Access key 0 - Accessibility, Access key 2 - Jump to content, Access key 7 - Jump to navigation
Skip To Content | Skip To Navigation
 

Home > TV > Broadcast Bulletins > Ofcom Broadcast Bulletins > Issue number 97 - 19|11|07


Broadcast Bulletin Issue number 97 - 19|11|07

Standards Cases

In Breach

George Galloway
talkSPORT, 10 August 2007, 12:45

Introduction

George Galloway normally presents a twice weekly evening phone-in programme on talkSPORT, in which he debates a wide range of topical issues with listeners who are given the opportunity to challenge his views. On this occasion he was standing in for the regular morning host. Towards the end of the programme, he announced that he intended to stand in the next general election in the constituency of Poplar and Limehouse. During the course of his statement, he made a number of derogatory comments about the existing MP for this area, Jim Fitzpatrick.

We received three complaints from listeners who objected to the presenter using the programme in this manner to declare his political intentions and to criticise Mr Fitzpatrick, who did not have the opportunity to respond.

We asked talkSPORT to comment on this part of the broadcast in relation to Rule 5.5 (due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy) and 5.9 (presenters must not use the advantage of regular appearances to promote their views in a way that compromises the requirements for due impartiality) of the Code.

Response

talkSPORT accepted that, on this occasion, George Galloway’s comments had compromised the need for due impartiality. It also acknowledged that Mr Galloway’s criticism of Mr Fitzpatrick was inappropriate, particularly as his future opponent did not have the opportunity to defend himself.

The broadcaster assured us that the matter had been discussed with both the presenter and the producer and it was made clear to them that this item had fallen short of the Code’s requirements regarding due impartiality. They both understood the issue and that the Code must, in the future, be observed. In mitigation, talkSPORT wished to point out that George Galloway had not mentioned the name of his political party and he did offer his opponent the opportunity to challenge him anywhere, anytime, in a public forum for a public debate.

Decision

Our consideration of the presenter’s comments focussed on two Code Rules.

The focus of the main part of this phone-in programme was the controversial issue of identity cards. A wide range of views on this subject were included. However, at the end of the programme George Galloway announced his intention to seek the nomination of his party to stand in Poplar and Limehouse at the next general election and to challenge the existing MP, Mr Jim Fitzpatrick. He went on to make comments about Mr Fitzpatrick’s role in various political matters, claiming that he was the Minister responsible for:

“….c losing Post Offices, he is the Minister for the shambles at Heathrow. He is the former fire-fighter who betrayed his former workmates by opposing the great battle of the fire brigades union, indeed I think quite a lot of fire fighters will be with me in this fight - he is hated there, as a man who betrayed them” .

He then went on to refer to Mr Fitzpatrick’s voting record in the House of Commons on key issues since 2001:

“He voted very strongly against a transparent parliament. He voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban. He voted very strongly for introducing ID cards. He voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals. He voted very strongly for introducing student top up fees. He voted very strongly for Labour Anti-terrorist laws. He voted very strongly for the Iraq War. He voted very strongly against investigating the Iraq war. He voted very strongly for replacing Trident. He voted very strongly for the fox hunting ban, and he voted very strongly for equal gay rights. And all of these are the reasons why it is going to be the mother of all battles in Poplar and Limehouse”.

Clearly the issues referred to by Mr Galloway in this section of the programme , including Mr Fitzpatrick’s record and reputation as an MP, were either matters of political controversy or matters relating to current public policy. Alternative views on these controversial issues were not adequately represented. Nor did the broadcaster direct us to other programmes in which such views were included. While we noted that Mr Galloway did not name his political party and invited Mr Fitzpatrick to a public debate in a place of his choosing, these points were clearly insufficient to achieve due impartiality in this context. Ofcom considered that, by making these remarks, the presenter used this part of the programme as a platform for announcing and promoting his future political ambitions and views in such a way that the requirement for due impartiality was compromised.

Ofcom welcomed talkSPORT’s recognition that the item had breached the Code and the subsequent measures it had undertaken internally to improve compliance. However, this was a serious breach of the Code where a sitting MP used his position as presenter on a radio station to promote his own possible candidacy in a parliamentary seat. Further, he used that position to attack a potential political opponent without giving him an opportunity to respond. Given the seriousness of this case, Ofcom considered whether to proceed to the consideration of sanction. However, this was the first occasion that Ofcom had found talkSPORT in breach of the due impartiality requirements. Nevertheless, the broadcaster should be aware that similar significant failure to ensure compliance with the due impartiality requirements will result in the consideration of further regulatory action.

Breaches of Rules 5.5 and 5.9

Inside Gaming
Xleague.tv, 23 May 2007, 11:15

Introduction

Xleague.tv broadcasts video games-based content. Inside Gaming is a regular programme which provides ‘behind the scenes’ information about video games. A viewer complained that an edition of Inside Gaming was sponsored or made by a games manufacturer and that, rather than providing an independent insight, it was a promotional film.

