Programme Complaints Appeals to the Governors

December 2006 Issued January 2007

Until 31 December 2006, the Board of Governors was responsible for overseeing the running of the BBC, to ensure that the BBC served the public interest. It did this in a range of ways, such as setting key objectives and approving strategy and policy. Most importantly for this bulletin, the Governors were responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of complaints handling by the BBC, including hearing appeals from complainants who were not happy with the responses they received from management to serious programme complaints.

The Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee (GPCC) was a subcommittee of four members drawn from the full Board of Governors. For a full account of its remit, please see the last page of this bulletin.

This is the final bulletin from the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. The BBC Governors have now been replaced by the BBC Trust, and the Editorial Standards Committee will take over the role of GPCC in hearing editorial complaints on appeal.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 2

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

Until 31 December 2006 it was the job of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee (GPCC) to ensure that complaints were properly handled by the BBC. This included taking appeals from individuals dissatisfied with management’s response to serious editorial complaints. Our role was to review the programme or online content against the BBC’s editorial values and guidelines, and make a judgement on whether or not the content concerned breached the standards set out.

This is our final complaints bulletin: we have now handed this responsibility on to the BBC Trust and, in particular, its Editorial Standards Committee. We wish the new Committee well in taking on this important responsibility.

Fabian Monds Acting Chairman of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 3

Contents Page

Summary of findings (December 2006)

Appeals not upheld Andrew Marr’s Daily Telegraph column, 8 February 2006 5 Today, Radio 4, 21 June 2006 8 Newsnight, BBC Two, 3 April 2006 11 Front Row, Radio 4, 2 August 2006 14 From Our Own Correspondent, Radio 4, 15 July 2006 17 BBC News online and BBC World Service coverage of the World Tribunal on Iraq 21

Remit of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee 24

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 4

Summary of findings (December 2006)

Appeals not upheld

Andrew Marr’s Daily Telegraph column 8 February 2006 a) The item The complaint concerned Andrew Marr’s weekly column in The Daily Telegraph where he wrote, on 8 February 2006, about the controversy surrounding the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, which were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. b) The complaint The complainant believed the column breached the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines by expressing personal political opinions. He made the following points: · Andrew Marr deplored “the gross response of the London marchers who gloated about suicide bombing”, and then went on to suggest that “we need apologies all round”. · The latter comment took sides in the political argument and Mr Marr was “expressing his disapproval of the publication of the cartoons ... the exercise of free speech”. · He argued: “The point here isn’t whether most people would agree with Marr, but whether his political columns are compatible with the impartiality which he must demonstrate in his work for the BBC. I don’t believe they are.”

The complaint did not relate to BBC output and fell outside of the Editorial Complaints Unit’s remit. It was, therefore, handled by the Head of Editorial Compliance, BBC News, at Stage 2 of the complaints process. She did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) Applicable programme standards Section 4 – Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion

Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences.

The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK ... to support fair and informed debate. It specifies we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of a political or industrial controversy.

In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: · the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality. · our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 5

Editorial Guidelines – Guidance Specific Detailed Guidance For BBC Staff, BBC Correspondents On Non Staff Contracts And Freelancers Primarily Associated With BBC News And Current Affairs Programmes

BBC staff and freelances primarily known as presenters or reporters on BBC news and current affairs must not: · state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party · express views for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate · advocate any particular position on an issue of current public controversy or debate · exhort a change in high profile public policy.

ARTICLES FOR NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES AND WEBSITES

This guidance on writing for newspapers, magazines and websites applies to BBC staff, BBC correspondents on non staff contracts and freelances known to the public primarily as presenters or reporters on BBC news or current affairs programmes.

Regular Columns BBC staff, BBC correspondents and freelances primarily known as BBC news presenters or reporters should not normally write regular columns for non-BBC websites or external publications which are not published by or for the BBC.

In particular they should not write a regular column which deals with · News, current affairs, politics or current world affairs · Economics, business or finance · Matters of current political or public policy debate or industrial controversy at a local, national or international level · Media issues · Moral or ethical issues or religion.

One-off articles related to topical or controversial issues In some very limited cases, with the prior approval of the relevant Head of Department, a one-off article for a non-BBC publication or website may be written on · News, current affairs or politics · Economics, business or finance · Matters of current political or public policy debate · Media issues · Moral or ethical issues or religion Any such one-off article must be in accordance with the BBC’s values and written in the context of BBC marketing for programmes or in support of the BBC or its interests. BBC copy approval will be required. No regular column on such issues is acceptable for a non-BBC publication or website.

