We Say, You Pay
Daily Mail: Richard and Judy quiz scam
If any of this Daily Mail 'exclusive' story has any basis in fact, then Channel 4 could find itself embroiled in another major and potentially very damaging scandal relating to the content of its programmes so soon after the Celebrity Big Brother Shilpa racism scandal and just as Ofcom is conducting a review of the channel's finances.
Put simply, it allegedly involves independent producer Cactus TV knowing who would be picked as potential winners for the Richard and Judy's "You Say, We Pay" phone-in contest well before the phone lines are closed and (even more damaging) before the last on-screen appeal to call the special premium phone number is made.
Phone-in contests involving premium rate phone lines have mushroomed in popularity in recent times, especially as they represent an alternative source of funding in an era when television and radio advertising has declined due to competition from the internet as well as other factors. (In the UK, Google now earns more ad revenue than Channel 4.)
However these contests seem to fall into a gap between the various regulators. Ofcom are supposedly responsible for programme content, but their remit doesn't cover premium rate phone lines which are regulated by ICSTIS, and the Gambling Commission is only interested in contests that don't have a free entry option.
Although in theory the Richard and Judy phone-in contest is organised by Cactus TV, Channel 4 ends up shouldering most of the responsibility for what is actually broadcast; a fact that was made very clear during the Celebrity Big Brother scandal. Therefore the broadcaster/producer relationship needs to be very close in order to avoid such embarrassing mishaps.
The simple fact of the matter is that if Cactus has broadcast an exhortation to phone a premium rate phone line after 'winning' calls have been chosen, then the end result is fraud which would inevitably result in a heavy fine for Channel 4 and perhaps even certain individuals being prosecuted as a result, with custodial sentences also being a possibility.
If viewers were told to phone a special number under fraudulent pretences, then that relates directly to the programme content (ie. what was actually broadcast) and in theory should fall under Ofcom's jurisdiction. But will Ofcom pass the blame by claiming that since it involves a phone number it has nothing to do with them?
Ironically if Channel 4 had an alternative form of funding then it wouldn't have to rely on phone quizzes and dubious stunts in order to raise revenue and instead concentrate better on delivering high quality public service broadcasting like it used to, but politicians might end up viewing this state of affairs very differently.
