Editorial Standards Findings: Appeals to the Trust 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 five Trustees: Richard Tait (Chairman), Chitra Bharucha, Mehmuda Mian Pritchard, David Liddiment and Alison Hastings. 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 are reported in this bulletin, Editorial Complaints: Appeals to the Trust. 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 a statement on any remedial action taken. It is published at bbc.co.uk/bbctrust or is available from: The Secretary, Editorial Standards Committee BBC Trust Unit Room 211, 35 Marylebone High Street London W1U 4AA Contents Page Remit of the Editorial Standards Committee 2 Summary of findings (April 2008) 4 Findings (April 2008) 10 Question Time, BBC One, 11 October 2007 10 BBC News 08.00 bulletin, Radio 4, 11 July 2007 17 Top Gear: Polar Special, BBC Two, 29 July 2007 24 Liz Green Live, BBC Radio Leeds, 5 September 2007 36 The Tudors, BBC Two, 5 October 2007 44 Golf, BBC Two, 14 October 2007 51 Summary of findings (April 2008) Question Time, BBC One, 11 October 2007 The complaint concerned a contribution by panellist Kelvin MacKenzie. In a comment about Gordon Brown, Mr Mackenzie referred to Mr Brown’s Scottish-ness and the ability for Scotland to spend money, not create it. The complainant, Gordon Banks MP, who had received letters of complaint from constituents following the broadcast, believed Mr MacKenzie’s comments to be offensive in the way they characterised Scottish people. The complainant believed that given the programme was recorded the remarks should have been edited or the Chairman of the debate, David Dimbleby, should have done more to challenge the remarks. The complainant also raised issues about the handling of his complaint. The Committee concluded: • There was an established audience expectation as to the nature of the programme and its format of robust political debate. • There was also an audience expectation as to Mr MacKenzie’s views and manner of expression. • That whilst some viewers would have found Mr MacKenzie’s opinions prejudiced, the BBC was allowed to reflect prejudice as long as it did not perpetuate it. • That prejudice was not perpetuated as the audience would have been in no doubt that Mr MacKenzie’s views were contentious and vehemently disputed. • That there was a clear editorial justification in broadcasting the comments as they reflected a view on a politically controversial subject and that to have edited them would have inhibited freedom of expression. • The public interest of allowing the debate had outweighed possible offence. Complaints handling • That while the complaint had been handled in a timely and courteous manner by the ECU, it had not been necessary for it to have.attempted to explain why Mr MacKenzie had made the coment. The ESC would remind the ECU that it would be better to confine its consideration to the meaning and impact of the remarks against the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. The Committee did not uphold the complaint For the finding in full see pages 10 to 17 BBC News 08.00 bulletin, Radio 4, 11 July 2007 The complaint concerned a report by the BBC’s Science Correspondent Pallab Ghosh, whom the complainant believed to having reported that “…there had been overwhelming evidence for the past ten years that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.” The complainant believed the statement to be untrue and misleading. He believed there was no direct evidence to suggest that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuel. The complainant also raised issues about the handling of his complaint. The Committee concluded • That the complainant had mis-quoted the correspondent’s comment. The Committee noted what the correspondent had said: “The evidence that it is due to the burning of fossil fuels has been strong, if not overwhelming for more than ten years.” • The correspondent had carefully weighed the evidence before arriving at the phrase used. • That Pallab Ghosh had taken note of the various sources through cross checking his facts against independent peer reviewed and published scientific evidence. • The choice of wording had provided for sufficient qualification to ensure that the piece was suitably subjective with regard to the effects of the burning of fossil fuels. • That given the report’s focus and length (45 seconds) there was no requirement to include a contrary view: the words used were a fair and accurate reflection of the subject matter. • The correspondent had shown neither bias nor an imbalance of views when presenting the item. • There was no evidence to suggest that there was a failure in the complaints process at stage 1. The complaint was not upheld. For the finding in full see pages 17 to 24 Top Gear: Polar Special, BBC Two, 29 July 2007 at 20.00 (original broadcast: 25 July 2007) The complainant raised a number of concerns about the programme. He complained about accuracy regarding the description of the final destination of the race which did not distinguish the difference between the North Pole and the Magnetic North Pole. He also questioned whether footage was real or staged. The complainant also considered elements of the programme to be offensive and highly irresponsible such as the footage of the frostbitten genitalia or the use of alcohol while driving. He also objected to the criticisms of global warming and of Al Gore. The Committee concluded: Accuracy • That it would have been preferable for an explanation of the destination of the race to have been broadcast. Nevertheless, there had been no intention to mislead the audience as to the final destination and there were sufficient indicators to suggest that the destination was not the North Pole. As such, the programme as broadcast had not breached the guidelines on accuracy. • That with regard to the billing released by the BBC the information on the destination was accurate and had not breached the accuracy guideline. Staging • The presenters had undertaken a continuous journey to the Magnetic North Pole and the use of cutaway shots had not misled the audience but had provided a greater variety of pictures which amounted to acceptable artifice. Harm and Offence • There was a clear editorial purpose for the inclusion of an image of a frostbitten penis. Its use had been for a medical rather than a sexual purpose. • The image had been suitable for a family audience given the style and audience expectation of the programme. • That whilst the programme was not primarily made for children it had been shown pre-watershed and that given that some children would have regarded the presenters as role-models, the scene relating to driving while drinking could be seen to glamorise the misuse of alcohol. • The scene of drinking whilst driving was not editorially justified in the context of a family show pre watershed. Impartiality • The act of filming vehicles in the Arctic and broadcasting a programme about it had not had not amounted to an expression of a view on global warming. • The reference to Al Gore was in passing and did not make a judgement on him or his views. • That Jeremy Clarkson’s closing remarks referred to the very specific nature of the presenter’s experience of the Arctic. The comments matched the expectation of the audience who were used to hearing his often personal and sometimes exaggerated opinions being aired. The complaint was upheld in part regarding the misuse of alcohol. All other elements of the complaint were not upheld. For the finding in full see pages 24 to 36 Liz Green Live, BBC Radio Leeds, 5 September 2007 The complaint was divided into two issues. The first issue (complaint A) related to the accuracy of Liz Green’s remark that a court case concerning a woman putting her feet on a train seat had been “thrown out of court”. The complainant pointed out that in fact the woman had been found guilty of the charge, but given an absolute discharge. The Committee noted that ECU had upheld the complaint on accuracy, but was aware that the complainant wished for an explanation as to why the inaccuracy had occurred. The second issue (complaint B) concerned the phone-in element of the programme where the presenter associated the recent murder of a schoolboy in Liverpool and other incidents of gun crime with that of a woman putting her feet on a seat. The complainant believed that by linking the most serious to the most trivial crime “under one big umbrella of anti-social behaviour”, the presenter was misleading her audience. The complainant also raised issues about the handling of his complaint. The Committee concluded: Complaint A • That it was important to report court cases accurately in order to sustain civil society. • That the reporting of the outcome of the court case concerning the schoolgirl putting her feet on a train seat had been unclear and imprecise. • That given the production team were aware of the facts and repeatedly reported the outcome of the court case inaccurately and misleadingly, this amounted to a serious error. • There was no evidence of an ulterior motive for the inaccuracy. • That it was satisfied that following the ECU finding management at BBC Leeds had stressed to all presenters and producers the importance of following the BBC’s guidelines on accuracy. Complaint B • The topic of the phone-in had not presented invented material as fact, nor had known facts been distorted in the context of the broadcast. • The discussion was not based on a legally defined term for anti-social behaviour, but was a general description of any type of behaviour which might be considered anti-social. Complaints handling • Within the context of the complaint there had not been a failure of process at stages 1 or 2. The Committee endorsed the ECU upheld finding with regard to accuracy. It did not uphold on any other element of the complaint. For the finding in full see pages 36 to 44 The Tudors, BBC Two, 5 October 2007 The complaint concerned the opening scenes of the first episode of the series. The complainant objected to the sexual nature of the scenes. He believed the scenes were explicit and unnecessary within the context of the drama. The Committee concluded: • The programme had not been unreasonable or gratuitous in how it had featured this element of Henry VIII’s life. • It had been reasonable for a programme of this nature, an adult drama, to have featured Henry VIII’s sexual exploits. • The programme had treated the subject matter and the scenes in question with appropriate sensitivity. • The drama, given its subject matter, had been appropriately scheduled after the watershed. • That given the content of the drama and the probability of a pull-through audience from the previous programme Gardener’s World and the likelihood of children staying up later on a Friday evening, the presentation announcement preceding the programme could have been more explicit. • The style of the announcement had been too light-hearted and would not have effectively communicated the drama’s content to those who would have preferred not to watch and to those who wanted to ensure children did not see such material. The Committee did not uphold the complaint with regard to the sexual content or the watershed. It did find on a breach of guidelines with regard to the signposting of the drama’s content. For the finding in full see pages 44 to 51 Golf, BBC Two, 14 October 2007 The complaint concerned several pieces to camera during the final day of the World Match Play Golf Championship, where one of the commentators discussed the golfing techniques of the finalists while highlighting the equipment they used. The complainant believed the various items provided undue prominence to one manufacturer (Callaway) and raised concerns as to the commentator’s relationship with this manufacturer. The Committee concluded: • That it was the nature of this kind of event that sponsor’s logos would be prominent on players’ caps, bags and clubs. • There was a clear editorial justification for the visual references to the brand names during the coverage of play. • There was no undue verbal reference to the manufacturers’ products nor lingering shots of their logos and brand names when referring to the equipment and techniques used by the players. • The highlighting of the equipment within the context of the event had been editorially justified. The Committee did not uphold the complaint. For the finding in full see pages 51 to 56 Findings (April 2008) Question Time, BBC One, 11 October 2007 1. The item The complainant, Gordon Banks, Member of Parliament for Ochil and South Perthshire, had received correspondence from some of his constituents regarding comments made by Kelvin MacKenzie on Question Time. They deemed his remarks racist and derogatory. 2. BBC Information responded to the complaint at stage 1: BBC Information replied quoting the response to criticism of Kelvin MacKenzie’s comment from the programme’s Executive Editor, which had been published on the BBC’s complaints website. The response stated: • “The production team were not aware in advance that he was going to make remarks about Scotland and it was not the subject of the question asked.” • “His view was robustly rejected both by other panellists and members of the audience.” • It also stated what action was taken by the Chairman of the Question Time panel, David Dimbleby, following the comments. “[He] pointed out that his Sun column is not carried in the Scottish edition of the paper.” • The response also stated that the programme was recorded and was only edited for technical and legal purposes. It was noted that: “His views [Kelvin MacKenzie] did not fall into that category and it would not therefore have been appropriate to edit them out.” • The response concluded by saying: “Question Time considers him to be a suitable panellist since the programme is committed to including a wide range of views and perspectives. His views are controversial - but robust argument is what the debate on Question Time is all about. There is no question of the BBC or Question Time endorsing the views of any panellist who appears on the programme.” 