Broadcast Bulletin Issue number 170 22/11/10
It is Ofcom's policy to describe fully the content in television and radio programmes that is subject to broadcast investigations. Some of the language and descriptions used in Ofcom's Broadcast Bulletin may therefore cause offence.
Standards cases
In Breach
Bluebird
Northern Birds, 8 September 2010, 15:05 to 15:35 and 26/27 September 2010, 23:40 to 00.35
Essex Babes, 21 September 2010, 00:45 to 01:15
Introduction
The channels Northern Birds and Essex Babes are owned and operated by the licensee Satellite Entertainment Limited (“SEL” or “the Licensee”).
Northern Birds and Essex Babes are situated in the 'adult' section of the Sky electronic programme guide and are available freely without mandatory restricted access. They are broadcast on Sky channel numbers 954 and 955 respectively. At the times indicated above the channels promoted a service on screen known and branded as Bluebird TV. The channels broadcast programmes during the day based on daytime chat, and after the 21:00 watershed programmes based on interactive 'adult' sex chat services. Viewers are invited to contact onscreen female presenters via premium rate telephony services ("PRS"). The female presenters dress and behave in a flirtatious way during the day and a more sexually provocative way after the watershed while encouraging viewers to contact the PRS numbers.
Condition 11 of SEL’s licences states that the Licensee must make and then retain a recording of all its programmes for a period of 60 days from broadcast, and at Ofcom’s request must produce recordings “forthwith”. Ofcom has made clear that recordings “must be of a standard and in a format which allows Ofcom to view the material as broadcast.”
Ofcom received complaints about alleged inappropriate content broadcast at around:
- 15:20 on 8 September 2010 on Northern Birds;
- 01:00 on 21 September 2010 on Essex Babes: and
- 23:40 on 26 September 2010 on Northern Birds.
In order to make an initial assessment of the complaints (to consider whether or not to investigate the issues), Ofcom requested recordings of material from 15:05 to 15:35 on 8 September 2010 and 23:40 to 00:35 on 26/27 September for Northern Birds, and 00:45 to 01:15 on 21 September 2010 for Essex Babes from the Licensee.
Response
Between 9 September and 13 October 2010 Ofcom formally asked SEL on several occasions, and set explicit deadlines, to provide recordings of its output at the times and dates specified. In response, the Licensee failed to provide recordings of the programmes requested.
The Licensee said that Ofcom had “exercised an administrative power to ask for recordings” and that Ofcom had sought to “justify such exercise by reference to alleged communications [ie the complaint to Ofcom] allegedly received by you”. The Licensee also raised a number of questions about the validity of the complaint and expressed its wish to deal with the complaint in the first instance. Ofcom responded by acknowledging the Licensee’s questions and assuring it that we would deal with the points raised at a later date if Ofcom decided to investigate further the requested broadcast material. Ofcom said that under the terms of the Licensee’s broadcast licence, SEL was required to provide broadcast material requested by Ofcom “forthwith”.
Ofcom did not receive the recordings. Since the Licensee was obliged under the terms of its licence to supply the recordings “forthwith” on request, Ofcom asked the Licensee for formal representations on its compliance with Condition 11 of its licences.
SEL did not provide any comments in response. Ofcom therefore proceeded to reach a decision.
Decision
It is a condition of all broadcast licences that a licensee adopts procedures for the retention and production of recordings and provides these recordings to Ofcom “forthwith” if requested. Further, the recordings should be “as broadcast “(i.e. the same quality in terms of both sound and picture as when originally transmitted).
In particular, Condition 11 of the Television Licensable Content Service licence states:
“…the Licensee shall:
- make and retain or arrange for the retention of a recording in sound and vision of every programme included in the Licensed Service for a period of 60 daysfrom the date of its inclusion therein; and
- at the request of Ofcom forthwith produce to Ofcom any such recording for examination or reproduction;…”
Ofcom formally asked SEL on several occasions to provide recordings of the output at the time and dates specified so that Ofcom could view them and decide whether they raised any potential issues under the Code. The Licensee failed to provide the recordings and provided no valid reasons to justify this failure. There were therefore three clear and separate breaches of Condition 11 (Retention and production of recordings) of SEL’s licences to broadcast.
All contraventions of Condition 11 are serious matters because they mean that Ofcom is unable to assess whether a particular broadcast raises potential issues under the Code. This therefore impedes Ofcom from carrying out its statutory duty to regulate television and radio broadcasts.
It is broadcast licence condition requiring a licensee to provide Ofcom on request with a recording of its output. It is unacceptable for a licensee to refuse to provide such recordings.
