Editorial Standards Findings: Appeals to the Trust considered by the Editorial Standards Committee February 2008 Issued April 2008 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. This bulletin also contains findings relating to such cases. This bulletin also includes a statement on any remedial action taken and 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 1 Summary of findings (February 2008) 3 Findings (February 2008) 7 David Kelly: The Conspiracy Files, BBC Two, 25 February 2007 7 bbc.co.uk, ‘Vatican backs ex-Kennedy wife’, published 20 June 2007 29 Panorama: Sex Crimes and the Vatican, BBC One, 1 October 2006 39 Summary of findings (February 2008) David Kelly: The Conspiracy Files, BBC Two, 25 February 2007 This programme explored the conspiracy theories that have surrounded Dr Kelly’s death in July 2003. The complaint considered by the ESC is a first party complaint from a contributor who featured in the programme. The complainant believes his contribution was broadcast without his consent, that the programme was not fair and balanced – putting forward a view favourable to the government – and that it was misleading, in that it contained a series of errors and omissions. He also objected to the programme filming a cover of a book, found in his house, which associated his theory with that of the author’s without his permission. The Committee concluded: • The programme had achieved appropriate balance in that a range of views had been sought and sufficient time had been provided to ensure the views had been clearly presented. • The programme had also been fair and open minded when examining the evidence as well as being objective and even handed in its approach to the subject. • The choice of contributors had been appropriate to accurately reflect the various arguments and theories that differed from the official version of events. • It was not a requirement for the programme to inform the complainant who all contributors were as long as their involvement did not amount to a significant change to the programme that he had consented to appear in. • The complainant had been given sufficient opportunity to put forward his views and to cast doubt on the theory that Dr Kelly had died from co- proxamol and by cutting his wrist. • That the context of the programme as explained to the complainant and the presentation of the complainant’s theory did not result in unfairness to him. • The description of the complainant as a barrister had been accurate and had fairly represented his occupation to the audience. • The programme had given the complainant sufficient opportunity to reflect his links with intelligence sources as well as describe himself, in his own terms. • The contribution by the psychiatrist Professor Tyrer had not changed the purpose of the programme from the purpose described to the complainant nor was there evidence to suggest that the comments made by Professor Tyrer were addressed at the complainant or those who believed in alternate theories to the official version of events. • The introduction of the Clancy novel had not amounted to a significant change to the programme which would have affected the complainant’s consent to be filmed nor had it resulted in the complainant’s theory being unfairly represented or unfairness to the complainant. • That once consent had been obtained willingly, if the contributor later withdrew consent the decision as to whether to broadcast the contribution was for the programme makers to decide. The Committee did not uphold the complaint For the finding in full see pages 6 to 28 bbc.co.uk, ‘Vatican backs ex-Kennedy wife’, published 20 June 2007 The complainant initially outlined a number of inaccuracies within the article about Congressman Joseph P Kennedy ll’s attempt to annul his marriage to Sheila Rauch Kennedy. The complainant, in particular, believed the article would have misled readers into believing the Vatican had reversed its own decision as opposed to overturning a decision by the Marriage Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston. Following correspondence between the complainant and the BBC News online team and the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) the article had been suitably amended to accommodate the corrections suggested by the complainant. The complainant then complained to the Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) with regard to accuracy and accountability and the acknowledgement and correction of errors. The Committee also considered the issue of complaints handling. The Committee concluded: • The complainant had been correct in requesting amendments to the article. • The article had been fundamentally flawed and the complainant had provided useful and accurate information to assist the web team in correcting the story. • The web team should have acted more quickly in its responses to the complainant to ensure the story was corrected sooner than it was. • The changes made to the article at stages 1 and 2 of the complaints process had resolved the issue. • The wider issue of sourcing and checking stories for the news website was something for BBC management to address. • It would write to BBC management to request it reviews its policies as to the sourcing and checking of material facts within articles prior to publication on the BBC website. • The replies from both ECU and the online team had been courteous and, in the case of the ECU, timely. • It would also remind BBC management of the need to act quickly on information supplied by readers to ensure that changes, where appropriate, are made as quickly as possible. • With regard to complaints handling that a complainant did not need to give reasons for requesting the “gist of material” relied upon by the ECU and that the gist should normally be provided or a reason given as to why it could not be supplied. The Committee agreed that the article in its original form had been inaccurate but that subsequent amendments prior to the appeal being heard had ensured that the issue was resolved. The complaint concerning accountability was partially upheld. The Committee also upheld the complaint concerning the issue of the release of the “gist of the material” by ECU at stage 2 of the complaints process For the finding in full see pages 29 to 38 Panorama: Sex Crimes and the Vatican, BBC One, 1 October 2006 This programme was the third programme since 2002 produced by Panorama about child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. This programme specifically looked at a document the Crimen Sollicitationis written in 1962 and the 2001 document Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela. The complainant was concerned that the programme had wrongly accused Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI of involvement in instructions that cases of child sexual abuse were to be kept secret. He also complained that the programme had not provided the Vatican with an appropriate and fair right of reply to the allegations. The Committee concluded: • The programme had accurately reported the effect of the 1962 and 2001 documents, in that the documents ensured that allegations of child sexual abuse by priests were bound by secrecy within the Catholic Church. • That the programme could not be construed to mean that Pope Benedict XVI had personally covered up widespread criminal activity. • That by taking into account the context in which the documents had been set they had been described accurately. • The programme did not suggest that the Vatican opposes policies drawn up in individual jurisdictions, but accurately reported that each jurisdiction has responsibility for drawing up its own policy. • The programme did not breach the impartiality guidelines by letting ‘failed priests’ and religious academics have their say without allowing ‘proper priests’ and religious academics to have their say. • The programme did not breach the impartiality guidelines by failing to give the Vatican a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations to be made in the programme. • The programme’s impartiality was appropriate to a Panorama investigating this subject matter taking into account the audience’s likely expectations and the extent to which the content and approach was signposted to the audience from the start of the programme. The Committee did not uphold the complaint For the finding in full see pages 39 to 47 Findings (February 2008) David Kelly: The Conspiracy Files, BBC Two, 25 February 2007 1. The programme The Conspiracy Files was a series of four programmes exploring the conspiracy theories that have entered the mainstream surrounding some of the biggest Western news stories of recent years. David Kelly:The Conspiracy Files explored the questions that still surround Dr Kelly's death in July 2003, when the controversy about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was at its height. The programme featured doctors, lawyers and politicians who all question the official account of events. It included a contribution from the complainant, a barrister specialising in national security and constitutional law. 2. The complaint This is a first party complaint brought by one of the contributors to the programme. - The programme broadcast the complainant’s contribution without his consent. - The programme described the complainant as a barrister “against my express wishes”. - The complainant refused consent to be described as a barrister as he had not acted as such either at the inquest into the death of Dr Kelly or in the Hutton Inquiry. - The programme was not fair and balanced. It did not present the case for and against the suicide theory fairly, but put forward the point of view most favourable to the government. - Those differing with this view were portrayed as cranks or conspiracy theorists, including the complainant. - The programme tried to create the impression that the complainant did not have intelligence connections. He stated “I have contact protocols for (1) the office of the Vice-President of the United States of America (2) Henry Kissinger…I am alerting the White House to possible embarrassment to Vice-President Richard B Cheney”. - The programme was misleading. It contained a series of errors and omissions such as: o The programme failed to explain that the drugs found in Dr Kelly’s blood could not have been co-proxamol. o The issue of the absence of blood from the severed ulnar artery at the scene of Dr Kelly’s death was dealt with inadequately. o There was no reference to Dr Kelly’s religious beliefs (the Baha’i faith which rules out suicide). o Or the Thames Valley investigation into his disappearance which began two hours before he left his home. - The complainant’s theory about the use of succinylcholine as a possible method of assassination was treated as a joke. - In the sequence in the programme featuring the complainant the close-up of Tom Clancy’s book (The Teeth of the Tiger) was filmed without the complainant’s permission: “Given the intent to make fun of me and damage my professional reputation – this amounted not only to trespass to goods but was a clear breach of the conditions on which the crew were granted admission to my home.” - The programme sought to suggest that the Security Service was being implicated by the complainant and by others who had concluded that Dr Kelly had been murdered. This was not the case. - The complainant was not told that the programme was going to “interview a psychiatrist who gave general observations on the psychology and, by implication, mental health, of those who ‘refuse’ to accept the official version of events.” 