3. The complainant then complained to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) at stage 2. The ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: • The ECU noted that the BBC guideline on diversity of opinion provided justification for the broadcasting of a range of views, even those which were controversial. • The audience to Question Time “expects a lively exchange of views” and, “so long as the panel is balanced, viewers can make up their own mind whether or not they agree with a particular opinion. In this case the panel consisted of a senior spokesperson from the three main political parties, a spokesman from a leftwing pressure group and Mr MacKenzie, who is well known for his outspoken and strident right wing views.” • The ECU was therefore satisfied that Mr MacKenzie was a suitable member of the panel. • The ECU also noted that it would accept “that Mr MacKenzie’s comments were capable of causing offence, but the same could be said of other occasions on which members of the Question Time panel have expressed contentious views.” • It further stated “[…] it is generally accepted that when such comments are made it is the role of other panel members, the audience and Mr Dimbleby as chairman to ensure they are appropriately challenged.” • The ECU noted: “That might be insufficient in the event of genuinely racist remarks being made but, in order for Mr MacKenzie’s comments to be regarded as racist…, they would have to perpetuate a negative or offensive stereotype of Scottish people and I don’t think that was the case.” • “The point he was seeking to make reflected the fact that the proportion of GDP accounted for by public spending is higher in Scotland than in other areas of the UK, particularly the south of England.” Mr MacKenzie regards that as negative, “but it can equally be argued that public spending at the kind of level seen in Scotland is economically and socially beneficial.” • The ECU noted the reaction from the audience, the other panel members (most notably Mr Umunna) and the Chairman ensured the programme met the principle of the Editorial Guideline which says that contributors expressing contentious views must be rigorously challenged. 4. The complainant replied to the ECU with the following additional points: • “You state ‘the point he was seeking to make reflected the fact the proportion of GDP accounted for by public spending is higher in Scotland than in most other areas in the UK, particularly in the south of England.’” I fail to see how you are able to arrive at this judgment because not once did Mr MacKenzie mention Government spending, proportion of GDP or the variable spread of GDP spending.” • “What I take from the comments… is that he perceives all Scottish people as being lazy, benefit dependent and lacking in any entrepreneurial skills whatsoever. I think this is rude and unacceptable.” • “If the word ‘Scots’ were to be replaced by another ethnic group then the handling of this case would have been very different – I suspect that even the Courts would be involved too.” 5. ECU replied: • “You are quite right in saying that Mr MacKenzie’s comments didn’t include explicit references to Government spending, proportion of GDP or the variable spread of GDP spending.” • However, the ECU noted that Mr MacKenzie’s comment reflected “…an argument about the variable spread of public spending which Mr MacKenzie has often put forward in his Sun column, both before and since the broadcast and I think it reasonable to understand his comments on the programme in that light.” 6. The complainant then appealed to the ESC making the following points: • “David Dimbleby, the Chairman of the panel, ought to have acted in a more forceful manner, or that the BBC should have edited out Mr MacKenzie’s abusive contribution prior to the programme being aired…” • “I am concerned that the BBC chooses to substantiate comments made on the BBC with an article published after the event has happened. Comments made on Question Time should stand or fall on their own merit.” 7. Complaints handling The complainant raised concerns with the way the ECU had handled his complaint. 8. Applicable programme standards Section 4 - Impartiality and 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. In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: • 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 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. 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. 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. Harm and offence editorial principles • We signpost and label challenging material to ensure our audiences have enough information to judge whether content is suitable for themselves or their children. • We keep in touch with the expectations of our audiences for all of our services. Portrayal We aim to reflect fully and fairly all of the United Kingdom's people and cultures in our services. Content may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage which exist in our society but we should not perpetuate it. We should avoid offensive or stereotypical assumptions and people should only be described in terms of their disability, age, sexual orientation and so on when clearly editorially justified. Section 17 - Accountability Feedback & complaints Audiences are at the heart of everything the BBC does. Audience feedback is invaluable to us and helps improve programme quality. Our commitment to our audiences is to ensure that complaints and enquiries are dealt with quickly, courteously and with respect. The first point of contact for a complaint should be BBC Information, although people can contact the programme directly if they prefer. We are committed to responding to complaints within ten working days of their first receipt and to keeping complainants informed of progress. A licence fee payer may be unhappy with the response from BBC Information or a programme department. If the complaint concerns a breach of the editorial standards set out in the Editorial Guidelines or relates to a particular broadcast, programme or specific web content they can appeal to the Editorial Complaints Unit to investigate the issue independently. The BBC has a Code of Practice for complaints handling which sets out these procedures in more detail. 9. The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and the ECU. This Appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to harm and offence and portrayal, impartiality and accountability. Harm and Offence - Portrayal The Committee considered the guidelines on portrayal which state that BBC content may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage, which exist in our society, but should not perpetuate it. The BBC should avoid offensive or stereotypical assumptions and people should only be described in terms of their nationality when clearly editorially justified. The Committee noted the relevant discussion in the programme by the panellist Kelvin MacKenzie. It also noted the various responses by the other panellists, in particular Chuka Umunna, and presenter/Chairman David Dimbleby to those comments: Kelvin MacKenzie (KM): “ …Brown is a Scot, he is a socialist Scot who wants to spend every single penny you earn. Never forget that. Whereas at least with Osborne, we’ve got a guy who actually says…” Chuka Umunna (CU): “Is the Scottish-ness relevant? Why is the Scottish-ness relevant? Why?” (applause from audience) KM: “The Scottish-ness is relevant. Because Scotland believes, not in entrepreneurialism like London and the South-East. They believe, they believe (Booing from the audience)…They believe, they believe. Yes it is relevant, it is, it is, and if you look round, he couldn’t find anybody who could carry his bag better than another Scot, so he grabbed Darling from wherever he was. The reality is, the reality is that the Scots enjoy spending it, they do not enjoy creating it, which is the opposite of down in the South.” CU: “Disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful.” David Dimbleby (DD): “Is it true that your column isn’t carried in The Sun in Scotland?” KM: “That is true, that is true.” (laughter from audience ) DD: “Maybe now we can see why.” The Committee agreed that the remarks were considered offensive not only by members of the studio audience, who objected at the time of recording but also by some viewers as evidenced by the complainant’s constituents who had contacted him and by those who complained to the BBC at the time. The Committee then considered the type of programme, audience expectation and the context in which the comment was made. The Committee noted the context of the programme, a political panel discussion which encouraged robust debate and the free expression of political views and analysis of current events and ideas. The Committee noted that Mr MacKenzie’s views on this subject matter were well known and the provocative manner in which he generally presented such views was also well understood. The Committee was satisfied that there was an established audience expectation as to the nature of the programme and its format of robust political debate and as to Mr MacKenzie’s views and manner of expression. The Committee considered that there was a difference between the BBC itself making an offensive or stereotypical assumption based on nationality – in this case assumptions about Scottish people - and reflecting the offensive or stereotypical assumptions of others. The Committee recognised that Mr MacKenzie’s views would be considered by some as being prejudiced as evidenced by the reactions of another panellist, Mr Umunna, the studio audience and those who complained to the BBC. However, the guidelines allowed prejudice to be reflected within content as long as the BBC does not perpetuate it. The Committee noted that David Dimbleby had used humour to take the heat out of the situation by pointing out that Mr MacKenzie’s column was not carried in The Sun’s Scotland edition and indicating that his comments on Question Time showed why it was not carried in Scotland. The Committee was satisfied that prejudice was not perpetuated by the programme as the audience would have been in no doubt as to the fact that these views were contentious and vehemently disputed by the reactions in the studio and by the comments of the presenter. The Committee then considered whether there was a clear editorial justification for broadcasting this section of the programme given that it was pre-recorded and the programme makers had an opportunity to edit the sequence out prior to transmission. It concluded that the comments, although offensive to some, reflected a view on a politically controversial subject. It also stimulated the expression of other opposing views, part of the purpose of the programme, as demonstrated by the reaction of the studio audience and the challenges from Mr Umunna, who called the remark “disgraceful”. The Committee concluded that there was a clear editorial justification in broadcasting these comments. To edit them would be to inhibit freedom of expression. The Committee was satisfied that within the context of this programme – a very well established robust political discussion programme – the inclusion of offensive or stereotypical assumptions which had been challenged by other panellists, responded to by the audience and commented upon by the presenter, was clearly editorially justified.. The Committee concluded therefore that the programme had not breached the guideline on portrayal. Impartiality With regard to impartiality the BBC will strive to reflect a wide range of opinion so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented. It is also recognised that the BBC may have to report on or interview people whose views may cause serious offence to many in its audience. The BBC therefore must be convinced that a clear public interest outweighs the possible offence. The BBC’s approach to achieving impartiality varies 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 its audiences. The Committee, as previously stated, recognised the remarks had caused offence to some of the audience. The Committee therefore believed the remarks needed to be looked at within the context of the programme as a whole and its editorial purpose. The Committee noted that the panel of five had been chosen to represent a wide range of views. The format is such that any views expressed by one panellist can be challenged by other members of the panel and the Chairman. This is what had happened on this occasion. The views of Kelvin MacKenzie had been immediately challenged by fellow panellist Chuka Umunna by saying “Is the Scottish-ness relevant? Why is the Scottish-ness relevant?” which had drawn applause from the studio audience. He had then further replied to Kelvin MacKenzie’s remarks by saying “Disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful” before David Dimbleby interjected with his comment about Mr MacKenzie’s column in The Sun. The Committee felt that in applying the impartiality guidelines to “reflect a wide range of opinion” whilst “interviewing people whose views may cause serious offence”, the public interest of allowing the debate had outweighed any possible offence. The reaction of the panellist and Chairman had also mitigated any offence, as had the audience’s expectation of the programme’s nature and content. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had not breached the guidelines on impartiality. Complaints handling The Committee noted the concerns raised by the complainant regarding how his complaint had been handled by the ECU at stage 2 of the BBC’s complaints process. It agreed with the complainant that in this particular case it had not been necessary for the ECU to have attempted to explain why Mr MacKenzie had made the comment. The Committee believed it would have been better for ECU to have confined its finding to the remarks as broadcast against the BBC’s editorial guidelines. As to whether the complaint was handled in a timely and courteous manner as required by the BBC editorial guidelines regarding accountability, the Committee was satisfied that the complaint was handled appropriately. Finding: Not upheld BBC News 08.00 bulletin, Radio 4, 11 July 2007 1. The item The item appeared in the news bulletin section of the Today programme at 08.00 – 08.10. It was in the form of a voice piece by Science Correspondent, Pallab Ghosh. 2. The complaint The complaint concerned a sentence in the item which the complainant believed had said: “...there has been overwhelming evidence for the past ten years that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.” • The complainant believed the statement was untrue and misleading. • He stated that there was no direct evidence that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels and, in particular, by the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. He stated: “There are many calculations and models but no direct evidence. The fact that CO2 levels have increased at the same time as a slight warming has taken place is, at best, circumstantial evidence for a link. However, there are very good scientific reasons to suggest that there is no such link.” “Circumstantial evidence can by no stretch of the imagination be described as overwhelming, and indeed does not even constitute any kind of proof.” • The complainant also complained that the BBC’s role as a broadcaster is to inform – to provide the necessary information for the public to reach their own conclusions. He said: “The statement you have made serves only to mislead and create bias in public opinion on false premises.” • The complainant demanded a retraction “…with the same level of prominence as the original incorrect and misleading statement.” 3. BBC Information replied at stage 1. It initially replied with a general point on how BBC News was reflecting the broad scientific agreement on the issue of climate change. The complainant explained it was a specific news broadcast that he was referring to. He did not receive a reply (see Complaints Handling). 4. The Complainant then wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) at stage 2. The ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: • The ECU informed the complainant that the reporter Pallab Ghosh had not said “there was overwhelming evidence that global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels.” • The ECU explained the phrase the correspondent used was ‘strong, if not overwhelming’, which it noted allowed for “some debate and disagreement”. • Its response continued “...it seems to [the ECU] that Mr Ghosh’s description was an accurate summary of the most recent research and reflects the view of what he describes as ‘nearly all climate scientists’”. • The ECU supported this point by quoting from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which had stated that climate change around the world was ‘very likely’ to have a human cause. It noted that by the phrase ‘very likely’ the IPCC meant “greater than 90% probability”. • It further reported that the assertion was repeated at the recent United Nations conference on Addressing the Leadership Challenge of Climate Change (September 2007). • The ECU also quoted from the BBC Trust report on Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st century which noted that: “There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made.” • The ECU also noted another quote from the BBC Trust report: “...the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.” 5. The complainant replied to the ECU’s finding: • He raised the issue of complaints handling. • The complainant disputed the evidence put forward by the ECU stating: “It is amazing how many different sources can be quoted of this statement about the evidence for human-induced warming being ‘strong, if not overwhelming’, ‘very weighty’, confirmed by world leaders etc etc, but where is the exposition of the evidence?” • With regard to the BBC Trust report he commented: “I suppose we should be grateful at least that the BBC has admitted that it no longer even tries to be impartial on this issue.” • The complainant also asked the ECU for the evidence which it had cited: “...and I want to be convinced that it actually does represent proof or even carries a balance of probability in favour of the notion that mankind’s activities are causing warming.” • The complainant pointed out that the only evidence presented in the IPCC reports are in the form of results from computer modelling: “This is not evidence.” 6. The ECU responded to the complainant reiterating its early decision as well as citing more examples, such as the recent High Court hearing into the use of Al Gore’s film, “An inconvenient truth” in schools in which Mr Justice Burton stated “...climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’)." 7. The complainant responded to the ECU reply reiterating his point that evidence should be properly provided to support its case. 8. The ECU responded quoting the views of the Chief Scientist of the Met Office. 9. The complainant replied: • “... it’s vital for the BBC and other media organisations to attribute their broadcast and printed statements on scientific topics… ” 10. Complaints handling The complainant raised concerns as to how his complaint had been handled by BBC Information. He was particularly concerned at the lack of response at stage 1 to two emails he had sent in response to BBC Information’s initial reply. 11. Applicable programme standards 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. We aim to achieve accuracy by: • the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources wherever possible. • checking and cross checking the facts. • validating the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material. • corroborating claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible. Fact checking We must check and verify information, facts and documents. Identifying sources We should normally identify on air and online sources of information and significant contributors, as well as providing their credentials, so that our audiences can judge their status. Misleading audiences We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences. We may need to label material to avoid doing so. Section 4 - Impartiality Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion. The Agreement accompanying the BBC's Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting. In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: • we 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 must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. • our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters. Achieving impartiality Impartiality 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. 12. The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and the ECU. This Appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to accuracy and impartiality. Before considering the complaint the Committee noted that the complainant in his original complaint had mis-quoted the sentence at the heart of his complaint. The Committee noted that the correspondent Pallab Ghosh had said: “The evidence that it is due to the burning of fossil fuels has been strong, if not overwhelming for more than ten years” (The Committee’s emphasis) He had not said as suggested by the complainant: “…there has been overwhelming evidence for the past ten years that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.” Accuracy The guidelines provide that the BBC should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead audiences. It also requires the BBC to check and cross check the facts. The Committee noted the concerns raised by the complainant, who had rejected the various sources supporting the statement made by Pallab Ghosh that there was “strong, if not overwhelming” evidence to suggest global warming was caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The Committee then considered the evidence that Mr Ghosh had supplied to the Committee as part of its investigation into this complaint. The Committee noted Mr Ghosh’s comments regarding what the scientific community considered reliable evidence in which he stated: “The scientific community recognises that the most reliable evidence is that which has been subject to independent peer review and published in a journal or other publication. Therefore, one can assess the weight of evidence for scientific statements by examining the scientific literature.” The Committee then noted how Mr Ghosh set out the background to the IPCC finding and how its (the IPCC’s) 1995 Second Assessment Paper and its 2001 Third Assessment Paper had both been based on a review of scientific literature. The Committee noted that in the IPCC’s report of 2001 it was stated: “In light of the new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” The Committee noted that the document quantified the word ‘likely’ as meaning 66%-90% chance. The Committee concluded that Mr Ghosh had carefully weighed the evidence in arriving at the phrase he had used in this very short report. The Committee was satisfied that he had taken note of the various sources through cross checking his facts against independent peer reviewed and published scientific evidence. The Committee concluded that Mr Ghosh’s statement had not distorted the facts or misled the audience. The phrasing of the report had been accurately based on the evidence that was in the public domain. The Committee also noted that throughout the complaint, the complainant whilst requesting evidence to defend the use of the phrase within the item, had not provided any evidence in support of his position. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the report had not breached the guidelines on accuracy. Impartiality The BBC is charged to ensure that impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to its output. The approach to achieving impartiality will 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. News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. The BBC must be fair and open minded when weighing and examining the facts as well as being open minded and objective in its approach. Impartiality does not require the representation or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view. The Committee considered the wording at the heart of the complaint: “The evidence that it is due to the burning of fossil fuels has been strong, if not overwhelming for more than ten years” (The Committee’s emphasis) The Committee concluded that the report had not breached guidelines on impartiality. The Committee noted that Pallab Ghosh’s choice of wording had provided for sufficient qualification – “strong, if not overwhelming” – to ensure that the piece was suitably objective in its view of the effects of the burning of fossil fuels. The Committee agreed that given the report’s focus and length, around 45 seconds, there was no requirement to include a contrary view: the words used were a fair and accurate reflection of the subject matter. The Committee was satisfied therefore that the correspondent had shown neither bias nor an imbalance of views when presenting the item. The Committee concluded that the item had conformed to the requirement that news, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. Complaints handling The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that he had not received a second reply from BBC Information when he had responded to BBC Information’s initial reply to his complaint. The Committee also noted that BBC Information had no record of receiving these emails. As such, in the light of no evidence to the contrary, the Committee believed that the complainant may have in error replied directly to the email he received from BBC Information rather than having replied to them via the webform on the BBC complaints website. The Committee noted that the complainant would have been directed to follow this course of action if he had replied to the email as he would have received an automated reply from BBC Information which stated: We are sorry, but our email system can only receive your email if it is submitted using our pre-formatted webform. We realise this is an inconvenience, but webforms allow us to manage the many emails we receive each day more efficiently and this makes best use of the Licence Fee. Please resend your reply or message using the webform at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/. If we have previously given you a reference number, please include this. Thank you BBC Complaints The Committee was therefore satisfied that as there was no evidence to suggest that there was a failure in the complaints process, no further action would be required. Finding: Not upheld Top Gear: Polar Special, BBC Two, 29 July 2007 at 20.00 (original broadcast: 25 July 2007) 1. The programme The 29 July 2007 edition of the programme was a Polar Special which featured a race between the three presenters Richard Hammond, Jeremy Clarkson and James May. Jeremy Clarkson and James May were attempting to become the first men ever to drive a car to the Magnetic North Pole, using a heavily modified Toyota pick-up truck, while Richard Hammond was using a sled pulled by a team of dogs. 2. The complaint The complaint refers to the Sunday repeat of the programme, originally shown on Wednesday 25 July 2007. The complainant has not raised any issues with the original broadcast. The complainant summarised his complaint as follows: • He pointed out that the destination was not the North Pole but the Magnetic Pole. However, the destination was described as the North Pole in both the listing for the day in the Radio Times and also repeatedly during the programme by Jeremy Clarkson. • He also questioned how much of the footage was real and how much was staged. • The complainant found parts of the programme to be offensive and highly irresponsible. The complainant claimed that the programme featured a number of scenes totally unsuitable for pre-watershed viewing, including “parts of the anatomy and injuries to them that could shock.” • The complainant claimed that the blatant use of alcohol whilst driving was a highly irresponsible act. • He was also offended by the criticisms of global warming and of Al Gore in the programme. • The appellant complained that as the Arctic is a highly delicate environment …no thought seemed to have been given to the disturbance the programme could have caused to local wildlife. 