Why isn’t this called Stuff Magazine?

[webofevil]

A salutary tale of not understanding how the world of television works, told in the direct, unforgiving style of Ofcom Bulletin 55:

Complaint by Mr Christopher Elliot on behalf of the Guild of Taxidermists
Taxidermy: Stuff the World, BBC1 and BBC2, 6 September 2005 and 22 August 2005

Summary: Ofcom has not upheld this complaint of unfair treatment made by Mr Christopher Elliot on behalf of the Guild of Taxidermists (the Guild). The Guild participated in the programme Taxidermy: Stuff the World which documented the work of several taxidermists from around the world as they prepared to compete in the 2005 World Taxidermy Championships. The Guild complained that: relevant information and footage was not included in the programme; the programme referred to taxidermy as “stuffing”, the programme portrayed the Guild as a “sad bunch”; and, the programme unfairly associated UK taxidermists with the work of American taxidermists.

Ofcom found the following:

* There was no case of unfairness to answer in relation to the allegation that “the programme was a poor representation of taxidermy in the UK” as there was no obligation on programme makers to represent “taxidermy in the UK” [the Sex Pistols joke you just thought of is beneath you] within the programme.

* The programme’s use of the term “stuff” did not result in unfairness to the Guild. Ofcom concluded that the use of the term “stuff” by programme makers was warranted to increase audience understanding of the content of the programme. Further, Ofcom noted that there was no evidence to suggest that programme makers had given the Guild any assurances that they would not use the term “stuff”.

* The programme makers’ decision to not include footage of winning UK taxidermists did not result in unfairness to the Guild as programme makers were under no explicit obligation to include winning footage of UK taxidermists, nor was the footage required to meet their stated objective for the film.

* The programme makers’ decision to not use footage of Mr Carl Church, a Guild member, in the programme as broadcast did not result in unfairness to Mr Church or the Guild. Ofcom found no evidence that programme makers told the Guild or Mr Church that Mr Church would be the main subject of the programme or that his inclusion was guaranteed. Further, the release form signed by Mr Church gave permission for the programme makers to use and edit footage of him as they wished.

* Programme makers were under no obligation to include information specific to the “art of taxidermy in the UK”. However, programme makers did successfully meet the objective of the film as stated to the Guild of documenting the “art” of taxidermy in general. Ofcom found no unfairness to the Guild in this respect.

* There was no obligation for programme makers to include information about the Guild relating to the intricacies of taxidermy, or the guidelines adhered to by the Guild, when collecting animal specimens. As such, Ofcom found no unfairness to the Guild in this respect.

* The programme’s portrayal of the Guild’s UK Conference was fair. Ofcom was satisfied that the footage of the Conference was fairly edited, and accurately juxtaposed the UK Conference against the bigger and much more competitive World Championships. Ofcom found that it would have been unlikely that viewers would have formed an unfair or negative impression of the Guild based on the footage taken from the UK Conference.

The complaint of unfair treatment was not upheld.

Comments

[alfaguru.livejournal.com]

In other words: "get stuffed".

[dermfitz.livejournal.com]

Oh! I subtitled this. It was excellent. I wish my memory was what it once was, then I could actually say something interesting about it.

[nja.livejournal.com]

This was the programme showing the Swiss loony who got very very very excited when describing how he stuffed tiny fish, and eventually gave it all up when he decided that the Lord Jesus Christ could give him a greater joy even than stuffing tiny fish. Next to him, everyone else in the film looked perfectly well-adjusted, even the excitable American woman with a particular interest in stuffing furry genitalia (sorry, "taxidermatising" or whatever the acceptable term is).