One off articles on other issues A one-off article about a non-controversial issue may be acceptable but only with the specific approval of the Head of Department. It is important that nothing which is written undermines either the writer’s or the BBC’s reputation for impartiality. Heads of Department will decide whether copy clearance is required.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 6

Copy approval As outlined above, BBC staff, BBC correspondents on non-staff contracts and freelances primarily associated with the BBC will need to have copy cleared for all columns and any one-off articles related to topical or controversial issues. Heads of Department will decide whether copy clearance is required for one off articles on sport or non controversial issues.

Articles must be submitted for BBC approval in good time before the publication deadline and Heads of Department must ensure that the relevant press office is informed. d) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial guidelines, taking into account all the material relating to the case.

The Committee considered this complaint in two parts. First, did the column breach the off-air guidelines associated to articles for newspaper, magazines and websites? Second, did Andrew Marr’s use of the phrase “apologies all round” breach the editorial guidelines on impartiality?

The Committee was satisfied that Andrew Marr’s regular column for The Daily Telegraph did not normally deal with news and current affairs. The Committee noted that its content usually covered politically uncontroversial subjects such as the arts, television and daily life. However, the Committee acknowledged that on this occasion the column had strayed into discussing a current news issue. In doing so, the Committee agreed that Andrew Marr had followed the procedure of obtaining copy approval suitable for a one-off article. However, it acknowledged that there was some ambiguity in the present guidelines regarding the issue of regular columns making a one-off comment on a current controversial issue. The Committee agreed that this needed to be clarified and that they would draw this issue to BBC management’s attention.

With regard to Andrew Marr’s use of language, the Committee felt that he was even-handed. He did not advocate any particular position on an issue of current public controversy or debate, nor did he exhort a change in high-profile public policy. It noted that the phrasing could have been clearer, so that Andrew Marr’s words could not be misinterpreted. Nevertheless, his suggestion of “apologies all round” did not imply bias towards one side or the other. The Committee was also satisfied that there was nothing in the article’s interpretation of the issue regarding the cartoons to suggest that Andrew Marr was advocating a particular position on a current public controversy. The Committee, therefore, was satisfied that he had not breached the guidelines on impartiality.

Finding: not upheld.

Action: The Secretary, on behalf of the Committee, to write to the Deputy Director-General and Chairman of the Complaints Management Board to request that the off-air guidelines be clarified as to what is the rule when a regular column strays into covering, on a one-off basis, an issue of current controversy.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 7

Today Radio 4, 21 June 2006 a) The programme segment The complaint concerned the regular 8.10am slot of the programme, comprising two interviews by Sarah Montague. The first was with Hussein Mehmet, a research scientist at Imperial College, London, who also is a specialist on brain damage in premature babies at Hammersmith Hospital. This discussion looked at the recent developments in care for premature babies.

The second interview, which followed directly after, was with the Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, Peter Smith.

The interviews were broadcast on the day that the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, was to meet the Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt to try to reopen the political debate on abortion and time limits. b) The complaint The complainant felt the segment did not give serious consideration to the arguments against cutting the 24-week limit on abortion, which resulted in bias.

The complainant believed the item breached the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in the following ways: · Archbishop Peter Smith was able to put forward his view on abortion, without sufficient challenge, and most importantly without other factors being raised which could influence the debate. · The Today programme did not include any mention of significant alternative arguments on abortion. Given that there was a desire to change legislation, the item was highly political. · By considering in detail the medical issues associated with premature babies without also mentioning the severe mental and physical health problems faced by some pregnant women, the focus of the item was moved towards the arguments presented by the opponents of abortion. · The factors above would have left the audience with a false view that a widespread consensus in agreement with the Archbishop had been reached.

The Head of the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons: · The Archbishop of Cardiff confined himself to arguing for a review to be conducted by a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament. There was, therefore, a limit to how far Sarah Montague could challenge him on an argument he was not advancing. · It had been made clear throughout the programme that not everyone favoured a reduction in the limit: in the preceding 8am bulletin, in previous bulletins, in a report just after 6.30am, in an interview with Mr Willis, Chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, shortly after 7.15am, and by Sarah Montague’s reference to Ms Hewitt’s position in the course of the interview with the Archbishop. · The point made by the complainant, that there was detailed consideration of the medical issues associated with premature babies but no attention given to the health problems faced by pregnant women, was not upheld as the ECU did not believe that the interview with Hussein Mehmet weighed in favour of reducing the limit.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 8

