![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
purpletigronhttp://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb52/issue43a.pdf
Comments can also be directed to OfCom (the UK Office of Communications 'industry' regulator).
Members of the Make Poverty History coalition reacted with dismay to Ofcom’s verdict. In a statement, a spokesperson for Make Poverty History said:
“We're disappointed with this decision. Members of the Make Poverty History coalition went to great lengths to ensure the 'click ad' met broadcast regulations and took appropriate advice before submitting it to broadcasters. This advertisement simply highlights the fact that a child dies every three seconds because of preventable poverty. The millions of people who are wearing a white band or taking action as part of this campaign do not see it as a narrow party-political issue. They see it as the great moral issue of our time.
“We will look carefully at the implications of this decision for our future activity. As world leaders meet in New York for the UN World Summit, it is vitally important that we get across the message that they must go much further in order to make poverty history.”
Ofcom broadcast bulletin
Issue number 43
12 September 2005
[...]
In Breach
Make Poverty History
Various broadcasters, March 31 2005, 19.58 and other times
Introduction
Make Poverty History (“MPH”) is a body representing around 300 charities,
celebrities and other organisations. It was set up in 2004 for the purpose of
campaigning for the elimination of poverty in developing countries.
In December 2004 the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) cleared an
advertisement for MPH featuring a number of celebrities saying that “somebody dies
avoidably through poverty every three seconds”. A caption stated “Make Poverty
History” and directed viewers to the MPH website which encouraged viewers to lobby
the Prime Minister/government directly to make this a high priority on their political
agenda. The advertisement ran over the Christmas period. No complaints were
received by Ofcom, so we were not aware of the advertisement at that time.
On 31 March 2005, the advertisement was booked by an advertising agency to run
as a “road block”, i.e. simultaneously on all those commercial channels that were
prepared to donate the airtime. In the event the majority of channels ran it in
commercial airtime, although some ran the item in non-commercial (promotional)
airtime. The item has been broadcast a number of times since that date, both as a
television commercial and as a radio commercial cleared by the Radio Advertising
Clearance Centre (RACC).
In the two weeks before 31 March 2005, a number of broadcasters contacted Ofcom
for pre-transmission advice, expressing concerns about whether the item amounted
to political advertising. Ofcom noted the broadcasters’ concerns but since Ofcom
does not view or clear any programmes or advertisements prior to transmission, was
unable to offer any specific advice other than to remind broadcasters of their
responsibility to satisfy themselves before transmission that the material was
compliant and did not fall within the scope of political advertising.
Political advertising is prohibited under the terms of section 321 of the
Communications Act 2003 (“the Act”), by Section 4 of the TV Advertising Standards
Code of the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) (“The TV Code”)
and by Section 2, Rule 15 of the BCAP Radio Advertising Standards Code (“The
Radio Code”). The relevant extracts from the Act and the codes are given in full at
the end of this adjudication.
The TV Code and the Radio Code, formerly Ofcom’s Advertising Standards Code
and Radio Advertising Code, are now administered by the Advertising Standards
Authority (ASA) and BCAP. Ofcom, however, remains responsible under the terms
of the Memorandum of Understanding, between Ofcom and the ASA, for enforcing
the rules on Political Advertising, namely Section 4 of the TV Code and Section 2,
Rule 15 of the Radio Code.
In light of the broadcasters’ concerns and having viewed the 31 March 2005
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
5
television transmission and listened to the radio advertisement, Ofcom considered
there were grounds for querying whether:
a) MPH was a body whose aims were wholly or mainly political, and as such was
prohibited from advertising on television and radio under sections 321(2) and (3) of
the Act and Section 4(a) of the TV Code and Section 2 Rule 15(b) of the Radio Code;
b) the MPH advertisements, by directing viewers to the MPH website, were “directed
towards a political end” in breach of section 321(2)(b) of the Act and Section 4(b) of
the TV Code and Section 2 Rule 15 of the Radio Code in that they sought, in
particular, to influence government policy and decision making contrary to section
321(3)(c) of the Act;
c) it was permissible to have broadcast the MPH material on television as a
programme promotion outside commercial airtime since it appeared not to comply
with the definitions of programme promotions contained in Rule 1 of the Rules on the
Promotion of Programmes, Channels and Related Services on Commercial
Television (“Promotion Rules”), and of Rule 2.1 of the Rules on the Amount and
Scheduling of Advertising (“RASA”).
Ofcom was also concerned:
d) as to how the due impartiality requirements in Section 3.1 of Ofcom’s (ex-ITC)
Programme Code (“the Programme Code”) could be met on those channels which
played the item in non-commercial as opposed to commercial airtime.
In view of these concerns, Ofcom sought a response from the BACC and the RACC
as to how they considered the MPH advertisements complied with the Code
requirements on political advertising. Ofcom also asked those channels who ran it as
a promotion in non-commercial airtime why they considered that showing the item in
non-commercial airtime was compliant with the Promotion Rules, RASA and the
Programme Code.
Response from the broadcasters, the BACC and the RACC
a) Is MPH a “body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature”? (Section
321(2)(a) of the Act and Section 4(a) of the TV Code and Rule 15(b), Section 2 of the
Radio Code).
The BACC considered that a major part of MPH’s activity was to act as a source of
information and that the bulk of its activities were charitable in nature. It accepted
that there may have been some political aspects to the activities of the group, but did
not believe that these constituted the majority. The RACC said that they considered
the aims of MPH to be awareness-raising rather than political, and that MPH broadly
shared the aims of the 300-plus charities it represented. Neither body therefore
considered MPH to be “wholly or mainly” political.
b) Were the advertisements “directed towards a political end”? (Section 321(2)(b) of
the Act and Section 4(b) of the TV Code and Rule 15(b), Section 2 of the Radio
Code)
As to whether the advertisement itself was acceptable under the rules on political
advertising, the BACC said that it did not consider that it showed partiality in relation
to a political or industrial controversy (Section 4(d) of the TV Code) since it merely
gave factual information. It also did not believe that the MPH website to which the TV
advertisement directed viewers constituted an unacceptable service under Section
3.2 of the TV Code which states:
“No advertisement may indirectly publicise an unacceptable product or
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
6
service”
The BACC took this view because the MPH homepage, whilst it had elements which
had a “lobbying flavour”, was in its view, “by no means wholly or mainly political in
character”. The BACC accepted that some clicks from the home page did lead to
what looked more like clear “lobbying activity”, but argued that there was a limit to
how far the regulation of advertising could “delve into the body of a website”. The
RACC considered that the campaign had a humanitarian objective rather than being
“a partisan political attempt to get laws changed…”, and that it complied with the
charity rules.
c) Can the MPH material be broadcast on television as a promotion in noncommercial
airtime? (Rule 1 of the Promotion Rules and of Rule 2.1 of RASA).