3. The Editor of the programme responded at stage 1: - “I genuinely do not believe that you have any grounds for complaint either over the way you were dealt with in the film or over the way you were treated during the filming/production process itself”. - “I do not accept that we defamed you or ‘smeared’ you or that we did anything to give cause for the Bar Council, the White House, the Vice-President’s Office, Dick Cheney or Dr Kissinger to react in a way which would be detrimental to you”. - “I am confident we repeatedly set out clearly and accurately the reasons for making the film, which were to examine the many questions that persist around the death of Dr David Kelly”. - “You had your own explanation for Dr Kelly’s death which you explained at length in the film.” 4. The complainant then complained to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) who did not uphold his complaint on the following grounds: Consent: - A consent form clearly showing the title of the programme was signed by the complainant, as was a handwritten amendment saying there should be no reference to the complainant’s contacts with a politician’s lawyers and a television production company (a request honoured by the programme team). - The form was signed after two days of filming, presumably when the complainant was aware of what had been recorded. - The earlier dispute in December 2006 over the way the programme would describe the complainant had seemed resolved in an exchange of emails he had with the editor of the programme in February 2007. - In the email of February 2007 there was no suggestion that the complainant had withdrawn his consent. - Having signed the consent forms BBC editorial guidelines make it clear that the programme-makers would still have been justified in using the material. How the programme referred to the complainant: - “Describing you as a barrister was entirely accurate” and would not have undermined your credentials or expertise to the audience. - “The content and tone of the emails on this subject (prior to broadcast) do not reflect your strength of feeling now”. The emails of February 2007 make clear a difference of opinion but would not suggest this was an issue worthy of complaint. - “The programme … addressed your concerns by using a section of your interview in which you gave a clear and accurate description of your standing in the intelligence world”. - The way the programme described the complaint satisfied the editorial guideline on fairness to contributors which states: “When inviting people to contribute to our output we should normally explain: The final content will be a fair and truthful representation of what they say and do.” Intelligence connections: - The ECU was satisfied that the programme had accurately reflected the complainant’s intelligence connections by featuring extensive footage of the complainant in his office explaining the extent of his network. The “major problem with the blood-work as regards co-proxamol” - The programme featured a number of interviews with people, including the complainant, who believe that the evidence about co- proxamol is far from convincing. - The programme accurately reflected the complainant’s view that the pain killers were simply a cover used by whoever killed Dr Kelly to give the impression that he committed suicide. - The complainant’s explanation regarding the ratio of paracetamol to dextropropoxyphene was put to three medical experts interviewed by the programme in connection with the co-proxamol evidence: “They did not accept the arguments and did not believe there was any academic opinion supporting your theory”. - The explanation as to how Dr Kelly died was therefore balanced with another view. Balance in the programme: - The programme interviewed a number of experts giving them the opportunity to put forward their views as to what happened to Dr Kelly. These theories were then challenged by other experts. It was left to the viewers to make up their own minds about the credibility of the various claims. Why was the complainant not informed of the contributor discussing the psychology of conspiracy theorists? - It is not a requirement of the Editorial Guidelines that programmes tell people the names of other likely contributors. - The ECU did not agree that the programme-makers interviewed Professor Tyrer with the intention of deliberately undermining those who do not accept that Dr Kelly committed suicide. - In deciding whether Dr Kelly could have taken his life, the programme-makers wanted to consider whether he had the necessary state of mind to commit suicide. - Professor Tyrer, as editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry, has published articles about increasing scepticism of official accounts of a number of events. - The ECU did not believe that the average viewer would have reason to think Professor Tyrer was making a comment about the complainant or casting doubt on his “mental health.” Why was a copy of The Teeth of the Tiger by Tom Clancy moved to a more prominent position? - The complainant refers to Tom Clancy’s novel in the programme suggesting it is possible that the author came up with the plot line (an assassination using succinylcholine) following the death of Dr Kelly. - The complainant was happy to discuss Mr Clancy, and The Teeth of the Tiger in particular, and was filmed flicking through the book and discussing its contents. - It would have been better for the programme-makers to have taken a close-up of the book with the complainant’s knowledge. However, the ECU did not think the inclusion of this shot could be regarded as evidence “that you were being “set-up” or that the BBC team gained access to your home by deception.” - The programme-makers also included the complainant’s explanation for the similarity and gave him the final word by including his comprehensive denial of any link between his theory and the plot of Tom Clancy’s novel. 5. Applicable programme 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. Impartiality & diversity of opinion We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by exploring the range and conflict of views. We will be objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. We will provide professional judgments where appropriate, but we will never promote a particular view on controversial matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Fairness Our output will be based on fairness, openness and straight dealing. Contributors will be treated honestly and with respect. Section 3 - Accuracy Introduction 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. We may need to label material to avoid doing so. Section 4 - Impartiality & Diversity of Opinion Introduction Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins via our websites 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 can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply • we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects • we must rigorously test contributors expressing contentious views during an interview whilst giving them a fair chance to set out their full response to our questions 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 5 - Fairness, Contributors & Consent Introduction The BBC strives to be fair to all – fair to those we're making programmes about, fair to contributors, and fair to our audiences. Contributors & informed consent We obtain informed consent from our contributors in a variety of ways depending on the circumstances of their contribution. Wherever practicable we should obtain consent in a form capable of proof, preferably in writing or recorded. In many cases contributors will give their consent by simply agreeing to be recorded for radio or television or to contribute online. This will usually apply to people who are interviewed at short notice for any of our services, including people in the news and people who take part in "vox pops". It is clearly impractical to obtain written consent for time sensitive contributions, including those to local radio, 24 hour news and other news outlets. Occasionally there may also be circumstances in which contributors give their verbal consent at the start of a project and their continued consent is implicit through their ongoing involvement in the making of the programme. Fairness to contributors Our commitment to fairness is normally achieved by ensuring that people know: • why they are being asked to contribute to BBC output and where it will first appear • the context of the programme or website • the nature of their involvement The more significant their contribution, the more detail we should provide. When inviting people to contribute to our output we should normally explain: • the kind of contribution they are expected to make. If it is a discussion or debate we should tell them in advance about the range of views being represented and, wherever possible, the names of other likely contributors • whether their contribution will be live or recorded and/or edited. When recorded, we should not guarantee it will be broadcast • we can only give a broad outline of question areas because the direction the interview takes will be dependent on what is said • we will normally make them aware of significant changes to the programme as it develops which might reasonably affect their original consent to participate • the final content will be a fair and truthful representation of what they say and do • their contribution may be used by other BBC outlets or streamed online • we do not normally allow a preview of BBC content. However, when a preview is considered for editorial, ethical or legal reasons, we must be able to demonstrate the terms under which it was offered. It is best to do this in writing in advance. We should always make it clear that we are not surrendering editorial control and that any changes made as a result will generally only relate to the correction of agreed factual inaccuracies, concerns about the welfare of children, or for reasons of personal safety, or national security. • their contractual rights and obligations and those of the BBC in relation to their contribution. For example, we expect contributors to be honest, straightforward and truthful • we may ask contributors to sign a contract which formalises the terms of their dealings with us, and includes a declaration of personal information which may bring the BBC into disrepute, for example, criminal convictions, or which may involve possible conflicts of interest • there may be occasions when people are discussed, referred to or appear in material provided by a contributor without their knowledge or consent. They may be public figures or private individuals and the material may include photographs, video and correspondence in which they feature. We should be fair and accurate in our portrayal of these people and where appropriate respect their privacy. Withdrawal of consent Occasionally people who have willingly contributed to our output try to withdraw their consent prior to broadcast. Generally no one has the right to prevent their contribution being used, but we should listen carefully to any reasonable objections. There may be exceptions, for example, where we have contractual obligations. 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 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 fairness, accuracy and impartiality. Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion Impartiality requires the BBC to ensure that it reflects a wide range of opinion and explores a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented in its output. It is also required to avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. Due impartiality means that the BBC should be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in its 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. Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output and the 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 the audience. The Committee noted the concerns raised by the complainant that the programme was biased and “amounted to no more than an attempted smear on those arguing the murder theory”. In this case the Committee took into account that the way impartiality was achieved would be linked to the fact that this was a series about conspiracies. The format was known and the audience would come to the programme expecting conspiracies to be set out for them with supporting and competing facts and accounts. The Committee considered the programme as a whole. In doing so it noted an example of how the programme makers set about their investigation in the opening sequences of the programme: Voice over: “The official account says that under pressure he took his own life by cutting his wrist.” Thames Valley Police: “There is no indication at this stage of any other party being involved.” Voice over: “But the method it’s said he used was so unusual that many people now doubt the official version.” John Scurr: “The question really is does it seem reasonable that he could have died from this injury alone, and I don't think he could.” Voice over: “The official version says he also took an overdose of pills. But is there another story?” Rowena Thursby: “They were intent on not only killing him but making it look like – like suicide. They didn't want to know – people to know that he was being murdered.” Archive: “Lord Hutton’s inquiry into David Kelly’s death had far less legal powers than an inquest.” Michael Powers: “They didn't have to give evidence under oath. A witness lying to Lord Hutton could not be prosecuted for perjury.” Archive: “Some say it could be more sinister than suicide.” Richard Spertzel: “David Kelly did not commit suicide. He was assassinated.” The Committee concluded from this and other examples that the content and approach were clearly signalled to viewers. The Committee noted how the various arguments were put forward and addressed in the programme. It noted another example of how the programme had set about putting forward the different arguments to a specific view of Dr Kelly’s death. The Committee looked at how the programme considered what evidence there was for Dr Kelly having died from the loss of blood after cutting his wrists. The Committee noted that the programme had included archive footage of the paramedics who had treated him at the scene of his death and followed this with the comments of John Scurr, a consultant vascular surgeon: John Scurr: “I personally I don't think I've ever seen anybody die from wrist injuries. I have seen a lot of wrist injuries. It is a very common cry for help type thing. Attempt at suicide rather than a genuine attempt at killing themselves.” Voice over: “John Scurr believes that if Dr Kelly had really meant to kill himself, he cut the wrong artery in the wrong way.” John Scurr: “Frankly I don't believe that simply cutting an ulnar artery will cause death. The radial artery runs down here and the ulnar artery runs down this side of the wrist. The ulnar artery is relatively deep and to get the ulnar artery you would need to cut in that sort of direction, which is an unusual way of holding a knife. The body has a lot of self defensive mechanisms. As you know if you take a knife and cut your finger you don't bleed to death. And the reason you don't bleed to death is you produce all sorts of clever things that seal the circulation and the bleeding stops. If you cut a large artery then you may not be able to stop the bleeding. The thing we know about the ulnar artery is it's quite small and so if Dr Kelly had cut it clean it would have gone into spasm and it would have, you know, probably oozed for a little while trickled. He might have lost a few hundred mls of blood. And then it would have stopped.” The Committee then noted how the programme then returned to this issue later in the programme with the inclusion of the views of Dr Allen Anscombe, President British Association in Forensic Medicine: Allen Anscombe: “Forensic pathologists are biased in terms of seeing what people actually die from, clinicians by and large, the vast majority of their patients don't die. So again, we approach things from a different way and actually see what people really die from. You might argue we don't see what people survive. So I'm quite happy to accept that often severed small to medium sized arteries such as ulnar artery are not fatal, but severings of such an artery can and is occasionally fatal. And if you combine that with somebody who is deceased then you tend to put two and two together.” Voice over: “The paramedics say they didn’t see much blood at the scene. Is there any way to establish if Dr Kelly had lost enough blood to have died from haemorrhaging?” Allen Anscombe: “The actual volume of blood given that the person is deceased ... um ... is likely to be fatal, whatever that volume happens to be. There is not a simple volume which is always fatal and a simple volume which is not. It depends on the rate of bleeding, it depends on your physical condition whilst ... before you're bleeding and whilst you're bleeding, depends on a number of factors.” Voice over: “It’s also suggested that up to five pints of blood need to be lost in order to cause death, and the pathologist who conducted the post-mortem on Dr Kelly in Oxford should have measured the amount of blood lost or the amount remaining.” Allen Anscombe: “There's no simple test to measure the remaining amount of blood in the circulation in, in a dead body. It would be nice if it was possible but unfortunately it's not.” The Committee concluded from this evidence, and having considered the content of the programme overall, that the programme had achieved appropriate balance. The Committee considered that a range of opinions had been sought and that sufficient time had been provided to ensure that views had been clearly presented. The Committee did not consider there was evidence that the programme had espoused the suicide theory, or that it ‘smeared’ those who argued against the official version of events. The programme did not conclude one way or another what had happened to Dr Kelly. The programme had presented the theories and various arguments in a way that was duly impartial. The complainant’s view had fitted into that mix and had been fairly represented. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had fulfilled its self-declared aim, which was to air the various theories surrounding Dr Kelly’s death and leave the audience to make up its own mind. The Committee concluded therefore that the programme had satisfied the requirement to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence as well as being objective and even-handed in its approach to the subject. The complaint was not upheld. Accuracy It is a requirement that the BBC’s output is well sourced and based on sound evidence. The Committee considered how the programme had presented the facts from the various theories including the contribution of the complainant. The Committee noted that it was not the purpose of the programme to examine in great detail the specific scientific evidence relating to Dr Kelly’s death. The programme’s purpose was to explore the various theories associated with his death and in doing so ensure that each theory was accurately and clearly presented within the space afforded by the programme. The Committee also recognised that given that the programme was not a detailed exploration into one particular theory but a range of different views, the programme would not be able to do more than present the broadest of facts. It was therefore the responsibility of the programme makers to ensure that in sourcing the arguments its choice of contributors and approach had accurately represented the various arguments. The Committee noted who had been interviewed on the programme. In particular it noted who had put forward the various arguments that disputed the official version that Dr Kelly had committed suicide: • Rowena Thursby, co-ordinator of the website , The Kelly Investigation Group • Norman Baker, MP • John Scurr, consultant vascular surgeon • Alistair Hay, Professor of Toxicology, University of Leeds • Richard Spertzel, UN weapons inspector • The complainant • Warren Reed, Australian Secret Intelligence Service The Committee was satisfied that the choice of contributors had been appropriate to accurately reflect the various arguments and theories that differed from the official version of events. The Committee was also satisfied that the programme had checked the credentials of the contributors to ensure that their contribution was appropriate to the nature of their contributions. The Committee considered whether the complainant’s theory had been accurately represented in the programme under fairness below. In conclusion, the Committee was satisfied the arguments and counter arguments for the various theories, while not presented in detail, had accurately provided the audience with sufficient information. The Committee did not believe that when viewing the programme as a whole there was evidence that the programme withheld material facts and distorted views. As such it did not consider that there had been a breach of either the accuracy or the impartiality guidelines. Fairness The Committee noted that this was a first party complaint and was satisfied that the editorial guidelines relating to the unfair treatment of those who have directly featured or participated in BBC programmes applied. Fairness in this case requires the BBC to be open, honest and straightforward in its dealings with contributors, unless there is a clear public interest in doing otherwise. It also requires the BBC, in normal circumstances, to have ensured that contributors have consented to taking part in its output. The Committee therefore looked at whether the BBC had been straightforward in its dealing with the complainant. It examined whether: • he had been fully informed as to the context of the programme and whether the programme, in representing his theory, was unfair to him • there were any significant changes to the programme which might reasonably affect his consent to participate • the description of the complainant was fair • the inclusion of the reference to the novel The Teeth of the Tiger was fair. The Committee also looked at whether the programme had ensured that the contributor had provided appropriate consent for his contribution to be used in the programme. a) Information regarding the context of the programme and whether the programme, in representing his theory, was unfair to him. The programme’s intention had been to examine the official explanation that Dr Kelly had committed suicide against a number of other theories that suggested that this could not have been possible. The Committee noted that the programme had established with the complainant what the purpose and context of the programme was, i.e. to examine the many questions that persist around the death of Dr David Kelly, prior to his recording an interview for use in the programme. The complainant in his letters to the BBC was clear that this was the purpose of the programme but he disputed that this was the programme that was broadcast. The Committee considered that the programme (as set out above under due impartiality and accuracy) clearly set out to look at the various theories and did not come down on one side or the other. As such it did not agree with the complainant that the programme was not balanced and was “simply an attempt to belittle those suggesting murder as the cause of death and smear them as cranks or conspiracy theorists.” The Committee considered that the complainant had had the programme’s context explained. The Committee noted that, having been aware of the purpose of the programme, the complainant signed a consent form on 30 November after filming had commenced giving the BBC permission to use his interview. The Committee is aware that later the complainant wished to withdraw his consent to the programme. This issue will be addressed later in the finding. The Committee considered whether the representation of the complainant’s theory within the context of the programme had resulted in unfairness to the complainant either because it had been inaccurately represented or because of other unfairness in its representation. The Committee noted what the complainant had said: (the complainant) “I was contacted within about 24 hours by somebody working with David Kelly in the intelligence community and he said he'd been murdered and I wasn't particularly surprised at that and given the source I had no doubts whatsoever that he'd been murdered from that time.” Voice over: “(the complainant) believes he has found clues on Harrowdown Hill that others have missed.” (the complainant) “You could a hide a platoon or a company of men over the brow of that hill and you wouldn’t know if they kept quiet until you were right on top of them. As a place for an ambush it’s just frankly ideal. He was clearly assassinated to keep him quiet there was no other motive.” Voice over: “(the complainant) believes that the co-proxamol pain-killers found near the body were simply a cover used by assassins.” (the complainant) “The plan is to leave co-proxamol by the side of the body. So they’re trying to get co-proxamol into the stomach and they’re trying to shove co- proxamol down into poor David Kelly he dies on them too quickly. As they’re shoving the tablet down him, probably the first tablet, there’s vomit, and that’s the end then he dies. And that’s the end of tablets.” Voice over: “(the complainant) also