Editorial Standards Findings: Appeals to the Trust considered by the Editorial Standards Committee January 2008 Issued March 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 Summary of findings (January 2008) 3 Findings (January 2008) 12 NHS Statistics, various programmes 12 Heaven and Earth Show, 18 March 2007 35 Sunday Half Hour, Radio 2, 1 January 2007 41 Two associated BBC News Online items 46 Today, Radio 4, 19 January 2007 55 Six O’Clock News, Ten O’Clock News and Look North (Leeds) BBC One, 8 March 2007 63 Breaking Point in the Middle East bbc.co.uk, BBC News, 15 June 2007 72 Book of the Week: Gunter Grass – Peeling the Onion Radio 4, 9–13 July 2007 80 Ten O’Clock News, BBC One, 18 May 2007 83 Summary of findings (January 2008) NHS Statistics, various programmes Complaint 1 Today, Radio 4, 10 October 2006 Complaint 2 The World Tonight, Radio 4, 1 November 2006 The World Tonight, Radio 4, 15 December 2006 Newsnight, BBC Two, 4 January 2007 Today, Radio 4, 3 February 2007 Newsnight, BBC Two, 27 February 2007 The Politics Show, BBC One, 15 April 2007 Newsnight, BBC Two, 21 May 2007 The complaint was in two parts and concerned the claims of improvements to the NHS by the Government within BBC news programmes. Complaint 1 The complainant felt that a discussion with the Public Health Minister, Caroline Flint, had allowed her to state unchallenged that the Government had made “fantastic progress with fewer people dying from cancer and heart disease than ever before”. The complainant believed this statement to be inaccurate. Complaint 2 This complaint concerned seven separate broadcasts from November 2006 to May 2007. The complainant believed that the BBC, when making reference to waiting times as having fallen “dramatically” or “tremendously”, was by implication making reference to the average waiting time. He pointed out, using official statistical analysis, that average waits had not gone down and thus such statements were inaccurate. Both appeals were considered against the guidelines on accuracy (fact checking and misleading audiences) and impartiality. The Committee concluded: General observations: • There was a difference in the degree of accuracy and impartiality that the BBC must strive to achieve when it had time to prepare scripts or articles for broadcast or publication and the degree of accuracy that was expected of a contribution by an interviewee. • This was even more the case in a live programme where the degree of accuracy and impartiality that was ‘due’ in these circumstances would differ, even taking into account the ability of the interviewer to challenge the contributor. • Health service statistics were controversial and complex. • Statistics did not always provide an empirical truth but were open to interpretation. There were different ways of measuring health service outcomes and interviewees were free to choose the statistics which they felt most effectively supported their views. • It was not a requirement as set out in the Editorial Guidelines for the interviewer to challenge every issue discussed during the course of an interview covering a range of topics, nor would it be reasonable to expect them to know everything about every issue in order to be aware that a contributor had been factually inaccurate or imprecise. • It was appropriate for the BBC to allow politicians to make reasonable claims without it having to challenge every issue that was raised in the course of an interview. Complaint 1 • The Minister, Caroline Flint, did not say that the Government was wholly responsible for bringing down the death rates. • She had indicated that the progress was as a consequence of a number of factors, which included the targets set by the Government. • There was enough independent evidence to support the contention that progress had been made in reducing death rates from cancer and heart disease even though there was no general agreement on the weight to be given to the many possible contributing factors. • The item with the Minister had been balanced by an earlier interview in which the interviewee had been critical of the Government’s over-reliance on specific targets. Complaint 2 • The Committee did not accept that all references to waiting times must be to average waiting times. • Politicians could choose to refer to waiting times in the context of performance against Government targets. In this respect, a claim that waiting times had been reduced was supported by the statistics. • It was appropriate for the BBC to allow representatives of an organisation to accurately refer to their organisation’s findings. • Balance could be achieved by challenging the interviewees on their findings, or by inviting others to comment on what had been said. • The complaint regarding the World Tonight item of 15 December 2006 had been appropriately signposted as an opinion piece. The Committee also agreed that the heart disease and cancer rates had been backed by statistical evidence mentioned in complaint 1. The Comittee