ESC JUNE BULLETIN 



Editorial Standards Findings: 


Appeals and other editorial issues to 
the Trust considered by the Editorial 
Standards Committee 

June 2009 
Issued July 2009 


Remit of the Editorial Standards Committee 


The Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) is responsible for assisting the Trust in securing 
editorial standards. It has a number of responsibilities, set out in its Terms of Reference at 
bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/meetings_and_minutes/bbc_trust_committees.html. 

The Committee comprises six Trustees: Richard Tait (Chairman), Chitra Bharucha, 
Mehmuda Mian, David Liddiment, Alison Hastings and Anthony Fry. It is advised and 
supported by the Trust Unit. 

In line with the ESC’s responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of handling editorial 
complaints by BBC management, the Committee considers appeals against the decisions and 
actions of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) or of a BBC Director with 
responsibility for the BBC’s output (if the editorial complaint falls outside the remit of the 
ECU). 

The Committee will consider appeals concerning complaints which allege that: 

• 
the complainant has suffered unfair treatment either in a transmitted programme or item, 
or in the process of making the programme or item 
• 
the complainant’s privacy has been unjustifiably infringed, either in a transmitted 
programme or item, or in the process of making the programme or item 
• 
there has otherwise been a failure to observe required editorial standards 
The Committee will aim to reach a final decision on an appeal within 16 weeks of receiving 
the request. 

The findings for all appeals accepted by the Committee are reported in this bulletin, Editorial 
Complaints: Appeals to the Trust. 

As set out in its Terms of Reference, the Committee can decline to consider an appeal 
which in its opinion: 

• 
is vexatious or trivial; 
• 
does not raise a matter of substance; 
• 
relates to the content of a programme or item which has not yet been broadcast; 
• 
concerns issues of bias by omission in BBC news programmes unless the Chairman 
believes that it is plausible that the omission of an item could have led to a breach of the 
guidelines on impartiality; 
• 
has not been made within four weeks of the final correspondence with the ECU or BBC 
Director on the original complaint; and 
• 
relates to matters which are the subject of or likely to be the subject of, or relevant to, 
legal proceedings. 
The Committee will not generally reconsider any aspects of complaints that have already 
been adjudicated upon or considered by a Court. 



Any appeals that the Committee has declined to consider under the above criteria are 
reported in the bulletin. 

In line with its duty to consider topics of editorial concern to the Committee, whether or 
not such concern arises from a formal complaint, and to commission information requests 
from the Trust Unit or Executive to support such consideration, the Committee also from 
time to time requests the Executive to report to the Committee regarding breaches which 
have been accepted by the Executive and are therefore not subject to appeal to the 
Committee. The bulletin also may contain findings relating to such cases. 

The bulletin also includes any remedial action/s directed by the Committee. 

It is published at bbc.co.uk/bbctrust or is available from: 

The Secretary, Editorial Standards Committee 
BBC Trust Unit 
Room 211, 35 Marylebone High Street 
London W1U 4AA 



Contents 


Page 

Remit of the Editorial Standards Committee 1 
Contents 3 
Summary of findings 4 
Findings 7 

Atom, BBC Four, 26 July – 9 August 2007 7 
BBC News Online – Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue 22 
Massive – Episodes 2 and 3, BBC Three, 21 September 2008 29 
Woman’s Hour, BBC Radio 4, 9 September 2008 42 



Summary of findings 

Atom, BBC Four, 26 July – 9 August 2007 

The complaint relates to a three-part series about the history of scientific 
understanding of the atom, originally broadcast on BBC Four. The complainant 
alleges that the series contained numerous scientific and historical inaccuracies. 

The Committee concluded: 

• 
that the opening shot of a noose and the commentary which associated 
opposition to Ludwig Boltzmann’s scientific ideas with his suicide was an 
acceptable production technique in a programme attempting to make 
science accessible to a general audience. 
• 
that it endorsed the Editorial Complaints Unit’s uphold (at stage 2 of the 
BBC complaints process) of a breach of the accuracy guidelines with 
regard to the statement that “100 years ago arguing atoms were real was 
considered by most scientists to be a waste of time”. 
• 
that the programme’s references to “pure energy” were duly accurate 
and justified in the context of a science programme intended for a lay 
audience. 
• 
that, in simplifying the description of the process by which a helium atom 
is formed, the programme was not likely to mislead its audience and was 
duly accurate. 
• 
that the programme presented a view of the relationship between Bohr 
and Einstein as a shorthand for Einstein’s concerns with some aspects of 
Quantum Theory, and that this shorthand was duly accurate. 
• 
that the script relating to fission of a uranium nucleus could have been 
better phrased, however, the statement that it splits into two equal 
pieces was duly accurate in the context of an accessible science 
programme. 
• 
that the time taken to deal with this complaint was well beyond the 
BBC’s targets, due in part to the complexity of the scientific issues and 
the reliance on specialist external advisers. 
The previous uphold by the ECU was endorsed. The additional elements of the 
complaint were not upheld. 

For the finding in full please see pages 7 to 21. 

BBC News Online – Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue 

In the course of the complainant’s correspondence with the BBC on a different 
complaint he raised a complaint concerning an online article, framed as a question 
and answer piece (Q&A), covering Iran’s nuclear programme. The complainant 
alleges that this Q&A is one-sided and inaccurate in implying that Iran has a nuclear 
weapons programme. 



The Editorial Standards Committee considered the Q&A against the BBC guidelines 
on accuracy and impartiality. 

The Committee concluded: 

• 
that the Q&A article had been accurate and that all opinions within it had 
been properly attributed, and also that the reference to the NAM 
included in a later version had been an accurate representation of the 
NAM’s views. 
• 
that, while there could have been more information provided on why 
Israel and India had not signed up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 
focus of this Q&A was Iran and therefore there had been no breach of 
the accuracy or impartiality guidelines with regard to other states. 
• 
that the Q&A reflected the key parties involved, was fair and objective, 
and had not breached the guidelines on impartiality. 
The complaint was not upheld. 

For the finding in full please see pages 22 to 28 

Massive – Episodes 2 and 3, BBC Three, 21 September 2008 

The complainant said the BBC had given undue prominence to Lambrini, and 
presented an image of it which was wholly unfair and misleading. The complainant 
was concerned that whether it was intended or not, anyone watching the episodes 
would conclude that the drink was strongly associated with immoderate 
consumption and the excessive binge drinking culture. The complainant considered 
an association had been made with “girls who are uncouth, ill-mannered and 
excessive drinkers,” and this was an incorrect and unfair portrayal of, and offensive 
to, consumers of Lambrini. The repeated use of, and negative references to, Lambrini 
could not be editorially or journalistically justified and unfairly caused damage to a 
quality, good value brand which was enjoyed by a wide range of consumers. 

The Committee considered the programme against the guidelines on editorial 
integrity and independence, accuracy and fairness. 

The Committee concluded: 

• 
that, taking into account the nature of the comedy, the nature and 
number of references to the product, and the marketing and advertising 
material relating to the product, the references in the two episodes of 
Massive complained of were editorially justified and did not constitute a 
breach of the BBC’s guidelines on undue prominence. 
• 
that the portrayal of a 75cl bottle of Lambrini as being available on 
licensed premises was not materially inaccurate such as to constitute a 
breach of the accuracy guidelines. 
• 
that the guidelines on fair portrayal in drama do not relate to products 

and thus the Committee did not consider it an appropriate test in this 
context. 

The complaint was not upheld. 

For the finding in full please see pages 29 to 41. 

Woman’s Hour, BBC Radio 4, 9 September 2008 

The complainant said the item was an endorsement of a recently published book 
called Perfumes: The Guide. The complainant also believed the identification of some 
of the products and the way they were described amounted to promotion of the 
products and a breach of the guidelines on product placement. The complainant also 
stated that the item was not balanced because it presented perfumes as products 
necessary to well-being and did not represent the health case against their use. 

The Editorial Standards Committee considered the item against the guidelines on 
editorial integrity and independence as well as impartiality. 

The Committee concluded: 

• 
that the programme’s single reference to the book’s title and the authors 
was editorially justified given that the item was using the publication of 
the book as a way of introducing a light-hearted discussion of perfumes. 
• 
that the reference had not unduly promoted the book and was justified to 
give the audience appropriate information as to the relevance of the 
guests. 
• 
that the studio discussion focused on perfumes in general and not on the 
content or the merits of the book. 
• 
that, with regard to the book, the programme had been sensitive to the 
requirement of the guidelines to keep product references to a minimum. 
• 
that, while a number of perfumes had been named, this was justified in 
the context of a discussion on the variation of perfumes and their 
fragrance. 
• 
that the programme had not unduly promoted any specific perfume over 
another, or the use of perfumes in general. 
• 
that the impartiality guidelines do not require programme makers to 
include in coverage of a given topic every argument or every facet of 
every argument as long as opposing views are not misrepresented. 
• 
that there was no requirement for this programme, which was 
considering the relative merits of perfume fragrances, to discuss the 
potential health issues. 
The complaint was not upheld. 

For the finding in full please see pages 42 to 51. 



Findings 

Atom, BBC Four, 26 July – 9 August 2007 

1. The programme 
Atom was a three-part BBC Four documentary series examining the quest to 
understand the atom. It was presented by Professor Jim Al-Khalili, Professor of 
Physics at the University of Surrey. The series was first broadcast in 2007 on 26 July, 
2 August and 9 August. The series was repeated in September 2007 and then in 2008 
on BBC Four between 9 and 11 January, and also shown on BBC Two on 21 January, 
28 January and 4 February. 

2. The complaint 
The complainant wrote to BBC Information on 27 July 2007 following the broadcast 
of the first programme in the series (26 July). He complained that: 

“For any informed viewer it was exasperating for the great number of serious 
errors. For a non-scientist it must have been meaningless. For a student it 
would be very misleading.” 

The complainant also questioned the use of certain production techniques used in 
the programme such as alpha particles going “ping” when causing a flash, tails on 
electrons that made them look like comets and odd representations of waves. 

The complainant wrote again on 3 August 2007 following the transmission of the 
second programme on 2 August. He pointed to several inaccuracies in the 
programme. In particular he noted there was a reference to “supposed energy in 
coal” which he stated could not be the case as “chemical fuels do not contain 
energy”. In another example he pointed out that it was inaccurate to suggest that 
two protons fusing by strong interaction formed helium – “this does not happen”. 

Following the broadcast of the third programme on 9 August, the complainant wrote 
again on 11 August 2007 regarding the inaccuracy of the programme. The 
complainant explained that the discussion concerning the annihilation of a particle-
antiparticle pair where “pure-energy” was said to be produced was meaningless, 
pointing out that there was no such thing as “pure-energy”. The complainant noted 
that atomic science had had very great influence on nearly every pure and applied 
science and technology. Yet these developments had been ignored in the series and 
the programme had spent inadequate time on the speculations of cosmology and 
sub-sub-atomic physics. 

BBC Information replied on 15 August 2007 that it was considering the 
complainant’s comments concerned with his letters of the 27 July and 3 August, but 
stated that more time was needed to reply. 