Ofcom has recently found the Licensee in breach of Condition 11 for failure to provide material transmitted on 10 September 2010 (-1-). These three current contraventions are therefore examples of further individually serious breaches of SEL’s licences which have been repeated. As a result, the Licensee is put on notice that these present contraventions of its licences are being considered for the imposition of a statutory sanction.
Breach of Licence Condition 11 (retention and production of recordings) – 8 September 2010
Breach of Licence Condition 11 (retention and production of recordings) – 26/27 September 2010
Breach of Licence Condition 11 (retention and production of recordings) – 21 September 2010
Footnotes:
1.-See: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb169/issue169.pdf dated 8 November 2010
In Breach
Bluebird
Live 960, 22 September 2010, 02:45 to 03:15
Introduction
The channel Live 960 is owned and operated by the licensee Hoppr Entertainment (“Hoppr” or ”the Licensee”).
Live 960 is situated in the ‘adult’ section of the Sky electronic programme guide and is available freely without mandatory restricted access on Sky channel number 960. At the time indicated however it promoted a service on screen known and branded as Bluebird TV. The channel Live 960 broadcasts programmes after the 21:00 watershed based on interactive 'adult' sex chat services. Viewers are invited to contact onscreen female presenters via premium rate telephony services ("PRS"). The female presenters dress and behave in a sexually provocative way while encouraging viewers to contact the PRS numbers.
Condition 11 of Hoppr’s licence states that the Licensee must make and then retain a recording of all its programmes for a period of 60 days from broadcast, and at Ofcom’s request must produce recordings “forthwith”. Ofcom has made clear that recordings “must be of a standard and in a format which allows Ofcom to view the material as broadcast.”
Ofcom received a complaint about alleged inappropriate adult content broadcast at around 03:00 on 22 September 2010. In order to make an initial assessment of the complaint (to consider whether or not to investigate the issue), Ofcom requested a recording of material from 02:45 to 03:15 on 22 September 2010 from the Licensee.
Response
Between 28 September and 11 October 2010 Ofcom formally asked Hoppr on several occasions, and set explicit deadlines, to provide a recording of its output for the time and date specified. In response, the Licensee failed to provide a recording of the programme requested.
The Licensee said that Ofcom had “exercised an administrative power to ask for recordings” and that Ofcom had sought to “justify such exercise by reference to alleged communications [ie the complaint to Ofcom] allegedly received by you”. The Licensee also raised a number of questions about the validity of the complaint and expressed its wish to deal with the complaint in the first instance. Ofcom responded by acknowledging the Licensee’s questions and assuring it that we would deal with the points raised at a later date if Ofcom decided to investigate further the requested broadcast material. Ofcom said that under the terms of Hoppr’s broadcast licence, the Licensee was required to provide broadcast material requested by Ofcom “forthwith”.
Ofcom did not receive the recordings. Since Hoppr was obliged under the terms of its licence to supply the recordings “forthwith” on request, Ofcom asked the Licensee for formal representations on its compliance with Condition 11 of its licence.
Hoppr did not provide any comments in response. Ofcom therefore proceeded to reach a decision.
Decision
It is a condition of all broadcast licences that the licensee adopts procedures for the retention and production of recordings and provides these recordings to Ofcom “forthwith” if requested. Further, the recordings should be “as broadcast” (i.e. the same quality in terms of both sound and picture as when originally transmitted).
In particular, Condition 11 of the Television Licensable Content Service licence states:
“…the Licensee shall:
a) make and retain or arrange for the retention of a recording in sound and vision of every programme included in the Licensed Service for a period of 60 days from the date of its inclusion therein; and
b) at the request of Ofcom forthwith produce to Ofcom any such recording for examination or reproduction;…”
Ofcom formally asked Hoppr on several occasions to provide a recording of the output for the time and date specified so that Ofcom could view it and decide whether it raised any potential issues under the Code. The Licensee failed to provide the recording and provided no valid reasons to justify this failure. This was therefore a clear breach of Condition 11 of Hoppr’s licence to broadcast (retention and production of recordings).
All contraventions of Condition 11 are serious matters because they mean that Ofcom is unable to assess whether a particular broadcast raises potential issues under the Code. This therefore impedes Ofcom from carrying out its statutory duty to regulate television and radio broadcasts.
It is a broadcast licence condition requiring a licensee to provide Ofcom on request with a recording of its output. It is unacceptable for a licensee to refuse to provide such recordings.
Ofcom recently found the Licensee in breach of Condition 11 on two other separate occasions, on 26 October 2009 and on 8 November 2010 (-1-) This is therefore a third example of an individually serious breach of Hoppr’s licence which has been repeated. As a result the Licensee is put on notice that this present contravention of its licence is being considered for the imposition of a statutory sanction.