did not uphold the complaint For the finding in full see pages 12–34. Heaven and Earth Show, BBC One, 18 March 2007 The complainant believed that homophobic remarks made by the contributor Joanne Bogle had not been challenged. He suggested the remarks that “homosexuality is sinful”, “homosexuality is wrong” and “little children should not be given to homosexual couples” caused him and others distress, harm and harassment. The appeal was considered against the guidelines on harm and offence (audience expectation and portrayal) as well as impartiality. The Committee did not consider it appropriate to consider the complaint against the guidelines on fairness as the complainant did not directly feature or participate in the programme, nor was he personally involved in the making of it. The Committee also considered how the complaint had been handled by the Trust Unit at stage 3 of the process. The Committee concluded: • The panellist, Joanne Bogle, was entitled to express her opinion, as a statement of her sincerely held religious views. • The programme had not endorsed her views. • The views which some would find offensive had been countered by other views expressed on the programme. • There was a clear editorial justification for including Mrs Bogle’s views within the context of the discussion. • Given the context of the programme, it was not a sustainable argument to suggest that the discussion would prove a risk to vulnerable people or could be interpreted as an incitement to homophobic bullying. • There was an audience expectation that the programme encouraged debate on differing opinions on ethical, moral and religious issues. • The programme explored a range and conflict of views on this issue and the discussion was balanced. Complaints handling: • It had been unfortunate that there had been delays in responding to the complainant. • Letters had been lost, possibly because of the postal strike. • In future all letters to the Trust Unit should be acknowledged on receipt. The Committee did not uphold the complaint For the finding in full see pages 35–41. Sunday Half Hour, Radio 2, 21 January 2007 The complainant considered that the presenter, the Reverend Roger Royle, misused his “powerful role as a presenter” by offering a personal opinion on the current divisions within the Anglican Church without any alternative view being put. He claimed that the use of the sentence “They tried it with the ordination of women and that didn’t work and so now it’s the inclusion of gays over which the battle lines are drawn” expressed a view on one side of the argument. The appeal was considered against the guidelines on impartiality. The Committee also considered how the complaint was handled by the Editorial Complaints Unit at stage 2 of the complaints process. The Committee concluded: • The programme was not a personal view programme within the meaning of the Editorial Guidelines and, as such, did not have to be considered in the context of a personal view programme. • The choice of phrasing could have been better and may have led some to believe that the presenter was expressing his own view. • The programme as a whole had been duly impartial, though the phrasing of one sentence may have been open to interpretation. • The programme’s approach to impartiality had been adequate and appropriate to the output. Complaints handling • The delay at stage 2 of the complaints process was unacceptable. The Committee did not uphold the substantive complaint, but did uphold the complaint concerning the delay to the process at stage 2. For the finding in full see pages 41–46. BBC News Online items A The death of Turkish former prime minister Bulent Ecevit B The French Parliament voting on a law to make it a crime to deny that Turkey perpetrated genocide against Armenians in 1915–17 The complainant made two separate complaints concerning articles carried on the BBC News website on 5 November 2006 and 12 October 2006. The complaints concerned two web pages. The first (A) was a report on the death of the former prime minister of Turkey, Bulent Ecevit, and the second (B) was a Q&A looking at the facts surrounding the issue of the Armenian ‘genocide’ which accompanied a piece on the French Parliament’s vote to make it a crime to deny the holocaust. As to the first complaint, the complainant stated that he was happy with the changes made to the article, but would like the Committee to consider why his complaint had not been addressed earlier in the process. With regard to the second article, the complainant was still unhappy that changes to the Q&A had not addressed his concern that it did not encompass the views of the international community or provide a balanced view as to the origin of the genocide or the “systematic” killings of Armenians during the march through the Anatolian desert. The appeal was considered against the guidelines on accuracy, impartiality, and editorial integrity and independence. The Committee concluded: Complaint A • The tone and