February 2015, Issued April 2015

Editorial Standards Findings Appeals to the Trust and other editorial issues considered by the Editorial Standards Committee February 2015, issued April 2015

Dyfarniad Safonau Golygyddol Apeliadau i’r Ymddiriedolaeth a materion golygyddol eraill a ystyriwyd gan y Pwyllgor Safonau Golygyddol Chwefror 2015, cyhoeddwyd yn Ebrill 2015

Getting the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers

Contents (Cynnwys)

Contents (Cynnwys) 1

Remit of the Editorial Standards Committee 2 Cylch gwaith y Pwyllgor Safonau Golygyddol 4

Summary of findings 6

Rejected Appeals 7 Newsnight, BBC Two, 19 June 2014 7 Match of the Day: World Cup Preview, BBC One, 11 June 2014 13 Morning Call, BBC Radio Wales, 24 Mawrth 2014 17 Morning Call, BBC Radio Wales, 24 March 2014 [English language version] 21 Imagine: Philip Roth Unleashed Part 1, BBC One, 20 May 2014 25 BBC News Channel, 01.10, 14 August 2014 29 Scotland Decides: Salmond versus Darling, BBC Scotland, 25 August 2014 33 Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about BBC News Online: London taxi driver jailed for Hitchin firefighter’s A1 death 36 Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about an item on World News Today, BBC Fo ur, 5 August 2014 39 Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about language used on BBC Radio 4 programmes Today and World at One 44 Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about casualty figures cited in the recent Israel-Gaza conflict 49 Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about BBC coverage of political parties during election periods 53 Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about Trust Me I’m a Doctor, BBC Two, 22 October 2014 57 Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about News at Te n, BBC One, 1 November 2014 59 Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about BBC News coverage of Palestinian deaths, 18 November 2014 61

In order to provide clarity for the BBC and licence fee payers it is the Trust’s policy to describe fully the content that is subject to complaints and appeals. Some of the language and descriptions used in this bulletin may therefore cause offence.

February 2015, issued April 2015

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 http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_operate/committees/ 2014/esc_tor.pdf

The Committee comprises five Trustees: Richard Ayre (Chairman), Sonita Alleyne, Diane Coyle, Bill Matthews and Nicholas Prettejohn. The Committee 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 may consider appeals concerning complaints which allege that: • the complainant has suffered unfair treatment in a transmitted programme, item or piece of online content, or in the process of making the programme, item or online content

• 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 or online content

• there has otherwise been a failure to observe required editorial standards.

However, not all requests for appeal qualify for consideration by the ESC. The Editorial Complaints and Appeals procedure1 explains that:

5.10 The Trust will only consider an appeal if it raises “a matter of substance”.2 This will ordinarily mean that in the opinion of the Trust there is a reasonable prospect that the appeal will be upheld as amounting to a breach of the Editorial Guidelines. In deciding whether an appeal raises a matter of substance, the Trust may consider (in fairness to the interests of all licence fee payers in general) whether it is appropriate, proportionate and cost-effective to consider the appeal.3 The Trust may not consider an appeal that is trivial, misconceived, hypothetical, repetitious or otherwise vexatious. The Trust may also decline to consider an appeal which includes gratuitously abusive or offensive language if the complainant refuses to reword it after being invited to do so.

1 http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocols/2012/complaints_fr_work_ed_complaints.pdf 2 Under the Charter and Agreement, the Trust has a role as final arbiter in appropriate cases, and must provide a right of appeal in cases that raise a matter of substance. 3 For example, if an appeal raises a relatively minor issue that would be complicated, time-consuming or expensive to resolve, the Trust may decide that the appeal does not raise a matter of substance, and decline to consider it. February 2015, issued April 2015 2

In deciding whether an appeal qualifies for consideration, the Committee may also decide to take only part of the appeal, and consider only some of the issues raised. Where an appeal or part of an appeal qualifies for consideration, the Committee will aim to provide the complainant with its final decision within 80 working days of accepting the request for an appeal.

The findings for all appeals accepted by the Committee are normally reported in this bulletin, Editorial Standards Findings: Appeals to the Trust and other editorial issues considered by the Editorial Standards Committee.

Where it is considered that an appeal does not qualify for consideration, the Trust Unit will normally write to the complainant within 40 working days of receipt of the request for an appeal, declining to put the matter before the Committee and explaining the reasons. If the complainant disagrees with this view then they may, within 10 working days, ask the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision, and the matter will be reviewed at the next available meeting of the Committee.

The Committee will then decide whether it agrees with the decision not to proceed with the appeal, and again will aim to provide the complainant with its decision within 80 working days of receipt of the request for review. Any appeals that the Committee has declined to consider under the above criteria are reported in the bulletin under the heading Rejected Appeals.

If the Committee disagrees with the decision not to proceed with the appeal, the complainant will be informed following the meeting and the appeal will be considered, following investigation, at a later meeting. In this case the 80 working day time period will start again from the date the Committee informs the complainant it will hear the appeal.

Achievement against these target response times is reported in the BBC’s Annual Report and Accounts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/. 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 any remedial action/s directed by the Committee.

It is published at bbc.co.uk/bbctrust and is available from:

The Secretary, Editorial Standards Committee BBC Trust Unit 180 Great Portland Street London W1W 5QZ

February 2015, issued April 2015 3

Cylch gwaith y Pwyllgor Safonau Golygyddol

Mae’r Pwyllgor Safonau Golygyddol (PSG) yn gyfrifol am gynorthwyo’r Ymddiriedolaeth i sicrhau safonau golygyddol. Mae ganddo nifer o gyfrifoldebau, a nodir yn ei Gylch Gorchwyl yn http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_operate/committees/ 2014/esc_tor.pdf.

Mae’r Pwyllgor yn cynnwys pump o Ymddiriedolwyr: Richard Ayre (Cadeirydd), Sonita Alleyne, Diane Coyle, Bill Matthews a Nicholas Prettejohn. Caiff ei gynghori a’i gefnogi gan Uned yr Ymddiriedolaeth.

Yn unol â chyfrifoldeb y PSG dros fonitro effeithiolrwydd delio â chwynion golygyddol gan reolwyr y BBC, mae’r Pwyllgor yn ystyried apeliadau yn erbyn penderfyniadau a gweithrediadau Uned Cwynion Golygyddol (UCG) y BBC, neu Gyfarwyddwr yn y BBC â chyfrifoldeb dros allbwn y BBC (os bydd y gŵyn y tu allan i gylch gwaith yr UCG).

Gall y Pwyllgor ystyried apeliadau ynghylch cwynion sy’n honni’r canlynol:

• bod yr achwynydd wedi dioddef triniaeth annheg mewn rhaglen a ddarlledwyd, eitem neu ddarn o gynnwys ar-lein, neu yn y broses o wneud y rhaglen, eitem neu gynnwys ar-lein

• y tresmaswyd ar gam ar breifatrwydd yr achwynydd, un ai mewn rhaglen neu eitem a ddarlledwyd, neu yn y broses o wneud y rhaglen neu’r eitem neu’r cynnwys ar-lein

• y bu methiant fel arall i roi sylw i safonau golygyddol gofynnol.

Fodd bynnag, nid yw pob cais am apêl yn gymwys i’w hystyried gan y PSG. Mae’r drefn Cwynion ac Apeliadau Golygyddol4 yn esbonio fel a ganlyn:

5.10 Ni fydd yr Ymddiriedolaeth ond yn ystyried apêl os yw’n codi “mater o sylwedd”.5 Fel arfer mae hyn yn golygu bod yr Ymddiriedolaeth o’r farn ei bod yn weddol debygol y bydd yr apêl yn llwyddiannus oherwydd ei bod gyfystyr â thorri’r Canllawiau Golygyddol. Wrth benderfynu a yw apêl yn codi mater o sylwedd, gall yr Ymddiriedolaeth ystyried (er tegwch i fuddiannau pawb sy'n talu ffi'r drwydded yn gyffredinol) a yw'n briodol, yn gymesur ac yn gost- effeithiol i ystyried yr apêl.6 Efallai na fydd yr Ymddiriedolaeth yn ystyried apêl sy’n ddibwys, yn gyfeiliornus, yn ddamcaniaethol, yn ailadroddus neu sydd fel arall yn flinderus. Gall yr Ymddiriedolaeth hefyd wrthod ystyried apêl sy'n cynnwys iaith dramgwyddus neu anweddus ddi-alw-amdani os bydd yr achwynydd yn gwrthod ei haralleirio ar ôl cael ei wahodd i wneud hynny.

4 http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocols/2012/complaints_fr_work_ed_complaints.pdf 5 Dan y Siarter a'r Cytundeb, mae gan yr Ymddiriedolaeth rôl fel canolwr terfynol mewn achosion priodol, a rhaid darparu hawl apêl mewn achosion sy’n codi mater o sylwedd. 6 Er enghraifft, os bydd apêl yn codi mater cymharol fychan, a fyddai’n gymhleth, yn ddrud ac yn cymryd amser i’w ddatrys, gallai’r Ymddiriedolaeth benderfynu nad yw’r apêl yn codi mater o sylwedd, a gwrthod ei hystyried.

February 2015, issued April 2015 4

Wrth benderfynu a yw apêl yn gymwys i’w hystyried, gall y Pwyllgor hefyd benderfynu derbyn rhan o’r apêl yn unig, gan ystyried dim ond rhai o’r materion a godwyd.

Pan fo apêl neu ran o apêl yn gymwys i’w hystyried, bydd y Pwyllgor yn anelu at ddarparu ei benderfyniad terfynol i’r achwynydd o fewn 80 diwrnod gwaith ar ôl derbyn y cais am apêl.

Caiff dyfarniad pob apêl a dderbynnir gan y Pwyllgor ei adrodd yn y bwletin hwn, Dyfarniadau Safonau Golygyddol: Apeliadau i’r Ymddiriedolaeth a materion golygyddol eraill a ystyriwyd gan y Pwyllgor Safonau Golygyddol.

Pan ystyrir nad yw apêl yn gymwys i’w hystyried, bydd Uned yr Ymddiriedolaeth yn ysgrifennu at yr achwynydd o fewn 40 diwrnod gwaith o dderbyn y cais am apêl, gan wrthod rhoi’r mater gerbron y Pwyllgor ac esbonio’r rhesymau. Os bydd yr achwynydd yn anghytuno â’r farn hon yna gall, o fewn 10 diwrnod gwaith, ofyn i’r Pwyllgor Safonau Golygyddol adolygu’r penderfyniad, a chaiff y mater ei adolygu yng Nghyfarfod nesaf y Pwyllgor.

Yna bydd y Pwyllgor yn penderfynu a yw’n cyntuno â’r penderfyniad i beidio â symud ymlaen â’r apêl, ac unwaith eto y nod fydd darparu penderfyniad i’r achwynydd o fewn 80 diwrnod gwaith wedi derbyn y cais am adolygiad. Adroddir ar unrhyw apêl y gwrthododd y Pwyllgor ei hystyried dan y meini prawf uchod yn y bwletin dan y pennawd Apeliadau a Wrthodwyd.

Os bydd y Pwyllgor yn anghytuno â’r penderfyniad i beidio â symud ymlaen gyda’r apêl, rhoddir gwybod i’r achwynydd yn dilyn y cyfarfod a bydd yr apêl yn cael ei hystyried, yn dilyn ymchwiliad, mewn cyfarfod diweddarach. Yn yr achos hwn bydd y cyfnod o 80 diwrnod gwaith yn dechrau eto o’r dyddiad pryd y bydd y Pwyllgor yn hysbysu’r achwynydd ei fod am wrando ar yr apêl.

Caiff llwyddiant yn erbyn yr amseroedd ymateb targed hyn ei adrodd yn Adroddiad a Chyfrifon Blynyddol y BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/. Yn unol â’i ddyletswydd i ystyried pynciau sy’n achosi pryder golygyddol i’r Pwyllgor, boed y pryder hwnnw’n codi o gŵyn ffurfiol ai peidio ac i gomisiynu ceisiadau am wybodaeth gan Uned neu Weithrediaeth yr Ymddiriedolaeth i gefnogi ystyriaeth o’r fath, bydd y Pwyllgor hefyd o dro i dro yn gofyn i'r Weithrediaeth adrodd i'r Pwyllgor ynghylch toriadau a dderbyniwyd gan y Weithrediaeth ac nad ydynt o'r herwydd yn destun apêl i'r Pwyllgor. Gall y bwletin hefyd gynnwys dyfarniadau ynghylch achosion o’r fath.

Mae’r bwletin hefyd yn cynnwys unrhyw gam(au) unioni a gyfarwyddwyd gan y Pwyllgor.

Caiff ei gyhoeddi yn bbc.co.uk/bbctrust ac mae ar gael oddi wrth:

Ysgrifennydd y Pwyllgor Safonau Golygyddol Uned Ymddiriedolaeth y BBC 180 Great Portland Street Llundain W1W 5QZ

February 2015, issued April 2015 5

Summary of findings

Complaint about an article, BBC News Online

Summary of finding

The Editorial Standards Committee considered an appeal from a complainant who felt an article published on the BBC News Online website breached the Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy and Fairness, Contributors and Consent.

The Committee decided not to uphold the appeal.

Exceptionally, at the request of the complainant, this finding is not being published in full in order to respect the complainant’s privacy.

February 2015, issued April 2015 6

Rejected Appeals

Appeals rejected by the ESC as being out of remit or because the complaints had not raised a matter of substance and there was no reasonable prospect of success.

Newsnight, BBC Two, 19 June 2014

Two complainants asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of the Trust Unit that the complainants’ appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration by the Committee.

The complaint

The complainants criticised an interview conducted by Laura Kuenssberg with the Shadow Business Secretary, Chuka Umunna.

The complainants said that the presenter was unduly and completely hostile, rude, biased and aggressive. The complainants said that the presenter interrupted Mr Umunna too frequently, which amounted to heckling, did so unnecessarily and did not allow him to make his case.

One complainant argued that the presenter appeared to be biased towards the Conservative Party.

BBC Audiences Services’ response did not uphold the complaints and said:

“The job of interviewers … is to put forward to her guests the questions likely to be in the minds of viewers and to look for answers. At times this can take a form which might be out of place in ordinary social conversation however the intention is never to generate hostility and it is important that courtesy is always observed.”

Both complainants were unhappy with this response. They expressed in strong terms their disapproval of the interviewer’s approach. One complainant considered that it was biased and rude whilst the other took the view that the interview was offensive.

Both complainants stated that it was offensive to insist repeatedly that Mr Umunna should come up with a one-sentence slogan just because the Conservatives had already done so.

The Editorial Complaints Unit (the ECU) did not uphold the complaints as breaches of the Impartiality Guidelines. It said:

“The approach adopted by [the presenter] on this occasion was typical of the adversarial, Devil’s Advocate style frequently used by presenters on Newsnight.”

The ECU added:

“I accept that [the presenter’s] frequent interruptions and tendency to talk over Mr Umunna may not have enhanced the audience’s understanding of the issues under debate but I don’t think it can be taken as evidence of political bias on her behalf.”

February 2015, issued April 2015 7

Appeal to the BBC Trust

The complainants appealed to the BBC Trust in September 2014. The complainants appealed on the substance of their complaint, that this was a biased, aggressive interview, which was unwarranted in the circumstances and was not justified even within the expectations of a Newsnight audience which expects the treatment of politicians to be robust. One complainant said this was of particular concern given the General Election was only eight months away.

The other complainant said that the interviewer’s insistence that Mr Umunna come up with a one-sentence slogan, in response to the one offered by the Conservative Party, to be particularly offensive and evidence of bias.

