IS
Yes, +1 channels are just the output of the main channel played back an hour later so any mistakes should and do appear on them. They are normally just a hard drive recording and then playing back the output so there is no opportunity or facilities to edit their output in the case of a mistake
NJ
Why?
Channel 4 have been known to edit their +1 channels in the past. Mainly Big Brother related shows.
So why shouldn't Dave edit a mistake like this?
The scary thing about Channel 4 is, they'll edit the timeshifts to remove something that could be construed as libel, or chop out a major technical issue. Yet they're perfectly happy to leave great big banners going out on Channel 4 +1 asking people to phone in to vote who they want to be evicted when said numbers don't work any more with only a small textual disclaimer.
I remember a recent OFCOM bulletin dragged ITV2 over the coals and then a little bit more because they forgot to cut the Glitter ball feed to ITV2+1 on a few occasions back in the days of ITV Play when it filled up overnight schedules on ITV1 and ITV2. Needless to say, some muppet decided to enter a competition on ITV2+1, couldn't get through and complained to OFCOM who slapped them with a great big fine for allowing the broadcast on the timeshift channel in the first place. Now they tend to put big coloured bars over ITV2+1 stating in big letters, "do not respond" or similar.
Now potentially C4 (and E4, if Big Mouth is still viewer interactive and BBLB) is potentially in the same boat advertising contact details that don't work. A small textual disclaimer and an on-screen graphic may not potentially be enough to cover their arse, as ITV2 found out.
Neil Jones
Founding member
Jugalug posted:
davidlees posted:
Jugalug posted:
davidlees posted:
Thats the way it should be. Take note Channel 4.
Why?
Channel 4 have been known to edit their +1 channels in the past. Mainly Big Brother related shows.
So why shouldn't Dave edit a mistake like this?
The scary thing about Channel 4 is, they'll edit the timeshifts to remove something that could be construed as libel, or chop out a major technical issue. Yet they're perfectly happy to leave great big banners going out on Channel 4 +1 asking people to phone in to vote who they want to be evicted when said numbers don't work any more with only a small textual disclaimer.
I remember a recent OFCOM bulletin dragged ITV2 over the coals and then a little bit more because they forgot to cut the Glitter ball feed to ITV2+1 on a few occasions back in the days of ITV Play when it filled up overnight schedules on ITV1 and ITV2. Needless to say, some muppet decided to enter a competition on ITV2+1, couldn't get through and complained to OFCOM who slapped them with a great big fine for allowing the broadcast on the timeshift channel in the first place. Now they tend to put big coloured bars over ITV2+1 stating in big letters, "do not respond" or similar.
Now potentially C4 (and E4, if Big Mouth is still viewer interactive and BBLB) is potentially in the same boat advertising contact details that don't work. A small textual disclaimer and an on-screen graphic may not potentially be enough to cover their arse, as ITV2 found out.
IS
Sounds like someone pressed 'Next' or skipped a few items in the schedule. Either that or they tried to preview the ad break and it went to air somehow
- The adverts had the Dave DOG over them (something that Dave doesn't do on adverts normally).
Yes, I assume the command to remove the DOG would be on the first item after the programme so if it skipped to the adverts then it wouldn't turn it off
- Neither the real ad break after QI or the ad break in the middle of QI featured the Direct Line or Ipod advert.
No, if they were already shown then they probably wouldn't show them again in their proper slots. This is not just because they'd already gone out but also for timing and rules on commercial minutage per hour
davidlees posted:
At 21:28 during QI on Dave, Stephen Fry said "What do you call the biggest squid in the world?" and suddenly an advert came on and interupted the programme. Funnily enough, it was the Direct Line advert that Stephen Fry does the voice over for. The advert started mid way through and was followed by another advert (for an Ipod or something) which was interupted by QI coming back. We had missed some of QI while the adverts were on.
Sounds like someone pressed 'Next' or skipped a few items in the schedule. Either that or they tried to preview the ad break and it went to air somehow
Quote:
- The adverts had the Dave DOG over them (something that Dave doesn't do on adverts normally).
Yes, I assume the command to remove the DOG would be on the first item after the programme so if it skipped to the adverts then it wouldn't turn it off
Quote:
- Neither the real ad break after QI or the ad break in the middle of QI featured the Direct Line or Ipod advert.
No, if they were already shown then they probably wouldn't show them again in their proper slots. This is not just because they'd already gone out but also for timing and rules on commercial minutage per hour
RD
If your referring to the fault that happened on Chanel 4+1 where The Paul O' Grady Show was interrupted by a '+1' slide following by a short burst of a BT Communications slide (which I think you are unless i'm mistaken) then that wasn't exclusive to +1. It happened on Channel 4 except without the +1 slide and a longer burst of the BT Communications slide.