language of the response of the web team at stage 1 of the process was inappropriate. • The original article had been factually incorrect. • It had also presented a one-sided interpretation of the event which had breached the guidelines on impartiality. Complaint B • The article as a whole was misleading, as it failed to represent the events accurately. • It was not objective or even-handed. • The use of language to describe the sentiments of Armenians and Turks was inappropriate. • The Q&A should be taken down and rewritten to address these issues. • There was no evidence to suggest that the web team had been influenced by political or commercial pressures, or by personal interest. Complaint A The Committee found that the original article had breached guidelines on accuracy and impartiality, but because of changes made subsequently was satisfied the issue had been resolved. The Committee was not satisfied with the handling of the complaint at stage 1 and upheld this element of the complaint. Complaint B The Committee upheld the complaints on accuracy and impartiality but did not uphold the complaint with regard to editorial integrity and independence. For the finding in full see pages 46–55. Today, Radio 4, 19 January 2007 The complaint considered a report by Jeremy Bowen on the acceptance of a two-state solution among Palestinians which the complainant said did not accurately explain the Israeli point of view. The appeal was considered against the guidelines on impartiality. The Committee also considered how the complaint was handled by BBC Information at stage 1 of the complaints process. The Committee concluded: • The article was in line with the Editorial Guidelines that encouraged the BBC to look at controversial subjects from different angles. As such it was a valuable addition to the BBC’s news output. • The report contained a sufficient balance of views for a report of this nature. • The studio introduction linking the article, while it could have been better scripted, sufficiently indicated the nature of the article. • Within the context of the piece, Jeremy Bowen had not misrepresented Jerusalem’s status. Complaints handling • The confusion and delay in handling at stage 1, while not intentional, had been unacceptable. The Committee did not uphold the substantive complaint, but did uphold the complaint concerning the delay to the process at stage 1. For the finding in full see pages 55–62. Six O’Clock News, Ten O’Clock News and Look North (Leeds), BBC One, 8 March 2007 The complaint concerned the repeated showing of footage of a policeman hitting a woman in order to restrain her. The complainant believed the repeated showing of the incident during each of the programmes would have misled the audience to believe that she had been hit far more than the five times she was struck. He also considered that the reporting had not been balanced and that Look North had made the incident into a race issue. In particular he was concerned that the only people featured in a vox pop of Sheffield residents were black people. The appeal was considered against the guidelines on accuracy and impartiality. The Committee also considered how the complaint was handled by BBC Information at stage 1 of the complaints process. The Committee concluded: • The programmes had not misled the audience or distorted the known facts about the number of times the policeman had hit the woman. • The item had been thoughtfully produced in each programme to ensure that all sides of the story had been fairly presented and explained. • The issue of race as mentioned in the Look North programme had been in the public domain prior to broadcast. • Look North’s handling of the race issue had carefully examined both sides of the issue. Complaints handling: • BBC management should have in place appropriate procedures to ensure that people who did not have internet access were adequately provided with information about the BBC’s complaints policy. The Committee did not uphold the substantive complaint, but did uphold the complaint concerning the lack of information regarding the complaints process for those without access to an internet connection. For the finding in full see pages 63–72. ‘Breaking Point in the Middle East’, bbc.co.uk, BBC News, 15 June 2007 The complaint concerned an article by Jeremy Bowen, who had reported that the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, had taken the decision to dismiss the elected Hamas Prime Minister and declare a state of emergency. The complainant felt that the article had an anti-Israel, pro-Arab bias. He stated that the article claimed that the collapse of the Palestinian Authority was the responsibility of Israel. The appeal was considered against the guidelines on impartiality. The Committee concluded: • The article should be considered in its entirety against the background of the news at the time the online article was published; there was a limit to the amount of historical and political context that could