3. BBC Information replied at stage 1: As to the issue of where the race was to - the North Pole or the Magnetic North Pole - BBC Information stated: • “Although this was made clear in the pre publicity for the show and was also shown in the maps/graphics that were used during the film, it was not specifically explained in the programme.” • “We did in fact film James May explaining this, but this clip was edited out of the film at a late stage. This was perhaps an error of editorial judgement because it was not compensated for with any additional voice over.” • “We did however, make a point of including a prolonged shot of the Sat-Nav coordinates to show viewers that the boys were really there.” • “The race was started in Resolute because that is the established starting point for expeditions to the Magnetic North Pole.” With regard to the issue of re-staging and the tone of the programme it replied: • “Top Gear includes a variety of features which are designed to test the cars and the presenters to their limit. The programme makers have a remit to entertain and this is an integral part of the programme’s appeal.” • “We believe Top Gear viewers are aware of the tone of the series and understand the context of the situation which is very far removed from reality.” • “Top Gear is now an established and popular programme intended to throw an entertaining, unexpected and humorous light on all things relating to cars and motoring.” In response to showing parts of the anatomy (a frostbitten penis) it stated: • “This was only shot very briefly and at a distance. The instructor was making a serious point about the dangers of frostbite and how swiftly they could be affected.” As to the issue of the irresponsibility of drinking alcohol: • “The item was filmed in an uninhabitable area of the North Pole, in international waters and they weren’t shown to be drunk or not in control of the car.” In response to issues concerning the environment, BBC Information replied: • “The car’s emissions were the same as they would have been in the UK. Their presence did not harm the landscape or wildlife such as polar bears.” 4. The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) at stage 2 of the complaints process. The ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: Staging: • The ECU noted that “most recorded programmes involve some element of intervention.” • The ECU also noted that the BBC’s guidelines make clear that there are “acceptable and unacceptable production techniques and that commentary must never be used to give the audience a misleading impression of events.” • The ECU concluded that this is not an issue in relation to the Polar Special film. It stated “You don’t specify the particular situations of which you question the veracity, but we’ve run through the more notable incidents with the [executive producer], such as the breakdown of the Hilux, the point where it went through the ice and the drive across the very thick ice close to land, as well as key points in Richard Hammond’s journey – and I’m satisfied they were represented truthfully in the film.” The destination: • The ECU doubted whether failing to distinguish the Magnetic North from True North amounted to misleading or deceiving the audience. • It noted that “there were enough indicators that the vehicles weren’t heading for the true North Pole to counter any charge of deception.” • The ECU pointed to the car’s sat-nav co-ordinates and the destination of Ellef Ringnes Island pointed out on the map by the instructor. Use of alcohol: • “[The executive producer] has pointed out that in international waters, where they were, the team were beyond the jurisdiction of any drink driving laws and so would not have been committing any offence.” • As to whether the presenters were putting themselves or the environment in danger through the abuse of alcohol, the ECU was assured by the programme “they were not seen in the film to be drunk or out of control of the vehicle, neither were they at any time during filming.” • The ECU also noted “that at present in the UK, it’s legal to drink a small amount of alcohol and still drive.” • The ECU also noted that the presentation of Clarkson and May drinking “tied into a recurring theme that Jeremy and James, in direct contrast to Richard had opted for a luxurious form of polar exploration with all creature comforts to hand: gin and tonic, chocolate bars to ensure they maintained the daily intake of 5000 calories…” The environment, Al Gore and wildlife: • “The programme deals in hyperbole, often taken to the point of absurdity, and advocacy of a particular viewpoint by any of the presenters (particularly Jeremy Clarkson himself) often doesn’t equate to promotion in any effective sense.” • “[The executive producer] made the point that the modern diesel engines employed for this one-off event emit far fewer harmful emissions than the snowmobiles which are in constant use in the area by the Inuit community.” • The ECU did not see any evidence as to whether the wildlife had been unduly affected by the event; • It also noted that the production team had not “encountered any opposition or hostility” from any quarter during the making of the programme. 5. Applicable programme standards 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. We aim to achieve accuracy by: • the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources wherever possible. • checking and cross checking the facts. • validating the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material. • corroborating claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible. Fact checking We must check and verify information, facts and documents, particularly those researched on the internet. This may include confirming with an individual or organisation that they posted material and that it is accurate. Even the most convincing material on the web may not be what it seems. Misleading audiences We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences. We may need to label material to avoid doing so. Staging & re-staging events There are very few recorded programmes which do not involve some intervention from the director, but there are acceptable and unacceptable production techniques. The acceptable production techniques include using cutaway shots, set-up shots to establish interviewees and asking contributors to repeat insignificant actions or perform an everyday activity. However, unless clearly signalled to the audience, or using reconstructions, it is normally unacceptable in news and factual programmes to: • stage or re-stage significant action or events which are significant to the development of the action or narrative, for example, the moment of discovery in a scientific documentary. • inter-cut shots and sequences to suggest they were happening at the same time, if the resulting juxtaposition of material leads to a distorted and misleading impression of events. Commentary must never be used to give the audience a misleading impression of events. Section 4 - Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion. The Agreement accompanying the BBC's Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting. In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: • we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented. • we 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. 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. 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 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. Harm and offence editorial principles • We will not broadcast material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of children. • We observe the television Watershed to ensure material that might be unsuitable for children is appropriately scheduled. • We signpost and label challenging material to ensure our audiences have enough information on which to judge whether content is suitable for themselves or their children. • We keep in touch with the expectations of our audiences for all of our services. 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: • 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? • are there any special sensitivities surrounding the slot, for example religious festivals, and anniversaries of major events? • what is the likely "pull-through audience" i.e. what is the nature of the preceding content and what kind of audience is it likely to attract? Television & the watershed Television scheduling decisions need to balance the protection of young people and particularly children, with the rights of all viewers, particularly those without children, to receive a full range of subject matter throughout the day. They must also be judged against the requirements of the Watershed. The 21.00 television Watershed is used to distinguish between programmes intended mainly for family viewing and those programmes intended for an adult audience. However, the BBC expects parents and carers to share in the responsibility for assessing whether programme content is suitable for their children. Programmes broadcast between 5.30 and 21.00 must be suitable for a family audience including children. The earlier in the evening a programme is placed, the more suitable it should be for children to watch alone. Programmes in later pre- Watershed slots may not be suitable for the youngest children. Only in exceptional circumstances can there be any departure from this rule, and then clear content information should be given, for example images that some children might find distressing in natural history programmes or in the 6 O'Clock News. Nudity Nudity before the Watershed must be justified by the context. Sex In all BBC output the portrayal of sex, or the exploration of sexual issues, should be editorially justified and treated with appropriate sensitivity. Programmes broadcast pre-Watershed, or when children are particularly likely to be in our radio audience or in online content likely to appeal to a high proportion of children should not portray inappropriate sexual behaviour or contain explicit sexual discussion unless clearly editorially justified. Alcohol, smoking, solvent & drug abuse & illegal drugs We must balance the need to reflect the range of public attitudes and behaviour realistically, with the danger of encouraging potentially damaging or illegal behaviour, particularly amongst children. Unless editorially justified we should not encourage, glamorise or condone the use of illegal drugs, the abuse of drugs, smoking, solvent abuse and the misuse of alcohol : • in pre-Watershed programmes or in post-Watershed programmes likely to be widely seen by under eighteens. 6. The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the Complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the complainant and the ECU. This Appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to accuracy, harm and offence and impartiality. Accuracy Misleading audiences: The guidelines provide that the BBC should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead audiences. In particular, on the issue of misleading audiences, the guidelines state: We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences. The Committee considered whether Top Gear had breached the guidelines on accuracy by describing the challenge set for the presenters as a race to the North Pole when, in fact, their destination was the North Magnetic Pole. They noted that the Radio Times listings for the day had also suggested that the presenters were heading for the North Pole. The Committee noted that the producer had filmed a sequence in which the presenters explained the difference between the North Pole and the Magnetic North Pole but had not included it in the final edit. The Committee agreed that it would have been preferable if that explanation had been broadcast. Without it, they agreed that the colloquial shorthand description that the presenters were going to the North Pole (used twice in the programme) combined with the pictures of the car’s sat-nav actual co-ordinates and the three inclusions of maps showing the actual destination of Ellef Ringnes Island were confusing. The Committee accepted that there had been no intention to mislead the audience and that there were sufficient indicators within the programme to indicate that the destination was not the North Pole. They concluded that on balance there had not been a breach of the accuracy guidelines. The Committee then considered the billing for the programme. The Committee recognised that the BBC was not in control of billings as they appeared in non BBC publications but that promotional material provided by the BBC should comply with BBC guidelines whilst taking into account the limited space available for a billing and the need to convey essential information to the potential audience. The Committee noted that the executive producer of the programme had informed the Committee that the information provided for billings by the BBC referred to the Magnetic North Pole and was accurate. With regard to the Radio Times, the Committee noted that an article about