The broadcasters who had run MPH in promotional airtime said they regarded the
item not as a programme promotion, but as a charitable appeal (which is permitted
under Section 6 of the Programme Code).
One broadcaster however also acknowledged that the item was not a normal
charitable appeal in that it did not appeal for money. However, that broadcaster
believed it could be considered as an appeal, in that it appealed instead for viewers’
attention, and called for them to visit the MPH website to learn about and engage
with the issue. It also considered that, although MPH was not a registered charity, it
could be considered as such through its representation of a large number of
registered charities. Another broadcaster said that it believed that the MPH material
was essentially a charitable appeal, as it was “constituted of over 300 individual
charities”, all themselves registered with the Charity Commission.
d) Whether “due impartiality” was maintained on the licensed service by broadcasting
the MPH material in non-commercial television air time?
In respect of the issue of due impartiality, one broadcaster relied to a substantial
degree on the BACC’s conclusion that the advertisement was neither partial nor
political. It believed therefore that the underlying motivation of the campaign, namely
to end world poverty, was such that there was no reasonable opposing or balancing
position that could be struck. The broadcaster did not therefore consider that the
impartiality requirement was a relevant consideration in this instance. Another
broadcaster expressed similar views, adding that the Programme Code requirement
(Section 6.2) that charities must be registered in order to be permitted to appeal on
television was not relevant here, as there was in fact no appeal for funds.
Decision
It is Ofcom’s statutory duty to regulate broadcast advertising so as to ensure that the
regulatory regime set out in the Act is enforced and to set standards in line with the
objectives specifically set out in the Act.
Since commercial broadcasting began in the UK in the 1950’s, Parliament has made
clear through successive Acts of Parliament concerning broadcast regulation, that
political advertising should not be permitted on television or radio.
The legislation has not made it any part of Ofcom’s statutory duty or function
to form any judgement about the merits or otherwise of such advertising
campaigns. Indeed, it appears to Ofcom that the prohibition and wording in the
Act is drafted in such a way so as to ensure that Ofcom cannot differentiate
between what some may describe as “good politics” and “bad politics”.
Rather, Ofcom must, as a matter of law, only look at whether the political
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
7
advertising rules have been complied with.
The Act makes clear that an advertisement breaches the prohibition on political
advertising if it is:
(a) an advertisement that is inserted by or on behalf of a body whose
objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature; and / or
(b) an advertisement that is directed towards a political end.
The Act has made the statutory definition of “political advertising”, for the purposes of
the prohibition, more explicit than in any previous legislation. The definition is
reflected in Section 4 of the TV Code and Section 2, Rule 15 of the Radio Code
which are given in full at the end of this decision. The Act gives examples of political
objects and political ends, including “influencing the policies or decisions of…
national governments, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere”: section
321(3)(a).
At the time these broadcasts were transmitted, there was an approaching General
Election and broadcasters had raised concerns with us about the campaign’s
possible political nature. We considered that it was therefore appropriate to
investigate whether the advertiser and the advertisement passed the tests for political
bodies and political advertising as laid down in the Act and the Codes. Ofcom has
taken extensive and authoritative external legal advice on this matter.
We have considered MPH and its advertisements under the four heads indicated in
the Introduction above.
a) Is MPH a “body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature”? (Section
321(2)(a) of the Act and Section 4(a) of the TV Code and Rule 15(b), Section 2 of the
Radio Code).
Note: If it is such a body, it would not be permitted to advertise on television or radio,
regardless of the content of the advertisement.
i) Is MPH a “body”?
MPH describes itself on its website variously as “an assembly”, “a coalition” and “a
campaign”. The coalition or assembly consists of “members” that range from
“charities, campaigns, trade unions, faith groups and celebrities”. The affiliated
“BOND” website (a network of more than 290 UK based voluntary organisations
working in international development and development education), indicates that
MPH is not led by one organisation or individual, but rather “the mobilisation consists
of an Assembly of members, a number of working groups, and a Coordination
Team.” Whilst this is evidently not a normal corporate structure we note that “body”
is defined in the Act (Section 405) as follows:
“"body” (without more) means any body or association of persons, whether
corporate or unincorporate, including a firm;"
In light of this definition and the information available on the websites referred
to above, we have concluded that MPH is a “body” for the purposes of the Act.
ii) Are MPH’s objects “wholly or mainly of a political nature”?
Section 321(3)(a)-(g) of the Act provide a non-exhaustive list of what may be
considered to be “objects of a political nature” and “political ends” in this context. Of
particular (but not exclusive) relevance here are sub-sections 321(3)(b) and (c),
namely the:
“(b) bringing about changes of the law in the whole or a part of the United
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
8
Kingdom or elsewhere, or otherwise influencing the legislative process in any
country or territory;
(c) influencing the policies or decisions of local, regional or national
governments, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere”.
We note the following quotes from MPH’s manifesto:
“MAKE POVERTY HISTORY urges the government and international decision
makers to rise to the challenge of 2005. We are calling for urgent and meaningful
policy change on three critical and inextricably linked areas: trade, debt and aid.”
“The UK Government should: fight to ensure that governments, particularly in poor
countries, can choose the best solutions to end poverty and protect the environment;
to end export subsidies that damage the livelihoods of poor communities around the
world; make laws that stop big business profiting at the expense of people and the
environment”
In particular, MPH in its manifesto explains its objectives in the three identified areas
of policy change:
Trade: The UK government should, writes MPH, “fight to ensure that
governments, particularly in poor countries, can choose the best solutions to
end poverty and protect the environment”; should “end export subsidies”; and
should pass laws to “stop big businesses profiting at the expense of people
and the environment”.
Debt: Unpayable debts of the world’s poorest countries should be cancelled,
by fair and transparent means.
Aid: Donor countries need to give more than they presently give to poor
African countries (at least $50 billion more per year), and need to set a
timetable for spending 0.7% of national income on aid. The aid which is given
must “be made to work more effectively for poor people”
MPH’s website also encourages visitors to email the Prime Minister, Tony Blair using
the MPH template to encourage him to amongst other things:
“use his international leadership to deliver crucial changes on trade justice, debt and
aid”.
The site contains campaigning messages such as:
“Just imagine the effect when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown get thousands of emails
in one day, every one asking them to do what they can to drop the debt, which will
transform the lives of millions of people. Think what the 8 leaders of the G8 will feel
when they all receive a hundred thousand text messages thanking them for
increasing their Aid Budgets next year”
The BOND website contains a list of questions and answers for people considering
becoming members of MPH. For example:
Question 1 - “Why do we need to force government to make poverty history?”
Answer 10 – “We intend to make so much noise this year that the Government
cannot ignore our demands, and organisations joining MPH will help to do that”.