be provided within an online article looking at current events. • It was not necessary in every short item on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict to report the views of those on either side of the conflict who believed that all the blame for the situation should be attributed to their opponents. • The reference to Israel provided context to the state of the institutions and was factually accurate. • A necessary explanation and a balancing argument were provided for the imposition of sanctions by the world’s big powers. • It was a statement of fact that social structures for the Palestinian Government in 1948 broke down as a result of the creation of Israel. • The article, by reporting the view, had not endorsed it. • There was no need in this case to set matters in a full historical and political context to achieve accuracy or impartiality. • The article had explicitly addressed violent politics with regard to Hamas and Fatah. • Within the context of the article about the imposition of a state of emergency, it was not necessary to refer to Palestinian intentions towards Israel. • In the context of the article, impartiality was adequate and appropriate and due impartiality and due accuracy had been achieved. The Committee did not uphold the complaint For the finding in full see pages 72–79. Book of the Week: Gunter Grass – Peeling the Onion, Radio 4, 9–13 July 2007 The complainant was offended by the broadcast of an original soundtrack featuring the Jungvolk at the beginning of the programme. She complained that there was no warning given at the start of the programme about its content. She explained that she had found the playing of the music distressing. The appeal was considered against the guidelines on harm and offence (audience expectation and signposting). The Committee also considered how the complaint had been handled by BBC Information at stage 1 of the complaints process. The Committee concluded: • The music was not challenging. • Its broadcast was not unsuitable for children. • There was no need to consider the guidelines relating to signposts and content information. • The use of music had been editorially justified in the context of the book even though the music, by its very nature, risked offending some of the audience. • Given the station it was broadcast on, the time it was broadcast and the type of audience the programme would attract, the music was suitable for that audience. Complaints handling • There had been no significant delays in responding to the complaint and the responses she had received had been appropriate. The Committee did not uphold the complaint For the finding in full see pages 80–83. Ten O’Clock News, BBC One, 18 May 2007 The complaint had been resolved at stage 2 of the complaints process, but an appeal had been made to the Committee about why the complaint had been categorised initially as a comment, not a complaint, and the length of time it had taken for the upheld decision to be published on the BBC’s website. The Committee concluded: • The initial response from BBC Information had not been appropriate. • It would request BBC management to confirm that procedures were in place to ensure that a complaint was addressed appropriately in the first instance. • The delays to the ECU investigation had been unacceptable. • It was also concerned about the length of time it took for an ECU finding to be posted onto the BBC website. • It would write to BBC management to ask how findings such as these could be posted on the website more quickly. The Committee upheld the complaint For the finding in full see pages 83–85. Findings (January 2008) NHS Statistics, various programmes Complaint 1: Today, Radio 4, 10 October 2006 Complaint 2: The World Tonight, Radio 4, 1 November 2006; The World Tonight, Radio 4, 15 December 2006; Newsnight, BBC Two, 4 January 2007; Today, Radio 4, 3 February 2007; Newsnight, BBC Two, 27 February 2007; The Politics Show, BBC One, 15 April 2007; Newsnight, BBC Two, 21 May 2007 1 The complaint The complaint was in two parts and concerned the claims of improvements to the NHS by the Government within BBC news programmes. 1.2 Complaint 1: Today, 10 October, 2006 This item was a live interview with Public Health Minister, Caroline Flint, on the day the Government published a report entitled The Health Profile of England. This was the second of two pieces on the report on the programme that morning. The first was with Professor Karel Sikora, Professor of Cancer Medicine at Hammersmith Hospital. Points raised at stage 1 • The item was inaccurate. • The Public Health Minister Caroline Flint went unchallenged when she said: “Well you know in ’97 when this government came in we had some of the worst rates in terms of deaths from cancer and heart disease in Europe. We now have got fantastic progress with fewer people dying from cancer and heart disease than ever before.” • The Today programme had not revisited the issue since. • “The data that I have seen indicates