the broadcast had correctly referred to the Magnetic North Pole as the destination, as had the billing in the “Today’s Choice” page. It also noted that the billing for the Sunday repeat had referred to the North Pole but that fuller information was available in the magazine article. The Committee concluded that with regard to the billing released by the BBC, and the information in the Radio Times, the information on the destination was accurate and had not breached the accuracy guideline. The Committee agreed that it would request that the billing issued by the BBC for this edition of Top Gear continues to clearly and accurately reflect the race’s destination. Staging and re-staging events: The complainant had questioned whether the programme had actually filmed a real continuous journey by car, from the starting point to the magnetic pole and asked how much of the race was real and how much staged. The Committee considered this question against the guidelines on staging and re-staging events. It noted what was stated in the guideline: “There are very few recorded programmes which do not involve some intervention from the director, but there are acceptable and unacceptable production techniques. The acceptable production techniques include using cutaway shots, set-up shots to establish interviewees and asking contributors to repeat insignificant actions or perform an everyday activity. However, unless clearly signalled to the audience, or using reconstructions, it is normally unacceptable in news and factual programmes to: • stage or re-stage significant action or events which are significant to the development of the action or narrative, for example, the moment of discovery in a scientific documentary. • inter-cut shots and sequences to suggest they were happening at the same time, if the resulting juxtaposition of material leads to a distorted and misleading impression of events. Commentary must never be used to give the audience a misleading impression of events.” The Committee noted that this programme had recently featured on an internal BBC course entitled ‘Safeguarding Trust’ where it had been held up to other programme makers as an example of the use of acceptable production techniques. The Committee was satisfied that the presenters had undertaken a continuous journey to the Magnetic North Pole. It accepted that some cutaway shots had been filmed subsequently in order to provide a greater variety of interesting pictures in the final edit but judged that this amounted to acceptable artifice. It was satisfied that the use of these shots had not misled the audience and therefore held that there had been no breach of the guidelines. Harm and Offence The complainant had been unhappy that the programme makers included a shot of a frostbitten penis in a pre-Watershed slot. The Committee considered this aspect of the complaint against the guidelines on Harm and Offence. The editorial guidelines state that suitability of content should be judged 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. The BBC is required when broadcasting or publishing challenging material which risks offending some of the audience to be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose for that material. The guidelines state that “the 21.00 television Watershed is used to distinguish between programmes intended mainly for family viewing and those intended for an adult audience….Programmes broadcast between 5.30 and 21.00 must be suitable for a family audience.” The Committee noted that this programme had been broadcast at 20.00. It was part of a very well known and highly appreciated series which was known for its entertainment value as much as for its factual content. The Committee accepted that an image of a penis pre-Watershed (before 21.00) could well be considered offensive even in an entertainment show but in this case the image of the penis was seen only fleetingly and was not used voyeuristically. While the inclusion of the image was in part for the purposes of entertainment, in that it engaged the attention of the presenters when they had been failing to concentrate on the health and safety information they were being given, there was also a scientific purpose in using the image. The Committee was therefore satisfied that there was a clear editorial purpose for the use of the image in that it was used for a medical rather than a sexual purpose. The Committee concluded that the references to the penis and the momentary image of it on screen was suitable for a family audience given the general style of the programme which mixed humour with fact, and given the audience’s expectations for the programme. Alcohol misuse: The complainant argued that it had been grossly irresponsible for two of the presenters, Jeremy Clarkson and James May, to be portrayed drinking whilst driving. The Committee considered this aspect of the complaint against the guidelines relating to harm and offence, and in particular the section dealing with alcohol misuse. The guidelines state: “We must balance the need to reflect the range of public attitudes and behaviour realistically, with the danger of encouraging potentially damaging or illegal behaviour, particularly amongst children Unless editorially justified we should not encourage, glamorise or condone the use of illegal drugs, the abuse of drugs, smoking, solvent abuse and the misuse of alcohol: • in pre-Watershed programmes or in post-Watershed programmes likely to be widely seen by under eighteens.” The Committee considered the scenes carefully and felt that drinking whilst driving did involve the misuse of alcohol. The Committee recognised that whilst the programme was not primarily made for children, they noted that 10% of the audience was regularly under the age of 16 and that this was shown pre-Watershed. The Committee took into account that the situation – a trip to the Magnetic North Pole - was far removed from the ordinary experience of viewers and that the drink was included on one occasion for entertainment purposes as a comic device to play up the relaxed travel of those in a car compared to the presenter who was travelling by sled. However, the Committee was nonetheless concerned that, given some children might regard the presenters as role-models, the scenes could be seen to glamorise the misuse of alcohol. The Committee did not think that the scenes of drinking while driving were editorially justified in the context of family entertainment. As such, the Committee concluded that there had been a breach of the guidelines and that in future, repeats of this programme should not be shown pre-Watershed unless this scene was edited out. Impartiality The complainant was unhappy about “the scorn shown about the issue of global warming and the harm that could have been caused by driving several large vehicles through the Arctic environment.” The Committee noted the views expressed by the complainant with regard to filming vehicles in the Arctic but was satisfied that the act of filming vehicles in the Arctic and broadcasting a programme about it had not amounted to an expression of a view on global warming and that it was not appropriate to consider this in terms of the impartiality guidelines. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns regarding the programme’s reference to Al Gore and global warming. The Committee first considered Richard Hammond’s reference to Al Gore. The Committee noted what he said: “And here’s why. On the way he would encounter ice boulders as big as cathedrals, polar bears the size of hatchbacks, temperatures that would freeze the fuel in his tank and if, Al Gore is to be believed, open water into which he would sink.” The Committee noted that the reference to Al Gore was in passing and did not make a judgement on Al Gore or his views on global warming. The Committee then considered whether there had been a breach of the guidelines on impartiality with regard to Jeremy Clarkson’s final remarks on the issue of global warming. The Committee noted what Jeremy Clarkson said in his closing remarks: “They said we’d never get to the pole because of the damage the car has already done to the ice cap. Perhaps that’s what we’ve proved most of all really. The inconvenient truth is that it doesn’t appear to have even scratched the surface.” The Committee noted that the BBC guidelines state that impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output. The approach to achieving impartiality will 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. The Committee considered the context in which Jeremy Clarkson’s views were expressed - within an entertainment programme looking at the performance of motor vehicles. As such, the Committee noted that the comments by Jeremy Clarkson referred to the very specific nature of the presenter’s experience of the Arctic whilst competing in the race. The guidelines allow presenters in entertainment programmes greater scope for individual expression. The Committee noted that the audience’s expectation of Jeremy Clarkson was that his views would often be very personal, could be considered politically incorrect and exaggerated. The Committee concluded that in this context and given the likely expectation of the audience, the programme had not breached the guidelines on impartiality and that impartiality had been adequate and appropriate to the output. Finding: The complaint was upheld in part with regard to the misuse of alcohol. All other elements of the complaint were not upheld. Action: The Committee would write to Mark Byford, Deputy Director- General and Chairman of the Complaints Management Board, to request that this edition of the programme is not repeated pre-Watershed unless the scene showing drink driving is edited out. Liz Green Live, BBC Radio Leeds, 5 September 2007 1. The programme Liz Green Live is a two-hour radio programme broadcast between 12 noon and 2pm on BBC Radio Leeds every weekday afternoon. Liz Green is the presenter and senior producer of the programme. The subject of the debate and phone-in in this edition of Liz Green Live was anti-social behaviour. It was broadcast the day after a young woman had appeared in court because she had put her feet up on a train seat. 2. The complaint There were two parts to the complaint in the complainant’s original email. He suggested that the BBC’s guidelines on accuracy had been breached in both (Part A and Part B). If it was determined that there had been a breach he wanted an explanation of how and why it had occurred. The first part of the complaint (A) was upheld by the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU). 3. (Part A) • The complainant believed it was misleading for Liz Green to have repeatedly claimed that the case had been “thrown out of court”. • He quoted a report on BBC News Online, published the day before the programme, which said: o A young woman had been “found guilty of putting her feet on a train seat but given an absolute discharge”. o The Chairman of the Bench had said: “The bench is united in feeling while this may have been contrary to a by-law, Merseyrail should have a less draconian method of dealing with matters of this nature.” o The absolute discharge meant: “she will not be punished but her criminal offence will be recorded”. • The complainant reasoned that it was inaccurate for Liz Green to say the case had been thrown out of court, because “the charge was not dropped and the defendant was not acquitted of the charge. The case was heard, a verdict was passed and as the verdict was guilty the defendant now has a criminal record.” BBC Information replied at stage 1 • BBC Information acknowledged that the case had been referred to as “thrown out of court”. • It added: “However, we would argue that Liz was putting the story into layman’s terms for the benefit of listeners who would not necessarily be familiar with the technicalities.” • “Liz’s job is to reflect the sentiments of the issue rather than the legal specifics. The framework of a daily talk show is to encourage debate on a particular issue and to expand where appropriate into wider topics and this is what we set out to achieve here, although you are of course correct with regard to the legal technicalities.” • “...no breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines has occurred.” The complainant stated in his letter to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU): • “I believe that Liz Green and her colleagues were aware of the facts of the case which were available before the programme was broadcast but rather than reporting those facts accurately they chose to broadcast the claim that the case was thrown out of court so the remarks in question were misleading.” The ECU upheld the complaint stating: The ECU considered the complaint against the guidelines on accuracy. • “...for an absolute discharge to be imposed there must first be a finding of guilt – the person concerned has either to have pleaded guilty or to have been found guilty. In the case of [the young woman], therefore, there was a finding of guilt followed by a determination to take no further action in the matter.” • “It follows that the case against her was not in any sense ‘thrown out’ by magistrates, although it was widely reported in those terms at the time.” • “...this amounted to a significant error in the reporting of this case by the programme, and for that reason I am upholding this part of your complaint.” The complainant wrote to the ESC • He was satisfied that part of his complaint had been upheld, but reiterated the request in his original complaint that, should it be determined the BBC’s guidelines on accuracy had been breached, he wanted an explanation as to how and why this breach occurred. • As it had taken him just a few minutes on the day of the programme to find a report online that Ms Jennings had been given an absolute discharge – and what that meant – he felt that the programme team should have had the same, correct information. He asked: “What research was carried out for the item?” • He said he suspected that someone involved in the programme: “knew what the real outcome of the case was but decided that some unpublicised purpose (such as trying to meet targets for incoming calls, texts and e-mails set by BBC management) would not be best suited by broadcasting those facts so the potentially more suitable claim that the case was thrown out of court was broadcast instead of the facts.” 