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/2013/jan/21/x-factor-hotel-breached

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

Version 0 Version 1
X Factor's five-star hotel footage breached programming rules X Factor's five-star hotel footage breached programming rules
(about 4 hours later)
When The X Factor's James Arthur was put up in a posh London hotel along with the rest of the talent show's finalists, he was unaccustomed to its five-star luxury. "There's a phone in the toilet!" he told fellow contestant Rylan Clark.When The X Factor's James Arthur was put up in a posh London hotel along with the rest of the talent show's finalists, he was unaccustomed to its five-star luxury. "There's a phone in the toilet!" he told fellow contestant Rylan Clark.
But media regulator Ofcom has ruled the ITV programme breached programming rules by giving undue prominence to the Corinthia hotel, overlooking the Thames in central London where a suite can cost up to £3,000 a night.But media regulator Ofcom has ruled the ITV programme breached programming rules by giving undue prominence to the Corinthia hotel, overlooking the Thames in central London where a suite can cost up to £3,000 a night.
Eight of the 13 finalists were shown either arriving or making themselves comfortable in the hotel in the first live programme of the last series of Simon Cowell's The X Factor, broadcast on 6 October last year.Eight of the 13 finalists were shown either arriving or making themselves comfortable in the hotel in the first live programme of the last series of Simon Cowell's The X Factor, broadcast on 6 October last year.
Although ITV was not paid money to plug the hotel and its facilities as part of a product placement deal, its producers had signed a contact with the hotel giving it a reduced rate for its rooms and services.Although ITV was not paid money to plug the hotel and its facilities as part of a product placement deal, its producers had signed a contact with the hotel giving it a reduced rate for its rooms and services.
Ofcom said the contract "did not guarantee the inclusion of any references to the hotel in any of the episodes of The X Factor".Ofcom said the contract "did not guarantee the inclusion of any references to the hotel in any of the episodes of The X Factor".
ITV said in previous years the finalists had stayed in a shared house and this was the first year they had been in the hotel. It explained the on-screen references by saying it wanted to give viewers an impression of their changed circumstances and how they were "settling into their new lifestyles as performers and television celebrities".ITV said in previous years the finalists had stayed in a shared house and this was the first year they had been in the hotel. It explained the on-screen references by saying it wanted to give viewers an impression of their changed circumstances and how they were "settling into their new lifestyles as performers and television celebrities".
ITV plc-owned Channel TV, which was responsible for making sure the programme complied with broadcasting rules, said the hotel references were "part of the conventional visual grammar of television storytelling" and were "editorially justified in reflecting where and how the contestants will now be living in the following weeks of the competition". The company said the hotel references were "part of the conventional visual grammar of television storytelling" and were "editorially justified in reflecting where and how the contestants will now be living in the following weeks of the competition".
However, Channel TV said having reviewed the episode after broadcast, it had agreed with the producers that there would not be the same editorial justification for such references in succeeding episodes. However, ITV said having reviewed the episode after broadcast, it had agreed with the producers that there would not be the same editorial justification for such references in succeeding episodes.
Ofcom, in its ruling published on Monday, said it acknowledged it was "common practice to show an establishing shot of a location to indicate to the audience where the programme's action is taking place".Ofcom, in its ruling published on Monday, said it acknowledged it was "common practice to show an establishing shot of a location to indicate to the audience where the programme's action is taking place".
While each of the references by themselves did not break any rules, the regulator said the overall number of mentions was "excessive".While each of the references by themselves did not break any rules, the regulator said the overall number of mentions was "excessive".
Ofcom added it was particularly concerned by three of the eight on-screen appearances including the exchange between Arthur, who went on to win, and Clark, which included: "It's absolutely amazing here ... I've never really seen anything like it to be honest. It's a million miles away from the place I live back home ... Oh my god James, it's massive! There's a phone in the toilet!"Ofcom added it was particularly concerned by three of the eight on-screen appearances including the exchange between Arthur, who went on to win, and Clark, which included: "It's absolutely amazing here ... I've never really seen anything like it to be honest. It's a million miles away from the place I live back home ... Oh my god James, it's massive! There's a phone in the toilet!"
The regulator also said the number of external shots of the hotel included in the episode could not be editorially justified given the number of other visual and verbal references.The regulator also said the number of external shots of the hotel included in the episode could not be editorially justified given the number of other visual and verbal references.
The programme, co-produced by Cowell's Syco TV and Thames, gave "undue prominence to the hotel" and breached rule 9.5 of the broadcasting code, according to Ofcom.The programme, co-produced by Cowell's Syco TV and Thames, gave "undue prominence to the hotel" and breached rule 9.5 of the broadcasting code, according to Ofcom.
"In isolation, each reference to the Corinthia hotel did not raise issues of undue prominence, in the context of establishing where the contestants would be living during the final stages of the competition, and conveying their excitement at their new surroundings," the regulator concluded."In isolation, each reference to the Corinthia hotel did not raise issues of undue prominence, in the context of establishing where the contestants would be living during the final stages of the competition, and conveying their excitement at their new surroundings," the regulator concluded.
"However, Ofcom considered the overall number of references to be excessive for the purpose of establishing this."However, Ofcom considered the overall number of references to be excessive for the purpose of establishing this.
We therefore judged that there was insufficient editorial justification for the repeated references to the hotel during the programme."We therefore judged that there was insufficient editorial justification for the repeated references to the hotel during the programme."
• 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.