The complainant then appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee, adding: · The earlier content of the 6.30am and 7.15am items was not relevant to the complaint – most listeners would not have heard all three items. It was, therefore, necessary that individual items were not unduly partial. · The lead story on the 8am news regarding the Family Planning Association’s view in favour of the present limit bore no relevance to the complaint and was broadcast 20 minutes before the end of the item; thus listeners would have forgotten about it. · The 8.10am interview was heavily promoted and was available in isolation on podcast, thus attracting an audience that would not have heard the 8am bulletin. c) Applicable programme standards The BBC’s Editorial Values

Impartiality & diversity of opinion We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by exploring the range and conflict of views. We will be objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. We will provide professional judgments where appropriate, but we will never promote a particular view

Section 4 – Impartiality & Diversity of Opinion

Introduction Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. It applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion.

The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy.

In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: · we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale across all our output. We take particular care when dealing with political or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current public policy. · we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented. · we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject at any point on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so. · we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply. · we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. · we must rigorously test contributors expressing contentious views during an interview whilst giving them a fair chance to set out their full response to our questions.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 9

Achieving impartiality Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach to achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the content and approach is signposted to our audiences.

Impartiality is described in the Agreement as “due impartiality”. It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view.

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

The Committee initially considered how the programme had approached the issue of abortion. It noted that the programme had concentrated its attention on the issue relevant to that morning’s news: Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor’s request to reopen the political debate and rethink the law on abortion. The Committee was satisfied that this approach was editorially justified. Due impartiality did not mean that in discussing one element of the abortion argument the programme was necessarily required to represent all of the arguments for and against abortion.

The Committee was satisfied that the two interviews at 8.10am would not have left the audience believing there was a general consensus about the proposition for a review of the rule as it felt that the 8am bulletin had set the issue in context. In particular it had mentioned the views of the Family Planning Association and of Government, who were opposed to the change. The Committee also felt that the discussion with the scientist Hussein Mehmet, in the first half of the 8.10am slot, had not specifically advanced the argument for a particular change in the law.

In addition, the Committee felt that the interview with Archbishop Peter Smith had sufficiently tested him on present thinking of the Catholic Church on abortion and was satisfied that it had not been the purpose of the discussion to debate the wider moral and ethical arguments of abortion. However, the Committee, while satisfied that the interview was not biased and thus not in breach of guidelines, believed that the questioning could have been more rigorous.

The Committee was satisfied that the programme had not breached the guidelines on impartiality.

Finally, the Committee considered the issue of the podcast of the 8.10am interview and was concerned that this could be downloaded and heard in isolation from the wider context setting by the programme. The Committee believed this to be an issue. It was concerned that podcasting could lead to a potential problem with regard to ensuring impartiality. The Committee would write to BBC management to ask for their views on how this issue could be addressed.

Finding: not upheld.

Action: The Secretary, on behalf of the Committee, to write to the Deputy Director-General and Chairman of the Complaints Management Board to request his views on how the BBC can ensure that the downloading of podcasts does not compromise the BBC with regard to the guideline on impartiality.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 10

Newsnight BBC Two, 3 April 2006 a) The programme Newsnight’s website describes the programme as “Casting a critical eye over the day’s news”. This edition featured an item on the Prime Minister’s publicised disagreements with Chancellor Gordon Brown.

The piece started with a report by political correspondent David Grossman. This included a clip of the Prime Minister dismissing the notion of a rift, followed by interviews with Neal Lawson (Chair of Compass), Ben Brogan (Political Editor, Daily Mail) and Christine Sawcroft (Labour National Executive Committee). Jeremy Paxman followed the report with a studio discussion with Peter Oborne (Political Editor, The Spectator) and Andrew Rawnsley (Chief Political Commentator, The Observer). b) The complaint The complainant was concerned at how the Newsnight team handled the Blair/Brown rift story, stating it was “one-sided” and “blatantly anti-government”. The complainant believed that Newsnight’s intention was to “demolish the government view that ‘it had been got up by the media’” and, as such, that this conflicted with the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on impartiality and balance.