The Trust Unit’s decision

The relevant correspondence was reviewed by the Trust Unit. The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser watched the relevant section of the programme. An Independent Editorial Adviser also reviewed the relevant output and carried out further research. The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser (the Adviser) considered the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

The Adviser acknowledged the strength of the complainant’s feelings.

She referred to the Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality including guideline 4.4.13 which prevented news and current affairs presenters from expressing their personal views on controversial subjects in BBC output.

The Adviser noted that the requirement for “due impartiality” was influenced by the content and the nature of the output and the audience expectation. She considered this was broadly understood by audiences. She noted too that the Editorial Guidelines on Harm and Offence included the following in the introductory section:

We must be sensitive to, and keep in touch with, generally accepted standards as well as our audiences’ expectations of our content, particularly in relation to the protection of children. Audience expectations of our content usually vary according to the service on which it appears.

She noted that for both Harm and Offence and Impartiality, audience expectations were a significant factor in determining what would be considered acceptable.

She noted that Newsnight was BBC 2’s nightly analytical news and current affairs strand. It had been running for more than thirty years and was very well established. She considered that a signature element of its output was the robust interviewing style and noted, for example, that when its long-standing presenter Jeremy Paxman had stood down, one of the items that had garnered most attention in the press was his 1997 interview with the Home Secretary Michael Howard.

In terms of the output on 19 June 2014, the Adviser noted that it was a one-to-one studio interview. It had started with a clip from Ed Miliband indicating that he wanted to restrict access to Jobseeker’s Allowance from young adults. In the clip he stated: “We should not allow the contributory principle to recede further, instead we should strengthen it…”

February 2015, issued April 2015 8

The presenter initially put to Labour’s Business Spokesman, Chuka Umunna, that this was not a radical policy. In response, he made a number of points:

• He noted the policy was different from that put forward by the current government • He noted that there were a group of young people who were not “plugged in to the global economy” who needed help • He noted that a high proportion of young people who claimed Jobseeker’s Allowance had claimed it more than once – indicating they did not have the relevant skills to gain long-term employment • That he could discuss what was or was not radical, but that people generally were more interested in what worked and he was more concerned that young people should have the necessary skills to gain long-term work and to enable them to compete in the global economy.

The presenter made the point that the Conservative Party would campaign on the basis that Labour could not be trusted with the economy, and he needed to be able to counteract that argument. She queried whether a policy that would save £100m would be persuasive to voters.

In response he made the following points:

• That the policy referred to that day was not Labour’s first economic policy in this area • That Labour had already indicated it would use government procurement to boost the number of apprenticeships for young people • That Labour would put in place job guarantees for young people and adults • That Labour had indicated it wished to reconfigure the jobs market towards an economy based on higher skills and higher wages.

The presenter questioned him on how he would save money and referred to the Chancellor’s recent proposals to save £12bn. In response he made the following points:

• That the Chancellor had not specified where all the cuts would come from in the next parliament • That the Labour Party had already agreed to a recalculation of how benefits would be paid which would save around £5bn • That the best way to reduce spending was to improve productivity and employment – and that more than £10bn had been spent on unemployment benefit in the current parliament • That the Labour Party was pressing for an increase in the minimum wage.

The presenter picked up on this last point and noted that that too would lead to increased government funding. He interrupted her and stated:

“You just said, which is wrong, that increasing the minimum wage will cost the government money. Actually, what increasing the minimum wage will do, will mean that employers pay more – that will reduce the amount of benefit that government will have to pay out and reduce the amount of tax credit…”

The presenter then asked him to look at other areas where cuts may be made and asked whether he would ring-fence funding for the NHS. In response he made the following points:

February 2015, issued April 2015 9

• That he was being asked to not only supply the manifesto ten months in advance of the election, but also to comment on the first budget • That the Labour Party had been clear about how it would address the public finances • That the Labour Party had been clear it would not borrow to fund day-to-day expenditure.

The presenter interrupted him to ask, if the Labour Party was so convincing on the economy, why it was that opinion polls had them trailing so heavily in this area. She pressed him to say what Labour’s “one sentence message at the next election” would be. In response, he made the following points:

• He disputed this approach and noted that she was quoting from a number of different polls • He stated that Labour had gained more councillors – particularly in marginal areas • He said that he was not going to give her Labour’s ‘strapline’ for the next election, but stated that the party wanted to empower people to meet their ambitions and dreams.

She asked him how, if Labour wanted people to fulfil their dreams and ambitions, they could do this if they were not trusted on the economy.

He stated that his constituents were “in the future business” and that parents of teenagers wanted to be reassured there would be training opportunities and jobs so that, after two terms in office, there would be solid employment prospects for them.

The Adviser considered the interview was well within the expectations of the audience and, while it had been challenging, Labour’s Business Spokesman had been able to set out key Labour proposals and seemed unruffled by the exchange. She considered Trustees would be likely to agree with the ECU that the technique adopted by the interviewer was to play devil’s advocate when she was asking questions.

The Adviser did not consider she had seen any evidence that the presenter was demonstrating her own “personal prejudices” or “personal views” as specified in the Impartiality guideline.

The Adviser considered that for the reasons set out above, Trustees would be likely to conclude the output met the requirements of the Editorial Guidelines in terms of Impartiality and Harm and Offence. Therefore she did not consider the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and did not propose to put it before Trustees.

Request for review by Trustees

The two complainants requested that the Trustees review the decision not to proceed with this appeal, a decision one complainant believed should be withdrawn. He considered the Adviser’s reply bordered on the deceitful in that it had implied that Mr Umunna was able to make valid points “without any interruption or over-talking” and made no reference to the presenter’s aggressive body language. He did not believe that anyone seeing this interview for the first time could have taken in half the points listed by the Adviser.

February 2015, issued April 2015 10

The same complainant said: the item was biased (and in order to prove otherwise the BBC would need to produce a similar interview with a Conservative politician); the presenter was discourteous; and he disagreed that she had used a devil’s advocate approach. He asked the Trustees to review the interview as a first-time-viewer would see it.

He further said that the ECU had accepted that the presenter had interrupted and talked over Mr Umunna and that this may not have enhanced the audience’s understanding of the issues.

The complainant referred to the BBC Editorial Guideline 4.4.13 which says that interviewers can have a significant impact on perceptions of whether “due impartiality” has been achieved. He felt the result here was that viewers thought it was biased.

The complainant also observed that in his view the complaints procedure was too long. He asked why the Trustees could not see his complaint when he first appealed to the Trust. He asked that all his correspondence should go to the Trust.

The second complainant criticised the Adviser's decision. He considered that the devil’s advocate approach “does not waste everyone’s time by repeating the same totally irrelevant question about 13 times”. He further argued that the reference to Paxman’s 13 questions was not appropriate because Paxman’s question was relevant and he kept on repeating it because he never received a proper answer.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee was provided with the complainants’ appeals to the Trust, the response from the Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser and the complainants’ letters asking the Committee to review her decision. The complainants’ previous correspondence was available to the Trustees on request. The Trustees were also supplied with footage of the interview.

The Committee acknowledged the complainants’ view that the item was biased and that the presenter had prevented the interviewee from making valid points without interruption.

The Committee considered that the personal style of the presenter and the way she chose to conduct the interview was not a determining factor in deciding whether or not the interview was duly impartial. The Committee considered that the presenter was using a “devil’s advocate” style of interviewing and believed that the interviewee had been able to convey his points effectively. Further, Trustees agreed that they could see no evidence that the presenter was demonstrating her own personal views or prejudices. They considered that Newsnight audiences are familiar with this style of interview and that they would not draw the conclusion that the nature of the questions reflected the presenter’s personal views.

It was also agreed that the robust interview was within audience expectation. The Committee was unpersuaded by the complainants’ views that the programme breached the guidelines on Impartiality.

It was further observed that there was no prospect of concluding that this challenging interview contained offensive and harmful material. The interview was well within generally accepted standards, taking into account the context of the programme.

February 2015, issued April 2015 11

The Committee acknowledged the complainants’ dissatisfaction with aspects of the complaints procedure. It noted that the complaints procedure was revised in 2012 following extensive audience research and was designed to make the most appropriate use of the licence fee, taking into consideration whether an appeal was likely to have a reasonable prospect of success. In this instance the Committee had concluded that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success. Finally, Trustees considered that the Adviser had dealt with both complainants in an appropriate and proportionate manner and they did not believe that their complaints had been incorrectly handled.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

February 2015, issued April 2015 12

Match of the Day: World Cup Preview, BBC One, 11 June 2014

The complainant asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of the Trust Unit that the complainant’s appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration by the Committee.

The complaint

The complainant contacted the BBC to express his concern that Charles Miller, one of two people responsible for introducing football to Brazil, was incorrectly described in the programme as English. He said that it would have been correct to describe him as the son of a Scottish-born railway worker.

The complaint went to Stage 2 and was investigated by the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) against the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy. The complaint was not upheld.

Appeal to the BBC Trust

The complainant escalated his complaint to the BBC Trust, saying that he was unhappy with the response received at Stage 2 and that he did not feel the ECU had given him the professional courtesy the complaint deserved. He was also concerned at the length of time it had taken for the ECU to respond to his comments following the provisional ECU finding.

The Trust Unit’s decision

The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser (the Adviser) carefully read the correspondence which had passed between the complainant and the BBC, and she acknowledged the strength of the complainant’s feelings about this matter. However, she did not consider it had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Adviser noted that the complainant had raised concerns that the output was not accurate. She noted that all BBC output was required to meet the standard of “due accuracy” and that, in the Editorial Guidelines, this was defined as follows:

“The term ‘due’ means that the accuracy must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.”

The Adviser noted that the complainant stated that, contrary to what Gary Lineker had said in the programme Lineker in Brazil, broadcast the previous day, 10 June 2014, Gary Lineker had stated in the Match of the Day piece on 11 June 2014 that Charles Miller was English. She noted that at the start of the piece Mr Lineker stated:

“Every story starts somewhere. Brazil’s started in England 120 years ago.”

During the dramatised reconstruction which followed that statement viewers saw the caption ‘Southampton Docks 1894’ and there ensued a brief history of Charles Miller’s voyage to Brazil from England and his part in the introduction of football to Brazil.

The programme then continued with Gary Lineker in the studio speaking to camera:

February 2015, issued April 2015 13

“England may have invented the game, but Brazil made it their own.”

The Adviser noted that Charles Miller’s Scottish heritage was not mentioned in the Match of the Day piece, but she also noted that the historical period covered in the dramatised piece dated from 120 years ago, 1894, when Charles Miller, [who had been born in Brazil but was] brought up in England, set sail for Brazil from Southampton when he was 19 years old and was leaving his Southampton football team mates of 10 years.

She noted that the ECU Stage 2 finding included a consideration of what constituted nationality and had pointed out that Charles Miller’s mother was of English descent, he was educated in England, spent most of his life living in England and became closely associated with the game of football in England (including playing for English clubs.) She also noted that, as was made clear by the diary extracts read during the dramatised reconstruction, and detailed in the ECU’s Stage 2 finding, Charles Miller identified himself strongly with England. The diary entries included in the programme stated:

“…the sadness of leaving England mingles with excitement at what lies ahead

Day 16. Only now may I return to my diary. Day after day I have been alternating between sickness and dreams from my earliest years, then England, and always, always, football…

Day 25. I will soon reach Brazil where I’m to follow in my late father’s footsteps, a railway engineer, although I feel more like a missionary, leaving England with few possessions but fortified by belief that I may plant a seed of football, that it may grow and, who knows, one day flourish.”

The Adviser therefore considered that in the context of this particular piece, it was not factually inaccurate to omit the nationality of Charles Miller’s father. She also noted that Gary Lineker had not stated that Charles Miller was English, but said that the story of Brazilian football “started in England 120 years ago”, referring to the start of the voyage from Southampton in 1894 when Charles Miller set sail for Brazil as an adult.

She noted that the programme referred to by the complainant which was broadcast the previous day, Lineker in Brazil, referred to his partly Scottish ancestry. In that output, Mr Lineker had referred to: “…Charles Miller, having finished school in England, stepped off a steamer in Sao Paulo armed with two footballs and a rule book… The son of a Scottish railway engineer…”

However, she considered it was not necessary to include every aspect of a person’s background in every piece of output in which that person featured, whatever the context, in order to meet Editorial Guidelines’ requirements for due accuracy.

The Adviser noted that there was no definitive answer to the question of who first brought football to Brazil (as was mentioned in the 10 June 2014 programme Lineker in Brazil, which the complainant also referred to), but that Charles Miller was undisputedly acknowledged to be one of those who played an important part.

In the context of this piece, the Adviser did not consider Trustees would be likely to conclude that any evidence had been presented to suggest a serious factual inaccuracy.

February 2015, issued April 2015 14

The Adviser noted that the complainant had experienced a long delay in bringing his comments on the provisional Stage 2 finding to the attention of the ECU and receiving a response. She noted that the complainant considered he had not been treated with “professional courtesy” and he highlighted the “contemptible words” used in the closing sentence of the letter from the Complaints Director. [She noted that the closing sentence from the Complaints Director stated “my apologies again for the unpardonable delay in getting back to you”.] The Adviser noted that where the Executive have accepted their error and apologised for it, Trustees usually consider the matter resolved. She agreed that the delay was very regrettable but did not think further action would be required in this case. She disagreed with the complainant that he had been sent “contemptible words” and could see no reason not to accept that it was a sincere apology.

The Adviser considered that Trustees would be likely to conclude the programme was duly accurate. Therefore, for all the reasons set out above, the Adviser considered the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and she did not propose to put it before Trustees.

Request for review by Trustees

The complainant requested that the Trustees review the decision not to proceed with his appeal.

The complainant expressed his view that, had Charles Miller been born in any other place such as Pakistan or the USA, this information would have been included. He felt that the “story that started in England” line was “clearly intended to give the idea that Charles was 100% English and nothing else”.

Noting programme content, such as Charles Miller’s family home and a photo of him wearing a kilt, the complainant said it was clear Miller associated himself with Scotland and therefore his Scottish heritage should have been mentioned. The complainant added that if this background was not relevant, the match commentator would not have noted it.

The complainant made the point that it was either correct to mention or not mention Miller’s Scottish heritage. He felt a mention on one piece of BBC output and not another “did not give the UK wide viewing public the full facts as to Charles Miller’s ethnicity, and origins”. The complainant provided further examples of Charles Miller’s Scottish heritage.

The complainant noted his view that the BBC was biased against Scotland and that others were also of this view. He saw this case as an example of institutional racism.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust, the response from the Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser and the complainant’s letter asking the Committee to review her decision. The programme was also provided to Trustees. The programme Lineker in Brazil, (which did mention that Charles Miller’s father was Scottish) was also provided to Trustees.

The complainant’s view that the script signalled that Charles Miller was 100 per cent English was noted by Trustees, as was his observation that Miller’s Scottish heritage was not mentioned on this programme. The Committee also noted the complainant’s view

February 2015, issued April 2015 15

that, in order to fulfil the requirement of accuracy, this fact should have been included in either both or neither of the two programmes.

The Committee noted that the Editorial Guidelines required content to be duly accurate and duly impartial. The Guidelines explain that

“The term ‘due’ means that the accuracy [and impartiality] must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.”

The Royal Charter and the accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC drew a distinction between the role of the BBC Trust and that of the BBC Executive Board, led by the Director-General. “The direction of the BBC’s editorial and creative output” was specifically defined in the Charter (article 38, (1) (b)) as a duty that was the responsibility of the Executive Board, and one in which the Trust did not get involved unless, for example, it related to a breach of the BBC’s editorial standards.

