Policy: Fairness to Contributors

1. Introduction

Wizeworx Media Ltd (Wizeworx, we, our, us) is committed to fairness in everything it does. This commitment extends to our audiences, our employees, our content creators, and partners, but also to our contributors and participants. We not only see this as our duty but understand that people are the most important part of our content. Our content should always therefore be based on respect, openness, and straightforwardness.

For more information on the legal obligations we are under to be fair to our contributors, please read this policy alongside section 7 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code (the “Code”), which deals with fairness. It is intended to cover and build upon the “practices to be followed” (7.2 to 7.14 of the Code). Following these practices will not necessarily avoid a breach of the Code but are intended to reduce the risk of harm or unfairness, and failure to follow them will likely constitute a breach if such failure leads to any unfairness to an individual or organisation.

This policy should also be read alongside our Privacy Policy for a more complete picture of our approach to treating people with fairness and integrity.

The most important theme of this policy is informed consent and most of the guidance relates to establishing this, whether by open, honest, straightforward dealing with our contributors (and potential contributors), sources, and audiences.

There are cases where fully informed consent is not proportionate. These are signposted throughout this policy.

The diversity of content created and broadcast by Wizeworx is constantly evolving and so this policy is, where possible, principle and outcome-based, rather than an exhaustive set of rules to follow. Care should be taken in each individual case to act according to this policy, whilst understanding that not every risk can be mentioned here.

*Please note that ‘informed consent’ should be understood in the context of this policy and not in the context of data protection law, where it has a specific legal meaning.

2. Referral and Escalation Process

The following rules and processes are a vital part of delivering on our promises of fairness to contributors as well as compliance with our legal obligations.

If you have any doubt about these rules and processes then please refer in the first instance to the most senior executive working on the relevant programme, who in turn should refer to Wizeworx’s Managing Director if uncertainty about the correct approach still subsists.

3. Detailed Guidance

3.1 Contributors and Informed Consent

We believe that members of the public should be able to follow their own ambitions by taking part in our programmes if they want to. However, we need to be conscious that many of our programmes are topical and create wide media interest, and in particular can create intense social media interest. This, in turn, can increase the pressures on those who enter the public eye through appearing in them.

We should treat our contributors with honesty and respect. Our commitment to fairness is best achieved by ensuring that people provide ‘informed consent’ before they participate. ‘Informed consent’ means that contributors should be in possession of the knowledge that is necessary for a reasoned decision to take part.

Unless the subject matter is trivial or where the participation is in the form of a ‘vox pop’, the following information should normally be given to contributors:

- The nature of the content (what is it about and what is it for?);
- Why they are being asked to contribute to Wizeworx content (include when and where it will be broadcast if this is known);
- Whether their contribution will be live or recorded and/or edited. If recorded:
  - We should make it clear that there is no guarantee that it will be used; and
  - Whether or not they will have a chance to review and/or approve it before it is broadcast;
- The areas of questioning and, where relevant, the nature of other likely contributions;
- That their contribution may be used by other Wizeworx outlets including re-use, archiving online, and on social media; and
- That it may also be available indefinitely and globally.

We should be very careful to not make any commitments to a contributor that we cannot keep.

There are some circumstances where it may not be possible or appropriate to ask for consent, including:

- **Offences & Antisocial Behaviour**: Where someone is recorded committing an offence/anti-social behaviour (or admitting to the same), they have a reduced legitimate expectation of privacy, and that expectation will likely be outweighed by the public interest.
- **Public Figures**: Contributors may be public figures or private individuals and the material including them may include photographs, video, and correspondence. We should always be fair and accurate in our portrayal of these people and respect their legitimate expectations of privacy.

However, again, such a decision not to ask for consent should be taken by the most senior executive working on the relevant programme.

Having obtained informed consent, we should where possible make contributors aware of significant changes to a programme or other content as it develops if such changes might reasonably be considered to have changed the basis for their informed consent. For example, where the title of the programme changes in such a way that might affect audience perception, where the other contributors change, where the broadcast date is significantly changed, etc. Anything that materially alters the context in which the contribution will appear should prompt a thorough consideration of whether new consent is required.

Sometimes, in the public interest, it may be appropriate to withhold certain information, but that should be discussed with the programme’s senior producer or editor beforehand.

3.2 Giving and Withdrawing Consent

How we obtain consent from our participants depends upon the nature and circumstances of their contribution. If the contribution is significant in nature, we should normally ask the contributor to sign a consent form (or a contract) which formalises their relationship with us and confirms their understanding as set out in 3.1.

Where it is proposed that a consent form or contract is not needed, wherever possible, consent should still be obtained in writing – whether by an email exchange, or a recording of the contributor confirming their understanding and consent. Where it is not possible to record this in writing or recording, a contemporaneous note of the conversation in which consent is given is good practice.

Where someone is interviewed at short notice, such as for a news or reality programme, they will most likely give their consent by way of simply agreeing to be recorded for television (or to contribute in some way online). Informed consent is an ongoing process. If we are working with someone on a longer-term project, and they have not signed a contract, their consent should be sought each time a contribution is requested.

We should not rely on third parties to give consent on behalf of others except where the circumstances make it appropriate or necessary. It may be appropriate to make the initial approach to a contributor via a third-party where that person is vulnerable, bereaved, or in otherwise sensitive circumstances.

Where a contributor is under 16, consent should be sought from a parent or guardian where possible. Additionally:

- Young people and vulnerable adults may not always be in a position to give informed assent or consent. Vulnerable people include those with learning difficulties or forms of dementia, the bereaved, and people who are sick or terminally ill. In such cases, someone over 18 with primary responsibility for their care should normally give consent on their behalf, unless it is editorially justified to proceed without it.
- In particular, we should not ask someone who is unable to give their own consent for views on matters likely to be beyond their capacity to answer properly.

It isn’t generally possible for contributors to television shows to withdraw their consent, since it is often not possible to remove their contributions. However, we should always consider a request to withdraw a contribution and see what we can do to treat the contributor fairly. Circumstances where we should seek to accommodate the withdrawal may include where the contributor’s personal circumstances have changed significantly, or the intended use of the contribution has changed in a way which may affect the contributor.

Meaning of “vulnerable person” should be interpreted as in Ofcom Rule 8.22: “This varies, but may include those with learning difficulties, those with mental health problems, the bereaved, people with brain damage or forms of dementia, people who have been traumatised or who are sick or terminally ill.”

3.3 Safety and Welfare of Contributors

We owe due care to our contributors and potential contributors, as well as to our sources who may be caused harm or distress as a result of their contribution to our output, and should never put the health and safety of contributors, sources, or any other participants at any significant risk. However, the duty of care may vary for publicly accountable figures who contribute to our output, or when we are reporting events in the public domain, such as proceedings in court.

Before asking a potential contributor to become involved in a project, we should carefully consider whether their anticipated contribution will expose them to any significant risk and, if this is at all likely, conduct a risk assessment using the framework in the attached Annex. Depending on the outcome of the risk assessment, it may be appropriate to conduct a physical fitness or psychological test with consent from the contributor following full disclosure of the risks involved.

Even where the actions of the contributor are beyond our control, we should never encourage contributors to put themselves at risk when we are gathering material.

In considering the risks to international contributors or potential contributors, care should be given to any potential consequences of their participation within their own countries. This should be factored into any risk assessment regarding the welfare of our contributors.

We must always consider whether any of the following apply to the contributor or programme when assessing the risk of harm to a contributor:

- They are a vulnerable person
- They are unused to being in the public eye
- Their contribution involves being filmed in an artificial / constructed environment
- The programme is likely to attract a high level of press, media, or social media interest