The complainant wrote to BBC Information to say that the guideline on impartiality had been breached in the following ways: · The item started with the “usual Paxman sneer” where he referred to policy announcements as if they were “intended to be a distraction from the main media issue of when Blair should go (and this just three weeks before the May elections)”. · The selection of interviewees: the item included a “kindly” 10-second slot with the Prime Minister, followed by interviews with Neal Lawson, “an avowed Blair critic”; Ben Brogan from the Daily Mail; Christine Sawcroft, “a notorious anti-Blairite member of the Labour Party National Executive”; and a discussion with two journalists, “Rawnsley and Osborne, renowned for writing up the Brown/Blair rift” and supporting the “Newsnight proposition ... with more unchallenged talk about how the country was becoming ungovernable.” · Jeremy Paxman was “unusually uncritical” in his questioning of the two journalists in the studio. · There was a lack of balancing views from either government supporters or sympathetic journalists. · Mr Paxman made an incorrect reference to the Times newspaper’s front page headline. The headline read “50% of voters want Blair to go”, whereas Jeremy Paxman referred to it as “50% of Labour voters...”.

Newsnight’s Assistant Editor, responding at Stage 1, acknowledged that Jeremy Paxman had made a mistake when reading the headlines and provided an explanation as to how the error had occurred. This element of the complaint is therefore resolved.

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

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 11

c) Applicable programme standards The BBC’s Editorial Values

Section 4 – Impartiality & Diversity of Opinion

In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: · we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented. · we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so. · we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply. · we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. · the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality. · our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters. · we should not automatically assume that academics and journalists from other organisations are impartial and make it clear to our audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint.

News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 12

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

The Committee was satisfied that it was editorially justified to cover the issue of the alleged rift between the Prime Minister and Chancellor because the story had been featured extensively in the newspapers in the period leading up to the programme.

The Committee also felt that the key to understanding whether there had been a breach of the guidelines regarding impartiality was first to understand what the purpose of the piece was and then to consider how the programme had treated that proposition. The Committee felt that the purpose had been set out by Jeremy Paxman in his introduction to the item: “The Prime Minister’s talk of ‘poisonous tension between the two men’ has just been got up by the media, could that possibly be true?” It believed that the filmed report and studio discussion then set about proving whether the rift between the two men was real or just media hyperbole.

The Committee was satisfied that the programme had sought to obtain a range of views on the subject. The fact that no spokesperson nor statement from the Government had been provided did not mean that the item was biased. However, the Committee agreed the piece would have been improved if it had been stated during the report, or in the studio, that the programme had tried and failed to obtain a statement from the Government disputing the suggestion of a disagreement. Nevertheless, the Committee did not feel this omission amounted to bias as it is not obligatory for a programme to mention a refusal to take part. It was therefore satisfied that there was no breach of guidelines regarding due impartiality.

As to the discussion in the studio with the two journalists, the Committee was satisfied that the choice of guests was appropriate in that they represented publications from different sides of political opinion and had written extensively on the working relationship of Blair and Brown.

The Committee did have comments on how the programme had treated the issue. It felt that the programme’s treatment of this particular item was in danger of being too light-hearted. The Committee believed that programmes should be careful when presenting items such as these, as the audience could misread a light touch as flippancy and therefore assume bias.

Finally, the Committee noted that the broadcast took place in the run-up to the local elections when special election guidelines had been set in place to ensure, specifically, fairness to candidates and constituencies involved in the council elections. The Committee was satisfied that the item concerned did not breach these guidelines.

Finding: not upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 13

Front Row Radio 4, 2 August 2006 a) The programme The Front Row website says: “Weekdays 19.15–19.45: Radio 4’s live magazine programme on the world of arts, literature, film, media and music.”

This edition included an interview with the British rapper Aki Nawaz, who is part of the Islamic rap band Fun-Da-Mental. Their latest album is entitled All is War (The Benefits of G-Had). b) The complaint The complainant argued the following to BBC Information: · It was not acceptable to broadcast an interview with a rapper who produces such controversial music about suicide bombers, America and Osama Bin Laden. · The presenter, Kirsty Lang, “tamely” allowed Mr Nawaz to deny that his lyrics were extreme. · The BBC should have invited someone to seriously challenge Mr Nawaz, such as those who attacked him in the media. · Kirsty Lang’s closing remarks, which were repeated on the BBC website, stating “All is War by Fun-Da-Mental will “hopefully” be available online from the 7th of August”, promoted extreme material.

The programme team at Stage 1 defended the interview but apologised for Kirsty Lang’s use of the word “hopefully”.