believes that the cut wrist was really to hide the injection marks created by a different method of death, an injection of a fatal substance.” (the complainant) “Succynolcholine is still very much the favoured means of killing him because it is so easily disguised. The wrist slash is clearly in my view designed not just to create the impression of suicide but it’s a perfect means of disguising the puncture wounds.” Voice over: “(the complainant) says he knows that Dr Kelly was assassinated because of his extensive intelligence contacts.” (the complainant) “That is the red phone if that phone goes it could be anyone from the White House to President’s administration in Russia to the CIA to whoever. It’s not usual for me to pick up the phone and have Henry Kissinger on the other end but that has happened. He actually has that number but he doesn’t have that number. That gives me a direct line through to Vice President Dick Cheney’s Office.” The Committee was satisfied that the complainant had been given sufficient opportunity to put forward his views as to the cause of Dr Kelly’s death and to cast doubt on the theory that Dr Kelly had died from taking co-proxamol and by cutting his wrist. It was presented in a fair and open minded way. It used the complainant’s own words to explain the theory and so was accurate within the obvious limitations of space afforded by the programme format. The Committee noted that his views had been clearly articulated and presented unchallenged in this section of the programme. The Committee concluded that the context of the programme as explained to the complainant and the presentation of the complainant’s theory did not result in unfairness to him. b) Were there any significant changes to the programme which might reasonably affect the complainant’s consent to participate (such as the inclusion of the views of Professor Tyrer)? The Committee noted that during the programme the views of Professor Tyrer, Professor of Psychiatry at Imperial College London, were included on the wider question as to why conspiracy theories exist. The complainant considered this inclusion implied an observation on the mental health of those who refused to accept the official version of events. (The complainant made no criticism of Professor Tyrer himself.) With regard to the involvement of Professor Tyrer, the Committee was informed that the programme makers had not informed the complainant that Professor Tyrer would be a contributor to the programme. The Committee went on to consider whether the involvement of Professor Tyrer could be regarded as a breach of guidelines in that Professor Tyrer’s contribution could be considered to have significantly changed the purpose of the programme and, therefore, affected the complainant’s original consent to participate. The Committee noted what Professor Tyrer said in his contributions to the programme. It also considered how this section of the programme, looking at why conspiracy theories occur, had been introduced in the programme. In particular the Committee considered whether what Professor Tyrer said and how he was introduced was directly related to the complainant’s contribution or, by inference, suggested an opinion on the ‘mental health’ of those who believed in an alternative view to that of the Government. The Committee noted Professor Tyrer’s contribution in the section related to why conspiracy theories had come about in the aftermath of Dr Kelly’s death. He stated: Professor Tyrer: “We've recently published a paper in the British Journal of Psychiatry that shows that the ordinary population doesn't trust the Government and institutions when they provide information [erm] a majority feel they are right to mistrust that at least in the first instance. I think this is really a consequence of the Government’s excessive reliance on spin.” The Committee also considered the section leading up to this comment and how close this extract had been to the complainant’s contribution. The Committee noted that, following the complainant’s contribution, another theory was briefly introduced, that of Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who talked of the death being a “wet disposal” meaning “a hurried job”. The Committee also noted that from that point the programme briefly referred to the possibility of secret service activity in the interception of letters and emails. This then led to a recording of Norman Baker MP in an interview on BBC Radio Oxford where Mr Baker attempted to debunk the euphemism ‘conspiracy theorist’. The Committee noted what was said in the interview: Radio Oxford Presenter (ROP): “I’ve been talking to Norman Baker MP. “Well the Hutton Inquiry found that Dr Kelly had committed suicide. But some have their doubts and conspiracy theories abound. So where do we go from here? Are you claiming that there are major dark forces and spooks operating out there?” Norman Baker MP (NB): “Well I’m not using the phrase dark forces, I’m not using the word spooks, nor am I, by the way, using the phrase conspiracy theory which is a very lazy way for journalists in national newspapers to dismiss anyone who questions the official version of events. A conspiracy is two or more people coming together for a common purpose no more no less. You might argue that George Bush and Tony Blair had a conspiracy to invade Iraq.” ROP: “And what’s your best suggestion of an alternative explanation?” NB: “I’ve had leads to do with individuals who were connected with David Kelly and who had particular reasons to wish him not to be there.” Following this extract and a short comment by Alistair Hay, a friend and colleague of Dr Kelly, who gave his view that the theories were as a result of uncertainties arising from the imprecision of information in the Hutton enquiry, Professor Tyrer made his comment. The Committee was satisfied that the contribution by the psychiatrist Professor Tyrer had not changed the purpose of the programme from the purpose described to the complainant. The programme had set about looking at the various questions that had been raised following Dr Kelly’s death and as part of that investigation looked at the possible reasons why such theories may have come about. The Committee was also satisfied that there was no evidence to suggest the comments made by Professor Tyrer were addressed at the complainant nor were they implicitly or explicitly referring to the ‘mental health’ of those who believed in alternate theories to the Government’s version of events. The Committee concluded that Professor Tyrer’s remarks were referring to his view of overall human behaviour in response to government spin, and that he concluded this resulted in an initial distrust of government pronouncements. As to whether it was a requirement of the programme to inform the complainant of all the other contributors, the Committee was satisfied that where a contributor needed to have knowledge of the names of other contributors or the nature of their contribution in order to give informed consent before contributing to the programme or after the contribution had been recorded but not yet broadcast because there had been a significant change then such information should be given. Not to do so could result in unfairness. In this case the Committee was satisfied that the inclusion of Professor Tyrer’s remarks did not result in unfairness to the complainant, and did not amount to a significant change to the context of the complainant’s contribution so as to result in unfairness to him. Therefore it was not necessary to inform him of Professor Tyrer’s contribution. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had not breached fairness guidelines and that no significant change had occurred to the programme by the inclusion of Professor Tyrer’s comments. c) The description of the complainant The complainant objected that he was described as a barrister against his express wishes. He pointed out he had not appeared or acted as counsel in the case of Dr Kelly. The Committee considered whether the caption referring to the complainant as a barrister had been a fair and truthful representation of his occupation. The Committee also considered whether in using the title ‘barrister’ the programme had misled viewers, as to the complainant’s connections with intelligence sources. The Committee also considered whether the way the complainant was described was unfair to him. The Committee noted that the complainant had been in dispute with the programme makers as to what occupation he should be captioned with. The Committee also noted that he had provided the programme makers with a number of alternatives for the programme to consider during an exchange of emails he had with the production team. The Committee noted the programme’s decision to use ‘barrister’ as the complainant’s occupation as that was the title it considered was factually accurate. The Committee noted that it was the description he used on his letterheads and in his appeal letter to the Committee. The Committee also noted that the programme, whilst deciding to refer to him as a barrister in their introduction (and in their captioning), ensured within the body of the interview that the complainant was given an opportunity to describe himself. It noted how the programme had introduced the complainant in the programme and how he had been allowed to describe himself: Voice over: “A different explanation for Dr Kelly’s death comes from Barrister (the complainant) (also captioned Barrister). He has made his own investigation at Harrowdown Hill.” (the complainant) “Harrowdown Hill, I've visited the murder site, it's ideal. I'm known as a national security lawyer and it's known that I have links with the intelligence communities in the United Kingdom and [in] throughout the western world.” The Committee concluded that the description of the complainant as a barrister had been accurate and had fairly represented his occupation to the audience. It had not misled the audience and the programme had not suggested that the complainant had a professional role in the events under investigation, e.g. that he had acted/appeared as a barrister in the case of Dr Kelly. It was not necessary for the complainant to give permission to use a professional title which was in the public domain. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concern that the programme tried to create the impression that the complainant did not have intelligence connections. The Committee noted what had been broadcast. It considered the complainant was allowed by the programme makers to establish his credentials in his own words: (the complainant) “[…] I'm known as a national security lawyer and it's known that I have links with the intelligence communities in the United Kingdom and [in] throughout the western world. “I was contacted within about 24 hours by somebody working with David Kelly in the intelligence community and he said he'd been murdered and I wasn't particularly surprised at that and given the source I had no doubts whatsoever that he'd been murdered from that time.” Later in the interview it was stated: Voice over: “(the complainant) says he knows that Dr Kelly was assassinated because of his extensive intelligence contacts.” (the complainant) “That is the red phone if that phone goes it could be anyone from the White House to [the] President’s administration in Russia to the CIA to whoever. It’s not usual for me to pick up the phone and have Henry Kissinger on the other end but that has happened. He actually has that number but he doesn’t have that number. That gives me a direct line through to Vice President Dick Cheney’s Office.” The Committee was satisfied that the programme makers had given the complainant sufficient opportunity to reflect his links with intelligence sources within the programme and in giving the complainant sufficient opportunity to describe himself, in his own terms, the programme had been fair to the contributor and had not misled the audience or had been inaccurate. As such the programme had not been in breach of fairness or accuracy guidelines. d) Reference to the novel by Tom Clancy The Teeth of the Tiger. In order to be fair to a contributor it is a requirement of programme makers that they provide a contributor with a broad outline of questions ahead of an interview. However, the guidelines recognise that this may change due to the