a lot of people who do silly things and regret it. I think you have to be protected; I think you have to be fully aware of what you’re letting yourself in for. So I think you should beprotected about getting exploited in those circumstances, because like he said it’s a vast audience that’s seeing you portrayed in this fashion and it could be a hard thing to live down after.’(Mixed group, aged 30-50, Scotland, local community)

Many group members felt that participants should also actively seek out information beforeappearing on television. One group suggested that an easy way of doing this was to watchanother episode of the programme or a similar type of programme before agreeing toappear. So far as talk-shows were concerned, some group members felt that participantswere unlikely to become involved unless they already knew about the programme.

‘We all know what is involved; anyone who has got a TV set is aware of what goes on in these talk-shows.’(Mixed group, aged under 30, Scotland, student community)

‘Normally folk say, “Oh right, I want to go on that programme, I’m going to get mypoint over, I’m going right in there.” So they obviously know it before they’ve watchedit. They don’t just write into it blindly thinking I don’t know what it’s about.’(Mixed group, aged 30-50, Scotland, local community)

While programme-makers have a duty to inform participants about a programme, then, our subjects also felt that participants have a duty to ask questions of programme-makers.In some cases, focus group members agreed with programme-makers that some programmesneeded little introduction, supporting the argument of a producer on a confessional talk-show who maintained that ‘people know about the programme so they know broadlywhat to expect’.


Participants’ rightsThe next phase of questioning looked at the issues of participants’ rights once they havegiven their initial consent to be filmed. We asked our survey respondents and focus groupmembers a series of questions relating to public participation during the filming process andpost-production. These concentrated on what rights, if any, participants should enjoy oncethey have agreed to participate. In other words, once a programme-maker has toldparticipants about a programme and the possible consequences of their participation, shouldthe producer’s responsibilities to the participant finish there? The answer from our surveyrespondents to this question was a clear ‘no’, as our survey demonstrates.

We asked: � What should happen if participants withdraw their permission during the

filming process?

The largest group (51%) believed that participants should be able to withdraw and 28%said that they should have their concerns noted, but that the programme should still goahead. Only 17% said that participants should have no rights because they had previouslyagreed to appear in the programme.

We also asked people:

� If a participant feels that they have been treated unfairly by programme-makers prior to transmission, what do you think the programme-makers should do?

A clear majority (82%) thought that programme-makers should ‘hold further discussionswith the participant’, 11% said ‘scrap the show’ and only 4% said ‘ignore participants’objections’. Focus group members also clearly believed that programme-makers’responsibilities to their participants should go beyond pre-production briefing sessions.

Figure 3: What should happen if participants withdraw their consent during filming? n = 2016

Don’t know

Right to have

their concerns noted

Right to remove

their contribution

51%

17%

28%

3%

No rights


When we asked our focus groups the same questions, their responses were broadly similarto those of our survey respondents. Some group members stressed the need for participants’rights, especially if they felt unhappy about their contribution, but felt unable to withdrawcompletely. As one argued:

‘They don’t realise what they’re getting into. And once they’re there, they are fair gamefor any question or any implication. They’ve got no right of saying no, it’s gone beyondthat. They’re there and they’re stuck.’(Mixed group, aged over 50, London, local community)

Not only did our focus groups argue that programme-makers should keep participants fullyinvolved in the post-production process, they also picked up on specific examples as towhen this should happen. A particular bone of contention with many focus groups was theaddition of music and narrative commentary in the post-production to the second clip (fromthe domestic-conflict documentary series), an issue that we have already picked up in thequalitative analysis (see chapter 3). Some groups members were aware of the effect musiccan have on a television programme or film. As two group members argued:

‘The music changes the tone; it’s like if you are watching a horror movie, the musicchanges your feelings.’(Female, aged under 30, London, local community)

‘The music just sets the whole scene for the whole story, whatever music you use it is going to set the scene. Music is used in every programme, every film, etc.,it has an effect.’(Mixed group, aged under 30, Scotland, student community)

Figure 4: Prior to transmission, what should programme-makers do

if a participant feels mistreated? n = 2016

Don’t knowIgnore objections

Hold further discussions82%

11%

4% 3%

Scrap the show


In this particular case, many focus group members argued that the music changed the toneof the participant’s contribution:

‘The programme itself, the way she dealt with it, then playing that kind of music, youknow, what she was saying about, she cannot cook right, she cannot do this right, andthey are playing, Stand by Your Man, it’s hilarious. I suppose it’s taking the mickey outof her, maybe they genuinely didn’t mean to, but that is what it came across like.’(Female, aged under 30, Scotland, local community)

‘I thought it was corny background music, it was just awful.’(Male, aged 30-50, Surrey, local community)

‘The music clearly was trying to humorise it. Obviously, the choice of music wasbelittling the real emotions.’(Male, aged 30-50, Surrey, local community)

Focus group members also felt that the participant would be embarrassed by the addition of‘corny’ music.

‘She would have felt embarrassed at that, because they’ve done that later. Because they’vedone that later, she maybe didn’t know the choice of music they were gonnae use?’(Mixed group, aged 30-50, Scotland, local community)

When we asked our focus groups whether this participant should have been consulted in theediting phase about the choice of music, there was a clear consensus amongst focus groupmembers, exemplified by this quote:

‘If she is willing to be happy with that, aye, but give her a choice between two different songs, and then maybe she’ll like a softer one, ken, just like melody music inthe background.’(Mixed group, aged 30-50, Scotland, local community)

The next topic we looked at in focus group discussions was the issue of editorial control.When we asked members to what extent a participant should have the right to change orveto their contribution, there were mixed reactions. These reactions fell into three broadcategories. A small majority of focus group members felt that programme-makers shouldhave the final editorial say, but only after consultation with the participant. As two groupmembers argued:

‘She cannot just say to them, “Take this, this, this and this out,” but obviously if she hasgot a good enough reason to say, “I feel that really looks corny, or stupid, or it makes afool of me, will it be noted?”’(Female, aged under 30, Scotland, local community)


‘They’re not told that they’ve got the right to edit anything and it can be taken out ofcontext by leaving out a sentence or a chapter. It can change the whole thing, which isquite easily done, but I think they should’ve the right to check it before it goes on air.’(Mixed group, aged over 50, London, local community)

A large minority of group members were in favour of participants having the final say. This was especially true for programmes that dealt with sensitive issues such as bereavementand illness.

‘When you are talking about something that is horrifying, it must be very hard to sayexactly what you are meaning and what you are feeling. I am sure during the shot theysaid things they may not have wanted to come out, they might have cried and notwanted half the country to see it. They should be able to have full control.’(Mixed group, aged under 30, Scotland, student community)

‘It shouldn’t get broadcast unless the people who are doing it agree; their needs comefirst and foremost.’(Female, aged under 30, Scotland, local community)

The third viewpoint, which was expressed by a small minority of group members, was thatprogramme-makers should take responsibility for editorial matters and participants shouldaccept the consequences of participation:

‘They [participants] should accept how they’ve behaved, because they have the chance when they are in front of that camera to put their point of view; you can expressyour viewpoint well or you can act like an idiot, but accept it at the end of it. You chose to be there, you chose to act the way you acted at the time, so accept it at the end,you cannot expect people to say, “Well, we’ll just not show that because you looked alittle bit silly.”’ (Female, aged under 30, Scotland, local community)

The final part of this section looks at the question of participants’ rights in the post-transmission phase of production. What rights do participants have once a programme hasbeen broadcast? In our survey, we asked:

� If a broadcaster receives a complaint from a participant after the television programmehas been transmitted, what do you think the broadcaster should do?

A majority (54%) said that broadcasters should ‘meet to discuss their complaints’, 36% said‘refer them to the relevant complaints authority’ and 25% said that broadcasters ‘shouldensure that participants can publicly air their complaints on television’. When we put thisquestion to our focus groups, some group members argued that participants should haverecourse to the relevant complaints authority:


‘I think maybe making a statement at the end of it; you’ve also got people like thestandards people they can complain to. If you don’t like something that is shown ontelevision, you do have that right to complain.’(Male, aged 30-50, Surrey, local community)

Taking the results of the above question with feedback from the focus groups, it seems clearthat the public believe that programme-makers and regulatory authorities should takeparticipants’ complaints very seriously. Arguably, it also demonstrates the need for strongmechanisms to ensure that participants have a right to reply.

Evidence from our attitudes survey also suggests that the British public believes thatprogramme-makers should seek a participant’s consent once again if a programme isrepeated. Our survey raised precisely this issue:

� If a programme is repeated at a later date, do you think consent should be asked for once again from a participant?

A majority said ‘yes’ (58%), compared to 39% who said ‘no’.

The current expansion of television services and the pressures on broadcasters to findincreasing amounts of content will mean that programme catalogues will be used to a fargreater degree in the future. Audiences believe that participants should have a say in the reuse of their contributions.

In conclusion, therefore, our survey respondents and focus group members emphasised theimportance of entrenching participants’ rights throughout the production process. They alsostressed that where a participant’s contribution has been heavily manipulated in the editorial

Figure 5: After transmission, what should broadcasters do if they receive

a complaint from a participant? n = 2016

Don’t know

Ignore complaint

Allow participant

a right to reply

Refer complaint

to regulator

Meet to discuss

complaint

React to complaint

2%

2%

25%

36%

54%

96%


process, they should have some input into the decision-making processes. Finally, ourfindings suggest that informed consent should also include procedures for participants’complaints. These procedures should bring together broadcasters, regulatory bodies andparticipants to resolve disputes.

Public participation and the issue of privacyThe final part of this chapter looks at the issue of public participation and privacy. Whileparticipants are normally very happy with their individual contributions, they sometimesinvolve third parties who might not always be equally content with this exposure. With therapid growth in the use of surveillance cameras and secret filming in factual television,programme-makers are increasingly using a cast of third-party participants, who are oftenunaware of their inclusion or the part they are playing. We asked five questions concerningthird-party participation on television. These questions (and responses) were as follows:

� Sometimes individuals not directly involved with programmes appear on screen (e.g. family and friends who just happen to be visiting the participant). Which one ofthe following statements should apply? The percentage of responses is given in brackets.

‘Their permission should be sought before the programme is transmitted’ (55%). ‘They should be informed but their permission is not needed’ (33%). ‘They do not need to be informed at all’ (10%).

Figure 6: Sometimes individuals not directly involved with programmes appear

on screen (e.g. families and friends of participants). Which of the following statements

should apply to them? n = 2016

Don’t know

There is no need

to inform them

Their permission

should be sought

55%

33%

10%2%

They should be

informed prior

to transmission


We subsequently asked: � Sometimes people are filmed by surveillance cameras (CCTV) in shops, streets etc.

without realising it. Do you think that permission should be obtained from people in thefilm before it is used in an entertainment programme?

Two-thirds said ‘yes’ (67%), while 28% said ‘no’.

Next we asked: � Sometimes people are filmed by surveillance cameras (CCTV) in shops, streets etc.

without realising it. Do you think that permission should be obtained from people in thefilm before it is used in an investigative programme?

In contrast to the previous question, only 45% said ‘yes’ compared with 48% who said‘no’. Seven per cent said ‘don’t know’. It is interesting to note that there was a gap of 22%between those who think permission should be sought for an entertainment programme(67%), compared with an investigative programme (45%). This implies support for theuncovering of potential wrongdoing for the public good.

We further asked: � Sometimes television companies secretly film members of the public for programmes

such as Noel’s House Party and the Cook Report. Do you think that their permission should be obtained before such footage is transmitted?

There was a majority in favour of seeking permission (55%), compared to 33% who said‘no’ and 13% said ‘don’t know’.

Our next question asked: � Are there any circumstances when broadcasters are justified in showing footage of

individuals without their informed consent?

Almost two-thirds said ‘yes’ (61%), while a third (31%) said ‘no’. When those 61% wereasked, ‘what these circumstances were’, a clear majority said for ‘crime’ and ‘criminals’(70%), while 6% said for the ‘public good’. This relates to our earlier evidence on the wayin which distinctions are drawn between entertainment and investigative programmes.

It can be argued that our survey respondents were keen to protect the rights of participants,while emphasising the right to privacy. The right to privacy was only waived in exceptionalcircumstances, such as for combating crime through exposure. Arguably, these questionsalso demonstrate the public’s continued faith in broadcasters to help the fight against crime.