Breach of Licence Condition 11 (retention and production of recordings)
Footnotes:
1.- See: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb144/; and
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb169/issue169.pdf
In Breach
Comment
Press TV, 18 February 2010, 27 May 2010, 3 June 2010, 10 June 2010, 17 June 2010, and 24 June 2010, 19:00
Introduction
Press TV is an Iranian international news network, which broadcasts in English. Press TV states that it receives its funding from: Iranian tax payers, advertising revenue, sales from services provided in respect of the technical and engineering industry, and sales from its archives.
Comment is a weekly one hour “personal view” programme presented by former Respect Party MP, George Galloway, in which viewers can contribute to the news topic under discussion by phoning in or texting the presenter.
Ofcom received a complaint about an episode of Comment, broadcast on 18 February 2010, from a viewer who was concerned that the programme was biased against Israel when discussing the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a Hamas leader, in Dubai. As the murder involved a number of suspects holding fake British passports and the British Government announced a full investigation by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, on the same day the programme was broadcast, Ofcom concluded this programme dealt with a matter of political controversy, namely the alleged involvement of the Israeli State in the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. The programme was therefore subject to special impartiality requirements as set out in Section 5 of the Code. Ofcom therefore conducted an investigation into this personal view programme with particular reference to Rule 5.5 of the Code:
Rule 5.5: “Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service. This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole.”
Given this programme was an authored or “personal view” programme Ofcom also made reference to the particular requirements for due impartiality on such personal view programmes as set out in Rule 5.9:
Rule 5.9: “Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of “personal view” or authored programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole. Additionally, presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirement for due impartiality.”
As Rules 5.5 and 5.9 require Ofcom to consider whether due impartiality by way of alternative viewpoints are adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole, Ofcom undertook further monitoring of Comment on the following dates: 27 May, 3 June, 10 June, 17 June and 24 June 2010 to identify if, over the course of other programmes in the series, the broadcaster sought to represent alternative viewpoints other than those supported by the presenters.
The programmes included a range of statements, including the following, made by the presenters George Galloway and guest presenter Jeremy Corbyn (3 June 2010 episode only) which could be interpreted as being pro-Palestinian and highly critical of the actions of the Israeli government and its military forces. For example:
Comment
, Pres TV, 18 February 2010
George Galloway on the alleged role of Israel in the murder of the Hamas leader in Dubai: describes Israel as “a terrorist gangster state” that:
“thinks nothing of using the passports of countries who profess themselves to be their closest allies to go around the world murdering people in hotel rooms”.
Comment
, Press TV, 27 May 2010
George Galloway: “We want Israel to stop occupying the Palestinian people, stop torturing them, stop exiling them, stop imprisoning them, stop starving them, stop blockading them, comply with international law…and want the international community to treat them like the criminal rogue state that they would then undeniably be…it is up to the rest us to force our Government to treat Israel as they would any other miscreant, law breaking rogue, war launching, occupying state.”
Comment
, Press TV, 3 June 2010
Jeremy Corbyn: “Israel has been referred to the Security Council on so many occasions so it is time surely for serious economic sanctions against Israel.”
George Galloway spoke to presenter Jeremy Corbyn from Turkey and commented that the Israeli attack on the ship transporting aid to Gaza, the Marmara, was “mass murder on the high seas” and “an act of brigandry”.
Comment
, Press TV, 10 June 2010
George Galloway: “I have taken to describing Israel as - and I don’t claim originality because it came from Norman Finkelstein - describing Israel as not a terrorist state, not a murderous state, not a rogue state, it is a lunatic state. Only a lunatic state would do what they did last week [reference to the attack on the Marmara] and imagine they could continue forever to do this sort of thing.”
George Galloway on the UN policy towards Israel:
“…it is completely dysfunctional. Completely two faced with double standards otherwise there would be sanctions now on Israel for having hundreds of nuclear weapons illegally acquired with the conspiratorial collaboration of Britain and France and Germany and the United States.”
George Galloway on Iran:
“If I was running Iran I would build a bomb because Israel is aiming hundreds of nuclear weapons at me.”
Comment, Press TV, 17 June 2010
“Israel went into International waters to give a message to Iran and Turkey they can do whatever they want because of US support”
Comment, Press TV, 24 June 2010
George Galloway on the living conditions of the Palestinians:
“…rancid refugee camps… or under illegal occupation…or under murderous siege if you have the misfortune of being trapped in Gaza. There are no peace talks. There are proximity talks which are a bad joke. Israel is not remotely interested in giving…the President of the Palestinian Authority anything remotely resembling a viable state.”
Ofcom concluded that, whilst other topics for discussion were raised at the start of some of the programmes such as the Bloody Sunday Inquiry or the war in Afghanistan, the recurring theme throughout this series of programmes was the discussion, and criticism of, the policies and related actions of the Israeli government. For example, when discussing the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, George Galloway commented:
“We’re talking about Bloody Sunday in itself but also comparing the British attitude to the investigation of that crime and the Israeli attitude to the massacre on the Mediterranean – the Marmara Massacre.”