The complainant wrote again on 18 August 2007 enclosing some “rough notes” to 
make his point clear: 

• 
Atoms 
“The term is used loosely. Particles called atoms by chemists are very rare … 
perhaps we can be more explicit.” 
• 
The Reality 
“In 1905 scientists generally took the existence of atoms for granted … the 
diffusion theory is important but it is quite wrong to teach that Einstein 
proved the existence of atoms or invented kinetic theory.” 
• 
The Nuclear Atom 
“It is unfortunate that radiations from radioactive substances are called 
radioactive, since they are not. Also references to high penetration are 
misleading.” 
• 
Quantum Changes 
“Quantum steps in emission and absorption are strongly proposed by 
Einstein in his 1905 paper on quanta. It is staggering to find in the programme 
that Einstein is said to have rejected the concept.” 
• 
Indeterminacy 
“Developments of quantum theory have been based on wave mechanics, not 
Heisenberg’s matrices.” 
• 
Atomic Masses 
“They were determined with increasing accuracy from 1900 onwards. Aston 
established the existence of isotopes … and found their relative masses.” 
• 
Nuclear Fusion 
“In the sun this begins with the weak interaction of two protons … the 
suggested diproton does not exist.” 
• 
Fission 
“The probability of spontaneous fusion of the nuclides used as fuel is very 
low, so can be disregarded…” 
• 
Bonds 
“…Coal (mostly carbon) does not contain energy, nor does the oxygen with 
which it interacts when burnt…” 
• 
Radioactive Wave Mechanics 
“… There is no such thing as ‘pure energy…” 
In his summary to the notes, the complainant concluded: 



“These notes give an immediate superficial analysis. The programmes appear 
to give some very wrong ideas about a very difficult subject – how can one in 
three hours discuss such matters? In such a time one simple phenomenon 
might be discussed usefully.” 

In a further letter dated 5 September 2007 the complainant stated his concerns 
about the education in science and especially in physics which he considered to be in 
“a very bad state”. He noted that the Atom series may have influenced teaching, 
examinations and reference works and therefore suggested that it was important 
that corrective action should be taken to prevent further presentation of these 
inaccuracies. 

On 25 September 2007 the complainant wrote again to BBC Information noting that 
he had still not received a satisfactory reply to his complaint. 

BBC Information replied on 10 October 2007 stating that it had contacted the series 
producer and presenter Professor Jim Al-Khalili about the complaint. In relation to 
the way the subject was presented Professor Al-Khalili stated: 

In relation to the soundtrack: 

“[…] this is a subjective view and we feel strongly that the soundtrack helped 
the audience follow the plot and engage in the narrative.” 

The visual presentation of electrons and waves: 

“[…] there cannot be a realistic picture of such particles. We have no 
possible way of depicting electron wave functions ... as physical entities … All 
these techniques should not be taken literally but are used to help the 
audience get a feel and appreciation of the physics.” 

In response to other issues raised by the complainant Professor Al-Khalili replied 
that he did not believe the programme had misled viewers noting for example that: 

“The chemical energy in coal comes from carbon’s propensity to combine 
with oxygen and is, in that sense, clearly contained within it. The point is that 
radioactive energy pouring out of radium is greatly more intense than the 
energy that comes from burning coal.” 

In relation to the teaching of nuclear binding energy Professor Al-Khalili noted that 
he had encountered difficulties with students during his 15 years of teaching and that 
he had got round this by stating: 

“…that if you make a strong bond that wasn’t there before you need to put 
the energy produced back in again to break it and reverse the process.” 

He went on to say that the: 



“[…] concept of negative energy, whether in a chemical bond, nuclear binding 
or a gravitational potential, was deemed too tough in this series, as were 
many other concepts in the science covered.” 

He noted that: 

“There is plenty of nuclear physics that is skimmed over. We had to decide 
what is correct science but still at a level that people can follow.” 

The complainant replied on 17 October 2007 requesting an explanation as to why 
there had been such a long delay to answering his letters. He also pointed out that 
Professor Al-Khalili’s response was “unsatisfactory”. He stated: 

“It should be obvious that there is no chemical energy in fuel, any more than 
there is in oxygen, with its ‘propensity to combine’ with carbon. This is an 
essential point because unless it is understood one cannot understand a large 
part of science.” 

The complainant also addressed the concept of negative-energy which he considered 
“absolutely essential” and claimed that Professor Al-Khalili had confused the topic of 
nuclear fusion by trying to justify a misleading treatment. 

BBC Information replied on 25 October 2007 apologising for the delay to its reply 
stating that the delay was due to awaiting responses from various production teams. 

In a response to BBC Information dated 6 November 2007 the complainant noted 
that the series Atom was indefensible. He noted at the end of his letter that: 

“Programmes go out to be seen or heard by great numbers of people 
without any appropriate checks. No corrections have been broadcast so far. 
Every scholarly and ethical principle demands a radical change of policy.” 

The complainant escalated his complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) on 
11 January 2008. He noted that when the Atom series had been transmitted in 2007, 
he had drawn attention to: 

“[…] many of the fundamental mistakes in science and the history of science. 
… instead of broadcasting the necessary correction the BBC is now 
repeating the series.” 

Over the next six months the complainant and the ECU exchanged correspondence 
in which it was noted that a further transmission of the Atom series had been shown 
and that the ECU had decided to take advice from an outside expert, a physicist, on 
the accuracy of the series. The ECU explained its reply would be delayed. 

On 25 September 2008 the ECU replied to the complainant with its finding. The 
reply noted the length of time the complainant had been waiting for a response to 
his complaints and that the delay had been due in part to the unit awaiting the 



external report from Professor David Wark FRS, of Imperial College London. The 
ECU suggested the complaint fell into two categories: 

• 
The first related to the accuracy of the scientific information. 
• 
The second concerned the style of television production. 
The ECU noted that it was only able to consider the first category as the function of 
the ECU was to consider whether there had been a serious breach of the BBC’s 
standards as expressed in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. However, the reply did note 
that Professor Wark addressed in his report: 

“The issue of how to balance the tension between making sure programmes 
are rigorously accurate while at the same time explaining complex concepts 
to an audience unfamiliar with physics…” 

The ECU finding noted that the presenter Professor Al-Khalili was a distinguished 
nuclear physicist and actively engaged in teaching physics to undergraduates and was, 
therefore, well placed to judge the appropriate way to explain complex scientific 
concepts. The reply noted that this affected some of the complainant’s suggestions 
such as explaining the energy in a chemical bond. The ECU noted that the 
complainant had suggested it would best be explained in terms of “negative energy” 
but Professor Wark had considered this approach but had not regarded it “as 
appropriate in this context.” 

The ECU also noted there were times when the presenter, Professor Al-Khalili used 
terms in a way that the complainant considered “loose”, but which were in fact 
common amongst physicists. For example “mass” was one such term: 

“It does have a lay meaning but there are increasingly precise terms, such as 
“rest mass” and “invariate mass of a system” which are correspondingly, 
increasingly far from the general public understanding of the concept, and 
correspondingly difficult to explain.” 

The ECU did note that Professor Wark had identified two points where he believed 
the series was at fault. 

“The first came early in episode one, where it set out to describe how 
scientists first came to grips with the concept of the atom, attributing it to 
Boltzmann and then Einstein.” 

The ECU said the complainant had said that this had ignored the works of chemists 
such as Maxwell. The ECU noted that that problem arose from a single script line: 

“100 years ago arguing atoms were real was considered by most scientists to 
be a waste of time.” 

The ECU noted that it was true that Boltzmann faced strong criticism from, among 
others, his Vienna colleague Ernst Mach, on the grounds that atoms were a purely 



theoretical construct. The ECU also noted that Mach also had significant support 
from other leading scientists, but concluded that it went too far to say that “most 
scientists” simply considered the matter settled, and therefore not worth discussing. 
The ECU noted that the fact they were discussing it demonstrates that the 
proposition was false. The ECU decided to uphold this aspect of the complainant’s 
complaint. 

The ECU considered that the second point where Professor Wark believed the 
series was at fault entailed a much closer judgment. It related to Einstein’s view of 
quantum theory, as laid out in the first section of the programme: 

“But Bohr’s new idea rested on a single, seriously controversial supposition. 
Why should the electrons in an atom behave as though they were in a multi 
storey building? Why should they magically perform “quantum jumps” from 
one storey to another? There was no precedent for it anywhere else in 
science … Bohr’s weird new atom and his crazy quantum jumps were a shot 
across the bows of traditional, classical science and the old school reacted 
angrily. Leading the traditionalists was giant of the physics world, Albert 
Einstein. He hated Bohr’s ideas. And he was going to fight them. Anything to 
save the world of order and common sense from this assault by madness … 
His celebrity status gave him power. When he said that he loathed ideas like 
quantum jumping that seemed plucked out of thin air, people listened.” 

The ECU said that both the complainant and Professor Wark argued that: 

“it was the indeterminacy inherent in quantum theory, not the theory itself, 
that Einstein disliked.” 

The ECU said that in its view the script was sufficiently carefully phrased to avoid 
giving the impression that: 

“[…] Einstein hated the whole idea of quantum theory, confining its report of 
what Einstein hated to ‘Bohr’s … crazy quantum jumps’.” 

The ECU concluded that in a programme aimed at a lay audience this was a 
sufficiently accurate paraphrase of Einstein’s views. The ECU therefore did not 
uphold this aspect of the complainant’s complaint. 

The ECU said that Professor Wark had identified further questionable points in the 
programme which he regarded as “effectively inconsequential.” 

The ECU added that the complainant had identified a straightforward factual 
inaccuracy – the description of Boltzmann as a “German scientist” when he was in 
fact Austrian. 

The ECU said that the question for it was whether these points amounted to a 
serious breach of the standards in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The ECU therefore 
concluded that: 



“…on the science, I am content to rely on Professor Wark’s judgment. On 
the question of Boltzmann’s nationality, I regret the error, but do not think 
the country of his birth is material to the audience’s understanding of his 
contribution to science and of the matters addressed in the programme…” 

The ECU did not consider it was a point on which it should uphold the complaint. 

The complainant wrote to the ESC on 30 September 2008 to request his complaint 
be heard on appeal. In his letter of appeal the complainant stated his gratitude to 
Professor Wark, who he said had “added greatly to the criticisms”. The complainant 
said that he was resending his complaint following the reading of Professor Wark’s 
report under five areas of complaint: 

(1) The Reality of Atoms 
(2) Pure Energy 
(3) Solar Energy 
(4) Einstein and Bohr 
(5) Bond Energy 
3. Applicable editorial standards 
Section 3 – Accuracy 

Introduction 

The BBC's commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value and fundamental to our 
reputation. Our output must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly 
tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open 
about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation. 
For the BBC accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than a 
question of getting the facts right. All the relevant facts and information should be 
weighed to get at the truth. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as 
facts may need to be considered. 

We aim to achieve accuracy by: 

• 
the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources wherever possible. 
• 
checking and cross checking the facts. 
• 
validating the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material. 
• 
corroborating claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible. 
Gathering material 

We should try to witness events and gather information first hand. Where this is not 
possible, we should talk to first hand sources and, where necessary, corroborate 
their evidence. 

Fact checking 

We must check and verify information, facts and documents, particularly those 
researched on the internet. This may include confirming with an individual or 



organisation that they posted material and that it is accurate. Even the most 
convincing material on the web may not be what it seems. 

Misleading audiences 

We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly 
do anything to mislead our audiences. We may need to label material to avoid doing 
so. 

Correcting mistakes 

We should normally acknowledge serious factual errors and correct mistakes quickly 
and clearly. Inaccuracy may lead to a complaint of unfairness. An effective way of 
correcting a mistake is saying what was wrong as well as putting it right. Where we 
may have broadcast a defamatory inaccuracy Programme Legal Advice should be 
consulted about the wording of a correction. 

