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.
Complaints handling • the complainant had received considered replies that had not ignored his complaint or provided spurious reasons for rejecting his complaint. • there was no evidence to suggest that the BBC’s replies were influenced, by its interest in WiFi technology,
The Committee endorsed the partially upheld complaint on accuracy, but did not uphold on any other element of the complaint.
For the finding in full see pages 39 to 51
6
BBC Radio Scotland (process complaint)
The appeal considered the initial handling of a complaint at stage 1 of the BBC’s complaints process. The complainant had written to both the Director-General and BBC Information on 30 April 2007 with a number of points concerning the “apparent veto” of his band’s record by BBC Radio Scotland. He complained that a reply had not been received from BBC Information and that a substantive reply to his complaint was only received after he copied the letter to BBC Information on 25 July 2007. The complainant also noted that he had not received a reply from the production team of the Vic Galloway programme until a month after he had sent in a CD to the programme and followed this up with another email.
(The appeal did not consider his substantive complaint regarding the playing of the record as the choice of programme content falls outside of the remit of the ESC.)
The Committee concluded:
• there was no case for BBC Information to answer. • that although a response to the complainant’s letter of 30 April to the Director-General and BBC Information may not have answered every point, the reply was timely, courteous and respectful even if it had said no - which the BBC was entitled to say in these circumstances. • that with regard to the Vic Galloway programme whilst it was best practice to reply to the audience as quickly as possible, music programmes receive many CDs from artists and it was therefore not unusual for a programme to take a longer time to respond. • that within the context of the programme’s relationship with bands promoting records, the programme team had acted in good faith by dealing fairly and openly with the complainant.
The complaint was not upheld
For the finding in full see pages 52 to 57
Michael Palin’s New Europe: War and Peace, BBC One, 16 September 2007
The complainant felt the programme was a political commentary rather than a travel series. As such, it gave an inaccurate account of the 1990s Balkan Wars. In particular the complainant questioned Michael Plain’s comments concerning the destruction of the old bridge at Mostar and commentary which suggested that Serbia was unfairly blamed for all the region’s troubles.
7
The Committee concluded:
The Mostar Bridge • that whilst the programme was designed to be an entertaining travelogue, the programme makers still had a responsibility to be accurate when presenting the facts. • this was particularly important when stating facts about recent historic events which were matters of political controversy. • that the comment that “there was no reason for the destruction” was inaccurate. • that within the context of this example it had not been necessary to refer to Serb aggression to balance references to Croat aggression. Therefore impartiality was appropriate in this instance.
Serbia • that the commentary over-simplified the issues when referring to who was to blame for the wars of the 1990s. • that while the programme had tried to provide context to imply that Serbia was not solely to blame and that not all Serbs endorsed the actions of Slobodan Milosevic’s government, the choice of phrasing did not do justice to the complex and controversial nature of the issues. • the comments needed balance and context. • the programme had not implied that the Croats, Bosnians and Kosovans had defeated Serbia and was, therefore, not inaccurate although it would have been better to have explained what actually happened in more detail. • the programme had not had a political message but could have done more to highlight Serbia’s role in the conflict. • the decision as to where a programme goes and what is featured is a matter of editorial judgement. It was not a requirement for a programme reporting on the wars of the 1990s to remark on events at Srebrenica to ensure impartiality.
General • that it would remind BBC management of the need to ensure that every effort is made to make certain that facts are thoroughly checked, so as not to mislead the audience and to meet the BBC’s obligation on impartiality.
The complaint was partially upheld with regard to accuracy and impartiality.
For the finding in full see pages 58 to 69
8
Findings (May 2008)
Making Your Mind Up 2007 and other editorial matters arising from the PricewaterhouseCoopers report of December 2007
Making Your Mind Up 2007 (UK Eurovision National Final) and other editorial matters raised by the facts identified in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report
The Fair Trading Policy and Appeals Committee asked PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to conduct a review of the economic aspects of the BBC’s use of Premium Rate Services (PRS) following its meeting in October 2007. The review sought to establish a factual picture of the BBC’s PRS activities and did not assess compliance with the regulatory regime which governs the BBC and third parties. The report (‘BBC use of Premium Rate Services – Economic Aspects’, 5 December 2007 (the "report")) was delivered to the Trust at its December meeting.
Among other findings, the report noted that an unusually large number of votes had been made outside the voting window for the programme Eurovision Making Your Mind Up (March 2007). The ESC subsequently requested a fuller explanation by the BBC Executive of the relatively large number of votes cast outside the voting window in this programme.
In addition the report (amended with corrected figures following further investigation) noted that:
“Data received from Audiocall shows that on average around two percent of calls to BBC PRS lines are received before or after the lines are open. These calls do not count towards the voting of a programme, but callers have historically been charged (we understand from Audiocall that some of these calls are likely to be misdialled numbers and, others may have been made with the intention of registering a vote or entering a competition). Audiocall receive[d] its usual share of revenue for these calls, as well as retaining any portion that would have gone to charity if the call had been made while the lines were open.”
• “Between April 2005 and March 2007 the revenue that would have gone to charity if the lines had been open, but instead accrued to Audiocall totalled … [£106,031] …The information provided by BBC Audiocall in February 2008 and March 2008 made it clear that whilst SMS text messages may have occurred outside the voting window such
9
messages were not charged at premium rate and therefore no charity element would have been associated with such texts.” • “In one case, Making Your Mind Up Eurovision 2007, calls received outside the voting period amounted to 38 percent of the total that counted towards the result (28 percent of overall calls) [these figures have been amended, please see footnote on page 5] The associated revenue to charity would have been £5,9681”
In March the Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) considered a paper submitted by the BBC Executive at the request of the Committee on Making Your Mind Up Eurovision 2007. It reached a finding which it ratified in April.
The Committee was aware that the Trust was investigating linked issues concerning monies (including the charitable element of the call) retained by Audiocall. The Committee set back consideration as to whether there had been a breach in respect of that issue with regard to Making Your Mind Up Eurovision 2007 until the Trust investigation had concluded.
On 6 May the ESC considered the outcome of the Trust investigation. .
It noted its finding of 6 March as ratified on 2 April and agreed to incorporate its decisions of 6 May 2008.
The programme
Making Your Mind Up 2007 (UK Eurovision National Final), transmitted 17 March 2007 on BBC One, was a one-off show designed to select the UK’s entry to the Eurovision Song Contest. It consisted of two parts: a 60 minute show (Programme 1), a break, then a 30 minute results show (Programme 2). The audience could vote for six different acts in Programme 1 to reduce them to a final two for the sing off in Programme 2.
Telephone voting numbers were pre-advertised in Radio Times (as was then customary at all stages of the Eurovision Song Contest) and were given out in the programme itself. Voting was via landline and text. Calls cost 25p from a BT landline with 12.5p donated to Children in Need and 25p for SMS/Text with 9p going to the charity.
Making Your Mind Up 2007
1 This has been updated to £5,709
10
In most programmes, the percentage of votes cast outside the window was no more than 4%. However, in the case of Making Your Mind Up 2007, at least 20.6% of votes were received when lines were closed.2
The incident
BBC management described the incident as follows:
The main spike in the unusually large number of votes cast outside the voting window coincided with the introduction of the sing off in the results show between the final two contestants (Programme 2) when the audience information on air was not as clear as had been planned.
Making Your Mind Up: Programme 1
The Audience information in Programme 1 verbally informed viewers twice not to call prior to the vote opening. The last call for text votes was 30 minutes before text lines closed and a verbal message was given. There was also a graphic on the end board of the first programme stating that "SMS/Text Calls Close at 2100".
On screen information detailing the phone numbers, charges and the charity donation appeared at the end of each song performance and again during the reprise after all the songs had been performed. The call charges and charity donation were verbally explained twice during Programme 1 and once in Programme 2.
Making Your Mind Up: Programme 2: The Results Show
In Programme 2 (the Results Show) fixed lines opened and closed at two points. There was no text voting in this part of the programme (and this was made clear to the audience).
The first closure did not present a problem.
After this, the audience was told which two acts had received the highest number of votes and would therefore go into the sing off. These were Cyndi and Scooch.
2 26.8% of votes i.e. calls made by landline telephone were outside the voting window. If text votes made inside the window are included, the figure falls to 20.6%. However, this figure is a lower bound because no useable data exists on the volume of text votes made outside the window.
11
At this point a problem occurred. Presenter 1 was due to deliver the pre-prepared line reminding the audience that lines were frozen and telling viewers when they would re-open.
Because of communication problems between the gallery and the floor, Presenter 2 was directed to jump in and proceeded to partially ad-lib this sequence. The producer has pointed out that the script had been written with Presenter 1's delivery in mind and is confident that had Presenter 1 delivered the script as written, the instructions would have been clear to the audience. Presenter 1 should have said that the audience vote would re-open only after Scooch had performed and pointed out that the numbers to call at that time would be displayed during the performances.
What was actually said on air by Presenter 2 was;
"I think we're going to re-open the lines in a second after the performances. The numbers are going to be on the screen to call during the two performances as well. You can’t text it’s just a traditional phone call vote now. Calls will cost you 25p but remember that mobile phone charges may vary and all profits tonight go to BBC’s Children in Need everyone.”
There was no aston on screen at this time.
After this, Cyndi performed. Her phone number was displayed during her performance. Scooch did the same and their phone number was also displayed.
A large number of calls outside the voting window occurred at this point: 34,175 calls, 15% of the total number of votes cast in the programme as a whole.
After Scooch performed Presenter 2 clearly informed the audience that lines had re-opened and this produced instantly the highest volume of calls on the night.
It was emphasised throughout the programme that calls and texts made outside the voting window would not count and would be charged for. Audience members who did call outside the voting window were greeted with an answer phone message indicating that their vote would not count.
A large number of calls were made outside the voting window and the votes did not count. However callers who did make invalid calls were advised on the phone lines that the lines were closed.
BBC management felt there was no case to add back in all the votes cast outside the voting window to the totals cast for the two acts in the sing off as viewers had been told clearly that the lines were closed. The BBC considered that to do so
12
would risk generating a different error as viewers may well have voted more than once having been told the lines were frozen when they rang in.
The programme was editorially designed to ensure that votes after the sing off would be cast only after the final two performances in Programme 2. This was consistent with other shows of this format both before and since, to ensure fairness to both contestants.
There were a small number of complaints about viewer voting difficulties in the programme to BBC Information. These were far fewer than would be expected if thousands of viewers had been unable to vote. The BBC considered that the probable explanation is that viewers who called outside the voting window dialled again, possibly several times until they eventually managed to vote, having been alerted by the answer phone message to their failure to register their vote. This was agreed as the likely explanation by both BT and BBC Audiocall based on their experience.
BBC Management Action
Before December 2007 the BBC had recognised there were issues over:
(A) votes cast before lines opened and after lines closed; and
(B) latency of text voting
BBC management has already taken the following actions on all relevant shows:
(A) Votes cast before lines open and after lines close
Voting numbers are no longer given to listing magazines before transmission. The BBC also informed the European Broadcasting Union that the BBC would not pre- publicise numbers for Eurovision Song Contest 2008 in the UK or for Making Your Mind Up 2008.
Wherever editorially appropriate (e.g. in celebrity shows) lines open at the top of the show when the numbers are put on screen. In talent shows involving members of the public competing for a major prize or award, the audience needs to have seen or heard a performance in order to make a fair assessment. In such cases lines will open after all performances.
Talent shows on all channels display numbers during the show to allow the audience to take a note of them. However, the on air information, both verbal and visual has been strengthened considerably.
13
Scripts for major shows are now reviewed by Editorial Policy, and presenters are more aware of the issues.
Before December 2007 the BBC had also begun selecting a range of independent verifiers for major votes and these services have been used on several productions.
(B) Text latency
No BBC high volume votes are being run with text currently.