Answer 11 – in relation to how getting involved with MPH fits in with organisations’
charitable objectives – “Political campaigning: The MPH coalition is advocating
change to national public policy, which means that the common activities carried out
by members charities as part of the campaign should remain incidental or ancillary to
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
9
their charitable purposes. Your involvement in the coalition can be very light…”
Influencing policies relating to trade, debt and aid cannot in Ofcom’s view be
reasonably described as objectives which are not political in nature.
There is, in our view, no escaping the fact that MPH has expressly characterised
itself in its manifesto as an organisation which seeks to achieve important changes to
the policies of the UK government and those of other western governments.
Furthermore, MPH’s manifesto clearly urges, “the UK government…[to].. make
laws…”. Lord Woolf (R v Radio Authority ex parte Bull (1998)) states that when a
regulatory authority approaches the question: what is the nature of a body’s activities,
and in particular whether they are to be regarded as objects which are” wholly or
mainly political”, he would expect the regulator to do “no more than examine its [the
organisation’s] statement of its objects”. In Ofcom’s view, there is no doubt that the
objects in MPH’s manifesto (its “statement of objects”) are wholly or mainly political.1
It should be further noted that Lord Woolf goes on to say that “objectives which are
ancillary to a principal objective which is political are also political even though they
would otherwise not be political”. So, to promote, for instance, awareness of global
poverty might not in itself be a political object, but where it is used to bring pressure
upon a government so as to change its policy, the object of awareness-raising
becomes political.
In our judgement as outlined above, MPH’s objects fall squarely within the definition
of “political objects” in section 321(3) of the Act, Note 2 to Section 4 of the TV Code
and Rule 15(b), Section 2 of the Radio Code.
On the basis of all this information and for the reasons given above, we have
reached the unavoidable conclusion that MPH is a body whose objects are
“wholly or mainly” political as defined under the Act. MPH is therefore
prohibited from advertising on television or radio, as long as it is considered to
fall within this definition.
b) Were the advertisements “directed towards a political end”? (Section 321(2)(b) of
the Act and Section 4(b) of the TV Code and Rule 15(b), Section 2 of the Radio
Code)
The BACC (see Broadcaster response above) has argued that the content of the
television advertisement was purely factual, and therefore could not be political as it
showed no partiality. As for the reference to the MPH website, the BACC argued,
quoting Section 3.2 of the TV Code, that there was no indirect promotion of an
unacceptable service. It regarded the website as acceptable because there was no
obviously political message on the homepage, and that it was necessary to move
some clicks away from the homepage to find “lobbying” content. In an opinion
requested by the advertising agency, the agency’s legal advisers took a similar view,
stating:
“as Rule 4(b) addresses the content of these commercials, the content of the
1 In this respect, it should be noted that even if it were to be argued that MPH does not have
“wholly” political objects, the threshold test proposed by Lord Woolf in the 1996 Appeal Court
decision “R v Radio Authority ex parte Bull 1998” is that for a body to be considered to be
“wholly or mainly” political, its objects must be more than 75% of a political nature. On the
basis of the information we have seen, this threshold would be easily passed by MPH.
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
10
MPH website is irrelevant…”.
The RACC also argued that the radio advertisement was not directed towards a
political end.
We conclude that these arguments are flawed. Moreover, they miss the main point
of the relevant sections of the TV and Radio Codes and the Act which have been
worded very widely so that even if the content of a broadcast advertisement as
transmitted is not in itself political it may nevertheless be an advertisement “directed
towards” a political end. The word “towards” clearly implies that if the advertisement
has political objectives (as defined by the Act) then the advertisement itself is caught.
Since the only call to action in this case is to visit the MPH website, and since
the MPH website is fundamentally about supporting the lobbying and
campaigning objectives of MPH, we consider that the advertisements are
indeed “directed towards a political end”.
c) Can the MPH material be broadcast on television as a promotion in noncommercial
airtime? (Rule 1 of the Promotion Rules, and of Rule 2.1 of RASA).
As stated above, the broadcasters contended that the MPH material could be
regarded as a charitable appeal, and as such could be broadcast in non-commercial
airtime under the terms of Section 6 of the Programme Code. However, MPH is not
a registered charity nor does Ofcom consider that satisfactory evidence has been
produced (as required by the Programme Code) that it has “charitable status”. It
therefore does not fall under section 6 of the Programme Code (regarding charities).
It should be noted that organisations that are established to pursue political purposes
(for instance, advocating changes in law or public policy) cannot be charities.
One broadcaster believed that the material could be viewed as appealing for viewers’
attention rather than funds and therefore was permitted to be promoted under the
Code section dealing with charitable appeals and publicity for charities. However, as
stated above, this section only applies to bodies which are either registered charities
or have charitable status. In this case, MPH is neither. The “support” that is sought
by them is ‘lobbying support’ for a political campaign.
We do not therefore consider that the MPH material used in non-commercial
television airtime falls within the meaning of a “charitable appeal”.
A promotional item, in non-commercial airtime, which is not a “charity appeal” must
meet the following criteria:
• It must not be an: “item of publicity broadcast on behalf of someone other
than the licensee in breaks in or between programmes, apart from public
service announcements, charity appeals broadcast free of charge and
information to viewers broadcast in accordance with an Ofcom requirement”
(definition of paid-for advertising in RASA, Rule 2.1);
• It should: “promote programmes, events and strands being shown by that
licensee,…or make reference to any other channel or related service (such as
a website) provided by the licensee”. (the Promotion Rules, Rule1); and
• And it should “provide information of value to viewers…..” (the Promotion
rules, Rule 1).
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
11
We do not consider that the MPH material complies with the first or second criteria,
or that it is likely to qualify as “information of value to viewers” as normally applicable
to programme promotions and trailers.
We conclude therefore that the MPH material does not qualify as a promotion
permitted to run in non-commercial television airtime.
d) Whether “due impartiality” was maintained on the licensed service by broadcasting
the MPH material in non-commercial television air time? (Section 3.1 of the
Programme Code)
We note the points made in d) of the Broadcaster Response above and accept that
the broadcasters were entitled to take into account the clearance of the
advertisement by the BACC as a non-partial and non-political item (although we have
subsequently concluded that the clearance was, in this instance, flawed). We are
also sympathetic to the view that editorial in programming that is ultimately prohumanitarian
does not necessarily require an opposing view to be broadcast to
establish impartiality. This is especially the case if the opposing view would have to
take a possibly irrational approach, such as arguing that the eradication of poverty is
not a desirable goal.
In terms of the actual content of the item as broadcast, we therefore do not consider
the Programme Code to have been breached, on this occasion, in respect of due
impartiality.