no great improvement in the UK’s mortality rates from cancer.” • Referring to cancer care, the King’s Fund (An Independent Audit of the NHS under Labour 1997–2005) said: “But it is difficult to conclude that all the improvements Labour has made to waiting times and treatment have been driving mortality down because mortality was declining at a similar rate before Labour came to power.” • What progress there had been might mostly be due to medical advances and people smoking less over the last three decades. • The complainant referred to articles published by the King’s Fund, the Centre for Policy Studies, Cancer Research UK and Dr Foster Intelligence (Dr Foster website). BBC response at stage 1 • Today’s deputy editor explained that this was not an interview primarily about cancer and heart disease. The programme spoke to Caroline Flint because of a nationwide study published that morning which showed a big increase in obesity. • Good interviews needed to stay focused on the subject in hand and it was not always possible to pick up on every claim a guest made on air. • John Humphrys’ question was about the Government’s reliance on targets in the NHS. He then went on to refer back to criticisms made by a previous guest on the programme. This was not the place for a detailed discussion on cancer and heart disease. • The figures provided by the complainant showed that there had been improvements in the areas the complainant was concerned about. How much was due to one factor or another was a matter of debate. The complainant then complained to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: • Today invited Public Health Minister Caroline Flint on to the programme to discuss the first Government publication of Community Health Profiles broken down by Public Authority Areas. This document was initially discussed on the programme with Karel Sikora, Professor of Cancer Medicine at Hammersmith Hospital, and it was in the context of comments made by Professor Sikora that John Humphrys raised issues with Caroline Flint. • Taking the piece as a whole, it was clear that Caroline Flint’s assertion that “fantastic progress with fewer people dying from cancer and heart disease than ever before” was challenged by John Humphrys later on when he said: “Well, there’s some doubt about the incidence of cancer obviously ... but there we are.” • The King’s Fund highlighted the difficulty of assessing the extent to which Government policies had contributed to falling mortality rates, since these were declining at similar rates before Labour came to power. The King’s Fund did not say that Government policies had made no contribution, simply that it was difficult to determine how much. • Caroline Flint herself said “targets contributed to tackling that particular problem” and it was hard to challenge politicians on such claims in the absence of evidence that a minister’s statement was factually incorrect. • In a live programme there was always a danger of wandering away from the intended debate, so having clearly acknowledged that there was a separate debate around the figures, John Humphrys then brought the conversation back to its focus of how the Government planned to tackle the issues raised by the Community Health Profiles. The complainant replied with the following additional points: • “It is not clear to me that John Humphrys challenges Caroline Flint’s assertion that there has been ‘fantastic progress’.” • Caroline Flint said that, post 1997 there was “now” fantastic progress in terms of deaths from cancer and heart disease. The clear implication was that there was not such progress prior to 1997. • She also claimed that that this Government had “got” this progress, i.e. it was a result of its policies. • According to data from Ruth Lea (Centre for Policy Studies) and the King’s Fund, reductions in mortality from cancer and heart disease were much the same now as under the Major Government. Therefore Caroline Flint’s claims were “misleading and fraudulent”. • “The King’s Fund says ... experts attribute a large part of this (reduction in cancer death rates) to a decline in smoking.” • Caroline Flint was interviewed again on Today on 1 January 2007. It appears that the BBC did not ask her any searching questions about her claims in the interview of 10 October, even though smoking was the subject of the interview. No attempt was made to correct the misleading statements made by Caroline Flint of 10 October. • The deputy editor of Today was quoted as saying that good interviews needed to “stay focused”, as if that overrode the Editorial Guidelines. The Editorial Complaints Unit replied with the following points: Background articles supplied by complainant • The article on the Dr Foster website demonstrate that things are getting better for cancer sufferers, not worse. • Ruth Lea’s pamphlet for the Centre for Policy Studies (“The NHS since 1997, Modest Improvements at Immoderate Cost”) accepts that there have been improvements, and argues only