When issues of privacy were discussed in focus group meetings, a very similar picture emergedto that of the survey findings. This can be clearly seen by looking at three issues that provokeda great deal of debate in different focus groups. The first issue concerned the right of thehusband and his new partner in the programme clip about divorce. Although the husband nevergave an interview to programme-makers, his photograph, home video and his partner’s housewere identifiable in the programme. For many focus group members, this constituted a grossinvasion of his and his new partner’s privacy. Many group members felt that photographs and video footage of the husband should not have been broadcast, and that neighbours wouldhave recognised his new house. Another group member also commented on the potentiallyfar-reaching consequences for programme participants of this lack of privacy:

‘You don’t have to show the photographs, and you don’t have to show the video. Theycould have told the story and told it in a nicer way, say, “This is what happens to peoplewho are in love with their husbands and they leave them. This is the kind of effect it hason the actual life of the woman.”’ (Mixed group, aged under 30, Scotland, student community)

‘I think she [the new partner] should be kept right out of it, it’s not down to her,although she is the cause of the break-up.’(Male, aged 30-50, Surrey, local community)

‘It is just a huge issue. Where do you draw the line? I think these things have got out ofcontrol. There needs to be a huge rethink on docu-soaps and the invasion into privatelife. They just stormed in, they hadn’t thought about consequences and I think thereprobably have already been some terrible consequences of these things; but of courseyou don’t hear that side of things.’(Mixed group, aged under 30, Scotland, student community)

Figure 7: What are these circumstances? n = 1234

News footage

Football matches/hooliganism

Public safety

Bystanders

Wrongdoings

Investigative programmes

Don’t know

Public good

Other

Crime 70%

13%

6%

5%

3%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%


This argument was also backed up by our survey findings. We asked:

� Sometimes individuals not directly involved with programmes appear on screen (e.g. family and friends who just happen to be visiting the participant). Which one ofthe following statements should apply?

A majority believed that ‘their permission should be sought before the programme istransmitted’ (55%), while 33% said that ‘they should be informed, but their permission isnot needed’. Only 10% said that ‘they do not need to be informed at all’.

The second issue of privacy mentioned in focus group meetings was the involvement ofchildren in two programme clips and of parents arguing in the programmes. Once again, themajority of focus group members felt that this was an invasion of privacy and, potentially,very damaging to the children of those participants. One reason was the effect of seeingtheir parents engaging in a public slanging match. As one group member argued:

‘Mind you, the children will probably end up seeing that and it may make it even worse.The children actually seeing the programme and watching their mum and dad having aslanging match. Where it should be talking it out in private. It will just make thechildren ... they just won’t feel safe because their mum and dad are really fighting eachother on this programme. They even go so far as to be on TV for it. It’s no good thingfor the children, considering that’s the thing they’re discussing.’(Mixed group, aged under 30, Scotland, student community)

Another group member felt that the children might even be subjected to ridicule orvictimisation at school:

‘They will be victimised at school, you know children are bullied, “Your father has goneoff with another woman”, all the things that children do. No, that’s all identifying thechildren, which they should’ve been kept totally out of the programme. Visual-wise now,everybody will know who the children are and obviously they’re going to say againwhat they were saying earlier on, “Oh, your mum was on the telly shouting, roaring,you know”, so it’s an embarrassment for the kids.’ 9

(Mixed group, aged over 50, London, local community)

The third issue of privacy mentioned in focus group discussions concerned the portrayal ofseriously ill people on television. Although none of our programme clips involved illness,focus group members referred to documentaries dealing with serious illness, including aprogramme studied for this project. The main concern of some group members was thatpatients with terminal or other serious illnesses might be unable to give their full informedconsent. They felt that this might lead to an invasion of privacy for patients unable todefend themselves. As one group member argued:

[9] Once again, it should be noted that, when the wife was subsequently interviewed, she confirmed that the programme had caused

problems for her children. See chapter 6.


‘They should’ve filmed with her talking about it a bit more, not him so much, near the end, because obviously the old man didn’t know what was going on, but theystill went in there and done the personal bits. They should’ve cut it and focused on heragain and said how she got on with her life, but it did show you how she felt every daygetting on with it, but I don’t think they should’ve showed so much of the old mangoing through it. Maybe the first steps of it and then cut from there and went back on to her and maybe her at the end saying how she was getting on with her life and howshe was coping with it and things like that you know. I think they should’ve cut moreoff from him though.’(Mixed group, aged 30-50, Scotland, local community)

In this case, however, the patient in question gave his informed consent prior to filmingcommencing and before his condition worsened. The patient’s wife also gave her consentthroughout the film-making process (including the period when he was no longer able togive his consent). Furthermore, the film-maker held lengthy discussions with the coupleprior to and after the commencement of filming. In this case, the procedures the film-makerfollowed in order to gain their consent matched the expectations of our survey respondents,although for some it still went too far. We asked:

� If a participant is unable to give their prior consent (e.g. due to illness or beingotherwise unavailable), from whom should permission be sought before a programme is broadcast?

Almost two-thirds believed that a programme could not be shown until the participantsthemselves gave permission (61%), while 36% said a close friend or relative could givepermission. Only 3% said ‘don’t know’.

Figure 8: If a participant is unable to give their prior consent (e.g. due to illness),

from whom should permission be sought before a programme is broadcast? n = 2016

Don’t know

Permission can be

given by a relative

or friend

Programme should

not be broadcast

61%

36%

3%


ConclusionIn this chapter, we have examined public attitudes towards public participation and issues ofinformed consent. Our findings reveal that audiences support the case for a strong defenceof participants’ rights throughout the production process. This does not extend, however, togiving participants an editorial veto. We have also seen that viewers are keen to supportmeasures safeguarding privacy unless a programme fulfils an overriding public interest. Thisincludes the protection of vulnerable groups or sections of society such as the elderly, theinfirm or children.

What is also clear from this account is that, while the majority of survey and focus grouprespondents enjoy programmes involving public participation, they do question the motivesof some producers in how they may use public contributions, and they also question themotives of some participants wishing to appear on television. This contrasts sharply withparticipants’ own stated motives for their involvement. These issues will be examined insome detail in the next chapter.


Chapter 5: Selecting participantsand assessing their motivation

In the previous chapter, we discussed the public’s beliefs and concerns regarding a set of keyissues such as participants’ rights and the motivations which individuals might have to takepart in public participation broadcasting. In this chapter, we take the discussion forward viaa consideration of these same issues from the twin perspectives of programme producers andcontributors. In particular, we focus on two main areas: the procedures which manage theselection of certain individuals as suitable candidates for public participation television, andthe motives which might encourage or persuade them to take part.

The broadcasters’ and programme-makers’ agendaWe begin by considering the largely unexamined process whereby members of the publiccome to be selected as contributors to television programmes. From the perspective ofprogramme-makers and broadcasters, there may be a number of reasons for encouragingindividuals to participate:10

� People may have a story to tell or a view to offer. This may take the form of eyewitnesstestimony in a documentary or participation as a guest or member of the studioaudience in a chat show. In the latter case, members of the public may often provide acommon-sense voice to counterbalance the opinions expressed by one or more expertsor by a resident panel.

� Broadcasters and programme-makers may wish to capitalise on the ‘real-life’ cachet thatparticipants provide, on the assumption that audiences will be more inclined to identifywith persons drawn from the same groups and communities as themselves.

� There is a recognition that contributors’ services can normally be acquired for thepayment of a nominal fee. In a highly cost-conscious broadcasting economy, people-centred programmes may thus be popular with broadcasters because they can berelatively low-cost operations.

Finding and selecting participantsA crucial factor in the whole process of producing public participation programmes is thetargeting and selection of appropriate contributors. The mechanisms and procedures to achievethis differ from show to show. A broad distinction can be drawn, however, between techniqueswhich involve trawling for would-be participants and those which seek to target people in thelight of the specialist knowledge that they hold, or experiences that they have had.

For any given show, certain members of the production team will be given responsibility forengaging the services of guests. Much of the activity of these programme researchers centreson establishing and maintaining a wide network of contacts. Individuals who have appearedon other shows are registered on lists which detail the subject expertise and performance

[10] A valuable account is Television, National Identity and the Public Sphere: A Comparative Study of Scottish and Catalan

Discussion Programmes; Monica Terribas Sala; PhD Thesis, Stirling University; 1994.


potential of these individuals. This tendency to introduce a degree of professionalisation intopublic participation was confirmed by both programme-makers and the participantsthemselves, many of whom clearly regarded themselves as seasoned campaigners.

Programme-makers nowadays have to be adept at finding guests and contributors toresource their programmes. Finding a successful character to act as a linchpin in what mayturn out to be a long-running docu-soap can in itself represent a major coup in terms ofgaining a competitive advantage over a rival channel. At the same time, the resources thatprogramme-makers are able to commit to the task of finding and selecting a suitablecandidate may be quite limited. One of the most frequently voiced complaints amongproducers of factual/documentary programming is that the time and money allocated for thepurposes of programme research have significantly decreased over the past decade or so.

The gaining of good access – both to people and institutions – is still, however, a vitalprerequisite for any programme-maker operating in this sector. It was therefore important todiscover more about the ways in which participants or guests were found, selected and thenprepared for what might turn out to be a challenging or even unnerving experience.

TargetingFrom the programme-maker’s point of view, one of the most effective ways of findingparticipants is by some form of direct targeting. Where individuals have already appearedon one chat show, it is very likely that they will be invited onto another programme. For thebroadcaster, the advantage of targeting is that you are operating with (apparently) knownquantities. The disadvantage is that it can lead to particular individuals becoming over-exposed or vulnerable, a topic to which we return in chapter 6.

A slightly different kind of targeting involves approaching individuals who have become thefocus of media attention. A number of individuals who were interviewed in the course ofthis study came into this category. Some had experienced devastating personal tragedy.Others were survivors of natural disasters. When approaching such individuals, programme-makers, for the most part, do show considerable sensitivity and those chosen to participatewere full of praise for the consideration shown to them. As one participant observed:

‘We felt very comfortable with the two programme-makers. They were very sensitiveand understanding. At that time everyone was still in a state of deep despair and theseissues were still raw. It was all so painful that the idea of speaking about it was a hugeissue ... They were very professional and compassionate ... They went at a pace whichwas appropriate.’

Another person who had almost lost her life in a natural disaster was likewise full of praisefor the care and consideration shown to her:


‘Everything was very properly done ... The questions asked were appropriate andeverything was very well put together.’

However, there were some instances of less than exemplary practice in the material weexamined. One of these involved an individual who had had an entirely positive experienceat the hands of one programme, but was then targeted by another production team whowished her to participate in a filmed reconstruction of the original traumatic experience.Not only did she begrudge the amount of time (eight hours in all) that it took to prepareand film her contribution, but she also took exception to the way in which the programme-makers imposed their agenda on her experience:

‘We were provoked into saying what they wanted ... They engineered the programme towhat they wanted. They wanted us to be quite dramatic, crying and saying it was aterrible experience.’

In their endeavour to find new contributors for a wide range of programmes, producers alsoresort to various forms of trawling. These may include advertising in specialist magazines,checking out possible leads with contacts in other media organisations and making extensiveuse of trail lines on programmes currently being transmitted, inviting viewers to comeforward with suggestions for possible future participants.

Critical voicesFor the most part, this intense trawling and targeting activity seems to be accepted by allconcerned as an inevitable consequence of the industry’s need to provide the varioustranches of factual and documentary programming with a plentiful supply of subjects. Therewere, however, a number of criticisms of these practices, originating not only from theparticipants whom we interviewed, but also from television producers. The industry’s over-reliance on existing networks of contacts, leading to what one person described as ‘repeatperformer syndrome’, was one area which came in for criticism. Some programme-makerswere also seen to be overdependent on using the telephone, both as a means of makinginitial contact and also for the briefing of participants. This was not always felt to be anadequate means of establishing and maintaining a good working relationship. In addition,some participants felt that they were given very little time to consider whether they wantedto take part. In the case of some chat shows, for instance, certain guests - especially thosewho had appeared in previous shows - were given less than 12 hours’ notice beforeappearing on the programme.


The selection processIn talking to both producers and participants about how people are chosen, we came acrossmany instances of what could be regarded as good practice. In almost all cases, for example,programme-makers went to considerable lengths to ensure that those selected would be able torise to the challenge of appearing on television. This meant that many would-be participantswere filtered out at an early stage of the selection process. In the words of one producer:

‘We work on the basis of one in ten. That is to say that one in ten of the people whocome to an interview are suitable for the show. So you can imagine that of the 10 peoplewho get called to the interview, in turn there might have been 20 people who haveactually applied to the show and only 10 were selected to come to the interview. So, interms of generating the huge number of people [we need], there’s a lot of work that goesin at ground-roots level.’

The main priority for programme-makers was to match the performance potential of thecontributors to the requirements of the programme. In particular, production teams neededto feel reasonably confident that candidates would not be fazed by the experience ofappearing on television.

Though broadcasters are clearly interested in selecting people who will be able to expressthemselves articulately, they were not necessarily drawn to extrovert personalities. Qualitiesof ‘ordinariness’ were also prized. A producer of a well-known docu-soap had this to sayabout the selection criteria employed by his team:

‘Contrary to popular belief, we are not looking for people who want to perform. We’relooking for people who just have the knack of being ordinary and articulating their jobin a way that comes across well. Some people can do it and some people can’t. It’s notnecessarily the most outgoing people who work well.’