Consequently, it was Ofcom’s view that the discussions featured on the six episodes of Comment repeatedly dealt with matters of political controversy (namely, the policies and actions of the Israeli State towards the Palestinian Authority and population) because they were issues which politicians and the media were actively engaged in debating. Therefore these episodes were also subject to the due impartiality requirements of Rule 5.5 of the Code.
Ofcom therefore asked Press TV to provide comments with reference to these programmes to explain how the programmes complied with Section 5 of the Code, in particular Rules 5.5 and 5.9 as set out above.
Response
In response the broadcaster confirmed that Comment was a “personal view” programme and that it was therefore “reasonable for the presenter to broadcast his own views”. To comply with due impartiality it referenced six examples sourced from four separate programmes, broadcast on 18 February, 13 May, 3 June and 17 June 2010, in which Comment presented alternative viewpoints to those put forward by George Galloway. These were:
1) Comment , Press TV, 18 February 2010
An email from a contributor called Jonathan was read out:
“George, I am so infuriated by you and your basic simple views....Do you see the difference between terrorism and legitimate assassination. I bet my life I know what your response will be”.
A contributor called Jeremy who phoned-in to speak to George Galloway about the presenters assertions that Israel was responsible for the murder of the Hamas leader:
“You haven’t got any proof yet. You haven’t got any proof at all”.
2) Comment , Press TV, 13 May 2010
A contributor called Kay from the UK:
“I just want to say I respectively disagree with some of the comment regarding Israel…Israel is to me a model for the Middle East. The Palestinians should unite and build courts; build prison places…change their text books, anti-Semitism against the Israelis”.
3) Comment , Press TV, 3 June 2010
The broadcaster referred to the inclusion of a clip of a Channel 4 News interview with an Israeli government spokesman talking about the attack on the Marmara.
4) Comment , Press TV, 3 June 2010
The broadcaster referred to two comments made by Professor Scobbie, an international lawyer defining the legal position of Israel’s attack on the Marmara:
“One, this is not an act of piracy, that allegation has made because public ships were involved; Israeli public ships were involved and the idea of piracy is completely beside the point”
“Israel has denied it remains in occupation of Gaza, that is not a view shared by international lawyers”
5) Comment , Press TV, 17 June 2010
A contributor called Jamie from London via email:
“How typical of you to bring back Israel on your show. Your non-stop hatred of Israel does not help peace in the region. And your new convoy decoy won’t be successful. Do you think that Israeli forces should hold an inquiry? What for? Those activists still have not answered. Why were they carrying weapons?”
Further, the broadcaster highlighted how the presenter had encouraged contributions from viewers particularly if their point of view differed from his own and provided a range of dates (13, 20 and 27 May 2010, and 10 and 17 June 2010) when invitations were made by George Galloway to encourage alternative views. For example:
Comment
, 13 May 2010
George Galloway: “I want to hear from you, particularly if you have a different point of view to mine. Your call, your text, your email will be prioritised because, hey – we want it to be a debate!”
Comment, 20 May 2010
George Galloway: “Whatever your point of view and especially if it disagrees with mine I want to hear from you!”
Comment
, 27 May 2010
George Galloway: “If you have a different point of view to mine, well your call will be prioritised, and that’s a promise!”
Comment
, 17 June 2010
George Galloway: “We want to take your points of view especially if it’s a different one from mine”
However, in conclusion the broadcaster argued that “even though it appears that the number of people who support Israel is negligible, it seems that Ofcom requires Comment to present the Israeli viewpoint nonetheless”. Press TV stated the only way that the broadcaster could do this would be by the presenter providing the Israeli viewpoint and considered that this would not reflect the expectations of the viewers who actually watch the programme. Press TV stated that if “Ofcom insists” this was necessary then the broadcaster would have to change its approach to the programme and asked Ofcom to clarify how the programme should express the Israeli viewpoint.
Decision
The Communications Act 2003, as set out in the Broadcasting Code, requires that due impartiality must be preserved by broadcasters in all matters of political or industrial controversy.
In reaching this decision Ofcom must also take into account the fact that broadcasters have a right to freedom of expression which gives the broadcaster a right to transmit and the audience a right to receive creative material, information and ideas without interference from a public body, but subject to restrictions prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society. This is set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, although broadcasters and viewers have this right, it is the responsibility of the broadcasters to ensure that the material they transmit is in accordance with the general law and the Code.