that they have been achieved at excessive cost. It does not set out to examine what has brought about the improvements. • It seems clear that it is the view of Cancer UK and the King’s Fund that the outlook for people diagnosed with cancer has improved since the publication of the Government’s Cancer Plan in 2000. • Today referred the ECU to a special report on its website which examines where the Government’s extra spending on the NHS has gone. Professor John Appleby of the King’s Fund contributed to this report. He wrote: “Cancer survival rates have also improved. But it is difficult to know what the NHS contribution to these improvements has been. More money for the NHS? Probably. But better standards of living, improvements in diets and other lifestyle changes all contribute too. And some of the investment in the NHS – especially in preventative medicine – will take years before we see significant improvements in the population’s health.” • It is clear there is room for argument over the extent to which Government spending increases and targets have contributed to improved cancer survival rates. The interview • There is insufficient evidence in the articles you cite to suggest that Caroline Flint’s statements are “misleading and fraudulent”. • The point of the interview was to examine the findings of the Health Profile of England. It was appropriate for the programme to “stay focused” on the findings and avoid getting sidetracked into a discussion about whether Government policy has had an effect on cancer mortality rates. • You say: “Caroline Flint claimed that this government has ‘got’ this fantastic progress – i.e. it was a result of their policies.” I take Ms Flint’s claim to be that the Government’s policies contributed to the progress, not that they were solely responsible for it. • As the ECU found no evidence to support your contention that Ms Flint’s remarks were “misleading and fraudulent”, we do not feel that Today was remiss in not taking up these points with her when she appeared again on the programme in January. • You ask what John Humphrys meant when he said “Well there’s some doubt about the incidence of cancer obviously.” One of Today’s editors wrote: “Taking the piece as a whole it’s clear that John is referring to the fact that although cancer rates have improved, it isn’t clear how much of that improvement is attributable to the Government’s targets and how much to other factors like the drop in the numbers of people smoking.” John Humphrys has confirmed this is what he meant. 1.3 Complaint 2: The World Tonight, Radio 4, 1 November 2006; The World Tonight, Radio 4, 15 December 2006; Newsnight, BBC Two, 4 January 2007; Today, Radio 4, 3 February 2007; Newsnight, BBC Two, 27 February 2007; The Politics Show, BBC One, 15 April 2007; Newsnight, BBC Two, 21 May 2007 These were all pieces broadcast about the NHS. They all feature claims regarding waiting times. General points raised by the complainant at stage 1 • BBC output broadcasts that NHS waiting times had fallen “dramatically” or “tremendously”, etc. The listener would reasonably interpret this to mean that the average waiting time has fallen “dramatically”. This is not the case and is therefore inaccurate. • In 1997 NHS waiting times in England in weeks were 8.7 (mean1 figure) or 6.0 (median2 figure) for outpatients and 11.8 (mean) or 5.7 (median) for inpatients. In March 2006 they were 6.5 (mean) or 6.1 (median) for outpatients and 11.1 (mean) or 7.3 (median) for inpatients. • In her assessment of the reporting of waiting time statistics [written for the GPCC in January 2007], the Director BBC News said: “The programme (More or Less, Radio 4) examined whether waiting times for hospital treatment in general had got shorter once resetting the clock on waiting times behaviour had been stripped out – and found that they had not. It established that the typical [or median] patient is waiting longer than five years ago although the ‘excessive waits’ are down.“ Specific complaints and responses from BBC Information and the ECU to the programmes listed in the complaint 1 The mean is the average of a set of numbers or scores in a distribution. To get the mean, add up all the values and divide this sum by the total number of all the values. 