4. (Part B) The complainant believed that it was misleading for Liz Green to say that the murder of Rhys Jones, other incidents of gun crime or other crimes that result in someone’s death come “under one big umbrella of anti-social behaviour”. Here is a transcript of what Liz Green said: Liz Green: “Let’s talk about anti-social behaviour, shall we? You know, at one end of the scale we’ve got ASBOs, we’ve got politicians banging on about broken society, we’ve got gun crime, tragic, we’ve got vandalism, we’ve got very very tragic deaths, we’re just still trying to come to terms with what happened with Rhys Jones. And then kind of at the other end of the scale there’s the sort of stuff that you and I probably see every single day, maybe even happening down your street: it’s somebody chucking some litter or maybe even graffiti or gangs of kids on street corners, people spitting in the street. And all this comes under one big umbrella of anti-social behaviour. And I’m sure you will have examples of things you’ve seen or experienced just like that, stuff that you know isn’t right. So, in this grand scheme of things, if you put your feet up on a train seat and you’re wearing, let’s say, a pair of flip-flops is that anti-social behaviour?” BBC Information responded at stage 1: • “...this is a live programme and upon occasion in such circumstances the intended meaning of a phrase or sentence might not be presented with the absolute clarity that was originally planned.” • “after her reference to the Rhys Jones tragedy Liz says, ‘And then kind of at the other end of the scale...’ which indicates a separate list of activities which she rightly concludes, ‘comes under one big umbrella of anti-social behaviour’.” • “taken as a whole we feel this section adequately summarised her talking point of the day and wouldn’t confuse the wider audience meaning that no breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines has occurred.” The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit who did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: • “While I accept that including the most serious forms of crime under the umbrella of anti-social behaviour involved a none-too-precise use of language, I think it is clear, and would have been clear to the audience, what Liz Green was trying to do, which was to encourage a discussion which ranged across a wide span of criminal behaviours from arguably the most trivial – as in the case of [the young woman] – to the most serious.” • “I don’t think the audience would have been likely to have been misled in any significant way.” In asking the Editorial Standards Committee to consider this part of the complaint: • The complainant requested that it be looked into and revealed why Liz Green made the references in question, especially why she vaguely referred to “what happened with Rhys Jones”, and how those references were relevant to the subject of anti- social behaviour. • He wanted to know where her definition of “anti-social behaviour” came from and whether it was an attempt to mislead the audience. • As he had been told the language used had been “none-too-precise”, he questioned whether it had been wrong not to uphold this part of the complaint in light of the BBC guidelines on accuracy. 5. Complaints Handling In his letter to the ECU the complainant made the following point about a response from BBC Information: • “I believe that my complaint was not dealt with properly. Indeed, I suspect that the conclusion that the complaint would not be upheld was arrived at first and then there was an attempt to construct arguments which supported that conclusion and ignored the BBC’s guidelines even though the basic facts at the heart of my complaint were clear.” In his letter to the ESC the complainant made the following point about the part of his complaint that had been upheld: • “There was no explanation of how and why the breach of the BBC’s guidelines on accuracy had occurred. There was an explanation of why the statements that were made were inaccurate but there was no explanation of the process which had led to those inaccurate statements being broadcast." 6. Applicable Editorial Standards Section 1 - The BBC’s Editorial Values Truth and Accuracy We strive to be accurate and establish the truth of what has happened. Accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than a question of getting the facts right. We will weigh all relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We will be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation. 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. We aim to achieve accuracy by: • the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources wherever possible. • checking and cross checking the facts. • validating the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material. • corroborating claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible. Misleading audiences We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences. 7. The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence including, but not limited to, the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and BBC Information. The Appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to truth and accuracy. The Appeal also raised a separate issue about the complaints handling procedure – specifically that no explanation for a breach of the guidelines had been provided by the ECU when part of the complaint was upheld by them. Truth and Accuracy The editorial guidelines provide that accuracy is a core BBC editorial value. They further provide that: • [The BBC’s] output must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language, and • [The BBC] should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences. The Committee considered each part of the complaint against the relevant guidelines, and applied the following test: 1. Were the words complained of presented in clear precise language? 2. Was invented material presented as fact? 3. Were known facts distorted? 4. Was the audience knowingly misled? Complaint A Having listened to the programme in the context of the editorial guidelines on truth and accuracy the Committee confirmed the ECU finding that the programme did breach the guidelines in respect of this part of the complaint. The Committee was satisfied that the (repeated) reference by Liz Green to [the young woman’s] case being thrown out of court meant that the outcome of the case had been described in unclear and imprecise language because Liz Green’s opinion on the absolute discharge - that it amounted to the court effectively throwing the case out - was presented as fact. The Committee was of the view that reporting the outcome of court cases accurately was particularly important to sustaining civil society. The Committee concluded that the eleven references in the programme were inaccurate and misleading. It was the Committee’s view that given the production team were aware of the facts this amounted to a serious error. The Complainant asked for an explanation as to how this breach occurred. The Committee noted from the editorial adviser’s note (also provided to the complainant) that Liz Green and her studio producer “…read the broadsheet newspaper coverage of [the young woman’s] court case, and checked the BBC Online page as well as the Press Association copy of the story...Liz Green decide to paraphrase the outcome of the case in an attempt to put it into layman’s terms. Although she appreciated that as a matter of law an absolute discharge was not the same as throwing a case out of court, she did not deliberately intend to mislead the audience. She believed her interpretation of the comments to be a genuine interpretation of the magistrate’s comments following the outcome of the case. The magistrate had indicated that a less draconian method should be adopted for dealing with matters of this nature. The production team say that the choice of words was an honest attempt to capture the outcome of the court case for the layman.”. Accordingly the Committee concluded that although the presenter and studio producer were familiar with the details of the story, their description of it was inaccurate. The Committee also noted the complainant’s contention that the inaccuracy was prompted by: “…some unpublicised purpose (such as trying to get targets for incoming calls, texts, and e-mails set by BBC management)…” which “…would not be best suited by broadcasting [the correct] facts so the potentially more suitable claim that the case was thrown out of court was broadcast instead of the facts.” The Committee concluded that it had seen no evidence to suggest that any ulterior motive for the inaccuracy, such as that described, existed. The Committee noted that as a consequence of the ECU finding, the managing editor of BBC Radio Leeds had spoken to the presenters and producers at the station and stressed the importance of adhering to the editorial guidelines on accuracy. The Committee was satisfied with this action. Complaint B The Committee then considered that part of the complaint not upheld by the ECU regarding the use of the description of anti-social behaviour to cover a range of behaviour. The Committee noted that the complainant felt that the inclusion of gun crimes and murder within this discussion was misleading and inaccurate and that ‘anti-social behaviour’ is a legal term defined by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as “acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”. The Committee also noted that the production team said that the reference to anti- social behaviour was intended as a generic description of human behaviour which right thinking members of society would find unacceptable. This was in the context of a discussion about how society tackles anti-social behaviour and if it does not do so effectively whether that leads to tragic events such as Rhys Jones’s murder. Having listened to the programme in the context of the guidelines on truth and accuracy the Committee concluded that the programme did not breach the guidelines in respect of this part of the complaint. Although the wording was considered by the Committee to have been relatively loose the Committee did not consider that invented material had been presented as fact, or that the known facts had been distorted in the context of the broadcast as a whole. The Committee, as an example of this, noted what Liz Green had said: Liz Green: “Let’s talk about anti-social behaviour shall we? You know at one end of the scale we’ve got ASBO’s, we’ve got politicians banging on about broken society, we’ve got gun crime, tragic, we’ve got vandalism, we’ve got very, very tragic deaths, we’re just still trying to come to terms with what happened with Rhys Jones. And then kind of at the other end of the scale there’s the sort of thing that you and I probably see every single day, maybe even happening down your street, it’s somebody chucking some litter or maybe even graffiti or gangs of kids on street corners, people spitting in the street and all this comes under one big umbrella – anti-social behaviour.” It was clear to the Committee that the broadcast focused on a general discussion about anti-social behaviour. The phrase “anti-social behaviour” was not being used as a legally defined term but as a general description of any type of behaviour which might be considered by the public to be anti-social and the question being raised was whether anti-social behaviour led to more serious crime such as gun crime and murder. The complaint was not upheld. Complaints Handling The complainant complained that neither BBC Information nor the ECU provided him with the explanation he had requested at stage 1 as to how and why any breach of the editorial guidelines had occurred. The Committee noted that the function of the ECU is to consider each complaint in the context of the editorial guidelines and find accordingly. For BBC Information it is to respond with an explanation on behalf of the BBC to the complaint raised. The Committee agreed that it was not necessarily incumbent upon BBC Information or the ECU to explain how a breach occurred but that the BBC’s commitment to transparency with the public meant that it was often helpful to describe what had occurred. In this case the Committee noted that the complainant had not raised this matter at stage 2 and that at stage 1 the complaint had not been upheld so that an explanation as to how a breach had occurred would not have been relevant. In this context there had not been a failure at either stage 1 or stage 2. Finding: Complaint A - The Committee endorsed the upheld ECU finding with regard to accuracy. Complaint B - Not upheld. Complaints handling - Not upheld. The Tudors, BBC Two, 5 October 2007 1. The programme This was a ten-part series bought by the BBC from Showtime [a CBS owned television network in the USA]. It starred Jonathan Rhys Meyers as a young Henry VIII. The series chronicled his life and that of his close coterie of advisors, minions and lovers. 