Programme Complaints Appeals to the Governors

November 2006 Issued January 2007

The Board of Governors is responsible for overseeing the running of the BBC, to ensure that the BBC serves the public interest. We do this in a range of ways, such as setting key objectives and approving strategy and policy. Most importantly for this bulletin, we are responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of complaints handling by the BBC, including hearing appeals from complainants who are not happy with the responses they have received from management to serious programme complaints.

The Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee is a subcommittee of four members drawn from the full Board of Governors. For a full account of our remit, please see the last page of this bulletin.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 2

Foreword by the Acting Chairman of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee

It is the job of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee (GPCC) to ensure that complaints are properly handled by the BBC. This includes taking appeals from individuals dissatisfied with management’s response to serious editorial complaints. We review the programme or online content against the BBC’s editorial values and guidelines, and make a judgement on whether or not the content concerned has breached the standards set out.

Fabian Monds Acting Chairman of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 3

Contents Page

Summary of findings (November 2006)

Appeals not upheld Today, Radio 4, 31 July 2006 5 10 O’Clock News, BBC One, 5 January 2006 8 10 O’Clock News, BBC One, 9 January 2006 11

Remit of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee 14

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 4

Summary of findings (November 2006)

Appeals not upheld

Today BBC Radio 4, 31 July 2006

a) The programme This edition of Today was broadcast the day after the Israeli attack on the southern Lebanese town of Qana, where 28 people were killed, more than half of them children. One of the main headlines of the day was that Israel had agreed to suspend air strikes on Southern Lebanon for 48 hours in the wake of the attack.

During the programme, Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen provided a review of the Lebanese newspapers from Beirut. b) The complaint The complainant felt that the Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, attacked Israel during his summary of the Lebanese newspapers. She believed this breached the BBC’s Charter responsibilities in the following ways: · Mr Bowen read out an extremely long editorial from the Lebanese newspaper The Daily Star, which included an accusation that Israel was inflicting a holocaust on the Lebanese people. · Mr Bowen quoted the anti-Semitic article at extreme length and, therefore, went completely “over the top”, thereby abusing his position. · Mr Bowen appeared to personally endorse the views of the article by reading from it at the end of his review, adding no further comment or commentary objecting to its “racist view”. · The “venom in his voice” showed agreement with the article.

The Head of the Editorial Complaints Unit did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) Applicable programme standards Extracts from BBC Editorial Guidelines:

Section 3 – Accuracy

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.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 5

Section 4 – Impartiality & Diversity of Opinion

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.

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 must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. · 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 require a right of reply. · 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.

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.

d) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial guidelines, taking into account all the material relating to the case.

The Committee noted the timing of the broadcast, which was the morning after the Israeli attack on Qana. It felt there was therefore a clear editorial justification for the newspaper review to come from Lebanon. Jeremy Bowen, as the BBC’s Middle East Editor and in Beirut at that time, was an appropriate choice of presenter for the review of the Lebanese papers.

The Committee then went on to consider how Jeremy Bowen had delivered the review and whether by his tone and approach to the piece the audience could have believed he was expressing a personal opinion. It was satisfied that throughout the piece his approach and delivery

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 6

had been measured and even, and that the broadcast did not lead the Committee to think that he was expressing a personal opinion.

The Committee was also satisfied that Jeremy Bowen had begun the review by setting out the context of what had happened over the last 24 hours, including the news of the Israeli suspension of air strikes. It noted his introduction to the review:

“Morning. Well, Lebanon’s papers are published in French, English and Arabic – a reflection of the rich culture of this country – but that news, about Israel suspending air operations, came too late for most of them. There’s some, a couple of mentions that it’s happened, but it’s too late for any comment. So this morning all the papers are dominated by the killings in Qana.”

It felt that by stating what the newspapers had been able to cover, Jeremy Bowen had appropriately set the context of their content.

