Most Haunted...confirmed to be "not real"

After many complaints of "faking"...this is what OFCOM says:

Most Haunted/Most Haunted Live
LIVINGtv, Various Dates, 2005
Introduction

Most Haunted/Most Haunted Live is an established series which takes a team of people into locations where, in the past, according to the programme, there have been allegations of haunting. The series is presented by Yvette Fielding (the production company’s co-owner) and a ‘celebrity’ psychic Derek Acorah. The production involves trying to film, or otherwise record, any paranormal activity. On occasions, the programme is presented as a live broadcast.

Before 25 July 2005 (when ex- ITC Programme Code was in force) 11 viewers complained about various aspects of the programme, suggesting that some of the paranormal elements have been contrived or otherwise pre-prepared. Their concerns were, in summary, that

this was fraudulent practice;
viewers were being deceived into thinking the events depicted were real; and
there could be potential harm to susceptible or vulnerable viewers as a result.
Since 25 July 2005 when Ofcom’s own Broadcasting Code came into force, some viewers have continued to contact Ofcom with similar concerns about the programme.

Response

We asked LIVINGtv for a response and, in particular, to one such complaint which offered a summary of the types of complaints we have received and specifically claimed that parts of these programmes are “faked”.

The broadcaster stated that its programmes included an investigation team. This included: “Dr Ciaran O’Keefe, who is a lecturer at Liverpool Hope University and who has a particular interest in Parapsychology; Richard Felix - a ‘Paranormal Historian’; Richard Jones author and historian; Dr Matthew Smith – another lecturer in psychology at Liverpool Hope University; as well as a host of ‘lay people’ who accompany Derekand Yvette on their investigation.”

It accepts that it is not able to replicate laboratory conditions for, what it referred to, as “experiments”. The licensee stated that it did “not accept that there is any question to be answered in relation to the legitimacy of the programme or the investigations conducted”. However, it suggested that a decision as to what comprises legitimacy in this area of programming is “a question for Ofcom”.

LIVINGtv also argued that although the programme features “…many entertainment production conventions…it does indisputably retain an investigative element”.

Decision

It is not Ofcom’s role to decide whether paranormal activity exists, nor to promote or dismiss belief in the paranormal. Our role is to assess programmes such as Most Haunted/Most Haunted Live against the provisions of our Code.

The ex- ITC Programme Code (which was in force at the time of the original complaints) states that, “Demonstrations of clairvoyance, clairaudience, and similar practices are acceptable only when they are clearly and explicitly presented as entertainment, or when they are the subject of legitimate investigation”. When presented as an entertainment programme, the broadcaster should ensure that it is made clear that such activity is for entertainment purposes.

LIVINGtv is an entertainment channel. Ofcom has therefore taken this into account when reaching a view on the nature of the programming in question.

In relation to Most Haunted/Most Haunted Live, Ofcom has to consider whether or not this series of programmes overall could be described as a legitimate investigation or one that is broadcast for the purpose of entertainment.

If it were considered that this programme contained demonstrations in the context of a legitimate investigation, then allegations that elements are “faked” would be serious.

On reviewing the programmes themselves, we recognised that the series, amongst other things, often featured:

a celebrity presenter in the studio;
a studio audience;
‘over-dramatic’ responses by the presenters and production team to the events which occur;
paranormal events occurring with regularity (for example, whenever a ‘live’ show is broadcast); and
phone-ins.
These, along with the graphics, music, and night-vision camera sequences, all suggested a high degree of showmanship that puts it beyond what we believe to be a generally accepted understanding of what comprises a legitimate investigation.

Ofcom also recognised that, having established the programme over a number of series, it would now be clear to viewers that the intended purpose of these programmes was for entertainment.

On balance - taking into account the context of the programme itself and the presentation within the series - we consider that overall Most Haunted/Most Haunted Live should be taken to be a programme produced for entertainment purposes. This is despite what appears to be occasional assertions by the programme that what viewers are witnessing is real. As such this programme should be seen in the light of shows where techniques are used which mean the audience is not necessarily in full possession of the facts.

We consider that even though there is an element of a ‘scientific’ approach (e.g. the carrying out of so-called ‘experiments’ such as monitoring changes in room temperature) which adds to the entertainment factor of the programme, these are, as the broadcaster acknowledges, not carried out under laboratory conditions. We therefore do not believe that these programmes could reasonably be described, in terms of the Code, as a ‘legitimate investigation’.

In the specific context of these programmes therefore, which have been established and broadcast for over three years, we believe that they contain an appropriate degree of signposting which appears to make it clear to viewers that they are for entertainment purposes.

The programmes were not in breach of the Code

Note

The current Broadcasting Code states that, “If a demonstration of…the paranormal…is for entertainment purposes, this must be made clear to viewers and listeners”. However, the Code does not describe how this may be achieved.

In cases such as these, ensuring that it is clear to viewers whether or not a programme is intended for entertainment purposes can be a fine judgement. Broadcasters should therefore be prepared to demonstrate how they have made clear to the audience the purpose of the programme and seek appropriate advice where necessary.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shock Docs: Stabbed to Death
Five, 3 October 2005, 23:05
Introduction

This documentary examined the lives of two prisoners in America who had participated in the killing of a fellow inmate. The two were captured on the prison’s CCTV system - one was seen stabbing the victim repeatedly while the other held him down. The programme looked at how these men came to be in prison, examining their original crimes and interviewing people involved in their histories. Images of the stabbing were repeated 4 times in the programme.

Two viewers complained to Ofcom. They said they found the footage particularly offensive and felt it could encourage violent behaviour.

Decision

When considering the use of offensive material in a programme, we have to decide whether it is justified by the context in which it is shown and whether appropriate information was provided in order to avoid or minimise offence.

This documentary was broadcast late in the schedule, after 23:00. We think its title would have made the disturbing nature of the content very clear to the potential audience. In addition to the scheduling and title, a detailed warning was given before the opening titles and this was repeated before the last section of the programme.

This was a callous and brutal murder. The footage of it was extremely distressing but it was used in the proper study of a horrendous racist crime. Each time it was shown, a separate point was made by the programme makers. For example on one occasion, the slow reaction of the prison guards was highlighted and on another, the state prosecutor emphasised how the brutality of the attack had a lasting impact on him.

Any likelihood that violent behaviour could be encouraged is, in our view, undermined by the portrayal of the lasting negative effects the commission of this crime had on the lives of the prisoners featured and others involved, including the victim’s brother. The behaviour was not condoned or glamorised nor was it likely to encourage others to copy it.

We believe that on this occasion, in the context of this programme, the material shown was justified.

The programme was not in breach of the Code

 

I told you a year ago it was a fake.

 

come on, if Derek faking a possesion didnt make you scream FAKE at the TV, then...yeah...idiot...

 

..and I was telling you all 2 years ago...but no one believed me!!

 

I'm afraid many have been taken in over the years...

 

Problem is with your constant bizarre theoreis and loony ideas obout various disasters and terrorist attacks people take your calims with a pinch of smack

 

Incredible animosity shown...

 

from anyone in particular?
Me? windy? hartogs set? the lone ranger? postman pat? The 40 year old virgin?

 

lol