Any proposal to run and resolve a text vote in a live show will now have to be referred to Editorial Policy.
The BBC has commissioned external research on the issues around mobile interaction including latency and is meeting with others in the industry and the mobile network operators to try to find solutions.
The Executive’s response to the ESC
BBC management told the Committee that it accepted that the error had been down to poor communication between the studio floor and production gallery, which had led to the confusion in the presentation of the finalists’ numbers before the sing off. This confusion had misled the audience and as such BBC management accepted this had breached the guidelines on accuracy.
BBC management told the Committee that while this was a problem with this particular programme, there was no indication that the problem of audiences being misled into voting when lines were closed was widespread.
BBC management also told the Committee that it was confident that through the efforts of the Editorial Standards Board, which had introduced new disciplines in the systems and structures for managing on-air voting as well as with the introduction of BT Ride, there was little chance of this type of incident being repeated. [BT Ride is a telephony system which ensures that calls will not be charged if individuals call when voting lines are closed.]
BBC management told the Committee it was confident that the error had not affected the final result and that it was reasonable to assume that the vast majority of people who called in and learnt the lines were frozen would have voted again when they heard the lines were open. The result therefore was accurate and would stand.
The Committee’s decision
14
Making Your Mind Up 2007 and Accuracy
The Committee noted BBC management’s response to the sections of the PwC report on the voting for the programme Making Your Mind Up.
The Committee noted BBC management accepted that an error had occurred and that it was due to poor communication between the studio floor and production gallery. It noted that this occurred because it was the first time this studio had been used and it presented problems which had not been anticipated and that this had led to confusion in the way the finalists’ numbers were presented before the sing off. The Committee found that the presenter’s comment:
“I think we're going to re-open the lines in a second after the performances. The numbers are going to be on the screen to call during the two performances as well. You can’t text it’s just a traditional phone call vote now. Calls will cost you 25p but remember that mobile phone charges may vary and all profits tonight go to BBC’s Children in Need everyone.”
could be read in two different ways. It noted that 34,175 calls had resulted as many took it to be a call to action. This figure can be compared with the overall total of 170,187 landline votes.
The Committee accepted that the programme makers had not intentionally misled the audience. It agreed this had occurred as a result of unintentional human error. However, the Committee agreed that this most unfortunate confusion had misled the audience and as such had breached the guideline on accuracy which requires output to be:
‘...presented in clear precise language’.
The Committee was, however, satisfied that the vote was robust. It noted that when the phone lines were frozen, callers would have been informed that their vote would not count. The Committee therefore concluded that callers would have been aware that their vote had not been counted at that point and that had they wished to submit a valid vote they could have done so once the lines were open.
The Committee recognised that management could not guarantee that such a problem would never occur again. Human error is always possible. However, it was satisfied that the new BBC voting procedures approved by the Trust in December should minimise the possibility of such an event occurring again, whilst the use of BT Ride should ensure that no one would be charged in future if such an incident did occur again.
15
The Committee expressed its deep regret that viewers had been misled into voting when the lines were not open. This was despite real efforts by the BBC to ensure that the programme was clear to the viewers as to what was expected of them. Its finding would be published. The Committee would ask BBC management to publish a formal apology to all callers who had had their call disallowed due to the telephone lines not being open.
The practice with regard to some television programmes (including Making Your Mind up 2007) involving the use of PRS to raise money for charity between October 2005 and September 2007 in relation to accuracy and interactivity
The Committee then considered the practice of retaining the charitable element of the cost of the call by the service provider (Audiocall) when the lines were closed.
The Committee noted that there was no suggestion the programme makers, the programme department or the UK public services as a whole were conscious that this practice existed until 2007 after the practice had stopped. It also noted that in the instance of some television programmes involving the use of PRS to raise money for charity between October 2005 and September 2007 it was considering the BBC’s responsibility as a broadcaster of editorial content as opposed to directly considering the actions of Audiocall.
The Committee considered this matter in relation to the guidelines on accuracy that output should be:
‘Presented in clear precise language’
And interactivity general principles which require that:
‘When we offer interactivity to our audience we should ensure that it • matches the expectations of the likely audience • does not act as a commercial service • is not designed to make a profit unless it is raising money for a BBC charitable initiative.’
The Committee agreed that the BBC as broadcaster had a responsibility for giving clear and precise information to the audience. If on air information suggested that part of the cost of the call would go to charity then the BBC as broadcaster was responsible for establishing with the service provider as to what would happen with the charitable portion of the call made whilst the window was closed. This would have been the case whoever the service provider had been. The Committee concluded there had been a further breach of the editorial guideline on accuracy
16
with respect to relevant programmes between October 2005 and September 2007 despite the fact that the programme makers had acted in good faith.
The Committee then considered the interactivity general principles.
The Committee noted that with respect to Making Your Mind Up 2007 members of the audience lost £11,419 by making calls whilst the window was closed following the on air error of which £5,709.should have gone to charity. This would not have matched the expectation of the audience who rang in error.
The Committee noted that with respect to some television programmes involving the use of PRS to raise money for charity between October 2005 and August 2007 the sum of £106,000 (which included the £5,709 with respect to Making Your Mind Up 2007) had been retained which should have gone to charity from the cost of calls made whilst the voting window was closed. Again this would not have matched the expectation of the audience. The Committee considered that no on air message spelt out to members of the audience that the charitable element of the cost of the call would be retained by the service provider and not go to charity if they called whilst the window was closed.
The retention of the service provider’s portion of the cost of the call made whilst the window was closed in some television programmes in 2005 and 2006 in relation to accuracy
The Committee accepted that in 2005 and 2006 some programmes did not explicitly set out on air that calls outside the window had to be paid for as the technology to ensure there was not a charge had not been introduced before 2007. This was a breach of accuracy . In 2007 on air information had changed throughout the UK broadcast industry to advise viewers that callers who rang when the voting window was closed would be charged and their vote would not count. The BBC has taken active steps to improve and clarify its on air information over time. New guidance was now in place which was not in place at the time. Notwithstanding in the past there had been occasions when the information had not been as clear and precise as the guidelines require. The Committee also considered the practice of advertising the numbers to call for Making Your Mind Up in the Radio Times (whilst in line with European Broadcasting Union practice) without specifying that the lines were only open at certain times. It recognised this meant that members of the Public were not given clear and precise information about when the lines were open before and after the vote. It accepted that the information would have been given in the programme. A small number of calls would have been made.
The Committee concluded this was a breach of the accuracy guidelines which required that information should be
17
‘Presented in clear precise language’.
The Committee was satisfied that no other guideline had been breached in relation to this matter.
Other matters not in breach
Interactivity had not been designed to make profit (except where it was used to make money for charity) or to act as a commercial service. The Committee considered that the generation of a profit by Audiocall, as a division of the BBC's commercial arm was not in itself a breach of the BBC Editorial Guidelines (“Interactive television services should not be designed to make a profit”). Audiocall, as part of BBC Worldwide, would make some profit as to do otherwise would be to put the BBC in breach of fair trading guidelines which require services to be provided at market value.
The Committee also considered the retention of residual money by Audiocall and the programme departments in two cases when the call rate had exceeded the costs for PRS use despite the rate not specifically having been set in order to raise money. The Committee acknowledged that setting a call rate to a rounded figure could result in the generation of small amounts of residuals. The Committee noted that the programme departments had received money in these cases. There was no suggestion that the callers had not received the service they had rung in for or that any charitable money had been withheld as part of the generation of the residual amounts. The Committee concluded there had been no breach of the BBC Editorial Guidelines. It agreed, however, that in future any such residual money should be passed to a BBC charity. It noted this was now BBC policy.
In conclusion
The Committee considered the nature of the breaches that occurred as a result of the retention by the service provider of the charitable element of the cost of the call made whilst the window was closed in some television programmes which used PRS to raise money for charity from October 2005 to September 2007 (including Making Your Mind Up 2007). It accepted that the programme makers acted in good faith and had not been conscious of the practice and that this was some mitigation. The Committee also noted that during 2005 and 2006 some £8 million had been raised for charity by PRS votes alone and that the amount that had been held by Audiocall amounted to approximately 1.3% of the amount raised. Notwithstanding in giving money to charity via a PRS call the licence fee payer had trusted the BBC to ensure that money would reach its final destination - that trust had been repeatedly breached albeit unintentionally. The Committee
18
concluded these were serious breaches of the BBC Editorial Guidelines which were repeated over time.
Finding: Making Your Mind Up Eurovision 2007 was in breach of the Editorial Guidelines regarding accuracy and interactivity Some television programmes using PRS to raise money for charity from October 2005 to September 2007 were in breach of the Editorial Guidelines regarding accuracy and interactivity Some television programmes during 2005 and 2006 were in breach of the guidelines on accuracy
Actions The Committee concluded and reported to the Trust that the Executive would be required to:
1. Pay any charity money owing to the relevant charities with interest (£117,465) 2. Donate to the relevant charity (Children in Need) the whole of the sum generated as a result of the editorial breach with regard to Making Your Mind Up 2007 with interest (as it cannot be repaid to the callers as data which would identify callers has not been kept) (£6,090) 3. Make a public apology on air to the viewers and charities concerned on a service to be determined - the time, the form and wording to be determined by the Trust 4. Request the Director-General, where appropriate and in accordance with employment legislation, to consider whether any individual(s) should be considered for investigation under the BBC’s disciplinary procedures or offered additional guidance.
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)
1. The complaint
The complainant complained about political bias, which he claimed the BBC was showing in its news bulletins, particularly the Ten O’Clock News programme.
He stated: “It is quite evident that the corporation has given up any pretence of objectivity and is now seeking to discredit the Government at every opportunity.”
In a number of letters to the BBC Trust and BBC Information the complainant provided a number of examples where he believed the BBC had shown bias against the Government. The complainant’s evidence is set out below:
• 30 January 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The complainant pointed to the coverage of the death of the former Conservative Minister, Paul Channon. He commented: “[…] he was rather an unremarkable and less than notable politician of yesteryear… yet his death was reported in the top half of the programme, rather than as a very brief item at the end. It was an error of news judgement, admittedly small, but telling of the BBC’s current mindset all the same.”
• 31 January 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) It had been reported that David Cameron, the Conservative leader, had asked the Prime Minister to step down during Prime Minister’s question time. The complainant stated: “While it may not be surprising for an Opposition leader to make such a statement, the item was carried prominently and – here is the point – without any balance whatsoever. No reply was broadcast from the Prime Minister, nor was there any ‘comment’ piece by a political reporter to provide balance.”
• 1 February 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) Tony Blair was interviewed a second time over the “so called” cash for honours inquiry, the BBC News completely went “over the top”. The complainant gave his reasons why: “It devoted more than a third of its programme to this news, even though Mr Blair had been interviewed as a witness, without caution and without the presence of a solicitor.”
He also stated: “Quite extraordinarily, the news carried a repeat of David Cameron’s statement of the day before, as well as a separate interview with him, making exactly the same point.”
20
The complainant went on to make the point that two political correspondents were used: “Who both put their own ‘spin’ and comment on the news. Quite apart from the fact that the BBC’s chief political correspondent has an acknowledged history of support for the Tory party, the whole item was completely unbalanced and out of all proportion to the actual facts.”
• 2 February 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The complainant pointed out that in the morning Tony Blair had given an interview to the Today programme on Radio 4, during which he commented on his current circumstances. The complainant stated: “One would have thought that given the Ten O’Clock News had devoted so much time to the Prime Minister’s situation the previous night that it would welcome the opportunity to air his views in an interview that day. But no, the programme failed even to mention the Prime Minister’s interview…”
“[…] the programme that night totally, and surprisingly, ignored the whole cash- for-questions inquiry.”
