The Daily Mail today defended coverage of ‘sleazy’ X-factor dance routines which yesterday appeared to earn it the condemnation of broadcast regulator Ofcom.
The paper ran several stories in December following performances on the X-Factor final by Rihanna and Christina Aguilera, describing the routines as ‘raunchy’and ‘provocative”.
Yesterday Ofcom said the routines were ‘at the limit’of acceptability for pre-watershed broadcast but found that ITV had not breached broadcasting rules.
The regulator went on to criticise a ‘daily national newspaper”, which it did not name, for publishing photographs that ‘were significantly more graphic and close-up than the material that had been broadcast in the programme”, and gave the impression that ‘the programme contained significantly more graphic material than had actually been broadcast”.
Both the Independent and The Guardian ran reports naming the Daily Mail as the newspaper in question.
A story in The Independent said Ofcom had issued ‘an unprecedented rebuke to the Daily Mail for its coverage of the raunchy dance routines by Rihanna and Christina Aguilera on ITV’s X Factor final in December”.
It also said that ‘in an unusual step for a body which does not regulate the print media, Ofcom criticised the Daily Mail, which had published multiple images of the performances by the singers”.
A story in The Guardian reported that ‘Ofcom also took the unusual step of criticising the Daily Mail’s coverage of The X Factor final in its ruling on complaints about the show”.
A report in today’s Daily Mail today responded to Ofcom’s rebuke as follows:
“Other paper and media websites yesterday named it [the daily national newspaper] as the Daily Mail.
“Last night, a Daily Mail spokesman said: ‘We wholly reject any criticism, which Ofcom may or may not be making.
“‘The fact is that all the pictures we used were provided by ITV and X Factor’s official photographic agency– with the exception of one, which was an actual screen-grab of the show’s transmission .
“‘They gave an accurate and fair representation of the show. We also made it clear why we felt it was important to show them.
“‘Thousands of our readers had clearly been incensed by the programme before we carried the pictures. What we raised was the legitimate question as to whether these scenes were suitable for pre watershed TV and presented the facts in a fair and reasonable manner.'”