Given the recent spate of well-publicised incidents where individuals have appeared onshows under false pretences, programme-makers are now much more likely to subjectwould-be participants to rigorous identity-checking procedures. They also have to beconvinced that individuals have legitimate reasons for wanting to appear. Our attention wasdrawn in this respect to a number of cases where a decision had been taken not to make useof a particular individual, because there were doubts either about the truth of their story orabout the possible consequences of their appearance. A trained counsellor who advises theproduction team on one daytime talk-show suggested that quite often a decision is taken tonot invite someone onto a show if it is thought that a revelation or surprise discovery couldprove to be psychologically damaging. Likewise, particular care is taken to screen out allthose who appear to have any kind of mental or nervous problem, or whose hold on realityseems to be tenuous. As one producer argued:


‘In spite of the number of people who have already appeared on a television programme,the majority of individuals targeted will need guidance and instruction about what thiskind of media involvement entails. This can take the form of providing them with adetailed account of the logistics of the filming operation. Equally important, however, isthe need to alert participants to the possible unforeseen consequences of this type of mediaexposure. Are they aware that they might be putting themselves in a vulnerable position byappearing? Have they considered the implications for friends and family? Are they awareof what this degree of media exposure might mean?’

Understanding the participant’s agendaBroadcasters were generally agreed that it was important for them to understand whatmotivated individuals to appear in their programmes. They accepted that shows whichplaced a high priority on the notion of performance would probably attract people whowere not averse to self-display. While there were some shows, however, to which peoplewould be drawn ‘because they were show-offs’, there were other programmes to whichpeople with less extrovert dispositions might be attracted.

Other producers were at pains to point out that people’s motivations were a complex affair.Thus, for some, involvement represented an opportunity to deal with issues which theymight otherwise find too difficult or painful to examine. One producer suggested thattelevision (paradoxically, given the public space in which disclosures inevitably take place)represented a relatively safe environment in which people could express often intenselyprivate emotions, emotions which could not easily be discharged in a domestic setting.

There are also a number of more practical reasons why broadcasters need to understand themotivations of participants. Establishing good working relationships with people is,arguably, easier if a programme-maker or production team knows what a participant hopesto gain by appearing on a programme. Talking to people in a friendly, open way may givethem the confidence to express any misgivings at an earlier rather than a later stage. It alsoencourages them to believe that their voices will be heard in their further dealings withprogramme-makers, and that any anxieties will be acted upon. Like any productivepartnership, in other words, successful relationships between broadcaster and contributordepend on the establishment and maintenance of trust.

A particular concern of potential participants is whether they will be given an adequateopportunity to put their side of the story. Gaining this reassurance from a member of theproduction team is in itself part of the process by which truly informed consent is elicitedand given, suggesting that meaningful consent must necessarily involve a full understandingof the implications of participation on the part of all who contribute to the making of theprogramme. From the programme-maker’s point of view, discovering more about theparticipant’s reasons for wanting to appear can have a bearing on whether that person isselected or passed over. When they talk to would-be participants, in other words,programme researchers are not just seeking to provide useful information about the format


of the programme and the nature of the expected contribution, but are also attempting to clarify any lingering doubts about the person’s suitability and reliability, includingwhether or not they may have an agenda which has not yet come to light. As one seriesproducer commented:

‘As a programme-maker, it’s very important to know the individual’s reasons for takingpart a) because it will inform me whether they’re going to stick with the programme andb) because you need to be aware of the reasons so as not to be manipulated by the[participant’s] agenda.’

This means that it is a programme-maker’s responsibility to clarify matters, if doubts areraised about a participant’s motivation. One producer, for example, told us that he was onceresponsible for a programme in which a woman had agreed to produce a day-by-dayaccount of her experiences of adopting a child from a foreign country. Furtherinvestigations, however, revealed that the woman’s motivation had less to do with her wishto adopt a child and more to do with her wish to gain wider media exposure. On thisoccasion, the discovery led to the abandonment of the project.

The participant’s agendaWhat, then, were the participants’ motivations for agreeing to appear on a programme? Ourfindings in this chapter tended to contradict the notion that most individuals are motivatedsimply by egotism (see chapter 4). While there were clearly some people who wereprincipally attracted to the idea of appearing on television, involvement in a venture thatmight have unforeseen consequences was not something which most participants treatedlightly. On the whole, individuals wanted to discover more about particular programmesbefore committing themselves, and wanted the reassurance of knowing how theircontributions were to be used.

Individual motivation depended on a number of different factors, including socio-educationalbackground, professional attachments and views of the way television operates. Participantsclearly set considerable store by the extent to which programme-makers could be trusted to givethem enough space to voice their opinions or develop their arguments. Some participants wereparticularly concerned that the entertainment imperative which governed so muchcontemporary programming might stop them from making serious contributions.

While some individual members of focus groups had expressed the view that any form of mediainvolvement risked compromise, the majority of participants were willing to become involved,provided that sufficient safeguards were built in to prevent them from being made to lookfoolish or to be exploited. These sentiments were also echoed by one executive producer:


‘I think society has split up in different ways. There are people who resolutely refuse tobe involved ... and don’t like to participate in any form of media. But I think there’s amuch bigger proportion of people who see the media for what it is. It’s a place ofinstruction, it’s a place of moral engagement, it’s a place that has all sorts of conventionsand people participate because they feel they understand and know what theseconventions are. The vast majority who participate do so on a cooperative basis ...There is, however, a small minority of people who over-participate in the media, who seeit as a kind of game. These are the ones who are likely to phone up, insinuatethemselves into positions where the media will come to them. People who offer upversions of their lives that the media find attractive.’

Furthermore, participants’ motivations were liable to change as a programme movedthrough its various stages of production. Initially people might simply be flattered to beasked to appear. Later, after discussing their possible participation with members of theproduction team, they might come to reflect more critically on what their involvementwould actually entail. Finally, after the programme has been transmitted and they havereceived positive or negative feedback, they might have occasion to rethink their originalreasons. The consequences of airing certain views in public were, for some, rather differentthan what they had imagined.

The reason most frequently cited by individuals for wanting to get involved was the desireto share with a wider public an experience they had gone through, whether illuminating,traumatising, cathartic or life-changing.

Some of those who had gone through a traumatic personal experience explained that theiragreement to participate in a documentary programme was based both on their wish tocommemorate the tragedy and their desire to show how a group of people could derive ameasure of comfort from sharing their grief.

Other interviewees and respondents went further, suggesting that participants might derivetherapeutic benefits from their involvement. Some producers of chat shows were keen toclaim that people felt considerably better after they had been able to offload some of theirproblems. These sentiments, however, were not always shared by the individuals concerned.While not denying that their participation might have led them to being able to see theirproblems in a different light, few felt that this constituted a significant shift in their abilityto change the situation. This view is shared by professional therapists, some of whom feelthat the public airing of personal problems can sometimes lead individuals to the falseconviction that they are actually resolving these problems.11

[11] Jeanne Albronda Heaton and Nona Leigh Wilson.Tuning in Trouble: Talk TV’s Destructive Impact on Mental Health. pp. 69-96.

Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995.


One of the most frequently cited reasons for involvement was the wish to raise the generallevel of awareness of issues that can affect other people’s lives. In the case of a sensitivedocumentary on a crippling illness affecting a couple, for instance, a participant gave thefollowing reasons for allowing a film-maker to produce an account of the pair’s struggleagainst adversity:

‘This illness was so dreadful, so devastating that I felt that if any [opportunity for] goodcame out of it, we’d got to grab it ... The other night I looked back in my diaries andthose are the words in which I couched it: “If some good can come of this, if it can helppeople to understand what living with this illness entails, then that is the good that cancome out of this evil.”’

Another reason given by participants was the desire to seize the opportunity to correctmisrepresentations of themselves as individuals or as members of a group to which theybelonged. Sometimes the motivation sprang from a sense of intense frustration that adistorted impression was projected when ordinary people appear on television. And on oneoccasion a person confided that she was moved to participate because it would enable her totake revenge on an errant partner.

Individuals may also get involved when they feel that they have to put their side of the story(sometimes in an attempt to wrest the initiative away from others who have judged themwrongly and who may have better access to media outlets than they do themselves). Thiswas obviously what motivated one old-age pensioner who became a leading ‘character’ in arecent docu-soap series. He felt he was being victimised and that the programme represented achance to seek justice and to defend himself against what he saw as unjustified harshtreatment at the hands of the authorities. For the programme-maker, on the other hand, thesereasons had to be set against the danger that the contributor might incriminate himself andpresent the authorities with grounds for taking action against him. This case, and others likeit, highlight the need for broadcasters to avoid giving the impression they are taking sides, aseach party seeks to demonstrate that they are in the right.

Seeking publicityThe desire for media exposure does not just extend to individuals seeking redress for real orimagined wrongs, but also to organisations and institutions. Programme-makers are wellaware that the quest for publicity can be one of the main reasons why an institution maywish to allow in the cameras. The recent glut of docu-soaps has, if anything, increased thereadiness of organisations to allow the cameras in. There is a calculation that - given thegenerally lightweight character of the docu-soap format - there is likely to be an overallpublicity gain. Thus, while occasionally something might be exposed that the organisationin question would have preferred to keep out of the public domain, most docu-soaps eschewany systematic attempt to lift the lid on institutional malpractice.


Problems can occur, however, when a rift opens between a publicity-seeking institution anda documentary team determined to expose the inner workings of the organisation to whichthey have gained access. This proved to be the case when one particular firm agreed, afterprotracted negotiations about access and confidentiality, to allow a programme-makingteam to film some of its activities and to record the views of people working there. In theevent, the experience proved to be a classic illustration of the misunderstandings that canarise when the expectations of the subject are so manifestly out of kilter with those of theproduction team. The programme-maker’s major concern was to show what went on behindclosed doors. The company, however, was concerned throughout the filming process toexercise control over what and how much was shown. Both parties felt they were beingreasonable in their demands. In the final analysis, however, all the guarantees made by theproduction company, including the promise to allow the company to check for factualinaccuracies before the programme was shown, did not allay the company’s fears that adistorted picture of their activities would be projected.

Problems arising out of participants’ motivations In this section, we summarise a number of areas in which problems and misunderstandingsmay be likely to occur.

� Where the reasons that participants have for wanting to appear do not ‘square’ with theexpectations of the programme-maker.

� Where the expectations of the contributor which may have been raised by an initialencounter with a member of the programme-making team are not fulfilled in the laterstages of the production process.

� Where participants put a different kind of value on their contributions than theprogramme-makers. In the course of our interviewing, it became clear that at least somepeople value their input in financial terms. For their part, producers are aware that bypaying contributors they can create problems, especially as this can lead to accusationsthat programme-makers are in cahoots with participants. As one producer observed:‘The very fact of them receiving money can later be used against the credibility of theprogramme.’

� Where people who appear on these types of programme begin to acquire the status ofsemi-professional performers. It is not clear in certain cases whether people’s reasons forappearing are part of a systematic attempt to build a media career or whether they arestill claiming to be ordinary members of the public. To date, this has mainly occurredwith guests on chat shows, though several of the better known ‘characters’ in docu-soaps have acquired celebrity status and have subsequently been able to makefinancial demands when appearing on other types of programme.


� Where participants have experienced different types of media exposure. In general,programme-makers recognise the dangers inherent in becoming too dependent onreturning contributors. While it may be administratively convenient to tap into anexisting pool of experienced participants, too great a reliance can easily lead to anegative reaction on the part of the viewing public.

Priming participants and contributors is clearly an essential element in good practice. Butthe differing expectations of television producers and of contributors always leave open thepossibility for misunderstandings. Many producers whom we interviewed saw it as theirresponsibility to make people aware of the possible longer term consequences of theirparticipation. This is also an essential part of the process by which informed consent iselicited and gained. It is to this topic that we now turn in the following chapter.


Chapter 6: Informed consent

Television programmes involving the participation of members of the public require theconsent of those participants to the use of their contributions, live or recorded. In all theprogrammes studied for this research, such consent was sought and obtained by productionstaff, and recognised by them to be a crucial element of the production process:

� Obtaining participants’ informed consent in the making of public participationprogrammes is, on the one hand, an ethical requirement, and the producers interviewedfor this study clearly recognised their responsibility for participants’ welfare. But consentis not motivated by philanthropic selflessness alone.

� From the producers’ viewpoint, securing participants’ consent has an important legaldimension, related to the management of copyright and intellectual property in anincreasingly competitive and litigious media environment.

� It also has an obvious organisational dimension, as, without the consent of participants,programme production of the type under discussion here would in most cases beimpossible. Throughout the filming phase, which may extend over a period of years insome cases, the participant’s withdrawal of consent remains a possibility which has to beminimised and prevented. In this sense, to obtain and retain participants’ consent relatesdirectly to the programme-makers’ ability to make programmes, particularly in thosecases where ratings success leads to further series, often involving the same participants.