• 5 February 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The complainant noted where it had been reported that a BBC News editor had offered an incentive to news staff to come up with stories concerning the cash for honours story. He stated: “[the corporation] … was offering £100 incentives to its news staff to come up with new ‘leads’ in the so-called cash-for-honours inquiry. Yet this scandal that questions the very integrity of the country’s public service broadcaster… never received a mention on the corporation’s programmes”.
The complainant asked who authorised the incentives, up to what level were they approved, why were they introduced, had financial incentives previously been offered to journalists, and if so for what and when?
He went on to say: “How can the public rely on the integrity of BBC news output if this malpractice has taken place?”
The complainant concluded: “[…] I believe that the BBC’s anti-Labour mindset is now so deeply ingrained that it is incapable of even seeing partiality and delivering fair and balanced news reporting, in contravention of its statutory duty”.
• 10 February 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The complainant claimed that the Sunday newspapers had broken the news of David Cameron’s drug-taking at Eton: “BBC News treated it very sympathetically, twice broadcasting Cameron’s statement and without any attempt to get a comment from the extreme right wing of the Tory Party…”
21
He continued: “There was no statement … that Cameron ‘had refused’ to answer further questions and no attempt to assess his possible further drug taking at university and after.”
The complainant went on to ask that if the revelation had concerned Gordon Brown, would the BBC have treated the story in the same way? He stated: “Absolutely not, the coverage would have been more hostile, extensive and questioning, with the Tory-supporting Nick Robinson almost certainly unable to contain himself.”
• 12 February 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The bulletin carried the story of the visit of David Cameron to Sweden. He commented: “Why was this even considered to be news?”
The complainant claimed that this followed the previous day’s coverage about David Cameron’s drug-taking but the item did not press him to answer any further questions about this, “instead giving him a ‘free rein’ to say whatever he liked, without any interruption whatsoever.”
“The whole item might have been scripted by Tory Central Office: it was that embarrassingly partial.”
• 13 February 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The complainant raised the story about a Unicef Report about children’s wellbeing and the quality of life in Western countries, with the UK coming bottom and the latest inflation figures. He stated: “the BBC politicised it in a grossly unfair and unbalanced way.”
“It implied that much of the blame lay with the Labour government (the report had not even attempted to apportion blame, so why did the BBC?)… there was absolutely no balance whatsoever…”
“ … the BBC had again been unfair to the Government and that the Corporation had deliberately set out to discredit Labour’s record, rather than balance the item with criticism of the previous Tory Government’s findings.”
The complainant then went on to talk about the story concerning the release of the inflation figures on the same day, which he claimed showed the largest reduction in more than five years.
“But did the BBC highlight the good news? Not a bit of it. The Ten O’Clock News failed even to mention it… had the figure showed the sharpest rise in inflation for
22
more than five years, the BBC News would have made it the lead item with spin and comment from its correspondents proclaiming economic Armageddon.”
• 14 February 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The complainant raised the story about the acquittal of British soldiers accused of abusing Iraqi troops. He said the story contained “some asinine quote, from some unknown Tory, trying unsuccessfully to square the circle between the need for justice to be seen to be done and the unnecessary and politically inspired – in his view – charges brought against the soldiers.”
• 16 February 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The bulletin featured a speech by David Cameron, where he said he would put family interests ahead of economic interests. The complainant claimed that David Cameron had not explained what he meant: “yet the BBC viewed this speech as so important as to make it the lead item on the main evening news bulletin….the favourable coverage left the viewer with the impression that Cameron was setting the political agenda and the Government and the Labour Party were just responding.”
• 20 February 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The complainant raised the story of the reduction of British forces in Iraq and complained at the way the BBC approached the story. He stated it showed, “once more the corporation’s antipathy towards the Labour government.”
“The BBC was determined to present the news - and the Government - in a negative way, as it always has done over Iraq, often in the process giving comfort to the ‘enemy’ and depressing morale both among our forces in Iraq and their families at home.”
• 6 March 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The complainant raised the cash for honours story and the virtual lifting of the court injunction against media reference in an alleged document from a senior member of No 10’s staff about Lord Levy. He commented: “As usual, the BBC report was full of comment and innuendo and presented Lord Levy in a highly negative light, even though he is unable to defend himself properly while the police investigation continues.”
“No charges have been brought against anyone so far, but the BBC continues to spin against the Government and No 10.”
• 18 March 2007 (Late News) The complainant raised the story about David Cameron at the Tory party’s spring conference, delivering an attack on the Government’s handling of the NHS. He stated: “Given he was only doing what opposition leaders do – namely attacking
23
the Government of the day – why was this deemed to be so important that it was made the lead item on the BBC’s flagship TV programme?”
• 19 March 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The complainant raised the coverage of Iraq throughout this week: “Why is the BBC marking the fourth anniversary of the Iraq invasion? If it were the fifth or tenth that would be understandable but why the fourth?”
“The only conclusion to be drawn is that the BBC wanted to twist the knife into the back of the Prime Minister before he departs office.”
• 22 March 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The complainant raised a story reported by the Times newspaper about Iraqi insurgents using children as decoys and paying them to fire rocket propelled grenades and to bury roadside bombs. The complainant questioned why the BBC had not covered this story. He stated: “Considering this is a particularly evil tactic adopted by the insurgents and the fact that the Ten O’Clock News had been reporting all week from Iraq to mark the fourth anniversary of the conflict, it was highly surprising that the BBC made no reference to it whatsoever.”
“Could it be that, in its relentless negative coverage of the situation in Iraq, it deliberately evaded the issue because it wants to present the insurgents as ‘freedom fighters’ rather than the terrorists and opposers of democracy that they are?”
• 10 & 11 April 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The complainant questioned why the story of the captured sailors selling their stories to the media was covered. He commented: “The item was a blatant and crude piece of spin to try and implicate the Prime Minister in the decision to allow the stories to be sold, following as it did exactly, the Tory party’s low political opportunism. No evidence of the Prime Minister’s involvement was found; therefore it should have been a case of ‘no story’.”
The following evening’s bulletin led with the Prime Minister’s comments about the affair, which he was asked about during his campaigning in Scotland: “While the item did acknowledge in a low-key way that Mr Blair was unaware of the decision until Sunday, this did not stop the BBC using the headline: “The Prime Minister has admitted it wasn’t a good idea to let the sailors sell their stories...”
“The deliberate use of the word ‘admitted’ was intended to imply that somehow Mr Blair was involved in the decision.”
• 20 April 2007 (Ten O’Clock News)
24
The complainant raised the lead story about the news that the police file on the so- called ‘cash for questions’ affairs had been submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service. He stated: “Again, no one has yet been charged with any offence, let alone been found guilty, but the BBC’s high-profile and unbalanced coverage ensures that the affair, whatever the outcome, will damage the Labour Government, Labour party and the Prime Minister.”
2. BBC Information responded at stage 1 of the complaints process
• “We have aimed to report both the cash for honours and the opposition leader’s call for Mr Blair to resign in a fair and balanced manner, offering context and background, and allowing a broad range of views.” • Replying to the complainant’s comments about payments to journalists reporting on the cash for honours story, BBC Information referred the complainant to comments on the matter made by Helen Boaden, Director of BBC News on her blog. • BBC Information noted that it regularly received complaints from viewers and listeners, “who feel as strongly as you that the BBC is biased against the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. We [the BBC] would hope that none of these claims are true and aim to report on all the major parties with fairness and balance.” • BBC Information went on to say that they were unable to devote the resources to respond point by point to the complainant’s report detailing his concerns about the Ten O’Clock News.
3. The complainant wrote to the BBC Trust to request that his complaint be considered by the Trust. He also put forward two more examples.
• 9 July 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) Concerning an item on the Conservative party’s social policy report, presented by Nick Robinson, the BBC’s Political Editor, the complainant stated: “[…] who once again showed his Tory credentials by presenting a completely unbalanced and unquestioning report and interview with Iain Duncan Smith. No other politicians or social experts were interviewed: the whole item could have been a party political broadcast for the Conservative party.”
The complainant compared this to how Radio 5 Live had covered the story. He believed their coverage was a “measured and balanced report, including as it did references to both the Labour party’s and the Liberal Democrats’ relative positions.”
• 10 July 2007 (Ten O’Clock News) The complainant raised two points about the bulletin. The first concerned the coverage of Alastair Campbell’s diaries. He said the bulletin described him as
25
“Tony Blair’s ‘spin doctor’”. He was in fact, the Prime Minister’s spokesman and director of communications at No 10. The term ‘spin doctor’ is completely pejorative and is used by lazy journalists and opposition politicians to convey a negative view of the person so described.”
He also was concerned with a report by Nick Robinson on the Conservative Party’s social policy report. He stated: “there are serious questions to be raised about Nick Robinson’s suitability for his post (especially given his Tory-supporting history), about the role of editors and producers of the flagship news programme, and about BBC news management overall.”
4. The BBC Trust responded by stating that it could not consider the complaint until the complainant had received a second stage reply from BBC management. The Head of Editorial Compliance BBC News on behalf of the Director of News responded at stage 2
The Head of Editorial Compliance BBC News explained that she broke the complaint down into three key areas, as she believed that the complainant’s main concerns were about “the overall issue of bias and the individual criticisms you make by way of illustrations.”
(1) Overblown coverage of Conservative initiatives and attacks on Government
In response to the complainant’s references to Iain Duncan Smith’s report on the ‘Broken Society’, David Cameron’s visit to Sweden and his call for Tony Blair to resign, she stated: “BBC News believes it is a proper role for the Ten O’Clock News to cover the policy formation of what might be the next government. Occasionally the view is taken that it is best to cover a story via access to a key player and without a reaction from opponents.”
The Head of Editorial Compliance went on to point out that this was how the Ten O’Clock News covered Iain Duncan Smith’s report: “[…] crucially this is also how it covered Tony Blair’s gun summit, his visit to Moss Side and Gordon Brown’s response to the floods. The Ten also spent a significant amount of time profiling Gordon Brown on the eve of his becoming Prime Minister.”
She also said: “[…] it is occasionally appropriate to break away from the traditional formats, to offer alternative views and give the audience the opportunity to focus on the ideals of one political party.”
She continued: “Provided these reports ask the relevant questions, and at different times we offer all the main parties the same chances, we believe there is nothing wrong with this approach.”
26
The Head of Editorial Compliance BBC News said this approach is in keeping with the Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality.
As to the complainant’s criticism of other stories, she said that she could not agree that the Leader of the Opposition’s calls for the Prime Minister to resign or allegations about the state of the NHS were not legitimate lead news stories. She said: “it is more common for the bulletin to lead on government initiatives because of the very nature of government, which is in a position to introduce and implement policy. When matters of significant public interest are raised by the Opposition it would be remiss not to give them due weight.”
(2) Allegations of “sleaze”
The Head of Editorial Compliance BBC News addressed the complainant’s criticisms that the Ten O’Clock News was too tough on the Government, particularly over the cash for honours’ affairs and ignored allegations against the Conservative party. She stated: “The bulletin’s stories on ‘Cash for Honours’ were factually based and followed police statements or our own journalism.”
She attached Nick Robinson’s blog on the issue, an assessment which she said was fully backed by BBC management.
The Head of Editorial Compliance BBC News went on to address the complainant’s concern that the allegations about David Cameron’s drug taking contained no new facts: “The Ten was consistent in adopting a similar approach to the new Home Secretary’s revelation of her drug use – based on polling evidence that if drug use is in the past and confined to cannabis most voters do not care.”
As to the complainant’s criticisms of the Ten’s decision not to report investigations into claims David Cameron had offered access in return for donations, she said: “There were, in fact, two separate complaints leading up to two separate investigations by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and concluding in two Standards and Privileges reports published on the same day.”
The Head of Editorial Compliance BBC News then gave two reasons why the Ten O’Clock News and other BBC News outlets did not do substantial reports on the story the complainant raised. These were:
• “It happened at the height of the Iran/captured sailors controversy which dominated coverage.” • “Little happened as a result of the complaints and investigations that was of significance. One of the complaints against Mr Cameron was upheld, but only led to a very mild rebuke from the committee, which ruled that Mr Cameron
27
had been ‘ill-advised’. He in turn apologised ‘unreservedly’.
