NTV rapped by Ofcom over heated political argument on-air
Bengali infotainment channel, NTV has been rapped by Ofcom over a programme it aired about the Bangladesh elections in 2018, which got heated live on-air.
The programme in question, ‘Shomoyer Sathe’ aired on 23rd April 2018. At the time this programme was broadcast, elections were due to be held in Bangladesh in December 2018 and days before, leaders and activists of the Bangladesh National Party had protested against the visit of Sheikh Hasina to the UK and allegedly attacked one of her Deputy Ministers.
Ofcom received four complaints that this programme allowed its contributors to use offensive language and behave aggressively.
In response to the complaints, NTV said that before this live broadcast it had briefed the guests properly not to breach Ofcom’s rules or NTV’s regulations, so that they would not make any controversial or religiously degrading comment, nor attack each other personally. NTV said “the guest used ‘Kafir’ on a separate event outside of NTV and he used that word as reference”. It added that the production team instructed the host to go to an advertisement break immediately when the situation became beyond his control.
NTV said that the production team had switched off the microphone of every guest “immediately once the situation was beyond their control”, but “[the] squabble was heard through [the] presenter’s microphone [for whom it used a] powerful microphone…”. It said it then cut to a commercial break “almost immediately”.
Ofcom in response said, the word “kafir” can be used in various acceptable ways, particularly within religious discourse. However, it can be an insult and was clearly used as such in the programme. Ofcom’s latest research on offensive language indicated that the use of “kafir” is considered by audiences to be generally unacceptable before the watershed. Ofcom’s research classified it as a “strong word (generally unacceptable)”, a “religious insult” and a form of discriminatory language. Further, the research indicated that “if the language was used in an unexpected context…aggressive delivery made it less acceptable as it was much more jarring or shocking…” and “strong discriminatory or degrading language was almost universally deemed unacceptable if those referred to were likely to feel insulted or hurt, taking contextual factors into account”.
Ofcom took into account that the potential for offence was addressed in part by the programme broadcasting callers who condemned the language and behaviour of the guests. We also considered that the presenter attempted to contextualise the offensive language and aggressive behaviour with broad references to freedom of expression and the culture of politics in Bangladesh.
However, for the reasons set out above it was Ofcom’s decision that the repeated, aggressive use of highly offensive and derogatory language exceeded generally accepted standards and was not justified by the context, and the programme was therefore in breach of Rule 2.3 of the Code.