Section 17 – Accountability 

Introduction 

The BBC is accountable to its audiences. Their continuing trust in the BBC is a 
crucial part of our contract with them. We will act in good faith by dealing fairly and 
openly with them. 

We are open in admitting mistakes when they are made and encourage a culture of 
willingness to learn from them. 

We will use the BBC's online presence to provide proper reporting to the public on 
complaints we have received, and actions we have taken. 
(www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/). 

Feedback & complaints 

Audiences are at the heart of everything the BBC does. Audience feedback is 
invaluable to us and helps improve programme quality. 

Our commitment to our audiences is to ensure that complaints and enquiries are 
dealt with quickly, courteously and with respect. 

4. The Committee’s decision 
The Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) of the BBC Trust considered the 
complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC’s editorial 
guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. 

In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, 
including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report, advice commissioned 
from Professor Cyril Hilsum and the subsequent submissions from the complainant 
and the programme team. 



This appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to 
accuracy. There was also a complaint about the length of time the complaint had 
taken to resolve. 

In particular these extracts from the guidelines on accuracy are relevant: 

“Our output must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly 
tested and presented in clear, precise language.” 

and 

“If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be 
considered.” 

and 

“We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or 
knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences.” 

The Committee did not revisit the one matter in programme 1 previously upheld by 
the ECU as a breach of the accuracy guideline. 

The Committee had a preliminary discussion on the role and audience expectation 
of Atom as a three-part series broadcast on BBC Four and then BBC Two. It noted 
that the programme was commissioned for a general audience and that the internet 
logs suggested that it had been watched by a wide variety of people of differing ages 
and scientific expertise from schoolchildren through to academics. The vast majority 
of a very large response had enjoyed the series. The Committee noted that Atom 
concerned a subject as challenging and un-televisual – indeed by its essence invisible 

– as any likely to be made. 
The Committee stressed that it was supportive of the BBC commissioning and 
making the best quality science programmes to the highest possible standards. 

The Committee agreed that the programme was meant to entertain, educate and 
inform a general audience, but not necessarily be didactic in the way it did this. It was 
not aimed at experts in the field. It undoubtedly simplified some elements in order to 
make the subject accessible. Members discussed whether any inaccuracy or 
simplification was serious enough to breach the requirement for due accuracy. 

The Committee then went on to consider the main headings of complaint. 

1. 
The reality of atoms 
a) The suicide of Boltzmann 
b) The history of the discovery of the atom 
2. Pure energy 

3. Solar energy 
4. Einstein and Bohr 
5. Nuclear fission 
1a) The suicide of Boltzmann 

The programme proper starts with a noose – a dramatic introduction to a science 
programme – and tells the story of a scientist, Ludwig Boltzmann. 

The script reads: 

“One of the key factors in his depression was that he had been vilified, even 
ostracised for believing something that today we take for granted.” 

Professor Hilsum advised: 

“The script had stated earlier that he had psychological problems, but made 
no mention of his frequent bouts of depression and his several previous 
suicide attempts… The "vilification" was no more than the normal opposition 
that scientists receive when they propound new theories. It is true that he 
had one powerful opponent, Ernst Mach, who held a senior position in 
Vienna University, where Boltzmann worked, but most reports indicated that 
Boltzmann's approach had prevailed. Boltzmann moved to Leipzig University 
in 1900, and Mach retired in 1902. Boltzmann was given Mach's chair, and 
prospered immensely…. There could have been a reason for depression ten 
years earlier, but there certainly was none in 1906.” 

The Committee considered that Professor Hilsum had raised two issues. Firstly that 
opposition did not equate to vilification and secondly that the opposition had ended 
by the time Ludwig Boltzmann died. 

The Committee noted that this was a dramatic opening image and an attempt to 
engage a general audience in a very complex set of scientific notions by engaging the 
audience with a personal story. 

The Committee considered that the use of the word “vilification” to represent 
scientific opposition and linking that opposition to Ludwig Boltzmann’s depression 
and suicide was an acceptable production technique in a programme attempting to 
make science accessible and understandable to a general audience. 

The script was duly accurate. 

1b) The history of the discovery of the atom 



The Committee accepted that the essence of history is interpretation. It noted the 
complainant’s concerns that the nuclear atom was proposed 1903 and there was half 
a century of chemistry in this area. 

The Committee endorsed the earlier ECU uphold of a breach in this section of the 
series with regard to the line: 

“100 years ago arguing atoms were real was considered by most scientists to 
be a waste of time.” 

The Committee did not otherwise uphold this complaint on accuracy. 

2. Pure energy 
The complainant objected to the use of the phrase “pure energy”. 

To give his complaint in context he said: 

“Among the 57 varieties of meaning and non-meaning now given to ‘energy’ 
one of the most pervasive is that of an imponderable fluid (like phlogiston, 
caloric and ‘ether’) which conforms with ‘pure energy’. I argue that in science 
energy is a mathematical quantity. Radiation is analysed in terms of the 
transfer of mass, momentum, energy and angular momentum. The work of 
Einstein (1905) explicitly states the transfer of mass. That radiation transfers 
momentum was shown by Maxwell and this was assumed by Boltzmann 
(1884) in his analysis of cavity radiation, then by others in the analysis of the 
spectrum, leading to quantum theory. Direct experimental measurement was 
first made in 1900, and of course has been exploited in more modern work 

e.g. with laser beams. The momentum of X and gamma rays is involved in e.g. 
the Compton effect. The basic facts of ‘annihilation’ and pair production 
depend on the momentum transfer. 
“It is inconceivable that even the most elementary account could properly 
ignore the transfer of mass and momentum. 

“In popular and elementary accounts the relevance of angular momentum 
could be omitted, but it is essential later for e.g. selection rules in optical and 
gamma-ray spectra. 

“Here and generally, elementary accounts should not contradict what may 
have to come later.” 

The Committee noted that the complainant stresses laying down the foundations for 
good science here. But it agreed this was a TV programme, not educational material, 
coursework or a PhD thesis. 

Professor Hilsum commented: 



“The script shows 

‘Matter and anti-matter must never come into contact because if they 
do they will annihilate each other in a fierce conflagration of pure 
energy.’ 

Actually the complainant could have quoted as well 

‘It looked like a cloud around the atom, a cloud-like wave of pure 
energy.’ 

There is no such thing as ‘pure’ energy, nor, for that matter, ‘impure’ energy. 
The presenter is not trying to convey some extra quality to the emission, but 
to add some poetry to the picture. There is no intent to mislead, nor any 
possibility of so doing.” 

The Committee concluded that the description here was duly accurate, justified in 
the context of a science programme for a lay audience and not likely to mislead. 

The Committee did not uphold this complaint on accuracy. 

3. Solar energy 
The complaint again is one of inaccuracy. The complainant said: 

“Surely an elementary account could be given without misinformation? 
Protons normally repel electrically. But very rarely there may be a nuclear 
interaction in which two join to make deuteron, a positron being generated. 
Within the Sun deuterons [s…?] undergo reactions with protons, and 
eventually four protons will have combined to form a He-4 nucleus.” 

The script says: 

“This is how it works: the nucleus of a single atom of hydrogen consists of 
just a proton. And every now and again inside the high pressure high 
temperature cauldron of the sun this proton can get squeezed up close to 
another and bang, the strong nuclear force kicked in and fuses them together. 
Now this is a process that eventually leads to the creation of a helium atom 
and it’s accompanied by the release of energy as a burst of light and heat.” 

Professor Hilsum advised: 

“It is difficult to identify differences of substance between [the complainant’s] 
and the script. He uses ‘very rarely’, the script ‘now and again’. The sentence 
beginning ‘eventually’ is matched by the last sentence of the script extract 
above.” 

Professor Al-Khalili, the programme presenter, had replied on 10 July 2008: 



“Technically the initial reaction in the two-step process from hydrogen to 
helium is said to proceed via the weak interaction. However, what we mean 
by the fusion being due to the strong force is not how the reaction proceeds, 
a weak process, but that the attractive potential that pulls the protons 
together to overcome their Coulomb repulsion in the first place is in fact the 
strong force. The fact that the two protons don't bind and that one decays to 
a neutron so that a bound deuteron is formed was deemed not necessary to 
explain.” 

Professor Hilsum added: 

“The complainant remains concerned, believing that the programme would 
give any student the idea that two protons join together to form a diproton. 
He does not say that the words used were incorrect, but that they would 
give ‘any’ student the wrong impression. Professor Al-Khalili accepts that he 
took a short cut, but does not agree that this would mislead.” 

The Committee agreed with Professor Hilsum that the matter was largely a question 
of opinion, that the presenter’s judgment was not at fault and that the programme 
was duly accurate and not likely to mislead. 

The Committee did not uphold this complaint on accuracy. 

4. Einstein and Bohr 
The complainant’s view was that: 

“Atom gave a totally wrong idea of the disagreement between Bohr and 
Einstein … The concept of energy levels and quantum jumps is implicit in 
Einstein’s paper of 1905, Bohr did not originate this, but he took it further. 
Far from disputing the idea Einstein made a very major contribution to the 
relation between absorption, spontaneous and stimulated emission (a study 
which much later led to the maser and laser). 

The question of indeterminacy in the location of particles (a very different 
issue) arose much later, and it was in this that Bohr and Einstein did not 
agree.” 

Professor Hilsum commented: 

“The controversy between Einstein and Bohr has been the subject of many 
books and articles, and few can claim to fully understand the attitudes and 
motivations of the principals. Bohr even wrote a paper in 1939 which 
completely disagreed with the Proceedings of the Solvay Conference, which 
he had partly written. 



“Einstein completely accepted the concept of quanta. Where he disagreed 
with Bohr was on the properties of quanta. He was unhappy about 
probability, and felt the theory was incomplete. He said ‘God does not throw 
dice’, and Bohr replied ‘Einstein should stop telling God what he is to do’. 
The debate continued in a perfectly logical way, with Einstein, and others, 
pointing out apparent inconsistencies, and Bohr, and others, trying to answer 
them. It cannot be denied that strong feelings were aroused, but it is doubtful 
that this extended to personal dislike … The programme certainly dramatises 
this controversy, particularly when dealing with the Solvay conference, and 
the descriptions of Einstein and Bohr's expressions in the photograph are 
conjectural. Certainly Einstein did not accept certain aspects of Quantum 
Theory, feeling they were insufficient. He did not reject the concept. The 
nearest the script comes to stating this is: 

‘He hated Bohr's ideas. And he was going to fight them’.” 

Professor Hilsum advised that the programme was not inaccurate or misleading. He 
thought there may have been some exaggeration but that this was justified as 
legitimate dramatisation. 

The Committee stated that the programme presented a view on the Einstein/ Bohr 
scientific relationship. It concluded that in deliberating on appropriate accuracy and 
thought the programme-makers had had to strike a balance between spelling out 
complex and quite possibly impenetrable details and simplifying ideas to make them 
accessible. It concluded that this shorthand for Einstein’s concerns with some 
aspects of Quantum Theory was duly accurate. 

The Committee did not uphold this complaint on accuracy. 

5. Nuclear Fission 
Professor Hilsum commented that the complainant stated in the correspondence: 

“‘Spontaneous fission of nuclides used as fuel is rare, and can be 
disregarded. On capture of a neutron the nucleus is excited and may 
either fission or emit gamma rays. The two fission fragments are very 
rarely equal, but typically have masses in the ratio 3:2.’ 