(3) Coverage of Iraq/Iran
The Head of Editorial Compliance BBC News summarised the complainant’s criticism of the BBC’s coverage of Iraq as being “relentlessly negative” and that the way the Ten marked the fourth anniversary since the start of the war was an example of the way “the BBC wanted to twist the knife into the back of the Prime Minister before he departs office.”
The complainant also criticised the Ten for only portraying “the world according to the spin of the BBC’s own correspondent.”
The Head of Editorial Compliance BBC News responded: “[BBC News] used the occasion of the fourth anniversary as a peg for offering a week of some of the most wide-ranging and comprehensive reporting from Iraq since the 2003 war - with presenters and reporters in Baghdad, the north, the south, with US troops, with UK troops and on a US warship in the Gulf.”
She added that BBC News had worked with three other media organisations to produce the third nationwide opinion poll sampling the views of ordinary Iraqis.
She also stated that Huw Edwards presented the bulletin from Basra and that, “coverage was fully rounded – and consequently also reflected the views of those on the ground about the continuing problems they face.”
The Head of Editorial Compliance BBC News ended by saying: “I do not think your criticisms are borne out by the facts.”
She then considered the story about the sailors who sold their stories to the media after their release by the Iranians and the complainant’s complaint that it was unreasonable to give prominence to Tony Blair’s remark on April 11 about the selling of the stories not having been ‘a good idea’.
She stated: “But this was a highly controversial matter which had been making the headlines for days and was tantamount to an ‘admission’ given that it was his own minister who had authorized the sale.”
“It was Tony Blair’s Government itself which decided it had been a mistake to allow this to happen; the Defence Secretary, Des Brown, apologized in Parliament on April 17th for not blocking the sale of stories. He told MPs that he ‘profoundly regretted’ the ‘mistake’ and any damage done to the reputation of UK armed forces.”
28
The Head of Editorial Compliance BBC News ended by saying: “We don’t accept that we display any political bias (other than a commitment to democracy) but clearly, however hard we try, there will be occasional lapses in judgement and it is vital never to be complacent.”
5. The complainant wrote to the BBC Trust dissatisfied with the response from the Head of Editorial Compliance BBC News and asking the BBC Trust to investigate.
In his letter to the BBC Trust the complainant set out eight points disputing the arguments of BBC News.
He ended his letter by saying: “[I am] standing by my essential criticism that the BBC – and the Ten in particular – have failed to exercise due impartiality and objectivity by broadcasting unfair and unbalanced coverage of the Labour government (especially of Tony Blair) while failing to adopt the same critical and questioning approach towards the Conservative party.”
He added: “I remain of the view that the BBC’s antipathy towards the Labour Government is in part due to the fallout from the Hutton Report and the Corporation’s failure to achieve the license fee settlement it wanted.”
6. Following the final response at stage 2 from the Head of Editorial Compliance BBC News on behalf of the Director of News, the complainant sent a further three letters giving further examples which he asked to be considered.
However, as these letters have not received an executive response as required, (Agreement between DCMS and BBC 2006 – 90 (3))3 they have not been considered as part of the appeal.
7. Complaints Handling
The complainant during his correspondence with the BBC and BBC Trust raised a number of issues regarding the delays to replies to his letters and with the response he received to his concerns from BBC Information. He was also concerned that the BBC Trust was unable to consider his complaint until after a second round of responses from BBC management.
8. Applicable programme standards
3 "The Trust should not have a role in handling or determining individual complaints in the first instance, except where the complaint relates to any act or omission of the Trust itself or of the Trust Unit."
29
Section 1 - The BBC’s Editorial Values
Impartiality & diversity of opinion We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by exploring the range and conflict of views. We will be objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. We will provide professional judgments where appropriate, but we will never promote a particular view on controversial matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.
Editorial integrity & independence The BBC is independent of both state and partisan interests. Our audiences can be confident that our decisions are influenced neither by political or commercial pressures, nor by any personal interests.
Section 4 - Impartiality & diversity of opinion
Introduction The Agreement accompanying the BBC's Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting.
In practice, our commitment to impartiality means:
• we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale across all our output. We take particular care when dealing with political or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current public policy. • we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented. • 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.
30
• the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality. • our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters. • we must rigorously test contributors expressing contentious views during an interview whilst giving them a fair chance to set out their full response to our questions.
Achieving impartiality …Impartiality is described in the Agreement 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. News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality.
Controversial subjects In the United Kingdom controversial subjects are issues of significance for the whole of the country, such as elections, or highly contentious new legislation on the eve of a crucial Commons vote, or a UK wide public sector strike….
…We must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight in the period during which a controversial subject is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact. When the issues involved are highly controversial and/or a decisive moment in the controversy is expected we will sometimes need to ensure that all of the main views are reflected in our output. This may mean featuring them in a single programme, or even a single item.
Section 13 - Editorial Integrity & 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.
31
• We must not endorse or appear to endorse any other organisation, its products, activities or services… • The outside activities of people working for the BBC, including presenters, must not improperly influence BBC programmes or corporate decision making.
Section 10 - Politics and Public Policy
Principles of political impartiality
• We must treat matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other output. • We must not express an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting. • We must not campaign, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign.
9. 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 the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and the ECU.
This Appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines on impartiality, editorial integrity and political and public policy.
Impartiality
The editorial guidelines state that impartiality applies across all the BBC’s services. The BBC is required to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs to support fair and informed debate.
This commitment to impartiality requires the BBC to rigorously test contributors expressing contentious views during an interview whilst giving them a fair chance to set out a full response to questions.
News in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality.
The BBC must be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in its
32
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.
Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output. 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 the audiences.
Editorial Integrity and Independence
The BBC must also ensure that it is independent of both state and partisan interests and that its decisions are not influenced by neither political or commercial pressures, nor by any personal interest.
Politics and Public Policy
The BBC must over time aim to give due prominence to all main strands of argument and to all the main parties. Although the government of the day will often be the primary source of news, the voices of opposition parties must be routinely aired and challenged.
The BBC is also required to treat matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy with due accuracy and impartiality in its news services and other output. It also requires that the BBC must not express an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting. The BBC must not campaign, or allow itself to be used to campaign
Approach
The Committee noted that in the complainant’s letter of appeal he stated: “I trust the ESC members will consider all my complaints in the round…”; the ESC agreed to consider the programmes complained of in the round. However, the Committee also agreed that it would consider the issues under seven headings:
• Cash for honours • Incentives to Westminster team • 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 Committee then looked at the issue of the handling of the complaint.
33
1. Cash for Honours
The Committee was satisfied that the way the Ten O’Clock News had covered this story had been appropriate. Members discussed the strength of the story – that it had been unique in Britain in its involvement of a currently serving Prime Minister in police enquiries into the conduct of his office. The Committee agreed that the eventual outcome - no charges were brought - did not diminish the importance of the story at the time it was happening, and the coverage was appropriate and in line with the seriousness of the situation. The committee was satisfied that the story had been presented with due impartiality.
The ESC did not uphold this part of the complaint
2. Incentives to Westminster team
This complaint was regarding an email which had come to light apparently showing that the BBC had been offering cash incentives to its Westminster journalists to come up with stories about the cash for honours story.
The Committee agreed that it had been wrong to send an email to journalists working at BBC Westminster, offering them a cash incentive to investigate the cash for honours story. But the Committee accepted the explanation of the editor that it had been meant as a wry joke. It also accepted that this had been sent without the knowledge of any of his colleagues or his management. Helen Boaden, the Director of BBC News, had said this had not indicated bias, merely a lapse of judgment. The ESC agreed that the apology by the editor concerned and the actions taken by management at the time were appropriate.
The ESC acknowledged that the email was an individual’s error of judgment but did not find this indicated a systemic issue or that it was in itself a demonstration of a lack of impartiality or led to a lack of impartiality or a breach of editorial integrity in content. It did not uphold this part of the complaint.
3. Omitting to cover, or give due weight to allegations of Conservative wrong- doing
The complainant asserted that the Ten O’Clock News did not cover David Cameron’s rebuke by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards nor take the right tone on his youthful drug-taking.
The Committee noted that the Editor of the Ten O’Clock News had agreed that, on 12 February 2007:
34
“The 10 did nothing on the Cameron sleaze…sometimes people come in and say we should mark this – to keep us honest…that seemed to drift past on this occasion.
He went on to say:
“The magnitude of the seriousness and the newsworthiness of cash for honours were far higher. The Cameron breach was not considered as serious…but we should have done something, it wasn’t conspiratorial, there was no agenda to hush it up – a mistake was made but not a dramatic one.”
He had accepted that there had been an error of judgment on that occasion and the Committee agreed with him. The Committee did not however think that this omission had breached the guidelines on impartiality nor that it had indicated bias.
The Committee discussed the difference in the seriousness of the cash for honours story and the issue of Cameron’s rebuke and decided that these were not equivalent in weight and importance and did not require the same coverage.
The Committee accepted the news management’s evidence on the coverage of the drug-taking story and agreed, given the research into the audience’s perception of the importance of drug-taking in youth, that the coverage had been proportionate. News had been presented with due impartiality.
The ESC did not uphold this part of the complaint.
4. Pro-Conservative item selection and treatment
The Committee discussed the allegations of a pro-Conservative bias in news story selection, especially in relation to David Cameron’s trip to Sweden, his “family” policy and the coverage of Iain Duncan Smith’s report.
The Committee noted that the Head of Editorial Compliance BBC News, in replying to the complainant at an earlier stage, had been able to point out where this sort of coverage had been applied to other parties:
“BBC News believes it is a proper role for the Ten O’Clock News to cover the policy formation of what might be the next government. Occasionally the view is taken that it is best to cover a story via access to a key player and without a reaction from opponents. This is how the bulletin covered lain Duncan Smith’s report; crucially, it is also how it covered Tony Blair’s gun summit, his visit to Moss Side and Gordon Brown’s response to the
35
floods. The Ten also spent a significant amount of time profiling Gordon Brown on the eve of his becoming Prime Minister.” . The Committee endorsed the requirement that news output should be balanced and fair to both government and opposition. It agreed that BBC News’ coverage of the Government should be appropriate but it is also believed it was fair to ensure that policies announced by the opposition were also covered and shared with the audience. The Committee noted that this may be done on occasions without “balancing” comment from other parties within the piece as long as – over time – the coverage was fair and balanced.
The Committee did not think the stories complained of demonstrated evidence of bias. It agreed that they had been presented with due impartiality.
However, the Committee agreed with Nick Robinson’s statement that
“The lesson I would learn from the complaint – as it refers to the IDS part – is the need to keep a mental checklist and to make sure that all parties get that sort of coverage.”
The Committee did not uphold this part of the complaint although it did make a recommendation to BBC News for good practice in the future. The Committee considered the newsroom should keep a record of pieces covered in this fashion instead of leaving it to memory so that the record could be called upon by the Executive and by the Trust to demonstrate that impartiality had been achieved.
5. Political Editor favouring Conservatives because of his background
The Committee discussed this allegation and concluded that there was no evidence that the output had been coloured in any way by any personal opinion held by the Political Editor. His present political opinions were not known. The Committee noted that he had said:
“[…] it’s not raised by the Labour Party nor the Liberal Democrats as a problem…all the parties say – sometimes – that they don’t like what I’ve done, because they don’t, but it’s not because of what I think.”
The Committee concluded that reports by the Political Editor that they had seen had been presented with due impartiality and they did not uphold this part of the complaint.