We noted that the edition in question appeared to be called “Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 (“GRAW2”): Developer Diary”. Both the opening and closing credits indicated that the content was produced by the games manufacturer, Ubisoft.

We requested the broadcaster’s comments under the Code, with regard to the rules in Section Nine of the Code (Sponsorship), in particular, Rules 9.4 (broadcaster’s editorial independence must not be impaired by the sponsor) and 9.5 (any reference to the sponsor or its products etc within a programme must be non-promotional, editorially justified and incidental)[(-1-)].

Response

The broadcaster said it had maintained its editorial independence with respect to Inside Gaming at all times. The original audio visual content included in the programme was provided by Ubisoft, in response to a general request from the broadcaster for ‘behind the scenes’-type material. The broadcaster said it then edited the content supplied by Ubisoft and that Ubisoft was not involved in that process in any way; nor had the broadcaster been paid in return for broadcasting the material.

The broadcaster felt it had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the focus of the programme was shifted away from the promotional purpose of the original content from Ubisoft. In the broadcaster’s view, references to the particular game featured in the programme were editorially justified by reason of providing viewers with informational and entertainment value, and were not unduly prominent. It argued that viewers would not expect programmes of this type not to include “multiple on screen excerpts of the games themselves”. It also suggested that viewers are aware of when they are watching a traditional ‘review’ of a game, or simply being given information about a forthcoming release.

The broadcaster said it conceded that the Ubisoft logos at the beginning and end of the programme were not justifiable in the context and should have been removed. It also said that since the particular edition was broadcast, its production team had slightly altered the programme-brief of Inside Gaming to include more elements directly created by the broadcaster, on and off location with games developers and manufacturers, including interviews and captions.

Decision

The Code defines a sponsored programme as:

“a programme that has had some or all of its costs met by a sponsor with a view to promoting its own or another’s name, trademark, image, activities, services, products or any other direct or indirect interest.”

In this case, the programme was a version of promotional content for the GRAW2 game provided to the broadcaster by Ubisoft, the maker of the game. The broadcaster did not pay Ubisoft for the programme. We considered that Ubisoft provided the content with a view to promoting one of its products and that the programme was a sponsored programme as defined under the Code. Therefore, it needed to comply with the rules on sponsorship.

One of the principles on which the sponsorship rules are based is editorial independence: the broadcaster must maintain editorial control and programmes must not be distorted for commercial purposes.

Rule 9.4 of the Code states that a sponsor must not influence the content or scheduling of a programme in such a way as to impair the editorial independence of the broadcaster. Whilst this does not preclude a sponsor from providing content, the broadcaster must take care to ensure that the programme is not - and it is not reasonable for a viewer to infer that the programme has been - distorted for commercial purposes. In this case, we noted the broadcaster’s view that it had edited the content supplied by Ubisoft to remove promotional references, and that Ubisoft had not been involved in those editorial decisions. However, we note that all the material for this item was supplied by the maker of the game, the item itself complained of was exclusively about the sponsor’s game, and the content was not sufficiently edited or contextualised to ensure that viewers would not reasonably perceive the broadcaster’s editorial independence as having been compromised. We therefore considered that the programme was in breach of Rule 9.4.

The programme contained frequent, positive references about the features of the game, and almost all of the screen time was taken up with excerpts of the game. The programme wholly comprised material provided by Ubisoft and there was no content provided by the broadcaster to balance or contextualise that material as would normally be the case in a review or ‘behind the scenes’ programme. As a result, on the facts of this case, the programme appeared to be a promotional vehicle for the game and was therefore in breach of Rule 9.5.

Breach of Rules 9.4 and 9.5

Footnotes:

1.- At the time of the broadcast, these rules were numbered 9.5 and 9.6 respectively.

Win Win TV
The Hits, 27 June 2007, 00:00

Introduction

Win Win TV is an interactive quiz programme where viewers submit entries by text message. Ofcom received two complaints questioning the authenticity of some of the winning entries.

Response

The broadcaster was unable to provide us with a copy of the programme as it had experienced problems with its logging system.  

Decision

In the absence of a recording we were unable to consider the complaints in this case. It is a condition of a Television Licensable Content Service licence that recordings of their output are retained for 60 days after transmission, and that they must provide Ofcom with any such material upon request. Failure to supply these recordings is a serious and significant breach of the broadcaster’s licence. This will be held on record.

Breach of Licence Condition 11

Not in Breach

Dispatches: Undercover Mosque
Channel 4, 15 January 2007, 21:00

Introduction

Undercover Mosque was an edition of Channel 4’s investigative current affairs series Dispatches. The programme reported the observations of an undercover reporter who visited a number of Mosques and Islamic organisations in Britain . The programme stated that it had discovered extremism being preached in this country: “…an ideology of bigotry and intolerance spreading through Britain with its roots in Saudi Arabia ” .

The programme included secretly filmed footage taken from Mosques and organisations. The undercover recordings featured the teachings of several speakers which the programme alleged to be homophobic, anti-Semitic, sexist and condemnatory of non-Muslims. The programme also included excerpts from books, CDs and DVDs that had been purchased from these Islamic centres, and from websites which were connected to the Mosques.