The complainant escalated the complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU), who did not uphold the complaint. The complainant then appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee, adding the following points about the handling of the complaint: · After apologising at Stage 1 that the closing comment by Kirsty Lang was unfortunate, the BBC did not remove it from the archive website. The item has only now been removed as part of what seems an exercise to remove archive material prior to 21 August 2006. No explanation or apology was given as to why the item was not removed at the time of the original response from Stage 1. c) Applicable programme standards BBC Editorial Guidelines

Section 4 – Impartiality & Diversity of Opinion

Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. It applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 14

In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: · we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale across all our output. We take particular care when dealing with political or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current public policy. · we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented. · we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so. · we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply. · we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. · the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality. · we will sometimes need to report on or interview people whose views may cause serious offence to many in our audiences. We must be convinced, after appropriate referral, that a clear public interest outweighs the possible offence. · we must rigorously test contributors expressing contentious views during an interview whilst giving them a fair chance to set out their full response to our questions.

Section 8 – Harm and Offence

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 and publish innovative and challenging content appropriate to each of our services with our responsibility to protect the vulnerable.

When we broadcast or publish challenging material which risks offending some of our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose. Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, humiliation, sexual violence and discriminatory treatment. We must be sensitive to audience expectations, particularly in relation to the protection of children, as well as clearly signposting the material.

Audience expectations We should judge the suitability of content for our audiences, including children, in relation to the expectations of the likely audience at a particular time on a particular day, and in relation to the nature of the service as well as the nature of the content. We should ask ourselves the following questions:

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 15

· what is the likely composition of the audience, including the likely number and age range of children in the audience taking into account school time, weekends and holidays? We should be aware that school holidays are different in different parts of the UK. · does the talent, slot, genre or service carry pre-existing expectations which may be challenged by the content? · is harm or offence likely to be caused by misleading the audience or in the inclusion of difficult or challenging material? · has any difficult or challenging content been clearly signposted?

Sign posts & content information To ensure that our audiences are not taken by surprise, we must clearly sign post difficult content on all of our services using a combination of appropriate scheduling and content information which is simple, consistent, and factual. Whenever possible, this information should appear in press releases and other publicity, billings, Ceefax, trails, on air and online announcements, and electronic programme guides. We must consider giving clear information about the content of some pre-Watershed programmes, programmes which start before the Watershed and run beyond it, and post-Watershed programmes as well as for radio programmes broadcast when children are particularly likely to be listening. d) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial guidelines, taking into account all the material relating to the case.

The Committee acknowledged that the issue and treatment of the subject matter could be offensive to some listeners. However, it felt that there was sufficient editorial justification and clear public interest for the programme not only to interview the artist to examine his controversial exploration of terrorism, but also to include extracts from his work. It felt that the inclusion of the extracts in particular was an essential part of the context and understanding of the arguments for and against his work. The Committee was also satisfied that the introduction to the piece provided sufficient warning as to the content of the item.

The Committee was generally satisfied that the interview had been appropriate to the format of the programme and audience expectations of Front Row. The interview had required the artist to provide quite detailed reasoning as to the purpose of the album and his philosophy in its writing, as well as an explanation of the issue of getting it released, which was also part of the story. The Committee agreed that the questioning was not especially rigorous and was at the softer end of the acceptable spectrum, but was satisfied that the interview had done its job. It was satisfied that the body of the interview had not breached guidelines regarding due impartiality.

It was also satisfied that the programme had not promoted terrorism but had explored the issue dispassionately, challenging the artist where appropriate on his most contentious views.

The Committee agreed with the concern raised by the ending phrase and the use of the word “hopefully”. It recognised that this was an error and endorsed the apology given by the programme’s producer. The Committee did not think there was a need for an on-air apology.

Finding: not upheld.

Complaints handling: The Committee was concerned that, following the acceptance at Stage 1 of the complaints process that the use of the word “hopefully” was a mistake, the website had not been edited or in some way amended to acknowledge the mistake. The Committee will contact BBC management to request that when a mistake has been made there is a consistency of message across all services.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 16

Action: The Secretary to the Committee to write to BBC management to request that when an apology has been made regarding the content of a programme the website is suitably edited to reflect that decision.

From Our Own Correspondent Radio 4, 15 July 2006 a) The programme From Our Own Correspondent is a news and current affairs programme presenting personal reflections and insight from BBC correspondents worldwide. This edition featured a report by Nick Thorpe from the Lebanese-Israeli border. The report was later posted on the programme’s related BBC website. b) The complaint The complainant felt that the report by Nick Thorpe demonstrated anti-Israel bias.