It should be noted that the importance of freedom of expression is considered to be at its highest in relation to political matters, including the manner of expression exercised by journalists in relation to political matters. The European Convention states:
“The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed in law and are necessary for a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others…”
In carrying out its duties Ofcom must therefore balance the right to freedom of expression on one hand with the need to preserve “due impartiality on matters relating to political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy”. Therefore, whilst the Code does not prohibit broadcasters from the editorial freedom to discuss any controversial subject, or include a particular point of view within a programme, it must do so in a way which ensures compliance with the Code.
Section 5 of the Code sets out how broadcasters should preserve due impartiality and it is recognised that this acts to limit, to some extent, freedom of expression. In effect, broadcasters are required to ensure that when discussing a topic relating to matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy neither side of the debate is unduly favoured.
On reviewing the content of all of the Comment programmes investigated Ofcom noted that the issues discussed by presenter George Galloway, namely the policies of the State of Israel, were matters of political controversy and matters relating to current public policy and therefore the application of Rule 5.5 was required here to preserve due impartiality. Further, Rule 5.9 of the Code also makes clear the principle that presenters in “personal view” programmes may express their own views on controversial matters provided alternative viewpoints are adequately represented and due impartiality is maintained. These were clearly “personal view” programmes. Having signalled the nature of this type of broadcast to the audience, presenters are free to include their own highly partial views and those of others on the condition that alternative views are adequately represented.
Taking the programmes as a whole, Ofcom noted that there were some, albeit extremely limited (as detailed above), contributions during the six programmes reviewed that could be labelled as being loosely supportive of the actions of the Israeli state and therefore alternative views to the presenters George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn. For example: the two contributions from viewers on 18 February 2010 (Jeremy and Jonathan), the comment by a viewer on 13 May 2010 (Kay) and the email from the contributor on 17 June 2010 (Jamie).
In the 18 February 2010 programme, George Galloway espoused his own views on Israeli policy directly to camera and encouraged other callers to share their views. However, in effect, during this hour long programme broadcast the majority of callers expressed the same view as George Galloway and only two alternative viewpoints were included as set out above.
We also noted the submissions made by Press TV that the programmes on 3 June 2010 contained alternative viewpoints to that presented by George Galloway. The broadcaster referred to comments made by Professor Scobbie and the inclusion of a clip of an Israeli government spokesman which originated from an interview on Channel 4 News.
In Ofcom’s view, the Channel 4 News clip referred to by the broadcaster did not adequately provide the Israeli viewpoint on the attack on the ship carrying aid to Gaza, the Marmara. The two edited clips of the interview between Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow with the Israeli government spokesman were used, not to enable the programme to present the Israeli government’s explanation for the attack on the flotilla, but in fact, to give the opportunity for the programme to further criticise the Israeli government as demonstrated by the interchange in the two clips shown:
Clip #1
Jon Snow: “Will you apologise to them?”
Israeli Spokesman: “For what?”
[End of clip]
The presenter Jeremy Corbyn then commented: “there you have it – nothing to apologise for”.
Clip#2
Jon Snow: “The next flotilla will be accompanied by a Turkish warship. What will you do?”
Israeli Spokesman: “This isn’t serious”
Jon Snow: “What will you do?”
Israeli Spokesman: “This is not a serious question”
After the clip Jeremy Corbyn commented: “Will that smile stay on his face? Quite clearly a change in public opinion after this not just because of this but the killings in Dubai and Operation Cast Lead” [the Israeli incursion of Gaza].
Further, in Ofcom’s view, the interview with Professor Iain Scobbie was included not as a means of articulating a viewpoint in support of the Israeli legal position with regard to the attack on the Marmara but to determine exactly which international law the Israeli government had breached in conducting the attack on the Marmara. Professor Scobbie explained that the attack was not “an act of piracy…because Israeli public ships were involved.” He went on to explain that the issue, with relation to international law, was the blockade of Gaza and he clearly states: “Israel has denied that it remains in occupation of Gaza. That is not a view which is shared by many international lawyers”. Therefore Professor Scobbie, as an international lawyer, was not advocating the Israeli legal position regarding the blockade of Gaza but clearly questioning it. Indeed, Professor Scobbie went on to explain that Israel had been relying on the San Remo Manual (-1-) to justify its actions in Gaza and stated: “Israel’s views on the San Remo Manual have been very selective. One of the provisions of the San Remo Manual, and it says it quite clearly, is that a blockade is illegal if it is for the purposes of starving the civilian population…”
We do not therefore consider that either of the submissions noted by the broadcaster, as set out above, could be reasonably recognised as ensuring the programme adequately gave the Israeli government position. The Professor Scobbie contribution was clearly not intended to present the Israeli viewpoint whilst the Channel 4 clip was chosen to reinforce to the audience the presenter’s assertion that Israel was not concerned about their actions on the Marmara. In any event, Ofcom would not consider that two short edited clips (clip #1 and #2) on an hour long programme or across a series of programmes could reasonably be described as an effective method for the licensee to achieve due impartiality on this programme or the series as a whole.