The programme included a number of excerpts from preachers and teachers such as:

“Allah created the woman deficient”.

“…it takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man”.

“By the age of ten, it becomes an obligation on us to force her [young girls] to wear hijab, and if she doesn’t wear hijab, we hit her”.

“…take that homosexual and throw him off the mountain”.

“Whoever changes his religion from Al Islam to anything else – kill him in the Islamic state”.

The views of representatives from mainstream Islam were also included, as were responses to the allegations made by the speakers and organisations who had been covertly filmed.

Viewers’ complaints

Ofcom received 364 complaints soon after the programme was broadcast. There appeared to be evidence that the complaints were part of a campaign. The complaints were that:

Ofcom considered these complaints under Rule 2.2 (factual programmes must not materially mislead the audience) (see also complaint from West Midlands Police below), Rule 2.3 (the application of “generally accepted standards”), and Rule 3.1 (material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder must not be included in television programmes).

West Midlands Police Complaint

On 10 August 2007 , West Midlands Police (“WMP”) complained to Ofcom about the programme.

West Midlands Police Major Investigation Unit had launched an investigation, immediately after the programme was transmitted, into whether criminal offences had been committed by those teaching or preaching at the Mosques and other establishments. In order to carry out this investigation, the WMP said that it required access to the material that was not broadcast. On the 26 March 2007 , the WMP obtained a production order for the unseen secretly recorded footage from Channel 4. The findings of the WMP were presented to the Crown Prosecution Service (“the CPS”), who concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against any person featured in the programme.

However, the WMP stated that it and the CPS had then considered potential offences that may have been committed by those involved in the production and broadcast of the programme - specifically in relation to stirring up racial hatred. The CPS reviewed the available evidence and advised that “a realistic prospect of a conviction was unlikely”.

The WMP then referred the programme to Ofcom. It stated that it was “concerned with matters of public reassurance and the reduction of crime and disorder in all communities in the West Midlands area”. The WMP complained that:

The WMP isolated five broadcast sequences as examples of instances where it said the editing process by the programme makers had led to a possible distortion of speakers’ comments (see Response below). It transcribed these five instances and asked for a comparison to be made between the original unedited speech and the extracts that were actually broadcast in the programme. On each occasion, the WMP highlighted what it called the “possible distortions as a result of editing”.

WMP also had some general concerns about the programme. These were that:

Ofcom considered the WMP complaint under Rule 2.2 (factual programmes must not materially mislead the audience).

Response

Channel 4 said that WMP had made very serious allegations. However, the broadcaster added that, from a detailed consideration of the transcripts provided by the WMP and its own analysis of the making and broadcast of the programme, these allegations were "utterly without foundation”.

In Channel 4’s view, Undercover Mosque was an entirely responsible programme made in accordance with both the Code and best practice; and it raised issues very much in the public interest. Channel 4 said that WMP presented no case to answer in respect of the channel’s obligations under the Code and wholly failed to support its damaging allegations about the making of the programme.

Channel 4 indicated that the investigation which resulted in Undercover Mosque involved not only surreptitious filming but a careful analysis of specialist internet broadcasts and DVDs sold at Mosques and other Islamic institutions. The programme was made and edited over a nine month period. A thorough and timely opportunity to respond to the programme’s evidence and allegations was provided to the individuals and organisations featured critically in the programme and Channel 4 said its position was fairly reflected in the programme.

Channel 4 described how, after it had supplied the untransmitted material to WMP pursuant to the Court Order, it heard no more from WMP until the complaint by WMP to Ofcom. There had been no indication that the makers of the programme and Channel 4 would or had become the focus of the WMP investigation (as opposed to the preachers whose statements formed the basis of the Court Order).

It said that the compilation of five sequences from the programme contained in the WMP complaint and the transcript of the untransmitted sections provided in support was fundamentally inaccurate. Channel 4 said that WMP had not translated certain Arabic words and sentences, some of which carry a specialist meaning. The channel said it had engaged a firm of external solicitors and an experienced multi-lingual journalist and specialist in Middle East politics, Islamic Studies and Islamist organisations to correct the text. Channel 4 supplied Ofcom with what it viewed as this corrected transcript.

Channel 4 first made the general point that it appeared that WMP had a fundamental misunderstanding of the editing process by which television programmes are legitimately made. The channel said it was inevitable, in condensing a nine month investigation involving many hours of material, some secretly filmed, some from internet broadcasts and some from specialist DVDs, that there would be significant selection, distillation and subsequent editing of material and statements. However, the crucial principle is that no individual must have their words taken out of context or have their known views and position distorted or misrepresented so as to cause unfairness or mislead the audience. Channel 4 said that it seemed to be the view of the investigative team at WMP that selecting one or more sentences from a longer speech and editing these into a programme, sometimes with an internal edit not immediately apparent to the viewer, is of itself improper and misleading. Channel 4 said this betrayed “staggering naivety” about the process of television production.