Trustees took the view that it was an editorial and creative decision, and so a matter for the BBC Executive, to begin the story as Charles Miller left Southampton for Brazil having learnt to play football in England. In those circumstances Trustees considered that if they took this complaint on appeal they would not find that the line, “Every story starts somewhere. Brazil’s started in England 120 years ago”, breached the requirements of due accuracy. Nor was it necessary to include the fact that Charles Miller’s father was Scottish in order to meet the Editorial Guidelines’ requirement for due accuracy.

The Committee concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of it finding there had been a breach of those guidelines.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

February 2015, issued April 2015 16

Morning Call, BBC Radio Wales, 24 Mawrth 2014

Gofynnodd yr achwynydd i’r Pwyllgor Safonau Golygyddol adolygu penderfyniad Uned yr Ymddiriedolaeth nad oedd apêl yr achwynydd yn gymwys i symud ymlaen er ystyriaeth gan y Pwyllgor.

Y gŵyn

Teimlai’r achwynydd ei bod yn amhriodol i'r BBC ddewis cynnal trafodaeth ffonio i mewn ynghylch pam fod yr iaith Gymraeg yn mynd dan groen rhai pobl. Teimlai fod agwedd y rhaglen tuag at iaith frodorol a lleiafrifol Cymru yn sarhaus. Roedd wedi cysylltu â’r BBC i leisio ei gŵyn am y tro cyntaf ar y diwrnod y darlledwyd y rhaglen. Cafodd ymateb ar Gam 1 a oedd yn cydnabod y gellid fod wedi gosod cyd-destun y drafodaeth yn well. Ond dewiswyd y pwnc oherwydd ei fod wedi codi mewn stori newyddion a bod cryn drafod wedi bod ar y mater. Roedd y rhaglen wedi darlledu sawl barn wahanol am y mater ac roedd y mwyafrif ohonynt yn amddiffyn yr iaith Gymraeg.

Roedd yr achwynydd yn parhau i fod yn anfodlon. Roedd yn credu y dylai’r BBC ddarlledu ymddiheuriad i Gymru. Aeth â’i gŵyn ymlaen i'r Uned Cwynion Golygyddol ar Gam 2; ond nid oedd yr UCG wedi cadarnhau ei gŵyn.

Ar ôl cael penderfyniad yr UCG, gofynnodd yr achwynydd i’r UCG anfon ei gŵyn ymlaen at yr Ymddiriedolaeth i’w hystyried ar apêl. Gwnaeth gais unwaith eto am ymddiheuriad cyhoeddus ar y mater.

Penderfyniad Uned yr Ymddiriedolaeth

Roedd Uned yr Ymddiriedolaeth wedi adolygu’r ohebiaeth berthnasol. Roedd yr Uwch Gynghorydd Cwynion Golygyddol wedi darllen yr ohebiaeth berthnasol ac wedi gwrando ar y cynnwys perthnasol. Roedd Cynghorydd Golygyddol Annibynnol hefyd wedi gwrando ar y cynnwys ac wedi cynnal ymchwil bellach i weld sut roedd cyfryngau eraill wedi ymdrin â'r stori newyddion roedd y drafodaeth wedi deillio ohoni.

Roedd yr Uwch Gynghorydd Cwynion Golygyddol (y Cynghorydd) wedi cydnabod cryfder teimladau'r achwynydd ynghylch y mater; ond, nid oedd yn credu bod gan yr apêl obaith rhesymol o lwyddo.

Y peth cyntaf wnaeth y Cynghorydd oedd nodi bod y Siarter Frenhinol a'r Cytundeb ategol rhwng yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol a'r BBC yn gwahaniaethu rhwng rôl Ymddiriedolaeth y BBC a rôl Bwrdd Gweithredol y BBC, dan arweiniad y Cyfarwyddwr Cyffredinol. Roedd “cyfeiriad allbwn creadigol a golygyddol y BBC” wedi’i ddiffinio’n benodol yn y Siarter (erthygl 38, 1 (b)) fel dyletswydd yr oedd y Bwrdd Gweithredol yn gyfrifol amdani, ac yn un nad oedd yr Ymddiriedolaeth fel arfer yn ymwneud â hi oni bai, er enghraifft, ei bod yn ymwneud â thorri safonau golygyddol y BBC. Dywedodd fod penderfyniadau ynghylch pa bynciau i’w dewis ar gyfer rhaglen drafod fel Morning Call yn rhan o “allbwn creadigol a golygyddol” y BBC ac felly yn dod o dan gyfrifoldebau Bwrdd Gweithredol y BBC.

Yna, ystyriodd a oedd y rhaglen wedi torri unrhyw safonau golygyddol. Nododd fod yr achwynydd yn credu fod y rhaglen wedi dangos “agwedd sarhaus tuag at iaith frodorol a lleiafrifol Cymru”. Roedd y Cynghorydd o’r farn y dylid asesu cwyn yr achwynydd ar sail y Canllawiau Golygyddol sy'n ymwneud â Didueddrwydd a Niwed a Thramgwydd.

February 2015, issued April 2015 17

Dywedodd fod y cyflwyniad i’r adran ar Niwed a Thramgwydd yn datgan fel a ganlyn:

“Nod y BBC yw adlewyrchu’r byd fel y mae, gan gynnwys pob agwedd ar brofiad dynol a gwirionedd y byd naturiol. Wrth wneud hynny, rydym yn cydbwyso ein hawl i ddarlledu cynnwys arloesol a heriol, sy’n briodol i bob un o’n gwasanaethau, â’n cyfrifoldeb i amddiffyn pobl agored i niwed ac osgoi tramgwydd nad oes modd ei gyfiawnhau.

“…Rhaid i ni fod yn sensitif i safonau a dderbynnir yn gyffredinol a glynu wrthynt, yn ogystal â disgwyliadau ein cynulleidfaoedd o’n cynnwys, yn enwedig yng nghyswllt amddiffyn plant. Bydd disgwyliadau’r gynulleidfa o’n cynnwys fel rheol yn amrywio yn ôl y gwasanaeth y mae’n ymddangos arno.

“Pan fydd ein cynnwys yn cynnwys deunyddiau heriol allai dramgwyddo rhai o’n cynulleidfa, rhaid i ni bob amser allu dangos diben golygyddol amlwg, gan ystyried safonau a dderbynnir yn gyffredinol, a sicrhau ei fod wedi’i gyfeirio’n glir.”

Nododd y Cynghorydd nad oes rheidrwydd ar y BBC i beidio ag achosi tramgwydd byth – a byddai hwn yn ofyniad amhosibl – ond roedd yn rhaid i’r BBC ganfod cytbwysedd rhwng ei ryddid i ddarlledu a’r risg y gallai cynnwys rhaglen beri tramgwydd. Nododd ei bod yn ofynnol i’r BBC ystyried disgwyliadau'r gynulleidfa a bod yn rhaid cael cyfiawnhad golygyddol dros gynnwys y rhaglen hefyd.

Nododd y Cynghorydd bod Morning Call wedi dewis cael dadl ar yr iaith Gymraeg yn sgil y banllefau o brotest a gafwyd gan y cyhoedd o ganlyniad i neges yr oedd gweithiwr siop o Gaerdydd wedi'i rhoi ar Facebook. Dywedodd fod adroddiadau wedi ymddangos ar ystod o gyfryngau ynghylch hyn a cheir dolenni i rai o'r adroddiadau hynny isod:

http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Shop-worker-posts-Facebook-Welsh- language-gets/story-20846696-detail/story.html

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/the-welsh-language-gets-right- 6866779

Roedd y Cynghorydd o’r farn fod cyfiawnhad golygyddol clir dros ystyried y pwnc ar gyfer y rhaglen ffonio i mewn. Dywedodd fod y cyflwynydd wedi cyflwyno'r eitem fel hyn:

“A’r bore 'ma, pam mae rhai pobl yn mynd mor ddig am yr iaith Gymraeg? Mae gweithiwr siop o Gaerdydd wedi tynnu nyth cacwn i’w phen dros y Sul ar ôl dweud ‘Mae gen i feddwl y byd o Gymru a'i phrydferthwch, ond mae'r iaith Gymraeg yn dân ar fy nghroen i.' Felly ydy’r iaith Gymraeg yn mynd ar eich nerfau chi? Mae perchnogion y siop wedi dweud eu bod wedi dychryn clywed y fath beth ac mae’r gweithiwr wedi ymddiheuro ers hynny am ddweud hyn ar Facebook, ond pam fyddai rhywun yn dweud hyn yn y lle cyntaf? Ydych chi’n caru ac yn coleddu’r iaith, neu ydy hi’n gwneud i chi deimlo’n rhwystredig?”

Dywedodd y Cynghorydd fod y cyflwynydd wedi ei gwneud yn glir fod sylwadau’r gweithiwr siop wedi peri tramgwydd a’i bod wedi ymddiheuro. Dywedodd hefyd nad oedd y cyflwynydd wedi ymochri â sylwadau’r gweithiwr siop ond yn hytrach wedi gofyn i’r gwrandawyr a oeddynt yn cytuno â’r sylwadau ai peidio.

February 2015, issued April 2015 18

Nododd y Cynghorydd fod Golygydd Newyddion a Materion Cyfoes BBC Radio Wales wedi dweud ar Gam 1 "nad oedd y rhaglen yn ceisio esgusodi'r sylw mewn unrhyw ffordd ond yn hytrach am archwilio sut a pham, mewn cenedl ddwyieithog gyda dwy iaith swyddogol, y mae rhai pobl yn dal yn gallu dweud bod clywed dau berson yn defnyddio’r iaith Gymraeg yn codi eu gwrychyn.”

Roedd y Cynghorydd o’r farn fod y cyflwynydd wedi dangos y ffordd yn glir o ran beth fyddai natur y drafodaeth a’i bod yn ddigon tebygol y byddai cynulleidfa rhaglen ffonio i mewn yn disgwyl clywed trafodaeth amserol – gan gynnwys sylwadau a barn nad oeddynt yn cytuno â nhw. Nododd y Cynghorydd hefyd fod Golygydd Newyddion a Materion Cyfoes BBC Radio Wales wedi dweud y gallai geiriad y ddadl fod “wedi’i lunio’n well er mwyn egluro ein bwriad golygyddol" a'i fod wedi ymddiheuro am hyn. Fodd bynnag, nid oedd y Cynghorydd o’r farn ei bod wedi gweld tystiolaeth o dorri’r Canllawiau Golygyddol. Felly, teimlai fod y penderfyniad i ddewis y pwnc hwn ar gyfer trafodaeth ar raglen ffonio i mewn ac i osod y cyd-destun ar gyfer y ddadl fel y gwnaeth yn fater golygyddol a chreadigol oedd yn nwylo’r BBC. Felly nid oedd yn teimlo fod gobaith rhesymol i’r apêl lwyddo ac nid oedd yn bwriadu ei rhoi gerbron yr Ymddiriedolwyr. Roedd yn dilyn felly nad oedd yn ei ystyried yn briodol i’r BBC ddarlledu ymddiheuriad mewn cysylltiad â'r eitem.

Cais am adolygiad gan yr Ymddiriedolwyr

Gwnaeth yr achwynydd gais bod yr Ymddiriedolwyr yn adolygu’r penderfyniad i beidio â bwrw ymlaen â'i apêl. Dywedodd fod Morning Call wedi torri Canllawiau Golygyddol y BBC ac y dylai'r BBC ymddiheuro. Rhoddodd amlinelliad o’r rhesymeg y tu ôl i hyn:

• Roedd y BBC wedi methu â bodloni’r safonau yr oedd wedi’u nodi yn ei Ganllawiau Golygyddol ei hun. • Roedd Golygydd Newyddion a Materion Cyfoes BBC Radio Wales wedi ymddiheuro am “ei ran ef yn y mater”. Roedd hwn yn ymddiheuriad ar ran y BBC. • Gan mai’r BBC sy’n gyfrifol yn y pendraw, dylai’r BBC gynnig ymddiheuriad cyhoeddus llawn. • Pwrpas y canllawiau [Tramgwydd] yw dangos pan mae rhywbeth wedi mynd yn rhy bell. • Ni ddylai corff atebol sy’n cael ei ariannu gan gyllid cyhoeddus danseilio ac ymosod ar iaith leiafrifol. • Mae'r Siarter Frenhinol yn mynnu bod cynnwys golygyddol y BBC yn adlewyrchu amrywiaeth y DU. • Fel corff cyhoeddus mae gan y BBC ymrwymiadau o dan y Confensiwn Ewropeaidd ar Hawliau Dynol a'r Ddeddf Hawliau Dynol 1998 ac ni chaiff wahaniaethu.

Penderfyniad y Pwyllgor

Darparwyd copi o ohebiaeth yr achwynydd gyda’r BBC i’r Pwyllgor, ynghyd ag ymateb yr Uwch Gynghorydd Cwynion Golygyddol i’w gŵyn a llythyr yr achwynydd yn gofyn i’r Pwyllgor adolygu ei phenderfyniad.

Gwrandawodd y Pwyllgor ar y darnau perthnasol o’r rhaglen a nodi fod yr achwynydd yn ystyried bod yr eitem wedi torri Canllawiau Golygyddol y BBC.

Nododd y Pwyllgor fod Golygydd Newyddion a Materion Cyfoes BBC Radio Wales wedi dweud y gallai geiriad y ddadl fod “wedi’i lunio’n well er mwyn egluro ein bwriad

February 2015, issued April 2015 19

golygyddol" a'i fod wedi ymddiheuro am hyn. Roedd yr achwynydd wedi cydnabod yr ymddiheuriad ond teimlai y dylai’r BBC fel corff ymddiheuro yn yr achos hwn.

Nododd yr Ymddiriedolwyr fod yr achwynydd wedi cyfeirio at y Siarter Frenhinol gan ddweud fod "disgwyl i gynnwys golygyddol y BBC adlewyrchu amrywiaeth y DU”. Cytunodd y Pwyllgor mai un o ddibenion cyhoeddus y BBC, fel y nodir yn y Siarter, oedd cynrychioli “y DU, ei gwledydd, ei rhanbarthau a'i chymunedau". Nid oedd y Pwyllgor yn cytuno fod y gofyniad hwn yn berthnasol i benderfyniad y BBC i ddarlledu’r eitem hon.

Roedd yr Ymddiriedolwyr yn deall fod y neges ar Facebook wedi peri cryn dipyn o gynnwrf yng Nghymru. Serch hynny, roeddynt yn nodi fod camau wedi cael eu cymryd i roi ystyriaeth i natur anodd y ddadl ac nid oedd y BBC wedi ymochri â safbwynt y gweithiwr siop ond, yn hytrach, wedi mynd ati i archwilio’r mater. Roedd cyfiawnhad golygyddol dros wneud hyn oherwydd roedd y stori yn y newyddion ar y pryd ac yn destun pryder i'r cyhoedd.

Felly, daeth y Pwyllgor i'r casgliad nad oedd unrhyw bosibilrwydd rhesymol y byddai'n canfod fod y Canllawiau Golygyddol wedi cael eu torri. O ganlyniad, nid oedd angen ymddiheuriad pellach.

O’r herwydd, penderfynodd y Pwyllgor nad oedd yr apêl hon yn gymwys i symud ymlaen i ystyriaeth.

February 2015, issued April 2015 20

Morning Call, BBC Radio Wales, 24 March 2014 [English language version]

The complainant asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of the Trust Unit that the complainant’s appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration by the Committee.