2 The median is the middle number in a series of numbers. Newsnight, BBC Two, 4 January 2007 The item was based on a leaked document ‘NHS pay and workforce strategy 2008–2011’, which showed that the NHS would have an excess of 3,200 consultants, but a shortage of 15,000 nurses, 1,200 GPs and 1,100 junior doctors. The item included an interview with then health minister Andy Burnham. The complaint • This item was inaccurate in not challenging the assertion that “the workforce levels are able to sustain a massive reduction in waiting times”. BBC Information responded with the following (stage 1): • The Editor responded: “These quotes were both in the context of balanced pieces and discussions on the NHS. January 4 was a discussion between the then health minister Andy Burnham and the Conservative Andrew Lansley. February 27 was within a piece reporting NHS managers’ views of the NHS, much of which was deeply critical of the Government’s achievements. It was followed by a discussion between Andy Burnham, Andrew Lansley and the private sector consultant Roy Lilley.” • “I accept that we need to treat government figures with caution and it is always our aim to do so and challenge false claims where possible. But on both occasions we also gave opponents of the Government the opportunity to rebut their claims.” ECU responded with the following (stage 2): • When health minister Andy Burnham says “The workforce levels are able to sustain a massive reduction in waiting times”, we see no reason why this comment should be taken to necessarily apply to average waiting times. Mr Burnham goes on to say that the NHS will “make major strides towards a huge reduction in waiting”. This suggests that his previous remark was in fact a reference to earlier, and successfully reached, NHS waiting time targets. The Politics Show, BBC One, 15 April 2007 This item concerned a wide-ranging interview with the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, in which the Prime Minister made a comment about how he had achieved an improvement in waiting times and in cutting the number of deaths from cardiac disease. The comment Jon Sopel: You’re not doing new things then, you’re just trying to make things that you’ve been trying to make work over the last ten years work better now. Tony Blair: Well of course they have worked. To a huge extent, I mean when people take a step back over the last decade. When we came to power, people used to die on waiting lists, waiting for their heart operation. People don’t do that any more. That’s why the number of people who’ve died from cardiac diseases is down by something like a hundred thousand since we’ve been in office. The complaint • Tony Blair was allowed to make an inaccurate statement and was not challenged by the interviewer. BBC Information responded with the following (stage 1): • The Editor responded: “The interview with Tony Blair was a broad-ranging one covering all aspects of his likely legacy as Prime Minister. It was a challenging interview – however it is inevitable in an interview of this kind that the interviewee will make statements which are not challenged in detail in every case.” ECU responded with the following (stage 2): • This was a wide-ranging interview with Tony Blair. You suggest that he should have been asked some follow-up questions when he claimed that 100,000 people had not died from cardiac disease since he had been Prime Minister. • The figures the ECU has seen suggest that there has been an improvement in waiting times for nearly all types of heart surgery since he came to power. His claim therefore does not seem unreasonable. • We accept that politicians should be challenged robustly when they make false claims. But you do not suggest, and my research does not demonstrate, that this is the case here. The World Tonight, Radio 4, 1 November 2006 This item looked at how health workers and patients felt about the NHS. On this day an opinion poll had been published suggesting that more than half the population thought the NHS had got worse over the past ten years. In addition, hundreds of NHS workers had marched on Parliament to protest against the Government’s handling of the health service. The item included an interview with Anna Walker of the Healthcare Commission. The complaint • This item was inaccurate. Anna Walker (Chief Executive of the Healthcare Commission) said: “We also see dramatically reduced waiting times”. This was accepted at face value. The audience has been misled. BBC Information responded with the following (stage 1): • The Editor responded: “Robin Lustig did challenge Anna Walker on her assertion that waiting times had been reduced. He asked her if that is the case, why are staff convinced that things are getting worse.” • “I have spoken to the Healthcare Commission to confirm that what Anna Walker said is correct. The Commission has a duty to monitor the performance of the NHS including waiting times. They assess the performance of health trusts against the targets set by the government which include waiting times for different procedures – for example patients should not have to wait more than 4 hours in A and E – and against these targets average waiting times have fallen.” ECU responded with the following (stage 2): • You suggest it was wrong to accept Ms Walker’s statement at “face value”, suggesting that the lack of change in average waiting times between 1997 and 2006 demonstrates it is untrue. The Healthcare Commission tell me they have not looked at NHS statistics on average waiting times, but carried out their own research. • Ms Walker’s answer to the question “you monitor it, do you think it’s getting worse?” could only be based on her organisation’s findings. • The Healthcare