Larry the Loafer posted:
In David's defense, I think these edits are tampering with what +1 channels are meant to be; an exact broadcast of the channel, only an hour later. Besides, us TV nerds like to see a good ol' breakdown.
IIRC, there have been some faults "exclusive" to Channel 4+1 before. There's a fault from The Paul O'Grady Show on Youtube which only occured on +1.
IIRC, there have been some faults "exclusive" to Channel 4+1 before. There's a fault from The Paul O'Grady Show on Youtube which only occured on +1.
If your referring to the fault that happened on Chanel 4+1 where The Paul O' Grady Show was interrupted by a '+1' slide following by a short burst of a BT Communications slide (which I think you are unless i'm mistaken) then that wasn't exclusive to +1. It happened on Channel 4 except without the +1 slide and a longer burst of the BT Communications slide.
LL
If your referring to the fault that happened on Chanel 4+1 where The Paul O' Grady Show was interrupted by a '+1' slide following by a short burst of a BT Communications slide (which I think you are unless i'm mistaken) then that wasn't exclusive to +1. It happened on Channel 4 except without the +1 slide and a longer burst of the BT Communications slide.
Ah, I do apologize. The fact that it was the +1 logo appearing misled me to believe that.
RDJ posted:
Larry the Loafer posted:
In David's defense, I think these edits are tampering with what +1 channels are meant to be; an exact broadcast of the channel, only an hour later. Besides, us TV nerds like to see a good ol' breakdown.
IIRC, there have been some faults "exclusive" to Channel 4+1 before. There's a fault from The Paul O'Grady Show on Youtube which only occured on +1.
IIRC, there have been some faults "exclusive" to Channel 4+1 before. There's a fault from The Paul O'Grady Show on Youtube which only occured on +1.
If your referring to the fault that happened on Chanel 4+1 where The Paul O' Grady Show was interrupted by a '+1' slide following by a short burst of a BT Communications slide (which I think you are unless i'm mistaken) then that wasn't exclusive to +1. It happened on Channel 4 except without the +1 slide and a longer burst of the BT Communications slide.
Ah, I do apologize. The fact that it was the +1 logo appearing misled me to believe that.
JE
Now I think about it, wasn't the former rule rule originally introduced because of complaints about Stephen Fry appearing in Jeeves & Wooster and also in an ad for some building society or other that ran during the break of said programme?
Jenny
Founding member
mikeyskin posted:
I believe that the rules were relaxed a number of years ago. It used to be that you couldn't have a 'talent' appear in a commercial in any form if they also appeared in the programme. However, I think a number of years ago this was changed to just be concerned around in vision. So a voice over is fine, however a piece to camera isn't.
Now I think about it, wasn't the former rule rule originally introduced because of complaints about Stephen Fry appearing in Jeeves & Wooster and also in an ad for some building society or other that ran during the break of said programme?
NW
They should took a leaf out of Virgin 1's book, when they hand over to Challenge Jackpot on Virgin1 +1, they simply put a massive caption on screen saying programmes resume at 4.00am. But indeed the whole ITV thing you said was a bit out of hand. I saw a bit of the Orange Unsigned Act on Channel 4 the other day and noted the small caption on screen with the phone numbers saying "Not available on 4+1"
Having common sense does help.
Neil Jones posted:
I remember a recent OFCOM bulletin dragged ITV2 over the coals and then a little bit more because they forgot to cut the Glitter ball feed to ITV2+1 on a few occasions back in the days of ITV Play when it filled up overnight schedules on ITV1 and ITV2. Needless to say, some muppet decided to enter a competition on ITV2+1, couldn't get through and complained to OFCOM who slapped them with a great big fine for allowing the broadcast on the timeshift channel in the first place. Now they tend to put big coloured bars over ITV2+1 stating in big letters, "do not respond" or similar.
They should took a leaf out of Virgin 1's book, when they hand over to Challenge Jackpot on Virgin1 +1, they simply put a massive caption on screen saying programmes resume at 4.00am. But indeed the whole ITV thing you said was a bit out of hand. I saw a bit of the Orange Unsigned Act on Channel 4 the other day and noted the small caption on screen with the phone numbers saying "Not available on 4+1"
Having common sense does help.
GS
Yep. Its no different to coffee cups saying, "Warning - content may be hot".
Its easier to cover yourself than get dragged through a court when idiots do idiotic things.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Alexia posted:
Do we really have to spoon feed idiot viewers?
Yep. Its no different to coffee cups saying, "Warning - content may be hot".
Its easier to cover yourself than get dragged through a court when idiots do idiotic things.
DV
What should happen if a +1 channel breaks down, now that really would be a dilemma, should the original channel be stopped so that the +1 channel can be repaired, to ensure viewers of the +1 channel don't miss anything?