The complaint

The complainant considered that it was inappropriate for the BBC to choose to have a phone-in discussion about why people might find the Welsh language irritating. He felt that the programme was insulting in its attitude towards the native and minority language of Wales. He first contacted the BBC to raise his complaint on the day of broadcast. He received responses at Stage 1 which acknowledged that the subject for discussion could have been framed better. However, the subject had been chosen as it had arisen from a news story and had been a significant talking point. The programme had broadcast a range of opinions about the matter and most defended the Welsh language.

The complainant remained dissatisfied and considered the BBC should broadcast an apology to Wales. He pursued his complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit at Stage 2; however, the ECU did not uphold his complaint.

On receipt of the ECU decision, the complainant asked the ECU to forward his complaint to the Trust to consider on appeal. He repeated his request for a public apology on the matter.

The Trust Unit’s decision

The relevant correspondence was reviewed by the Trust Unit. The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser read the relevant correspondence and listened to the relevant output. An Independent Editorial Adviser also listened to the output and carried out further research to see how other media outlets had covered the news story that led to the discussion.

The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser (the Adviser) acknowledged the strength of the complainant’s feelings; however, she considered the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

The Adviser began by noting that the Royal Charter and the accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC drew a distinction between the role of the BBC Trust and that of the BBC Executive Board, led by the Director-General. “The direction of the BBC’s editorial and creative output” was specifically defined in the Charter (article 38, (1) (b)) as a duty that was the responsibility of the Executive Board, and one in which the Trust did not get involved unless, for example, it related to a breach of the BBC’s editorial standards. She noted that decisions relating to the choice of topic for a discussion programme such as Morning Call fell within the “editorial and creative output” of the BBC and were the responsibility of the BBC Executive.

She then considered whether the programme had breached any editorial standards. She noted that the complainant believed the programme had “an insulting attitude towards the native and minority language of Wales”. The Adviser considered that the

February 2015, issued April 2015 21

complainant’s concern should be assessed against the BBC Editorial Guidelines to do with Impartiality and Harm and Offence. She noted that the introduction to the section on Harm and Offence stated:

“The BBC aims to reflect the world as it is, including all aspects of the human experience and the realities of the natural world. In doing so, we balance our right to broadcast innovative and challenging content, appropriate to each of our services, with our responsibility to protect the vulnerable and avoid unjustifiable offence.

“…We must be sensitive to, and keep in touch with, generally accepted standards as well as our audiences’ expectations of our content, particularly in relation to the protection of children. Audience expectations of our content usually vary according to the service on which it appears.

“When our content includes challenging material that risks offending some of our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose, taking account of generally accepted standards, and ensure it is clearly signposted.”

The Adviser noted that it was not incumbent on the BBC to never cause offence – which would be an impossible requirement – but that the BBC had to find a balance between its freedom to broadcast and the risk that output might be found offensive. She noted that the BBC was required to take into account audience expectations and that there must also be an editorial justification for the output.

The Adviser noted that the reason Morning Call had chosen to debate the Welsh language was because of a public outcry caused by a Facebook posting by a Cardiff shop- worker. She noted that this had been reported on by a range of media outlets and links to some of those reports can be found below:

http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Shop-worker-posts-Facebook-Welsh- language-gets/story-20846696-detail/story.html

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/the-welsh-language-gets-right- 6866779

The Adviser considered there was clear editorial justification for considering the subject on the phone-in programme. She noted the item was introduced by the presenter as follows:

“And this morning, why do some people get so angry about the Welsh language? A Cardiff shop-worker caused a bit of a storm over the weekend after saying ‘I love Wales and its beauty, but the Welsh language gets right on my nerves’. So does the Welsh language get on your nerves? Shop-owners say they were horrified, the worker’s since apologised for saying this on Facebook, but why would somebody say this to begin with? Do you love and cherish the language, or does it leave you feeling frustrated?”

The Adviser noted that the presenter had made clear that the shop-worker’s comments had caused offence and that they had led to an apology. She also noted that the presenter had not aligned himself with the shop-worker’s remarks but asked listeners whether they agreed with the comments or not.

February 2015, issued April 2015 22

The Adviser noted that the Editor, News and Current Affairs, BBC Radio Wales had said at Stage 1 that the “programme was in no sense whatsoever seeking to condone the comment but rather to explore how and why, in a bilingual nation with two official languages, some people could still express strong irritation at two people using Welsh”.

The Adviser considered that the presenter had clearly signposted the nature of the discussion and that it would be likely to be well within the expectations of the audience for a phone-in programme who would expect to hear topical debate – including views that they disagreed with. The Adviser further noted that the Editor, News and Current Affairs, BBC Radio Wales, had stated that the terms of the debate “could have been better framed in order to offer clarity about our editorial intention” and had apologised for this. However, the Adviser did not consider that she had seen evidence that the Editorial Guidelines had been breached. She therefore considered the decision to choose this subject for discussion on a phone-in programme and to frame the debate in the way it was done was an editorial and creative matter that rested with the BBC. She therefore did not consider the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and did not propose to put it before Trustees. It followed from this that she did not consider it appropriate for the BBC to broadcast an apology in relation to the item.

Request for review by Trustees

The complainant requested that the Trustees review the decision not to proceed with his appeal. He said that Morning Call was a breach of BBC Editorial Guidelines and that the BBC should apologise. He outlined his reasoning:

• The BBC had failed to meet the standards it sets out in its own Editorial Guidelines. • The Editor, News and Current Affairs, BBC Radio Wales had apologised “for his part in the matter”. This was an apology on behalf of the BBC. • As the BBC is ultimately responsible, the BBC should offer a full public apology. • The [Offence] guidelines are there to demonstrate when a line has been overstepped. • A publicly funded and accountable body should not attack and demean a minority language. • Under the Royal Charter the BBC’s editorial content is required to reflect the diversity of the UK. • The BBC, as a public body, has obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and The Human Rights Act 1998 and may not discriminate.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee was provided with the complainant’s correspondence with the BBC, the response to his complaint from the Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser and the complainant’s letter asking the Committee to review her decision.

The Committee listened to the relevant extracts of the programme and noted that the complainant considered the item to be a breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.

The Committee noted that the Editor, News and Current Affairs, BBC Radio Wales had said that the terms of the debate “could have been better framed in order to offer clarity about our editorial intention” and had apologised for this. The complainant acknowledged the apology but felt an apology from the BBC as a whole should be forthcoming in this instance.

February 2015, issued April 2015 23

Trustees noted that the complainant had referred to the Royal Charter and said that “the BBC’s editorial content is required to reflect the diversity of the UK”. The Committee agreed that one of the BBC’s public purposes, as given in the Charter, was to represent “the UK, its nations, regions and communities”. The Committee did not accept that that requirement had any bearing upon the BBC’s decision to broadcast this item.

Trustees understood that the Facebook post had caused considerable upset in Wales. They noted, however, that steps had been taken to signal the difficult nature of the debate and the BBC had not aligned itself with the position of the shop worker but had instead set out to explore this issue. It was editorially justified to do so as it was a current story that had caused public concern.

The Committee concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of it finding there had been a breach of the Editorial Guidelines. Consequently, a further apology was not necessary.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

February 2015, issued April 2015 24

Imagine: Philip Roth Unleashed Part 1, BBC One, 20 May 2014

The complainant asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of the Trust Unit that the complainant’s appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration by the Committee.

The complaint

On 20 May 2014 at 10.35pm the BBC broadcast the first in a two-part series of Imagine which featured presenter Alan Yentob in conversation with Philip Roth, to mark the American author’s 80th birthday. The complainant contacted the BBC to complain about racism regarding Christianity.

The relevant part of the programme contained a short reading from Roth’s book Operation Shylock: A Confession, and referred to the composer Irving Berlin, who wrote the songs “Easter Parade” and “White Christmas”:

“He [Berlin] turns their religion into schlock but nicely, nicely, so nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit them.”

The complainant objected to the use of “schlock” and “goyim” which he found disparaging to Christians, implying that Christians were too stupid to “know what hit them”.

At Stage 1 the BBC stated that Berlin’s songs did not celebrate the divinity of Christ at all, yet they were embraced by Christians nonetheless and that Philip Roth’s contention was not that Christianity itself was “schlock”, “rather that in the context of these songs, that’s what Berlin had reduced it to”. The BBC said it was sorry if the complainant was offended by the language used, but considered that there was strong editorial justification for directly quoting the text in a profile of Roth’s life and work.

At Stage 2, the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) recognised the potential for offence but felt that this was limited:

“…In my view the context – an interview with one of the most important American writers of our age and his thoughts on the themes in his work – provided ample editorial justification for the passage. I think audiences would have understood that they were hearing a quote from a work of fiction and the personal reflections of a writer on themes which had emerged in his work. Judged against that background the potential for offence would seem to me to be rather limited – particularly given that the writer in question is known for exploring adult material in forthright language, some of which had been included earlier in the programme.”

The ECU did not consider the words “schlock” or “goyim” inherently offensive and concluded there was nothing in their use that was likely to perpetuate prejudice in the minds of the audience.

“There did not seem to me to be any intent to denigrate the beliefs of Christians but rather to consider the absurdities of a situation in which a ‘Jewish immigrant from Russia’ could produce material considered quintessentially American and

February 2015, issued April 2015 25

Christian and that, in the case of White Christmas and Easter Parade, he did so without reference to the tenets of faith which are the essence of those holy days.”

Appeal to the BBC Trust

The complainant appealed to the BBC Trust on 21 November 2014. The complainant appealed on the substance of his complaint, that these were “racist jibes”. He had no faith in the objectivity of an internal enquiry because the presenter was a senior figure at the BBC.

The Trust Unit’s decision

The relevant correspondence was reviewed by the Trust Unit. The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser (the Adviser) watched the relevant sections of the programme and considered the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

The Adviser noted that the BBC Trust was required, under the terms of the Royal Charter and the accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC, to hold the BBC Executive to account for complying with regulatory requirements such as the Editorial Guidelines. She noted that everyone who works within the Trust Unit is outside the day-to-day operations of the BBC and that an Independent Editorial Adviser had also reviewed the relevant output.

She noted that in this case the relevant Editorial Guidelines related to harm and offence, in particular:

5.2.1 “The BBC must apply generally accepted standards so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material.” She noted that the understanding of what constituted “generally accepted standards” evolved over time and was informed by relevant research:

“Applying ‘generally accepted standards’ is a matter of judgement, taking account of the content, the context in which it appears and editorial justification.”

To establish the likely understanding of the audience the Adviser noted how the programme was described on and off air. She noted that the BBC website described it as follows:

“After ‘Portnoy’s Complaint’ launched him as a new literary voice, not to mention a scandalous one, Philip Roth went on to be hailed by many as America’s greatest living writer. Never afraid to look hard at the extremes of human experience, he has been both consistently controversial and intensely private.”

She noted that the programme described Roth as follows:

“Widely feted for a career spanning six decades, after a shocking debut, the scope and achievement of Roth’s work only grew. Over 31 books he charted the American century detailing both the political and the personal.”

She considered that Trustees would be likely to conclude that viewers would have understood the often challenging nature of Roth’s work, particularly as the sequence in

February 2015, issued April 2015 26

question took place fifty minutes into the programme, by which time it had explored the controversial subject matter of his work, including sex, politics, religion and the Holocaust.

She noted that the sequence was part of a discussion about Roth’s book Operation Shylock: A Confession, in which the narrator has two distinct identities, one of whom propounds a counter-Zionist ideology. She noted that Roth recounted how he had once told the future Prime Minister of Israel that for American Jews, America was Zion rather than Israel, and she noted that Alan Yentob stated, “I can sense your comfort, you can be an American Jew and say you’re an American Jew and say you’re an American, which you are…”

The Adviser noted that the excerpts quoted from the novel were as follows:

“I took more pride in Easter Parade than in the victory of the Six Day War, found more security in White Christmas than in the Israeli nuclear reactor…”

“The radio was playing ‘Easter Parade’ and I thought that this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then he gave to Irving Berlin ‘Easter Parade’ and ‘White Christmas’, the two holidays that celebrate the Divinity of Christ, the Divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity, and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both. Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. Gone is the gore and the murder of Christ, down with the Crucifix and up with the bonnet. He turns their religion into schlock but nicely, nicely, so nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit them. They love it. Everybody loves it.”

The Adviser considered that Trustees would be likely to conclude that the conversation was about the nature of American Jewish identity and the irony that a Russian Jewish composer could write songs which had become synonymous with Christian feast days and were embraced by Americans, but which celebrated kitsch rather than Christianity: bonnets rather than the Crucifixion and snow rather than the Nativity. She noted that this impression of irony would be likely to be reinforced by Roth’s next comments about “God Bless America”, written by “a Jewish immigrant from Russia”.

The Adviser noted that the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines goyim as the plural form of goy, “a Jewish name for a non-Jew”. She noted that the OED describes the use of the word both as “informal” and “derogatory”.

The Adviser noted that the complainant was offended by the use of the term and that he felt Christians had been denigrated as being stupid for not noticing their religion had been turned into “schlock”. While she acknowledged that he was offended, she noted that “goyim” referred to all gentiles rather than specifically Christians. She considered that Trustees would be likely to conclude that Roth’s meaning was not to describe Christianity as “schlock” but to describe how Berlin had done his work “so nicely” that not only was no offence caused by celebrating bonnets (“schlock”) rather than marking the Crucifixion, but the songs had in fact become much-loved by the American public.

She also noted that viewers would be likely to understand that the quotes were from a work of fiction and that, as part of an exploration of the work of one of America’s greatest living writers, there was a strong editorial justification in quoting the text directly and hearing Roth comment upon it.

February 2015, issued April 2015 27

The Adviser therefore concluded, having taken account of the content and the context in which it appeared, that Trustees would be likely to consider that the programme had a strong editorial justification, and that there was no evidence of a breach of editorial standards. As the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success she therefore did not propose to put it in front of Trustees.

Request for review by Trustees

The complainant requested that the Trustees review the decision not to proceed with his appeal.

• He considered that the BBC Trust Unit based its analysis on the fact that the author was esteemed and that therefore what he said was acceptable. • The complainant noted that the Adviser had attributed the language to a fictional figure, rather than the author. • The complainant stated that it was acknowledged that the words used are offensive. • He said that the presenter had agreed with them and had been amused by them. • It would not have been acceptable to say the same thing about another religion.

The Committee’s decision

Trustees noted the output on which this complaint centred. The Committee understood that the complainant found the content offensive and therefore the Adviser had considered the complaint against the Editorial Guidelines on Harm and Offence.

The Committee considered the content, the context and the editorial justification as explained by the BBC in the Adviser’s decision.

Trustees noted that the programme was a profile of Philip Roth’s life and work and included an interview with the writer by the presenter. The extract in question was a quote from a work of fiction and the interview also contained personal reflections from the author on the subject, and comments by the presenter as part of his interview. The extract was read well into the programme, at which point the controversial nature of the author and his work was established.

Trustees considered that if they took this on appeal they would agree with the BBC and the Adviser that there was strong editorial justification for directly quoting the text and commenting on it.

The Committee agreed that the extract and surrounding discussion was used to explore the American and American/Jewish identity and, in context, there was no reasonable prospect of it finding there had been a breach of the guidelines on harm and offence.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

February 2015, issued April 2015 28

BBC News Channel, 01.10, 14 August 2014

The complainant asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of the Trust Unit that the complainant’s appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration by the Committee.

The complaint

The complaint concerned a news item about an extension to a ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Hamas. The segment consisted of the announcement by a Palestinian negotiator that the ceasefire was to be extended for five more days, followed by a 40” piece to camera from a BBC reporter in Gaza. In the piece to camera, the reporter stated:

“We had had very worrying signs that the two sides remained very far apart with Israel demanding a complete disarming of the militant groups here in Gaza and the Palestinians demanding a complete end to the very tight border restrictions that are imposed on Gaza by both Israel and by Egypt.”