In relation to the five sequences that had been isolated by WMP (examined in detail below), Channel 4 asked Ofcom to consider them in the full context of the programme as a whole. The programme, it said, bore the clear and unambiguous message that extreme, anti-democratic and unpalatable views were being preached in a number of mainstream Mosques and Islamic organisations which claim to be committed to interfaith dialogue. The programme did not contend that any individuals were committing actual or potential criminal offences and all statements broadcast were shown in context and, where appropriate, the response of the individual concerned was fairly edited in the programme itself.

Five Sequences (as identified by WMP)

Channel 4 gave a detailed response to each allegation made by WMP. Below are the five sequences identified as misrepresented by WMP with the WMP’s allegation alongside Channel 4’s response.

Sequence 1

The programme introduced Dr Ijaz Mian as a “travelling speaker”, who gives talks at different organisations in Britain . Dispatches said that he praised the Saudi religious police and wanted to see them operating on the streets. The programme then went on to say that, “He has a radical plan for this country. Muslims shouldn’t accept British democracy”. Dr Mian is then seen preaching saying:

 “King, Queen, House of Commons. If you accept it, then you are part of it. You don’t accept it, but you have to dismantle it. So you being a Muslim, you have to fix a target, there will be no House of Commons. From that White House to this black house, we know that we have to dismantle it”.

 WMP said that this quote suggests that “Dr Mian is inciting Muslims to target the public institutions of the UK and the West and directly dismantle them”. It pointed out that in the unbroadcast footage, Dr Mian explained that you could “[not] detonate…and destroy the building”. WMP therefore argued that it was clear that Dr Mian’s means of dismantling is not through force but through persuasion. It said also that there are long sentences between comments edited together.

Channel 4 said that although there were several internal edits of Dr Mian’s speech, none distorted the meaning of what Dr Mian was saying in his speech. In support of this argument Channel 4 quoted another extract from this particular speech in which Dr Mian says “I would like to replace all these with Masjid, Masjid, Masjids”. According to Channel 4 Dr Mian was saying that he would like to replace churches and temples with Mosques. In the speech, he is seen saying “…there will be a House of Commons but they will decide every issue in accordance with the Book of Allah and the example of the Prophet”.

Channel 4 said that once seen in context, it had accurately distilled and represented what Dr Mian was saying on this issue, i.e. that Muslims should reject and “dismantle” British democracy and democratic institutions and replace them with Islamic law and institutions.

Sequence 2

The programme introduced Abu Usamah. It stated that he preached at Birmingham ’s Green Lane Mosque and he was its main English speaking preacher. The programme’s commentary then stated that Abu Usamah says that “Christians and Jews are enemies to Muslims”, Abu Usamah is then seen preaching:

 "It has come to pass that the Nassara..the Yahud, America , the UK , France , Germany , they have come against the religion of Islam. Why give up your religion and your long legacy of Islam, to please someone who is the enemy to you?”

WMP objected to the fact that eight minutes of comments were edited from Abu Usamah’s speech. It said that in those eight minutes nearly every region or race including Arabs is described as an “enemy of Islam”. It said that the broadcast version only included western countries and Jews. It also said that while the tenor of the unbroadcast speech was unconfrontational, the comments were edited together presenting a more aggressive speech.

Channel 4 said that while there weretwo internal edits in this section, it in no way distorted the clear and ordinary meaning of Abu Usamah’s words. It also pointed out that, according to its expert translator, the police had omitted the sentence immediately preceding the second sentence broadcast. Channel 4 took the view that the translation of this statement clearly demonstrated that the editing process had not distorted the words of Abu Usamah. This was because the sentence showed Abu Usamah returning specifically to the topic of the Jews and the Christians immediately before that second sentence. According to Channel 4 he says (in Arabic): "Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion” (a quotation from the Qur’an: Chapter 2: verse 120).

Sequence 3

In this section of the programme, the voiceover states that the reporter had secretly filmed Abu Usamah teaching that “jihad is coming against the unbelievers”. Abu Usamah is then seen preaching:

“Verily Allah going to bring a group of people that he loves and they love him. These people will be soft and kind to the believers but they will be rough and tough against the kuffaar, they will fight in the cause of Allah.

I encourage all of you to be amongst them, to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is fastly approaching where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in a position of being uppermost in strength, and when that happens, people won’t get killed – unjustly”.

WMP believed that this quote suggested that Abu Usamah was encouraging people to be in a group to fight non-believers in the cause of Allah. It referred to a final unbroadcast paragraph in the speech which, it says, makes it clear that Muslims should not kill because they have been oppressed.

Channel 4 maintained that there was no misrepresentation whatsoever of the natural and ordinary meaning of Abu Usamah’s words. It said that WMP overlooked the full context of the programme and had failed to translate one Arabic sentence in which the speaker says:

“Oh ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from His Faith soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him. Lowly would the Believers, mighty against the Rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault.”