� Consent is also important in the post-transmission phase of a television programme’s life, especially if the programme-makers are vulnerable to charges of excessive intrusion.In programmes we studied where the cameras recorded the most intimate moments ofindividuals’ private grief and trauma, for example, broadcasting finished films withoutthe agreement and consent of the participants would have risked creating publicrelations disasters for the producers, damaging commercially valuable reputations.

If producers do generally recognise the importance of participants’ consent, however, wefound considerable variation amongst production teams and programme genres in theapproaches adopted to gaining it and, by extension, in the extent to which withdrawal ofconsent was permitted at points in the post-production process. In short, there wasconsiderable variation in the degree of editorial control extended to participants. Thischapter examines these practices from both producers’ and participants’ perspectives.

First, we consider the constraints operating on the broadcasters’ and programme-makers’ability or willingness to grant consent in specific cases, and then discuss the approachestaken by the various programme-making teams to negotiating and managing consent atvarious stages of the production process.


The negotiation and management of informed consentIn the pre-production and filming stages of public participation programme-making, theprocess of negotiation and management of informed consent varies between programmestrands. These reflect differences in the status of the programmes (light entertainment versusserious documentary, for example); the status of the participants (powerful corporate clients,for example, may have more leverage in negotiations with producers than privateindividuals); and the varying production schedules demanded by different types ofprogramme (live broadcasts clearly allow less time for negotiation with participants thandocumentaries filmed over a period of months or years).

The consent formPublic participation programmes generally require participants to sign consent formsgranting producers the right to edit and use contributions with more or less freedom,dependent on the specific terms of the consent given. Some require the participant simply tocede all control, everywhere and in perpetuity, over the use made of his or her contribution.Others may limit its use to one repeat, for example, perhaps on one of the many digitalchannels now on air.

In this sense, consent forms function as contracts setting out the balance of rights andresponsibilities between participants and producers, offering the latter a crucial degree ofcontrol over their production process, and also legal immunity from retrospectivedisagreements with participants about how contributions have been or are being used. In thecontext of the faking scandals which dogged a number of daytime talk-shows in early 1999,consent forms have also acquired the function of giving those broadcasters who need it legalprotection against ‘fake’ participants.

Most of the broadcasters we spoke to recognised the ethical as well as the legal importanceof the consent form. As one producer of a confessional talk-show said:

‘We are as conscious as we can be that we’re containing these people’s secrets and liesand everything that goes with them. The consent form is an extension of that, really.Because we’re saying, “You honour us by telling the truth and we’ll honour you by notsaying anything you don’t want us to say.”’

In the case of the docu-soap included in this study, participants signed documents drawn upby the broadcaster’s Contracts Department which are supposed to outline exactly what theyare doing and how their contributions will be used. In return, they receive a ‘facility fee’ inrecognition of the inconvenience which the filming process might cause to them and theircolleagues. Though some programme-makers resist paying participants, on the grounds thatit potentially undermines the credibility of a programme, most strands pay ‘nominal’ feesand expenses.


Members of the public who might appear as ‘walk-ons’ in the finished programme areoffered one-off consent forms. This category of incidental participation, here and on similartypes of docu-soap, is treated differently by programme-makers than the backgroundappearances made by individuals who stray into shot in public spaces such as airports, trainstations and department stores. In the latter cases, informed consent is not routinely sought,on the apparent assumption that, by entering public spaces of this sort, an individualconcedes the right both to be filmed in passing and for that film to be broadcast without theindividual’s permission. In the case of walk-ons, on the other hand, the participation ofmembers of the public is an essential element in narrating the stories, and so cooperation iscarefully managed.

If the consent form is to work effectively as a safeguard not only for the producer but alsofor the participant, it should be written in plain English and its contents explained to theparticipant if necessary. Notwithstanding the constraints imposed by tight productionschedules in some cases, the participant should also be given sufficient time to digest theterms of the document, and should feel able to not sign it. Our research found that, whilemany producers strive to meet these demands, not all do, and that practice on the use ofconsent forms varies considerably. Not all consent forms are written in plain English andlegal jargon can make forms difficult to understand. Some production teams takeparticipants carefully through the document, while others produce it 20 minutes beforefilming is due to begin. Also, while some participants receive copies of the signed consentform, others do not. Finally, one participant complained that his contribution hadsubsequently been reused in a different programme without his prior knowledge:

‘They used [my contribution] subsequently because it was apparently on a programme,which I didn’t know anything about until some of my friends had seen it: “I saw you ontelly again.” I think it’s done the rounds actually, it’s been repeated, and, as I say, it wason another programme. Some programme I hadn’t even heard of. I’m not really pleasedabout it; I do mind not being told what else it’s going to be on and what else it’s goingto be associated with. I think in the future I’m going to be a bit more cagey aboutsigning anything.’

This participant had not been given a copy of the consent form, and so had not been able tocheck whether he had given written permission for the contribution to be reused. His mainworry was that his contribution would be reused in a different context which might wellshow him in a less flattering light.


Protecting participantsIn some existing public participation strands, the consent form functions not simply as acontractual document, but also as a vehicle for the transmission of information about theprogramme, and the potential implications of participation in it. On one show studied,which centred on the revelations of intimate secrets to acquaintances, workmates and loved(or unloved) ones, the consent form functioned to brief participants as to what revelatoryscenarios they might expect. On the programme in question, informed consent was based onthe effective transmission of that knowledge, and on the participants’ awareness of whatparticipation might mean for their lives. As one producer put it, the value of such consentforms was that they allowed the participant to ‘understand exactly what the implications oftaking part are’.

Even if the necessary information has been passed on, producers recognise the need toprotect some participants from themselves, and for the presenter to steer discussion away from particularly sensitive subjects such as child abuse. A researcher on a daytimetalk-show agreed:

‘I think that you have to be completely upfront [with the participant] that you arewashing your personal linen in public and that there are implications. Television has tobe socially responsible.’

One of this daytime talk-show’s producers related how a young female student who waseager to come on and talk about her sex life was dissuaded from doing so when researchersdiscovered that her parents were unaware of her intentions.

‘We left her for a weekend and said, “It’s probably a good idea if you tell your fatherthat you are going to be on the show, and tell him everything that you are going to sayon the show.” As we thought would happen, she rang over the weekend to say that shehad had second thoughts and didn’t want to do it anymore, which I think was the rightthing for her to do. Again, we left it to her to make the final decision.’

Even though the production schedule for this particular programme was very tight,producers recognised the importance, especially in the context of the participant’s relativeyouth and the sensitivity of the subject matter for discussion, of giving her the opportunityto withdraw her consent.

‘We lost three or four guests on that show because we were very upfront with them, and actually advised them to go away and consider the implications for their ownrelationships with their families.’


Good practice therefore recognises that there may be situations in which securing aparticipant’s informed consent is not sufficient to protect his or her privacy and wellbeingfrom damaging self-revelation. This may on occasion require intervention by the productionteam, in the best interests of the participant, in the manner of a producer on anotherprogramme who stated:

‘Our philosophy is to be honest, be open, be realistic about what we want. I alwaysmake a point of stating what I think will be the cons of taking part as well as the pros. I always try to talk [potential participants] out of it, to make sure that they reallyunderstand what they are getting into.’

Building trustInformed consent is not merely a matter of signing a consent form or contract. It is theproduct of a process which will ideally involve the participant (potential or actual) inconsultation and discussion at the pre-production, filming and editing stages of programme-making. Many producers stressed to us the importance of building and maintaining trustamongst participants, to the point of broadcast and beyond, not least because this is a majorfactor in securing cooperation throughout the programme-making process.

The more sensitive and intimate the subject matter of the programme, the greater theresources of time and money which must be allocated by the producers to this trust-buildingwork. In the making of one documentary, for example, the consent of one participant was obtained over a lengthy period of discussion with the film-maker face-to-face, by telephone and in writing, and also involved the participant’s adult children. This processsuccessfully established the trust of both individual and family members in the productionteam’s good intentions and integrity, and allowed the making of what was anextraordinarily intimate film. Contracts were eventually signed, but almost as anafterthought, according to the participant.

This key participant was also consulted after editing and before transmission of the film,and given the opportunity to check the rough-cut for ‘matters of fact’. She accepted,however, that having given permission for the film to be made, she had no right to demandeditorial control on matters of style and tone. As it happens, she and her family wereentirely happy with the film as broadcast, judging it to have achieved what she had hoped inrelation to raising public awareness of a crippling disease.

In another documentary, the sensitivity of the material again required a lengthy process ofmainly face-to-face consultation, up to and including the final editing stage, at whichparticipants were invited to view and make comments on the rough cut. In the end,participants freely described the finished programme as ‘superb’ and ‘professional’. In thiscase, such was the level of trust established in the producer - participant relationship thatconsent forms were not felt to be necessary by either party to the film-making process.


Another significant example of good practice concerned the makers of a documentary series.In the course of recording, one participant disclosed on film an extremely traumatic eventwhich had happened to her. The production team took care to allow substantial time toelapse between the event’s happening and the eventual transmission of the finished filmmore than a year later. During this time, the participant was given several opportunities toconsider her position and to withdraw consent to the material being broadcast. Theproducer described the process thus:

‘X was absolutely adamant that she wanted us to film an interview with her about this. Shefelt very strongly about it. She actually phoned our director ... and she wanted him to goand talk to her about it. And as the months have progressed, we’ve had to come to adecision as to whether we are happy to include any reference to this within the programme.

‘We endlessly talked to X about this over the last year. We talked at great length aboutthe implications for her: the fact that it will be picked up in the press; the fact that thismay well become an issue in a number of newspapers and that friends and family willsee something that, at the moment, some of them aren’t aware of. And she has nowsigned a consent form, which we held back on for a long time because we wanted to besure that sufficient distance had passed between her and the event.’

This careful process of consultation and counselling can be regarded as a model for thefacilitation of informed consent in sensitive situations of this type.

Some counter-examplesAs already noted, the majority of participants interviewed for this study were satisfied withthe efforts made to facilitate their informed consent by the production teams with whichthey dealt. One significant exception relates to a programme not directly included in theresearch, but highly relevant to it. A woman who had participated in a sensitivedocumentary that we studied also agreed to appear on a daytime talk-show to discuss thefirst film and her role in it, in the context of a broader discussion on the theme, ‘Havedocumentaries gone too far?’ Her comments illustrate what happens when a producer failsto respect the principle of informed consent:


‘I felt I was a bit stitched up by the presenter because she rehearsed me on one set ofquestions and threw another set of questions at me on the real show. The set ofquestions [we had rehearsed] were related particularly to the film - why we had done it,and why it was important for me to tell the truth and not be coy and not hide thingsthat people might find discomforting. [—-] is a disgusting disease and you can’t sanitiseit. Now that is what we went through in the rehearsal, and I was very happy with that. In the programme, she showed another clip, quite a different clip, the bit where the film-maker (A) is asking me questions and I broke down in tears and I said, “A, I thinkyou have to stop filming,” and he said, “May I please just ask you one more question? What do you want from your husband now?” Which was sensible because it was acontinuation of the other questioning, and I mop myself up and lift my head and answerthe question.

‘Now, when the presenter showed it, she stopped on “You have to stop filming,” andshe cut in, “But he didn’t, did he? He went on grilling you? Why did you want him tostop?” And I thought, I am not going to be stitched up by this woman. I did not want acheap point to be made, and a dig at the film-maker. If she had shown the complete clipit would not have had the same impression.’

This participant contrasted her experience, in which she felt that her informed consent to aparticular use of her contribution was not given, with a similar contribution to anotherdaytime talk-show, which she thought was ‘very sensitively done’. In the latter programme,what happened in the studio was what she had agreed.

A second example of questionable practice was found in the case of a documentary seriesinvolving a private company. In this case, employees of the company who appeared in thefilm felt that they had not been given the opportunity to give their consent. While seniorrepresentatives of the corporation concerned negotiated from strength with the film-makers,even to the point of retaining significant editorial control over their own portrayal in thefinished film, the employees were not consulted on the decision to permit cameras to recordtheir work. Whether as a consequence of this lack of consultation or not, these individualsexpressed their dissatisfaction with several aspects of the finished television programmes andtheir portrayal in them. When asked why, despite the lack of consultation and their initialreservations, they had cooperated with the film-making, they replied:

‘I think that says more about our culture and our organisation than about us.’

‘I think for me it was about a sense of commitment [to the company].’

This case raises an important issue for broadcasters. Specifically, can the informed consent of an organisation to film its premises and personnel be taken to imply the consentof individual employees? What safeguards and protections might individual employeeswithin such organisations be entitled to expect from the programme-makers, if not fromtheir employers?