The complainant alleged that comments by the reporter in her piece to camera listing the demands of each party “clearly suggested equivalence on restrictions imposed by both Egypt and Israel … telling viewers that Israel imposes restrictions on exports and on the quantity of imports. There is no such equivalence”.

The complainant received responses at Stage 1 from BBC Audience Services and at Stage 2 from the Editorial Complaints Unit. His complaint was not upheld.

Appeal to the BBC Trust

The complainant escalated his complaint to the BBC Trust on 22 November 2014 alleging that references in the report to Israel’s blockade of Gaza were “grossly misleading and lacking in impartiality”. He said:

“The statement implied that both Israel and Egypt imposed similarly tight border restrictions on Gaza. It didn’t imply that there was absolute equivalence, but did imply that the difference in restriction was not huge. In fact it is massive. The Egyptian[s] impose such tight controls that almost nothing gets in or out of Gaza via Egypt.”

The Trust Unit’s decision

The relevant correspondence was reviewed by the Trust Unit. The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser watched the relevant item and an Independent Editorial Adviser also reviewed the relevant output. The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser (the Adviser) considered the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

The Adviser noted the range of Israeli government documents and other news stories supplied by the complainant to illustrate the contention in his appeal that “a lot goes in from Israel and if Gaza requested more, it could be supplied”.

The Adviser noted the complainant’s assertion that the phrase “very tight border restrictions [that] are imposed on Gaza by both Israel and by Egypt” was “grossly misleading and lacking in impartiality”.

February 2015, issued April 2015 29

The Adviser considered the allegation against the Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy and Impartiality. These can be found in full at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines. The Adviser noted that all output was required to meet the standard of due accuracy:

The Adviser noted the clear editorial justification for the news item, namely that agreement had just been reached in Egypt to extend the ceasefire and the short item focussed on this breaking news. She noted that the phrase about border restrictions was in a sentence informing the audience of the demands being made by each side. The Adviser considered in this context, taking into account the subject and nature of the content, that the audience would neither expect nor need any greater detail on the nature of the restrictions; the requirement remained nevertheless that any information about the issue should not mislead.

The Adviser noted the complainant’s contention that the reporter’s comments implied substantial equivalence between the restriction imposed by Israel and Egypt, whereas in his view there was a “massive” difference between them.

The Adviser noted the reporter included no detail on the scope of the restrictions; or on whether they affected imports or exports or both; or whether each country imposed the same restrictions. The Adviser considered that the reference to the “very tight border restrictions that are imposed on Gaza by both Israel and by Egypt” equated the two only in the sense of stating that both had imposed “very tight” restrictions.

The Adviser took the view therefore that her consideration did not rely on whether Egypt and Israel had similar restrictions, but whether the statement that Israel imposes “very tight border restrictions” would be likely to be considered duly accurate were the allegation to proceed to appeal.

The Adviser noted that whilst the scope of items covered by the Israeli blockade had varied at times over the seven years it had been in place, it continued to cover a wide range of goods – in particular those considered by Israel to be “dual-use” items. The Adviser also noted that the Israeli blockade included a sea and air blockade; and that tight controls remained on the freedom of movement of Gazans. She noted that the range of activities covered by the Israeli blockade had been consistently identified by international bodies7 as having a serious ongoing impact on the day to day lives of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip.

The Adviser acknowledged the data provided by the complainant reflecting the scope and volume of goods allowed into the territory and the movements of people during the period immediately prior to the broadcast of the news item. But she noted the statistics

(For example) http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/12/gaza-donors-un-should-press-israel-blockade 7 http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48631#.VKxcUSusVCw

February 2015, issued April 2015 30

did not negate the fact of the blockade or account for the range of indirect impacts of the blockade on many aspects of life in Gaza.

The Adviser concluded that in the context of this brief reference to the restrictions imposed by Israel, the statement that they were “very tight” would likely be considered duly accurate.

The Adviser therefore decided the complaint would not have a reasonable prospect of success and should not proceed to appeal.

Request for review by Trustees

The complainant requested that the Trustees review the decision not to proceed with his appeal. He said it was not sufficient to show, as the Adviser had argued, that Israel imposed tight restrictions. He continued to assert that the sentence in question suggested some sort of equivalence between what is allowed in [to Gaza] by Egypt and what is allowed in by Israel, whereas there was a massive difference.

The complainant challenged the Adviser’s reference to documents produced by a UN body and by the NGO, Human Rights Watch, to illustrate the impact of the blockade. He said:

“Relying on reports from sources that are strongly biased against Israel to back up a statement that is also biased against Israel shows lack of confidence in the argument. To do so from two such sources without any from a source that is more even handed simply indicates lack of impartiality by the adviser.”

The complainant maintained that nowhere in the BBC’s coverage of Gaza did it mention “that there is an absolute blockade by Egypt and that Israel does no more than is necessary for its self-defence and beyond that actually encourages exports from Gaza and allows into Gaza massive aid convoys limited only by the requests of the Palestinian Authorities”.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust, the response from the Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser and the complainant’s two letters asking the Committee to review her decision. The Committee was also provided with the output in question.

The Committee noted and agreed with the Adviser’s view that the subject and nature of the content on this occasion would not have led the audience to either require or expect any further detail on the nature of the restrictions imposed either by Israel or by Egypt. It agreed that the relevant consideration was whether it might be considered duly accurate to state that “very tight border restrictions” are imposed by both Israel and Egypt, and that a judgment on whether Israel imposed tight restrictions did not rely on a comparison with the nature or severity of the restrictions imposed by Egypt.

The Committee noted the complainant’s emphasis on the goods which Israel allows in and out of Gaza, and Israel’s lack of restrictions on exports to third countries, to support his contention that the reporter’s characterisation of the blockade as “tight” was overstated.

The Committee agreed with the Adviser that it was the overall impact of the blockade that was required to be considered in order to assess whether it would be likely to conclude

February 2015, issued April 2015 31

that it was duly accurate to refer to the restrictions as “tight”. The Committee noted the fact of Israel’s total sea and air blockade on Gaza, and that those who live in Gaza were not free to come and go through the crossings controlled by Israel. It noted, as outlined in the Adviser’s decision, that whilst the scope of items covered by the blockade had varied over the years, all goods destined for Gaza from the Israeli side were subject to inspection and any considered “dual use” would not be permitted to enter.

The Committee noted the complainant’s contention that the UN and Human Rights Watch, whose reports have documented the effects of those policies and who had been cited in the Adviser’s decision, were institutionally biased against Israel. The Committee considered that an understanding of the scope and impact of the blockade did not rely only on reports issued by those bodies and that such information could equally have come from other international bodies. The facts about the reach and impact of the blockade were a matter of record and in the Committee’s view were the allegation to reach it on appeal it would be likely to conclude that the reference was duly accurate and that this appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

February 2015, issued April 2015 32

Scotland Decides: Salmond versus Darling, BBC Scotland, 25 August 2014

The complainant asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of the Head of Public Policy & Corporate Affairs, BBC Scotland, not to uphold the complaint at Stage 2.

The complaint

The complainant contacted the BBC on 27 August 2014 to express his concern that Glenn Campbell, the moderator of the debate between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling, had not properly controlled the debate. He said he was concerned that “this important debate was not a debate as it deteriorated frequently into a shouting match”.

Audience Services sent a consolidated response on 4 September 2014 explaining that the BBC had received a wide range of feedback on this programme and the response aimed to address the majority of concerns raised. These concerns were addressed by the Referendum Editor who (in summary) made the following points:

• The audience was selected by an official polling company called ComRes. • The lead questions were balanced. • Glenn Campbell was a robust moderator in testing circumstances. • The BBC was determined to be impartial and fair in its coverage.

The complainant was not satisfied with the response and made a follow-up complaint on 13 September 2014. He said that in his view the BBC was biased towards the “Yes” campaign in much of its coverage. With regard to this specific debate, he made the following further points in support of his previous complaint:

• All the previous referendum debates were organised in a more professional manner with superior moderators who allowed members of the audience to express their opinions in a calmer and more balanced manner. • He asked for the contact details of the Referendum Editor. • He said he had never heard of ComRes and asked whether the BBC should be wasting licence fee payers’ money by subcontracting such an important task as audience selection. • He asked what the Referendum Editor had meant by saying that the BBC balanced the lead questions; what was an unbalanced lead question? • He did not agree that the moderator was robust; he thought he gave way to Mr Salmond. • He asked for information about the moderator’s record. • He agreed that the moderator asked some key questions but disagreed that he had elicited informative answers; on the contrary he allowed the speakers to avoid answering vital questions. • When key facts were challenged, the moderator did not help the audience by quoting from agreed sources such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), resulting in confusion. • The facts were not presented properly for the audience. And he asked if the moderator ever used visual aids.

In their response of 27 October 2014 Audience Services conveyed the further comments of the Referendum Editor which addressed five of the complainant’s questions:

February 2015, issued April 2015 33

• The Referendum Editor confirmed that the complainant’s comments had been passed to him and asked the complainant to adhere to the BBC’s complaints process when submitting complaints as that helped the BBC to report and handle complaints efficiently. • Sub-contracting audience selection was an efficient use of resources and the BBC did not regard it as a “waste of money”. • The lead questions were balanced with each other so that there was an equal measure of questions with a “Yes” thrust and with a “No” thrust. • The moderator was one of Scotland’s most experienced journalists and was well regarded by the audience and his peers alike. He tended to broadcast within Scotland, so it was possible that audience members outside Scotland might not have previously heard of him. • Regarding the complainant’s question concerning the moderator’s professional skills and his familiarity with visual aids, the Referendum Editor said he did not understand the question and was therefore unable to answer it.

The complainant escalated his complaint to Stage 2 making the following points in support of his complaint:

• He clarified what he meant by visual aids and said that one of his main concerns was that BBC speakers were allowed too often to make claims without visual aid back-up. Then, when their claims were quite rightly challenged, they did not provide charts that gave the facts of those situations. Visual aids helped the audience to understand the debate and assess the contributions of the speakers. • In his opinion, in the Darling versus Salmond debate, the moderator could have anticipated these subjects and should have prepared visual aids to support the debate.

The Head of Public Policy & Corporate Affairs, BBC Scotland, responded at Stage 2 on 10 December 2014. He did not uphold the complaint, but apologised if the earlier responses had not provided the answers sought by the complainant and he responded to the issues raised by the complainant regarding the number of people involved in handling the complaints process; the identity of the Referendum Editor; the identity of those involved in handling complaints in general; the complainant’s point about visual aids; and the way the debate itself was conducted.

Appeal to the BBC Trust

The complainant contacted the BBC Trust on 15 December 2014 and said he had moved on from his complaint about the Scotland Decides debate with Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond. He now wanted to outline his proposals for changes to the structure of the BBC’s other debate programmes such as Question Time. His suggested changes to Question Time included the following:

• Changes to the way in which members of the panel were selected. • Project graphs should be included and key facts projected on a screen behind the panel when there was a discussion about key activities such as A&E waiting times and immigration. • Installation of a chairman capable of ensuring panellists answered audience questions.

February 2015, issued April 2015 34

The Committee’s decision

The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust and the correspondence between the complainant and the BBC.

Trustees acknowledged the complainant’s dissatisfaction with the way in which the Scotland Decides debate between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling was conducted and his view that the BBC displayed bias towards the “Yes” campaign by allowing supporters of the “No” campaign to be overly vocal.

Trustees noted that the subject of the complainant’s appeal to the Trust dated 15 December 2014 was not Scotland Decides. They acknowledged his statement that he had “moved on” and wanted the Trust to consider his ideas for changes to the structure of the Question Time panel and to its chairman. Trustees noted that Question Time was not the BBC output that was the subject of his original complaint but acknowledged his view that Question Time would also benefit from better use of visual aids and better panellists. Trustees noted that, in accordance with the Complaints Procedure, the appeal should be related to the specific BBC output which was the subject of the original complaint. It was open to the complainant to raise his concerns about Question Time separately in a Stage 1 complaint if he wished to do so. Trustees noted that the Editorial Complaints and Appeals Procedure states that appeal requests

5.4 should include the points you raised at Stage 2 that you want the Trust to reconsider. The Trust will not consider new points unless, exceptionally, it is necessary to do so in the interests of fairness.

The Trustees decided the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

February 2015, issued April 2015 35

Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about BBC News Online: London taxi driver jailed for Hitchin firefighter’s A1 death

The complainant asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of the Trust Unit that the complainant’s appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration by the Committee.

The complaint

The complainant contacted the BBC on 11 October 2014 to express his concern about the wording of a BBC News Online article headline:

“London taxi driver jailed for Hitchin firefighter’s A1 death”

He said that the description “taxi driver” was inaccurate because the vehicle in question was a minicab, not a London taxi.

BBC Audience Services responded on 31 October 2014 stating:

“While we readily appreciate your concerns it’s also the case that headlines need to be concise and so this headline simply referred to a London ‘taxi’ as generally understood to mean a motor vehicle licensed to transport passengers in return for a fare and, in this case, operated in London.

“The body of the article subsequently makes clear that [the driver] was a private hire driver and so we don’t believe the use of the word ‘taxi’ was unreasonable or otherwise materially misleading.”

The complainant was not happy with this response and submitted a follow-up complaint on 31 October 2014. He disputed the BBC’s claim that it was reasonable to refer to the vehicle as a London taxi in the headline. He noted that the driver was referred to in the body of the article as a private hire driver. He said that if that was the case, then the driver was not a taxi driver, and also, as the incident did not occur in London, it was inaccurate to say that he was a London Taxi Driver and he believed there was a deliberate intent to mislead.

Audience Services issued a Stage 1b response on 11 November 2014 stating that they had nothing to add to their previous reply and that they did not believe the complaint raised a significant issue of general importance that might justify further investigation.

Appeal to the BBC Trust

The complainant appealed to the BBC Trust on 11 November 2014. He said the headline in question was inaccurate and misleading. He made the following points in his appeal:

• The driver was not a London Taxi Driver. • The offence did not occur in London. • The BBC’s reasoning for the misleading headline was that it was concise. He said that “minicab driver” was more concise than “London taxi driver”.

February 2015, issued April 2015 36

The Trust Unit’s decision

The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser (the Adviser) acknowledged the strength of the complainant’s feelings. However, she decided that the appeal against the decision of BBC Audience Services not to correspond further with the complainant did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

The Adviser noted that the complainant had raised concerns that the BBC’s output was not accurate. She noted that all output was required to meet the standard of due accuracy and noted that this was defined in the Editorial Guidelines http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-accuracy-introduction/

The Adviser acknowledged that the complainant did not consider the driver of the private hire car to be a taxi driver and would have preferred him to be referred to as a minicab driver which he felt was more accurate. However, she believed Trustees would consider that Audience Services had responded reasonably by stating that a taxi was generally understood to mean a motor vehicle licensed to carry passengers in return for a fare. Although it was common when referring to private hire vehicles operating within London to distinguish between “London taxis” or “black cabs” and “minicabs”, she did not consider there was a general rule about the distinction. She understood that the complainant was also concerned that the driver in question was referred to specifically as a London taxi driver, which he said was inaccurate. The Adviser noted that the driver in question lived in London, and she believed that the reference to “London taxi driver” could be reasonably understood to refer to his place of residence. She did not consider that she had seen evidence to suggest that the article was misleading.

The Adviser believed Trustees would consider that Audience Services had provided a reasoned and reasonable response to the complaint and it was appropriate for them to say that they could not respond any further to correspondence on this issue. She therefore considered the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and she did not propose to put it before Trustees.