However, as explained above, MPH is a wholly or mainly political body. As such,
while the eradication of world poverty may not itself be a matter of political or
industrial controversy or current public policy, the manner in which it is achieved
could certainly be considered to be so, as is evidenced by the increasing number of
voices which have recently been raised questioning MPH’s methods.
We would caution against any automatic future assumption that there is no need to
establish due impartiality on methods advocated concerning the eradication of
poverty.
Conclusion
It is Ofcom’s duty to ensure that the provisions put in place by Parliament are
enforced. Ofcom has no discretion as to whether or not to intervene in cases where,
having taken into account all relevant considerations, it is clear that the particular
body concerned has wholly or mainly political objects and/or its advertisements are
“political” within the meaning of the Act.
Taking these points into account, and for the reasons stated above, we have
concluded that:
a) MPH is a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature and
the inclusion in broadcast services of the MPH advertisements therefore
breached Section 4(a) of the TV Code and Section 2, Rule 15 of the Radio
Code. MPH as currently constituted is therefore not entitled to advertise on
television or radio;
b) The MPH advertisements are directed towards a political end and are in
breach of Section 4(b) of the TV Code and of Section 2, Rule 15(b) of the
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
12
Radio Code; and
c) The broadcast of the MPH material as a promotion in non-commercial
television airtime is in breach of Rule 2.1 of RASA and Rule 1 of the
Promotion Rules.
While there are few who would disagree with MPH’s ultimate goal – the eradication of
world poverty - having considered all the evidence, we do not consider it a marginal
conclusion that MPH is a body which is wholly or mainly political. The information
needed to reach this conclusion is very clearly in the public domain and unequivocal.
See over for extracts from the relevant legislation and codes
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
13
Extracts from the relevant legislation and codes
Communications Act 2003, Section 319(1), & (2)(g)
(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to set, and from time to time to review and revise, such standards
for the content of programmes to be included in television and radio services as appear to them
best calculated to secure the standards objectives.
(2) The standards objectives are-
(g) that advertising that contravenes the prohibition on political advertising set out in section 321(2)
is not included in television or radio services
Communications Act 2003, Sections 321(2) and (3)
(2) For the purposes of section 319(2)(g) an advertisement contravenes the prohibition on political
advertising if it is-
(a) an advertisement which is inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or
mainly of a political nature;
(b) an advertisement which is directed towards a political end; or
(c) an advertisement which has a connection with an industrial dispute.
(3) For the purposes of this section objects of a political nature and political ends include each of the
following-
(a) influencing the outcome of elections or referendums, whether in the United Kingdom or
elsewhere;
(b) bringing about changes of the law in the whole or a part of the United Kingdom or
elsewhere, or otherwise influencing the legislative process in any country or territory;
(c) influencing the policies or decisions of local, regional or national governments, whether in
the United Kingdom or elsewhere;
(d) influencing the policies or decisions of persons on whom public functions are conferred by
or under the law of the United Kingdom or of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
(e) influencing the policies or decisions of persons on whom functions are conferred by or
under international agreements;
(f) influencing public opinion on a matter which, in the United Kingdom, is a matter of public
controversy;
(g) promoting the interests of a party or other group of persons organised, in the United
Kingdom or elsewhere, for political ends.
TV Advertising Standards Code, Section 4
POLITICAL AND CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
No advertisement:
(a) may be inserted by or on behalf of any body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a
political nature
(b) may be directed towards any political end
(c) may have any relation to any industrial dispute (with limited exceptions)
Note to 4(c):
The Broadcasting Act 1990 specifically exempts public service advertisements by or on behalf of a
government department from the prohibition of advertisements having ‘any relation to any industrial
dispute’.
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
14
(d) may show partiality as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to
current public policy
Notes to Section 4:
(1) The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent well-funded organisations from using the power of
television advertising to distort the balance of political debate. The rule reflects the statutory ban on
‘political’ advertising on television in the Broadcasting Act 1990.
(2) The term ‘political’ here is used in a wider sense than ‘party political’. The rule prevents, for
example, issue campaigning for the purpose of influencing legislation or executive action by
legislatures either at home or abroad. Where there is a risk that advertising could breach this rule,
prospective advertisers should seek guidance from licensees before developing specific proposals.
Radio Advertising Standards Code, Section 2, Rule 15
Political, Industrial and Public Controversy
The effect of the Communications Act is to require Ofcom to ensure that:
a) No advertisement shows undue partiality in matters of political or industrial controversy or
relating to current public policy; and
b) No advertisement is broadcast by, or on behalf of, any body whose objects are wholly or
mainly of a political nature, and no advertisement is directed towards any political end.
Ofcom will determine whether an ad or a proposed ad is ‘political’. The term ‘political’ here is
used in a wider sense than ‘party political’. The prohibition includes, for example, issue
campaigning for the purposes of influencing legislation or executive action by local, or national
(including foreign) governments.
Particular care is required where advertising mentions any government, political party, political
movement or state-specific abuse, so as not to break the spirit of these rules, which are
intended to prohibit lobbying or electioneering on politically controversial or partisan issues.
c) No advertisement has any relation to any industrial dispute (other than an advertisement of a
public service nature inserted by, or on behalf of, a government department).
Ofcom, the ASA and BCAP will normally regard having "any relation to any industrial dispute" to be in
furtherance of, or expressing partiality in relation to, such a dispute. Announcements about resumption
of normal working following agreement between management and unions, or concerned with public
safety during a strike, are acceptable. 'Industrial dispute' includes strikes, walkouts and withdrawals of
labour by workers; lock-outs by employers; disputes between managements and differences between
rival trade unions.
Rules on the Amount and Scheduling of Advertising, Rule 2.1
Advertising Items 2.1
For the purposes of calculating advertising time the following are deemed to be advertising items:
(a) all items of publicity broadcast on behalf of someone other than the licensee in breaks in or between
programmes, apart from public service announcements, charity appeals broadcast free of charge,
announcements required by the BSC and information to viewers broadcast in accordance with an ITC
requirement;
(b) publicity by the licensees themselves except information to viewers about or in connection with
programmes.
Rules on the promotion of programmes, channels and related services on
commercial television, Rule 1
ITC licensees may, outside advertising time, and subject to the following rules,
• promote programmes, events and strands being shown by that licensee, and
• make reference to any other channel or related service (such as a website) that they provide.
Comments can also be directed to OfCom (the UK Office of Communications 'industry' regulator).
Members of the Make Poverty History coalition reacted with dismay to Ofcom’s verdict. In a statement, a spokesperson for Make Poverty History said:
“We're disappointed with this decision. Members of the Make Poverty History coalition went to great lengths to ensure the 'click ad' met broadcast regulations and took appropriate advice before submitting it to broadcasters. This advertisement simply highlights the fact that a child dies every three seconds because of preventable poverty. The millions of people who are wearing a white band or taking action as part of this campaign do not see it as a narrow party-political issue. They see it as the great moral issue of our time.