direction the interview takes. The Committee noted that the complainant objected to the programme team filming the cover of the Tom Clancy novel they had found in the complainant’s house without his knowledge and as a prelude to asking the complainant about the storyline of the book in relation to his theory as to the circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death. “Given the intent to make fun of me and damage my professional reputation – this amounted not only to trespass to goods but was a clear breach of the conditions on which the crew were granted admission to my home.” The Committee noted how the clip was used in the context of the final broadcast interview. Voice over: “(the complainant) is also a fan of espionage fiction from Frederick Forsyth to Tom Clancy.” (the complainant) “He’s one of my favourite authors.” Setting up shot: (Tom Clancy book The Teeth of the Tiger is shown) Voice over: “One of Tom Clancy’s books, The Teeth of the Tiger concerns an ‘off the books’ team of US Government assassins who avoid detection by killing their victims with succynolcholine.” (the complainant) “Now yes there is a reference to succynolcholine in this book and I think that follows the assassination of David Kelly. Tom Clancy has very good contacts in the intelligence community. It may be that Tom Clancy picked up a loopback from the Kelly assassination. But if the suggestion is that I got succynolcholine from a Tom Clancy novel then sorry that won’t wash.” The Committee recognised that the introduction of the book had added something to the story overall. The Committee also recognised that the complainant had been content both to discuss the book on camera and to be filmed handling it once he had been asked by the programme makers. The Committee concluded that the reference to and the ensuing discussion concerning the content of Tom Clancy’s book was reasonable given the similarity between the plot of the novel and the complainant’s theory. The Committee was satisfied that the direction of the interview changed with the introduction of the book but the broad outline of the discussion which set out the complainant’s theory had not altered. The Committee also concluded that the complainant had participated in this element of the interview by being filmed flicking through the book as well as discussing its content as part of the interview. The Committee agreed the complainant had been given the opportunity to dismiss any suggestion that his theory had been drawn from the novel. The Committee was satisfied that the introduction of the Clancy novel had not amounted to a significant change to the programme which would have affected his informed consent to be filmed for the programme nor had it resulted in the complainant’s theory being unfairly represented or in unfairness to the complainant. The filming and interview references to the book did not amount to a breach of the fairness guideline. The Committee was concerned, however, with the way in which the book had been found and then filmed without the knowledge of the complainant. The Committee considered the action of the programme team to have been discourteous in taking the book and filming the cover of the book without the knowledge of the complainant. Consent It is a requirement for people to have normally consented for their contribution to be included in the BBC’s output. The complainant set out that his withdrawal of consent was both on the basis that he expressly set out that he should not be described as a barrister and that the programme was not as described to him, that is, a balanced and objective attempt to explain the competing theories on the death of Dr Kelly. The Committee has explained above why it has concluded that the programme was balanced and objective. It does not accept therefore that his consent was not informed on the grounds that the programme was not as described. The Committee noted that a consent form including a handwritten amendment had been willingly signed by the complainant on 30 November. The Committee noted that the complainant had later indicated that his consent was conditional. The Committee noted the guideline on the withdrawal of consent, which states: “Occasionally people who have willingly contributed to our output try to withdraw their consent prior to broadcast. Generally no one has the right to prevent their contribution being used, but we should listen carefully to any reasonable objections.” The Committee concluded that once consent had been obtained willingly, if the contributor later withdrew consent the decision as to whether to broadcast the contribution was for the programme makers to decide. The Committee agreed that consent was not a bargaining chip for a contributor to withdraw sometime after it had been agreed but that any reasonable request for withdrawal of consent should be considered on its merit. In this case the contributor exchanged emails with the programme team in December 2006. The email of 9 December set out various matters which the complainant did not want included within the programme – in accordance with the handwritten amendment to the contract. These matters were not mentioned in the programme. In addition he suggested he should be described as a National Security Lawyer. And said “I look forward to your urgent reply at the moment you do not have my unqualified consent to appear in this programme.” However, the Committee noted that his written consent on 30 November was not conditional on the way he was to be described. He repeated his question regarding the strapline on 21 December and again said “The BBC does not have permission to use my name or footage of me in connection with the programme ... until we get this sorted.” On 10 February 2007 the complainant asked whether they had an agreement re the strapline. He was informed on 12 February of the strapline. He responded on the same day saying “For the record I don’t agree with the strapline.” There were further exchanges on that day and another exchange on 14 February. None of these suggested that the complainant considered his consent had been withdrawn as a result of the decision by the programme team to describe him as a barrister. The emails implicitly assumed the broadcast would go ahead. The Committee concluded that the complainant gave his consent and that despite the ongoing discussion over the way the complainant should be described there was no reason for the production team to consider that his consent had been withdrawn at the time of broadcast. The Committee did not consider that in this case, where the complainant had been appropriately described with his professional qualification, that that description could amount to a reason for withdrawing consent. The Committee noted that in this case a copy of the consent form was not provided to the complainant until he requested it. The Committee accepted that at times it was impracticable for programmes such as news programmes to ensure that copies were always provided to contributors due to the fast moving nature of some output and the fact that consent was obtained verbally. Nevertheless, it considered that where it was practicable programmes should provide a copy to a contributor for their records. In doing so it would not undermine the right of the BBC to broadcast the contribution once signed. The Committee would ask BBC management what process they have at present to offer contributors copies of the consent form. Conclusion The Committee was satisfied that the programme was accurate and duly impartial. It was also satisfied that the programme makers had acted in a fair and straightforward manner when explaining the outline of the programme and the complainant’s contribution to it. It was not a requirement for the programme to discuss all contributors with the complainant as long as their involvement did not amount to a significant change to the programme, which the Committee was satisfied it did not. The Committee was also satisfied that the programme had fairly and accurately represented the complainant’s occupation and his own description of his connections to the intelligence community as well as having allowed him the opportunity to put forward his theory as to the death of Dr Kelly. The Committee also considered that the reference to, and picture of, Tom Clancy’s novel was relevant to the complainant’s contribution and that the use of the filmic and interview references to the book were not a breach of the accuracy or fairness guidelines. Finally, the Committee was satisfied that with regard to consent the programme had acted properly and obtained consent from the complainant. The Committee recognised that the complainant may not in retrospect have wished his contribution to have been used in the final programme. It was satisfied however that the decision as to the inclusion of the contribution (once recorded with consent) was for the programme makers to make, not the complainant, and that the programme makers had given reasonable consideration to the views expressed by the complainant when coming to their decision. Finding: Not upheld bbc.co.uk, ‘Vatican backs ex-Kennedy wife’, published 20 June 2007 1. The article The online story concerned the attempt by Congressman Joseph P Kennedy 11 to annul his marriage to Sheila Rauch Kennedy. Mrs Rauch Kennedy, who is Episcopalian, had taken her appeal regarding the Boston Archdiocese’s initial decision to the Vatican and in May 2007 this decision had been overturned by the Vatican. The couple also had a civil divorce and Rauch Kennedy made her campaign public in 1997 with her book Shattered Faith. 2. The complaint The complainant summarised his complaint as follows: The BBC Online story would mislead people into believing that the Vatican had reversed itself on the decision made. The complainant pointed out that in fact, the Roman Rota (the Court of Appeal) had overturned a decision of the Marriage Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston. The complainant, in four emails to BBC News online, set out his complaint about the BBC News online article: • The article would mislead people into thinking the Vatican had reversed its own decision as opposed to overturning a decision by the Marriage Tribunal of Boston Archdiocese. • The quote attributed to Ms Rauch was not in fact a quote. • There had not been an annulment but a provisional annulment. • This was an appeals process. • The annulment process had not been a secret from Ms Rauch. The complainant also raised objections to how BBC News online had handled his complaint • His substantive points had not been dealt with or changes made. • His original submissions had not been dealt with until he had submitted a formal complaint. (The article was published on 20 June. The complainant contacted the website team on 21 June with a follow up email on the same day which resulted in the article being changed. He followed that up with a further email on 3 July. He sent a detailed email on 5 July following a reply from the web team on 4 July. He wrote again on 15 July having heard no word concerning his email of 5 July.) 3. BBC News online response (stage 1) - After receipt of an initial (and follow up) email (21 June) from the complainant, the online team changed ‘sacrament’ to ‘sacraments’ in the article. Following receipt of a more detailed complaint from the complainant (5 July) the online team stated: - “We have investigated your complaint, including contacting Vatican experts for guidance on the story and the way it had been written.” - “We agree that our story oversimplifies the process, thereby not giving an accurate picture.” - “We have therefore now amended it in an attempt to make it clear that the Vatican’s court, the Roman Rota, overturned the initial annulment decision granted by the Archdiocese of Boston after an appeal by Ms Rauch.” - “We trust that our story now amended does not mislead readers into thinking the Vatican reversed itself.” With regard to process, the online team replied: - “[…] we are writing for a general audience. While an online story can in theory be of any length, we do have constraints on our time and resources to devote to each story. Put simply, our staffing simply doesn’t allow us to go into the detail you outline in your email correspondence. - “[…] in responding to your first complaint, we replied within the time given by BBC guidelines (ten