In terms of the contributions from viewers presenting an alternative view to George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn, Ofcom acknowledges that the presenter made repeated comments across the programmes encouraging contributions particularly if they were different to his. However, the issue with reference to Rule 5.5 is whether those limited views were effective enough to achieve due impartiality and ensure the other side of the discussion was presented.
It is the case that the few examples of alternative views made by the contributors (as detailed above) challenged George Galloway directly but it is arguable that the nature and duration of the viewer contributions was enough to credibly present the other side of the argument. In this regard Ofcom also noted the manner in which George Galloway treated such contributions, which could be labelled loosely as pro-Israeli, was very different to the way in which he treated contributors who supported a pro-Palestinian perspective. Any alternative views in these programmes were not debated and/or discussed but dismissed and used as a further opportunity for the presenter to put forward his views.
Comment , Press TV, 18 February 2010
On the subject of the murder of the Hamas leader in Dubai:
An email from a contributor called Jonathan:
“George, I am so infuriated by you and your basic simple views....Do you see the difference between terrorism and legitimate assassination. I bet my life I know what your response will be.”
Response from George Galloway:
“Well Jonathan call in if you think you are brave enough...What exactly is a legitimate assassination? What is legitimate about going to a third country using the passports of at least four other nations and murdering someone in their hotel room? What is legitimate about that assassination? If you cannot see how hollow your words ring to me, the audience here or anyone who hears them then I think there is not much hope for you”.
A contributor called Jeremy:
“You haven’t got any proof yet. You haven’t got any proof at all”.
Response from George Galloway:
“ The Israeli press, every newspaper, every tv station in Israel are acknowledging this is a Mossad operation. The Dubai police chief is 99% if not 100% sure Israel were involved in the killing. Now I ask you again, do you think Israel is not involved? … Jeremy thinks it was a Palestinian group who got their hands on British, Irish, French and German passports and were pictured in all that footage in Dubai and carried out the murder. I don’t know Jeremy if you really believe that or if it was a wind up”.
Comment , Press TV, 17 June 2010
On the subject of the Israeli attack on the Marmara aid flotilla to Gaza:
A contributor called Jamie via email:
“How typical of you to bring back Israel on your show. Your non-stop hatred of Israel does not help peace in the region. And your new convoy decoy won’t be successful. Do you think that Israeli forces should hold an inquiry? What for? Those activists still have not answered. Why were they carrying weapons?”
Response from George Galloway:
“I’m not sure if that is a joke but I’ll treat it seriously for the purposes of argument. The activists were not carrying weapons. All the dead were activists and all the wounded were activists. None of the wounded or dead were Israeli. They stormed this peaceful ship like they were in a war. I know you’ll find that hard to believe. [George Galloway then explained the plans for the next sea and land flotilla] Do you get that Jamie? Did you write that all down? It ain’t no decoy son its absolutely what is going to happen.”
Therefore given the above analysis of the two areas in which the broadcaster has argued that the programme provided due impartiality, Ofcom has concluded that: the contributions from the viewers; the clips of the Israeli spokesman; and the comments by Professor Scobbie did not adequately represent the particular and important perspective in the debate over Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, namely, the views of the Israeli State.
Further, the broadcaster failed to engage or debate with any point of view that was contrary to the view presented by George Galloway. Rather, Ofcom is of the view that George Galloway, in particular, used the alternative opinions made by the viewers, which were contrary to his own, only as vehicles to punctuate what could be classed as a form of on-going political polemic, delivered by the presenter directly to camera and unchallenged.
It is important to note that the broadcasting of highly critical comments concerning the policies and actions of any one state (such as demonstrated in the content of these programmes) is not in itself a breach of due impartiality. It is, in fact, essential that current affairs programmes are able to explore and examine such issues and take a position even if that is highly critical. Broadcasters are also free to include controversial presenters who hold strong opinions on certain subjects. Audience participation programmes such as Comment, where viewers and listeners are encouraged to telephone, email or text in to the programme, do not have to ensure an equal number of points are view are featured in any one programme or even across the series as a whole.
Further, in clearly signalled “personal view” programmes such as these, Ofcom takes account of the fact that many in the audience are comfortable with adjusting their expectations for due impartiality. This is why Rule 5.9 specifically provides for presenters of “personal view” broadcasts to express their own highly partial views – provided that alternative viewpoints are adequately represented, in audience participation programmes alternative views are encouraged and not excluded, and due impartiality is preserved. In these cases, however, for all the reasons set out above, alternative viewpoints were not adequately represented.