He made the following specific complaints: 1 Regarding the website version, “in the very first sentence Thorpe stated ‘more than 60 people have been killed in Lebanon since Israel launched its offensive...’ No mention of the 20 Israelis ... deliberately murdered by Hezbollah.“ 2 Qassam missiles were “callously [described as] ‘crude blunt instruments’ and ‘like pinpricks’ when they have killed dozens of Israelis. “ 3 “Describing Israel as ‘a giant’ when it is a tiny state the size of Wales.” 4 “Mocking Israel’s only support from America by the use of the term ‘with his big, US-issue army boots’”. 5 “Describing Lebanon as ‘long-suffering’ when it has 12 Hezbollah Members of Parliament including 2 cabinet members and has ignored the build up of a terrorist army within its borders.” 6 “Openly siding with the Palestinians by his phrase ‘one understands the resentment and the sense of oppression the Palestinians feel’.” 7 “Attacking Israel as having diverted water from Palestinian villages but ignoring the massive improvements to Palestinian welfare implemented by Israel. “ 8 “Distorting the building of tunnels and fences by ignoring the fact that they were erected to stop Palestinian snipers shooting at Israeli civilian drivers.” 9 “Accusing Israel as wanting only violence, when history shows that it has consistently striven for peace, when the Arabs and Palestinian leaders have always rejected it.”

Resolved: The Editor of From Our Own Correspondent agreed that the introduction to Nick Thorpe’s piece on the BBC website (point 1 of the complaint) was unsatisfactory and deleted it. This complaint is therefore considered resolved.

The Head of the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) agreed with regard to point 1, but did not uphold the rest of the complaint. The complainant then appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 17

c) Applicable programme standards BBC Editorial Guidelines

Section 3 – Accuracy

The BBC’s commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value and fundamental to our reputation. Our output must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation.

For the BBC accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than a question of getting the facts right. All the relevant facts and information should be weighed to get at the truth. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered.

Section 4 – Impartiality & Diversity of Opinion

In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: · we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply. · we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. · the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality. · our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters.

News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 18

Personal view and authored programmes and websites Personal views can range from the outright expression of highly partial views by a campaigner, to the authored view of a specialist or professional including an academic, scientist, or BBC correspondent, to those expressed through contributions from our audiences. Each can add to the public understanding and debate, especially when they allow our audience to hear fresh and original perspectives on well known issues.

Content reflecting personal views, or authored by an individual, group or organisation, or contributed by our audiences, particularly when dealing with controversial subjects, should be clearly signposted to audiences in advance.

Personal view and authored programmes and websites have a valuable part to play in our output. However when covering controversial subjects dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy we should: · retain a respect for factual accuracy. · fairly represent opposing viewpoints when appropriate. d) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial guidelines, taking into account all the material relating to the case.

The Committee considered each complaint separately as set out by the complainant and then considered the article as a whole.

Complaint 1 The Committee was satisfied that this had been resolved. Finding: resolved.

Complaint 2 The Committee accepted that the correspondent was trying to express the difference in effect of the two types of rocket. The Committee was satisfied that the term “pinpricks” was part of the wider metaphor being used in the article, and the description of the Qassam’s effectiveness, although crude, highlighted for the listener its proportional level of destruction. It was satisfied that the description of a Qassam as a “crude blunt instrument” referred to its manufacture compared to that of the “sleek, professional” Katyusha. That did not mean that the Qassam rockets were not dangerous. Finding: not upheld.

Complaint 3 The Committee was satisfied that the use of “giant” was in keeping with the metaphor adopted by the correspondent. Its use was intended to provide proportionality to the military superiority of Israel in comparison to the Palestinian and Hezbollah forces. Finding: not upheld.

Complaint 4 The Committee felt that the phrase “to stamp back with his big US-issue army boots” was purely an acknowledgment that the US is a major source of Israel’s military supplies. The Committee did not agree with the complainant that it was mocking Israel. However, it recognised that some listeners might have construed the message as suggesting dependency on the US, which some would have considered demeaning. On balance, the Committee was satisfied that the majority of listeners would have accepted the context in which it was used. Finding: not upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 19

Complaint 5 The Committee acknowledged that the reference to “long suffering Lebanon” could be misinterpreted if taken in isolation. However, the Committee considered the comment within the broader piece and was satisfied that within the context of the overall article it was fair. It was also satisfied that the phrase had not been an expression of a personal view as it was open to more than one interpretation. Finding: not upheld.

Complaint 6 The Committee was satisfied that Nick Thorpe had not shown bias but an understanding of the Palestinian position. It noted that he had done something similar in terms of the Israeli position earlier in the article when he stated: “Driving through sleepy mountain villages in northern Galilee this week, along Israel’s border with Lebanon, I began to understand Israel’s fear.” The Committee felt that Nick Thorpe had expressed his views in line with the recommendations of the Thomas Report on the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which it said: “there are ... two mindsets with rival versions of reality, each competing for acceptance. In that sense, there are two stories and the media may need to present ‘dual narratives’”. Finding: not upheld.