working days); - “We have similarly replied in time to your latest email, following examination of our story and contacting experts.” (Following the complainant’s email of 15 July the web team sent a holding email on 16 July, responding in an email on 25 July) The complainant responded to BBC News online’s reply of 25 July: - “[The article addresses] two of the three defects to which I alerted the BBC on 21 June: (a) you have substituted the word ‘overturned’ for ‘reversed’ and (b) you have explicitly referred to Ms Rauch’s appeal but as to (c) you have deleted the allegation that ‘Mr Kennedy obtained the annulment in secret in 1993’ and substituted the line: ‘Without her knowledge, he sought an annulment in 1993 from the Boston Archdiocese before marrying again.’” - “This alteration confirms rather than dispels the impression that the annulment proceedings were conducted without the knowledge of Ms Rauch.” The complainant also responded to online’s reply about process: - “I do expect the BBC to be accurate within their own limitations.” As to how long it took for the web team to reply he stated: - “[…] this is an unacceptably long delay. You say your response was within the time given by the BBC Guidelines. These indicate 10 days as the usual limit. How can it be said that the response of 4 July (answering my complaint of 21 June) or your email of 25 July (answering mine of 5 July) complies with the Guidelines?” The complainant also raised a number of other points about the process of preparing and publishing the article that concerned issues of accuracy and honesty (in admitting errors). On 9 August the complainant was sent a further revised version of the article. The reference to the process having taken place without Ms Rauch’s knowledge was removed. The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) (stage 2 on 13 August): The complainant outlined his complaint to date. He pointed out that the article had been changed over time to take account of his complaints. However, he pointed out fresh inaccuracies in the various versions of the article: - “(The BBC report) remains disfigured by a chronological error which has been present in various guises from the outset, but which I have never specifically addressed and which the BBC have not discovered for themselves.” - The inaccuracies concerned the dating of the civil marriage and the dating of the annulment process. In terms of process he complained about the delay in dealing with his complaints. He also pointed out how the article had been changed without the acceptance (by the online team) that there had been an error regarding the reference to the process having taken place without Ms Rauch’s knowledge. He stated: - “I repeated my complaint on 26 July and the offending passage was deleted on 9 August, five weeks after I had formally complained about it and seven weeks after I had alerted the BBC to the appearance of an error. The BBC have never admitted any error … nor have they attempted to defend their original statement or explain their thinking behind the amendment made on 25 July.” The ECU’s reply noted: - The article had corrected the role of the Vatican as an appellate court and whether the annulment had taken place without Ms Rauch’s knowledge. The ECU also agreed to deal with the issue of the date of Mr Kennedy’s civil marriage stating: - “(We) have therefore raised the matter with the team at BBC News Online and they have amended the site to make it clear that Joseph Kennedy obtained his initial annulment in 1996 after he had remarried.” As to the complainant’s concern as to process the ECU apologised for the delays that the complainant had suffered. In reply to the admission of the errors that had been contained in the article, the ECU replied: - “[…] I think the fact that changes were made was an implicit admission that there were errors in the original version.” With regard to explaining how the errors had been made by the online team the ECU stated: - “I’m afraid it’s not within the remit of the Editorial Complaints Unit to try to explain why errors were made but you may be reassured to know that we have discussed what happened with the Editor responsible to ensure that lessons are learned from this incident.” 8. The complainant replied to ECU on 30 August, dissatisfied with its reply. He stated: - “The fact that the amendments were made in no way exempts the BBC from openly admitting, and apologising for, their mistakes.” 9. ECU responded: - It apologised for the number of errors in the original article. - The ECU also accepted that the handling of his complaint had “not (been) dealt with as swiftly or as effectively as it should have been.” - The unit had discussed the issue with the online management team to ensure that in future complaints from the complainant would be dealt with “in a more appropriate manner”. 10. The complainant appealed to the ESC on 21 September following further contact with the ECU in response to their further reply and after requesting the “gist of the material relied on in responding to my complaint” which the ECU had declined to supply on the grounds that some correspondence was sent in confidence. In his appeal to the ESC the complainant raised a number of concerns about the ECU’s methodology in considering his complaint. He also raised concerns about how the ECU had addressed the issues of process and the refusal to investigate how the online team had gone about their research in preparing the article for publication. 11. Applicable programme standards Section 3 – Accuracy Introduction 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. 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. Use of third party material in news & factual output We should only use material supplied by third parties if it is credible and reliable. This includes weather reports, financial markets information and music charts. We need to ensure that any credit given for the use of third party material is in accordance with BBC guidelines which can be found at www.bbc.co.uk/credits. Correcting mistakes We should normally acknowledge serious factual errors and correct mistakes quickly and clearly. Inaccuracy may lead to a complaint of unfairness. An effective way of correcting a mistake is saying what was wrong as well as putting it right. Where we may have broadcast a defamatory inaccuracy Programme Legal Advice should be consulted about the wording of a correction. Section 17 – Accountability Introduction The BBC is accountable to its audiences. Their continuing trust in the BBC is a crucial part of our contract with them. We will act in good faith by dealing fairly and openly with them. We are open in admitting mistakes when they are made and encourage a culture of willingness to learn from them. We will use the BBC's online presence to provide proper reporting to the public on complaints we have received, and actions we have taken. (www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/). 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. Editorial Complaints Unit The Editorial Complaints Unit deals with serious complaints about breaches of the BBC's editorial standards. It deals with complaints about any BBC service or product where the BBC has editorial responsibility. This includes international public and commercial services and BBC branded magazines. For the most serious upheld complaints, an apology or correction from the BBC may be published online or on air. 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 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 accuracy and accountability. Accuracy The BBC’s commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value. As such it is a requirement for the BBC to ensure its output is well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear precise language. It also requires that the BBC should not distort known facts or knowingly do anything to mislead the audience. The BBC should be honest and open about what it does not know. As to correcting errors, the BBC should normally acknowledge serious factual errors and correct mistakes quickly and clearly. The Committee reviewed all the correspondence and various amendments to the article on the BBC News website. It noted that the article had been amended regarding a number of issues including: • the substitution of the word ‘overturned’ for ‘reversed’ • the quote attributed to Ms Rauch was not in fact a quote • it had not been an annulment, but was an initial decision • this was an appeals process • the annulment process had not been a secret from Ms Rauch The Committee concluded that the complainant had been correct in requesting amendments to the article. He had highlighted a series of inaccuracies in the story which would have misled the reader of the article. The Committee agreed that the complainant had been right in drawing these errors to the attention of the BBC News online team. The article had been fundamentally flawed and he had provided useful and accurate information to assist the web team in correcting the content of the story. As such the web team should have acted more quickly and been clearer in its response to the complainant to ensure that the story was corrected sooner than it was. The Committee agreed that the article in its original form had breached guidelines on accuracy. It noted, however, that following changes made to the article at stages 1 and 2 of the complaints process, the issue had now been resolved. As to the wider issue of sourcing and checking stories for the news website, the Committee concluded that this was an issue that BBC management would need to address. The Committee noted that the source of this story had been Time magazine and, as such, while the story was of interest to the audience, greater effort should have been made in checking the facts of the BBC online story to ensure that all the details had been correct. The Committee was not suggesting that the original magazine story was wrong; but that the processes at BBC News online for sourcing and checking stories had been faulty as had been their processes for checking and correcting the story once the errors had been established. The Committee recognised that it was impossible, given the number of articles published on the BBC News website, to ensure that no mistakes are published. Nevertheless, it was important that the appropriate checks and editorial oversight was in place to prevent a repetition of this kind of complaint. It was also important that action be taken quickly to correct copy if errors were brought to the attention of the news team. The Committee concluded that it would write to BBC management to request that it reviews its policies as to the sourcing and checking of material facts within articles prior to publication on the BBC website. It would also remind BBC management of the need to act quickly on information supplied by readers to ensure that changes where appropriate are made as quickly as possible. Accountability The BBC is accountable to its audience and as part of that relationship should admit mistakes when they are made. It should also encourage a culture of willingness to learn from them. The BBC is also required to deal with complaints quickly, courteously and with respect. The Committee considered how the complaint was handled, reviewing all the correspondence associated with it. The Committee concluded that the replies from both BBC online and the ECU had been courteous and, in the case of the ECU at stage 2, timely. The Committee also noted that the reply from the ECU had acknowledged that the article had been inaccurate and as such had ensured that it had been amended to incorporate those changes. In the case of stage 1 the Committee acknowledged that a holding letter had been sent within ten working days, on 16 July, in response to the detailed complaint of 5 July as the BBC process required. The article was changed on 25 July, over a month after publication, and a reply was sent to the complainant. Errors were pointed out by the complainant and further corrections then ensued. The article was republished on 9 August and again on 28 August. The Committee concluded that the changes had taken too long. BBC online should have acted more promptly on the information provided by the complainant. It should also have acknowledged the errors and welcomed contact on issues of accuracy to help ensure the web