It is the responsibility of the broadcaster, when the subject matter of the programme raises a matter of political controversy, to ensure that due impartiality is maintained. To this end the broadcaster must ensure that if the presenter has strongly held views and there are few, if any, alternative views expressed by the audience, then the broadcasters must take appropriate action and have systems in place to ensure that due impartiality is maintained.
In this case, alternative viewpoints were not adequately represented in the individual programmes or across the series as a whole. Ofcom remains concerned about Press TV’s understanding and compliance processes in relation to Section Five of the Code. Therefore Press TV will be requested to attend a meeting with the regulator to explain and discuss its compliance processes further in this area.
Breaches of Rules 5.5 and 5.9
Footnotes:
1.- The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea was adopted in June 1994 by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law after a series of round table discussions by naval and legal experts. The Manual is a codification of customary international law for naval conflict. and is a legally recognised document but is not binding.
In Breach
Andy Henly at Drive
Total Star 107.5, 31 August 2010, 16:30
Introduction
Andy Henly at Drive is magazine-style radio show broadcast every weekday. Total Star 107.5 is a commercial radio station covering the West Wiltshire area.
During the programme, the presenter invited listeners to visit the station’s website to obtain information about discounts offered by a number of local businesses. The presenter went on to mention two particular businesses by name and gave details of their specific offers:
“you can find out all about the half-price sale on our website. There’s deals on photography, also on short breaks, yes, you can still maybe have a short break before Christmas, sport and leisure and also health and beauty, and food and drink. Total Bathrooms have a fantastic offer on their ‘lovemeter’ and if you are musically enthralled, then Duck, Son and Pinker has some good deals as well. Check out all the deals, today’s deals on our website.”
Ofcom received a complaint from a listener who was concerned that the presenter’s references to the discounts were tantamount to advertising.
Ofcom therefore sought the broadcaster’s comments with regard to the following Code rules:
- Rule 10.3: “Products and services must not be promoted in programmes.”
- Rule 10.4: “No undue prominence may be given in any programme to a product or service.”
- Rule 10.5: “Product placement is prohibited.”
Response
Total Star 107.5 stated that no payment had been received for the inclusion of the references to two companies, Total Bathrooms, and Duck, Son and Pinker, in this programme segment.
The broadcaster explained that purpose of the “half price offers” section of its website was not to directly promote any business but “to provide listeners with some exclusive deals”. It added that it felt it was “important to relate to its listeners and offer as many facilities as possible”.
Total Star said that “the presenter clearly defined” the feature as “a special offer” which invited listeners “to access a variety of limited exclusive services through the station website.” The broadcaster argued that this provided editorial justification for the commercial references to be included in the programme.
Decision
Ofcom noted the broadcaster’s stated that it did not receive payment for the inclusion of the commercial references in the programme. We found no evidence that the broadcast was in breach of Rule 10.5 which prohibits product placement.
Rule 10.3 of the Code prohibits the promotion of products and services within programmes. Ofcom noted that the presenter encouraged listeners to visit the broadcaster’s website for details of the station’s special offers, which he referred to in some detail (e.g. “There’s deals on photography, also on short breaks, yes, you can still maybe have a short break before Christmas, sport and leisure and also health and beauty, and food and drink.”). He then referred to two companies and used phrases such as “fantastic offer” and “good deals” to describe those businesses’ participation.
The presenter therefore promoted and endorsed the companies in question, in breach of Rule 10.3.
Further, Rule 10.4 of the Code requires that products and services are not given undue prominence in programmes. There appeared to be no editorial justification for the presenter to give specific details of the companies participating in the “half price offers” section of the broadcaster’s website. Consequently, Ofcom concluded that these references were also in breach of Rule 10.4
Breaches of Rules 10.3 and 10.4
In Breach
Law Show
Prime TV, 2, 9, 16 and 23 August 2010, 17:00
Introduction
Prime TV is a family entertainment channel serving the Pakistani community throughout Europe. It is broadcast primarily in Urdu, with some programmes in other languages, such as Punjabi and Guajarati.
Law Show is an interactive legal advice programme in which viewers are invited to call the presenter with their concerns. On this occasion the programme was sponsored by the firm, A-Z Solicitors. The lawyer who presents the programme featured in the sponsor credit broadcast during the programme.
Ofcom received a complaint that the sponsorship arrangement allowed the presenter to promote his own company. The viewer also believed the programme repeated the breaches that Ofcom had recorded against Prime TV in a recent finding (-1-).
Separately, Ofcom noted the sponsor credits for Law Show appeared only as the programme went into an advertising break and not at the beginning or end of the broadcast as required by the Code.