6. Iraq/Iran hostages
36
The Committee considered the complaint that anti-government bias had been shown in deciding to anchor a week of the Ten O’Clock news from Iraq to mark the fourth anniversary of the start of the war, that the coverage of Iran taking marines hostage was negative to the government and that, overall the coverage of the war in Iraq and of the marine-hostage incident was anti-Labour.
Members concluded that it was the prerogative of the programme editor to decide when to anchor a programme or series from a particular location and that the coverage during the week in Iraq had been justified, fair and based on the news value of the story. British troops had been engaged in dangerous situations and that was important to explain to a UK audience. There had been a high level of insurgency in Iraq at that time and it was important, and not party political, to cover that in breadth and depth. By the fifth anniversary, activity had declined from such a peak but the event had still been covered thoroughly.
Generally the Committee thought the coverage of Iraq and the Iran hostages had been balanced: the anchored coverage on the fourth anniversary had included breaking the story of Sadr City and the militia among other items. The Iranian hostage episode and its aftermath had created issues for the government but it was correct of the BBC to cover those issues. The Committee did not see any evidence of bias in the choice of stories or the coverage.
The ESC did not uphold this part of the complaint.
7. Coverage Decisions/Other
This part of the complaint was about a number of coverage decisions: why was the death of Paul Channon, a former Conservative minister covered at all and placed above mid-way in the programme? Why did the 10 not pick up an interview with the Prime Minister on the Today programme? Why did it not report a story in the Times newspaper about the Iraqis using children as decoys? Why was the reporting of a UNICEF report on the comparative welfare of children in the UK given an anti-government stance?
The ESC considered these matters carefully but did not see that a case for systemic bias had been made. The coverage of Paul Channon’s death had not seemed to be excessive in that he was a public figure and former minister who was also known for his position in society. An interview on the Today programme was half a day away from the 10 O’clock News and if the story had not moved on sufficiently in the view of the news editor there was no reason for the bulletin to cover it.
The Committee also did not see the other mentioned incidents as demonstrating any evidence of systemic bias. The choice of news story and the angle at which it
37
was examined was dependent on its news value at the time against other competing stories in that day’s news agenda.
The Committee did not uphold this part of the complaint.
8. Complaints handling
The Committee noted that the complainant had expressed his concerns about the handling of this complaint and that the BBC’s response to his correspondence had not always been as quick and as efficient as he might have expected.
The Committee also noted there had been an apology from those handling the first stage complaint about the length of time it took to generate a reply. It noted that the delay had been as a result of a combination of high complaint levels at the BBC at that time and the complex nature of this particular complaint. The Committee also noted that process had been amended, as explained by Audience Services:
• BBC Information has since improved its procedure – from the autumn of 2007 a new system was introduced so that a holding line is now issued to letter and email complaints if it is anticipated that they will take longer than 10 days to investigate and answer.
• The surge and backlog of complaints experienced in early 2007 was quickly cleared. In the full year from April 2007 to the end of March 2008, 93% of all Stage 1 complaints (approx 124,000) were answered within 10 days of being received.
The Committee endorsed the apology about the time it had taken to answer the letters but also considered that the issue was complex and ranged over many programmes over several months and that the complainant had continued to add examples of items he wished to be considered. This had added to the delay.
The Committee did consider the responses, though tardy, to have been considered and courteous. The Committee agreed that no further action was required.
Finding: The Committee did not uphold any of the complaints
Action: The Chairman would write to the Deputy Director-General as Chairman of the Complaints Management Board to request that BBC News consider reviewing its working practices with regard to the proper recording of its coverage of Government and opposition parties’ initiatives and policies in news programmes.
38
NewsWatch, BBC News 24 & 25 May 2007
1. The programme
The programme is produced for BBC News (then BBC News 24) and is also repeated on BBC One on a Saturday morning as part of the Breakfast programme.
The programme describes itself in the following terms:
“NewsWatch is there to represent the viewers, to get answers to your criticisms of BBC News – whenever possible in face to face discussions with those in charge.”
2. The item
The item in question aimed to address criticisms from its viewers of Panorama: Wi-Fi: A Warning Signal broadcast on 21 May 2007.
3. The complaint
The complaint can be sub-grouped under four headings:
A) Impartiality and accuracy
• The item was not impartial. “The feedback from viewers put to the reporter Paul Kenyon was undeniably one-sided”. No positive feedback featured in the item. The recurring theme in NewsWatch was that the Panorama programme was “unbalanced and was exaggerating the evidence”.
• The item was inaccurate and unfair in various ways.
B) Alleged ‘smear’ complaint
• NewsWatch ‘smeared’ one of the researchers (Professor Olle Johansson) featured in Panorama. The presenter Raymond Snoddy said:
“And we have looked into your main Swedish scientist and 1600 Swedish scientists voted him ‘Misleader of the Year in 2004′…for his views on electromagnetism – the very subject of your programme”
This ‘award’ the complainant pointed out came from a lobby group called the Swedish Sceptics Association:
39
“There are two problems with this…They aren’t scientists…it wasn’t a vote…it’s a political booby prize from a lobby group open to anyone.”
“This contrasted with NewsWatch’s treatment of Mike Repacholi of the World Health Organisation. The NewsWatch item claimed that Panorama had ’rubbished’ him as ‘it was made clear he had been employed by the industry.’ Had NewsWatch looked into Repacholi in the same way as they had Johansson, they would have found that he retired while a petition to remove him from the top of the WHO had 900 signatories.”
C) The 23 minutes claim
• NewsWatch implied that Panorama was unbalanced because:
“another thing viewers noticed was that they were 23 minutes into this programme before an alternative point of view was given.”
“…can you really do it without putting the alternative point of view?”
The alternative point of view was given in the script after about 12 minutes.
D) The bogus criticism
• NewsWatch claimed that Panorama had made a false comparison between the output of a Wi-Fi router and the signal from a mobile phone mast:
“Viewers have pointed out that it is not right and ignores the basic laws of physics to compare radiation from 100 metres away from a mast and 1 metre away from a computer. Have they got a point?”
• He noted this question defies common sense as engineers routinely measure electrical signals at varying distances. The government and industry constantly assure people that masts are safe on the same basis. They compare actual exposure levels at the distance [rather than the strength of the signals], as the Panorama programme did. • NewsWatch’s questions depended on vagueness for their effect. NewsWatch helped create a dispute by selecting invalid criticisms that sound significant only when worded vaguely.
4. NewsWatch’s producer replied at stage 1 of the process
• “…the questions put to journalists and executives are based on comments from viewers. There was sufficient concern about this particular episode of Panorama – including from other BBC science journalists – for us to think it
40
warranted looking at.”
Alleged ‘smear’ complaint
• “You can query the wording of the comment about Prof Johansson, but it was a reasonable point to raise…You may think he [Paul Kenyon] should have done more research on his contributors and had an adequate response…” • “…viewers perceived Mr Repacholi as being given a hard time while the scientists in the other camp… were not examined in a similar way.” • “…NewsWatch’s role is to question the journalism and the methodology, not to replicate the research a programme may or may not have already done.”
The 23 minute claim
• “The BBC sets great store by being fair and impartial. By any yardstick, the Panorama programme overwhelmingly gave plenty of time for the evidence to support its case and allowed comparatively little time for the other view. It was perfectly reasonable to question that.”
The bogus criticism
• “Many viewers with suitable qualifications wrote to the BBC querying the way this test was conducted. I spoke to highly qualified people who had got in touch to discuss their concerns further. It was a point we put to Paul Kenyon on behalf of the audience and he dealt with it.” • The producer of NewsWatch then lists other criticisms of the Panorama programme, not previously mentioned by the complainant. These included using a man “firmly on one side of the argument…” to take radiation measurements; the way air was measured “…in Norwich for radiation”; and the issue raised in the programme of electrosensitivity.
5. The complainant then complained to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) making the following additional points
• The “…specific complaints on these serious issues were not answered”. • NewsWatch was unbalanced - the viewers’ comments were used selectively. Two comments were used at the beginning. First Panorama was criticised for using terms such as radiation “which whilst correct are poorly understood by many people and often associated with radioactivity”. Second Panorama was criticised for using “computer graphics showing radiation leaking into people’s everyday lives without their knowledge or consent”. These statements are, however, both correct. These “criticisms seemed to have been selected for effect not for substance”. • In his response, the producer of NewsWatch is quoted by the complainant as
41
having “introduced many additional criticisms of Panorama… that were not part of my original complaint”. “…while not answering my serious and specific complaints about its own inaccuracy and impartiality, [NewsWatch] continued to attack Panorama along the same lines”.
6. The ECU replied
Impartiality
• “The remit of the programme is to represent viewers and to put their concerns direct to editors and programme-makers…There was… a great deal of public criticism of [Panorama: Wi-Fi: A Warning Signal] and this was reflected in the correspondence received by NewsWatch.” • “[NewsWatch] put forward criticisms of the programme but also allowed the programme-makers the opportunity to offer a clear and robust defence, allowing viewers to hear both sides of the argument.”
The ECU did not uphold this part of the complaint.
The alleged ‘smear’ complaint
• “The programme-makers explained to us that the information about Professor Johansson and the Swedish Sceptics Association didn’t emerge until late in the production process, and they accept that the phrasing of the statement… didn’t reflect it precisely.” • “…although membership of the Association isn’t confined to scientists, most of its members are academics in science facilities.” • “We also understand that Professor Johansson has been nominated for the Misleader of the Year title about 10 times, and was awarded it in 2004 after a Swedish government report criticised the basis of his research theory and methodology. I therefore think it was legitimate to give the impression that there had been criticism of his work by other scientists.” • “However, the title is awarded not by a vote, but by a committee of the Association, on the basis of nominations from members not all of whom are scientists, so I accept that it was inaccurate to describe [the award] as having been awarded by a vote of 1600 scientists...”
This part of the complaint was upheld.
23 minutes claim
• The ECU stated: “You suggest that the script contained a number of lines which made the position of the UK Government and the WHO clear...the point here is the perception of the viewer”.
42
• The ECU noted that the Commissioning Editor for NewsWatch had told it: “The viewers were referring to the time it took to hear a contributor’s voice in favour of the mainstream view about the safety of emissions. All voices before that boosted the case for concern about emissions. Paul Kenyon responded to say that there were several script lines mentioning the mainstream view throughout the programme.” • “The programme featured a number of interviewees who expressed concerns about the roll-out of Wi-Fi in schools, but the only person who was interviewed to put forward the opposing view (Mike Repacholi) did not appear until quite late in the programme.”
This part of the complaint was not upheld.
Bogus criticism
• “[NewsWatch] paraphrased the comments of many viewers who felt that Panorama was not comparing like with like…” when comparing the output from a Wi-Fi router and the signal from a mobile phone mast. “[Panorama] did make it clear that it was comparing the level of radiation at a particular point, rather than the strength of the signal at its source. However, I think it’s also clear that many viewers did not understand what was being measured…” • “On the basis that at least some viewers were confused, I am satisfied that it was reasonable for [NewsWatch] to put this point to Panorama and allow [the programme] to explain why the measurements were comparable”. • “NewsWatch’s remit is to put viewers’ concerns direct to programme-makers, even if those concerns may turn out to be misplaced. In this case, [Panorama] was given the opportunity to clarify the situation…”
This part of the complaint was not upheld.
7. The complainant then appealed to the Editorial Standards Committee making the following points
Impartiality • The original complaints have not been answered. The complaint about impartiality was answered only in general terms, not as it applies to each individual complaint.
The alleged smear complaint • The scientists referred to by NewsWatch “…appear to be some kind of public lobby group or pressure group”. NewsWatch didn’t make this clear. Although the complaint about the ‘vote’ was upheld, the “…description of ‘1600 scientists’ is misleading.”