The Committee then considered Jeremy Bowen’s specific review of the Daily Star’s editorial. It acknowledged that 40 seconds was quite a substantial amount of time to spend on one newspaper editorial. However, the Committee noted that this only represented about a fifth of the Daily Star’s editorial, and was acceptable in terms of allowing the listener to evaluate its content. The Committee agreed that the editorial used sensitive language, but was satisfied that Bowen had only reported what had been said and that this was an important part of the review.

Finally, the Committee considered the complainant’s view that Jeremy Bowen should have distanced himself from the views expressed in the editorial. It was satisfied that there was no need for Mr Bowen to have said more than he did.

The Committee was satisfied that Bowen’s introduction to the editorial, where he stated “Now, lastly, I’ve got in front of me The Daily Star, which is the English language paper ... and the editorial is very strong”, provided sufficient indication of its content, and of the fact that it was not BBC content, without it undermining his or the BBC’s position on impartiality.

In conclusion, the Committee was satisfied that there was a clear editorial justification for the review and the inclusion of the Daily Star’s editorial. It acknowledged that some of the audience would be sensitive to the editorial’s language but that Bowen had shown understanding of that by warning of its content. The Committee also felt that his even and measured delivery had provided the right tone to the piece and that he had used his journalistic skills to quote only what was necessary to accurately encapsulate the editorial’s content.

Finding: not upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 7

10 O’Clock News BBC One, 5 January 2006

a) The item The complaint concerned a comment made by the BBC’s Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen on the 10 O’Clock News, the day after Ariel Sharon had suffered his second stroke. Jeremy Bowen, in discussion with George Alagiah, was commenting on the Israeli-Palestinian issue post-Sharon. Jeremy Bowen stated the following:

“The thing to remember about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is that for generations it’s been – strong word, but the cancer at the heart of the Middle East, radiating its poison out. Now if the next Israeli leader takes steps to try to deal with that, then things might get better. But if there is some kind of political vacuum here, it’s going to be difficult. And whoever the next leader is, he’s not going to have the stature of Ariel Sharon.” b) The complaint The complainant made the following initial complaint to BBC Information:

“I think this statement was misleading and partisan. Israel had nothing to do with the Iran–Iraq war in which over a million people died, or Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, or Sadam Hussein’s brutal repression of the Kurds and of the Shias in Southern Iraq, or the wars in Yemen, Eritrea and Somalia; or the genocide in Sudan; not to mention the oppression of women and corruption in many Arab countries.

Both the content and language of this statement (blaming Jews for the ills of the world, and words such as “cancer” and “poison”) are redolent of classic anti-Semitism. I believe this statement was anti-Semitic and likely to promote anti-Semitism.“

The complainant then made the following additional points to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU): · BBC journalists should not express such opinions and if opinions (expressed by others) are to be included in the BBC’s coverage, they should be included in the same programme in a balanced way. · By stating the use of the word “cancer” was a “strong word”, Mr Bowen did not limit but emphasised his biased and misleading message that the Israeli–Palestinian conflict had been the primary cause of the problems of the Middle East for generations.

The Head of the Editorial Complaints Unit did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

In addition the complainant raised a number of points on the complaints handling process following the responses from BBC Information and ECU. c) Applicable programme standards The Committee took note of the provisions of the BBC Charter and Agreement and the BBC Editorial Guidelines. The Committee felt that the following sections of the Editorial Guidelines were of particular relevance.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 8

Section 3 – Accuracy

Section 4 – Impartiality & Diversity of Opinion

In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: · 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. · 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.

News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. d) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial guidelines, taking into account all the material relating to the case including the documentation and comments of the complainant.

The Committee noted additional complaints from the complainant about process, including his assertion that the Committee should not hear his appeal and that the BBC Editorial Guidelines

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 9

were illegal. The Committee was satisfied that it was able to consider the appeal fairly and in an objective manner and that it was appropriate for it to take into account the Editorial Guidelines.

The Committee felt that the core of the complaint was the specific use of the term “the cancer”.

