Editorial Standards Findings: Appeals to the Trust considered by the Editorial Standards Committee May 2008 Issued August 2008 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 five Trustees: Richard Tait (Chairman), Chitra Bharucha, Mehmuda Mian Pritchard, David Liddiment and Alison Hastings. 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. 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 a statement on any remedial action taken. 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 1 Contents Page Remit of the Editorial Standards Committee 1 Contents 2 Summary of findings (May 2008) 3 Findings (May 2008) 9 Making Your Mind Up 2007 and other editorial matters arising from the PricewaterhouseCoopers report of December 2007 9 Ten O’Clock News, BBC One, 30 & 31 January, 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 20 February, 6, 18, 19 & 22, March, 10, 11 & 20 April and 9 & 10 July (all 2007) 20 NewsWatch, BBC News 24 & 25 May 2007 39 BBC Radio Scotland (process complaint) 52 Michael Palin’s New Europe: War and Peace, BBC One, 16 September 2007 58 2 Summary of findings (May 2008) Making Your Mind Up 2007 and other editorial matters arising from the PricewaterhouseCoopers report of December 2007 A summary of the ESC finding was published in ‘The BBC Trust’s conclusions on the economic aspects of the use of Premium Rate Services by the BBC’ and is included below: “Eurovison: Making Your Mind Up 2007 – breached Editorial Guidelines on accuracy and interacting with audiences. An inaccurate statement as a result of an error during the programme led to a sharp increase in votes cast when lines were closed and consequently audience members spent money placing calls where their vote was not counted. The charitable portion of the cost of the call was retained by Audiocall. The ESC concluded however that the vote was still robust as those who rang in would have been told that their vote had not been counted.” The full report can be found at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/prs_pw c_report.pdf For the finding in full see pages 9 to 19 Ten O’Clock News, BBC One, 30 & 31 January, 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 20 February, 6, 18, 19 & 22, March, 10, 11 & 20 April and 9 & 10 July (all 2007) The complainant believed that BBC News and in particular BBC One’s Ten O’Clock News was systemically biased against the governing Labour Party. The complainant in support of his complaint provided a number of examples where he believed BBC News and the Ten O’Clock News had been unfair to the Government and either lenient or biased in favour of the Conservative Party in its coverage. In coming to its finding the ESC considered the complaint under seven headings: • Cash for honours • Incentives to Westminster team 3 • Omitting to cover, or give due weight to allegations of Conservative wrong-doing • Pro-Conservative item selection and treatment • Political Editor favouring Conservatives because of his background; • Iraq/Iran hostages • Coverage Decisions/Other The complainant also raised issues as to how his complaint had been handled. The Committee concluded: Cash for honours • the coverage of the story had been presented with due impartiality given its seriousness even though no charges were brought. Incentives to Westminster team • that sending an email apparently offering a financial incentive had been an error by an individual • that the email had been sent without the knowledge of BBC News management. • that it did not indicate a systemic issue or was in itself a demonstration of lack of impartiality or a breach of editorial integrity in content. • the apology by the editor concerned and the actions taken by management had been appropriate. Omitting to cover, or give due weight to allegations of Conservative wrong-doing • the rebuke of David Cameron by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the cash for honours story were not equivalent in weight and importance and, as such, they did not require the same coverage. • the coverage of drug-taking had been proportionate and duly impartial. Pro-Conservative item selection • that news output should be balanced and fair to both government and opposition. • that coverage of the Government should be appropriate but that it was fair to ensure that policies announced by the opposition were also covered. • that coverage of policy announcements may be done on occasion without “balancing” comment from other parties within the piece as long as - over time - the coverage was fair and balanced. • BBC News should consider keeping a record of pieces covered in this way for the Executive and Trust to call upon if necessary to be able to 4 demonstrate that impartiality had been achieved. Political Editor favouring Conservatives because of his background • the reports by the political editor had been presented with due impartiality. Iraq/Iran hostages • it was the prerogative of the programme editor to decide whether to anchor a programme from a particular location. • the coverage during the week in Iran had been justified, fair and based on the news value of the story. • the coverage of Iraq and taking by Iran of marine hostages was generally balanced; the reports on the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war had included the breaking story of Sadr City and the militia. The Iranian hostage episode had created issues for the Government which it had been correct for the BBC to cover. Coverage decisions/other • it found no evidence in the mentioned incidents to suggest systemic bias. The choice of news story and the angle which was examined was dependent on its news value at the time set against competing stories on that day’s agenda. Complaints handling • that the responses from BBC Information, although tardy, had been considered and courteous. The complaint was not upheld For the finding in full see pages 20 to 38 NewsWatch, BBC News 24 & 25 May 2007 The complaint concerned a studio discussion in which the reporter of the Panorama programme WiFi: A Warning Signal addressed viewer criticisms of the programme. The complainant believed the item lacked balance as no positive feedback was mentioned. He also believed NewsWatch had smeared the reputation of one of the contributors to that particular edition of Panorama as well having made unsubstantiated claims about accuracy of Panorama’s investigation. The complainant also raised issues as to how his complaint had been handled. The Committee concluded: 5 Accuracy • that the ECU was correct to uphold on inaccuracy regarding the description on NewsWatch of the way the award for the Misleader of the Year was decided. • that NewsWatch was duly accurate, given the style of programme and type of discussion, in its description of the membership of the Swedish Sceptics Association • that the issue was not whether or not the Swedish Sceptics Association was a “pressure” group - the issue was whether it was duly accurate to describe its members as scientists. • that the question of the appropriateness of the contributor had been legitimate, given that Panorama would have had to check the credentials of all contributors and that it was the purpose of NewsWatch to raise issues and concerns about programme content, based on the concerns raised by viewers who had contacted the programme. Impartiality • it was acceptable for a programme providing access to audience feedback to put forward criticisms of BBC content to representatives of the production team or BBC management. • the audience’s expectation for this style of programme was that it would not require the programme to ensure equal balance to every item or to represent every facet of every argument. • that on this occasion balance had been provided by the Panorama reporter who was in a position to defend criticism of the programme. • NewsWatch was not required to present every opinion of the audience to ensure balance.