The independent translator employed by Channel 4 notes that Abu Usamah actually misquotes from the Qur’an, using the word which means “fight” instead of the word which means “strive” or “struggle”. Channel 4 argued that the programme as a whole revealed that Abu Usamah did condemn what he refers to as “terrorism”. However, his speeches showed that he did not consider that “jihad” was actually terrorism and he prays that he and his listeners at the Mosque will be able to participate in this jihad soon against “the oppression of the kuffar”. Channel 4 quoted extensively from the programme to illustrate this point.

Sequence 4

The programme presents another invited speaker, and the commentary states that the speaker refers to a Muslim who joined the British Army and was killed fighting against the Taliban. The speaker, known as Abdul Basit, says:

“There was an individual who was killed in Afghanistan recently…it was a Muslim name. He came from a Pakistani family and do you know what they’ve written in the tabloid newspaper, ‘Hero of Islam’. ‘Hero of Islam’ who went into a Muslim Afghanistan to kill Muslims. Why? Because their crime is implementing Islam”.

The script says that the speaker then praises the Taliban fighters who killed him:

“The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders”.

WMP said that this comment was broadcast as it appeared in the undercover footage (although it was part of a longer speech).

Channel 4 said this section, as broadcast, was an entirely fair and accurate reflection of the views expounded by Abdul Basit to this audience.

Sequence 5

Here the commentary says that “kuffar” (described by Channel 4 to mean non-believer) is a word that the reporter often heard being used in a derogatory way. When referring to kuffar, Abu Usamah says:

“They are liars, they are terrorists themselves, liars. They will come before the people and talk and they are lying, you can’t believe them. He’s a pathological liar”.

WMP argued that the quote in the programme inferred that Abu Usamah is calling non-Muslims liars and terrorists. The full speech according to the WMP condemns terrorism. However, the WMP also states that “he [Abu Usamah] delivers comments that could constitute inciting religious hatred”.

With reference to the full transcript of the speech, Channel 4 insisted that Abu Usamah was calling all non-Muslims liars and terrorists and therefore it correctly and accurately represented what Abu Usamah said on this subject.

Channel 4 then addressed the general concerns of WMP as follows:

Decision

Investigative journalism plays an essential role in public service broadcasting and is clearly in the public interest. Ofcom considers it of paramount importance that broadcasters, such as Channel 4, continue to explore controversial subject matter. While such programmes can make for uncomfortable viewing, they are essential to our understanding of the world around us. It is inevitable such programmes which tackle highly sensitive subjects will have a high profile. Such controversial programmes may inevitably lead to a large number of complaints. However, investigative programming is amongst some of the most important content that broadcasters produce.

However, in dealing with such subject matters, broadcasters must always take care to ensure that the material broadcast is in accordance with both the general law and the Code. For instance, broadcasters must ensure that any offence caused is justified by the context, the content does not mislead viewers or those featured are not treated unfairly.

The vast majority of the audience understand that such documentaries are often edited down from hours of footage and, provided those featured in the programmes are not treated unfairly and that viewers are not materially misled, this is, of course, an acceptable practice.

It should be noted that complaints alleging misrepresentation of those featured in programmes - essentially allegations of unfair treatment of participants - can only be considered by Ofcom if made by those who participated in the programme and were the subject of that treatment or those with a sufficiently direct interest[(-1-)]. However, broadcasters must ensure that factual programmes (and portrayal of factual matters) must not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or potential harm.

Ofcom therefore investigated the viewers and WMP’s complaints under the following relevant rules of the Code:

Rule 2.2: Factual programmes…must not materially mislead the audience.

Rule 2.3: In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context.

Rule 3.1: Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder must not be included in television…services.

Viewer Complaints

There were 364 complaints from viewers who believed that the portrayal of Islam was offensive and biased. They stated that extremists were presented as representative of all Muslims and that the material broadcast was both racially and religiously offensive. Six of the complainants stated that the programme glorified racism, anti-semitism, sexism and terrorism and complained that the inclusion of racist and sexist comments throughout the covertly filmed footage was itself offensive.

It is the case that Undercover Mosque did contain views and material that many would find offensive. The undercover reporter had secretly filmed evidence, and Channel 4 broadcast material, that would be considered offensive on grounds of religion, race, discrimination and beliefs. However, the transmission of such material is not itself a breach of the Code. Where such material is transmitted, broadcasters must ensure that generally accepted standards are applied, for instance by justifying the material by the context. In this case, its transmission was clearly justified by the context and in accordance with the Code. This was an in-depth investigative documentary exploring the existence of religious intolerance and extremist views being either preached or made available in some of the UK ’s mainstream Mosques. Ofcom considered that, in view of the editorial content of the programme (investigating the nature of views being expressed in some of Britain’s Mosques), the nature of the programme (a serious documentary focusing on an important issue of the day), Channel 4’s distinctive remit, the expectations of any given audience to a Dispatches edition (a strand known for its provocative exploration of current issues) and the clear statement at the start of the programme concerning the issues it sought to expose, any potential offence was justified by the context.