“We will look carefully at the implications of this decision for our future activity. As world leaders meet in New York for the UN World Summit, it is vitally important that we get across the message that they must go much further in order to make poverty history.”
Ofcom broadcast bulletin
Issue number 43
12 September 2005
[...]
In Breach
Make Poverty History
Various broadcasters, March 31 2005, 19.58 and other times
Introduction
Make Poverty History (“MPH”) is a body representing around 300 charities,
celebrities and other organisations. It was set up in 2004 for the purpose of
campaigning for the elimination of poverty in developing countries.
In December 2004 the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) cleared an
advertisement for MPH featuring a number of celebrities saying that “somebody dies
avoidably through poverty every three seconds”. A caption stated “Make Poverty
History” and directed viewers to the MPH website which encouraged viewers to lobby
the Prime Minister/government directly to make this a high priority on their political
agenda. The advertisement ran over the Christmas period. No complaints were
received by Ofcom, so we were not aware of the advertisement at that time.
On 31 March 2005, the advertisement was booked by an advertising agency to run
as a “road block”, i.e. simultaneously on all those commercial channels that were
prepared to donate the airtime. In the event the majority of channels ran it in
commercial airtime, although some ran the item in non-commercial (promotional)
airtime. The item has been broadcast a number of times since that date, both as a
television commercial and as a radio commercial cleared by the Radio Advertising
Clearance Centre (RACC).
In the two weeks before 31 March 2005, a number of broadcasters contacted Ofcom
for pre-transmission advice, expressing concerns about whether the item amounted
to political advertising. Ofcom noted the broadcasters’ concerns but since Ofcom
does not view or clear any programmes or advertisements prior to transmission, was
unable to offer any specific advice other than to remind broadcasters of their
responsibility to satisfy themselves before transmission that the material was
compliant and did not fall within the scope of political advertising.
Political advertising is prohibited under the terms of section 321 of the
Communications Act 2003 (“the Act”), by Section 4 of the TV Advertising Standards
Code of the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) (“The TV Code”)
and by Section 2, Rule 15 of the BCAP Radio Advertising Standards Code (“The
Radio Code”). The relevant extracts from the Act and the codes are given in full at
the end of this adjudication.
The TV Code and the Radio Code, formerly Ofcom’s Advertising Standards Code
and Radio Advertising Code, are now administered by the Advertising Standards
Authority (ASA) and BCAP. Ofcom, however, remains responsible under the terms
of the Memorandum of Understanding, between Ofcom and the ASA, for enforcing
the rules on Political Advertising, namely Section 4 of the TV Code and Section 2,
Rule 15 of the Radio Code.
In light of the broadcasters’ concerns and having viewed the 31 March 2005
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
5
television transmission and listened to the radio advertisement, Ofcom considered
there were grounds for querying whether:
a) MPH was a body whose aims were wholly or mainly political, and as such was
prohibited from advertising on television and radio under sections 321(2) and (3) of
the Act and Section 4(a) of the TV Code and Section 2 Rule 15(b) of the Radio Code;
b) the MPH advertisements, by directing viewers to the MPH website, were “directed
towards a political end” in breach of section 321(2)(b) of the Act and Section 4(b) of
the TV Code and Section 2 Rule 15 of the Radio Code in that they sought, in
particular, to influence government policy and decision making contrary to section
321(3)(c) of the Act;
c) it was permissible to have broadcast the MPH material on television as a
programme promotion outside commercial airtime since it appeared not to comply
with the definitions of programme promotions contained in Rule 1 of the Rules on the
Promotion of Programmes, Channels and Related Services on Commercial
Television (“Promotion Rules”), and of Rule 2.1 of the Rules on the Amount and
Scheduling of Advertising (“RASA”).
Ofcom was also concerned:
d) as to how the due impartiality requirements in Section 3.1 of Ofcom’s (ex-ITC)
Programme Code (“the Programme Code”) could be met on those channels which
played the item in non-commercial as opposed to commercial airtime.
In view of these concerns, Ofcom sought a response from the BACC and the RACC
as to how they considered the MPH advertisements complied with the Code
requirements on political advertising. Ofcom also asked those channels who ran it as
a promotion in non-commercial airtime why they considered that showing the item in
non-commercial airtime was compliant with the Promotion Rules, RASA and the
Programme Code.
Response from the broadcasters, the BACC and the RACC
a) Is MPH a “body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature”? (Section
321(2)(a) of the Act and Section 4(a) of the TV Code and Rule 15(b), Section 2 of the
Radio Code).
The BACC considered that a major part of MPH’s activity was to act as a source of
information and that the bulk of its activities were charitable in nature. It accepted
that there may have been some political aspects to the activities of the group, but did
not believe that these constituted the majority. The RACC said that they considered
the aims of MPH to be awareness-raising rather than political, and that MPH broadly
shared the aims of the 300-plus charities it represented. Neither body therefore
considered MPH to be “wholly or mainly” political.
b) Were the advertisements “directed towards a political end”? (Section 321(2)(b) of
the Act and Section 4(b) of the TV Code and Rule 15(b), Section 2 of the Radio
Code)
As to whether the advertisement itself was acceptable under the rules on political
advertising, the BACC said that it did not consider that it showed partiality in relation
to a political or industrial controversy (Section 4(d) of the TV Code) since it merely
gave factual information. It also did not believe that the MPH website to which the TV
advertisement directed viewers constituted an unacceptable service under Section
3.2 of the TV Code which states:
“No advertisement may indirectly publicise an unacceptable product or
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
6
service”
The BACC took this view because the MPH homepage, whilst it had elements which
had a “lobbying flavour”, was in its view, “by no means wholly or mainly political in
character”. The BACC accepted that some clicks from the home page did lead to
what looked more like clear “lobbying activity”, but argued that there was a limit to
how far the regulation of advertising could “delve into the body of a website”. The
RACC considered that the campaign had a humanitarian objective rather than being
“a partisan political attempt to get laws changed…”, and that it complied with the
charity rules.
c) Can the MPH material be broadcast on television as a promotion in noncommercial
airtime? (Rule 1 of the Promotion Rules and of Rule 2.1 of RASA).
The broadcasters who had run MPH in promotional airtime said they regarded the
item not as a programme promotion, but as a charitable appeal (which is permitted
under Section 6 of the Programme Code).
One broadcaster however also acknowledged that the item was not a normal
charitable appeal in that it did not appeal for money. However, that broadcaster
believed it could be considered as an appeal, in that it appealed instead for viewers’
attention, and called for them to visit the MPH website to learn about and engage
with the issue. It also considered that, although MPH was not a registered charity, it
could be considered as such through its representation of a large number of
registered charities. Another broadcaster said that it believed that the MPH material
was essentially a charitable appeal, as it was “constituted of over 300 individual
charities”, all themselves registered with the Charity Commission.
d) Whether “due impartiality” was maintained on the licensed service by broadcasting
the MPH material in non-commercial television air time?