We asked Prime TV to comment on how the material complied with the following rules:
- Rule 9.5 (“There must be no promotional reference to the sponsor, its name, trademark, image activities services or products or to any of its other direct or indirect interests…”); and
- Rule 9.6 (“Sponsorship must be clearly identified as such by reference to the name and/or logo of the sponsor. For programmes, credits must be broadcast at the beginning and/or end of the programme.”)
Response
The broadcaster apologised for “inadvertent” breaches of Rules 9.5 and 9.6 and said it had “misread and misunderstood the rules”. It said that, as there was no reference to A-Z Solicitors in the programme, or the fact the presenter works for the organisation, there was no promotional reference to the sponsor. However, Prime TV said it now understood that the reference to “direct or indirect interests” of the sponsor in Rule 9.5 would have ruled out this sponsorship arrangement. The broadcaster added that it had since rectified its error.
Prime TV said the positioning of the sponsor credits was also a mistake, adding that its scheduling department had considered them to be advertisements, which had therefore been incorrectly placed.
The broadcaster said that the sponsorship of programmes “was not an area of the Code [it was] that familiar with” and noted that it had made arrangements for additional compliance training to take place with an experienced consultant, to ensure no recurrence. Prime TV also confirmed that, at the time of the previous finding published by Ofcom, which found Law Show in breach of Rules 10.3 and 10.4 of the Code, the programme had not been sponsored by A-Z Solicitors.
Decision
Rule 9.5 of the Code prohibits, among other things, any promotional reference to the sponsor or its direct or indirect interests. Broadcasters must therefore take care to ensure that sponsored programmes are not – and do not appear to be – distorted for commercial purposes.
While no reference was made to the sponsor (A-Z Solicitors) by name within Law Show, it had a direct interest in the programme, as the presenter was a representative of sponsor (who also appeared in the sponsor credit). A-Z Solicitors was therefore directly promoting its interests within the programme, in breach of Rule 9.5 of the Code.
European legislation, the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive (-2-), states that broadcasters must clearly inform viewers about the existence of a sponsorship arrangement. Rule 9.6 of the Code sets out the minimum requirements to ensure sponsorship arrangements are appropriately transparent to viewers. The Rule requires that sponsorship credits are broadcast at the beginning and/or end of a sponsored programme. In this instance a sponsor credit for Law Show was broadcast only when the programme broke for an advertising break, and not at the beginning or end of the broadcast, in breach of Rule 9.6 of the Code.
Ofcom has recorded previous breaches of the Code against a broadcast of Law Show on Prime TV. The Code breaches on that occasion concerned Section Ten (Commercial References…) of the Code. The Code breaches in this instance concern Section Nine (Sponsorship) of the Code. Nevertheless, Ofcom is concerned that Prime TV has twice failed to apply appropriate compliance to Law Show and has now admitted that it was not familiar with its obligations in this area.
Ofcom expects broadcasters to be conversant with all Code Rules and how they are applied. We therefore welcome the action taken by Prime TV to avoid recurrence, as Ofcom does not expect any similar Code breaches from this broadcaster in the future.
Footnotes:
1.- See http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb162/
Breaches of Rules 9.5 and 9.6
In Breach
Im on a Boat music video
Clubland TV, 12 September 2010, 17:55
Introduction
Clubland TV is a satellite television channel licensed to Penny Street TV Limited (“Penny Street TV”) which features dance music videos. An unedited version of the song “I’m on a Boat” by Lonely Island was played during its early evening schedule. The song, which lasted approximately three minutes, contained twelve instances of the word “motherfucking” or “motherfucker”, and one instance of the word “fuck”. Ofcom received a complaint from a viewer who considered this language unsuitable for a pre-watershed broadcast.
Ofcom therefore sought comments from Penny Street TV in relation to the following Code Rule:
- Rule 1.14; “the most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed…”
Response
Penny Street TV said that the transmission of the music video was, on this occasion, “an accident caused by a failure in the playout system after a technical upgrade had taken place.” It explained that a technician did not input the correct time into the system and as a result the video was broadcast by mistake. The broadcaster said it was alerted by to the matter by a viewer who contacted the station shortly after the incident. The fault was then identified immediately and rectified.
Penny Street TV recognised that the material was unsuitable for a pre-watershed broadcast and regretted any offence it may have caused viewers.
Decision
Our research indicates that the word “fuck” and its derivatives are an example of the most offensive language. Rule 1.14 states that the most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed.
Ofcom noted the immediate action taken by Penny Street TV to prevent further broadcasts of inappropriate material. However, as the music video contained repeated uses of the most offensive language, Ofcom concluded the broadcast was in breach of Rule 1.14 of the Code.
Breach of Rule 1.14
The full document (Advertising Scheduling Cases / Other Standard cases / Fairness & Privacy cases) is available below.