pages were correct. The Committee agreed to partially uphold the complaint with regard to accountability, on the grounds that the amendments to the article at stage 1 should have been quicker. Complaints Handling The Committee also considered the complainant’s appeal that the ECU had failed and refused to give him the “gist of the material relied on in responding to my complaint”. The Committee noted that the complainant wrote to the ECU on 11 September 2007 asking for “Sight of the gist of the material you relied on in responding to my complaint (for example transcripts or statements from the online editorial team).” The Committee noted that the ECU responded to the complainant on September 13 and told him that he had not explained why he wanted to see ‘the gist’ of the material relied on in responding to his complaint or if the complainant did not regard the matter as having being satisfactorily resolved. “As you know the ECU normally provided such information when it has decided not to uphold a complaint which is not the case here.” The Committee noted that the complainant was informed that the ECU had seen correspondence between BBC News Online and two external persons one a leading member of the Catholic Church in England and Wales and the other an expert in annulments. “ On the grounds that this correspondence was sent in confidence, I do not think it would be appropriate to forward the entire text to you but I can assure you that both gentlemen gave detailed comments on the cause, their understanding of what happened and made a series of comments on changes/ amendments/ clarification to the original BBC article.” The ECU also said it had consulted articles from the website for the Telegraph, The Independent, Boston.com and the Catholic World News. The Committee noted the complainant responded to the ECU on 14 September 2007 and referred to the discussions the ECU had with the BBC Online team. “It is the gist of these discussions which I am entitled to know… Gist means the substance as to which you have told me nothing.” The Committee noted that following a further exchange the complainant wrote again to the ECU on 14 September 2007 informing the ECU that he would not pursue the issues of the gist of discussions. The Committee noted that the appeals process stated that: “you can normally also ask to see the gist of the material which the ECU…previously relied upon in responding to your complaint ( for example …statement from the…online editorial team). The Committee agreed that the complainant was not required to give reasons and that the gist should normally be supplied or a reason given as to why it could not be supplied. In this instance it noted that the complainant had withdrawn his request for the gist before appealing to the ESC. It also noted that prior to that ECU had not given him the gist or given him a reason as to why the gist could not be supplied but had told him of his right of appeal. It concluded that there was some doubt as to whether the ECU had failed or refused to give him the gist as the complainant had withdrawn his request in writing however it noted that this gist had not been supplied or a reason given as to why it could not be supplied at the point at which the complainant was told of his right to appeal. The Committee agreed that a complainant did not need to give reasons for requesting the gist and that the gist should normally be provided or a reason given as to why it could not be supplied. Finding: The Committee acknowledged that the article in its original form was inaccurate but that subsequent amendments prior to the appeal being heard had ensured that the issue had been resolved. The Committee partially upheld the complaint regarding accountability. With regard to complaints handling, the Committee also upheld the complaint concerning the issue of the release of the “gist of the material” by ECU at stage 2 of the complaints process. Action: The Committee will write to Mark Byford to request that he reviews BBC News online’s policies as to the sourcing and checking of stories prior to publication. The Committee will also request that he reminds the web team of the importance of responding to complaints quickly and where issues of accuracy have been raised, to act promptly to ensure that corrections, if required, are made quickly to avoid mistakes being perpetuated longer than they need be. It will also request that the online team reconsiders its policy of keeping the original publication date on an article even though that article has subsequently been amended. (In this case the article still states that it was last updated on 20 June 2007). It will also request that the practice of summarising the thrust of the story in quotes should cease as it suggests to readers that the words are actual quotes. The Committee will also write to the Head of ECU to request that ECU be reminded that the gist should normally be provided. Panorama: Sex Crimes and the Vatican, BBC One, 1 October 2006 1. The programme The programme’s purpose is set out on the BBC’s website as follows: A secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church is examined by Panorama … Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years … It instructs bishops on how to deal with allegations of child abuse against priests … Critics say the document has been used to evade prosecution for sex crimes … Crimen Sollicitationis was written in 1962 in Latin … It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witnesses … Breaking that oath means excommunication from the Catholic Church … Reporting for Panorama, Colm O'Gorman finds seven priests with child abuse allegations made against them living in and around the Vatican City. 2. The complaint The complaint in summary: The complainant feels that the programme misrepresented the Church and unfairly focused on the views of failed priests and religious academics, whilst effectively ignoring the views of – in the complainant’s words – “proper Priests and Religious academics”. His complaint to BBC Information (stage 1) in more detail: • “It is good when you expose evil people who abuse the young or old. It is also good when you expose the Catholic Church for the way in which it failed to protect these vulnerable people in the past … your programme was however very unfair when it implied that The Church is still working on 40 year old guidelines.” • “If your Producer had looked at the website … he would have found enough information to present a full programme on how the Church has responded to the problem and how the systems they operate have the full approval of the Holy See.” 3. BBC Information replied: - “[…] there is absolutely no intention within the BBC to unfairly target the Catholic Church” - In its reply BBC Information included a response from the programme’s Editor Sandy Smith. He stated: “I don’t think it is fair to characterise Panorama’s use of the documents as false …. while … they are open to more than one interpretation I am satisfied that we provided enough evidence to back up our central point. “The connection between the broad subject and Pope Benedict was suggested to the film makers by the Ferns report … the report was written in response to the 2002 BBC television programme Suing the Pope which exposed widespread child sexual abuse in the Irish diocese … “What (the Ferns Report) shows is that the connection between Pope Benedict’s letter of 2001, the 1962 Decree …, and the question of how the Church handles child abuse cases is not one falsely made by the production team. … Far from misinterpreting the nature of the 1962 Decree, the Panorama film acknowledges that it was originally set up to deal with issues arising from the confessional … the film showed how it has become a key instrument in dealing with child abuse … “The film includes the testimonies of those who have dealt with the practical effects of Vatican child protection policy … all these people echoed the interpretation of the key Vatican documents set out in the Ferns Report and covered at some length in the international media after the report’s publication. “Panorama was not the first media outlet to have examined this question and the production team did search at length for any statements from Pope Benedict or the Vatican in connection with the controversy generated (by the report’s publication). “… The programme makers recognised from the outset that their film should afford the Roman Catholic Church an opportunity to respond … they approached the Public Relations department of the Vatican by letter and email … the team did not at any stage receive any acknowledgement of their efforts to facilitate a right of reply. “The film did make it clear that the programme team had tried to get a response from the Vatican on these matters.” 4. The complainant wrote back to BBC Information, adding the following: • “You were making an accusation against the Holy Father, ... that he personally covered up widespread criminal activity within the Catholic Church.” • “You claim … that the Vatican Press Office did not respond to your requests for a statement but your first letter may have been lost since the person to whom it was addressed was in the process of handing over files to his successor … You should have telephoned the Vatican or exerted pressure on them with the help of Cardinal Cormac … I suspect that you knew what the response would be and that it would have destroyed your story.” • “It is also implicit … that nothing has changed because the offending documents … have not been repealed.” • “You put much weight on the endorsement which the Bishop of Ferns … gave to the Ferns Report … he may however have been referring to the document as a whole rather than the very narrow way in which you have interpreted it.” • “The reason that the former Cardinal made no response is probably because the report, unlike your programme, did not accuse him personally of a cover up.” • “I do not contest the statements of the DA from Arizona, Patrick Wall or the Governor of Oklahoma. Branches of the Church have behaved badly and it is quite right and proper for the media to expose them. It is not however proper to say that they were working on Vatican instructions since those instructions dealt with the secrecy of the confessional and not the protection of criminals.” 5. The complainant then wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit adding: • “It is a very serious matter to accuse two Popes of hypocrisy at best and conspirators to pervert the course of justice at worst.” 6. The ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: - “There’s no dispute that the allegations arising from the 1962 Decree and the 2001 letter from the then Cardinal Ratzinger were such as to give rise to a right of reply, so the question for (the ECU) is whether the appropriate people were given the appropriate opportunity to respond.” - “[…] the allegations in question related specifically to the Vatican, (the ECU) thinks it was certainly appropriate that enquiries should have been directed to the Vatican itself.” - “(The ECU has) seen the producer’s letters to the Vatican Press Office … leaving aside for a moment the question of whether they miscarried … they constitute a fair offer of right to reply (and (we) should perhaps add that the producer tells (us) she also tried to contact the Press Office by phone).” - “[…] journalistic imperatives would lead to more strenuous efforts to obtain a response than were made … the Editorial Guidelines don’t require such efforts … simply that ‘a fair opportunity’ be given …” - “You suggest that, in the absence of a response from the Vatican, a response should have been sought from other Church sources … (the ECU) can envisage circumstances where it might have been … however the allegations in question bore specifically on the Vatican …” With regard, in particular, to the letters from the production team to the Vatican being lost, the ECU stated: - “The producer was supplied with current contact details by a Rome- based freelance of many years’ experience and … good contacts in the Vatican … he confirms that the details used by the producer were correct” - “… the first two letters were not addressed to named individuals, and the third was addressed to Joachim Navarro Vals, who was still in charge of the Press Office at that time. So, if indeed the letters miscarried, it was no fault of the producer’s.” 7. The complainant, dissatisfied with the ECU response, replied: • “The third letter is a different matter because Lombardi had replaced Vals in July so if the BBC letter was dated from July onwards then it was addressed to the wrong person.” • “I am … sorry that you see a clear distinction between the Vatican and the Catholic Church in Great Britain.” • “It is naïve to suggest that ‘subordinate church authorities’ are immune from the criticism contained within the programme and unfair to go all the way to the ‘subordinate’ church in America to get comments in support of the programme without going down the road to Westminster to get the opposite view.” • “… there was no evidence to support the story since the document used dealt with Confession … decent journalists must know that anything said in a Confession is strictly confidential … the Vatican … (has) … strict procedures in handling such cases. These procedures are in direct contradiction with the policies detailed in your programme …” 8. The ECU replied: The ECU accepted the complainant’s correction regarding Joachim Navarro Vals, but noted that: “ … media are entitled to proceed on the reasonable expectation that the press office will deal appropriately with enquiries, irrespective of the addressee.” As to the issue of the programme makers contacting “subordinate church authorities” it stated: - “They also approached a number of other jurisdictions, but this was because the criticisms in those cases concerned matters which were the responsibility of the authorities in those jurisdictions. The criticisms of the Pope … concerned matters which were not the responsibility of the English Hierarchy.” 