2. The complaint The complainant set out his complaint as follows: • He objected to the opening scenes of the programme which were “of a flagrant sexual nature including what looked like anal sex.” • He also complained: “These scenes were totally unnecessary…the point being made could have been developed in another way.” 3. BBC Information replied at stage 1 of the complaints process: • The response from BBC Information included comments from the BBC’s programme acquisitions department who stated: “The Tudors is a modern and exciting take on the story of Henry VIII and his reign, dealing with the monarch’s younger and wilder years.” • It was also explained that the series had deliberately set out to take a different approach to previous conventional historical dramas and was in a similar vein to BBC Two’s historical drama ‘Rome’. • The response further explained: “The BBC was careful from the outset to forewarn viewers to the adult content and the general tone of the lavish scenes. In the weeks running up to transmission we initiated a trailer campaign which highlighted the series’ sexual element …” • The reply explained that even though the programme was shown after the Watershed the first episode in the series was preceded by a presentation announcement that gave viewers a flavour of the content. The announcement stated: “Wild and reckless, with a lust for women and war – exposing the passions of Henry VIII as never before.” 4. The complainant then wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit(ECU) reiterating his complaint, adding: • “...to fabricate a defence that viewers were warned is just not good enough, many viewers do not switch on early enough to hear these and in any case nothing could have prepared the viewer.” 5. The ECU considered the complaint against the guidelines on Harm and Offence and did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: • The episode was shown after the 9pm Watershed: “I think this is well known to viewers who understand that the content of programmes after the Watershed is likely to feature more adult orientated content, including that of a sexual nature.” • It noted that the sexual liaisons of the King were integral to the story being told: “The programme portrays Henry as a bawdy, promiscuous young man, determined to father a male heir. He is shown as a Tudor playboy, seemingly more concerned with sex, war and jousting than running the country.” • The ECU stated that in context the various sexual scenes were justified and they did not agree that they were “…not warranted artistically”. • As to warnings given before the start of the programme the ECU noted that the sexual content of The Tudors had been widely reported in newspapers and television listings magazines before transmission. • It also noted that the announcement before the programme gave the viewers appropriate warning of the programme’s tone and content and was sufficient to alert viewers who might be offended by scenes of a sexual nature. • With regard to the sex scenes the ECU stated: “...the scenes in The Tudors certainly didn’t include the kind of graphic, full-frontal nudity which might normally be described as explicit. The nudity consisted of topless women and bare backsides, neither of which I think the majority of viewers would consider particularly explicit or inappropriate for a post-Watershed audience, while the scenes of intercourse were brief and contained no graphic detail.” • As to the suggestion of anal sex, the ECU pointed to two sex scenes of which it said there “is no evidence to suggest that either of these is showing anything other than regular consensual sex between a man and a woman.” 6. The complainant responded to the ECU’s reply noting that: • With regard to the warning ahead of the programme: “...surely, if they felt that they had to warn the public it was an open admission that the programme had gone over the top.” • As to the sexual scenes shown after 9pm and in response to the ECU’s reply he stated: “I consider this to be a subjective statement which in the absence of evidence I treat with extreme scepticism. Has the BBC or the Trustees any sampling to substantiate this claim? Surely the 9pm cut off was not meant to unleash highly offensive scenes which this programme portrayed?” 7. Applicable programme standards 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. Harm and offence editorial principles • We will not broadcast material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of children. • We observe the television Watershed to ensure material that might be unsuitable for children is appropriately scheduled. • We signpost and label challenging material to ensure our audiences have enough information on which to judge whether content is suitable for themselves or their children. • We keep in touch with the expectations of our audiences for all of our services. 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: • 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? • are there any special sensitivities surrounding the slot, for example religious festivals, and anniversaries of major events? • what is the likely "pull-through audience" i.e. what is the nature of the preceding content and what kind of audience is it likely to attract? Signposts & content information To ensure that our audiences are not taken by surprise, we must clearly signpost 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. Television & the Watershed Television scheduling decisions need to balance the protection of young people and particularly children, with the rights of all viewers, particularly those without children, to receive a full range of subject matter throughout the day. They must also be judged against the requirements of the Watershed. The 21.00 television Watershed is used to distinguish between programmes intended mainly for family viewing and those programmes intended for an adult audience. However, the BBC expects parents and carers to share in the responsibility for assessing whether programme content is suitable for their children. Programmes broadcast between 17.30 and 21.00 must be suitable for a family audience including children. The earlier in the evening a programme is placed, the more suitable it should be for children to watch alone. Programmes in later pre- Watershed slots may not be suitable for the youngest children. Only in exceptional circumstances can there be any departure from this rule, and then clear content information should be given, for example images that some children might find distressing in natural history programmes or in the 6 O'Clock News. Programmes that straddle the Watershed, that is start before 21.00 and finish sometime after 21.00, must be pre-Watershed compliant throughout. After 21.00 the post-Watershed transition to more adult material should not be abrupt and should reflect the nature of the channel and viewer expectations. The strongest material should appear later in the schedule. If sudden changes of tone are unavoidable they should be clearly signposted, for example, giving clear information about scenes of a sexual nature, violence or the use of offensive language. Sex In all BBC output the portrayal of sex, or the exploration of sexual issues, should be editorially justified and treated with appropriate sensitivity. We must be able to justify the frank and realistic portrayal of sex and the exploration of themes and issues which some people might find offensive in post- Watershed programmes. 8. The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards as set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The editorial guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence including, but not limited to, the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and the Head of the ECU. This Appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to harm and offence. Harm and Offence The Committee noted the concerns raised by the complainant, in particular that the opening scenes of The Tudors were “so sexually explicit” that he and his wife “switched it off”. The Committee identified four elements to the complaint to consider regarding harm and offence. The first element the Committee discussed related to the harm and offence guideline concerning the portrayal of sex in post-Watershed programmes: “We must be able to justify the frank and realistic portrayal of sex and the exploration of themes and issues which some people might find offensive in post-Watershed programmes.” The Committee considered whether they believed the drama featured explicit material, including the complainant’s view that “the portrayal of anal sex was unprecedented”, and whether this was offensive. As part of its consideration the Committee also noted the guidelines on audience expectation which say: “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.” The Committee noted that the programme set out to convey a dramatic representation of the early life of Henry VIII. In doing so, the Committee recognised that given the subject matter and the audience it was aimed at, a post-Watershed adult audience, the scenes of an explicit nature were justified within the historic context of the piece. The Committee noted that the scenes had been carefully staged, and sensitively handled with nudity kept to a minimum. The Committee was satisfied therefore that the scenes had been carefully considered and had portrayed consensual sex between adults and that the scenes had not been overtly explicit. The Committee then considered the second element of the complaint which was whether there was an editorial justification for the sex scenes in The Tudors. The ESC noted the complainant’s view that “such explicit scenes are not justifiable artistically and could be treated in another way without losing the message which the producer wished to convey”. The Committee noted the relevant editorial guideline: “In all BBC output the portrayal of sex, or the exploration of sexual issues, should be editorially justified and treated with appropriate sensitivity.” The Committee noted that in any portrayal of Henry VIII the issue of sex would be an essential element of his history, particularly a history that was specifically aimed at an adult audience. The Committee was aware that this was only a part of his personality, but was inseparable from the events that marked his reign. The Committee concluded that the programme had not been unreasonable or gratuitous in how it had featured this element of his life. It had been reasonable for a programme of this nature, an adult drama, to have featured the King’s sexual exploits. In doing so, the Committee was satisfied that the programme had justified their inclusion, treating the subject matter and the scenes in question with appropriate sensitivity. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the scenes, given the target audience, had not breached the guideline on the portrayal of sex. The Committee then considered whether placing the sex scene at the start of the programme increased the likelihood of causing offence. In reaching its decision it considered the relevant editorial guideline which says: “After 21.00 the post-Watershed transition to more adult material should not be abrupt and should reflect the nature of the channel and viewer expectations. The strongest material should appear later in the schedule. If sudden changes of tone are unavoidable they should be clearly signposted, for example, giving clear information about scenes of a sexual nature, violence or the use of offensive language.” The Committee noted that the sex scene was shown at 9.08pm, but was satisfied that the programme, which had begun at 9.00pm, was appropriately scheduled. The programme was an adult drama depicting the life of one of England’s most colourful kings and, as such, was appropriately scheduled after the Watershed. However, the Committee recognised that there would have been a high probability that the audience for The Tudors would have included a pull-through audience from the previous programme of Gardener’s World as well as some children staying up later in the evening as it was being shown on a Friday night. The Committee therefore agreed on the importance of the content information given to the audience prior to the programme’s broadcast. The Committee noted the relevant guideline relating to the signposting and labelling of challenging material. It considered the relevant guideline which says: “To ensure that our audiences are not taken by surprise, we must clearly signpost difficult content on all of our services using a combination of appropriate scheduling and content information which is simple, consistent, and factual.” In considering this guideline the Committee referred to the presentation announcement immediately before the start of The Tudors which said: “Wild and reckless, with a lust for women and war – exposing the passions of Henry VIII as never before now in our lavish new drama series. It’s The Tudors on BBC Two.” The Committee concluded that, given the early sex scenes, the presentation announcement could have been more explicit in its content information, specifically bringing to the viewers’ attention the fact that the drama included scenes of a sexual nature. It felt that the style of the announcement was too light-hearted and would not have effectively communicated necessary information to those who would have preferred not to watch and to those who wanted to ensure children did not see such material. The Committee was therefore satisfied that there was a breach concerning the signposting of the drama. In conclusion, the Committee was satisfied that given the time of broadcast, post- Watershed, the channel and the likely expectation of the audience, the content and scheduling of the drama had been appropriate. The sex scenes had been sensitive to the audience so as to avoid general offence and justified with regard to the drama’s subject matter. Where the Committee had found fault was with regard to the signposting of the drama. It considered it to have been too light-hearted. It had not provided sufficient information as to the content of the programme given its close proximity to the 9.00 Watershed, the early placing of the sex scenes and the pull- through audience from the previous programme as