Ofcom broadcast bulletin Issue number 65 24 July 2006 Ofcom broadcast bulletin 65 24 July 2006 Contents Introduction 3 Standards cases In Breach 4 Resolved 13 Fairness & Privacy cases Upheld in part 18 Not Upheld 32 Other programmes not in breach/outside remit 48 2 Ofcom broadcast bulletin 65 24 July 2006 Introduction Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code took effect on 25 July 2005 (with the exception of Rule 10.17 which came into effect on 1 July 2005). This Code is used to assess the compliance of all programmes broadcast on or after 25 July 2005. The Broadcasting Code can be found at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/ The Rules on the Amount and Distribution of Advertising (RADA) apply to advertising issues within Ofcom’s remit from 25 July 2005. The Rules can be found at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/advertising/#content The Communications Act 2003 allowed for the codes of the legacy regulators to remain in force until such time as Ofcom developed its own Code. While Ofcom has now published its Broadcasting Code, the following legacy Codes apply to content broadcast before 25 July 2005. • Advertising and Sponsorship Code (Radio Authority) • News & Current Affairs Code and Programme Code (Radio Authority) • Code on Standards (Broadcasting Standards Commission) • Code on Fairness and Privacy (Broadcasting Standards Commission) • Programme Code (Independent Television Commission) • Programme Sponsorship Code (Independent Television Commission) • Rules on the Amount and Distribution of Advertising From time to time adjudications relating to advertising content may appear in the bulletin in relation to areas of advertising regulation which remain with Ofcom (including the application of statutory sanctions by Ofcom). 3 Ofcom broadcast bulletin 65 24 July 2006 Standards cases In Breach The Rugby Club Sky Sports 1, 9 March 2006, 22:30 Introduction The Rugby Club is a magazine-style programme about rugby union. In this particular edition, three members of the England team were interviewed while being shaved at an exclusive men’s grooming salon. Each wore an England rugby shirt bearing the Gillette logo, and Gillette-branded towels and what appeared to be Gillette shaving products were clearly visible. A viewer complained that it was “quite clear that this was done for promotional purposes”. Section 10 of the Broadcasting Code is intended to ensure that: • the independence of editorial control over programme content is maintained and that programmes are not distorted for commercial purposes; and • the advertising and programme elements of a service are clearly separated. Response Sky said that the interview took place at a crucial time during England’s Six Nations campaign following the team’s defeat by Scotland. The interview provided insight into the players’ thoughts on the games played and those to come. It advised that Gillette was the “official Male Grooming Partner of England Rugby” and one of a large number of sponsors of the England rugby team. The venue for the interview was arranged by the players’ representatives and was accepted by the Sky Sports production team as a ‘fun’ and unusual location for the interviews to take place. Gillette shaving products were used during the interview. The production team was not responsible for the location or equipment used, which were secondary to the objective of the item (which was to interview the England players about recent games and the remainder of the Six Nations tournament). Sky said that the production team was, at all times, in control of the editorial content of the programme and, in particular, of the player interviews. At no time during those interviews did the players refer to any product or service relevant to this complaint. In addition, the production team took steps to minimise the appearance of any branding during the interview; for example branding on any shaving products being used or available in the salon was not shown and care was taken to minimise the appearance on screen of the Gillette logo on the players’ rugby shirts. 4 Ofcom broadcast bulletin 65 24 July 2006 Sky acknowledged, however, that some branding - in particular, branding on towels used in the salon - may have appeared to be unduly prominent and that more could have been done to reduce the prominence of this branding during the interview. This was an error of judgement. Production staff had been reminded of the need to ensure that brand references were not unduly prominent and of the importance of ensuring that all broadcast material was properly complied. Further training on this issue would be provided to production staff to avoid a recurrence. Decision Rule 10.4 of the Broadcasting Code states: “No undue prominence may be given in any programme to a product or service. Note: “Undue prominence” may result from: • the presence of, or reference to, a product or service (including company names, brand names, logos) in a programme where there is no editorial justification; or • the manner in which a product or service (including company names, brand names, logos) appears or is referred to in a programme.” The ways in which the branded rugby shirts and the Gillette razors and other shaving items appeared on screen were not, in themselves, unduly prominent. We were concerned that, in a number of camera shots, branded towels draped around the players’ shoulders appeared to have been deliberately arranged to display the Gillette logo as clearly as possible. We considered these brand references to be unduly prominent. Rule 10.1 of the Broadcasting Code states: “Broadcasters must maintain the independence of editorial control over programme content.”. We have no concerns regarding the verbal content of the actual interviews. Sky claims that it did retain editorial control and Ofcom has no evidence that it failed to do this. However, Ofcom found that, in particular, the prominence of Gillette branded towels and the use of Gillette disposable razors (rather than traditional ‘cut-throat’ razors usually favoured by exclusive grooming salons) suggest that the broadcaster failed to apply editorial control adequately on this occasion. While we welcome both Sky’s acknowledgement that the feature included unduly prominent brand references and the subsequent action it has taken, we were concerned by such an error of judgement. Breach of Rule 10.4 An element of the original decision to find this trail in breach was appealed by the broadcaster, leading to a review. This finding is the result of that review. 5 Ofcom broadcast bulletin 65 24 July 2006 London Greek Radio London Greek Radio, various dates and times including March 2006 Introduction London Greek Radio is a local station which is targeted at the London Greek community. Ofcom was notified that news programmes on the station were being presented by Andreas Tambourides. Mr Tambourides is a Conservative councillor in the London Borough of Barnet. At the time of the broadcasts he was the outgoing mayor of the Borough and was facing re-election as a councillor for the Brunswick Park Ward in the local elections being held on 4 May 2006. We asked the station to comment in relation to Rule 5.3 which fundamentally prohibits politicians being used as newsreaders. As this was during the pending period of an election, Ofcom also requested the broadcaster’s comments in relation to Rule 6.6 which states that candidates in UK elections must not act as news presenters. Response London Greek Radio said that Andreas Tambourides was employed simply as a newsreader and only presented news bulletins that were prepared by properly qualified journalistic staff. During his employment Mr Tambourides did not carry out interviews and was instructed not to read any items that related to the local elections in which he was a candidate. The station also pointed out that most of its news consisted of news stories from Greece, Cyprus or the relevant local community. Mr Tambourides ceased reading the news on 1 April 2006, before Ofcom’s inquiry, and he no longer had any involvement in the news output of the station. Decision Rule 5.3 states: “No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified. In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the audience.” This is to ensure that the news is presented, and is perceived to be presented, with due impartiality as required by the Communications Act 2003. In the guidance notes to this rule we make clear that a politician is likely to include a councillor or a candidate. At that time Mr Tambourides fell into both categories. The presentation of news with due impartiality is especially important at the time of elections. Furthermore it is important that no candidate or party gains an electoral advantage due to either the candidate being seen to be the face or voice of the news or by the insertion of the candidate’s own political views into the news. Rule 6.6 therefore states: “Candidates in UK elections, and representatives of permitted participants in UK referendums, must not act as news presenters, interviewers or presenters of any type of programme during the election period.” 6 Ofcom broadcast bulletin 65 24 July 2006 We asked the station to provide copies of all programmes presented by Mr Tambourides during the local election period (which began on 25 March 2006). From this output it was clear that Mr Tambourides was reading the news. The station did not dispute the fact that Mr Tambourides was a politician under the terms of the Broadcasting Code. Nor did it dispute the fact that he presented the news before and during the election period. We were reassured by the steps the station had put in place to ensure that the news did not reflect the views of the newsreader.