A third example of poor practice occurred in the case of a confessional talk-show. In thisinstance, production staff felt that a particular participant was likely to be humiliated on airand that she should therefore not be allowed to participate. They were overruled, however, bysenior producers on the grounds that the item would have exceptional entertainment value.

Informed consent and significant non-participating othersIn some of the cases we examined, producers made substantial efforts to obtain theinformed consent not just of the participant, but also of the participant’s family, and, insome instances, as we have seen, actively sought to discourage participants from appearingon television. In general, the broadcasters accept that where the participation of oneindividual may have adverse implications for others not appearing directly in theprogramme, some extension of the principle of informed consent to these non-participatingindividuals is clearly desirable, by any reasonable standard of protection of privacy. Theresponses to our questionnaire suggest this also to be the view of a substantial majority ofthe public (see chapter 4). This is one aspect of the process in which good intentions maynot always be matched by reality, however, and in which the views of producers andmembers of the public may diverge as to whether appropriate consultations have beenundertaken and informed consent given.

In one case uncovered by our research, a woman whose daughter appeared on a talk-show felt that she herself had been treated poorly by the production team. Although, by her own account, she had been given the opportunity to appear on television alongsideher daughter and had declined, she had subsequently come to feel that the subject matterof her daughter’s broadcast contribution was not the same as the production team hadindicated to her in advance, and that she had been misinformed as to the nature of herdaughter’s involvement. She had as a result been ‘hurt’ watching the programme, and had ‘a couple of friends who were appalled’ by what she claimed to be its unfairnesses,inaccuracies and omissions.12

By its very nature, the involvement in the process of securing informed consent of thosewhom we might define as ‘significant non-participating others’ - family members andspouses in particular - is more difficult to manage than that of participants themselves.There is clearly no legal or moral basis for preventing a consenting adult from appearing ontelevision because his or her mother (or other family member) disapproves, and productioncompanies cannot be expected to have the resources at their disposal to make rigorousinvestigations into the facts of specific cases such as the one cited above. On the other hand,it is an important ethical issue, as on-air statements made by one’s family members or

[12] Evidence does suggest that talk-show producers sometimes change the theme and/or the programme title without informing

participants. In a recent edition of Channel 4’s Right to Reply (3 March 2000), one participant from the Kilroy show complained that

the programme he had been invited to take part in (entitled Life on the Dole) was very different to the final programme (entitled I Want

My Man to Get a Job). This participant felt that the programme-makers had misled him about the aims of the programme. Defending

the programme-maker’s decision to change the title, the executive producer argued: I do agree that the title was changed, but the title

you were given when you were talking to the people on the phone who booked you was a working title and we are entirely within our

rights as a programme-maker to change the title just before transmission.


marital partner (or ex-partner) can seriously affect one’s own social standing and emotionalwellbeing. It is even more important when programmes are exposing to public view, as inmany cases, family conflict, in which sharply opposing viewpoints can reasonably beexpected to exist, and the potential for emotional damage to one party or another is clear.

This issue raises several questions. Does an individual’s refusal to participate in aprogramme which might indirectly involve her mean that the producers have no obligationto treat her views and feelings with appropriate consideration? And, if such an obligationdoes exist, how can it be met? In the case discussed above, our analysis shows that thepresenter sought, in her conduct of the live studio debate, to represent the mother’sperspective to some extent, but that she nevertheless failed to avoid causing hurt to theindividual concerned. Although no formal complaint was made by the woman who feltherself to have been mistreated, it appears that genuine distress was caused. This is one ofthe invisible injuries of public participation television.

In the domestic-dispute programme included in the study, home video images of anestranged husband and his two children were broadcast. Although the woman whoparticipated in this programme was frank about her motives for doing so – ‘revenge’ on herhusband – she later complained to us about the unanticipated impact of the inclusion ofhome video images of her children on them.

‘My eldest two have had quite a few confrontations at school with other children andthey’ve been through upsetting times with it.’

This, incidentally, echoed views aired by members of our focus groups, who had seen theprogramme in question. Her husband’s face, too, had been clearly visible in the home videofootage. According to this interviewee, she would have been happier if ‘they had given [me]a preview showing, or given me some idea on what film they were going to use’.

Whether this individual did or did not give permission for the film-makers to use the homevideo footage of her husband and children, it seems clear, in the interests of protecting theprivacy of the children and indeed of the husband, that their faces should not have beenbroadcast without their permission, and without consideration of the potential consequencesto them of doing so (bullying of the children at school, according to our interviewee’s ownaccount, and damage to the husband’s reputation in the area where he lived).


From informed consent to editorial control: participants’ rightsIf the concept of informed consent is to be more than a convenience for the broadcasters,it must be possible for potential or actual participants to withhold or withdraw theirconsent. This applies equally to the start of the production process, when individuals maysimply decline an invitation to be involved in a programme or change their minds beforefilming begins, and to the production and post-production phases, if the terms andconditions under which consent was initially given appear to be changing. Applying theprinciple of informed consent to its logical conclusion might thus be taken to imply thatparticipants should retain some degree of editorial control over the use made of theircontribution to a programme. There are, however, two good reasons why this ideal is oftenboth unrealistic and undesirable.

Legal and ethical constraints on the provision of editorial control Existing legal and regulatory guidelines give broadcasters statutory responsibility for theeditorial content of programmes (BSC Fairness and Privacy Code; ITC Programme Code;BBC Producers’ Guidelines). This reflects not only the necessity for transparency in thedetermination of legal responsibility for broadcast material, but also the ethical desirabilityof allowing producers artistic and intellectual freedom, particularly in coverage of sensitiveareas involving, for example, political corruption or business fraud. As has persistently been argued in relation to the ongoing debate about the legitimate limits on newspapers’coverage of (and intrusion in) the private affairs of individuals, restrictions on thebroadcasters’ editorial freedom could easily be used by the powerful to censor materialwhich might be damaging to them. A well-intentioned law designed to protect the ordinary public from unscrupulous broadcasters would also be available as an instrument of control over the media for use by those whom the public might have an overridinginterest in seeing exposed.

There can, therefore, be no general right of veto by participants over the use made of acontribution if and once it has been freely given, and none of the producers interviewed forthis study offered such a veto to participating members of the public, with one exception.Of all the public participation programmes presently broadcast in the UK, only the VideoDiaries strand (which has a very specific remit to provide a space for ordinary members ofthe public to broadcast to their own agenda) allows participants to exercise a right of vetoover transmission. Although it rarely happens, Video Diaries’ participants can withdrawtheir approval of the broadcast programme right up to the last moment (as can theprogramme producers, if they feel that harm might be done to the participant by thebroadcast). Although professional editors will assist the contributors in shaping watchablefilms, the latter are effectively producers in their own right, and enjoy corresponding controlover the output.


Video Diaries is an exception to the general rule, however, premised on the assumption thatproviding members of the public with access to broadcasting means ceding editorial controlover what they do with that access. In most other circumstances, for the legal and ethicalreasons noted, control is retained by the broadcasters.

Organisational constraintsThere are also organisational constraints on the extent to which informed consent can betranslated into editorial control by participants. Ceding editorial control to them willinevitably conflict with the organisational demands of a production schedule, the conflictintensifying as the process nears its conclusion. The more time broadcasters have forproduction (some films take years to produce and edit), the more control participants canpractically be given. Conversely, tighter deadlines and smaller budgets (such as thoseavailable to daytime talk-shows) will require producers to minimise participants’involvement in the editorial process.

If this constraint is acknowledged, however, it becomes even more important forparticipants to be in a position to give their informed consent at the beginning of theproduction process, when they still have the power to choose not to participate.

Moreover, the existence of real production constraints should not be allowed to excuse thekind of corner-cutting which could undermine the principle of informed consent. Oneproducer already quoted in this study acknowledged that, in an era of increasingcompetitiveness amongst broadcasters, ‘[production] pressures will almost inevitably resultin some producers behaving less honourably than they should with contributors’.

Producing informed consent: consulting with participantsWhile the participant’s veto is rarely practical, then, nor indeed desirable at the post-production stage, most of the producers interviewed acknowledged that participants shouldhave the right to have their ‘reasonable objections’ to the rough cuts of finished programmesdiscussed, and to have factual inaccuracies corrected. Wide variation was found, however, inthe manner and extent to which ‘reasonable objections’ were accommodated. One well-known documentary maker, for example, extends to all participants in his films theopportunity to view programmes before transmission and allows them a veto over factualinaccuracies and matters of commercial confidentiality.

Generally, those programmes dealing with especially sensitive issues involving emotionaltrauma and personal tragedy, far removed from any possible categorisation asentertainment, were the ones in which participants’ views were addressed most fully in thepost-production phase. In a one-off documentary, those who participated in the film werenot given editorial control as such, but were consulted closely on the final cut. A group of


the participants viewed the finished programme and made suggestions for minor editorialchanges, which were implemented by the producers. And although editorial control was notceded by the producers, one participant expressed the view that, if the group had beenunhappy with the film, ‘I get the feeling that they would not have shown it’.

Since the participants’ representatives were generally happy with the rough cut they saw, wehave no way of knowing how a serious editorial dispute would have been resolved in thiscase. Our respondents’ account of their status in this case is probably accurate, however, ifonly for the reasons cited at the beginning of this chapter, that the producers of sensitivefactual programmes have no interest in attracting the negative publicity which ridingroughshod over participants’ feelings and wishes would inevitably stir up. While formaleditorial control – or a veto - would not normally be ceded, therefore, producers can and domake professional judgments about what degree of control it is appropriate for participantsto have in certain situations.

Editorial control and powerHaving acknowledged the constraints on producers, we should note that there are specialcircumstances in which participants do receive a degree of editorial control as a necessarycondition of the producers’ gaining access to their subject. This is more likely to happenwhen filming involves powerful institutional subjects, either corporate or civic, and whencommercially or politically sensitive material is likely to be generated. In such cases, as acondition of access, individual contributions from employees or personnel of the institutionmay be subject to veto by representatives of the institution concerned, or to an editorialchange in line with the institution’s requirements for (commercial) confidentiality. There isthus, and perhaps inevitably, a connection between being powerful (financially orinstitutionally) and the exercise of editorial control. This link also works in the oppositedirection, to the disadvantage of the relatively powerless (the great majority of participants)who, though enjoying the same theoretical rights in negotiating the terms and conditions oftheir participation, may lack the expertise and resources to do so in their own best interests.

Apart from the obvious inequity of a situation in which some participants enter theproduction process with more editorial control than others, the control enjoyed by some,usually corporate subjects over editing may lead to programmes becoming or beingperceived in some quarters as free public relations and promotion in the guise of factualtelevision. To minimise this possibility, we would suggest that, when companies and otherparticipants (corporate or individual) secure a measure of control over the editing process,this should be signalled to the viewer as a matter of course, perhaps by the use in credits ofsuch a phrase as ‘This programme has been made with the cooperation and involvement ofCompany X.’


Keeping participants informedWe have argued that informed consent constitutes an ongoing process that allows participantsto give their meaningful permission. Informed consent also entails some form of aftercarewhere programme-makers maintain contact with participants in the post-production phaseand help them deal with any problems that their engagement might have brought.

Our evidence suggests that producers often maintain some form of contact with theirparticipants once filming has finished, and may help them in a variety of ways. Some of thevideo diarists, for example, have come to look upon their programme-makers as closepersonal friends. Many programme-makers have also developed friendships with formerparticipants. In the two talk-shows we studied, a meeting place was set aside after filming sothat producers and research staff could speak to participants in order to check thateverything went according to plan. In one talk-show, professional counsellors were also onhand in case participants wanted to discuss issues raised in the show. In one of ourdocumentaries, the producer protected the participant from numerous media enquiries forinterviews. The documentary team responsible for another sensitive programme regularlytravel to see the families concerned, and have even acted as a ‘pool’ film crew when theanniversary of the original event comes around. Other broadcasters have used this footage,affording the participants a degree of privacy at a difficult time.

While we found many examples of excellent practice, some producers were aware that timepressures on contemporary television productions meant that programme-makers are notalways able to provide the level of aftercare which they would like. One executive producerargued that this is not always possible in a freelance market ‘because production teams “comeoff contract” much earlier than in the past because of budget constraints’. In addition, twoparticipants who have gone on to enjoy a degree of celebrity status mentioned that they wereunderprepared for the attention they were to receive. While it is difficult to predict whetherindividual programmes will enjoy success, broadcasters and programme-makers do need tobrief participants as to the likely consequences of their participation, and do need to try toanticipate the outcome of asking for public cooperation in programme-making.

