[1] With the obvious caveat that a website can't reliably determine that.
It doesn't seem surprising that BBCW use an external advertising network: it would be a pretty huge investment to operate their own advertising markets throughout the world ... and surely if they did, they'd then on-sell those services!
Seems that the notable part of this attack is that several high-profile websites were affected, so BBC (and NYT, and AOL, etc) suffered some damage to their brand, so they'll have to work on that. The article notes that "malware was delivered through multiple ad networks", which speaks to failures by those service providers. Reckon there will be some very heated conversations and perhaps fee renegotiations with the networks happening over the next few weeks ;-)
It is becoming clearer and clearer to me that this is one of possibly two options left for businesses wishing to make money online via advertising. Self-hosted adverts are probably the best way to regain trust and circumvent ad-blockers. A quality, trustworthy third-party network is the only other possible option I can imagine, but that seems far less viable.
I'm sure that most networks start off with such lofty ideals, maybe they even believe them ... :-o
EDIT: To expand a little on the previous thought: you were shocked that the BBC website was serving up dodgy ads, presuming maybe that they'd have their own curated advertising portfolio. Closest comparison I can think of is perhaps the Economist website, also London-based, and no small prestige branding that they make sure to protect by only showing ads for Lexuses and Rolices (Rolexen?). The major differences of course are that Economist is somewhat more up-market, and the ads are seen locally in the UK.
I can't readily find any figures on how much cash BBCW makes off website ads, but I'd have to assume that it's burger money -- a few quid here and there for negligible effort, and after all who cares if the brand is tarnished abroad?! If on the other hand BBCW went into the ad curation business, and even if it happened to be profitable, there's every chance that voters or MPs would get stroppy about it, and BBC gets a hard time going into the next licence fee negotiations. Ultimately, BBC's brand outside the UK isn't something that the UK public necessarily worries about.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc.com/faq/
> You will have noticed that the BBC website features a limited amount of advertising when viewed from outside the UK.
There's a bunch of people outside the UK who use BBC content and who want a way to pay the BBC. It's a shame the BBC uses ads (which are pretty horrible) rather than working out a better payment (or even micro payment) system. The BBC said this in 2014:
> Can I pay a subscription to view the site without ads?
> We're unable to provide a subscription service at the moment but will be able to do so in the future. As soon as the service is ready we'll communicate it to all our international users.