43
The 23 minutes claim • The BBC has relied heavily on the excuse of ‘viewers’ questions. Because NewsWatch believed “…it was reasonable to put certain points to Panorama for ‘clarification’ purposes, these points could then be asserted in the form of damaging criticisms that were both unjustified and inaccurate”. This exceeds the remit of NewsWatch to pose viewers’ questions. The BBC Guidelines cover ‘all of our content.’ • Whether or not the point about the 23 minutes claim is “the perception of the viewer”, the two statements made on NewsWatch [as detailed in the original complaint] are still inaccurate. • The Commissioning Editor of NewsWatch says that “the viewers were referring to the time it took to hear a contributor’s voice in favour of the mainstream view about the safety of emissions.” If this is really the case, this was not made clear on NewsWatch. Whatever viewers may have meant, the exaggeration comes from NewsWatch.
The bogus criticism • “The BBC now admits ‘I agree with you that the programme did make it clear that it was comparing the level of radiation at a particular point, rather than the strength of the signal at its source.’” • “It also concedes that…viewers were ‘mistaken’ and ‘confused’”. The questions put to Paul Kenyon were, “if not completely ‘bogus’, then at least unjustified” therefore inaccurate. The criticisms made on NewsWatch were unfair and gave the impression that Panorama was incompetent or biased.
Complaints handling • The complainant stated that the BBC did not address or acknowledge his actual complaint. • He also stated that “spurious reasons” were given for rejecting the complaint. • The complainant also noted that the BBC has an interest in Wi-Fi technology and is actively promoting mobile technology. He suggested that the BBC’s interest in these technologies should not influence its decision with regard to this complaint.
8. Applicable programme standards
Section 1 - The BBC's Editorial Values
Truth and accuracy
We strive to be accurate and establish the truth of what has happened. Accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than a question of getting the facts right. We will weigh all relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and
44
presented in clear, precise language. We will be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation.
Impartiality & diversity of opinion
We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by exploring the range and conflict of views. We will be objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. We will provide professional judgments where appropriate, but we will never promote a particular view on controversial matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.
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.
Fact checking We must check and verify information, facts and documents, ...
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
45
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...
In practice, our commitment to impartiality means:
• we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented. • 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. • the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality. • we must rigorously test contributors expressing contentious views during an interview whilst giving them a fair chance to set out their full response to our questions. • we should not automatically assume that academics and journalists from other organisations are impartial and make it clear to our audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint.
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 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.
46
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 should not give undue prominence to commercial products or services.
9. 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 the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and the ECU.
This Appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guideline on accuracy and impartiality.
Accuracy
The guidelines provide that the BBC should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead audiences. It also requires that the BBC’s output should be well sourced and based on sound evidence.
The Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that NewsWatch had in effect smeared the reputation of one of the contributors to the programme, Professor Olle Johansson, by stating that he had been named Misleader of the Year in 2004 by the Swedish Sceptics Association. This was not a complaint brought on behalf of Professor Johansson. The Committee considered it with regard to the guidelines on accuracy.
The Committee noted that the ECU had previously upheld a complaint on the accuracy of this remark with regard to the reference that he was “voted” Misleader of the Year by 1600 Swedish scientists. The Committee also noted that the complainant was not fully satisfied with the decision of the ECU, in that it had
47
not upheld the other element of his complaint; that the group who made the award were not only not scientists but a “pressure group”.
The Committee noted what was said in the NewsWatch programme:
Ray Snoddy (RS): “And we have looked into your main Swedish scientist and 1600 Swedish scientists voted him ‘MISLEADER OF THE YEAR in 2004”
Paul Kenyon (PK): “Did they? That’s not good.”
RS: “[…] for his views on electromagnetism – the very subject of your programme, and there seems to be an imbalance between your right to prove something rather than an objective study.”
PK: “I take your point and I didn’t know that about Professor Johansson at all.”
The Committee first considered the issue upheld by the ECU i.e. whether the award had been determined by a vote. The Committee concluded that whilst a “board of 10” decided on the award, which may have relied on a vote of the board, the suggestion that 1600 members of the Swedish Sceptics Association voted Professor Johansson this title was misleading and inaccurate. The Committee was satisfied that the ECU’s decision was correct.
As to whether the description of the Swedish Sceptics Association as scientists was accurate, the Committee concluded that the wording within the context of the programme was acceptable. The Committee believed that given the style of programme and the type of discussion the description of the membership was duly accurate. The Committee also concluded that whether or not the Swedish Sceptics Association was a “pressure” group was not the issue – the issue was whether it was duly accurate to describe the members as scientists.
The Committee was also satisfied that it had been a legitimate question to raise with Panorama, given that Panorama would have had to check the credentials of all contributors taking part in the programme prior to broadcast and that it was the type of information it would have been reasonable for the programme to have been able to refute or defend. Unfortunately, in this case Panorama had not known of this issue. Even so, just because Panorama had not known of it, it did not suggest that the question was unreasonable. The Committee noted that it was the purpose of this style of programme, to raise issues and concerns about programme content with programme makers, based on the concerns and issues of
48
viewers who had contacted the programme. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the programme had not breached the guidelines on accuracy beyond the issue upheld by the ECU.
Impartiality
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 noted the complainant’s concerns that NewsWatch had shown bias by not putting forward any positive views of the programme. The Committee did not agree. The Committee considered it was perfectly acceptable for a programme providing access to audience feedback to put forward criticisms of BBC content - the counter argument - to representatives of the production team or BBC management to respond. The Committee was satisfied that in programmes of this nature - an audience feedback programme - the audience’s expectation was such that it would not require the programme to ensure equal balance to every item or to represent every argument or facet of every argument about a particular programme or issue raised. The Committee accepted that not all viewers would agree with the programme’s treatment of an issue, but this was the nature of the programme.
The Committee noted that balance in a programme could be achieved in a number of ways such as by the challenging questions of a presenter, the defending remarks of a programme maker or BBC manager, or by the presentation of the opposite views of the audience, but it was not a requirement for all of these elements to be included to ensure an item was balanced.
As to this particular item, the Committee was satisfied that balance had been provided by the Panorama reporter who was in a position to defend criticism against the programme. It was not therefore a requirement for the programme to balance one set of viewers’ comments against another’s comments in order to meet the appropriate guideline on impartiality.
The Committee then noted how the programme addressed some of the other issues raised by the complainant such as how soon had the programme provided representation of the view that Wi-Fi waves are harmless and the “bogus criticism” of Panorama’s measurement of radio waves in the classroom. The
49
Committee noted what was said on the programme. In relation to the representation that Wi-Fi waves were harmless it was stated:
Raymond Snoddy (RS): “Another thing the viewers noticed that they were 23 minutes into this programme before an alternative point of view was given. That scientist, Mike Repacholi, was then in a sense rubbished when it was made clear he had been employed by the industry. Why no independent source to put another point of view?....”
Paul Kenyon (PK): “…But our position was that there is a mainstream accepted view on this and I think it’s a role that Panorama can play to challenge that mainstream sort-of culturally accepted norm.”
RS: “Can you carry this out without putting the alternative point of view?”
PK: “I think we did put the alternative point of view - it was there in the script. We kept saying this is a minority of people who feel this etc etc. But I understand what you are saying it is a fair point but we were there to as I say to question the mainstream opinion of the moment which I feel we did fairly well. I just keep coming back to. Just one final point. When Sir William Stewart the government’s chief advisor tells us that he is concerned I think he’s an eminent enough erm er er scientist for us to take that as something Panorama should be reporting, which is all we did in effect”
And with regard to “bogus criticism” it was said:
RS: “Paul Kenyon you were the Panorama reporter involved here. Viewers have pointed out that it is not right and ignores the basic laws of physics to compare radiation from 100 metres away from a mast and 1 metre away from a computer. Have they got a point?”
PK: “I think that the main point of the programme really was that we had the government’s chief scientist Sir William Stewart who has in a previous report said that he is concerned about mobile phone mast radiation falling on any part of a school’s playing grounds. Now that point that was about four or five years ago when he made those comments we decided what we would do is try and investigate if Wi-Fi had a similar level of radiation (sic). We find it has slightly more.”
50
RS: “But what viewers have said is it is completely wrong to go 100 metres away from a mast and compare the reading 1 metre away – they are not the same things.”
PK: “I’m told they ARE the same thing. I mean we have to rely on the scientists who we use as consultants for programmes like this. But a number of scientists who I spoke to this morning again just to check and 100 metres from the mast is seen as the main beam of radiation rather like a lighthouse coming down where the light hits the floor we took it at the highest point of radiation and compare it with where a child’s head would be coming out of Wi-Fi.”
The Committee concluded that in both issues it was perfectly legitimate for the NewsWatch programme to raise them in the way that they did. The Committee noted that it was the programme’s purpose to challenge BBC news content providers with audience questions and concerns related to that content. The presentation of viewers’ comments and concerns did not require the programme to actively research their accuracy beyond reasonable doubt. In this case ample opportunity was offered to the Panorama reporter to respond to or correct the criticism. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the programme had met the standards required of it to ensure that the matter was treated with due impartiality. NewsWatch had ensured that criticisms of the Panorama programme had been given a fair chance of reply, but it was not a requirement of the programme to present every opinion of the audience to ensure balance.
As to the complainant’s concerns regarding complaints handling, the Committee was satisfied that the content of the replies he had received had been considered. As such, the Committee did not agree with the complainant that the replies he had received had ignored his complaint or provided spurious reasons for rejecting his complaint. The Committee also dismissed the suggestion that any of the BBC’s replies could have been influenced by the BBC’s interest in mobile or Wi-Fi technology. The Committee concluded that there was no evidence to suggest any such influence in the replies the complainant had received from the BBC nor had the complainant provided any evidence to support such a claim in his correspondence at any stage of the complaints process.
Finding: The Committee endorsed the ECU’s decision to partially uphold on accuracy, but did not uphold any other element of the complaint.
51
BBC Radio Scotland (process complaint)
1. The Issue before the ESC
The Committee is asked to consider complaints handling at stage 1.
The complainant complained that his initial complaint of 30 April 2007 [to the Director-General and BBC Information] was not replied to in a timely way. He complained that he had not had an answer to this complaint, that his emails prior to 30 April were not responded to and he received no feedback.
2. Background
The complainant belongs to a group called Catcher. Catcher produced an album in 2007 called Bi polar bear disorder. This was produced by his record label West Nile Records (an independent). This was sent to Radio 1 and BBC Radio Scotland but was not played. The complainant complained about this decision – other complaints then flowed from the first complaint. His full complaint is described in detail below.
3. The complaint
• The complainant felt that there was:
“an apparent veto of music by Catcher”
on BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio Scotland especially with regard to the Vic Galloway programmes (stated in his letter of 30 April to the Director-General and BBC Complaints); • He was concerned that there was no reply or feedback regarding Bi polar bear disorder until he had sent a large number of emails (also stated in letter of 30 April) • He also felt that the CD copy of Bi polar bear disorder by Catcher was never listened to and that the tracks on MySpace (referred to in a letter from BBC Scotland on 29 August in which it was explained they had listened to the tracks on MySpace and formed a view as to their quality) were not of similar quality nor were they the ones played by other outlets (letter of 3 September to BBC Scotland). • The complainant believed there had been no review of Bi polar bear disorder by Catcher by BBC Scotland although it had airplay from Rapal (BBC Radio nan Gàidheal) and XFM Scotland and the 2006 Catcher album The West Nile Virus was album of the week on Rapal when released (30 April letter to BBC
52
Complaints and the Director-General). • The complainant also felt that Different City by Catcher did not receive fair airplay at the time or retrospectively despite the success of The View by Superstar Tradesman which he considered to be ‘nigh on identical’ (3 September to BBC Scotland). • The complainant expressed his belief that there had been a breach of the following editorial guideline re 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.”