“He is presumably referring to the episode in programme 2 where Lise 
Meitner receives a letter from Otto Hahn while with Otto Frisch. The script 
said: 

‘They realised that the Uranium nucleus wasn't just having a small 
piece chipped off the edge – the nucleus was literally splitting into two 
equal halves. Meitner and Frisch were shocked beyond belief. The idea 
that Uranium could literally split into two had never been considered 
remotely possible.’ 



“It is unfortunate that the word ’literally’ is near the word ‘equal’, but it is 
next to ‘splitting’, where it is meant to apply. Later that attribution is 
repeated. No doubt if the presenter's attention had been drawn to the 
wording, he would have regretted it. As the complainant says, the fragments 
are unequal. This is an inaccuracy, not a scientific error.” 

Professor Hilsum advised that the wording used to describe Meitner's and Frisch's 
reaction was chosen unfortunately, and could have misled some viewers. However, 
he thought that little harm could have been done by the misunderstanding. 

The Committee concluded that the script on fission could have been better phrased. 
The ESC accepted that the typical ratio is 3:2 and a 50:50 split was rare. However, 
the statement that the nucleus splits into equal halves was duly accurate in the 
context of an accessible science programme. 

The Committee did not uphold this complaint on accuracy. 

Complaint Handling 

The Committee accepted that there had been more delay in dealing with this 
complaint than would be desirable. It accepted that this had been due to a variety of 
factors which, taken together, had extended the time taken overall well beyond the 
BBC’s targets. 

But the time it took was to some extent justified due to the complexities of the 
scientific questions raised, the level of scientific advice that was sought and the 
demand the investigation made on the time of senior people who were not working 
full-time for the BBC. 

The Committee wished to apologise to the complainant for the time taken to 
respond to his complaint. It was satisfied that the BBC’s dealings with him had been 
conducted “courteously and with respect”. 

Finding: Not upheld 



BBC News Online – Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue 

1. Background to the appeal 
The complainant originally wrote to BBC News on 1 August 2008 asking why “a 
crucial story” on the Non-Aligned Movement’s (NAM’s) support for Iran had been 
absent from BBC online news, radio and TV. 

During subsequent correspondence the complainant also stated that an explainer 
couched in Q&A form on the BBC News website, about Iran and the nuclear issue, 
“gave a very one sided view”. 

He was unsatisfied with the BBC’s response concerning its news coverage and 
appealed to the BBC Trust on 1 December 2008, asking it “to examine [this] issue as 
you should be ensuring the BBC abides by its charter to be ‘impartial’ , ‘balanced’, 
and ‘cover a range of opinions’. The coverage afforded Iran during July/August (2008) 
was particularly worrying as the BBC gave prominence to belligerent US and Israeli 
officials without giving prominence to those expressing an opposing opinion”. 

The appeal being considered by the ESC concerns the website’s Q&A. 

With regard to the complainant’s broader complaint about news coverage during 
July/August 2008, the ESC had earlier rejected this complaint in February 2009. In its 
rejection of the complaint of bias by omission the Committee had noted that it was 
not plausible that the omission of the NAM’s position could have led to a breach of 
the guidelines on impartiality. The Committee noted that that there was no 
obligation upon BBC News to report this story. The decision as to which stories 
BBC News should cover was the responsibility of the news editor on the day. When 
considering the non inclusion of this story the Committee agreed that it was within 
the range of normal news judgments regarding the news value of a story and that 
this was one facet of the coverage of the Iranian nuclear story. As such, the 
Committee concluded that this did not raise a matter of substance and thus did not 
consider it appropriate to take the appeal. 

2. The complaint 
The complainant wrote to the Director of News on 25 September 2008 setting out 
his concerns that BBC News had omitted to mention the NAM’s statement backing 
Iran’s right to peaceful use of nuclear power. He stated: 

“In this context of threat and hostility by the west against Iran it does seem 
odd that when it receives the support of 118 of the world’s nations in its 
right to civilian nuclear power that it is completely ignored.” 

On 14 October 2008 the Director of News replied noting that no one at BBC News 
Online could recall seeing the NAM report “on the wires” at the time the 
complainant stated the announcement was made (July/August 2008). She also stated 
that even if the news team had seen the story they would not have considered it 



breaking news because it was “a re-statement of an earlier position”. The reply also 
explained that the NAM statement had only indirectly criticised UN sanctions on 
Iran whilst also recognising there was an issue. It also noted there was not “a 100% 
endorsement of the Iranian position” amongst the NAM. Nevertheless, the reply 
concluded that following receipt of the complainant’s complaint the news website 
article explaining the Iran nuclear issue (the Q&A) had been updated to include this 
issue. The reply included the website amendment: 

“Doesn't the Non-Aligned Movement support Iran? 

The NAM, representing 120 nations, issued a statement in July 2008 
supporting Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear power. Iran said this 
reflected international support for its position. 
The statement did not directly criticise UN sanctions against Iran, though it 
said that any issues should be dealt within the IAEA. It also appeared to 
accept that there are some problems remaining when it said: ‘Diplomacy and 
dialogue through peaceful means must continue to find a comprehensive and 
long-term solution to the Iranian nuclear issue’.” 

The complainant replied on 14 October 2008 repeating his concern that the NAM 
story was not mentioned on the BBC News website. The complainant also suggested 
the Q&A on Iran “gave a very one sided view”. He believed the Q&A had implied 
that Iran had a weapons programme, although “IAEA [International Atomic Energy 
Agency1] inspections have never been able to verify this claim”. The complainant also 
stated that the article gave no mention of the “threats by the US against India that 
resulted in Iran’s file being referred from the IAEA to the Security Council in 2006”. 
The complainant concluded: 

“The BBC is failing to abide by its remit to report in a balanced, objective and 
impartial way the facts as they are but selects that which supports particular 
powerful interests.” 

The complainant wrote again to the Director of News on 6 November 2008 
requesting a response to his email of 14 October. 

The Director of News replied on 13 November 2008. In response to the complaint 
about the Q&A, she said the BBC disagreed with the suggestion the article was one 
sided and implied Iran has a nuclear weapons programme. She said: 

“It prominently reports the IAEA’s position that it has no evidence of an 
Iranian nuclear weapons programme and fairly sets out differing viewpoints, 
including that of the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which had 
concluded that Iran did not have an ongoing nuclear programme.” 

She stated: 

1 http://www.iaea.org/index.html 



“In point of fact, India’s vote against Iran did not result in the matter being 
sent by the IAEA to the Security Council. The vote was 22-1, with 11 
abstentions.” 

The Director of News also added a link to a piece on India’s position on the Iranian 
nuclear dispute current at that time. She also stated that as a result of the 
complainant’s concerns the website had been updated to incorporate the NAM’s 
perspective and weblink, and she hoped the complainant was reassured his complaint 
had been treated seriously, adding the procedure for taking the complaint to appeal 
if the complainant remained dissatisfied. 

The complainant responded on 26 November 2008 repeating his arguments 
concerning the non reflection of the NAM position on Iran. He was concerned that 
the BBC ignored the NAM because it “comprised of developing and therefore 
economically poor nations and can be labeled as politically irrelevant”. He also stated 
that the coercion of the Governors of the IAEA by the US “to politicise Iran’s 
nuclear file” should have been mentioned on the BBC website. 

The complainant emailed the ESC on 1 December 2008 requesting an appeal. 

3. Applicable editorial guidelines 
Section 3 – Accuracy 

Introduction 

The BBC's commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value and fundamental to our 
reputation. Our output must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly 
tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open 
about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation. 
For the BBC accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than a 
question of getting the facts right. All the relevant facts and information should be 
weighed to get at the truth. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as 
facts may need to be considered. 

We aim to achieve accuracy by: 

• 
the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources wherever 
possible. 
• 
checking and cross checking the facts. 
• 
validating the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material. 
• 
corroborating claims and allegations made by contributors wherever 
possible. 
Misleading audiences 

We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly 
do anything to mislead our audiences. We may need to label material to avoid doing 
so. 

Section 4 – Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion 



Introduction 

Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies 
across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins 
via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to 
reflecting a diversity of opinion. 

• 
we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at 
any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial 
reasons for doing so. 
• 
we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an 
opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not 
misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply. 
• 
we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial 
subjects. 
Achieving Impartiality 

Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach to 
achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of 
output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the content and 
approach is signposted to our audiences. 

Impartiality is described in the Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter as “due 
impartiality”. It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence 
and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our 
approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or 
facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view. 

4. The Committee’s decision 
The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as 
set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s 
values and standards. 

In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, 
including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and subsequent 
submissions from the complainant and BBC News. 

This appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to 
accuracy and impartiality. 

Accuracy and impartiality 
The Committee noted that the editorial guidelines on accuracy say that BBC output 
must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in 
clear, precise language. The BBC should be honest about what it does not know and 
avoid unfounded speculation. 



The guidelines also provide that the BBC should not distort known facts, present 
invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead audiences. It also 
requires the BBC to check and cross check the facts. 

The guidelines on impartiality say that it must be adequate and appropriate to the 
BBC’s output. The approach to achieving it will vary according to the nature of the 
subject, the type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which 
the content and approach is signposted to audiences. It also requires that news 
programmes, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. 

The Committee considered the Q&A format about which this complaint was 
concerned. The Committee noted that it was a specific part of the BBC’s journalistic 
presentation and could be found on the website on many topics. The Committee 
noted that BBC News viewed these articles as a permanent resource which was 
updated as needed. 

The Committee noted that BBC News Online had described each separate Q&A as 
accurate and impartial. The Committee also noted that BBC News stated: 

“the order [of questions] is not integral – it’s based on editorial coherence 
and relevance – it can change.” 

The Committee also noted what the complainant believed was wrong with the Q&A. 
He stated: 

“The ‘explainer’ on Iran gave a very one sided view. The article implies that 
there was a weapons programme, IAEA inspections have never been able to 
verify this claim. There is also no mention of the threats by the US against 
India that resulted in Iran’s file being referred from the IAEA to the Security 
Council in 2006.” 

The Committee noted the relevant version of the Q&A (Iran and the nuclear issue) 
was version 102 which was live from 7 October 2008 until 20 February 2009. It then 
considered the critical text which stated: 

What does the IAEA say? 

The IAEA says that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium. But it also says, in a 
September 2008 report, that it has not found evidence that Iran has diverted 
material for weapons purposes. The IAEA says that all nuclear material at the 
fuel enrichment plant remains under its “containment and surveillance”. 

It reports that Iran has not implemented a more intrusive Additional Protocol 
it signed in 2003, though it has allowed more visits. 

The UN nuclear watchdog has also been asking Iran for answers to questions 
about past Iranian activities. These had raised suspicions about whether it had 
studied how to make a nuclear warhead. 



On 26 May 2008, the IAEA reported that Iran was withholding information 
about weaponisation studies and that this needed “substantive explanations”. 
Access to some sites, documents and individuals had also been denied. Iran 
said documents in question had been forged and it had left no question 
unanswered. 

On 15 September 2008, the IAEA reported that there had been no change in 
Iran's attitude. 

What does the US intelligence assessment say about Iran? 

The National Intelligence Estimate plays down any early threat of an Iranian 
nuclear weapon. It assesses “with high confidence” that Iran did have a 
nuclear weapons programme until 2003, but this was discovered and Iran 
stopped it. 