Complaint 7 The Committee acknowledged that the politics of water is a continuing issue between Israel and the Palestinians and was satisfied that the comment was acceptable within the context of the article. Finding: not upheld.

Complaint 8 The Committee was satisfied that the reference to “tunnels and fences” would, for the general listener, have been a description of Israel’s internal defence. The Committee did not agree that the phrasing distorted the purpose of their construction and did not feel that further background was required. Finding: not upheld.

Complaint 9 The Committee felt that there was a lack of precision in the phraseology as to what exactly the correspondent meant. However, it felt that the complainant’s interpretation of what was said was different from what Thorpe intended. The comment was not singling out Israel and did not suggest that Israel believed that “only violence pays”, but that it had used violence in response to violence against it. The Committee was satisfied that the comment was factual and did not show bias. Finding: not upheld.

The Committee then considered the piece as a whole. It noted the inherent problems in creating a piece on the conflict involving Israel as there would always be contested narratives and hence conflicting opinions on whether the piece accurately reflected reality. The Committee acknowledged that certain phrases in the article, if taken in isolation, might look one-sided, but that both ‘sides’ of the argument would be able to select such phrases in isolation. The Committee believed that the article, when considered as a whole, had achieved its purpose. It felt that Nick Thorpe had provided an informative report that had shown good understanding of the issues and positions on both sides of the conflict.

The Committee believed that Nick Thorpe had carefully considered the content and possible implications of his contribution to the programme and had incorporated many of the principles of the Thomas Report.

In conclusion, the Committee was satisfied that the item had not breached the guidelines regarding impartiality or a personal authored report.

Finding: not upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 20

BBC News online and BBC World Service coverage of the World Tribunal on Iraq a) Background to the World Tribunal on Iraq The World Tribunal on Iraq website is www.worldtribunal.org.

The WTI website states:

The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) is a worldwide initiative born out of the global outcry against the war in Iraq.

Taking its cue from the Russell Tribunal of 1967, it is aimed at challenging the silences of our time around the aggression against Iraq and seeking the truth about the war and occupation in Iraq.

This will be a record of wrongs, violations and crimes as well as suffering, resistance and silenced voices.

The WTI is comprised of various sessions around the world, each focusing on different aspects of the aggression against Iraq, culminating in Istanbul in June 2005.

The WTI was not a tribunal in the normal sense. Evidence to the tribunal was presented to the “Jury of Conscience”. The Jury included academics, writers, human rights activists, a priest and a lawyer, and heard testimonies from experts, journalists and witnesses as well as taking video and image evidence. The sessions took place between March 2004 and June 2005.

At the final session of the tribunal in Istanbul the “Declaration of the Jury of Conscience” was published setting out detailed findings and charges against the US and British governments, the UN and “Major Corporate Media” including the BBC. b) The complaint The complainant wrote to BBC News about the failure of BBC News online and the World Service to report on the World Tribunal on Iraq. He argued that this supported his view that BBC coverage overall was biased in generally failing to reflect criticism of the Iraq War.

The complainant (as part of his correspondence with the Director of News) argued that the World Tribunal on Iraq had provided “copious evidence of atrocities carried out by the coalition forces against civilians in Fallujah”, which BBC News failed to mention in its reports about the city when the coalition operation was taking place.

He raised concerns that there had been no serious discussion across the BBC outlets looking at the “culpability” of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for the “ultimate war crime: planning, preparing and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression”.

In addition, in response to one aspect of the Director of News’s argument, namely that “there are many conferences the BBC does not cover”, the complainant argued that the session in Istanbul on 23–27 June was the “culmination of a series of commissions of inquiry from hearings held around the world”, “with expert opinion, witness statements, video and image evidence.”

Note: BBC World Service did provide a report that included two interviews from the Tribunal for the programme The World Today. The Director of News was unaware of this when responding to the complainant.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 21

c) The GPCC’s and the ECU’s role in considering this complaint This complaint did not arrive at GPCC by the formalised complaints process. The background is set out below: · The complainant complained initially to the Director of News, and had several email exchanges about this issue with her. · He then escalated his complaint to the ECU, but the ECU declined to investigate, saying: “The questions of whether a news story should be covered or not, and if so, how prominently, raise issues of news judgement which fall outside the scope of our Unit.”