By investigating extremism and intolerance which existed in Mosques and other places, Channel 4 did not imply either explicitly or implicitly that such views were representative of all Muslims. On the contrary, Channel 4 had contributions from more mainstream Islamic representatives, which clearly put such extremism in context, explained that it belonged to a minority and was in fact unacceptable. The programme included contributions from representatives from mainstream Islam, namely Dr Irfan Al Alawi of the Islamic heritage foundation, Abdal-Hakim Murad of Cambridge University, Dr Taj Hargey of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, Mai Yamani, a Saudi author and Haras Rafiq of the Sufi Muslim Council. The allegations made by the programme regarding the covertly recorded speeches were clearly identified by the programme as concerning a particular form of radical Islamic ideology which was contrasted with the views of the representatives of mainstream Islam also featured. In accordance with generally accepted standards, the extremist views put forward by some speakers were put within the context of a fuller understanding of the Muslim religion and there was no ‘bias’ in the programme against Islam.

Not in breach of Rule 2.3

While the programme certainly contained strong and emotive language, Ofcom did not consider that the transmission of these clips, when taken in the context of an investigative documentary could, on any reasonable judgement, be considered to have incited the commission of crime (such as race hatred). Each and every quote was justified by the narrative of the programme and put fully in context ensuring that none of the statements could be seen to glorify or glamorise violence or extremism. Accordingly, Ofcom did not consider that the programme was likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder.

Not in breach of Rule 3.1

West Midlands Police Complaint

First, the WMP complained about five specific sequences in the programme which it said misrepresented speakers. Ofcom considered these complaints in so far as they related to (the standards objective) Rule 2.2 of the Code. This requires broadcasters to ensure that factual programmes do not “materially mislead the audience” so as not to cause harm or potential harm. Ofcom cannot consider complaints on the treatment and portrayal of those that featured in the programme unless it receives a complaint from (or on behalf of) those featured.

Sequence 1

In this section the WMP complained that the speaker, Dr Ijaz Mian, was misrepresented and appeared in the programme to be inciting Muslims to “target” public institutions. The WMP argued that the programme implied that the use of the term “dismantle” came across as a “forceful command” to dismantle British institutions.

In Ofcom’s view, taking into account the programme as broadcast and the unbroadcast material, Channel 4 did not portray or represent Dr Mian’s comments in a misleading way. It is clear from the programme that Dr Mian was not advocating violence or forceful action. Dr Mian’s comments were introduced by the programme, with the fact that he had a “radical plan for this country” and “Muslims shouldn’t accept British democracy”. The viewer would therefore understand that when Dr Mian said in his speech that he wanted to “dismantle” British institutions, this did not have violent undertones, but was in fact seeking support to reject and even bring down British institutions and democracy. In support of this, the unbroadcast footage is clear that Dr Mian was seeking to replace these British institutions with Islamic ones.

Further, it should be noted that the reason Dr Mian actually gives, in the unbroadcast footage, for not using violence was not moral or ethical, but because “…tomorrow they will build a bullet proof (sic) or do something different”.

For these reasons, Ofcom has concluded that this section of the programme was not materially misleading.

Not in breach of Rule 2.2

Sequence 2

In this sequence, the programme states that that preacher Abu Usamah said that Christians and Jews were the enemies of Islam. Abu Usamah is then heard saying:

“It has come to pass that the Nassara and the Yahud, America , the UK , France, Germany , they have come against the religion of Islam. Why give up your religion and your long legacy of Islam, to please someone who is the enemy to you?”

The WMP complained that Channel 4 omitted eight minutes of comments from Abu Usamah’s speech. The WMP was also concerned that the programme implied that in his speech Abu Usamah referred to a number of countries as the enemy of Islam, yet in the programme he was only seen referring to Western countries and Jews (i.e. Christians, Jews, America , the UK , France and Germany ).

The removal of eight minutes of speech is not in itself materially misleading, provided the speaker is not misrepresented.

Further, Ofcom does not consider that the representation of Abu Usamah’s comments here was misleading. By omitting some of the nationalities or organisations referred to in the speech (the Communists, the Socialists, the Latinos, the Africans, the Europeans), the audience was not materially misled into believing that the speech was more confrontational since it only mentioned Western countries.

It is also relevant to note that, in the untransmitted footage, just before the last sentence where Abu Usamah refers to “the enemy to you”, he quotes the Qur’an. He states “Walan tarda AAanka alyahoodu wala alnnasara hatta tattabiAAa millatahum”[(-2-)]. This is translated as, “…and never will Jews and the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion”[(-3-)]. It is therefore clear that the “enemy to you” in this part of the speech refers to Christians and Jews.

Ofcom has concluded that this section of the programme was not materially misleading.

Not in breach of Rule 2.2

Sequence 3

The WMP complained that Abu Usamah is seen, misleadingly, to be encouraging people to be in a group to fight non-believers. However, according to the WMP, Abu Usamah makes it clear that Muslims should not use their oppression as a reason to kill.