The NIE adds: “We do not know whether it currently intends to develop 
nuclear weapons.” The assessment admits that Iran appears “less 
determined” to develop nuclear weapons than US intelligence had previously 
thought. 

It says that the earliest date by which Iran could make a nuclear weapon 
would be late 2009 but that this is “very unlikely”. 

The Committee noted that the article continued to talk about whether everyone 
agreed with this assessment and mentioned several authorities who did not. Each 
view was attributed. 

India is only mentioned once in the piece: 

“Doesn't Israel have a nuclear bomb? 

Yes. Israel, however, is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to 
it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear 
weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has 
acquired a nuclear weapons capacity.” 

The Committee concluded that the article had been accurate and that all the 
opinions expressed within it had been properly and carefully attributed. The 
Committee also noted that the reference to the NAM in version 102 included an 
accurate representation of the NAM’s views. 

The Committee also discussed the Q&A’s explanation of the issue of other nuclear 
states such as India and Israel and their relationship to the Non-Proliferation Treaty 
(NPT) and agreed that there could have been more information included as to why 
these states were not involved in the NPT. The Committee concluded, however, 
that as this was a Q&A specifically focused on Iran, there was no breach of the 
accuracy or impartiality Editorial Guidelines in the article’s treatment of other states. 



With regard to impartiality the Committee concluded that the Q&A reflected the 
key parties involved. It was therefore fair and open minded, even handed and 
objective. 

In conclusion, the Committee was therefore satisfied that on both accuracy and 
impartiality the Q&A had met the standards required to conform with the relevant 
Editorial Guidelines. 

Finding: Not upheld 



Massive – Episodes 2 and 3, BBC Three, 21 September 2008 

1. Background 
Massive was a sitcom broadcast in six half hour episodes in September and October 
2008. The complaint concerns the second and third episodes. 

The series was billed as a new comedy series with its protagonists “inspired by … 
Manchester’s … local heroes (Tony Wilson, Joy Division, The Happy Mondays). The 
lads wile (sic) away the dreary office hours dreaming of their own record label. But 
while they put in the footwork when it comes to gigs (three a week) and beer 
(considerably more than that) time is ticking by, and they’re on the road to nowhere. 
Until they inherit some money…” 

2. The complaint 
The complaint is a third party complaint made on behalf of Halewood International 
Limited (“Halewood”), part of the Halewood International group and producer of 
the drinks product Lambrini. 

Stage 1 

The complainant wrote to BBC Information on 8 October 2008. In his letter of 
complaint he set out some information on the Lambrini brand. He pointed out: the 
brand was “an excellent value, high quality, low alcohol alternative to wine”; the 
distinctiveness of the bottle’s design; and the fact that over 31 million bottles were 
sold in 2007-2008. He also noted that as part of the marketing of Lambrini a dance 
had been developed which had been included in a television advertising campaign as 
well as the product’s website. 

The complainant also explained that Halewood was a member of the Portman 
Group, an organisation supported by the UK’s leading producers of alcoholic 
beverages and concerned with issues of social responsibility. The complainant also 
noted that Halewood abided by the Portman Group’s code of practice and that 
Lambrini’s label bore reference to the Portman Group’s “Drinkaware” campaign. 

In relation to the programme the complainant said that the BBC had made several 
derogatory references both verbal and visual to Lambrini in episodes two and three 
of the series. He stated: 

“Massive follows the attempts of two young Manchester men, Danny and 
Shay, in their quest to launch a new record label. The offending episodes see 
the introduction of two uncouth young girls, Tina and Marie, and the 
attempts taken to launch the girls’ pop act under the name ‘HearKittyKitty’. 
Tina and Marie are portrayed as ill mannered, slovenly and excessive 
drinkers. Comments made by the pair throughout … portray them as being 
of low intelligence. One or both of the girls are seen spitting in the street, 
smoking, swearing and readily offering sexual favours … the characters’ 



profile on the Massive website refers to the pair as often being ‘seen around 
town drinking Lambrini (and doing the dance)’.” 

With regard to direct references to Lambrini in the series, he stated: 

Episode two: “Tina states she only drinks Lambrini (and that she does the 
dance too) and Marie confirms that she likes the peach flavour as it ‘tastes 
like rainbows’.” 

“[…]Tina… is shown drinking directly from a 75cl Lambrini bottle, mixing 
flavours of Lambrini and ‘downing a pint of that mixture’.” 

Episode three: “Shay asks the girls if they want a Lambrini. Tina states 
emphatically that they want three each and two pint glasses. At two 
subsequent stages in the episode both girls can be seen completing the 
distinctive Lambrini dance.” 

The complainant also pointed out that the bar scenes had been misleading and 
factually incorrect as it was not possible to purchase a 75cl bottle of Lambrini on 
licensed premises (public houses). The complainant also listed the specific Editorial 
Guidelines that he believed had been breached by the programme. The complainant 
noted: 

• 
The use of the brand in the episodes was not editorially justified 
• 
Lambrini had been given undue prominence in the bar scenes (in a 
manner which could not have occurred in reality) 
• 
Lambrini was clearly and repeatedly identifiable in the episodes, for 
example through use of the distinctive bottles 
• 
A verbal reference in addition to a visual one was made in episode two, 
which could not be editorially justified or supported on journalistic 
grounds 
• 
Lambrini was given undue prominence through the repeated use of its 
brand name without editorial justification. 
He also considered that the use of the trade mark in the two episodes had gone 
beyond a simple passing reference and portrayed the drink in an extremely negative 
manner “taking unfair advantage of the brand and causing detriment to Halewood”. 
He also stated that those watching would conclude that Lambrini was of low quality; 
strongly associated with immoderate consumption and the excessive binge drinking 
culture; that Lambrini’s consumers were generally uncouth, of low intelligence and 
excessive drinkers; and that Lambrini was associated with anti social behaviour and 
the use of illicit drugs. 

The complainant suggested that an appropriate response would be for the BBC to 
offer a formal written apology and give an undertaking that it would not make 
further damaging references to the product; to edit the episodes to remove visual 
and aural references; and remove references to the brand from online written 
material. 



The Producer of Massive replied on 16 October 2008 stating that Massive was a 
character driven comedy and the characters of Tina and Marie were comedic 
exaggerations of a popular stereotype. The Producer also stated that he did not 
agree that the BBC was in any way involved in the “portrayal of Lambrini”. He 
added: 

• 
The proposition that because the characters were in the complainant’s 
view uncouth, of low intelligence and excessive drinkers, then all Lambrini 
consumers were deemed to be of that character type was unsustainable. 
• 
Just because Tina and Marie could be viewed as ill mannered and slovenly 
with a propensity for loose morals and drug taking (although neither of 
the girls took drugs during the series) it clearly could not follow that all 
Lambrini drinkers were of that ilk. 
• 
Tina and Marie’s characters were not seen to be making moral, 
behavioural or social choices as a result of drinking Lambrini, the drinking 
of Lambrini was incidental to the portrayals. 
The Producer added that whilst the BBC strove to avoid giving products undue 
prominence, that did not mean excluding them completely from the output. He 
noted that in Absolutely Fabulous brands like Harvey Nichols and “Bolli” were used 
to indicate a certain sort of lifestyle. In the case of Massive there was only one verbal 
mention of Lambrini in each of the episodes. He also noted that the reference was 
used to indicate the girls, although over 18, were young and fun loving. The Producer 
stated that the brands Stella and Strongbow had also been mentioned in the 
episodes, and drunk by various characters. He explained that the Lambrini dance was 
referenced as Massive was about popular culture, and the dance was a part of that 
culture young audiences would recognise. In light of this the Producer stated that the 
actions required by the complainant could not be undertaken. 

The complainant replied on 5 November 2008 stating that the Producer’s reply had 
done nothing to allay his concerns. The complainant reiterated some of the points he 
made previously. In reply to the points made by the programme’s producer he stated 
that the very fact of linking Lambrini with such a stereotype, not just once but many 
times over, meant the BBC was associating the brand with the stereotype in the 
minds of viewers and potential customers. The complainant believed this seriously 
damaged the reputation of the brand and diminished the impact of Halewood’s 
careful and costly marketing strategy. He also considered that it made no difference 
whether the drinking of Lambrini is shown to cause, or is shown as incidental to, the 
behaviour of the characters. He believed the mere association of such behaviour 
with Lambrini devalued the Lambrini brand. The complainant noted that there were 
at least 12 verbal and visual references to the drink which he considered must have 
constituted a breach in the Editorial Guidelines. He also suggested the use of the 
brand for realism did not justify the association with the behaviour of the characters. 
He also noted that even though the bottle had been turned away, a close up of the 
bottle or label was in effect a close up of the brand. 



In conclusion he said he did not consider that the BBC had shown the “very strong 
journalistic reasons” required by the Guidelines which would justify the repeated 
references; nor that the references were editorially justified. He stated: 

“It is quite clear that the use of, and repeated references to, Lambrini are 
deliberate and the(y) show endeavours to make comedic mileage at the 
expense of the brand. As a result, and given the damage caused by the 
offending episodes to the Lambrini brand and its reputation, the clear breach 
of your Guidelines, together with the implications to Halewood of a breach 
of the code of practice, please now confirm that you will give the apology and 
undertakings requested in our first letter.” 

The Producer replied on 18 November 2008 that he had “nothing to add to the 
position set out in our previous letter”. He said that: 

“As one of your own straplines makes clear ‘Lambrini girls just want to have 
fun’ and this is what we have shown. Tina and Marie feel they ‘should make 
the most out of life and have fun whenever and wherever they can’ (your 
website): they are ‘carefree and up for some fun’ (your website). These are 
the stated aims of your product and we don’t think we go beyond that.” 

The Producer also commented that to suggest there were 12 references to Lambrini 
was “something of a misrepresentation”. He stated that other than the two verbal 
references the rest were of backs of bottles. He also noted that the “unrealistic” 
depiction of a 75cl bottle “hardly represents a huge break with realism” in a fictional 
show in which it was the presence of recognisable brands that added realism, not the 
marginal regulations around bottle dimensions, 

Stage 2 

On 2 December 2008 the complainant escalated his complaint to the Editorial 
Complaints Unit (ECU) repeating the substance of his complaint as well as adding 
that the BBC had stated that the drinking of the product was incidental to the 
characters. He stated that was simply not true, as the character synopsis on the 
homepage of Massive specifically and unnecessarily defined the characters with 
reference to Lambrini (i.e. the girls being “regularly seen around town drinking 
Lambrini and doing the dance”). He believed the reference was deliberate, used to 
describe the characters and was not incidental or part of a wider range of products 
being referenced. He also detailed action requested in recompense. 

There followed an exchange of correspondence between the complainant and the 
ECU to agree which guidelines the complaint should be considered against. Initially 
the ECU did not consider the guideline on undue prominence appropriate as it 
believed the guideline to mean that the BBC should avoid “giving the impression that 
we are promoting or endorsing products”. The complainant disagreed and pointed 
out that while avoiding promoting or endorsing a product was clearly part of the 
guideline, the need to avoid undue prominence “was quite separate”. The 



complainant also referred to the guideline on the use of props in drama, comedy and 
entertainment: 

• 
We must ensure the use of, or reference to, branded products, 
services or organisations in our drama, comedy and entertainment 
programmes are clearly editorially justified and that a wide 
range are used over time to avoid undue prominence. 
• 
We should normally ensure that branding is not clearly visible, 
and close ups are avoided when real products are used as set 
dressing. When brands are shown it is normally difficult to 
justify editorially a verbal reference in addition to the visual one. 
(Complainant’s emphasis) 

The ECU accepted the points raised and considered the complaint against the 
guidelines on product prominence. The ECU after further consideration also 
considered the complaint against fairness (fair portrayal in drama). 