9. The complainant appealed to the ESC adding: • “(ECU) has concentrated solely on the issue of whether a ‘fair offer of right to reply’ had been made and I still do not think that there was. 10. Complaints handling The complainant complained as to the length of delay his complaint suffered when the ECU was considering his complaint at stage 2 of the complaints process. The ECU responded that the delay was as a result of mitigating circumstances in that the programme’s producer had been absent due to working outside the UK and considerable time was taken in investigating the issues raised in the complaint with external sources. 11. Applicable programme 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. Impartiality and diversity of opinion We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by exploring the range and conflict of views. We will be objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. We will provide professional judgments where appropriate, but we will never promote a particular view on controversial matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Section 3 - Accuracy Introduction 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 Section 4 – Impartiality and diversity of opinion Introduction Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins via our websites 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 12. The Committee’s decision The Committee considered, as a preliminary issue, whether it had jurisdiction to consider this Appeal on the grounds of truth and accuracy and impartiality and diversity of opinion in circumstances where the ECU had not considered those grounds as being relevant to this complaint. The Committee (having taken legal advice on this issue) concluded that this was not a case where the ECU had not had an opportunity to consider the substance of the underlying complaint. The fact that the ECU had not applied these particular guidelines did not prevent the Committee from now considering the Appeal in accordance with them. Accordingly the Appeal would proceed. The Committee acknowledged that this Appeal could not be considered on the grounds of fairness as it was a third party complaint. Truth and Accuracy In considering the three elements of the complaint relating to truth and accuracy identified in the editorial adviser’s report the Committee concluded that: (a) The programme did not report that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI had given clear instructions that cases involving child sexual abuse were to be kept secret. In arriving at this decision the Committee had viewed the programme and considered its meaning. The Committee noted that the programme said that ‘ … the decree (crimen sollicitationis – crime of solicitation) has been used to silence their (Ferns’ victims) allegations of abuse’. This was supported by canon lawyer Father Tom Doyle who indicated that it was really a ‘policy to cover up cases of child sex abuse by the clergy’. The presenter then clarified it was a procedure ‘intended to protect a priest’s reputation until the church had investigated. But in practice it can offer a blue print for cover ups.’ In context the programme overall did not suggest Pope John Paul II had given clear instructions that cases of child sex abuse were to be kept secret but had explained this was a policy to allow for investigation. Similarly the Committee noted that the presenter went on to explain, in the same commentary in which he had said that the procedure was intended to protect a priest’s reputation until the church had investigated, that Pope Benedict XVI (when Cardinal Ratzinger) had created the successor to the decree and ordered that all child abuse allegations must go directly to Rome. The Committee agreed that in context the programme again did not suggest that Pope Benedict XVI had given clear instructions that cases of child sex abuse were to be kept secret, but had explained this was a policy to allow for investigation. The Committee concluded that the programme accurately reported the effect of the 1962 and 2001 documents, in that the documents ensured that allegations of child sexual abuse by priests were bound by secrecy within the Catholic Church. The Committee did not, however, accept that the programme could be construed to mean that Pope Benedict XVI had personally covered up widespread criminal activity. (b) The evidence did support the allegations made in the programme. The Committee noted that the complainant was arguing that the documents used in the programme were dealing with confession and anything said in confession is strictly confidential. The Committee gave weight to the conclusions of the Ferns inquiry which said ‘This document (1962 Crimen Sollicitationis) related specifically to solicitation in the course of hearing a confession. It is of interest to the inquiry as it also specifically dealt with how priests who abuse children were to be handled and imposed a high decree of secrecy on all church officials involved in such cases’. The Ferns inquiry concluded that the 2001 document Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela did relate to acts of child sexual abuse by priests outside of confession. ‘It outlined how the Congregation was to continue to have “exclusive competence” regarding certain grave offences including sexual offences with a minor under the age of 18.’ As far as the 1962 document was concerned there was a sufficiently established body of opinion to justify the conclusion that this document also related to acts outside of confession. The Committee concluded that, taking into account the context in which the documents had been set (see above), they had been described accurately. (c) The Committee saw no evidence that the Vatican had authorised strict procedures for handling child sexual abuse cases which were contrary to the policies detailed in the programme. The Committee concluded that the programme had accurately reported that child protection guidelines had been introduced by the Catholic Church in Britain, and the USA, and that there was no evidence that the Vatican itself had instituted a global child protection policy. The programme did not suggest that the Vatican opposes policies drawn up in individual jurisdictions, but accurately reported that each jurisdiction has responsibility for drawing up its own policy. Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion The Committee then considered the two elements of the complaint relating to impartiality identified in the editorial adviser’s report and concluded that: (d) The programme did not breach the impartiality guidelines by letting, in the complainant’s words, ‘failed priests’ and religious academics have their say without allowing ‘proper priests’ and religious academics to have their say. These interviewees were qualified to have views on the issues and were entitled to express them. In reaching this conclusion the Committee considered that it was appropriate for the programme makers to focus their efforts on the Vatican in attempting to put forward the Church’s views on the matters addressed by the programme. In the absence of a statement from the Vatican, the Committee considered that the programme met the guidelines’ requirements on impartiality by setting out the Vatican’s stated position that, “The Vatican’s official line is that its sex crime code is purely for internal use, and not intended to hinder civil investigations.” (e) The programme did not breach the impartiality guidelines by failing to give the Vatican a fair opportunity prior to broadcast to respond to the allegations to be made in the programme. The Committee noted the steps taken by the programme makers to contact the Vatican prior to broadcast. There were three letters over a seven month period. The first went by email, the second by email and post, and the third by post. The Committee also noted that the complainant challenged the decision to send the first two to the Vatican press office without naming an individual and that he had pointed out that the last one was sent to someone who was no longer working there. The Committee noted that an interview was requested in the second and third letters and that in the third letter it was pointed out that broadcast would be within the next few weeks. It also noted the two letters gave a broad summary of the issues to be addressed although not the details of specific cases. The Committee concluded that the Vatican press office was an organisation that was well versed in the media and that it was reasonable to assume the press office would have been able to deal with letters alerting the press office to a programme and containing a request for interview even if the letters were not addressed to a specific person or were misdirected. However, the Committee considered that in terms of good practice the programme makers had not been as thorough as they might have been in ensuring that letters they had written to the Vatican had in fact been received, or in confirming with the Vatican that they did not wish to comment. The Committee concluded that there appeared to have been an assumption, perhaps based on the producer’s knowledge of the way the Vatican operates, that the Vatican would fail to respond. The Committee did not accept that this assumption, however correct or incorrect it may have been, should have resulted in incomplete attempts to follow up on the right of reply letters or incomplete notes of those attempts. The Committee, however, did not consider it likely that a senior member of the Catholic Church in Britain would have been prepared to respond to these issues on the Vatican’s behalf. Nevertheless, the Committee did not consider this amounted to a breach of the impartiality guidelines. It noted that the programme included the fact that there now was a child protection charter for the American Catholic Church, ‘a comprehensive regime of child protection policies’ for the British Catholic Church and that around the Western world other allegations were producing similar responses. It also noted that the programme had explained that ‘crimen sollicitationis’ was a ‘procedure intended to protect a priest’s reputation until the church had investigated’. The Committee noted that the programme also explained that the Vatican’s official line is that its sex crime code is purely for internal use and not intended to hinder civil investigation.’ It concluded that the programme’s impartiality was appropriate to a Panorama investigating this subject matter taking into account the audience’s likely expectations and the extent to which the content and approach was signposted to the audience from the start of the programme. Finding: Not Upheld