In respect of the issue of due impartiality, one broadcaster relied to a substantial
degree on the BACC’s conclusion that the advertisement was neither partial nor
political. It believed therefore that the underlying motivation of the campaign, namely
to end world poverty, was such that there was no reasonable opposing or balancing
position that could be struck. The broadcaster did not therefore consider that the
impartiality requirement was a relevant consideration in this instance. Another
broadcaster expressed similar views, adding that the Programme Code requirement
(Section 6.2) that charities must be registered in order to be permitted to appeal on
television was not relevant here, as there was in fact no appeal for funds.
Decision
It is Ofcom’s statutory duty to regulate broadcast advertising so as to ensure that the
regulatory regime set out in the Act is enforced and to set standards in line with the
objectives specifically set out in the Act.
Since commercial broadcasting began in the UK in the 1950’s, Parliament has made
clear through successive Acts of Parliament concerning broadcast regulation, that
political advertising should not be permitted on television or radio.
The legislation has not made it any part of Ofcom’s statutory duty or function
to form any judgement about the merits or otherwise of such advertising
campaigns. Indeed, it appears to Ofcom that the prohibition and wording in the
Act is drafted in such a way so as to ensure that Ofcom cannot differentiate
between what some may describe as “good politics” and “bad politics”.
Rather, Ofcom must, as a matter of law, only look at whether the political
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
7
advertising rules have been complied with.
The Act makes clear that an advertisement breaches the prohibition on political
advertising if it is:
(a) an advertisement that is inserted by or on behalf of a body whose
objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature; and / or
(b) an advertisement that is directed towards a political end.
The Act has made the statutory definition of “political advertising”, for the purposes of
the prohibition, more explicit than in any previous legislation. The definition is
reflected in Section 4 of the TV Code and Section 2, Rule 15 of the Radio Code
which are given in full at the end of this decision. The Act gives examples of political
objects and political ends, including “influencing the policies or decisions of…
national governments, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere”: section
321(3)(a).
At the time these broadcasts were transmitted, there was an approaching General
Election and broadcasters had raised concerns with us about the campaign’s
possible political nature. We considered that it was therefore appropriate to
investigate whether the advertiser and the advertisement passed the tests for political
bodies and political advertising as laid down in the Act and the Codes. Ofcom has
taken extensive and authoritative external legal advice on this matter.
We have considered MPH and its advertisements under the four heads indicated in
the Introduction above.
a) Is MPH a “body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature”? (Section
321(2)(a) of the Act and Section 4(a) of the TV Code and Rule 15(b), Section 2 of the
Radio Code).
Note: If it is such a body, it would not be permitted to advertise on television or radio,
regardless of the content of the advertisement.
i) Is MPH a “body”?
MPH describes itself on its website variously as “an assembly”, “a coalition” and “a
campaign”. The coalition or assembly consists of “members” that range from
“charities, campaigns, trade unions, faith groups and celebrities”. The affiliated
“BOND” website (a network of more than 290 UK based voluntary organisations
working in international development and development education), indicates that
MPH is not led by one organisation or individual, but rather “the mobilisation consists
of an Assembly of members, a number of working groups, and a Coordination
Team.” Whilst this is evidently not a normal corporate structure we note that “body”
is defined in the Act (Section 405) as follows:
“"body” (without more) means any body or association of persons, whether
corporate or unincorporate, including a firm;"
In light of this definition and the information available on the websites referred
to above, we have concluded that MPH is a “body” for the purposes of the Act.
ii) Are MPH’s objects “wholly or mainly of a political nature”?
Section 321(3)(a)-(g) of the Act provide a non-exhaustive list of what may be
considered to be “objects of a political nature” and “political ends” in this context. Of
particular (but not exclusive) relevance here are sub-sections 321(3)(b) and (c),
namely the:
“(b) bringing about changes of the law in the whole or a part of the United
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
8
Kingdom or elsewhere, or otherwise influencing the legislative process in any
country or territory;
(c) influencing the policies or decisions of local, regional or national
governments, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere”.
We note the following quotes from MPH’s manifesto:
“MAKE POVERTY HISTORY urges the government and international decision
makers to rise to the challenge of 2005. We are calling for urgent and meaningful
policy change on three critical and inextricably linked areas: trade, debt and aid.”
“The UK Government should: fight to ensure that governments, particularly in poor
countries, can choose the best solutions to end poverty and protect the environment;
to end export subsidies that damage the livelihoods of poor communities around the
world; make laws that stop big business profiting at the expense of people and the
environment”
In particular, MPH in its manifesto explains its objectives in the three identified areas
of policy change:
Trade: The UK government should, writes MPH, “fight to ensure that
governments, particularly in poor countries, can choose the best solutions to
end poverty and protect the environment”; should “end export subsidies”; and
should pass laws to “stop big businesses profiting at the expense of people
and the environment”.
Debt: Unpayable debts of the world’s poorest countries should be cancelled,
by fair and transparent means.
Aid: Donor countries need to give more than they presently give to poor
African countries (at least $50 billion more per year), and need to set a
timetable for spending 0.7% of national income on aid. The aid which is given
must “be made to work more effectively for poor people”
MPH’s website also encourages visitors to email the Prime Minister, Tony Blair using
the MPH template to encourage him to amongst other things:
“use his international leadership to deliver crucial changes on trade justice, debt and
aid”.
The site contains campaigning messages such as:
“Just imagine the effect when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown get thousands of emails
in one day, every one asking them to do what they can to drop the debt, which will
transform the lives of millions of people. Think what the 8 leaders of the G8 will feel
when they all receive a hundred thousand text messages thanking them for
increasing their Aid Budgets next year”
The BOND website contains a list of questions and answers for people considering
becoming members of MPH. For example:
Question 1 - “Why do we need to force government to make poverty history?”
Answer 10 – “We intend to make so much noise this year that the Government
cannot ignore our demands, and organisations joining MPH will help to do that”.
Answer 11 – in relation to how getting involved with MPH fits in with organisations’
charitable objectives – “Political campaigning: The MPH coalition is advocating
change to national public policy, which means that the common activities carried out
by members charities as part of the campaign should remain incidental or ancillary to
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
9
their charitable purposes. Your involvement in the coalition can be very light…”
Influencing policies relating to trade, debt and aid cannot in Ofcom’s view be
reasonably described as objectives which are not political in nature.