well as the fact that this was shown on a Friday night when more children would have been in the audience. Finding: The Committee did not uphold the complaint with regard to the guidelines on the Watershed and sex, but did find that there had been a breach of editorial standards concerning signposting. Action: The Committee will write to BBC management to remind them of their responsibility to provide appropriate announcements ahead of programmes containing challenging adult content. Golf, BBC Two, 14 October 2007 1. The programme The golf coverage was of the HSBC World Match Play Golf Championships at Wentworth. The tournament featured sixteen of the world’s finest golfers battling it out for the richest prize in golf, a million pound cheque. BBC Sport provided 28 hours of live action over four days. Live coverage of the event was broadcast for five hours each afternoon on both BBC One and Two. The BBC commentary team included the former golfer Ken Brown, who during coverage of the final day of the event was shown at various times discussing the golfing techniques of the finalists Ernie Els and Angel Cabrera as well as analysing the equipment they used. 2. The complaint at stage 1: The complainant felt that during the items in which Ken Brown analysed the techniques and equipment of the tournament’s finalists, undue prominence was given to Callaway Gold Products. He stated: • “I have never seen the like of this before on the BBC, you could have been forgiven for thinking that you were watching QVC.” • “During the afternoons coverage, Ken Brown produced a Callaway driver, which he told us was used by Els, he then [showed] both a Callaway putter and a Callaway wedge. He followed this by opening a box of Callaway balls and showed us how to draw a line on the side of a Callaway ball.” • “At no stage did he make any attempt to hide the name – quite the opposite. What connection does Ken Brown have with Callaway? Where did he get these Callaway products from and where are they now?” 3. BBC Information replied pointing out that under the Charter the BBC should not carry advertisements and that the BBC and the Government were satisfied that this policy should not be changed. 4. The complainant then wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) at stage 2: The complainant reiterated his complaint about the various pieces to camera discussing the finalists’ techniques and equipment and the issue of undue prominence for Callaway products. He noted in his letter to the ECU that he had not seen the item on the putters, but understood “that it was more of the same.” 5. The ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: • “[…] it is clear that Callaway was not the only manufacturer that was shown. In fact three different brands were featured ...”. • The ECU noted that three different manufactures were used: Ping on two occasions, Fusion once and Callaway twice. • The ECU also stated: “[…] that in all of the cases…, the name of the manufacturer was not mentioned and in the second, third and fourth instances, the brand of club appeared only briefly, if at all.” • The ECU also noted that no manufacturers were mentioned by name and that “In each case, Mr Brown constantly twirled and spun the various clubs to ensure the brand logos were not clearly visible and the camera work was such that the manufacturers’ names were only briefly in shot.” • The ECU, although it considered that sufficient care had been taken to avoid a breach of the guideline on undue prominence, noted that more could have been done to avoid showing particular brand names such as “…removing the club covers and taking the golf ball out of its box in advance, for example.” • It noted that this was a view shared by the Head of TV Sport Editorial who had said “[…] there is a lesson to be learned here about trying to minimise the prominence of the branding and in the case of the balls in particular and, to some extent, the bag segment, this could have been done more effectively.” • The ECU concluded “Golf is a sport where brand names and logos are on show all the time and [we are] sure the viewers recognise that fact. In this case, equipment from a number of different manufacturers was used by Mr Brown.” 6. The complaint responded to the ECU finding, stating: • “It’s interesting that you believe that only limited views were given of the clubs but if that was the case we wouldn’t know the manufacturer and product names.” • “Your observation ‘The driver was actually a FusionFT-1, although the brand name was barely legible’ makes the point better than I can.” • “It wasn’t balance but undue prominence to both Ping and Callaway by virtue of the fact that Els and Cabrera made the final – two wrongs don’t make a right.” • The complainant also stated that the issue for him had always been “[…] the Callaway golf balls bit.” • He commented “The issue with the Callaway balls is that Mr Brown produced a full box of Callaway balls and then opened a sleeve of balls. None of this was necessary as he was only showing us how to draw a line on a ball. That is a breach of guidelines because the camera lingered on the box too long for the name to be apparent and it was all unnecessary.” 7. The ECU replied reiterating its decision, noting: • It was impossible to see the manufacturer for the sequence with the driver. The ECU stated that it had only known the maker of the driver because the producer had informed them who it was. • That while the Head of TV Sport Editorial had accepted that greater effort could have been made to limit the prominence of the Callaway logo, the guidelines state that references to commercial products may occur but that to avoid any undue prominence of a product or giving the impression that the BBC is promoting or endorsing a product, programmes should not linger on brand names and logos. The ECU, having watched the sequence a number of times, stated “[…] it is clear that Mr Brown deliberately covered the logo on the ball and removed the box from shot to ensure that the Callaway logo was only visible briefly.” 8. The complainant then appealed to the ESC. In his letter of appeal he commented: About the Fusion driver: • “[…] well what else has he [the producer] told you, because that’s the CALLAWAY FUSION made by Callaway and retails at £240.” As to balance: • “Do you consider showcasing the two finalists’ products represents balance?” With regard to the use of the golf balls: • “Why did Mr Brown tell us on opening the box that these were the balls used by Els? Why did he show us the box of balls clearly showing the name of the manufacturer when it was all unnecessary?” • He also considered that the ECU had stretched the definition of “undue” and “linger” regarding the golf balls. “[…] in truth there was no good reason for the balls to be shown. Your guidelines must assume that there must be a good reason for showing a commercial product in the first place.” “If you recall the only good reason he could come up with was to demonstrate how to draw a straight line on a ball…” “…the ECU stated that Mr Brown deliberately covered the logo on the ball. Perhaps he did … but as he had just removed the ball from a box bearing the name Callaway most viewers would be right to assume it was a Callaway ball.” 9. Applicable programme standards Section 13 - Editorial Integrity and Independence The BBC's global reputation is based on its editorial integrity and independence. Our audiences need to be confident that our decisions are influenced neither by political or commercial pressures, nor by any personal interests. We must not undermine these values by any actions which could bring the BBC into disrepute. Editorial integrity and independence editorial principles • We must be independent of both state and partisan interests. • We must not endorse or appear to endorse any other organisation, its products, activities or services. • We should not give undue prominence to commercial products or services. • There must be no product placement in programmes. • We should ensure that on air and online credits are clearly editorially justified. • We must not unduly promote BBC or BBC related commercial products and services on our public service outlets. • The outside activities of people working for the BBC, including presenters, must not improperly influence BBC programmes or corporate decision making. Product prominence We need to be able to reflect the real world and this will involve referring to commercial products, organisations and services in our output. We must avoid any undue prominence or giving the impression that we are promoting or endorsing products, organisations or services. To achieve this we must: • ensure that references to trade names, brand names and slogans are clearly editorially justified. • not linger on brand names or logos and use verbal references sparingly unless there are very strong journalistic reasons for repeated references to a brand. 10. The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards as set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The editorial guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence including, but not limited to, the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and the Head of the ECU. This Appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to editorial integrity and independence and product prominence. The Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that undue prominence was given to Callaway gold products during the coverage of the World Match Play final between Ernie Els and Angel Cabrera. In considering this complaint it looked at the following editorial guidelines: “We need to be able to reflect the real world and this will involve referring to commercial products, organisations and services in our output.” “We must avoid any undue prominence or giving the impression that we are promoting or endorsing products, organisations or services.” First the Committee considered the context of the coverage. It noted that the coverage was for three and a half hours on the final day of the HSBC World Match Play Golf Championships at Wentworth. The Committee also noted that the finalists, Ernie Els and Angel Cabrera, were sponsored by Callaway and Ping respectively. The Committee was aware that during the BBC’s coverage of the event numerous shots of the finalists’ sponsors were prominent, such as logos on the players’ caps, golf bags and clubs. It also noted that the coverage included wider shots of various advertising billboards on the course, including those for Toyota, Rolex, and HSBC. The Committee recognised that this is the nature of covering an event of this kind where there is a high level of sponsorship for the individuals involved and for the event itself. Given this, the Committee agreed that there was clear editorial justification for the visual references to the brand names during the coverage of play. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns about the various films presented by the commentator Ken Brown during the day regarding the type of equipment and techniques used by the finalists. In considering this the Committee noted the relevant editorial guidelines relating to product prominence. The Committee noted that the BBC is required to ensure that references to trade names, brand names and slogans are clearly editorially justified and that coverage does not linger on brand names or logos. It is also required to refer to verbal references sparingly unless there is a good journalistic reason to do so. The Committee then noted the various pieces to camera. It was satisfied in considering these pieces, where Ken Brown discussed the various items of equipment and techniques of the players, he did not make verbal references to the brands. The Committee then considered whether the coverage lingered unduly on the logos and brands of the equipment. It reviewed the coverage and recognised that it would have been difficult not to show the Ping and Callaway branded products when the presenter referred specifically to the equipment of the players. The Committee endorsed the views of the ECU that more could have been done to hide brand names during the pieces where the presenter discussed technique rather than the equipment of the players. The Committee further noted that the programme makers were also aware of this and will take action to avoid this in future. Nevertheless, whilst accepting that more could have been done, the Committee was satisfied that the coverage had not unduly lingered on brands or disproportionately featured the products so as to suggest a breach of the guideline. The Committee then considered the complainant’s question as to whether there was a connection between the presenter and Callaway. The executive producer had confirmed to the Head of TV Sport Editorial that all products had been returned to the player, the caddy or to the suppliers after use. The Head of TV Sport Editorial had also confirmed that the presenter had no association with any brand whatsoever. The Committee agreed that there was no evidence to suggest a relationship between the presenter and Ping or Callaway, nor was there any evidence to suggest that the programme team had been provided with any products following these insight pieces. In conclusion, the Committee was satisfied that there were no undue verbal references to the manufacturers’ products nor was there undue lingering on logos and brand names. It recognised that in an event of this kind there would always be some prominence given to specific brands, but there was no evidence to support the complaint of undue prominence. The Committee was satisfied that the highlighting of equipment in the context of the two finalists’ techniques was editorially justified. The Committee was satisfied, therefore, that there was no breach of the editorial guidelines relating to editorial integrity and independence and product prominence. Finding: Not upheld