• He suggested that the ‘industry buzz’ surrounding another group’s music which BBC Scotland had referred to in their letter meant that small West Nile records “had been discriminated against (either consciously or unconsciously) [in favour of]…the big Columbia Records”. He explained that West Nile could not orchestrate a marketing campaign of the size and scale of the larger record companies. (Letter 3 September to BBC Scotland). • The complainant referred to a letter he had received from the CEO of the Association of Independent Music who stated:
“The BBC is in my view following an editorial policy that can only be described as commercial”
which he took to indicate that the BBC is in breach of the guideline regarding integrity and independence. (Letter of 13 November to BBC Trust). • He believed there was different treatment for
“a small label in Scotland”
compared to a London major label (letter 10 December to the BBC Trust). • The complaint also referred to BBC Scotland’s letter of 3 October which stated:
“Thank you for submitting the CD Bi-Polar Bear Disorder which I note was released earlier in the year. As it is not a new release we will retain it in our files for possible future plays.”
which he believed indicated that Bi polar bear disorder was being treated as old material in a way that would not apply to releases by a major label and that this was a further indication that the BBC is in breach of the guideline set out above (Letter 10 December to the Trust). • He complained that his initial complaint of 30 April was not replied to in a timely way and that his points were not dealt with directly.
4. BBC Response
53
• BBC Information wrote on 8 May acknowledging the complainant’s letter to the Director-General. • It then responded on 29 July with a fuller explanation, again on behalf of the Director-General setting out an explanation as to why Radio 1 operates a playlist. • On 8 August BBC Information sent a further email stating that Radio 1:
“received hundreds of demo tapes a week”
and it
“isn’t possible to highlight each individual band”.
• The Senior Producer, Music Scotland wrote at Stage 2 of the complaints process on 29 August 2007. To summarise she said that there was no veto on Catcher, that tracks were chosen on merit and that Rapal chose tracks to suit the editorial of that show. She explained that a playlist is not operated on BBC Radio Scotland and selection of tracks was at the discretion of each programme production team. The then new producer from Radio 1 Scotland had not received the material but having listened on MySpace felt only one track would catch his attention. This was the same view as that taken by the Radio Scotland team. She did not feel she could comment upon the complainant’s belief that The View release is similar to the Catcher release. • On 3 October Senior Producer, Music Scotland confirmed she had nothing to add. • On 12 November BBC Information reiterated that there was no policy by Radio 1 or BBC Scotland not to play music by Catcher and that any music sent to Radio 1 or BBC Scotland would go through the proper channels.
The BBC Trust’s position • On 28 August and 28 November the Complaints Manager for the Trust explained that the Trust sets the editorial framework within which the BBC operates on a day-to-day basis including compliance with the editorial guidelines. • The Trust can hear an appeal on complaints where there is evidence that the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines have been breached as long as the BBC Executive has dealt with the complaint in the first instance. The Trust may also examine appeals about the way a complaint was handled. • On 27 February 2008 the Head of Editorial Standards at the Trust wrote to the complainant apologising for the delay in responding to his last letter and setting out the reasons why, in her view, this case was not substantive and not appropriate for the Committee to consider. Her reasons were set out as follows:
54
Complaints handling
Timeliness Your initial complaint may not have been dealt with within the correct time limits. We can put this before the Trustees if you wish.
Content of BBC letters You also feel your points were not addressed. Taking the points you have made.
The replies of 19 July and August dealt in general with the issue of how tracks were chosen. Your specific query as to the veto (relevant to your points regarding Bi polar bear disorder and Different City) were addressed by [BBC Scotland] on 29 August and again by [BBC Information] on 12 November. The Senior Producer, Music Scotland also addressed the issue of quality and choice based on merit (“Each band and release are played on editorial merit on an individual basis”) and the decision by Rapal to play the album on 29 August (again relevant to your points regarding Bi polar bear disorder and Different City). You received a reply in 2004 regarding Different City.
Your point that you had no answer to your emails prior to 30 April or feed back has not been addressed as far as I can see at any point. This aspect of complaints handling can be placed before the Trustees if you wish. It does not however mean that the Trustees will deal with the substance of the emails.
Breach of Editorial Guidelines Your concern that the guidelines had been breached was dealt with directly by [BBC Scotland] in their letter of 29 August which referred to music being chosen for airplay on editorial merit.
It is not appropriate for the Trustees to take this issue on appeal on the basis that there has been a breach of the editorial guidelines as you have supplied no substantive evidence to BBC management that the decision not to play Bi polar bear disorder was influenced by commercial pressures as opposed to being an editorial choice. You appear to have made a general assumption that this is the case.
Your additional arguments that there had been a breach of the guidelines set out in your letters of 13 November and 10 December were sent to the Trust and have not been raised directly with BBC management. The Trustees can not consider these complaints on appeal until they have been
55
raised directly with BBC management and in any event the above point regarding supporting a complaint about a breach of editorial guidelines with evidence will still apply.
The complainant was offered the right to appeal the decision and to ask the ESC to consider the complaints handling aspects of his case.
5. On 29 February 2008 the complainant requested that his complaint regarding the handling of his complaint be considered by the ESC.
6. Applicable editorial standards
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. 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.
7. 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 the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and the ECU.
This Appeal raised an issue requiring consideration of the editorial guideline on accountability.
Accountability
The guideline provides that the BBC, which is accountable to its audience, will act in good faith by dealing fairly and openly with them. The guideline also notes that the audience is at the heart of everything the BBC does and that it is committed to ensuring that complaints are dealt with quickly, courteously and with respect.
56
The Committee noted that the complainant had sent the same letter to the Director- General and BBC Information on 30 April. It also noted that a letter from BBC Information replying on behalf of the Director-General was sent on 8 May. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the complainant had received a reply acknowledging his letter of 30 April within the time limit of ten days set out in the BBC complaints procedure. The Committee also noted that when the complainant sent in a copy of the letter on 25 July, a more substantive reply was sent back setting BBC Radio 1’s playlist policy on 29 July. The Committee was therefore satisfied that whilst the first response of 8 May may not have been substantive in that it did not reply to all of the points set out in his letter of 30 April, a reply had been sent and that it was timely, courteous and respectful even if it had said no - which the BBC was entitled to say in these circumstances. As such, there was no case for BBC Information to answer.
The Committee also considered the delay to the response from the Vic Galloway programme after the programme had received the CD from the complainant. The Committee noted that it had taken the programme a month to respond to the complainant after it had received the CD, and that was after a further email from the complainant. The Committee concluded that while it was best practice to reply to the audience as quickly as possible, music programmes by their nature receive large numbers of CDs from bands and artists hoping to have some airplay. It was therefore not unusual or unrealistic for a programme, given also that the programme teams were very small, to take that length of time to respond. The Committee was therefore satisfied that within the context of the relationship the programme team would have with bands promoting their records, the programme team had acted in good faith by dealing fairly and openly with the complainant.
Finding: Not upheld
57
Michael Palin’s New Europe: War and Peace, BBC One, 16 September 2007
1. The programme
The programme in question was the first in a seven-part series of programmes that saw Michael Palin explore 20 countries in Eastern Europe that were once behind the Iron Curtain.
This first programme of the series was entitled “War and Peace” and saw Michael Palin visit Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and Albania. The description of the episode on the BBC website states:
In Medjugoree, Michael encounters a visionary who first started having visitations from the Virgin Mary 25 years ago. In Dubrovnik he meets with lute maestro Edin Karamazov who made the recent 'Songs from the Labyrinth' album with Sting. Michael ends this visit with a sheep sacrifice which heralds an afternoon of music and hospitality typically Balkan. (source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/palin/about.shtml#1)
2. The complaint
The complainant felt that the programme was a political commentary rather than a travel series and gave an inaccurate account of the wars in what used to be Yugoslavia.
He stated in his complaint:
• “He [Michael Palin] expressed regret with regard to the tragedy in Bosnia in the 1990s, but only in the most general terms. He chose to make his only specific reference of the programme to the Croats blowing up the Mostar Bridge.” • The complainant also noted that Michael Palin had made no balancing reference to several points:
Firstly, that Michael Palin had made no reference to the fact that
- “the Serbs had started the war”. - “the Serbs were responsible for massacring tens of thousands of Muslims and several thousand Croats, in the most barbarous events in world history since the Second World War. Counter-attacks by the victims were the
58
equivalent of the Jews managing to kill a handful of Nazis between 1933 and 1945.” - “the Croats blew up the Mostar Bridge in a desperate attempt to prevent vastly greater quantities of Serbs from massacring even more Muslims and Croat men, women and children.” - “the Serbs were responsible for rebuffing any attempts that have been repeatedly made since the 1990’s to reunite Bosnia.”
The complainant claimed that when Michael Palin arrived in Serbia, he:
• “stated provocatively…that it was unfair to blame the Serbs for their hideous war.”
He also stated:
• “The offensive nature of this programme was directly and exactly equivalent to a similar programme being presented implying that the Nazis and the Jews were equally responsible for starting and acting out the Second World War.”
3. BBC Information, who were advised by the production team, replied to the complaint at stage 1 of the complaints process
• “As you are no doubt aware, the whole issue of the war in former Yugoslavia is very complex, and it was impossible to do justice to it within a single programme.” • “ … the series has a very different remit to other BBC One travel programmes – and only limited time to deal with the extremely complex and partisan aftermath of the war.” • “We could not possibly have covered the whole war in a programme of this nature.” • “while the interview with Kamel in Mostar and Ademir Kenovic in Sarajevo gave a personal perspective on the war, it was not intended to be an in-depth analysis of its causes and effects.”
4. The complainant then wrote to the Trust, who handed it back to BBC Information for a further reply. (In the letter the complainant raised another issue which was not considered in this appeal)
5. The complainant then wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU). The ECU did not uphold his complaint stating:
• From the ECU’s research it was not inaccurate or misleading for Michael Palin to suggest that the break-up of Yugoslavia began with Slovenia’s declaration of independence.
59
• The only concerns the ECU had regarding the accuracy of the events leading up to the wars concerned the interviews with various individuals. The ECU, however, was satisfied that “the accounts they gave were of how the war affected them personally”. • The ECU went on to say that in his complaint, the complainant concentrates on Serbian aggression against the Muslims of Bosnia, but “as Michael Palin makes clear in his comments, the three wars in the Balkans involved Croatians and Kosovans too.” • With regard to Mostar and the destruction of the bridge the ECU stated: “he [Michael Palin] puts the blame, accurately as far as my research has established, for the destruction of the bridge on Croatian forces.” • The ECU said it considers it to be wrong to suggest that the final war in former Yugoslavia, which pitted Albanian Kosovans against Serbs put Bosnian Muslims at risk. • The ECU considered that this, taken with the account of the destruction of the bridge at Mostar, was sufficient justification for Michael Palin’s comments as he travelled to Belgrade “stating that Serbia is not ‘fairly’ blamed for the region’s trouble.”
6. The complainant then appealed to the ESC stating;
• The complainant was unhappy with the way his complaint had been dealt with by the ECU. • “The ECU accepts that the destruction of this wretched bridge [at Mostar] was one of just three subjects relating to the Balkan wars raised in the programme. Apparently the irony totally escapes their notice of the destruction of one bridge being chosen as one of only three references to these ghastly wars...”. • The complainant suggested that the only reason for the reference to the bridge at Mostar was that it was one not blown up by the Serbs. • He went on to say that the principal point he was trying to make was “the matter of the Serbs massacring tens of thousands of Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica.” • The complainant said that this was generally accepted as one of the most evil crimes against humanity committed since the Second World War: “yet the ECU believes that my reference to this most wicked of the Serbian atrocities can just be swept aside – without even deigning to mention it in their reply to me.” • The complainant then stated “the ECU accepts, apparently without any reservation whatever, the programme’s preposterous assertion:
When Bosnia-Herzegovina rose from the ruins of Yugoslavia, the various ethnic groups that made up the country, Bosnian Serbs, Bosnians, Muslims, Bosnian Croats suddenly felt vulnerable and began to fight to safeguard their territory.”