There is, in our view, no escaping the fact that MPH has expressly characterised
itself in its manifesto as an organisation which seeks to achieve important changes to
the policies of the UK government and those of other western governments.
Furthermore, MPH’s manifesto clearly urges, “the UK government…[to].. make
laws…”. Lord Woolf (R v Radio Authority ex parte Bull (1998)) states that when a
regulatory authority approaches the question: what is the nature of a body’s activities,
and in particular whether they are to be regarded as objects which are” wholly or
mainly political”, he would expect the regulator to do “no more than examine its [the
organisation’s] statement of its objects”. In Ofcom’s view, there is no doubt that the
objects in MPH’s manifesto (its “statement of objects”) are wholly or mainly political.1
It should be further noted that Lord Woolf goes on to say that “objectives which are
ancillary to a principal objective which is political are also political even though they
would otherwise not be political”. So, to promote, for instance, awareness of global
poverty might not in itself be a political object, but where it is used to bring pressure
upon a government so as to change its policy, the object of awareness-raising
becomes political.
In our judgement as outlined above, MPH’s objects fall squarely within the definition
of “political objects” in section 321(3) of the Act, Note 2 to Section 4 of the TV Code
and Rule 15(b), Section 2 of the Radio Code.
On the basis of all this information and for the reasons given above, we have
reached the unavoidable conclusion that MPH is a body whose objects are
“wholly or mainly” political as defined under the Act. MPH is therefore
prohibited from advertising on television or radio, as long as it is considered to
fall within this definition.
b) Were the advertisements “directed towards a political end”? (Section 321(2)(b) of
the Act and Section 4(b) of the TV Code and Rule 15(b), Section 2 of the Radio
Code)
The BACC (see Broadcaster response above) has argued that the content of the
television advertisement was purely factual, and therefore could not be political as it
showed no partiality. As for the reference to the MPH website, the BACC argued,
quoting Section 3.2 of the TV Code, that there was no indirect promotion of an
unacceptable service. It regarded the website as acceptable because there was no
obviously political message on the homepage, and that it was necessary to move
some clicks away from the homepage to find “lobbying” content. In an opinion
requested by the advertising agency, the agency’s legal advisers took a similar view,
stating:
“as Rule 4(b) addresses the content of these commercials, the content of the
1 In this respect, it should be noted that even if it were to be argued that MPH does not have
“wholly” political objects, the threshold test proposed by Lord Woolf in the 1996 Appeal Court
decision “R v Radio Authority ex parte Bull 1998” is that for a body to be considered to be
“wholly or mainly” political, its objects must be more than 75% of a political nature. On the
basis of the information we have seen, this threshold would be easily passed by MPH.
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
10
MPH website is irrelevant…”.
The RACC also argued that the radio advertisement was not directed towards a
political end.
We conclude that these arguments are flawed. Moreover, they miss the main point
of the relevant sections of the TV and Radio Codes and the Act which have been
worded very widely so that even if the content of a broadcast advertisement as
transmitted is not in itself political it may nevertheless be an advertisement “directed
towards” a political end. The word “towards” clearly implies that if the advertisement
has political objectives (as defined by the Act) then the advertisement itself is caught.
Since the only call to action in this case is to visit the MPH website, and since
the MPH website is fundamentally about supporting the lobbying and
campaigning objectives of MPH, we consider that the advertisements are
indeed “directed towards a political end”.
c) Can the MPH material be broadcast on television as a promotion in noncommercial
airtime? (Rule 1 of the Promotion Rules, and of Rule 2.1 of RASA).
As stated above, the broadcasters contended that the MPH material could be
regarded as a charitable appeal, and as such could be broadcast in non-commercial
airtime under the terms of Section 6 of the Programme Code. However, MPH is not
a registered charity nor does Ofcom consider that satisfactory evidence has been
produced (as required by the Programme Code) that it has “charitable status”. It
therefore does not fall under section 6 of the Programme Code (regarding charities).
It should be noted that organisations that are established to pursue political purposes
(for instance, advocating changes in law or public policy) cannot be charities.
One broadcaster believed that the material could be viewed as appealing for viewers’
attention rather than funds and therefore was permitted to be promoted under the
Code section dealing with charitable appeals and publicity for charities. However, as
stated above, this section only applies to bodies which are either registered charities
or have charitable status. In this case, MPH is neither. The “support” that is sought
by them is ‘lobbying support’ for a political campaign.
We do not therefore consider that the MPH material used in non-commercial
television airtime falls within the meaning of a “charitable appeal”.
A promotional item, in non-commercial airtime, which is not a “charity appeal” must
meet the following criteria:
• It must not be an: “item of publicity broadcast on behalf of someone other
than the licensee in breaks in or between programmes, apart from public
service announcements, charity appeals broadcast free of charge and
information to viewers broadcast in accordance with an Ofcom requirement”
(definition of paid-for advertising in RASA, Rule 2.1);
• It should: “promote programmes, events and strands being shown by that
licensee,…or make reference to any other channel or related service (such as
a website) provided by the licensee”. (the Promotion Rules, Rule1); and
• And it should “provide information of value to viewers…..” (the Promotion
rules, Rule 1).
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
11
We do not consider that the MPH material complies with the first or second criteria,
or that it is likely to qualify as “information of value to viewers” as normally applicable
to programme promotions and trailers.
We conclude therefore that the MPH material does not qualify as a promotion
permitted to run in non-commercial television airtime.
d) Whether “due impartiality” was maintained on the licensed service by broadcasting
the MPH material in non-commercial television air time? (Section 3.1 of the
Programme Code)
We note the points made in d) of the Broadcaster Response above and accept that
the broadcasters were entitled to take into account the clearance of the
advertisement by the BACC as a non-partial and non-political item (although we have
subsequently concluded that the clearance was, in this instance, flawed). We are
also sympathetic to the view that editorial in programming that is ultimately prohumanitarian
does not necessarily require an opposing view to be broadcast to
establish impartiality. This is especially the case if the opposing view would have to
take a possibly irrational approach, such as arguing that the eradication of poverty is
not a desirable goal.
In terms of the actual content of the item as broadcast, we therefore do not consider
the Programme Code to have been breached, on this occasion, in respect of due
impartiality.
However, as explained above, MPH is a wholly or mainly political body. As such,
while the eradication of world poverty may not itself be a matter of political or
industrial controversy or current public policy, the manner in which it is achieved
could certainly be considered to be so, as is evidenced by the increasing number of
voices which have recently been raised questioning MPH’s methods.
We would caution against any automatic future assumption that there is no need to
establish due impartiality on methods advocated concerning the eradication of
poverty.
Conclusion
It is Ofcom’s duty to ensure that the provisions put in place by Parliament are
enforced. Ofcom has no discretion as to whether or not to intervene in cases where,
having taken into account all relevant considerations, it is clear that the particular
body concerned has wholly or mainly political objects and/or its advertisements are
“political” within the meaning of the Act.
