ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½

As there had been no payment or consideration in kind for featuring the book, there was no issue of product placement or advertising.  The most relevant editorial consideration is product prominence, where the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ guidelines require that references to products and services in programmes are editorially justified, that they are framed in an appropriate manner and that brand names and logos are not shown in close-up or lingered on (and Ms Rainsford’s position as a member of the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½â€™s staff also brings similar provisions in the guidelines on conflict of interest into consideration).  The ECU saw clear editorial justification for making some reference to Ms Rainsford’s book – as well as dealing with recent events in Ukraine, it deals with longer-term developments in Russia which set those events in motion, and would have been of legitimate interest to viewers in the context of an item which took its starting point from the most recent developments in the war.  It noted, however, that copies of the book had been visible behind Ms Rainsford (who had set them up for the purpose of interviews about the book with other broadcasters, and not with this interview in mind) and that the presenter in the studio had at one point displayed her own copy (which she had brought with her for reference) to the camera.  Taken with the number of verbal references to the book, these elements of the item gave it a degree of prominence which went beyond what was editorially justifiable.  The ECU noted that this had been quickly recognised by those editorially responsible for the item and acknowledged in correspondence with the complainants.  However, as this acknowledgement had not been made public in the way the ECU would expect in cases of this kind, it was not sufficient to resolve the issue of complaint.

Upheld