On 7 January 2009 the ECU responded to the complainant with its finding. With 
regard to fair portrayal and its reference to the distortion of “known facts” the ECU 
noted that: 

• 
Halewood’s principle marketing message appeared to be “Lambrini is all 
about a celebration of being female, carefree, and up for some fun”. 
• 
Much of the advertising material on the site www.lambrini.co.uk had clear 
sexual overtones, for example the image of a poster “Mary had a little 
Lambrini”, depicting a man covered with lipstick. The ECU also noted the 
Advertising Standards Authority had upheld complaints against another 
Lambrini advertisement, finding that “the advertisement linked the brand 
with sex”, and required future advertising to be cleared in advance. 
• 
The ECU also looked into the question of whether Lambrini was 
associated with what had come to be known as the “binge drinking” 
culture, which the ECU believed could be characterised as of “uncouth” 
behaviour and “excessive drinking”, terms used in the complaint. The 
ECU noted three examples where Lambrini had been featured in research 
or programming referring to young people drinking to excesses. 
• 
The ECU also considered Lambrini’s penetration in the drinks market and 
found that is was a popular drink amongst young women. It was also 
recognised as being cheap, in one study coming the second cheapest in 
terms of pence per units of alcohol. 
In considering the nature of the series, the ECU said comedy frequently relied on 
stereotypes but they had to have some basis in reality, or would not be understood. 
With this in mind the ECU considered two aspects of the complaint. 



The first related to the portrayal of Lambrini as the character Tina’s favourite drink. 
The ECU said: 

“You suggest this implies Lambrini drinkers may be ill mannered, slovenly and 
excessive drinkers, and later, that they may be uncouth. Judging by the BBC’s 
findings in Nottingham and a great deal of other press coverage, there is a 
great deal of ill mannered and uncouth behaviour in Britain’s town centres, 
caused by those who drink to excess, and the material I quoted above 
demonstrates not only that this is accurate, but that Lambrini is one of the 
main alcoholic products consumed by those young women. 

“[The ECU is] therefore of the view that the selection of Lambrini as Tina’s 
favourite drink, and its portrayal in this series was not materially inaccurate, 
and therefore did lie within the appropriate parameters of what the 
guidelines refer to as ‘creative realisation of some dramatic elements’. 

“[We] should also point out that whatever else Tina may be, she is also the 
performer of a number one hit single, something I suspect is a common 
aspiration among the young women who are “carefree and up for some fun” 
at the heart of Halewood’s advertising. I do not feel, therefore, that I have 
the grounds to uphold this aspect of your complaint.” 

With regard to the issues arising from product prominence, the ECU stated that the 
normal reading of the section on avoiding undue prominence was that it imposed a 
single requirement, the core of which was the avoidance of anything that was 
tantamount to advertising which did not mean that commercial products could not 
be mentioned, or even discussed in detail, if there was adequate editorial 
justification. 

The ECU noted that the programme had referred to a large number of branded 
products familiar to the audience. In the first three episodes there were verbal or 
visual references to Gordon’s gin, Strongbow cider, Stolichnaya vodka, Becks, 
Grolsch and Stella beers, and Baileys among drinks alone. Grazia magazine and 
iTunes also featured. 

Some of these references took account of a public perception of these products 
such as when Shay, on a visit to a pub with his father – who is first seen stealing 
banknotes from his sleeping son’s wallet, so is clearly cash strapped – asks him for “a 
Stella”. The ECU said that it doubted that the highly media literate younger audience 
for BBC Three would be unaware that Stella was marketed under the slogan 
“reassuringly expensive”, so the choice of this particular product was clearly 
designed as a joke. Something similar might be said for the selection of Lambrini. As 
could be seen from the earlier points, it was marketed as the drink of young women 
out for fun, and was much better known than any other product in its category. 

The ECU also considered whether the total number of references was 
inappropriate. It noted that bottles were seen in several scenes, but was aware that 



producers took care to turn the label away from the camera, to ensure compliance 
with the guideline. 

The complainant had said the registered design made the bottle identifiable. 
However, the ECU noted that the design was registered on 7 March 2008, and the 
programmes were broadcast just six months later, so he did not think sufficient time 
had passed for the public to learn to identify Lambrini simply from its bottle shape. In 
the circumstance he did not feel able to uphold this aspect of the complaint, either. 

The complainant responded on 22 January 2009 noting that the primary concern for 
Halewood was not unfairness but product prominence. The complainant suggested 
that the labelling on the turned bottle was easily recognisable to people they had 
shown the footage to, noting that there were very few beverages in 75cl (wine) sized 
bottles with oval labelling, so Lambrini was instantly recognisable. The complainant 
restated his concerns. He stated that: 

• 
Lambrini was mentioned by name and shown clearly 
• 
It was the subject-matter of a “joke” rather than there being a reference 
made to wine, perry or cider generically 
• 
Lambrini was not mentioned in passing and neither did it simply form part 
of the background scenery 
• 
It was given undue prominence and treated unfairly 
• 
The use of the product and brand “offends the product prominence 
Guideline”. 
The complainant noted that Halewood appreciated its products might form part of 
the backdrop to programmes and had no complaint about that. But in fact it had 
been at the forefront of several scenes. He suggested that the mention of other 
brands was only incidental, and if there was any “joke” made at the expense of those 
brands, which he would not endorse, it was left to the viewer to make the 
connection being hinted at – therefore it only appealed to those individuals who 
already thought of the brand in a similar manner. The “joke” at Lambrini’s expense 
was certainly more direct, prominent and objectionable. The guideline did not 
distinguish between laudatory and derogatory treatment, in any event, it just 
prohibited prominence. The complainant believed therefore that much of the 
research undertaken by the ECU was irrelevant to the issue at hand. 

The complainant wished to point out that much of the ECU research was out of 
date (for example the brand slogan). He reiterated that Halewood was compliant 
with all its legal obligations and abided by the Portman Code, meaning its advertising 
output was regulated i.e. only over 25s were used in adverts. That the drink was 
shown in adverts in a social setting did not distinguish it from any other alcoholic 
beverage. The complainant concluded that Massive had breached the guidelines, the 
prominence could not be editorially or journalistically justified and he did not expect 
the BBC to condone such deliberate, derogatory treatment of a brand. Such 
treatment was intrinsically unfair since the BBC would not (by way of balance) 
promote those same brands to an equal extent. He asked if this was perhaps why 
the guideline prohibited all brand prominence. 



The ECU replied on 5 February 2009 stating that the Product Prominence guideline 
had no “prohibition” aspect to it. It required that use of identifiable products be 
“editorially justified”, and in his view the perception of Lambrini – which the 
research he had cited showed to be broadly in accordance with the facts – was a 
sufficient basis for that justification. In those circumstances the ECU did not feel it 
should revise its provisional finding. 

On 5 March 2009 the complainant appealed to the ESC. 

3. Applicable editorial guidelines 
Section 3 – Accuracy 

Introduction 

The BBC's commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value and fundamental to our 
reputation. Our output must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly 
tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open 
about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation. 

For the BBC accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than a 
question of getting the facts right. All the relevant facts and information should be 
weighed to get at the truth. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as 
facts may need to be considered. 

We aim to achieve accuracy by: 

• 
the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources wherever 
possible. 
• 
checking and cross checking the facts. 
• 
validating the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material. 
• 
corroborating claims and allegations made by contributors wherever 
possible. 
Section 13 – Editorial Integrity and Independence 

Introduction 

The BBC's global reputation is based on its editorial integrity and independence. Our 
audiences need to be confident that our decisions are influenced neither by political 
or commercial pressures, nor by any personal interests. We must not undermine 
these values by any actions which could bring the BBC into disrepute. 

Editorial integrity and independence editorial principles 

• 
We must be independent of both state and partisan interests. 
• 
We must not endorse or appear to endorse any other organisation, its 
products, activities or services. 
• 
We should not give undue prominence to commercial products or services. 
• 
There must be no product placement in programmes. 

• 
We should ensure that on air and online credits are clearly editorially 
justified. 
Product Prominence 

We need to be able to reflect the real world and this will involve referring to 
commercial products, organisations and services in our output. 


We must avoid any undue prominence or giving the impression that we are 
promoting or endorsing products, organisations or services. 
To acieve this we must: 


• 
Ensure that references to trade names, brand names and slogans are clearly 
editorially justified. 
• 
Not linger on brand names or logos and use verbal references sparingly 
unless there are very strong journalistic reasons for repeated references to a 
brand. 
Products used as Props in Drama, Comedy or Entertainment 

We must ensure the use of, or reference to, branded products, services or 
organisations in our drama, comedy and entertainment programmes is clearly 
editorially justified and that a wide range are used over time to avoid undue 
prominence. 

We should normally ensure that branding is not clearly visible, and close ups are 
avoided when real products are used as set dressing. When brands are shown it is 
normally difficult to justify editorially a verbal reference in addition to the visual one. 

4. The Committee’s decision 
The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards as 
set out in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the 
BBC’s values and standards. 

In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence 
including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report. 

This appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to 
Editorial Integrity and Independence (product prominence and products used as 
props). 

Product prominence and products used as props in drama, comedy or entertainment 

The Committee noted that the BBC needs to be able to reflect the real world and 
this will involve referring to commercial products, organisations and services in its 
output. In doing so the BBC must avoid any undue prominence or giving the 
impression that it is promoting or endorsing products, organisations or services. 



To achieve this, the BBC must ensure that references to trade names, brand names 
and slogans are clearly editorially justified. It must not linger on brand names or 
logos and use verbal references sparingly unless there are very strong journalistic 
reasons for repeated references to a brand. 

With regard to the use of props, programmes must ensure the use of, or reference 
to, branded products, services or organisations in drama, comedy and entertainment 
programmes is clearly editorially justified and that a wide range are used over time 
to avoid undue prominence. The BBC should normally ensure that branding is not 
clearly visible, and close ups are avoided when real products are used as set dressing. 

The Committee then considered the use of and references to Lambrini in the two 
relevant episodes of BBC Three’s Massive. 

The Committee noted the complainant’s primary concern regarding the presentation 
of Lambrini in the two episodes of Massive where he stated: 

• 
Lambrini was mentioned by name and shown clearly 
• 
It was the subject-matter of a “joke” rather than there being a reference 
made to wine, perry or cider generically 
• 
Lambrini was not mentioned in passing and neither did it simply form part 
of the background scenery 
• 
A 75cl bottle was shown as being available on licensed premises and this 
was an inaccurate portrayal 
• 
It was given undue prominence and treated unfairly 
• 
The use of the product and brand “offends the product prominence 
Guideline”. 
The Committee also noted the complainant’s view that the BBC made “several 
derogatory references” to Lambrini, and that the characters shown drinking it were 
“portrayed as ill-mannered, slovenly and as excessive drinkers … of low intelligence 
… readily offering sexual favours”. 

The Committee noted the complainant’s view that a plain English reading of the 
guideline on undue prominence required it to be interpreted as applying whether 
references to a product were positive or derogatory. 

