This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/02/frankie-boyle-sketches-broadcast-racist

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
'Frankie Boyle sketches wouldn't have been broadcast if they were racist' Frankie Boyle sketches 'wouldn't have been broadcast if they were racist'
(about 1 hour later)
Channel 4 chief executive David Abraham has said it would not have broadcast controversial Frankie Boyle sketches if it thought they were racist, but admitted the comedian's joke about Katie Price's son was wrong.Channel 4 chief executive David Abraham has said it would not have broadcast controversial Frankie Boyle sketches if it thought they were racist, but admitted the comedian's joke about Katie Price's son was wrong.
Boyle won a libel case against the Daily Mirror last month after it labelled him a "racist comedian" based on jokes from Boyle's Channel 4 show Tramadol Nights and BBC2 satirical show, Mock The Week.Boyle won a libel case against the Daily Mirror last month after it labelled him a "racist comedian" based on jokes from Boyle's Channel 4 show Tramadol Nights and BBC2 satirical show, Mock The Week.
"We would not have broadcast those sketches if we believed them to be racist," Abraham said in a speech at the Free Word Centre on freedom of expression in TV in London on Thursday night, on the eve of Channel 4's 30th anniversary."We would not have broadcast those sketches if we believed them to be racist," Abraham said in a speech at the Free Word Centre on freedom of expression in TV in London on Thursday night, on the eve of Channel 4's 30th anniversary.
"The jury agreed as [media regulator] Ofcom had already done earlier. The Daily Mirror disagreed but in an important outcome for comedians in this country, they lost the case.""The jury agreed as [media regulator] Ofcom had already done earlier. The Daily Mirror disagreed but in an important outcome for comedians in this country, they lost the case."
However, Abraham admitted the broadcaster had crossed the line with a joke in Tramadol Nights, broadcast in December 2010, about Price's disabled son Harvey which was later heavily criticised by Ofcom. He had approved the joke ahead of transmission and defended Boyle during the media regulator's investigation last year.However, Abraham admitted the broadcaster had crossed the line with a joke in Tramadol Nights, broadcast in December 2010, about Price's disabled son Harvey which was later heavily criticised by Ofcom. He had approved the joke ahead of transmission and defended Boyle during the media regulator's investigation last year.
Abraham admitted to MPs on the Commons culture, media and sport select committee in June 2011 that the Price gag had been referred to him "amongst many jokes in the series which were pushing the boundaries".Abraham admitted to MPs on the Commons culture, media and sport select committee in June 2011 that the Price gag had been referred to him "amongst many jokes in the series which were pushing the boundaries".
On Thursday night, the Channel 4 chief executive described Boyles' comments about Price's son as a "darkly satirical joke directed at Jordan".On Thursday night, the Channel 4 chief executive described Boyles' comments about Price's son as a "darkly satirical joke directed at Jordan".
"Ofcom did not share our view and concluded that the joke appeared to directly target and mock the mental and physical disabilities of her eight-year-old son which was highly offensive to the audience," Abraham said."Ofcom did not share our view and concluded that the joke appeared to directly target and mock the mental and physical disabilities of her eight-year-old son which was highly offensive to the audience," Abraham said.
"They concluded that the case involved an erroneous decision on a matter of editorial judgement on the channel's part which we accepted and for which we apologised.""They concluded that the case involved an erroneous decision on a matter of editorial judgement on the channel's part which we accepted and for which we apologised."
Abraham said: "We have sought to learn from these experiences whilst also avoiding the danger of a creative 'chilling effect' through our building."Abraham said: "We have sought to learn from these experiences whilst also avoiding the danger of a creative 'chilling effect' through our building."
He added: "Occasional offence seems inevitable given the remit to test boundaries and when cultural tastes are always fluid. Channel 4's producers have often exposed the differences between generations in terms of what is and isn't acceptable at any point in time.He added: "Occasional offence seems inevitable given the remit to test boundaries and when cultural tastes are always fluid. Channel 4's producers have often exposed the differences between generations in terms of what is and isn't acceptable at any point in time.
"It is perhaps likely that our culture of risk taking will also on occasion take us over the line. But I have also learned that even the appearance of doing so for its own sake does not sit comfortably with the spirit of our remit.""It is perhaps likely that our culture of risk taking will also on occasion take us over the line. But I have also learned that even the appearance of doing so for its own sake does not sit comfortably with the spirit of our remit."
Abraham also said the future of investigative journalism was under threat at a time of straitened economic circumstances and increasing legal challenges.Abraham also said the future of investigative journalism was under threat at a time of straitened economic circumstances and increasing legal challenges.
He warned that the libel laws were "rather like a knife that can cut both ways – in defence of the truth and of the vulnerable as well as being open to misuse by the powerful".He warned that the libel laws were "rather like a knife that can cut both ways – in defence of the truth and of the vulnerable as well as being open to misuse by the powerful".
"The current scandal around Jimmy Savile reminds us all of both the value and of the challenges surrounding investigative journalism," he said."The current scandal around Jimmy Savile reminds us all of both the value and of the challenges surrounding investigative journalism," he said.
"There remains a very real risk that the appetite for these projects will continue to be challenged both economically and legally and that is why Channel 4 News, Dispatches and Unreported World remain such key parts of the Channel 4 schedule.""There remains a very real risk that the appetite for these projects will continue to be challenged both economically and legally and that is why Channel 4 News, Dispatches and Unreported World remain such key parts of the Channel 4 schedule."
Abraham said Channel 4 had spent £1.7m defending a libel action brought by martial arts expert Matt Fiddes, who claimed a documentary about Michael Jackson's family moving to Devon had been faked. The case was withdrawn by the claimant at the high court in June 2010.Abraham said Channel 4 had spent £1.7m defending a libel action brought by martial arts expert Matt Fiddes, who claimed a documentary about Michael Jackson's family moving to Devon had been faked. The case was withdrawn by the claimant at the high court in June 2010.
"Channel 4 is not opposed to 'no win no fee' in providing the necessary access to justice for claimants," said Abraham."Channel 4 is not opposed to 'no win no fee' in providing the necessary access to justice for claimants," said Abraham.
"But we object to claimant firms being entitled to recover grossly inflated uplifts that are often disproportionate to the risk they run in bringing a claim."But we object to claimant firms being entitled to recover grossly inflated uplifts that are often disproportionate to the risk they run in bringing a claim.
"Often these costs are used to place financial pressure on media defendants to settle and encourage some claimants to bring unmeritous claims since they are not at risk. They also discourage others from reporting the truth in the first place for fear of such lawsuits.""Often these costs are used to place financial pressure on media defendants to settle and encourage some claimants to bring unmeritous claims since they are not at risk. They also discourage others from reporting the truth in the first place for fear of such lawsuits."
• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".
• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.