ConclusionAlthough the extent to which a participant can be said to have given informed consent to his orher participation in a television programme is difficult to assess precisely, interviews conductedfor this research showed broad satisfaction across the range of public participation genres withproducers’ efforts to provide the information on which meaningful consent could be based, andwith opportunities made available for consent to be withdrawn. We have referred to cases inwhich participants (and, in one case, a non-participating family member) felt that theirinformed consent had not been given, but these are evidently exceptions to the broader pattern.Nonetheless, such instances do raise important issues:


� What protection should be extended to individual employees working for a company orinstitution which gives corporate consent to a production team to make a film in whichthose employees will be featured?

� What protection can individuals reasonably expect in a situation in whicha previously agreed line of questioning is unilaterally substituted for another by theproduction team?

� What protection can reasonably be given to family members and others indirectlyinvolved in programmes through the statements of participants, or the use in aprogramme of home video footage, photographs or other likenesses?


Chapter 7: Conclusion

The aim of Consenting Adults? has been to examine public participation across a broadspectrum of television programmes, with special emphasis on informed consent. Our mainmethod of evaluating how consent is managed and negotiated has been to interviewprogramme-makers and public participants in 12 selected programmes to which we hadaccess. We have also undertaken extensive research to ascertain public attitudes toparticipation and issues of consent. Using different methodological approaches, we havetherefore been able to canvass opinions from three viewpoints: those of the viewing public,the programme-maker and the participant.

Consenting Adults? has also explored a broad number of issues associated with publicparticipation. These include:

� the rise of factual programmes involving public participants; � the process of selection for public participation programmes;� an individual’s motivation for appearing on such programmes;� the process of consent-giving and consent-gaining;� editorial control and the negotiation and management of informed consent.

The programmes selected for this study have included talk-shows, docu-soaps, singledocumentaries, video diaries and documentary series. Some programmes (talk-shows) havebeen filmed ‘as live’ and have involved little post-production or editing work. Otherprogrammes (docu-soaps, video diaries and documentaries) have been filmed over a periodof weeks, months or even years, and have been carefully edited, often with the addition ofnarrative commentary, music and other special effects. We have argued here that thenegotiation and management of informed consent will vary according to a programme’sformat, the production schedules of each programme and the status of each participant vis-à-vis the programme. But while there will be unavoidable differences in the treatment ofparticipants according to these criteria, we have also argued that every participant has theright to give their informed consent, which we now define as:

Permission based on a participant’s knowledge and understanding of (a) a programme’sformat, aims and objectives, (b) how contributions will be used and (c) the potentialconsequences for a participant and for third parties of taking part.

We have argued that informed consent does not constitute a single act of giving permission.Rather, it constitutes a process of continually negotiated agreement which, where possible,allows participants to cooperate closely with programme-makers at all stages of theproduction process. It is through such sustained and managed cooperation that theparticipant can be said to have fully and meaningfully given their consent.


[13] ‘Culture Shock’ (Interview with Grant Mansfield) in Media Guardian; Maggie Brown. May 1999.

We accept that the 12 programme items selected for this study do not represent the fullrange of public participation programmes currently found on television, and note that ourstudy began after a crisis in such programming had occurred. That said, our analysis hasfound that most programme-makers do take their duties towards public participantsseriously, and normally supply sufficient information to allow people to give their informedconsent. We have also found that most participants have been happy with the informationthey have received and with the procedures in place to gain their informed consent. In aminority of programmes, however, we have found that methods and procedures for gaininga participant’s informed consent have not always been rigorously observed, and we havealso found participants who have been concerned about the treatment they have receivedfrom programme-makers.

The broadcasting environmentThere has been a significant rise in public participation on British television in the pastdecade. There are several interlocking factors that help explain the steady rise in recentyears of public participation programmes, including technological, financial and socialreasons (see chapter 2). On a positive front, the rise in the number of participationprogrammes has contributed to a general revival in the fortunes of documentaryprogramming. What commentators disagree over is whether this revival has been achievedat the cost of a ‘dumbing down’ of content. That debate goes on. What is not in doubt,however, is that public participation is a key strategy used by programme-makers, bothpublic service and commercial operators, to help them deliver lower production costscoupled with larger audiences. The success of this strategy suggests that participationprogrammes will continue to change and develop in future years despite arguments fromleading practitioners who believe that supply now outstrips demand.13 In short, publicparticipants constitute an important pool of talent for programme-makers.

We therefore live in a broadcasting environment that actively encourages and promotesparticipation in a broad range of programmes. There are, of course, consequences of thisexpansion for public participation programming. The overwhelming majority of participantsinterviewed for this study were approached by programme-makers to take part in televisionprogrammes, and the search for participants has never been more active. In the course ofthis research, we have found advertisements for participants placed in the classified columnsof the national and local press, in the back pages of magazines, on university notice boards,in citizens’ advice bureaux, on Internet sites and in social clubs. It can be reasonably arguedthat, in the light of this broadcaster-led search for participants, programme-makers have aclear duty to gain participants’ informed consent.


[14] This is supported by evidence not cited in the main report. In our public survey, we asked, ‘Do you think it is reasonable to gain

permission from potential participants by telephone or should it be in writing, or do you think permission should be obtained only after

face-to-face meeting?’ There is a majority who were in favour of a ‘face-to-face meetings only’ (52%), while 37% said ‘writing’ and only

15% said ‘telephone’. This is significant because participants are usually only contacted by telephone.

Duties and responsibilities of programme-makersIt is important to restate that programme-makers have taken their responsibilities toparticipants very seriously in a majority of the programmes studied for this project, and thatparticipants have also been broadly happy with their treatment. In a few cases, however, wehave identified shortcomings in methods and procedures for gaining a participant’s informedconsent. While these cases do not necessarily contravene existing guidelines or codes ofpractice, we believe that our findings might make programme-makers wish to review theircurrent procedures for soliciting public contributions and gaining their informed consent.

� Evidence from Consenting Adults? suggests that programme-makers frequently recruitrepeat participants, that is, people who have appeared before on television in one ormore programmes. These participants are recruited because they constitute a ‘safe bet’with production teams and because of the widespread use of lists and databases torecruit participants. There is a danger, however, that such participants might becomeoverexposed. Evidence from our public attitudes survey and focus groups has suggestedthat many people are sceptical of some participants’ motives for appearing on television.Negative reactions included the use of terms such as ‘show-offs’ and ‘exhibitionists’. Wehave also seen that nearly half of our participant interviewees have appeared on two ormore programmes. While some people will never want to appear on television, areliance on a narrow range of increasingly professionalised participants might deterothers from contributing or may even add to a growing perception of the inauthenticityof some factual strands. Programme-makers, where possible, should therefore encouragethe broadest spectrum of participation.

� Evidence from Consenting Adults? has also shown that participants are not always givenadequate notice of a programme’s aims and objectives. This is especially evident in talk-shows that produce up to five programmes a week and have tight production schedules.The main consequence of recruiting participants at very short notice is that people donot always have time to reflect on their decision to participate.

� Another complaint of some talk-show participants and their relatives has been that theyhave misunderstood the main aims and intentions of a programme. It could bereasonably argued that misunderstandings are more likely when people are recruited atshort notice. We have identified areas where programme-makers can improve proceduresthat minimise the risk of misunderstandings. Where possible, written details ofprogrammes should be made available to participants prior to filming either by mail, faxor e-mail. The disadvantage of recruiting by telephone is that participants may notalways have a clear idea of programme aims and objectives.14


� In Consenting Adults? we have also argued that participants are sometimes unaware ofthe way in which programme-makers will use their contribution. We have found thatthis normally occurs in documentary strands of programming where editing and otherpost-production work can radically change the nature of the final product. For example,two participants felt that the use of juxtaposed and oppositional viewpoints adverselyaffected their contribution. A number of participants felt embarrassed or upset by theway in which programme-makers had used (or misused) the material. Many focus groupmembers felt that the use of music in documentaries could, if not deployed carefully,change the whole tone of a programme. Finally, we found an instance whereprogramme-makers had reused a participant’s contribution for another programmewithout notifying the participant. These findings are also confirmed by our analysis ofsome specific examples, which found that, where material was heavily reshaped due tothe addition at post-production of music, narrative dialogue or selected editing, thiscould change the nature of the participant’s original contribution.

� In Consenting Adults? we found that there was less risk of discontent if participants had some input into the post-production process. This is not to argue that they should begiven an editorial veto. We have seen that broadcasters retain editorial control for clear legal, organisational and creative reasons. But we have also found that, whereparticipants have worked with programme-makers at all stages of production, the resultingprogramme has benefited from mutual cooperation and participants have generally been satisfied with the results. For example, in one case, participants were able to vetofactual inaccuracies and in another programme participants were given a de facto editorialveto due to the sensitive nature of the programme. Unfortunately, although we found that some participants did see their contribution prior to transmission and were able to make corrections or suggestions, the majority of participants were unable to exercise this right. It is clear that the reason for this stems, in part, from a lack ofknowledge by participants of the kinds of post-production techniques that can affect the eventual programme

� We would argue, therefore, that programme-makers should encourage greaterparticipant cooperation and feedback in the post-production phase. As we have alreadysaid, participants have benefited from such an approach and cooperation does notnecessarily threaten the programme-makers’ independence. To illustrate this argument,we can quote one of our participants on the potential effect editing can have;


‘The power of editing is absolutely unbelievable. A sentence constructed of twosentences said 20 minutes apart sounds and looks like it was one sentence. I wasabsolutely gobsmacked by the digital technology that created that, which is a big dangerto innocent people. There are two threats: firstly that people don’t understand that thisis technologically possible; and secondly the power of the producer, and if he is wantingto make a particular point, coming at the programme from a particular angle, he has gotthe power to do that. And it is very subtle.’

In general, we found that programme-makers were more likely to give participants a view ofthe finished programme if they were dealing with sensitive subjects (death or illness) or ifparticipants themselves negotiated some form of prior viewing (in the case of corporateparticipants). Some programme-makers allow all their contributors the chance to view afinal cut of the programme and to correct any factual inaccuracies. While we realise thatprogramme-makers employ different strategies for gaining consent, we would argue thatparticipation can only be strengthened through cooperation.

Duties and responsibilities of participantsIn this study, we found that the vast majority of participants had good reasons for wantingto appear on television. These included sharing experiences, highlighting important issues orhaving fun. In the programmes we investigated, not all participants were paid and those thatwere normally received a nominal sum (£50 - £100), although programme-makers paid anyexpenses or loss of earnings incurred during filming. While most participants were, by andlarge, honest and transparent with programme-makers as to their motives for participatingand what they hoped to gain from the experience, this was not true of all contributors. Inone case, an executive producer complained that a participant had demanded large amountsof cash coupled with the threat of telling a tabloid newspaper that he had been treatedunfairly by the television company. Other producers noted that more and more participantswere demanding sums of money. In another case, a (corporate) participant locked a filmcrew in the company basement to allow an important meeting to take place unrecorded: thecompany later wrote a fulsome apology to the producer. The two cases highlighted here andthe recent hoaxing and faking cases demonstrate that participants may also mistreat or lie toprogramme-makers. To quote the experienced documentarist, John Willis:14

‘There’s no doubt, as some documentary genres slip towards entertainment, and thepressure commissions for everyone intensifies, it’s not just documentary makers, but theparticipants in them, too, who can sometimes lose their moral compass.’15

What this shows is that, although participants should have the right to give their informedconsent, they also have certain responsibilities. There is a clear duty for participants to actin good faith with programme-makers at all times. There is also a clear responsibility forparticipants to consider the feelings of others, such as relatives and friends, who may be

[15] John Willis, in John Izod et al. From Grierson to the Docu-Soap: Breaking the Boundaries; University of Luton Press, forthcoming.


affected by their participation. Once again, Consenting Adults? has highlighted cases whereparticipants have been inconsiderate with friends, relatives or colleagues. In an earlierchapter, we discussed the case of the participant who appeared on television to gain revengeon her estranged husband. We also examined the case of an employer-participant who didnot inform his employee-participants that they would feature in a documentary series. Thesecases demonstrate that participants are also capable, and culpable, of bad practice. Suchsituations also have implications for programme-makers. As a safeguard for producers and away of minimising harm to ‘innocent’ non-participants, production teams should makeevery reasonable effort both to offer the person or persons concerned an opportunity to givetheir informed consent and to participate in the programme themselves if they should wishto do so. In addition, producers should be as honest, clear and truthful as possible about thecontext in which a non-participating individual’s name is going to arise.