In Ofcom’s view, the sections chosen by Channel 4 reflected Abu Usamah’s speech in a way which did not materially mislead the audience. This section does not imply that Abu Usamah is encouraging or inciting people to violence. However, Abu Usamah states that when the Muslims are in the position of being “uppermost in strength…people won’t get killed unjustly” [our emphasis]. It is therefore clear from the section chosen in the programme that Abu Usamah has qualified his threat of killing people (as he does in his speech generally, e.g. people should not be killed indiscriminately or because they have been oppressed in the past). Nevertheless, the unbroadcast footage does confirm what is broadcast - that is, that while Abu Usamah is not making a direct call to action, he does suggest that violence will occur.

Ofcom has concluded that this section of the programme was not materially misleading.

Not in breach of Rule 2.2

Sequence 4

Here the speaker, Abdul Basit, criticises the Muslim who was a member of the British Army and was killed in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban. He denounces newspapers for calling him a hero and says that the real hero was the “one who separated his head from his shoulders”.

The WMP accepted that this section was broadcast as it appeared in the undercover footage.

WMP acknowledged this quote from Abdul Basit’s speech is an unedited and direct quote from the speech - despite including this sequence in its complaint to Ofcom. Having viewed the untransmitted footage, it is clear that this quote is unedited and in context.

Ofcom has concluded that this section of the programme was not materially misleading.

Not in breach of Rule 2.2

Sequence 5

WMP complained that that the programme infers that Abu Usamah is calling non-Muslims liars and terrorists. While his full speech according to the WMP condemns terrorism, the WMP also says that “he delivers comments that could constitute inciting religious hatred”.

It is unclear to Ofcom how this section could be viewed as materially misleading. The quote is a direct quote. According to the WMP, the speaker condemns terrorism, but may incite religious hatred. However, it not clear why it is relevant that Abu Usamah condemns terrorism, when he is claiming that non-Muslims are liars and terrorists.

Ofcom has concluded that this section of the programme was not materially misleading.

Not in breach of Rule 2.2

In relation to the three general concerns raised by WMP, Ofcom found as follows:

Undercover Mosque was a legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest. Ofcom found no evidence that the broadcaster had misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity. On the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts), Ofcom found that the broadcaster had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context.

Not in breach

1.- Ofcom has considered a fairness complaint from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, and a fairness and privacy complaint from The Islamic Cultural Centre and the London Central Mosque. The decision on these cases can be found on pages 44 – 67 of this bulletin.

2.- Qur’an: Chapter 2, verse 120.

3.- Translation of the Meaning of the Qur’an. Translated by Saheeh International – Jeddah.

Viewer competitions
Big Game TV!

Introduction

Big Game TV! (“BGTV”) was a dedicated Call TV quiz service produced by Big Game Television Limited. The channel launched in May 2005 and was re-branded as The Daily Quiz on 13 March 2006 . It broadcast on the Sky Digital platform and was at times simulcast daily on ITV between 22:00 and 03:00 . However, in April 2007, the channel closed down.

The channel’s content consisted of quizzes and puzzles and viewers were invited to call in with their answers by the on-screen presenter(s). The cost of the telephone calls, which were charged at premium rate, was displayed on-screen. Cash prizes were awarded for callers who provided correct answers on air.

As is common with Call TV quiz services, a significant percentage of the telephone calls made to the programme were automatically diverted to a recorded message which announced that the caller had been unsuccessful in their attempt to participate in the programme. However, the remaining calls were connected to a switchboard. A telephonist would then pick up these calls. In all cases, viewers were charged for the premium rate call.

Background

In 2006, a former employee of Big Game Television Limited (“BGTV Ltd”) made allegations of fraud in respect of its call TV quiz service BGTV. These allegations were made public on BBC Radio 4’s You and Yours programme.

As a result of these allegations, on 19 May 2006 , the City of London Police raided the offices of BGTV Ltd and seized all the available evidence.

Ofcom will not normally proceed with an investigation where there is an ongoing criminal investigation or other legal proceeding into matters which substantially correspond to those matters before Ofcom. In this case, Ofcom agreed with the City of London Police that it would await the outcome of the police investigation before taking any further action.

In the course of its investigation, the City of London Police took statements from a number of witnesses including a former employee of BGTV Ltd. His statement detailed specific allegations about practices at BGTV Ltd. The statement also included for the first time references to some specific programming in which it was alleged competitions had been unfairly conducted.

Ofcom requested that the City of London Police take steps to ensure that any evidence obtained by it throughout its investigation was retained and made available to Ofcom when its investigation had concluded.

The police investigation lasted a number of months, but by the end of 2006, the City of London Police announced that the Crown Prosecution Service would not be proceeding against BGTV Ltd as there were insufficient grounds on which to base any charges.

In April 2007, in accordance with established procedures, the evidence seized by the City of London Police from the offices of BGTV Ltd was returned by the police to BGTV Ltd’s solicitors. This evidence, together with other material gained by the police in the course of its enquiry, was then made available to Ofcom.

Ofcom therefore had available to it all the recordings which were seized during the raid and related to specific shows on BGTV (branded The Daily Quiz) from broadcasts on 27 and 28 March 2006.

The material provided by the police also included a selection of paperwork and, with the witnesses’ consent, some (though not all) of the witness statements taken during the investigation.