60
• The complainant believed the above statement to be “totally false – as any Balkan historian will confirm.” • He stated: “[The Bosnian Serbs] definitely did NOT feel vulnerable at all, protected as they were by the relatively mighty Serbia next door.” • As to the ECU argument in support of the phrasing that the Serbs had been unfairly blamed for all the region’s troubles, the complainant stated that the Serbs were “NOT defeated by the Croatians, nor by the Bosnian Muslims, nor by the Albanian Kosovans. The Serbs were a great deal more powerful than all these three unfortunate sets of people combined.” • With regard to Kosovo the complainant stated he could not make sense of what the ECU stated. The complainant pointed out that it was the US led allied forces that had prevented Serbia from exterminating every single ethnic Albanian Muslim man, woman and child in Kosovo. • He concluded by stating: “The programme’s outrageous claims and distortions of history have been unquestioningly accepted by the BBC’s ECU, without the slightest effort being made to check the veracity of any of them.”
7. Applicable programme 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.
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
61
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.
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. The Agreement accompanying the BBC's Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting. Special considerations apply during the campaign periods for elections.
In practice, our commitment to impartiality means:
• 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. • the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and
62
voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality. • our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters. • We offer artists, writers and entertainers scope for the individual expression in drama, arts and entertainment and we seek to reflect a wide range of talent and perspective.
8. The Committee’s decision
The Committee considered the complaint against all 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 the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and the ECU.
This Appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to accuracy and impartiality.
Accuracy
The editorial guidelines state that the BBC’s commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value. The BBC’s output must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language.
The BBC must check and verify information, facts and documents.
The BBC should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or knowingly do anything to mislead audiences.
Impartiality
The editorial guidelines also state that impartiality applies across all the BBC’s services. The BBC must be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in its 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.
63
Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output. 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 the audiences.
Background
The Committee in considering the appeal against the guidelines on accuracy and impartiality split the appeal into four elements:
a) The Mostar Bridge b) Apportioning blame c) Did the programme distort the outcome of the war regarding Serbia? d) Overall was it biased in favour of Serbia? a) The Mostar Bridge
The Committee noted the commentary referring to the bridge and its destruction:
“My next stop, Mostar, has because of recent events become equally important to the Muslims. In November 1993, in one of the most callous acts of the war, this bridge behind me, which has stood for over 400 years and has now been immaculately restored, was destroyed by Bosnian Croat guns within seconds. There was no reason for the destruction of the bridge. It was a single vindictive act, one of many, which following the disintegration of Yugoslavia, brought terrible suffering to a land where Muslims and Christians once lived in peace...
“The destruction of the bridge became a symbol of the pitiless brutality of the Balkan wars of the 1990s.”
The Committee also noted the complainant’s concerns, that by choosing the incident of the Croats blowing up the Mostar Bridge as the only reference to the “tragedy in Bosnia” during the wars of the 1990s, the programme commentary had included no balancing reference as to the reason why the Croats took such action, which the complainant believed to be “to prevent vastly greater quantities of Serbs from massacring even more Muslim and Croat men, women and children.”
The Committee then considered the facts regarding the destruction of the bridge. It agreed that the Croats had blown the bridge up, but noted that there had been a reason for its destruction. The Committee noted that the bridge had not been destroyed to prevent the Serbian advance, as suggested by the complainant, but
64
to isolate the Muslim community in West Mostar from the majority of their fellow Muslims on the east bank of the river.
The Committee concluded that whilst it recognised that this programme was designed to be an entertaining travelogue through countries formerly behind the Iron Curtain, the programme makers still had a responsibility to be accurate when presenting the facts. The Committee noted this was particularly important when stating facts about a recent historic event such as the wars of the former Republic of Yugoslavia which were a matter of political controversy. The Committee agreed therefore that the comment on the destruction of the Mostar Bridge, in which it was stated that “there was no reason for the destruction”, was inaccurate. The Committee upheld the complainant’s complaint on accuracy.
The complainant had been of the belief that the programme had been deliberately misleading viewers as to the bridge’s destruction because, in the complainant’s view, it was done to defend the Croat forces from further Serbian aggression. The Committee concluded that whilst the programme had not established a motive for the bridge’s destruction, the reason suggested by the complainant was not borne out by the facts. The Committee concluded therefore that the programme makers had not misled viewers by failing to mention that the bridge was destroyed to prevent Serb aggression as this was not correct.
As to whether the comment was a breach of the guidelines on impartiality, the Committee noted that the commentary had accurately established that it had been the Croats who had destroyed the bridge, but had not suggested a reason for their action other than it was a “callous” and “vindictive act”. The Committee considered that the war time rationale for the bridge’s destruction had been that the Croats had deliberately attacked the bridge to split the Muslim forces. As such, it could be defined as an act of Croat aggression. The Committee was satisfied, however, that whilst the phrasing in the commentary had not been particularly well constructed given the complexity of the issues surrounding the conflict, the Committee viewed the comments as having, in context, been directed at the cultural vandalism of the action. It was used as “a symbol of the pitiless brutality of the Balkan wars in the 1990s”. It was not necessary when achieving impartiality to refer to Serb aggression to balance the reference to Croat aggression in destroying the bridge in the context of this particular event. The Committee therefore concluded that impartiality was appropriate in this instance. b) Apportioning blame
The Committee noted the concerns of the complainant with regard to this issue and his assertion that, “[the presenter had] strongly implied throughout that all three parties were very much equally to blame for the ghastly tragedy there in the
65
1990s… he aggressively and specifically asserted that the Serbs were no more to blame than any of the other parties.”
The Committee noted what was said in the commentary:
“It’s only a few hours drive from Sarajevo to Belgrade. Once the capital of all Yugoslavia, Belgrade’s now, after defeats in three wars, against the Croatians, the Bosnians and the Kosovans, the capital of a Serbia that is not only reduced but blamed squarely, if not fairly, for all the recent troubles.”
and:
“When Bosnia-Herzegovina rose from the ruins of Yugoslavia, the various ethnic groups that made up the country, Bosnian Serbs, Bosnians, Muslims, Bosnian Croats suddenly felt vulnerable and began to fight to safeguard their territory.”
The Committee concluded that these remarks were over-simplified. The issue of who was to blame for the wars of the 1990s was controversial and complex. The wars in the former Republic of Yugoslavia were not solely between Serbia and the other regions of the former Yugoslavia. The Committee noted for example that Bosnian Croats fought against Bosnian Muslims and both fought against Bosnian Serbs. Nevertheless, the Committee also recognised that the Serb army had invaded all these countries and had only been finally defeated following intervention by NATO and EU forces.
As to the issue of whether the remarks unreasonably favoured Serbia and breached the guidelines on impartiality, the Committee noted that impartiality required a programme to be fair and open minded when weighing up the facts, as well as being objective and even handed in its approach to a subject. The Committee had established that the facts as presented had not been misleading. It also recognised that the light touch was the programme’s style; the programme using the testimony of others to set the context. The Committee also noted the programme makers’ view that it did not want to lump all Serbians together as the aggressors and had tried to establish that Serbs did not necessarily agree with the Serbian government’s actions. The Committee noted the comments of Rambo Amadeus who stated:
Michael Palin (MP): “[…] I cadge a ride on the river with a charismatic DJ and critic of the Milosevic regime…”
66
“[…] What was the war like for you? Did you fight?”
Rambo Amadeus (RA): Oh no, no, I was like, like a straight soldier, you know ... it, for me it was like everybody tolerate me to be like his brother, guy, you know
MP: You didn’t raise a gun in anger?
RA: No erm, quite opposite, erm, we had in Belgrade here a, a huge peace organisation to struggle against, erm, to stop the war, you know.
MP: But it was quite a bad time in Serbia for a long time, where you were involved in a war which you couldn’t sort of, win.
RA: It was, it was bad time for all former Yugoslavia, you know, it’s like in Belgrade it was like ... it was like ... if you throw your TV through the window, you didn’t notice anything. But actually nobody throw TV through the window.
MP: Too important, too precious. What was your feeling about Milosevic?
RA: [Laughs] When he was alive and he was in power, I had some thoughts about him. Now he is dead and I don’t want to tell anything, but you can ask around what I was thinking about him. But some, somehow I think it is polite.
The Committee concluded that whilst the programme had tried to provide context to imply that Serbia was not solely to blame and that not all Serbs endorsed the actions of Slobodan Milosevic’s government, the choice of phrasing did not do justice to the complex and controversial nature of the issues. The Committee concluded that the phrasing could lead some viewers to believe that responsibility for the 1990s Balkan War were shared amongst all sides. The phrasing over simplified what was in fact a very complex and controversial subject. The comment needed balance and context.
67
The Committee concluded therefore that the programme should have provided appropriate context. The intervention of NATO and the EU against Serbia and the subsequent trial of Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague shows that large sections of the international community overall believed that Serbia bore a substantial share of the blame for the wars in former Yugoslavia.
The Committee therefore upheld the complaint regarding the lack of due impartiality. c) Did the programme distort the outcome of the war regarding Serbia?
The Committee noted what Michael Palin said in his commentary:
Michael Palin: “After defeats in three wars, against the Croats, the Bosnians and the Kosovans...”
The Committee also noted the complainant’s concern that the remark suggested that each group had defeated Serbia, which he claimed was not the case. He argued that if it had not been for the intervention of “the Allies”, the Bosnian Muslims and the Albanian Kosovans would have suffered “total annihilation” by the Serbs.
The Committee concluded that the remark although limited in context did not imply that the Croats, Bosnians or Kosovans had defeated Serbia. The comment merely stated that Serbia had been defeated in its wars against these peoples, with no explanation as to how it had been defeated. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the comment was not inaccurate, although it would have been better to have explained what actually happened in more detail.
d) Overall was the programme biased in favour of Serbia?
The Committee noted the complainant’s general concern of overall bias and his particular concern that the programme had changed from a travel programme to a programme with a “political message”. He believed the programme should have mentioned that the Serbs started the war and that they were “responsible for massacring tens of thousands of Muslims and several thousand Croats”. The complainant was particularly concerned that the programme by choosing the destruction of the Mostar Bridge as “one of the most callous acts of the war” had deliberately avoided alluding to an act of Serbian aggression and the issue of Srebrenica.
68
The Committee concluded that the programme had not had a political message but that it could have done more to have highlighted Serbia’s role in the conflict by qualifying the statements previously mentioned with more context and explanation. The Committee was satisfied that the decision as to where a programme visits and to what it wishes to feature is a matter of editorial judgement. It was not a requirement for a programme visiting the countries of the former Republic of Yugoslavia and reporting on the wars of 1990s to remark on the events at Srebrenica to ensure impartiality.
The views of the individuals interviewed from the different sides of the conflict had provided viewers with a perspective of views. The issue that the Committee had with the programme was with the looseness of language when qualifying and contextualizing the involvement of Serbia.
In conclusion, the programme was a travel programme and it could reasonably be argued that there is a limit to the amount of historical and political context which needs to be included. However, the programme makers had decided to deal with one of the most bitterly controversial events in the recent history of Europe – the break-up of Yugoslavia. The choice of the title ‘War and Peace’ underlined the fact that the programme makers wanted to report and comment on the recent history as well as the present situation. Given that ambition and the highly contentious nature of the debate about the wars in former Yugoslavia, the programme makers should have taken greater care to ensure accuracy and impartiality. The Committee would remind BBC management of the need to ensure that in programmes providing viewers with factual information concerning important events, every effort is made to ensure that the facts are thoroughly checked, so as not to mislead the audience and to meet the BBC’s obligations on impartiality.
Finding: The complaint was partially upheld with regard to accuracy and impartiality
Action: The Chairman to write to the Deputy Director-General, as Chairman of the Complaints Management Board, to remind all programme areas outside of news of the importance of remembering to check all facts as well as to appropriately contextualise statements in order not to mislead viewers.
69