Public participation, public concernsAudience perceptions of public participation in British television have formed an importantpart of this study. Public perceptions have been assessed in two ways. First, wecommissioned a public attitudes survey that asked a series of questions on a variety of issuesrelating to this study. We then held a series of focus group meetings that explored theseissues in greater depth. Evidence from this study has suggested that there is strong supporton behalf of the general public for the process of informed consent and for programme-makers and participants to cooperate in the television-making process. There is also asignificant majority of people who believe that the privacy of participants and their relativesis paramount. The only time programme-makers should invade someone’s privacy is whenthey are making a strong public interest case, for example, where criminal acts are involved.Our survey and focus group findings also supported the rights of privacy for third parties,especially in relation to the protection of children, secret filming and the use of CCTVcameras, severe illness and bereavement. Finally, our findings have suggested that audiencesalso question the motives of some producers over the way they use public contributions, andthey also question the motives of some participants wishing to appear on television. This isa key finding since it shows that a wide gap exists between participants’ motives forcontributing and audience perceptions of their reasons for appearing on television. While itis unclear why a gap should exist between participants and public, we would argue that thisis due, in part, to the ‘semi-professionalisation’ of some participants. In short, somemembers of the public may share the programme-makers’ outlook because they havebecome part of the media circus, whereas outsiders are more openly critical of participation.


Policy implications� We wish to argue in the light of this study that the regulatory authorities might now

wish to revisit their guidelines on issues of public participation and privacy. Issues forreview would include: the protection of children; the protection of employee-participants; the implications of the rise in the number of repeat participants; how bestto handle severe illness and death; and the protection of third-party participants such asfamily and friends.

� We would strongly urge broadcasters to introduce a highly explicit code of rights forparticipants. Such a code would have a dual purpose. It would unite provisions relatingto public participants currently found in producer and programme-makers’ codes. Itwould also give the participant greater access to information explaining their rights andduties in the television-making process. Such a code could be presented in two ways.

(a) The first step involves a comprehensive code of participant rights. As it presentlystands, participant rights are dispersed in documents that are designed primarily forprogramme-makers and audiences or which are not readily available to participants. TheBBC Producers’ Guidelines, for instance, are currently directed towards two keyconstituencies: the programme-maker and the audience. In his preface to the guidelines,the current Director-General of the BBC, Greg Dyke, notes that:

‘They detail the BBC’s approach to the most difficult editorial issues and provideguidance which programme-makers at all levels need to be aware of and to follow.’

He also states:

‘We publish the Producers’ Guidelines, firstly so that audiences can read and understand the editorial standards that we aspire to, and so that they can judge ourperformance accordingly.’

These are, undoubtedly, highly laudable aims. There is, however, no mention ofparticipants who are no longer members of the ‘ordinary’ television audience. Thisgeneral recommendation is also applicable to other regulatory codes and guidelines suchas those of the BSC and ITC. Participants constitute a neglected category somewherebetween producers and audience. The code would outline, in plain English, the conceptof informed consent, its guiding principles and the guarantees that broadcasters andprogramme-makers make to participants. It could also outline the duty of care whichparticipants owe towards their relatives and friends, and to programme-makers. Copiesof the code could be distributed to broadcasters, programme-makers, citizens’ advicebureaux and libraries, and be made available on the Internet.


(b) The second step involves formulating and writing a shorter – user-friendly versionof the code of participants’ rights, in the form, for instance, of a two-page flyer thatcould be obligatorily circulated to all participants. The task of writing this code could bedelegated to executive producers or other senior programme staff. This code could alsooffer genre-specific information and explain the relevance of informed consent. Ideally,this quick guide to participant rights would be distributed with a copy of the morelegalistic and formalistic release form or contract that participants normally sign. Onceagain, the flyer would outline the concept of informed consent and the guarantees thatbroadcasters and programme-makers make to participants. It could also outline the dutyof care which participants owe towards programme-makers, friends and relatives.

Cost implicationsThere are, of course, cost implications for programme-makers and broadcasters ifrecommendations made in this report are accepted and implemented. In a broadcastingindustry where tough financial pressures can lead to the under-resourcing of programmes, tightproduction schedules and smaller production teams, extra safeguards for participants willnecessitate a review of research, shooting and editing budgets. Certainly, this report has foundbroad support for extra funding that safeguards participants’ rights. Participants havegenerally been happier with their contributions when safeguards are present. Audience surveydata and focus groups likewise have tended to support programmes which encourage greatercooperation between participant and programme-maker. Finally, programme-makers we havespoken to would also welcome such a move. Some producers, however, remain sceptical thatbroadcasters will want to increase budgets in order to fund these safeguards.

One executive producer we spoke to argued that the relationship between programme-makers and broadcasters remains paramount in ensuring that participants are able to givetheir informed consent. Programme-makers, he maintained, are responsible for selecting andbriefing participants and it is only they who can fully ensure that informed consent isgained. However, producers rely on broadcasters to ensure that programmes have adequateresources to encourage best practice with respect to soliciting public contributions. For thisexecutive producer, the challenge now is to ensure that programme-makers and broadcasterswork in unison to maintain high standards and so avoid some of the worst excesses seen inthe past few years. As he cogently argues:

‘The producer must ultimately take the blame when things go wrong. They are the frontline when it comes to dealing with the public and they must maintain the higheststandards. However, unless broadcasters provide reasonable budgets to enable them toachieve this, then they, too, must assume some responsibilities when productions fail tomeet the standards we would all wish to aspire to.’


The concern is that, while the majority of production companies do maintain high standards, financial pressures may gradually undermine the overall level of care given toparticipants’ rights.

ConclusionPublic participation now constitutes a regular feature of television programming in Britain,and it is right that broadcasters should continue to find new ways to allow participants tomake a contribution. These participants, however, must be fully aware of what theirinvolvement might entail. It is incumbent upon programme-makers and broadcasters toensure that this is the case.

Appendices


Appendix 1:References

British Film Institute (1999), Television Industry Tracking Study, Third Report. London: BFI Centre for

Audience and Industry Research.

Brown, Maggie (1999), Culture Shock (Interview with Grant Mansfield), in Media Guardian, 3 May.

Campaign for Quality Television (1998 and 1999), Serious Documentaries on ITV, Reports of 1998 and

1999. London: Campaign for Quality Television.

Corner, John (1996), The Art of Record. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Heaton, Jeanne Albronda and Wilson, Nona Leigh (1995), Tuning in Trouble: Talk TV’s Destructive

Impact on Mental Health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kilborn, Richard (1998), ‘Shaping the Real; Democratization and Commodification in UK Factual

Broadcasting, European Journal of Communication, Vol 13, (2): pp. 201-218.

Livingstone, Sonia and Peter Lunt (1994) Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Debate.

London and New York: Routledge.

Terribas Sala, Monica (1994), Television, National Identity and the Public Sphere: a Comparative Study

of Scottish and Catalan Discussion Programmes. Unpublished PhD: University of Stirling.

Wheen, Francis (1985), Television: A History. London: Century Publishing.

Willis, John (2000), ‘Breaking the Boundaries’, in Izod, John et al., From Grierson to the Docu-Soap:

Breaking the Boundaries. Luton: University of Luton Press.


There is a long tradition of ‘re-enacting’ or ‘faking’ scenes for documentaries and other television

programmes. The British documentary movement reshot footage of fishermen in the 1930s and, even

today, many political interviews include shots of the interviewer supposedly nodding to their interviewee,

but which have been taken after the interview is finished. Reconstruction or faking has generally been

viewed as acceptable where it does not alter the underlying truth of the story or it is an incidental

feature of the programme.

In the past two years, a series of faking scandals has shaken the broadcasting establishment and led to

the imposition of fines by the ITC. The main example to highlight is The Connection produced by Carlton

Television. This documentary purported to show drug ‘mules’ smuggling heroin into Britain. The

programme was broadcast in October 1996 to 4 million viewers. It was subsequently awarded

numerous international awards and was sold to 14 countries. In 1998, The Guardian newspaper alleged

that parts of the documentary were faked. Carlton set up an enquiry that confirmed the main thrust of

The Guardian’s allegations. The enquiry, led by a QC, argued that the programme had contained 16

deceptions and two unproven allegations. The programme breached the ITC Code of Conduct and

Carlton was fined £2 million by the ITC.

In February 1999, the two leading daytime talk-shows, Vanessa and Trisha, were both accused of allowing

‘fake’ guests to appear on their respective programmes. Vanessa (BBC1) used guests supplied by a talent

agency. These included an actress who appeared purporting to be a victim of marital violence and two

strippers who claimed to be two feuding sisters (they had never met before). Researchers on the

programme were alleged to have hired an agency knowing full well that guests were not really who they

purported to be. After an internal enquiry, the BBC announced that there was no evidence that staff

knowingly booked fake guests. However, three members of the production team were sacked, a fourth

received a formal warning and a fifth member, a freelancer, had her contract terminated.16 As a result of

this incident, the BBC introduced new procedures for researching talk-shows, rewrote a section of the

Producers’ Guidelines, and required participants to sign a declaration attesting to the honesty of their

contribution. The BBC axed the Vanessa show in June 1999. The allegations against the Trisha programme

were of a similar nature. Although the accusations that researchers had knowingly hired fake guests were

not proven, Anglia has now tightened up its procedures for soliciting public contributions and strengthened

its training programme for production staff.

Channel 4 has also been hit by a succession of fake documentaries. In 1998, the channel apologised after

a fly-on-the-wall documentary, Rogue Males, included a number of scenes that had been effectively

constructed for camera. In late 1998, another documentary, Daddy’s Girl, was pulled just before

transmission when the father and daughter (actually partners) were exposed as hoaxers. The story of how

they misled Channel 4 was told in a later documentary, Who’s Been Framed? In February 1999, Channel 4

admitted that scenes from another documentary, Too Much, Too Young: Chickens, were reconstructed (in

relation to scenes which showed two real male prostitutes being approached by clients). Channel 4 was

fined £150,000. As a result, the producer was banned from working for Channel 4 for a minimum of three

years and new rules of practice designed to alert programme-makers to issues which may have a bearing

on the authenticity of programmes were introduced.

Appendix 2:Notes on hoaxing and faking alllegations

[16] On 17 April 2000, Deborah Price, a former researcher on the Vanessa show, accepted damages and a public apology from

MGN Ltd over an article in the Mirror newspaper in February 1999. The article alleged that Ms Price had knowingly recruited fake

guests, thereby deliberately deceiving her employers and the viewers. The newspaper accepted that there was no truth in the

allegation (The Guardian, p. 11. 18 April 2000).


Extracts from Broadcasting Standards Commission Codeon Fairness and Privacy (January 1998)

FairnessGeneral

2. Broadcasters have a responsibility to avoid unfairness to individuals or organisations featured in

programmes, in particular through the use of inaccurate information or distortion, for example, by

the unfair selection or juxtaposition of material taken out of context, whether specially recorded for a

programme, or taken from library or other sources. Broadcasters should avoid creating doubts on

the audience’s part as to what they are being shown if it could mislead the audience in a way which

would be unfair to those featured in the programme.

Dealing fairly with contributors

3. From the outset, broadcasters should ensure that all programme-makers, whether in-house or

independent, understand the need to be straightforward and fair in their dealings with potential

participants in factual programmes, in particular by making clear, wherever practicable, the nature

of the programme and its purpose and, whenever appropriate, the nature of their contractual rights.

Many potential contributors will be unfamiliar with broadcasting and therefore may not share

assumptions about programme-making which broadcasters regard as obvious.

4. Contributors should be dealt with fairly. Where they are invited to make a significant contribution

to a factual programme, they should:

(i) be told what the programme is about;

(ii) be given a clear explanation of why they were contacted by the programme;

(iii) be told what kind of contribution they are expected to make – for example, by way of

interview or as part of a discussion;

(iv) be informed about the areas of questioning, and, wherever possible, the nature of other

likely contributions;

(v) be told whether their contribution is to be live or recorded, and, if recorded,

whether it is likely to be edited;

(vi) not to be coached or pushed improperly induced into saying anything which they know not to

be true or do not believe to be true;

(vii) whenever appropriate, be made aware of any significant changes to the programme

as it develops which might reasonably affect their original consent to participate, and cause

material unfairness; and

(viii) if offered the opportunity to preview the programme, be given clear information about whether

they will be able to effect any change in the programme.

Appendix 3:Extracts from broadcaster and regulatory guidelines


The requirements of fairness in news reports pose particular challenges. The speed of newsgathering

means that is not always possible to provide contributors to news reports with all the information

mentioned above. However, that does not absolve journalists from treating contributors fairly or ensuring

that the reports compiled meet the needs of fairness and accuracy.

5. Broadcasters should take special care that the use of material originally recorded for one purpose

and then used in a later or different programme does not create material unfairness or

unwarrantably infringe privacy. The inclusion of such material should be carefully considered,

especially where this involves instances of personal tragedy or reference to criminal matters. This

applies as much to material obtained from others as to material shot by the broadcaster itself.

6. All reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that guarantees given to contributors, whether

as to content, confidentiality or anonymity, are honoured.

Accuracy

7. Broadcasters should take special care when their programmes are capable of adversely affecting

the reputation of individuals, companies or other organisations. Broadcasters should take all

reasonable care to satisfy themselves that all material facts have been considered before

transmission and so far as possible are fairly presented.