Request for review by Trustees

The complainant requested that the Trustees review the decision not to proceed with his appeal. He understood the reasoning provided by the Adviser to suggest that

“anyone who takes fares in return for transport can be described as a Taxi Driver. This is plainly not true.”

He reiterated his rejection of the argument that it is more concise to write taxi driver than it is to write minicab driver. The complainant expressed his view that most people would understand the headline to relate to a London Taxi Driver rather than a minicab driver who lived in London. Therefore, he continued to feel the headline was misleading. The complainant cited the 1968 London Cab Act 8which he said stated that minicabs could not call themselves taxis. He felt this distinction in law was there to protect the public. Consequently, he contended that if the BBC made this error, it could prove dangerous for members of the public.

The Committee’s decision

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/7/pdfs/ukpga_19680007_en.pdf 8 February 2015, issued April 2015 37

The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust, the response from the Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser, the complainant’s letter asking the Committee to review her decision and his correspondence with the BBC.

The Committee noted the article which was at the centre of this appeal and that it was the headline in particular which the complainant found to be misleading. In light of this, Trustees noted that the Adviser had considered the appeal against the Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy.

The point made by the complainant that London taxi drivers and the drivers of private hire vehicles are not the same, and his reference to the London Cab Act was noted by the Committee. Trustees noted the response from Audience Services that the word “taxis” was generally understood to refer to cars licensed to carry passengers. The Committee understood that, in the complainant’s view, the inaccuracy in the headline was underlined by the mention of the taxi driver being a London taxi driver.

Trustees acknowledged there was ambiguity in the headline and that the reference to London could be understood to signify the home of the driver or the driver of a London taxi. However, the article made the matter clear: this was a private hire vehicle and the driver lived in London.

Trustees considered that if they took the complaint on appeal they would reach the view that the article was duly accurate and that BBC Audience Services were correct to close the correspondence down as it did not concern a possible breach of the Editorial Guidelines.

There was no reasonable prospect of success for this appeal.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

February 2015, issued April 2015 38

Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about an item on World News Today, BBC Four, 5 August 2014

The complaint

The complainant wrote to BBC Audience Services on 6 August 2014 about an interview with Neri Zilber, who was introduced as a Middle East expert from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The complainant highlighted the following extracts:

NERI ZILBER: I think it’s very important to remember that the blockade around Gaza didn’t just happen coincidentally. It was very much due to a Hamas coup in 2007. Very much due to Hamas’s non relinquishment of their own arms and the option of terrorism.

PRESENTER: You call it a coup. They did win an election and they do have a mandate in Gaza. They were the democratically elected authorities in Gaza.

The complainant said the presenter had his facts wrong. He said:

• Hamas won an election to run certain civilian matters but all security matters remained within the remit of the Palestinian Authority. • Hamas took power from the Palestinian Authority by force in a “very violent coup”. • Hamas’s mandate for civilian matters expired four years ago

BBC Audience Services sent a holding response on 14 August 2014 and a substantive response on 23 September 2014. The response noted that sometimes the interviewer acts as devil’s advocate in order to challenge the interviewee’s assertions. In relation to this interview, Audience Services said:

“While some viewers believe Hamas does not have a mandate in Gaza, others disagree, and point to their majority win in the 2006 election. [The interviewer] was reflecting this perspective on this occasion, not expressing an opinion as you suggest. This, we feel, is part of the grammar of the political interview and is well understood by the audience of a programme such as World News Today.”

The complainant responded on the same day disputing Audience Services’ interpretation and stating that the presenter was not simply reflecting a view that some viewers hold but was forcefully and flatly contradicting Mr Zilber. The complainant reiterated his view that the presenter had his facts wrong and said his comments were misleading and biased in favour of Hamas.

BBC Audience Services wrote to the complainant on 20 November 2014 apologising for the delay and stating it had nothing further to add to its previous reply. It did not believe the complaint had raised a significant issue of general importance which justified further investigation. The complainant was advised of his option to request a review by the BBC Trust of the decision not to respond further to the complaint.

Appeal to the BBC Trust

February 2015, issued April 2015 39

The complainant appealed to the BBC Trust on 22 November 2014. The complainant appealed on the substance of his complaint stating that the presenter’s comments regarding the legitimacy of Hamas’s authority in Gaza were inaccurate and lacking impartiality.

The complainant reiterated the points he had made at Stage 1. He further explained why he considered the substance of his complaint to be a significant issue:

“Whether Hamas has a democratic mandate to rule the Gaza Strip including security control is not a minor matter…

“Such limited mandate as they had once had had long since expired. The bloody and violent manner in which they took powers that they were never given by their people removed any legitimacy for their continued rule in Gaza.”

The Trust Unit’s decision

The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser (the Adviser) carefully read the correspondence that had passed between the complainant and the BBC and looked at the relevant output. The Adviser decided that the complainant’s appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

The Adviser noted that the complainant believed the comments made by the interviewer about Hamas’s mandate in Gaza were in breach of the Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy. All BBC output is required to meet the standard of “due accuracy”, this is defined under the Editorial Guidelines as follows:

The term ‘due’ means that the accuracy must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

The Adviser noted that judgements about what was duly accurate would vary depending on the nature of the output and the context of the comments. She considered this was generally understood by the audience. She noted that the principle concern of the report was to consider whether the ceasefire, which had just come into force, had much prospect of holding and that the interview focussed on the demands from each side and the likelihood of those demands being fulfilled. The audience was informed that amongst the ceasefire conditions demanded by Hamas was the lifting of Israel’s seven year old blockade.

It was in that context, noted the Adviser, that the interviewee referred to Hamas’s assumption of power in Gaza:

NERI ZILBER: Well I think the demilitarisation is a hope - not so much an actionable plan, at least in the short term - but it’s something to put on the table, because I think it is very important to remember that the blockade around Gaza did not just happen coincidently. It was very much due to a Hamas coup in 2007. Very much due to Hamas’s non-relinquishment of their own arms and the option of terrorism, so I think…

PRESENTER:

February 2015, issued April 2015 40

You call it a coup, I mean it was, they did win an election, they do have a mandate in Gaza, they were the democratically elected authorities in Gaza. But just, on that point whether peace is possible… (and then refers to comments made by a Palestinian representative earlier in the day).

The Adviser noted from her viewing of the recording of the interview that the interviewee nodded during the presenter’s comments where he offered additional clarification of the nature of the 2007 takeover by Hamas.

The Adviser noted also where shortly afterwards, in the same interview, Mr Zilber offered further context to his earlier comments on Hamas rule in Gaza; the Adviser noted that the presenter did not challenge his comments on this occasion:

NERI ZILBER: I think a better way forward for Gaza and Israel and Egypt would see a return of the legitimate authority, the Palestinian Authority, back into Gaza to start undoing a lot of the damage that was done by Hamas’s extra-legal measures during the coup in 2007.

The Adviser considered that taken as a whole, the two comments by the interviewee and the additional context provided by the interviewer, equipped the audience with some understanding of the background to Hamas’s control of Gaza.

The Adviser noted how Audience Services had explained at Stage 1 that, in questioning the interviewee’s use of the term “coup”, the presenter was reflecting the perspective of those who believe Hamas did have a mandate as a result of their success at the 2006 election. The Adviser noted that while Hamas did forcibly take control of Gaza in 2007 from Fatah, they had won legislative elections 18 months earlier.

The Adviser decided therefore her consideration was whether the way in which the issue of Hamas’s assumption of power in Gaza was reflected in the interview would have misled the audience on this occasion, taking into account the subject and nature of the content.

The Adviser agreed with Audience Services’ view on the nature of the interjection and considered that the presenter’s comments provided useful additional context. She considered that, in the context of an interview where the editorial focus was on current events and the prospects for a lasting ceasefire, the audience would neither have expected nor required additional detail on the issue and that which was included was sufficient such that the interview would likely have met the requirement for due accuracy.

The Adviser considered Trustees would be likely to conclude that BBC Audience Services had given a reasoned and reasonable response to the complaint and had acted appropriately in declining to enter into further correspondence. She therefore did not consider the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and did not propose to put it before Trustees.

Request for review by Trustees

The complainant requested that the Trustees review the decision not to proceed with his appeal. He reiterated points he had made earlier and stated once again that Mr Zilber’s comments (that Hamas had assumed power in 2007 after a coup) were accurate, and that the interviewer forcefully and directly contradicted him with an inaccurate interjection.

February 2015, issued April 2015 41

The complainant said that the elections won by Hamas were for the Palestinian Legislative Council but did not relate to matters of policing or security (which were matters for the elected President). He said the mandate was only for four years and had expired.

The complainant said that where he had stated in his appeal that it was “a very violent coup”, he had linked to a report by the Gaza based Palestine Center for Human Rights entitled “Black Pages in the Absence of Justice - Report on Bloody Fighting in the Gaza Strip from 7 to 14 June 2007”9. He noted the report’s recitation of the casualty figures of 161 dead and at least 700 wounded.

He concluded his request for a review of the Trust Unit’s decision:

“There is no question that it was a very violent coup. [The interviewer’s] interjection was inaccurate in several ways and it was also both unnecessary and misleading.”

The Committee’s decision

Trustees considered that the Trust Adviser had given adequate consideration to all of the complainant’s points when making her decision that the complaint should not be put before them.

Trustees accepted as fact that considerable violence accompanied the establishment of Hamas’s rule in Gaza in 2007. However, they noted that this was a news interview at the height of last summer’s war, and that the principle concern of the interview was not the manner in which Hamas had assumed power seven years earlier.

Trustees also noted the way the presenter had phrased his interjection and in particular his use of tenses: “...they (Hamas) did win an election, they do have a mandate in Gaza, they were the democratically elected authorities in Gaza”.

Trustees believed the presenter’s statement that Hamas “did” win an election was true, as was the statement that Hamas “were” (past tense) the democratically elected authority. On that basis, they considered that the further statement that Hamas “do have” a mandate was a reasonable description of how many might regard Hamas’s status, irrespective of the fact that the term of office for the elected authority had expired without there having been a further election.

Trustees therefore agreed with Audience Services’ comments that the interviewer’s interjection noting that Hamas had won an election, that they had a mandate and that they had been the democratically elected authorities in Gaza, supplied useful additional context about the circumstances in 2006/2007 and evidenced the presenter’s comment suggesting that while Mr Zilber may have called it a coup, some may disagree.

The Committee noted the interviewee’s body language, where he nodded in acknowledgement of the additional clarification.

In the context of the presenter’s suggestion that Hamas “do” have a mandate, Trustees also noted Mr Zilber’s subsequent contribution:

9 http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/Reports/English/pdf_spec/Gaza%20Conflict%20-%20Eng%209%20october..pdf February 2015, issued April 2015 42

Trustees noted that the pace and nature of a live, unscripted interview inevitably results occasionally in phraseology which might be more precise had it been scripted. But they were satisfied that were the complainant’s point to be put to them on appeal they would likely conclude that, for all the reasons above, the audience had not been misled on the issue. Trustees were satisfied that were the substantive matter to come to them on appeal the item would be judged duly accurate and not misleading.

Taking this into account, the Committee agreed that Audience Services was correct to close down this complaint. It was not appropriate, proportionate or cost effective to take this on appeal. It had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

February 2015, issued April 2015 43

Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about language used on BBC Radio 4 programmes Today and World at One

The complainant asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of the Trust Unit that the complainant’s appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration by the Committee.

The complaint

The complainant originally contacted the BBC on 17 July 2014. He noted that he had “recently heard a Palestinian perspective on Today and the World at One which is something of a breakthrough for the BBC”. However, he considered that overall “the majority of coverage still leans towards the Israeli perspective”.

He considered that the use of language was not impartial and stated:

“…every bulletin is accompanied by ‘Israel says bombing is in response to rockets’ and ‘Civilians are used as shields so casualties are the fault of Hamas’. Why do we never hear ‘Palestinians say the rockets are a response to Israeli aggression’ or ‘Palestinians say the militants are part of the population in a crowded ghetto so there is no equivalence to a proper army’?”

He said:

“surely the BBC can verify that Israeli aggression/overreaction following the disappearance and subsequent discovery of the Israeli teenagers came before the rockets? Why is Israeli propaganda given greater credence than facts?”

He also raised general concerns about the way interviews were handled and about claims that were made in relation to the use of human shields.

The complaint referred to Today, and the World at One and to “coverage” without reference to any specific items or stories.

BBC Audience Services replied to the complainant on 18 July 2014. They sent a general, consolidated response as they said they had received a wide range of feedback about the BBC’s television, radio and online coverage of the recent escalation of violence in Gaza and southern Israel. They explained that in order to use licence fee resources efficiently, the response aimed to answer key concerns, but they apologised in advance if it did not address the complainant’s specific points in the manner he would prefer. They summarised key areas of reporting and concluded their response:

“BBC News has also examined the cause of the conflict, as seen by each side, including the impact of the blockade and the occupation. We believe we have reported on these issues in a fair and impartial manner.”

The complainant was not happy with the response and made a follow-up complaint on 26 July 2014. He was unhappy that he had been sent “a circular” and wanted an individually tailored response addressing his particular concerns. He stated:

February 2015, issued April 2015 44

“My complaint picked up on a specific aspect of the coverage and I expect a response which addresses the complaint properly.”

The complainant received a further response from Audience Services at Stage 1b on 30 August 2014. This was a further generic response and included additional general information about the BBC’s coverage of the conflict and its view that BBC News had “reflected the core aspects of the conflict and historical context from both perspectives”.

Their response concluded:

“We believe we’ve reported on the recent violence as it has developed in an accurate and duly impartial manner. The flux of such a conflict means that reports and coverage have mirrored the developing nature of events as they have come to pass. Across our coverage we believe we’ve reported [on] the breaking news aspects of this story, alongside providing enough background information to our audience. We believe this has given viewers and listeners the opportunity to make up their own minds on the issues at hand.”

Audience Services explained that they believed they had now responded to the complaint as fully as they could and were unable to engage in further correspondence on the issue as they did not believe the complaint had raised a specific or significant issue that might justify further investigation.

Appeal to the BBC Trust

The complainant appealed to the BBC Trust on 5 September 2014. He said that neither of the responses he received from Audience Services addressed his complaint.

He made the following points:

• He stated that his initial complaint had been about “the phraseology used by BBC presenters on Today and WATO”.

• He stated that the first response had been “a bulletin type” response which did not address his concerns.

• The second response had inaccurately addressed his complaint:

“BBC News has reported extensively on the direct effects of Israel’s acts on Gaza’s civilian population, contrary to what you suggest.”

He said he had never mentioned anything to do with the extensiveness of the BBC’s coverage and that it was clear there was no intention to address his complaint.

The Trust Unit’s decision

The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser (the Adviser) noted that the complainant had made several complaints about the BBC’s coverage in a relatively short time span and had received more than one generic response. She noted that it was not clear that the second generic response – which closed down the complaint – related to the complaint that had been made on 17 July about language used in Today and the World at One. For the removal of doubt, she confirmed with Audience Services that they did not wish to

February 2015, issued April 2015 45

respond further as they did not consider the complaint raised a significant issue that merited further investigation.

The Adviser noted the strength of the complainant’s feelings but decided that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

The Adviser noted the following relevant sections of the Editorial Complaints and Appeals Procedure:

You should make your complaint within 30 working days of the date on which the content was broadcast or first published in a BBC owned magazine….

