Editorial Standards Findings Appeals to the Trust and other editorial issues considered by the Editorial Standards Committee February and March 2010 issued April 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 11 The Story of India, BBC Two, 24 August – 28 September 2007 11 Today, BBC Radio 4, 11 June 2009 26 The World Tonight, BBC Radio 4, 8 January 2009 34 The Autistic Me, BBC Three, 11 August 2009 41 Political Animal, BBC Radio 4, 17 June 2008 52 Pedigree Dogs Exposed, BBC One, 19 August 2008 55 Newsnight, BBC Two, 28 September 2009 66 America: Empire of Liberty, BBC Radio 4, 15 September 2008 74 Rejected appeals 81 Imagine: The Story of the Guitar, BBC One, 12 October 2008 81 BBC terminology when referring to road traffic incidents 82 The News Quiz, BBC Radio 4, 13 November 2009 83 BBC News Online “UN Body to vote on Gaza report” 84 February and March 2010 issued April 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 receiving 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. February and March 2010 issued April 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 February and March 2010 issued April 2010 2 Editorial Standards Findings/Appeals to the Trust and other editorial issues considered by the Editorial Standards Committee Summary of findings The Story of India, BBC Two, 24 August – 28 September 2007 The complainant said that the whole series contained many inaccuracies and misrepresented the role of Hindus and Hinduism in India’s history. The Editorial Standards Committee considered nine specific points of alleged inaccuracy that had been raised in the complainant’s appeal. The Committee concluded: • that Episode One was summarising the mainstream academic consensus on the origin of mankind, commonly known as the “Out of Africa” model. • that, in presenting the “Out of Africa” model, the programme had drawn on a range of respected historical scholarship to support its argument. • that the script had reflected the complexities of the issue and the layers of understanding and belief which were sometimes at odds with the academic consensus. • that the programme had met the guideline requirements for accuracy and impartiality in this respect. • that, with regard to the complainant’s assertion that Episode Two of the series had failed to make specifically Hindu connections to a number of places, names and events, the choice of what to include was a matter of editorial judgment for the programme makers. • that Episode Two had been presented in an open-minded and even-handed manner, and that the facts were well-sourced, based on sound evidence and presented in clear, precise language. • that the complaint regarding the labelling of Krishna as a foreigner in Episode Three was based on a misunderstanding of the script and that there was nothing for the Committee to consider against the guidelines in this respect. • that, in its description of the Ramayana, Episode Four of the series had been an accurate presentation of the known facts and that the use of the words “myth” and “mythic” had not been pejorative. • that the perspective of those who believed the Ramayana represented historical fact had been included in the programme. • that the complaint regarding the title and content of Episode Five, The Meeting of Two Oceans, raised the question of whether the programme, in highlighting how the faiths of Islam and Hinduism had found common ground, had reflected sufficiently the negative aspects of the invasions. • that, in its treatment of the Muslim invasions in Episode Five, the programme had met the requirements of the accuracy guidelines by being well-sourced, based on sound evidence and presented in clear, precise language • that in Episode Five the programme-makers had met the requirements of the impartiality guidelines by exercising their right to present a specific aspect of an issue without misrepresenting opposing views. February and March 2010 issued April 2010 3 Editorial Standards Findings/Appeals to the Trust and other editorial issues considered by the Editorial Standards Committee • that, while the programme’s discussion of Sufis had been confined to highlighting the positive aspects of this branch of Islam, the programme makers were not obliged to reflect the specific examples of negative behaviour by Sufis that had been raised by the complainant. • that there was no evidence to support the complainant’s assertion that Episode Six of the series had suggested Hindus were cowards and Hinduism was inferior to Islam and Christianity. • that the religious views, practices and beliefs of Hindus and Hinduism had been described accurately and impartially and had not been denigrated, misrepresented, or abused. The complaint was not upheld. For the finding in full see pages 11 to 25. Today, BBC Radio 4, 11 June 2009 The complaint relates to an interview in the business slot of the Today programme which discussed the findings of a report from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR). The complainant stated that the questioning of the contributor in this interview had been deliberately unfair and misleading, specifically with reference to a statement made by the interviewer that “the recession’s over. So good, we can go home now”. The Editorial Standards Committee concluded: • that the Today programme had been entitled to summarise the NIESR data in the way that it had and it was not obliged to report the additional information contained in the press release accompanying the data. • that, while it would have been better if the NIESR’s data had been referenced as the source of the “recession has ended” headline in the earlier newspaper review, the fact that it was eventually attributed in the later business slot meant that any temporary confusion would have been removed. • that the Today programme audience would be familiar with the format of revisiting an important story regularly across the morning, presenting different aspects on each occasion. • that the Today audience would have understood that, as this was a financial news slot, the primary aim of the interview was to set the NIESR data in the context of the financial markets. • that the interview with the contributor was for the purpose of information gathering and was not intended to be adversarial. • that the tone and framing of the questions were perfectly proper and that their effect was to elicit the specific information that the interviewer knew the contributor wanted to impart.