The Committee then considered the BBC’s position which was that the characters 
are “comedic exaggerations of a popular stereotype”, and that the references to 
Lambrini could be justified either by reference to Lambrini’s own marketing and 
advertising material or by reference to additional material (including academic 
research and references on television and on the web). 

The Committee also noted the BBC’s view that the guideline on undue prominence 
was applicable only in cases where product references endorsed or appeared to 
endorse the product. 



The interpretation of the guideline on undue prominence 

The Committee noted that the overall purpose of Chapter 13 of the editorial 
guidelines was to ensure editorial integrity and independence, and noted both the 
evidence from the BBC’s Director of Editorial Policy and Standards that the guideline 
was intended to “prevent any impression of endorsement for a product” and the 
advice from the BBC Trust’s Head of Editorial Standards – that the concept of undue 
prominence “evolved as a way of assessing whether content was being distorted for 
commercial purposes”. 

The Committee concluded that the guideline on undue prominence is designed and 
should be understood to refer to situations where the BBC might risk endorsing or 
appearing to endorse, products, organisations or services. 

The Committee considered the appropriate approach was to consider whether 
Lambrini was prominent and if the prominence was editorially justified. 

The Committee noted that this was a comedy, and as is often the case in comedies, 
the characters in it were exaggerated comic personalities. 

The Committee then noted how Lambrini was being marketed. It considered the 
content of the Lambrini website, its recent campaign sponsoring the ITV2 
programme Coleen’s Real Women and the evidence relied on by the ECU at stage 2 
of the complaints process. 

The Committee noted that the complainant in response to the ECU finding had 
stated that references to Lambrini’s branding i.e. the slogan “girls just wanna have 
fun”, had been out of date. The Committee noted that the wording on the current 
website (Lambrini.co.uk) stated that the product’s “ethos” was as follows: 

“[W]e feel that we should … have fun whenever and wherever we can. 
Lambrini is all about a celebration of being female, carefree and up for some 
fun.” 

The Committee then noted that the Lambrini website included stills and video clips 
from past advertising campaigns which showed the following: 

• 
A man with lipstick all over his face and the strapline “Mary had a Little 
Lambrini” (As reported by the ECU) 
• 
A video clip in which three young women in black camisoles are choosing 
between two young men and asking if there is a third 
• 
A video clip consisting of three young women in a ladies room. The first 
offers to share her perfume and the third surreptitiously sprays it into her 
crotch. Then follows the strapline in words and voiceover: “Lambrini girls 
just wanna have fun”. 

The Committee also noted that the website promoted the Lambrini dance with 
interactive clips of how to do the dance as well as films sent in by members of the 
public performing it. 

The Committee then noted the present campaign sponsoring ITV’s programme 
“Coleen’s Real Women” where Coleen Rooney the presenter of the show, is 
profiled thus: 

“[W]hile she enjoys a night out you won’t catch her being carried out of 
night clubs or snapped without her underwear. Coleen has a lot more 
class than that and knows she’s a role model to thousands of teenagers.” 

The Committee also took note of other references to Lambrini in various television 
documentaries. 

[The Committee also noted that an academic study from 2008 entitled “Reframing 
‘binge drinking’ as calculated hedonism: Empirical evidence from the UK” cited 
Lambrini’s marketing campaign as among those which were “arguably encouraging 
social liberation, extrovert fun or even misbehaviour”. 

It further noted the Ofcom study of 2005, “Young People and Alcohol Advertising” 
which found that Lambrini was among those alcoholic drinks favoured by 11-13 year 
old girls (who had drunk in the last six months), and also girls in the 14-16 and 17-21 
age groups.] 

The Committee noted that the guideline on products used in drama requires that a 
wide range of branded products are used over time; that “we should normally 
ensure that branding is not clearly visible; close ups are avoided; and that it is 
normally difficult to justify editorially a verbal reference in addition to the visual 
one”. 

The Committee also noted that in order to reflect the real world the BBC was 
entitled to refer to commercial products so long as this was editorially justified. 

The Committee concluded that this was a comedy drama about young people and 
that Lambrini, clearly a product which is popular amongst young people, and 
particularly popular amongst young women, was shown within an appropriate 
dramatic context that took account of Lambrini’s own marketing which presented 
those who drink the product as “celebrat(ing) being female, carefree and up for 
some fun”. 

The Committee also recognised that the characters in the series were comedy 
stereotypes which were exaggerated; that such exaggerated characterisations were a 
common technique in comedy; and that it was important to allow such creative 
freedom to programme makers. 

The Committee also noted that the Lambrini brand had not been singled out and 
that other brands were mentioned or seen in the programmes; that in close ups the 



label was turned away from view and that there was only one verbal reference in 
each of the two episodes complained of. 

The Committee therefore concluded that, taking into account the nature of the 
comedy, the nature and number of references to the product, and the marketing and 
advertising material relating to the product, the references in the two episodes of 
Massive complained of were editorially justified and did not constitute a breach of 
the BBC’s guideline on undue prominence. 

Accuracy 

The Committee noted that the complainant stated that the portrayal of a 75cl bottle 
of Lambrini as being available on licensed premises was inaccurate. However, the 
Committee found that there was no material inaccuracy in this portrayal such as to 
constitute a breach of the guideline. 


Fairness 
The Committee’s terms of reference state that the Committee: 


“will consider appeals concerning complaints which allege that: 

o 
the complainant has suffered unfair treatment in BBC content, or in 
the process of making the BBC content…” 
The Committee noted that the primary concern for the appellant was not unfairness 
but product prominence. The Committee considered that Halewood International 
Limited as a company did not suffer unfair treatment in the making or broadcast of 
the programme. 

With regard to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on Fair Portrayal in Drama the 
Committee considered unfairness did not relate to products and thus did not 
consider the guideline appropriate in this context. As such, the Committee did not 
consider editorial standards on fairness in this case. 

Finding: Not upheld 



Woman’s Hour, BBC Radio 4, 9 September 2008 

1. The programme 
This particular edition of the regular weekday Radio 4 magazine programme featured 
a discussion between the programme’s presenter and the authors of the book 
Perfumes: The Guide. 

2. The complaint 
The complainant wrote to BBC Information on 15 September 2008 claiming that the 
item endorsed a recently published book Perfumes: The Guide. The complainant also 
believed the item had been “a gushing and promotional feature of fragrances in the 
form of personal perfumes”. The complainant also complained that the item failed to 
provide balance “in its coverage of potentially controversial matters relating to 
health by the explicit and implicit messages that these products are necessary for 
personal well-being”. The complainant believed the programme had failed to 
research the potential consequences of the “extensive use of synthetic chemical 
fragrance substances using propellants that will include petrochemical products”. 

He also complained that the programme had not consulted with any of the groups 
that could have advised on the suitability of fragrances. He also believed that the 
BBC should not be promoting the use of untested manufactured chemical substances 
without warnings “about use and purpose, potential toxicity in some cases and 
serious effects in others”. 

The complaint also referred to two other complaints he had made on this topic and 
documentation which discussed “the reactions to aromatics and other content in 
fragrance products”. The complainant concluded that there was a problem with 
fragrances and that it was increasing: 

“There is an abundance of evidence from history of the damage to people in 
urban environments of noxious substances. It is not something that our 
ancestors did not know; it is something that in our modern media age that 
most, including the BBC, do not care to know.” 

BBC Information replied on 7 November 2008 apologising for the delay in 
responding, explaining that the delay had been due to “the extra research needed to 
reply to the complainant’s complaint”. The reply went on to say that the item was “a 
light-hearted review” and was not “gushing” or “promotional”. The reply also stated 
that the item did not warrant the amount of scientific detail the complainant believed 
it should have included. 

The complainant replied to BBC Information on 17 November 2008 stating that he 
did not find the response to his complaint adequate or satisfactory. The complainant 
believed the key question was one of balance. He stated: 



“… the BBC seems to be persistently broadcasting items on these products 
which have an absence of balance, or even basic research.” 

The complainant also reiterated his concerns about heath and the increasing number 
of people affected by reactions to many chemicals, which included fragrance 
products. 

The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) (stage 2 of the BBC 
complaints process) on 2 January 2009. The complainant repeated his complaint 
concerning the coverage of fragrance items. He stated that if the BBC was dealing 
with the subjects which involved the use of products, the use of which could be fatal 
for some people, it was not good enough “... to respond with the reaction ‘well, it 
was only a fun item...’ as a justification for a full scale evasion of the Guidelines.” The 
complainant also raised a number of issues with regard to the BBC’s Editorial 
Guidelines, to summarise: 

• 
Truth and Accuracy: In relation to the guidelines that output should be “well 
sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear 
concise language” the complainant considered that the presenter failed in her 
discussion with the authors to go beyond the issue of commenting on the 
basic content of the book. He complained there was no sourcing of material 
“nor was there consideration of issues beyond the type and market potential 
of the relevant products”. 
• 
Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion: The complainant believed that none of 
the guidelines had been met. 
• 
Editorial Integrity and Independence: The complainant believed the item 
“simply represented the commercial views and interests of the market share 
ambitions of major chemical manufacturers”. The complainant also noted that 
with regard to product placement, whilst he did not know of any benefit, 
direct or indirect to any individual, the extent of product mentions entailed 
risk of that occurring inadvertently. He also suggested that the guideline on 
product prominence had been breached regarding the “plug for the book” 
and the “inevitable plug for the several products it was recommending”. 
• 
Serving the Public Interest: With regard to the guideline ensuring “a 
comprehensive forum for debate”, the complainant believed that the tone of 
the broadcast was “a fawning and almost servile deference to the concept of 
the consumer culture and its propagators”. 
• 
Fairness: The complainant asked the question “fairness to whom?” and 
suggested it was not fair to asthmatics and other sufferers with breathing 
difficulties. 
• 
Harm and Offence: The complainant believed that no actual harm or offence 
was either intended or evident, but there could be an inadvertent breach of 
the guideline on the basis of a broader definition or wider criteria. 
• 
Children: With regard to “welfare” the complainant noted that given the 
chemical content of some fragrance products which are known to have 
effects “there were certain implications to be considered”. 
• 
Accountability: The complainant raised the question of who had authorised 
the output of the material in question. 

• 
Politics: The complainant believed the issue was not remote from politics and 
that pressure from “the state” to increase consumption levels on lifestyle 
spending would result in the BBC being under a likely obligation to promote 
fragrances, and to avoid mention of possible side effects. 
The complainant also provided a sample of documents on the health issues of 
toxicity of products. 

On 20 February 2009 the ECU replied to the complainant with its finding on the 
complaint. The ECU stated that it believed the relevant guidelines concerning the 
complaint were those dealing with product prominence and impartiality. The finding 
noted that in relation to the issue of the book there was no bar in the guidelines on 
the discussion of products. The ECU stated: 

“What the guidelines set out is the way in which discussion of such products 
should be conducted so that these will not be given undue prominence or 
unduly promoted.” 

The ECU noted that in the entire report there was only one mention of the title of 
the book. Neither did the report mention where and how to buy it. The ECU noted 
that it did not consider the discussion a breach of editorial standards and, thus, did 
not uphold this element of the complaint. In relation to how the perfumes were 
discussed the ECU noted that the naming of products should be editorially justified. 
The finding noted that a review of products in comparison to other products was 
allowed, and that to make that comparison possible particular products would have 
to be identified. The ECU found that the discussion, which compared a number of 
products, did not breach the BBC’s guidelines. 