Since Ofcom was now in possession of the available evidence, both from the police and from BGTV Ltd, Ofcom instigated its own investigation of practices at BGTV Ltd.

Summary of allegations considered by Ofcom

In summary, the types of unfair practices that were allegedly carried out in the conduct of competitions were as follows:

All of the above raised potentially significant issues in relation to Rule 2.11 of the Code (see below), and the last also raised a potentially significant issue in relation Rule 10.10 (see below).

Code Rules

The relevant Rules provide as follows:

Rule 2.11:

“Competitions should be conducted fairly, prizes should be described accurately and rules should be clear and appropriately made known.”

Rule 10.10

“Any use of premium rate numbers must comply with the Code of Practice issued by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS).”

Ofcom therefore considered the available evidence in light of the requirements of these Code rules.

Ofcom’s remit

Under the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom is required to set standards for the content of television and radio programmes. These standards are required to be those best calculated to achieve certain statutory objectives - including that adequate protection is provided to the public from the inclusion of harmful or offensive material in the content of television programmes.

In seeking to secure these standards Ofcom adjudicates on complaints where it is alleged that content included in a licensed broadcast service has caused, or was capable of causing, actual or potential harm to viewers or listeners. If a programme or programming is found by Ofcom to be in breach of the Code (and if that breach is considered to be serious) then Ofcom can consider the imposition of a range of statutory sanctions against the broadcaster.

In order to carry out this function properly and to reach fair and reasonable adjudications Ofcom must have before it robust evidence to support any finding that specific broadcast content has failed to comply with the rules set out in the Code.

In this case, Ofcom was required to consider whether there was evidence that BGTV had failed to conduct its viewer competitions fairly (Rule 2.11) and had failed to ensure that its use of a premium rate telephone service had complied with the Code of Practice issued by PhonepayPlus (then ICSTIS) (Rule 10.10).

Ofcom therefore examined the evidence available to it.

Evidence arising from the investigation by the City of London Police

The evidence obtained as a result of the investigation by the City of London Police included a number of witness statements from former employees of BGTV Ltd (including the former employee who first raised the matters); a witness statement from a current (at that time) employee of BGTV Ltd; and a witness statement from a customer of BGTV Ltd.

The evidence included a number of other documents including (but not limited to) internal email correspondence between employees of BGTV Ltd; other internal documentation; telephone bills of a customer of BGTV Ltd; and recordings of BGTV output broadcast on 27 and 28 March 2006.

Ofcom examined the material in light of the allegations and was particularly concerned to note that much of the documentary evidence did not specify any particular broadcast dates when the unfair conduct was alleged to have taken place. Where the documentary evidence did include specific instances of alleged unfair conduct, they did not relate to programmes contained in the recordings retained by the police.

An assessment of the material indicated that:

Importantly, there was no information that would assist Ofcom in resolving the inherent conflicts between accounts provided in the bundle of evidence.

Recordings of broadcast material

Ofcom’s Code sets standards for the content of broadcast material. It is therefore necessary in the majority of cases (particularly those where there is conflicting evidence) for Ofcom to have available to it, for the purpose of its investigations the relevant broadcast content that is alleged to be in breach of the Code.

This is particularly important when the content of each programme was central to assessing the validity of the allegations made (for example: that presenters would encourage calls on air when there was no intention of answering them, and that this deliberately misled the public into believing that there was a chance of winning, when there was not).

In this case, the recordings that were seized by the City of London Police , and then passed to Ofcom, related to two specific dates (27 and 28 March 2006 ). These recordings did not contain material relevant to any of the allegations.

The Communications Act 2003 requires that Ofcom imposes a condition in every broadcasting licence that the broadcaster retain recordings of the broadcast programmes in each of its licensed channels, for a reasonable period. Condition 11 of BGTV Ltd’s licence therefore states that 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 days from the date of its inclusion therein.”

In April 2007 (when the evidence gained by the police in the course of their enquiry was made available to Ofcom), Ofcom requested that BGTV Ltd provide it with all relevant broadcast material in its possession, and particularly any recordings it possessed that related to the allegations that were the subject of the complaint. BGTV Ltd confirmed that all relevant broadcast material had been seized by the police and that due to the passage of time it no longer had recordings of the programmes that were relevant to the allegations outlined above.

In circumstances where there is no recording of relevant broadcasts available, Ofcom must consider whether or not it can reasonably and fairly adjudicate in the absence of those recordings. In order to do so there must be other robust evidence on which to base an investigation. Ofcom is not able to accept the strength of allegations at face value – they must be effectively corroborated by other evidence. In this case, the content of the programmes was key to assessing the validity of the allegations and, as already noted above, the other evidence available to Ofcom was either not supportive of the allegations or was otherwise unconvincing or unreliable.

The allegations made against BGTV Ltd were extremely serious. However, there was no adequate evidence for Ofcom to determine whether the Code had been breached.

The Full Print Version is available below



Back to top Back to top

 Accessibility tools


Further information

Help

Keep up-to-date