The Committee considered whether the use of the phrase had misled the audience. It felt that the phrase had not suggested that it was the only cause of all conflicts and issues within the Middle East, but that it had suggested that it was at the heart of an issue which extended beyond individual borders and affected the region on a much wider scale. The Committee did not feel that most viewers would have been misled by Mr Bowen’s choice of words. Further, the Committee noted that Bowen did not stress the definite article, which would have led viewers to believe he was implying it was the only cause.

The Committee also considered carefully the appropriateness of the use of the phrase “the cancer” in terms of bias and due impartiality. The Committee agreed that this was an emotive phrase, and should be used as a metaphor with caution. It noted that Bowen had acknowledged when using the term that it was a “strong word”. The Committee noted that the term had frequently been used by other commentators to describe aspects of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and, as such, Jeremy Bowen’s use of it was not unique. The Committee considered various examples of its use, and while it agreed with the complainant that none were exact parallels, it did feel that the examples showed the metaphor to be in reasonably common usage in the context of commentary on the conflict.

The Committee then considered whether the phrase had implied that Israel was to blame. The Committee was satisfied that the phrase had not blamed either the Israelis or the Palestinians.

In conclusion, the Committee acknowledged that the use of the phrase as a metaphor may have concerned some viewers, but was satisfied that its use in this context did not suggest imbalance or bias, nor did it infer blame or promote anti-Semitism. The Committee was also satisfied that the purpose of the comment was to provide a professional judgement on the political landscape post Sharon. It recognised that it was the responsibility of Jeremy Bowen as Middle East Editor to provide the overview of the issues for the audience and was satisfied that it was not a comment that expressed a personal opinion.

Finding: not upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 10

10 O’Clock News BBC One, 9 January 2006 a) The item The complaint concerned a report by Jeremy Bowen on the 10 O’Clock News, five days after the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, suffered his second stroke. During this period BBC News broadcast a number of reports on Mr Sharon’s health and the potential consequences for politics in the Middle East. This report looked ahead to the Palestinian elections. It examined the response of some Palestinians and their views in the context of the possible end of Ariel Sharon’s political career. Jeremy Bowen reported from the West Bank village of Qibya, where in 1953 more than 60 people were killed by a unit led by Ariel Sharon. b) Transcript This is a transcript of the relevant sections of Jeremy Bowen’s piece:

Jeremy Bowen: Here in Qibya they’ve never forgotten the night in October 1953 when Ariel Sharon led his commandos into the village, which was then controlled by Jordan. It was a reprisal raid for the killing of an Israeli mother and her two children. Sharon and his men blew up all the major buildings. He claimed the people were told to get out, but 67 Palestinians, including many women and children, died in the rubble of their homes. Ibrahim Hamdan survived.

Ibrahim Hamdan: Sharon will never be a man of peace because he’s committed so many massacres, we don’t rejoice over him dying but to us he’ll always be a killer and a criminal.

JB: Palestinians often say that it doesn’t matter who is in charge in Israel because the occupation goes on and the Israelis never change. Certainly Ariel Sharon has always been consistent. He always wanted to make Israelis as safe as possible on his terms. What’s changed in the last couple of years has been the way he wanted to do it. At the end of the month, Palestinians are having elections for their legislative council.

[section omitted]

JB: And if people of Qibya tending their graves hear that Ariel Sharon’s successors, like him, won’t negotiate with Palestinians, then they’ll shrug their shoulders and retell the story of the Sharon raid of 52 years ago. c) The complaint The complainant believed the report was partial and biased, by not dealing fairly with the background to the Qibya attack. He argued that the item was misleading in that it implied that the attack was only in response to the killing of a mother and her two children, when it was in response to a long series of attacks on Israeli civilians.

The complainant argued that further bias was created by not reporting on any terrorist actions carried out on the instructions of Yasser Arafat during the illness which preceded his death.

The Head of the Editorial Complaints Unit did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. d) Applicable programme standards The Committee took note of the provisions of the BBC Charter and Agreement and of the BBC Editorial Guidelines. The Committee felt that the following sections of the Editorial Guidelines were of particular relevance.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 11

Section 3 – Accuracy

Section 4 – Impartiality & Diversity of Opinion

In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: · we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. e) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial guidelines, taking into account all the material relating to the case, including the documentation and comments of the complainant.