Note: The ECU’s remit states: The ECU does not investigate matters of legitimate editorial discretion (for example, the news judgement about which stories to cover and what prominence to give them) unless the complaint gave reason to believe that the exercise of discretion had given rise to a breach of editorial standards. · Following the ECU declining to consider the complaint, the complainant wrote to the then BBC Chairman, Michael Grade, asking who could look into his complaint. · The GPCC considered what the procedure should be at its January 2006 meeting. It agreed that it was an appeal that the GPCC could consider in due course, under the following aspect of its Terms of Reference: 8.5.1 The Committee will also consider appeals against the actions and decisions of a Director of a BBC Division (a “Divisional Director” or a person nominated by them) in dealing with an editorial complaint that falls outside the remit of the ECU and includes evidence to suggest a serious breach of editorial standards.

(The GPCC’s full Terms of Reference can be found at www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/gpccremitFeb05.pdf.)

· Before taking it on as an appeal, the GPCC wanted further consideration of the complaint by BBC management. After further discussion between the Chairman of the GPCC and the Deputy Director-General it was agreed that: o It was inappropriate for the ECU to consider the complaint, because this would amount to the ECU interfering with the day-to-day independence and editorial judgement of the news editor. The news editor should be allowed a degree of discretion and judgement in order to carry out their duties. Ofcom also took this approach – it would not normally entertain a complaint on running orders. o The ECU would be asked to provide a report on the handling of the complaint, and the issues involved. d) Applicable programme standards pre-July 2005 (BBC Producers’ Guidelines) Impartiality and Accuracy

General The BBC is committed to providing programmes of great diversity which reflect the full range of audiences’ interests, beliefs and perspectives. Representing the whole spectrum is a requirement on all programmes genres from arts to news and current affairs, from sport to drama, from comedy to documentaries, from entertainment to education and religion. No significant strand of thought should go unreflected or under represented on the BBC.

In order to achieve that range, the BBC is free to make programmes about any subject it chooses, and to make programmes which explore, or are presented from, a particular point of view.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 22

The BBC applies due impartiality to all its broadcasting and services, both to domestic and international audiences.

In achieving due impartiality the term “due” is to be interpreted as meaning adequate or appropriate to the nature of the subject and the type of programme.

News Programmes

The Agreement specifies that news should be presented with due accuracy and impartiality.

News programmes should offer viewers and listeners an intelligent and informed account of issues that enables them to form their own views.

NB: It should be noted that there are no guidelines that make specific reference to the omission of an item or news story and the suggestion thereby of associated bias. e) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial guidelines, taking into account all the material relating to the case.

The Committee acknowledged that this was an unusual complaint. It had taken far longer than normal for it to be considered by the GPCC because of its unique nature (a consideration of bias by omission) and because it raised new questions about the complaints process.

The Committee noted that this complaint concerned the issue of editorial judgement in agenda setting, something that is the daily responsibility of a news editor.

The Committee noted that in some cases it was possible to have a breach of the requirement of due impartiality by omitting to cover news stories, although the omission of one story was unlikely to be a problem unless that story was of particular significance.

The Committee noted that the Tribunal had been featured in the World Service programme. It did not think that the BBC was required to report the Tribunal on other outlets in order to satisfy the obligation of impartiality. The Committee was satisfied that a wide range of views had been covered on the issue of Iraq and that BBC News had provided sufficient information on the various issues both for and against the involvement of the British and US governments. It believed that, even without specific coverage of the Tribunal across the news service, the audience following BBC coverage would have been able to form their own opinions.

Finding: not upheld.

Complaints handling: The Committee acknowledged that it had taken an extraordinarily long time for this complaint to be heard by the GPCC. It noted that the nature of the complaint and the fact that it was straying into new territory required both the Committee and BBC management to agree on a method of considering it within the formal complaints process. It acknowledged that this had caused much of the delay, but believed that all areas could have done more to move the issue along more quickly.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 23

Remit of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee

As noted, the BBC Governors have now been replaced by the BBC Trust, and the work of the GPCC has been taken over by the Editorial Standards Committee. This is the GPCC’s final complaints bulletin. This page sets out the remit of the GPCC.

The Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee (GPCC) consisted of four Governors of the BBC, who were responsible to the full Board of Governors for ensuring that complaints made by viewers and listeners were “given due consideration by and are properly handled by” the Corporation, as required under the Charter in force until the end of 2006. The activities and conclusions of the GPCC were reported to the full Board of Governors. The Committee members were Richard Tait (Chairman), Deborah Bull, Professor Fabian Monds and Professor Merfyn Jones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The work of the GPCC has now been taken over by the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee. The contact details remain as above.

BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors Page 24