If the BBC receives a number of complaints about the same issue, it may: • compile a summary of the range of issues raised; • consider them together across the full range of issues identified; • send the same response to everyone and/or it may publish it on the BBC’s complaints website…

Your complaint should include: • the name/title of the broadcast … you are complaining about; • the date and time of the broadcast or publication; • the channel or service on which it was broadcast, or the web address on which it was published; • the nature of the complaint and (where possible) the particular parts of the programme or publication you are complaining about;

The inclusion of these details (or as many of them as possible) is very important.

A failure to provide them may mean that the BBC is not able to look into your complaint.

The Adviser noted that the complainant had not referred to any specific broadcast in his complaint – as required by the Editorial Complaints and Appeals Procedure – and instead had made a general complaint of bias. She noted that Audience Services had responded with a consolidated response which set out the BBC’s approach and how it was intended to ensure impartial coverage. She noted that the complainant had renewed his complaint and considered it related to “specific aspects of the coverage” which had not been addressed. However, she considered Trustees would be likely to conclude that, although he referred to bulletins, to Today and to the World at One, he had not complained about specific elements of output.

The Adviser considered that Trustees would be likely to conclude that Audience Services had sent a reasoned and reasonable response to a general complaint; that it was appropriate – in the interests of best use of the licence fee – to send a consolidated reply and that it had acted appropriately in closing down the correspondence.

She therefore considered the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and did not propose to put it before Trustees.

The Adviser noted that the complainant had initially received a response from the Trust which related to a different complaint he had made about BBC output over the same timeframe. She said she was sorry for the mistake and sorry too that it had resulted in

February 2015, issued April 2015 46

consideration of his complaint being delayed. She acknowledged that the complainant had sent a further email to the Trust on 2 January 2015. She noted that, as well as chasing a response to his initial appeal, it raised a number of new complaints.

The Adviser noted the requirements of the Editorial Complaints and Appeals Procedure, referred to earlier, that all complaints needed to be raised with Audience Services in the first instance and that the Trust would consider an appeal only after the BBC had finished responding. She noted too that complainants were asked to indicate the channel, date and time of each broadcast so that the complaint could be investigated properly. She considered it was not appropriate for Trustees to consider these new points as they had not been considered by the BBC through the complaints process.

Request for review by Trustees

The complainant requested that the Trustees review the decision not to proceed with his appeal. He was dissatisfied with the way in which his complaint had been handled by the Trust Unit.

The complainant said he was not told he needed to provide times and dates. He said the language to which he objected was so much in evidence he thought it was unnecessary to keep track of it. The complainant felt the Adviser should have been able to find examples to illustrate his concerns. The complainant felt that an effort should have been made to work with him to ensure the case was properly considered rather than closing down the complaint.

He said no-one had denied that his initial complaint was not addressed and he could not understand why this was treated as being immaterial. He questioned the purpose of the complaints procedure.

The complainant said he had provided some dates but not all for the examples he cited. He said that if the material he highlighted was verifiable, the Trust should opt to investigate rather than dismiss his complaint. He believed the Today programme and the World at One were aimed at people with a different outlook to himself.

The Committee’s decision

Trustees noted that the complainant said that he had provided some dates in relation to his complaint that Today and the World at One used the wording:

“‘Israel says bombing is in response to rockets’ and ‘Civilians are used as shields so casualties are the fault of Hamas’”

as opposed to giving a Palestinian perspective.

Trustees appreciated that complainants who were submitting several complaints might lose track of what they had said. However, a review of the correspondence showed that in this case he had not given dates.

February 2015, issued April 2015 47

The Committee understood the complainant’s view that he had not been told to provide such information during the course of his complaint. Trustees hoped that the complainant would understand that, where there were many complaints on an issue, the BBC used consolidated replies in order to use the licence fee to best effect. This meant inevitably that Audience Services did not respond to a general complaint about bias by asking for specific examples. The Trust had approved this course of action when the Complaints Framework was set by the Trust in 2012.

The need to identify specific output is outlined in the Editorial Complaints and Appeals Procedure as the Adviser had explained. The Committee felt that, without specific broadcasts to evaluate, Audience Services could not reasonably be expected to consider a general allegation of bias. While the Committee noted the complainant’s suggestion that the Adviser provide examples of output for Trustees to consider, it was not appropriate for the Committee to evaluate material which had not been provided to the BBC initially (Agreement between the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC, Clause 90(3)) 10. Nor did the Committee believe that licence fee payers’ money would be well spent in asking the Trust to search for instances of alleged bias which the complainant himself could not provide.

Trustees considered that if they took the complaint on appeal they would reach the view that BBC Audience Services had been entitled to close the correspondence down, as the complainant had not provided specific information about where the phrasing he objected to had appeared.

There was no reasonable prospect of success for this appeal.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

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 10 or omission of the Trust itself or of the Trust Unit.

February 2015, issued April 2015 48

Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about casualty figures cited in the recent Israel-Gaza conflict

The complainant asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of BBC Audience Services to close down the complaint at Stage 1b.

The complaint

The complainant contacted the BBC on 7 August 2014 to express her concern about the casualty figures cited by the BBC in the recent Israel-Gaza conflict. She said that the BBC continually cited the Hamas-run Health Ministry figures and no mention was made of the figures cited by the Israelis. The complainant requested further information as to why that was, particularly as in past conflicts the Israel Defence Force’s IDF’s figures had proven, even by Hamas’s admission, to be the more accurate.

The complainant believed that there was a lack of balance in the reporting of the figures and a failure to acknowledge that the figures reported by the BBC were contested.

She said that reports had broken down the casualty figures into combatant-civilian on the Israeli side, but had failed to do the same with the Palestinian side, leaving the impression that all Palestinian casualties were civilians, which could not be the case; either it was deliberate, or the breakdown of Palestinian casualties was not known – in which case she felt that should have been made clear.

BBC Audience Services responded on 2 September 2014 disputing the complainant’s suggestion that “using numbers provided by the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza and the UN on the death toll in Gaza indicates a pro-Palestinian bias”. They made the following points:

• The Health Ministry in Gaza was the key source of information on deaths in the conflict for all news organisations and other external organisations, including foreign embassies. It was where all deaths were registered and the Ministry was in touch with all the hospitals in Gaza.

• Israeli authorities did not have access to hospitals and morgues in Gaza to provide such a level of reporting.

• When the BBC reported death tolls, they were clearly attributed to the Health Ministry; therefore the source was made clear.

• Generally, the Health Ministry did not make claims as to what number of those killed were civilians or combatants. They collated information coming in from morgues and passed those figures quickly to the media several times each day.

• The United Nations (UN), which had a large staff in Gaza compiling reports, did make claims as to whether Palestinians killed were civilians or combatants, and the BBC reported those claims.

• The question of who had officials in Gaza compiling such reports was important; some Palestinians were killed by Israeli air strikes when the IDF would have had air surveillance of its aftermath, but many others were killed by sustained artillery

February 2015, issued April 2015 49

assault on certain areas which caused death from shrapnel fire, buildings collapsing and other factors.

• The BBC’s approach was common to the rest of the media. However, at a number of stages during the conflict, the BBC had broadcast interviews with Israeli officials who questioned the accuracy of the UN figures, and suggested that they might be revised downwards in the future, as had sometimes happened in previous conflicts.

The complainant did not feel that the response from Audience Services addressed her points and was not satisfied with the responses she had received. She said she would have responded in more detail but the online BBC complaint form restricted the number of characters she could use. However, she made the following points:

• The BBC had apparently unquestioningly accepted figures that did not attempt to differentiate between civilian and combatant when referring to Gazan casualties, but did so with Israeli casualties. She felt that seeing this distinction made on one side only caused many people to believe the Palestinian casualties were all civilians.

• Neither the figures from the Ministry of Health nor the UN were likely to exhibit fairness when dealing with Israel. She disputed the idea that Israel could not access civilian-combatant figures because it could not access morgues. She said there were other ways to get those figures, as had been stated by Col Richard Kemp; others were analysing the lists, noting the same name appearing up to three times, and the high proportion of males to females etc.

• Simply citing Hamas figures was not, in the complainant’s opinion, acceptable from the BBC. If others were undertaking more rigorous analyses then surely BBC staff could do likewise?

Audience Services responded at Stage 1b. They said they had little to add to their previous response and pointed out that BBC News had reported on the nuances of reporting casualty figures from Gaza and had explored the associated problems when covering this story. They indicated an online news article which could be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28688179

They said they believed they had reported on the recent violence in an accurate and duly impartial manner and did not believe the complaint raised a specific or significant issue that might justify further investigation; they would therefore not engage in further correspondence on the issue.

Appeal to the BBC Trust

The complainant submitted an appeal to the BBC Trust on 12 December 2014. She said the responses she had received to her complaint did not address her concerns and instead they cited the UN (as the source of the figures), the numbers killed and even how they were killed – which was not the point of her complaint.

With regard to the responses she had received from the BBC, she made the following points:

February 2015, issued April 2015 50

• The UN had a biased attitude towards Israel. She said there were many examples to support this but perhaps the most compelling was the number of UN resolutions passed against Israel in 2013: 21 whereas there were only 4 against the entire rest of the world.

• The sources used to arrive at the Palestinian civilian casualty figures were similarly dubious in terms of impartiality. She specified details of her research which indicated that UN OCHA figures for civilian casualties in Gaza would also include people killed by Palestinian terrorist organisations.

• She noted that in every instance of war between Israel and Hamas, the combatant-civilian percentage figures provided by the latter were remarkably similar. She also noted that the BBC had itself acknowledged the fact in its response to her complaint that the number of casualties “in the future may be revised downwards as has sometimes happened in previous conflicts” and would be found to be nearer the Israeli figures. That being the case, she asked why the BBC did not exercise more caution in its reporting of civilian casualty figures.

• In response to the BBC’s assertion that “Israeli authorities simply do not have access to hospitals and morgues in Gaza to provide such reporting”, she said that it was not the case that casualty figures could only be obtained in that way, and besides, was it credible to maintain that those working in or accessing hospitals and morgues in Gaza would even know the difference between a combatant and a civilian, especially given that Hamas operatives did not wear uniforms?

• In response to the BBC’s statement that its approach to reporting the figures was common to the rest of the media, she asked why that was relevant; the BBC was unlike the rest of the media in that it was funded by the licence fee.

• She asked why the BBC claimed that Israel had not provided evidence when reports from the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre were easily accessible. She asked what evidence would be deemed necessary before the BBC published UN/Hamas claims.

• With regard to the online article specified by Audience Services in their response of 17 November 2014, she said that it was less than 1,000 words and compared with the thousands of words written and spoken by the BBC during the 50 days of conflict, that very short article appeared to be “like the very small print used as a get-out clause at the foot of an insurance document”. She said it was not what one should expect from the BBC.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust and the correspondence between the complainant and the BBC.

Trustees noted the complainant’s arguments and the BBC’s responses.

The Editorial Complaints and Appeals Procedure says that:

1.7 At all stages of this Procedure, your complaint may not be investigated if it:

February 2015, issued April 2015 51

1.7.1 fails to raise an issue of breach of the Editorial Guidelines; or

1.7.2 is trivial, misconceived, hypothetical, repetitious or otherwise vexatious.

Trustees acknowledged that the complainant believed the BBC’s reporting was misleading, and her view that the BBC had unquestioningly accepted figures that did not attempt to differentiate between civilians and combatants when referring to Gazan casualties, but did so with Israeli casualties; she believed that seeing this distinction made on one side only caused many people to believe the Palestinian casualties were all civilians.

Trustees acknowledged the complainant’s opinion that neither the figures from the Ministry of Health nor those from the UN were likely to exhibit fairness when dealing with Israel. They noted that Audience Services had explained the reasoning behind the BBC’s use of figures obtained from the Health Ministry and the UN, and had explained that the Israeli authorities did not have access to hospitals and morgues in Gaza to provide such a level of reporting.

The Trustees believed the source of the casualty figures quoted by the BBC was clear and noted that Audience Services had explained that, at a number of stages during the conflict, the BBC had broadcast interviews with Israeli officials who questioned the accuracy of the UN figures, and suggested that they might be revised downwards in the future, as had sometimes happened in previous conflicts. Trustees noted the complainant’s point that if figures might be revised downwards in the future, then the BBC should exercise more caution about reporting them in the first place, but did not agree that they had seen evidence of a lack of impartiality in the BBC’s reporting.

The Committee considered that Audience Services had provided a full and reasoned response to the complainant’s concerns and considered that the BBC had been correct to conclude that the complaint did not raise a specific or significant issue that might justify further investigation. It failed to raise an issue of breach of the Editorial Guidelines.

Having considered the appeal, Trustees were of the view that it did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

February 2015, issued April 2015 52

Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about BBC coverage of political parties during election periods

The complainant asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of BBC Audience Services to close down the complaint at Stage 1b.

The complaint

The complainant contacted the BBC on 27 May 2014 about the news coverage given to the Green Party during the recent European Parliament and local elections. He said that despite getting 1.2 million votes, the Green Party was only mentioned in relation to the decline of the Liberal Democrats. He said that the Green Party was having a successful time and felt that the BBC’s coverage was unrepresentative of the amount of support for the Green Party as demonstrated by the electorate.

BBC Audience Services sent a consolidated response on 9 June 2014 explaining that the BBC had received a wide range of feedback about its coverage of the elections, and that bearing in mind the pressure on licence fee resources, the response aimed to address the majority of concerns raised but they apologised if not all the specific points made by the complainant were answered in the manner he would prefer. They said they believed the BBC’s reporting was balanced, proportionate and in line with editorial guidelines.

Audience Services made the following points about Vote 2014’s coverage which was split into three parts:

Local elections: From 23:35 on Thursday 22 May to 03:30 on Friday 23 May

• Green seats did not show on the BBC permanent on-screen tally overnight because the party had neither won nor lost any seats by the time the programme went off-air. However, the BBC did give information about the Green share of the vote in a sample of councils in order to show how the party was faring in wards where it had not won any seats. The BBC interviewed the Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett.

Local elections: From 12:00 to 18:00 on Friday 23 May

• By mid-day, the Greens only had a small number of seats so initially only the four main parties appeared on the tally and scoreboards. The tally was designed to show the four largest parties, which is the maximum number the BBC believed to be legible. By mid-afternoon the Greens had begun to gain seats and were showing more frequently on the scoreboard. Caroline Lucas was interviewed at 4.00 p.m.

While the small number of Green Party gains did not cause any actual change in council control, the large number of UKIP gains caused councils to fall into no overall control, so those were the BBC’s main focus.

European elections: From 21:00 on Sunday 25 May to 03:15opn Monday 26 May

• The BBC showed the Greens as part of the permanent on screen tally from the first result of the night, and also took care to mention the Green share of the vote

February 2015, issued April 2015 53

after every declaration – even where the party did not win a seat. Natalie Bennett was interviewed towards the end of the results flow at 2:30 a.m.

The complainant was not happy with this response and made a follow-up complaint on 12 June 2014. He made the following points:

• The grouping of political parties into “main” and “other” was increasingly redundant as the population abandoned the two party system.

• The Green Party was unique amongst the “others” because it had built up a regular body of support over several decades. He said the BBC’s approach failed to recognise that by including them with “‘other’ parties that come and go”.

• The Greens overtaking the Liberal Democrats came as no surprise to anyone, but there seemed to be no adjustment made for the recent trend in voting patterns which showed the Greens gaining support such as in the London Mayoral elections where the Greens came third.

• He said his complaint was more about the coverage in the run up to election day than what happened on election night.

• The BBC displayed bias due to a failure of its coverage allocation system and its classification of the Green Party as one of the “others”. The Green Party deserved to have more of a voice.

There was some further communication.

On 26 November 2014 Audience Services sent a further response in which they made the following points:

• They said that they had sent a reply on 5 August 2014 which the complainant did not appear to have received. This reply thanked the complainant for his further observations and apologised for not responding sooner.