The Committee noted additional complaints from the complainant about process, including his assertion that the Committee should not hear his appeal and that the BBC Editorial Guidelines were illegal. The Committee was satisfied that it was able to consider the appeal fairly and in an objective manner and that it was appropriate for it to take into account the Editorial Guidelines.

The Committee began by considering the purpose of the report and the reason for its inclusion in that evening’s 10 O’Clock News programme. It noted that the overall context of the piece had been to consider what effect Ariel Sharon’s illness was having on the Palestinians, particularly in the context of the forthcoming Palestinian elections. It felt that reporting from Qibya gave appropriate historical context in terms of the Palestinians’ views of Ariel Sharon and the potential future political context. The Committee was, therefore, satisfied that the report had been appropriately contextualised.

The Committee then went on to consider the specific section of the report where Jeremy Bowen referred to the reason for the raid on the village of Qibya. It noted the complainant’s concerns as to the justification of the raid and the suggestion that this element of the report required additional context. The Committee was satisfied however that, while acknowledging that there had been other deaths of Israeli civilians leading up to the raid, Ariel Sharon himself had given the following account in his autobiography:

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 12

“The raid on Qibya was mounted in response to a particularly horrendous incident at the town of Yehud, where terrorists murdered a young mother named Susan Kanias and her two infants, one and three years old, while they were asleep.”

The Committee acknowledged that it was an important responsibility for news programmes to ensure that context was properly and adequately provided to reports in order to prevent misleading the audience. Taking all the material before them into account, and in particular considering the broadcast report itself, the Committee was satisfied that, given the subject matter of the report, sufficient context had been provided in order to satisfy the relevant editorial standards on accuracy and due impartiality.

With regard to the complainant’s complaint about the coverage of Ariel Sharon’s life compared with that of Yasser Arafat, the Committee felt that achieving due impartiality was more than a matter of treating different items in exactly the same way. It did not agree with the complainant that there would have been bias if the 10 O’Clock News had not carried “any detailed report of any terrorist action carried out on the instructions of Yasser Arafat during the illness which preceded his death”.

In conclusion, the Committee was satisfied that the reporting was editorially justified and did not breach required editorial standards, including those in relation to due impartiality.

Finding: not upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 13

Remit of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee

The Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee (GPCC) consists of four Governors of the BBC, who are responsible to the full Board of Governors for ensuring that complaints made by viewers and listeners are “given due consideration by and are properly handled by” the Corporation, as required under the Charter. The activities and conclusions of the GPCC are reported to the full Board of Governors. The Committee members are Richard Tait (Chairman), Deborah Bull, Professor Fabian Monds and Professor Merfyn Jones.

In fulfilling this remit, the GPCC undertakes regular reviews of the BBC’s processes and performance in relation to complaints handling. In particular, the GPCC provides for the independent oversight of the BBC’s strategic approach to complaints handling, and for monitoring the effectiveness of its processes, to ensure that both serve the public interest and reflect best practice.

In line with the GPCC’s responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of complaints handling by BBC management, it is also the specific function of the GPCC to consider appeals against decisions and actions of the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) in dealing with serious editorial complaints, where complaints allege: · that the complainant has suffered unfair treatment in a transmitted item · that the complainant’s privacy has been unjustifiably infringed, either in a programme or item as transmitted, or in the process of making the programme or item, or · that there has otherwise been a failure adequately to observe the BBC Editorial Guidelines

In order to give full consideration to an appeal, the GPCC may make any further enquiries of the complainant, or of those responsible for making the programme, which it considers necessary to determine the appeal fairly. The GPCC aims to reach a final decision on an appeal within 16 weeks of receiving the request.

The findings for all appeals are reported in this bulletin, Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors. The bulletin is available online at www.bbcgovernors.co.uk.

For a copy of the full remit of the GPCC, please write to:

The Secretary to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee BBC Room 211 35 Marylebone High Street London W1U 4AA

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 14