Editorial Standards Findings Appeals to the Trust and other editorial issues considered by the Editorial Standards Committee September 2010 issued October 2010 Getting the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers Editorial Standards Findings/Appeals to the Trust and other editorial issues considered byContents the Editorial Standards Committee Remit of the Editorial Standards Committee 1 Summary of findings 3 Findings 8 Newsnight, BBC Two, 19 January 2010 8 Newsnight, BBC Two, 19 January 2010 20 The World at One, BBC Radio 4, 8 December 2009 38 To Let, BBC Two, 20 December 2009 – Complaints Handling 44 The Culture Show, BBC Two, 4 February 2010 49 Rejected appeals 65 Fly Me To The Reverend Moon, BBC Radio 4, 19 April 2010 65 To Let, BBC Two, 29 December 2009 68 The Big Questions, BBC One (General complaint – bias against Muslims) 70 The Review Show, BBC Two, 26 February 2010 72 Scapegoat, BBC Northern Ireland, 26 October 2009 74 BBC News website reporting on Gaza conflict (2009) 77 Today, BBC Radio 4, 27 January 2010 80 Systemic bias on climate change 82 September 2010 issued October 2010 Editorial Standards Findings/Appeals to the Trust and other editorial issues considered by the Editorial Standards Committee Remit of the Editorial Standards Committee The Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) is responsible for assisting the Trust in securing editorial standards. It has a number of responsibilities, set out in its Terms of Reference at bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/meetings_and_minutes/bbc_trust_committees.html. The Committee comprises six Trustees: Richard Tait (Chairman), Chitra Bharucha, Mehmuda Mian, David Liddiment, Alison Hastings and Anthony Fry. It is advised and supported by the Trust Unit. In line with the ESC’s responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of handling editorial complaints by BBC management, the Committee considers appeals against the decisions and actions of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) or of a BBC Director with responsibility for the BBC’s output (if the editorial complaint falls outside the remit of the ECU). The Committee will consider appeals concerning complaints which allege that: • the complainant has suffered unfair treatment either in a transmitted programme or item, or in the process of making the programme or item • the complainant’s privacy has been unjustifiably infringed, either in a transmitted programme or item, or in the process of making the programme or item • there has otherwise been a failure to observe required editorial standards The Committee will aim to reach a final decision on an appeal within 16 weeks of accepting the request. The findings for all appeals accepted by the Committee are reported in this bulletin, Editorial Complaints: Appeals to the Trust. As set out in its Terms of Reference, the Committee can decline to consider an appeal which in its opinion: • is vexatious or trivial; • does not raise a matter of substance; • relates to the content of a programme or item which has not yet been broadcast; • concerns issues of bias by omission in BBC news programmes unless the Chairman believes that it is plausible that the omission of an item could have led to a breach of the guidelines on impartiality; • has not been made within four weeks of the final correspondence with the ECU or BBC Director on the original complaint; and • relates to matters which are the subject of or likely to be the subject of, or relevant to, legal proceedings. The Committee will not generally reconsider any aspects of complaints that have already been adjudicated upon or considered by a Court. Any appeals that the Committee has declined to consider under the above criteria are reported in the bulletin. September 2010 issued October 2010 1 Editorial Standards Findings/Appeals to the Trust and other editorial issues considered by the Editorial Standards Committee 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 or is available from: The Secretary, Editorial Standards Committee BBC Trust Unit 180 Great Portland Street London W1W 5QZ September 2010 issued October 2010 2 Editorial Standards Findings/Appeals to the Trust and other editorial issues considered by the Editorial Standards Committee Summary of findings Newsnight, BBC Two, 19 January 2010 The complainant said that a report by Colonel Tim Collins on the first anniversary of the end of Operation Cast Lead was inaccurate and biased against the Palestinians. The Committee concluded: • that it considered Colonel Collins’ report to be the authored view of a military specialist, covering a controversial subject, as defined by the guidelines. • that, with regard to Colonel Collins’ comments on the possible storage of explosives in a mosque, it had been made very clear in the narrative – and the audience would have understood – that he was presenting a personal view, albeit one based on experience, rather than presenting forensically tested facts. • that no inaccuracy or bias had been introduced into the part of the report dealing with claims of weapons storage in a mosque. • that the scale of the disparity in the figures for Israeli and Palestinian deaths had been made very clear in Jeremy Paxman’s introduction to the report and no further elaboration was needed. • that the impartiality guidelines had not been breached with regard to the disparity in the figures for Palestinian and Israeli deaths. • that it was not necessary to provide fuller context on the events before Operation Cast Lead for this item to achieve due accuracy and impartiality. • that the Newsnight audience would have been likely to have had some understanding of the background and context of the conflict and would have had an appreciation of the Israeli army’s strength. • that, while Colonel Collins had not directly contrasted the differences between Palestinian and Israeli weaponry, the references to Israeli armaments and descriptions of the effects of the Israeli shelling and the damage it had caused would have provided sufficient information for the Newsnight audience to have had an understanding of the difference in the armaments being used by the two sides in the conflict. • that Colonel Collins had not, as the complainant suggested “seemed unmoved by the evidence in front of him”, but had shown clearly the damage caused by Israeli armaments. • that the report did not breach the impartiality guidelines with regard to setting out the relative military strengths of the Israeli and Palestinian forces. • that Colonel Collins’ comments regarding an Israeli tank attack on a block of flats had raised the questionability of the action of the tank crew as well as providing a reason for it from a military perspective and had not been in breach of the impartiality guidelines. • that, looking at the programme as a whole, the piece had been editorially justified and had been duly impartial when considering the issue from a uniquely personal perspective. The complaint was not upheld. September 2010 issued October 2010 3 Editorial Standards Findings/Appeals to the Trust and other editorial issues considered by the Editorial Standards Committee For the finding in full see pages 8 to 19. Newsnight, BBC Two, 19 January 2010 The complainant said that a Newsnight report by Colonel Tim Collins to mark the first anniversary of the end of the Israeli army’s Operation Cast Lead had been inaccurate and biased against the Palestinians. The complainant also objected to the Editorial Complaints Unit’s handling of the complaint. The Committee concluded: • that the figures given in the introduction to the report for Israeli and Palestinian deaths were duly accurate. • that the inaccuracy in the opening aerial sequence was not material to the substance of the piece and the accuracy guidelines had not been breached. • that, given the objectives of this film, it was not possible to examine the motivations of players and wider historical context of what was a complex and disputed situation. • that a Newsnight audience would be expected to have a broad understanding of the context of the report and thus would not require a specific narrative on the background to the conflict. • that the editorial guidelines had not been breached with regard to representing the Palestinian view. • that, with regard to the interview conducted with Palestinian rocketeers, the interviewees had not been disadvantaged by their standard of spoken English. • that, given the context of the report, it was perfectly reasonable for Colonel Collins to express a personal opinion of the Hamas posters. • that it had been made very clear in Jeremy Paxman’s introduction to the film that Israel had also been accused of war crimes. • that, taken as a whole, the report was impartial in relation to the accusations about war crimes. • that the Newsnight audience would have been likely to have had some understanding of the background and context of the conflict and would have had an appreciation of the Israeli army’s strength. • that, while Colonel Collins had not directly contrasted the differences between the Palestinian and Israeli weaponry, the references to Israeli armaments and descriptions of the effects of the Israeli shelling and the damage it had caused would have provided sufficient information for the Newsnight audience to have had an understanding of the difference in the armaments being used by the two sides in the conflict.