With regard to impartiality and the complainant’s view that the programme lacked 
balance, in that the programme presented perfumes as products necessary to 
personal well-being and that it failed to adequately represent the health case against 
their use, the ECU found that there was no requirement that a consumer report 
should include issues such as health and environmental impact. The ECU noted the 
guideline on due impartiality which does not require the: 

“representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every 
occasion or on equal division of time for each view.” 

The ECU stated that “programme makers had the right to focus on one particular 
aspect of a story without necessarily having to deal with a number of ‘ancillary 
subjects’.” 

The ECU did not uphold the complaint. 

The complainant appealed to the ESC on 24 February 2009 reiterating his complaint 
regarding product prominence and impartiality. 

3. Applicable editorial guidelines 

Section 4 – Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion 

Introduction 

Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies 
across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins 
via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to 
reflecting a diversity of opinion. 

• 
we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at 
any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial 
reasons for doing so. 
• 
we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an 
opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not 
misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply. 
• 
we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial 
subjects. 
Achieving Impartiality 

Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach to 
achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of 
output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the content and 
approach is signposted to our audiences. 

Impartiality is described in the Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter as “due 
impartiality”. It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence 
and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our 
approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or 
facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view. 

Section 13 – Editorial Integrity and Independence 

Introduction 

The BBC's global reputation is based on its editorial integrity and independence. Our 
audiences need to be confident that our decisions are influenced neither by political 
or commercial pressures, nor by any personal interests. We must not undermine 
these values by any actions which could bring the BBC into disrepute. 

Editorial integrity and independence editorial principles 

• 
We must be independent of both state and partisan interests. 
• 
We must not endorse or appear to endorse any other organisation, its 
products, activities or services. 
• 
We should not give undue prominence to commercial products or 
services. 
• 
There must be no product placement in programmes. 
• 
We should ensure that on air and online credits are clearly editorially 
justified. 

Product prominence 

We need to be able to reflect the real world and this will involve referring to 
commercial products, organisations and services in our output. 

We must avoid any undue prominence or giving the impression that we are 
promoting or endorsing products, organisations or services. To achieve this we 
must: 

• 
ensure that references to trade names, brand names and slogans are 
clearly editorially justified. 
• 
not linger on brand names or logos and use verbal references sparingly 
unless there are very strong journalistic reasons for repeated references 
to a brand. 
• 
not accept free or reduced cost products or services in return for on air 
or online credits, hotlinks or off air marketing. 
• 
take particular care to minimise product references in output designed to 
appeal to children. 
• 
only use material from advertising campaigns or promotions when clearly 
editorially justified. Generally, it will only be acceptable to use a short 
extract. There may also be copyright considerations. 

Undue prominence & contributors 

We must avoid undue prominence when contributors appear on chat shows and 
other programmes where they are promoting a product, for example, a film, album 
or book. Although proper editorial discussion is perfectly acceptable the related 
product should not normally be used as a prop. Any visual references particularly 
close ups of an album cover or pages of a book should be clearly editorially justified. 

Reviewing products or services 

We must ensure there is no element of plugging when we review products or 
services. We should review a range from different suppliers, normally without giving 
details on air of how and where to obtain them. 

4. The Committee’s decision 
The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as 
set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s 
values and standards. 

In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, 
including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and subsequent 
submissions from the complainant and the Head of the ECU. 

This appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to 
impartiality and editorial integrity and independence (product prominence). 

The Committee considered the complaint in two sections: 

• 
Editorial Integrity and Independence (product prominence) 

• 
Impartiality 
Editorial Integrity and Independence (product prominence) 
The Committee noted that the BBC must ensure that in order to maintain the 
confidence of its audience it is not influenced by either political or commercial 
pressure, nor by any personal interest. In doing so the BBC must be independent of 
state or partisan interests as well as not giving undue prominence to commercial 
products or services. 

In considering the issue of product prominence the Committee divided its decision 
between the discussion of the book being reviewed and of the perfumes discussed. 

a) The book review 

The Committee first noted the complainant’s comments concerning the book review 
as stated in his letter of appeal: 

“The title of the book may have been mentioned only once but the names of 
the authors rather more often. There is a real problem for the BBC here in 
that a great many people are interested in books of one sort or another, but 
to cover them needs a careful balance. It is my view that this was absent, and 
the balance of coverage in the radio item as a whole was badly out of kilter. 
The message was clear, fragrances good, book good, go buy.” 

The Committee then noted the references to the book’s title and the names of the 
authors given in the programme. 

The presenter, Jenni Murray, when introducing the item named the book title and 
the authors who were with her in the studio. She stated: 

Jenni Murray (JM): 
A scent with a celebrity name on it, I won’t say whose, is described as 
“hilariously vile, 50-50 mix of cheap shampoo and canned peaches”. Of 
Chanel No 5, probably the most famous perfume, it says ”we don’t wear 
Chanel No 5 because Marilyn Monroe wore it, we wear it for the same 
reason she did, because it’s gorgeous”. 

Fifteen hundred fragrances are reviewed in Perfumes: The Guide by Luca 
Turin and Tania Sanchez. Tania, why in general are you not enthusiastic about 
celebrity perfumes? 

During the rest of the discussion the authors were referred to by their first names 
on six other occasions. However, neither the book’s title nor the authors’ surnames 
were repeated during the item. 

The Committee then noted the specific Editorial Guidelines relating to undue 
prominence: 



Undue prominence & contributors 

We must avoid undue prominence when contributors appear on chat shows 
and other programmes where they are promoting a product, for example, a 
film, album or book. Although proper editorial discussion is perfectly 
acceptable the related product should not normally be used as a prop. Any 
visual references particularly close ups of an album cover or pages of a book 
should be clearly editorially justified. 

The Committee concluded that the programme’s single reference to the book’s title 
and authors was editorially justified given that the piece was using the publication of 
the book as a way of introducing a light-hearted discussion on the subject of 
perfumes, their merits and fragrances. The Committee was therefore satisfied that 
the reference had not unduly promoted the book and that it was justified to give the 
audience appropriate information as to the purpose of the discussion and the names 
of the guests who had been invited into the studio to contribute to the piece and 
why they were relevant. Nor did the Committee consider the studio discussion as a 
form of endorsement of the book. It was satisfied that the discussion which focused 
on a more general discussion of perfumes was in context and was not centred on 
the content or merits of the book. 

As such, the Committee concluded that it would have been unrealistic for the 
programme to have not made any reference to the book or to its authors given the 
nature of magazine style programmes such as Woman’s Hour. 

The Committee was therefore satisfied that the programme had handled the subject 
effectively, by only briefly mentioning the book’s title and authors’ names at the head 
of the item, and had been sensitive to the requirement of the guideline to keep 
references to the product – the book – to a minimum. 

b) The perfumes 

With regard to whether the references to specific perfumes breached the Editorial 
Guidelines on undue product prominence, the Committee first took note of the 
perfumes mentioned during the discussion. The Committee noted that several 
perfumes were mentioned: Chanel No 5, Yves Saint Laurent Rive Gauche, Bulgari 
BLV, Guerlain’s Mitsouko and Can Can by Paris Hilton. 

The Committee then considered the context of the piece and noted that whilst the 
item was introduced as result of a recently published book reviewing a wide range of 
perfumes, the item itself was not a promotion of a specific perfume. The Committee 
noted some of the studio discussion when it referred to specific perfumes: 

Yves Saint Laurent Rive Gauche: 

JM: 

[…]Yves Saint Laurent Rive Gauche I’ve got here 

Tania Sanchez (TS) 
I think I know that one by heart anyway… 




JM: 
Do you? Alright, tell me what… 


Luca Turin (LT) 
…Totally wonderful… 


TS: 
…I can smell it now…god that’s beautiful 


LT: 
Wonderful fragrance, one of the… 


Guerlain’s Mitsouko: 

JM: 
…alright, what’s your favourite fragrance – Luca? 


LT: 
Well I think everybody’s famous, favourite fragrance is the same actually, it’s 
“Mitsouko”, it’s Guerlain’s “Mitsouko” simply because it’s the lone survivor 
of the golden age of fragrance um, it’s everything that fragrance should be. 


Chanel No 5: 

JM: 
I’ve got a bottle of Chanel No 5 here, which you have said is gorgeous, 
Marilyn Monroe wore it, um I smelled it and I thought ooo that’s so sweet. 


TS: 
Is it the eau de parfum? 


LT: 
Eau de parfum. The 3, the formulations are completely different. So the eau 
de toilette and the parfum are the classic and the eau parfum is an 80s, in my 
opinion an aberration. 


The Committee concluded that the item, which it considered to be a light-hearted 
discussion on the merits of perfumes, was not an item that was unduly promoting a 
specific perfume over another or the use of perfumes en masse. 

The Committee was satisfied that the references to the various perfumes had been 
appropriately contextualised within a discussion on the variation and make-up of 
perfumes and their fragrance. 

The Committee was therefore satisfied that in the presentation of the item the 
programme had considered the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on undue prominence and 
reviewing products and services and ensured that references to brand names had 



been editorially justified and that a range of products had been mentioned and 
reviewed as part of the discussion. 

The Committee concluded that the programme had acted appropriately and met the 
required editorial standard. The references to real brands and products had been 
justified and reasonable to ensure that the listener had sufficient information to 
understand the thread of the discussion. There was no breach with regard to undue 
prominence and editorial integrity and independence. 

Impartiality 

The Committee noted that the editorial guidelines state that impartiality applies 
across all the BBC’s services. Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the 
output. The approach to achieving impartiality will vary according to the nature of 
the subject, the type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to 
which the content and approach is signposted. Impartiality does not require the 
representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or 
an equal division of time for each view. 

The Committee then noted the complainant’s concern that the item lacked balance 
as it did not consider health care issues regarding the use of perfumes, he stated: 

“In producing this item the BBC failed to research in any way the potential 
consequences of the extensive use of synthetic chemical fragrance 
substances… 

“It is my contention that there was no contact or consultation with any of 
the many groups who could have advised on the suitability of fragrances for a 
major promotion of this kind.” 

The Committee also noted the relevant Editorial Guidelines on impartiality with 
regard to this appeal: 

“we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at 
any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial 
reasons for doing so. 

“we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an 
opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not 
misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply.” 

And: 

“[Due impartiality] requires us to be fair and open minded when examining 
the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and 
even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the 
representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every 
occasion or an equal division of time for each view.” 



The Committee concluded that with regard to impartiality the context of the output 
in question was vital. The Committee noted that it was not a requirement of content 
makers to include within its coverage of a given subject every argument or every 
facet of every argument. The Committee agreed that a programme or website could 
decide on how it wished to cover a topic as long as it did not misrepresent an 
opposing view. 

In relation to this item the Committee was satisfied that the programme, which was 
considering the merits of perfume fragrances, had appropriately handled the subject 
matter within the context of the piece. The Committee did not believe it was a 
requirement for health to be considered in a discussion of a product. The 
Committee noted that any such requirement would be an unreasonable burden on 
programme makers if when discussing products they were mandated to include 
references to issues of health care for those who may be affected or harmed by their 
use. The Committee was satisfied that health care issues should only be raised if the 
discussion was considering health issues or the product being discussed was 
intrinsically linked with health concerns e.g. smoking or the use of medication. 

The Committee therefore concluded that issues of health care were not relevant to 
this specific discussion. The programme had been appropriate in its presentation of 
the subject matter and had been duly impartial. 

Finding: Not upheld