Correction and apology

10. Whenever the broadcaster recognises that a broadcast has been unfair, if the person affected so

wishes, it should be corrected promptly with due prominence unless there is a compelling legal

reason not to do so. An apology should also be broadcast wherever appropriate.

Opportunity to contribute

11. Where a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence, or contains a damaging critique of an

individual or organisation, those criticised should normally be given an appropriate and

timely opportunity to respond to or comment on the arguments and evidence contained within

the programme.

Non-participation

12. Anyone has the right to refuse to participate in a programme, but the refusal of an individual or

organisation to take part should not normally prevent the programme from going ahead. However,

where an individual or organisation is mentioned or discussed in their absence, care should be

taken to ensure that their views are not misrepresented.


Privacy

General

14. The line to be drawn between the public’s right to information and the citizen’s right to privacy can

be a fine one. In considering complaints about the unwarranted infringement of privacy, the

Commission will therefore address itself to two distinct questions: First, has there been an

infringement of privacy? Second, if so, was it warranted?

An infringement of privacy has to be justified by an overriding public interest in disclosure of the

information. This would include revealing or detecting crime or disreputable behaviour, protecting public

health or safety, exposing misleading claims made by individuals or organisations, or disclosing

significant incompetence in public office. Moreover, the means of obtaining the information must be

proportionate to the matter under investigation.

Suffering and distress

28. Broadcasters should not add to the distress of people caught up in emergencies or suffering a

personal tragedy. People in a state of distress must not be put under any pressure to provide

interviews. The mere fact that grieving people have been named or suggested for interview by the

police or other authorities does not justify the use of material which infringes their privacy or is

distressing. Such use is justified only if an overriding public interest is served. Broadcasters should

take care not to reveal the identity of a person who has died, or victims of accidents or violent

crimes, unless and until it is clear the next of kin have been informed.

Children

32. Children’s vulnerability must be a prime concern for broadcasters. They do not lose their rights to

privacy because of the fame or notoriety of their parents or because of events in their schools. Care

should be taken that a child’s gullibility or trust is not abused. They should not be questioned about

private family matters or asked for views on matters likely to be beyond their capacity to answer

properly. Consent from parents or those in loco parentis should normally be obtained before

interviewing children under 16 on matters of significance. Where consent has not been obtained or

actually refused, any decision to go ahead can only be justified if the item is of overriding public

interest and the child’s appearance absolutely necessary.


Extracts from ITC Programme Code (Autumn 1998)Section Two: Privacy, Gathering of Information, etc.

2.1 General

The broadcasters’ freedom of access to information and their freedom to publish are subject to certain

limitations. These limitations arise from considerations of national security, from the requirements of the

Broadcasting Act and from the individual’s right to privacy. There will be occasions when the individual’s

right to privacy must be balanced against the public interest.

Examples of how the public interest may be served include: (i) detecting or exposing crime or serious

misdemeanour; (ii) protecting public health or safety; (iii) preventing the public from being misled by

some statement or action of an individual or organisation; (iv) exposing significant incompetence in

public office. Any act that relies upon a defence of public interest must be proportional to the actual

interest served.

2.2 Filming and recording of members of the public

When coverage is being given to events in public places, editors and producers must satisfy themselves

that words spoken or action taken by individuals are sufficiently in the public domain to justify their

being communicated to the television audience without express permission being sought from the

individuals concerned. This applies in particular to material from closed-circuit television cameras of

which the individual is not likely to have been aware.

Licensees should consider carefully whether unfairness to contributors results from reuse of material in

later and different programme contexts, for example, reuse of material recorded for a factual programme

in an entertainment context. Particular care should be taken where personal tragedy or criminal matters

are involved.

2.2 (i) Filming and recording in institutions, etc.

When permission is received to film or record material in an institution, such as a hospital, factory, or

department store, which has regular dealings with the public, but which would not normally be

accessible to cameras without such permission, it is very likely that the material will include lots of shots

of individuals who are themselves incidental, rather than central, figures in programmes. The question

arises how far and in what condition such people retain the right to refuse to allow material in which they

appear to be broadcast. As a general rule, no obligation to seek agreement arises when the

appearance of the persons shown is incidental and they are clearly random and anonymous members

of the general public.

When their appearance is not incidental, where they are not random and anonymous or where, though

unnamed, they are shown in particularly sensitive situations (for example, as psychiatric or intensive

care patients), individual consents to use this material should be sought. Any exceptions should be

justified in the public interest.


When by reason of disability or infirmity a person is not in a position either to give or to withhold

agreement, permission to use the material should be sought from the next of kin or from the person

responsible for their care.

Section Three: Impartiality

3.8 Fairness in the conduct of interviews

Interviewees should be made aware of the format, subject matter and purpose of the programme to

which they have been invited to contribute, and the way in which their contribution is likely to be used.

Written confirmation should be provided if required.

Extracts from BBC Producers’ Guidelines (February 2000)Section Three: Fairness and Straight Dealing

1. General

BBC programmes should be based on fairness, openness and straight dealing. This is important to

everyone involved. It reflects concern for the interests of the programme, the interests of the people who

appear in it and the interests of the audience. All these interests are important, although none of them is

automatically more important than others.

2. Dealing with contributors

Contributors should be treated honestly, and with respect. From the start, programme-makers should be

clear as they can be about the nature of programmes and its purpose. Unless there are special and

legitimate considerations of confidentiality they should be open about their plans, and honest with

anyone taking part in a programme.

Contributors may be unfamiliar with broadcasting. Processes and assumptions that a professional may

regard as obvious may not be shared by a lay person. Whether they are public figures or ordinary

citizens, contributors ought to be able to assume that they will be dealt with in a fair way. They should

not feel misled, deceived or misrepresented before, during or after the programme, unless there is a

clear public interest, when dealing with criminal or anti-social activity. Contributors have a right to know:

� what a programme is about;

� what kind of contribution they are expected to make – an interview or a part of a discussion, for

example. If invited to take part in a debate or a discussion they should be told in advance about the

range of views being represented and, wherever possible, who the other participants will be;

� whether their contribution will be live or recorded and whether it will be edited. They should not be

given a guarantee that their contribution will be broadcast, but nor should we normally record a

substantial contribution unless we expect to use it.


The need for fairness applies equally to people asked for help or advice in preparation of programmes.

They should be told why they were contacted and what the programme was about.

In factual programmes, there may be some occasions when it is necessary for programme-makers not

to reveal the true purposes of the programme to a contributor. This should happen only when there is a

clear public interest, and when dealing with serious illegal or anti-social activity.

Contributors to both factual and entertainment programmes should not be patronised or exploited, nor

should we be seen to humiliate them.

Contributors should feel they have been treated decently by the BBC in all our dealings with them,

throughout the production process. In programmes that deal with personal trauma or distress,

continuing contact with contributors may be appropriate to offer them help and reassurance up to the

point of transmission and beyond.

Some contributors may ask to see a copy of the finished programme before it is broadcast.

The BBC does not usually agree to this, for legal reasons and to maintain editorial independence.

However, there may be circumstances under which it is appropriate to allow previews without

surrendering editorial control. When we agree to give previews it should be made clear on what

terms such a preview will be offered.

In return for dealing with contributors in a fair way we should expect them to be honest and truthful with the

BBC. Our own research should be rigorous and accurate enough to screen out contributors who may be

less than honest. It may be appropriate to remind contributors of the importance of straightforward and

truthful contributions, both verbally, through studio announcements, and in any contractual arrangements.

But the contractual commitment cannot be a substitute for thorough research.


Focus Group AGender: Mixed

Social Class: C2, D and E

Age Group: Under 30

Location: Scotland (Student Community)

Focus Group BGender: Mixed


Age Group: 30-50

Location: Scotland (Local Community)

Focus Group CGender: Female Only


Age Group: Under 30


Focus Group DGender: Male Only

Social Class: B and C1

Age Group: 30-50

Location: Surrey (Local Community)

Focus Group EGender: Mixed

Social Class: C1, C2 and D

Age Group: Over 50

Location: London (Local Community)

Focus Group FGender: Mixed

Social Class: C1, C2 and D

Age Group: Over 50


Appendix 4:Focus group demographics


Matthew Hibberd is a research assistant at Stirling Media Research Institute, University of Stirling.

Forthcoming publications include articles on the history, development and reform of public service

broadcasting in Italy. He is also coeditor of the forthcoming book From Grierson to the Docu-Soap:

Breaking the Boundaries (University of Luton Press). He is currently researching the development of

digital television services in Italy.

Richard Kilborn is a Senior Lecturer in Film and Media Studies at the University of Stirling. He has a

particular interest in film and television documentary, and has published, together with John Izod,

An Introduction to Television Documentary: Confronting Reality. (Manchester: Manchester University

Press, 1997). He is currently working on a book on television factual entertainment.

Brian McNair is Reader in Film and Media Studies at the University of Stirling. He is co-author of

Men Viewing Violence (Broadcasting Standards Commission, 1998) and several books on the

media including News and Journalsm in the UK (Routledge, 1999) and The Sociology of Journalism

(Arnold, 1998).

Stephanie Marriott is a lecturer in the Department of Film and Media Studies at the University of Stirling.

She is a member of the Ross Priory Broadcast Talk Group. She has published a number of journal

articles, and is currently working on a book on live television to be published by Sage, and on an edited

volume on media events.

Philip Schlesinger is Professor of Film and Media Studies at the University of Stirling and Director of

Stirling Media Research Institute. He is a member of the boards of Scottish Screen and of the

Research Centre on Television and Interactivity based at Channel 4 Television in Glasgow; Visiting

Professor of Media and Communication at the University of Oslo; and an editor of Media, Culture and

Society journal. His previous studies for the BSC include Women Viewing Violence (London: BFI, 1992)

and Men Viewing Violence (London: Broadcasting Standards Commission, 1998). He is presently

working on questions of political communication, national identity, and democracy.

Appendix 5:Notes on the researchers


Appendix 6:Broadcasting Standards Commission

The Broadcasting Standards Commission is the statutory body for both standards and fairness in

broadcasting. It is the only organisation within the regulatory framework of UK broadcasting to cover all

television and radio. This includes the BBC and commercial broadcasters, as well as text, cable, satellite

and digital services.

As an independent organisation, the Broadcasting Standards Commission considers the portrayal of

violence, sexual conduct and matters of taste and decency. It also provides redress for people who

believe they have been unfairly treated or subjected to unwarranted infringement of privacy. The

Commission has three main tasks set out in the 1996 Broadcasting Act:

� produce codes of practice relating to standards and fairness;

� consider and adjudicate on complaints;

� monitor, research and report on standards and fairness in broadcasting.

This research working paper is published as part of a programme into attitudes towards standards and

fairness in broadcasting. The research, which was carried out by independent experts, is not a

statement of Commission policy. Its role is to offer guidance and practical information to Commissioners

and broadcasters in their work.

Broadcasting Standards Commission

7 The Sanctuary

London SW1P 3JS

Tel: 020 7808 1000

Fax: 020 7233 0397

email: mailto:[email protected] [email protected]

website: http://www.bsc.org.uk www.bsc.org.uk

© 2000 Broadcasting Standards Commission. All rights reserved.

Broadcasting Standards Commission

7 The Sanctuary, London SW1P 3JSTel 020 7808 1000 Fax 020 7233 0397www.bsc.org.uk

The Broadcasting Standards Commission is the statutory body

for standards and fairness in broadcasting. It is the only organisation

within the regulatory framework of UK broadcasting to cover all

television and radio. This includes BBC and commercial broadcasters

as well as text, cable, satellite and digital services.

The Commission has three main tasks, set out in the 1996

Broadcasting Act:

� produce codes of practice relating to standards and fairness;

� consider and adjudicate on complaints;

� monitor, research and report on standards and

fairness in broadcasting.

This bulletin is the regular report of the Commission’s decisions on

standards and fairness complaints.

Research Working Papers1. Regulating for Changing Values

Institute of Communication Studies; 1997 £12.002. The Provision of Children’s Television in Britain: 1992-1996

Maire Messenger Davies/Beth Corbett; 1997 1-872521-28-5 £20.003. Bad Language - What are the Limits?

Andrea Millwood Hargrave; 1998 1-872521-29-3 £12.004. Men Viewing Violence

Stirling Media Research Institute and Violence Research Centre, Manchester University; 1998 1-872521-33-9 £15.00

5. Sex and Sensibility Andrea Millwood Hargrave; 1999 1-872521-34-7 £20.00

6 Include Me InAnnabelle Sreberny; 1999 1-872521-38-X £20.00

7. Knowing the ScoreArnold Cragg; 2000 1-872521-39-8 £20.00

A full publications list is available on request.

Please send payment with your order. Cheques should be payable to Broadcasting Standards Commission.

Price £20.00

ISBN 1 872521 40 1

Consenting Adults?

Documents

Transcript of Consenting Adults?