• Reporting on political parties was a great responsibility and the BBC did not take it lightly; it was “far from as simple as grouping parties as ‘main’ and ‘other’”.

• The BBC had very clear guidelines to ensure that political parties received an appropriate level of coverage during an election campaign and news editors were required to follow them carefully. A variety of factors were taken into account, including past electoral performance and the number of candidates being fielded.

• Guidelines for 2014 European Elections stated that, having considered those factors, Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP should receive similar levels of coverage; the Greens and BNP won significant support in 2009 and the Guidelines said they should receive some coverage proportionate to the first set of parties; provisions were also made for SNP and Plaid Cymru coverage.

Audience Services said that they had nothing further to add and did not believe the complaint raised a significant issue of general importance that might justify further investigation; they would not, therefore, correspond further on the issue.

February 2015, issued April 2015 54

Appeal to the BBC Trust

The complainant wrote to the BBC Trust on 12 December 2014 following the decision of Audience Services to close down the complaint at Stage 1b. He reiterated his concern that the BBC’s coverage in the run-up to elections did not reflect the “new reality of public voting intentions, which have moved away from a two party system”. He felt the BBC’s approach was “outdated and would result in accusations of bias, as it marginalised the opinions of a significant section of the population”. He believed the bias would be against the Green Party in particular, but also against the SNP (in UK coverage).

He said he did not accept the BBC’s response that there was no division between the main parties and “others”. He suggested that the BBC Trust needed to seek a detailed response from Audience Services “about the impact of the current policy approach on the totality of coverage of the Green Party compared to, say, UKIP and the Lib Dems”.

He linked his complaint to the Value in the Editorial Guidelines which says:

“Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. We will apply due impartiality to all our subject matter and will reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under- represented.”

The Committee’s decision

The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust and the correspondence between the complainant and the BBC.

Trustees noted the complainant’s arguments and the BBC’s responses.

The Editorial Complaints and Appeals Procedure states that:

1.7 At all stages of this Procedure, your complaint may not be investigated if it:

1.7.1 fails to raise an issue of breach of the Editorial Guidelines; or

1.7.2 is trivial, misconceived, hypothetical, repetitious or otherwise vexatious.

Trustees acknowledged the complainant’s concern that the BBC might be in breach of its Guidelines on Impartiality because of its election coverage; he considered that BBC policy on election coverage had not kept pace with the reality of voting patterns in the present day and that some parties, the Green Party in particular, were disadvantaged.

Trustees noted that the BBC drew up specific guidelines before each election. These were approved by the Trust and at the time of this appeal the Trust was consulting on the 2015 Election Guidelines. The Trust welcomed input to the consultation and recognised that the political landscape was in flux and presented interesting challenges to broadcasters. The Election Guidelines were designed to ensure that each political party received an appropriate level of coverage.

As pointed out by Audience Services in their response of 26 November 2014:

February 2015, issued April 2015 55

“Guidelines for 2014 European Elections stated that, having considered those factors, Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP should receive similar levels of coverage; the Greens and BNP won significant support in 2009 and the Guidelines said they should receive some coverage proportionate to the first set of parties; provisions were also made for SNP and Plaid Cymru coverage.”

Trustees acknowledged that the complainant did not agree with the BBC’s policy concerning the amount of coverage given to the Green Party in particular but the policy was set by the Trust and the Trust’s decision was final.

Trustees acknowledged that the complainant had experienced delays in the handling of his complaint to the BBC, but noted that Audience Services had apologised for this. They considered that, with the exception of the response sent to the complainant on 5 August 2014, which did not seek to address his further concerns beyond acknowledging them as feedback, Audience Services had given reasonable and reasoned responses to the complaint and that it had been appropriate for them to decide not to engage in further correspondence on the issue. It failed to raise an issue of breach of the Editorial Guidelines.

Having considered the appeal, Trustees were of the view that it did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

February 2015, issued April 2015 56

Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about Trust Me I’m a Doctor, BBC Two, 22 October 2014

The complainant asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of BBC Audience Services to close down the complaint at Stage 1b.

The complaint

The complainant contacted the BBC on 23 October 2014 to say that a strong health warning should have been given during the programme because it featured peanuts which were deemed “safe to eat” despite a mould/fungus on the shells. The complainant said that peanuts were very harmful for large numbers of people and if his 4-year-old grand-daughter had followed the example on the programme, she would have died.

BBC Audience Services responded on 19 November 2014 and apologised for the delay in replying. They acknowledged the complainant’s concerns but explained that the segment of the programme concerned was about the shelf life of peanuts, not peanuts themselves. That being the case, they said that it was not relevant to talk about peanut allergies in that particular context.

The complainant was unhappy with this response and made a follow-up complaint on 20 November 2014. He said the BBC had avoided the relevant fact that the doctor “rolled peanuts in his hands, then ate them – without a word of warning about the widespread risk of anaphylaxis, or the risk to allergic people from his unwashed hands or his breath. Thus peanuts were given a public safety endorsement by the doctor, the programme and the BBC”.

Audience Services responded again on 21 November 2014 closing down the complaint at Stage 1b. They said they did not have anything to add to their previous reply and did not believe the complaint had raised a significant issue of general importance that might justify further investigation.

Appeal to the BBC Trust

The complainant appealed to the Trust on 22 December 2014 reiterating his concern that “in a medical programme specifically about food safety, a prominent and respected doctor cracked open a number of fungus-covered shell peanuts, rolled the nuts around between his hands, then ate them…”

He said that all that would have been needed was a few words of warning about the risk of an allergic anaphylactic reaction in susceptible humans, including his own grand- daughter.

He felt his complaint had been dismissed without proper consideration. The complainant said he would have been more reassured if the doctor had been contacted as a result of his complaint and given a response to him; also it would have been good to know that the programme team had admitted their mistake of omission. The complainant stated that he did not want an apology, but sought to ensure that the BBC would be positively aware of peanut allergies.

February 2015, issued April 2015 57

The Committee’s decision

The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust and the correspondence between the complainant and the BBC.

Trustees acknowledged the complainant’s concern that a valuable opportunity had been missed to alert viewers to the dangers of allergic reaction to peanuts in susceptible humans, and his view that his complaint had not been properly considered.

Trustees noted the context of the programme item in question and noted that what was being discussed by the doctor was the shelf life of food products and whether mould and fungus were harmful if eaten. They noted that many different foods could cause susceptible individuals to suffer a potentially catastrophic allergic reaction, and although they acknowledged that peanuts could be very harmful, even fatal, to people allergic to them, that was not the issue under discussion in the programme on this occasion. They did not believe that the failure of the programme makers to mention peanut allergy could be construed as a breach of the Guidelines.

In addition, Trustees noted that the Royal Charter sets out that one of the functions of the BBC’s Executive Board is the direction of the BBC’s editorial and creative output (Article 38 (1b)). The Royal Charter also explains that the Trust must not exercise or seek to exercise the functions of the Executive Board (Article 9 (3)). Trustees agreed that they were required by the Charter to refrain from taking editorial decisions about the content of programme items unless they raised broader issues such as a breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, and that did not apply in this case.

The Trustees recognised the complainant’s personal circumstances and appreciated that he would like the dangers of peanut allergy to be pointed out at every appropriate opportunity. They also noted that the complainant felt more could have been done following the programme to impress upon the makers of the programme how serious the issue was and that he would have liked an assurance that they acknowledged they had made a mistake in not giving a health warning about peanuts, and that they would consider what steps could be taken in the future to present health warning information during items involving peanuts.

The Trustees noted that Audience Services had explained the context in which the peanuts were shown, and had told the complainant that his feedback would be sent to the BBC’s senior management and the Trust Me I’m a Doctor team via the overnight report. Audience Services noted that “these reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly”.

Having considered the appeal, Trustees were of the view that it did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

February 2015, issued April 2015 58

Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about News at Ten, BBC One, 1 November 2014

The complainant asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of BBC Audience Services to close down the complaint at Stage 1b.

The complaint

The complainant contacted the BBC on 1 November 2014 to express his concern that a report on News at Ten had referred to Rangers football club as having been “demoted” to the bottom tier of Scottish football. He said this was inaccurate; in fact the club went into liquidation and the new club formed was then admitted into the bottom tier. No relegation ever took place.

BBC Audience Services responded on 11 November 2014 and explained the BBC’s position when reporting on matters concerning Rangers football club. They stated:

“We will continue to refer to Rangers as the same club; where we will make a distinction is between the old company and the company which currently runs the club. This is in line with the BBC Trust findings on the matter, details of which are available at http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/a pr_may.pdf”

The complainant was not happy with this response and made a follow-up complaint on 16 November 2014. He said his concern about the use of the word “demoted” had not been addressed; Rangers were not demoted.

Audience Services responded again on 28 November 2014 reiterating the points of their previous reply. They said the BBC would continue to refer to Rangers as the same club and the full details of the BBC’s reasoning could be found in the Trust finding previously referred to, pages 25-35. They said they had nothing further to add and did not believe the complaint raised a significant issue of general importance that might justify further investigation.

Appeal to the BBC Trust

The complainant contacted the Trust on 3 December 2014 reiterating his concern that the word “demoted” was an inaccurate description of what had happened to Rangers. He said Rangers were not demoted and the replies from Audience Services made no reference to this inaccuracy. He said it was a sensitive issue among football fans, so 100% accuracy was essential.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust and the correspondence between the complainant and the BBC.

The Committee noted that Rangers FC had been placed in the third division and that the Scottish Football League Chief Executive David Longmuir had acknowledged that the decision had been “one of the most difficult for all concerned but it has been taken in the

February 2015, issued April 2015 59

best interest of sporting fairness which is the fundamental principle of the Scottish Football League”.

Trustees noted their previous finding in relation to Rangers Football Club which explained that the BBC would continue to refer to Rangers as the same club as it was before the company which ran it went into liquidation.

Trustees considered it was appropriate to acknowledge that Rangers FC had been placed in a lower division than it was before the company went into liquidation. Whatever the circumstances of Rangers’ drop to the third division, Trustees considered that it was reasonable to refer to the placing of the club in a lower division as a demotion. It was not appropriate, proportionate or cost effective to take this matter on appeal.

The Trustees decided the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

February 2015, issued April 2015 60

Decision of BBC Audience Services not to respond further to a complaint about BBC News coverage of Palestinian deaths, 18 November 2014

The complainant asked the Editorial Standards Committee to review the decision of BBC Audience Services to close down the complaint at Stage 1b.

The complaint

The complainant originally contacted the BBC on 18 November 2014, following news reports of an attack on a Jerusalem synagogue, to raise his concern that the BBC’s Middle East reporting of Israeli and Palestinian killings was biased.

He said that Jewish murders were presented to bring out a strong emotive audience response but, by contrast, recent reports on Palestinian victims of Israeli violence had been muted.

He gave the following examples from the BBC News website:

• Palestinian bus driver, Hassan Yousef Al Ramouni, believed to have been lynched by Israeli settlers had not been mentioned at all by the BBC until the attack on the synagogue, where it was mentioned only in reference to a Hamas statement on the synagogue attack. AFP and major Israeli outlets reported Hassan’s death.

• On 11 November, the BBC reported the killing of 22-year-old Imad Jawabreh using quotation marks around ‘shot dead by Israeli army’ as if there was any conflicting report over who had shot Jawabreh. By the fourth paragraph of the report, there was mention of attacks against an Israeli soldier and civilians in an attempt to contextualise the killing. By contrast, the article on the synagogue attack contained no reference to killings of Palestinians by Israelis. Unlike the story on the synagogue attack, there was no live blog and no use of evocative imagery, instead a generic image of an Israeli jeep was used.

• The BBC only reported on the killing of Khayr al-Din Hamdan, shot dead by Israeli police while his back was turned once. The incident was caught on camera, but the BBC had not followed up on this state brutality.

On 26 November 2014 BBC Audience Services sent a consolidated response to a wide range of audience feedback which aimed to answer the complainant’s key concerns, but apologised in advance if it did not address his specific points in the manner he would prefer.

They said the BBC believed it had reported on the recent violence in an accurate and impartial manner and made the following points:

• The BBC made no distinction between the value of Israeli or Palestinian lives, and strove to report what were often highly emotive news stories on the conflict in a neutral way.

February 2015, issued April 2015 61

• The BBC did not routinely report each attack or violent death because, sadly and tragically, incidents where the scale of deaths or casualties was low were unfortunately characteristic of the ongoing conflict.

• The case of the Palestinian bus driver, Youssef al-Ramouni was reported on the BBC News Channel on 18 November 2014 and extensively on the BBC News website.

• Other Palestinian killings were also reported, including the purported shooting dead of Imad Jawabreh by the IDF in Hebron.

The complainant was unhappy with this response and reiterated his concerns in a follow- up complaint on 11 December 2014.

Audience Services responded at Stage 1b on 15 December 2014 stating that they had nothing further to add to their previous reply. As they did not believe the complaint raised a significant issue of general importance that might justify further investigation, they said they would not correspond further on the issue.

Appeal to the BBC Trust

The complainant escalated his complaint to the Trust on 16 December 2015 reiterating his concerns about alleged ongoing bias regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. He felt his complaint had been ignored and said that he had provided specific evidence of under- reporting. He attached to his appeal “a much more detailed report from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign of the more general media under-reporting of the continuing Israeli violence against Palestinian citizens”. He suggested that if there was concern that the attached report was one-sided, the Trust could listen to a five-minute video of Gerald Kaufman attempting to raise awareness of what Israelis are doing to Palestinians for which the complainant provided a web link.

He said he expected the Trust to specify exactly how it intended to improve the current under-reporting of this important issue. He said such a response would help prevent the growing more general concerns of BBC bias outlined in his second attachment.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust and the correspondence between the complainant and the BBC.

Trustees acknowledged the complainant’s concern about what he considered ongoing BBC bias in the Israel-Palestine conflict and noted that he believed he had provided specific examples of bias in his original complaint, in which he had given his opinion of BBC coverage of specific killings and detailed what he felt were omissions in coverage.

Trustees considered that the response of Audience Services of 26 November 2014 had addressed the complaint appropriately in general terms. Audience Services had acknowledged that they had received a wide range of feedback on the issue, and had explained their reasons for sending a consolidated response to complainants, also apologising that the response might not address the complainant’s concerns in the manner he would prefer. Trustees noted that Audience Services confirmed that two cases mentioned by the complainant had been covered.

February 2015, issued April 2015 62

Trustees noted that Audience Services had stated the BBC’s commitment to impartiality and the BBC’s policy in terms of reporting the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. Trustees acknowledged the additional material which the complainant had made available to them on the subject of media reporting on the conflict. They appreciated that the complainant did not share the BBC’s view that coverage was impartial but they did not consider that the examples he had given of what he believed to be a lack of balanced coverage amounted to evidence of a breach of the Editorial Guidelines.

Trustees observed that the Royal Charter sets out that one of the functions of the Executive Board of the BBC is the direction of the BBC’s editorial and creative output (Article 38 (1b)). The Royal Charter also explains that the Trust must not exercise or seek to exercise the functions of the Executive Board (Article 9 (3)). Trustees agreed that they were required by the Charter to refrain from taking editorial decisions such as those concerning the editorial direction of broadcast and published BBC news output. It was therefore for the BBC Executive to decide which news stories to include in its reporting and how those included should be presented, and to ensure that all news content complied with the BBC’s impartiality obligations.

Trustees considered that Audience Services had given a reasoned and reasonable response to the complainant’s concerns and that it had been appropriate for them to say they could not correspond further on the issue.

The Committee therefore decided that this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.

February 2015, issued April 2015 63