Taking these points into account, and for the reasons stated above, we have
concluded that:
a) MPH is a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature and
the inclusion in broadcast services of the MPH advertisements therefore
breached Section 4(a) of the TV Code and Section 2, Rule 15 of the Radio
Code. MPH as currently constituted is therefore not entitled to advertise on
television or radio;
b) The MPH advertisements are directed towards a political end and are in
breach of Section 4(b) of the TV Code and of Section 2, Rule 15(b) of the
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
12
Radio Code; and
c) The broadcast of the MPH material as a promotion in non-commercial
television airtime is in breach of Rule 2.1 of RASA and Rule 1 of the
Promotion Rules.
While there are few who would disagree with MPH’s ultimate goal – the eradication of
world poverty - having considered all the evidence, we do not consider it a marginal
conclusion that MPH is a body which is wholly or mainly political. The information
needed to reach this conclusion is very clearly in the public domain and unequivocal.
See over for extracts from the relevant legislation and codes
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
13
Extracts from the relevant legislation and codes
Communications Act 2003, Section 319(1), & (2)(g)
(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to set, and from time to time to review and revise, such standards
for the content of programmes to be included in television and radio services as appear to them
best calculated to secure the standards objectives.
(2) The standards objectives are-
(g) that advertising that contravenes the prohibition on political advertising set out in section 321(2)
is not included in television or radio services
Communications Act 2003, Sections 321(2) and (3)
(2) For the purposes of section 319(2)(g) an advertisement contravenes the prohibition on political
advertising if it is-
(a) an advertisement which is inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or
mainly of a political nature;
(b) an advertisement which is directed towards a political end; or
(c) an advertisement which has a connection with an industrial dispute.
(3) For the purposes of this section objects of a political nature and political ends include each of the
following-
(a) influencing the outcome of elections or referendums, whether in the United Kingdom or
elsewhere;
(b) bringing about changes of the law in the whole or a part of the United Kingdom or
elsewhere, or otherwise influencing the legislative process in any country or territory;
(c) influencing the policies or decisions of local, regional or national governments, whether in
the United Kingdom or elsewhere;
(d) influencing the policies or decisions of persons on whom public functions are conferred by
or under the law of the United Kingdom or of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
(e) influencing the policies or decisions of persons on whom functions are conferred by or
under international agreements;
(f) influencing public opinion on a matter which, in the United Kingdom, is a matter of public
controversy;
(g) promoting the interests of a party or other group of persons organised, in the United
Kingdom or elsewhere, for political ends.
TV Advertising Standards Code, Section 4
POLITICAL AND CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
No advertisement:
(a) may be inserted by or on behalf of any body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a
political nature
(b) may be directed towards any political end
(c) may have any relation to any industrial dispute (with limited exceptions)
Note to 4(c):
The Broadcasting Act 1990 specifically exempts public service advertisements by or on behalf of a
government department from the prohibition of advertisements having ‘any relation to any industrial
dispute’.
Ofcom broadcast bulletin 43
12 September 2005
14
(d) may show partiality as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to
current public policy
Notes to Section 4:
(1) The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent well-funded organisations from using the power of
television advertising to distort the balance of political debate. The rule reflects the statutory ban on
‘political’ advertising on television in the Broadcasting Act 1990.
(2) The term ‘political’ here is used in a wider sense than ‘party political’. The rule prevents, for
example, issue campaigning for the purpose of influencing legislation or executive action by
legislatures either at home or abroad. Where there is a risk that advertising could breach this rule,
prospective advertisers should seek guidance from licensees before developing specific proposals.
Radio Advertising Standards Code, Section 2, Rule 15
Political, Industrial and Public Controversy
The effect of the Communications Act is to require Ofcom to ensure that:
a) No advertisement shows undue partiality in matters of political or industrial controversy or
relating to current public policy; and
b) No advertisement is broadcast by, or on behalf of, any body whose objects are wholly or
mainly of a political nature, and no advertisement is directed towards any political end.
Ofcom will determine whether an ad or a proposed ad is ‘political’. The term ‘political’ here is
used in a wider sense than ‘party political’. The prohibition includes, for example, issue
campaigning for the purposes of influencing legislation or executive action by local, or national
(including foreign) governments.
Particular care is required where advertising mentions any government, political party, political
movement or state-specific abuse, so as not to break the spirit of these rules, which are
intended to prohibit lobbying or electioneering on politically controversial or partisan issues.
c) No advertisement has any relation to any industrial dispute (other than an advertisement of a
public service nature inserted by, or on behalf of, a government department).
Ofcom, the ASA and BCAP will normally regard having "any relation to any industrial dispute" to be in
furtherance of, or expressing partiality in relation to, such a dispute. Announcements about resumption
of normal working following agreement between management and unions, or concerned with public
safety during a strike, are acceptable. 'Industrial dispute' includes strikes, walkouts and withdrawals of
labour by workers; lock-outs by employers; disputes between managements and differences between
rival trade unions.
Rules on the Amount and Scheduling of Advertising, Rule 2.1
Advertising Items 2.1
For the purposes of calculating advertising time the following are deemed to be advertising items:
(a) all items of publicity broadcast on behalf of someone other than the licensee in breaks in or between
programmes, apart from public service announcements, charity appeals broadcast free of charge,
announcements required by the BSC and information to viewers broadcast in accordance with an ITC
requirement;
(b) publicity by the licensees themselves except information to viewers about or in connection with
programmes.
Rules on the promotion of programmes, channels and related services on
commercial television, Rule 1
ITC licensees may, outside advertising time, and subject to the following rules,
• promote programmes, events and strands being shown by that licensee, and
• make reference to any other channel or related service (such as a website) that they provide.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-13 11:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-13 12:36 pm (UTC)If MPH incorporated as a charity then they would no longer be able to support demonstrations or political activities of any kind. How anyone can say any kind of charitable activity isn't a political statement I don't know, but there you go... It's maddening!
no subject
Date: 2005-09-13 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-13 01:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-13 01:28 pm (UTC)current public policy" and so on; so it seems to me it's more a case of getting the rules changed than the decision being outlandish. I imagine that the rules have grown up to curb all manner of people who claim not to be playing party politics from taking advantage, so any change in wording would have to be very precise.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-13 04:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-13 12:16 pm (UTC)Reading on within the pdf I see that 'Cathouse' received one complaint. It's a series filmed live in a brothel, ffs! What did the viewer expect to see?
no subject
Date: 2005-09-13 02:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-13 02:37 pm (UTC)Or do you want to be knee-deep in "lower fuel tax; more road building" adverts?
no subject
Date: 2005-09-13 02:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-13 07:07 pm (UTC)