Commission says it stands by Ms Walker’s response and continues to believe that its report is reasonably summarised as showing “dramatically reduced waiting times”. • There is no question of inaccuracy here – Ms Walker has properly represented the Commission’s findings. • The Picker Institute is a body which carries out large annual surveys of patient’s experience of the NHS. A report recently said: “Waiting times to see a GP or a consultant and to be admitted to hospital do seem to be improving quite dramatically according to respondents to the national patient surveys.” This is based on patients’ perceptions, not on any measurement of how long they have actually waited. This seems to me to be strong supporting evidence for the Healthcare Commission’s conclusions. Today, Radio 4, 3 February 2007 An item included an interview with John Appleby of the King’s Fund at the end of a week of pieces about the NHS. The interview was based on the question: What differences have targets made to the NHS and is the service making us healthier? The complaint • The reference to waiting times was inaccurate. BBC Information responded with the following (stage 1): • The Assistant Editor responded: “The King’s Fund is a widely respected, independent think-tank which has no record of being overtly, instinctively critical of Labour’s record on health: they see pluses and minuses in the Government’s ten year record. In that context, Dr John Appleby should be free to come on the programme and acknowledge the ‘success’ – as he sees it – of waiting times: equally, he has pointed out in the past (if not in that particular interview) some of the failures – as he sees it – of the current NHS.” The ECU responded with the following (stage 2): • John Appleby of the King’s Fund was asked here whether targets had been effective. He replied that they had been. His remarks cannot be taken as a reference to average waiting times. Newsnight, BBC Two, 27 February 2007 An item was based on a Health Service Journal survey which revealed what NHS Chief Executives thought about Tony Blair’s record on the NHS over the past ten years. It included an interview with Dr Gill Morgan, Chief Executive of the NHS Confederation. During the interview Dr Morgan revealed that 86% of patients believed that targets had transformed their experiences. In the course of explaining the detail behind the figures she said: Gill Morgan: Without doubt if you look at the success of the waiting list target, which truly has transformed waiting times in this country for patients, it’s really made a difference. I think that people were surprised as managers how effective that is, and managers therefore have come to like targets. The complaint • The reference to waiting times was inaccurate. There was no response from BBC Information on this element of complaint (stage 1). The ECU responded with the following (stage 2): • Dr Gill Morgan, Chief Executive of the NHS Confederation, says: “Without doubt if you look at the success of the waiting list target, which truly has transformed waiting times in this country for patients, it’s really made a difference. I think that people were surprised as managers how effective that is, and managers therefore have come to like targets.” • This is a professional judgement by an appropriately qualified individual. She is clearly not talking about average waiting times but targets and their effects. There were therefore no grounds on which to challenge her remarks. The World Tonight, Radio 4, 15 December 2006 This item invited Julian Le Grand (former health adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair) to go and find out why some people thought the NHS was getting worse. The complaint • This item was inaccurate when it said “waiting times tumbling” and “waiting times have fallen dramatically”. BBC Information responded with the following (stage 1): • The Editor responded: “This was an authored, opinionated piece by a former adviser to No. 10 on health policy. He was clearly labelled as such.” • “Mr Le Grand did say that waiting times are tumbling, but given that according to the targets set by the government waiting times have fallen, and given we clearly labelled him as a supporter of the Government’s reforms, I believe we adhered to the Editorial Guidelines.” The ECU responded with the following (stage 2): • This was an item presented from a partisan perspective. Professor Le Grand’s piece was an attempt to find out why people think the NHS is getting worse despite the large increases in its funding. • The figures quoted showed that long waits had indeed been “tumbling” by one measure, and the research by the Healthcare Commission and the Picker Institute showed that, in patients’ eyes, “waiting times have fallen dramatically.” It is therefore not possible to conclude that Professor Le Grand’s statements are inaccurate because they can’t incontrovertibly be said to refer to average waiting times measured by Hospital Episode Statistics. Newsnight, BBC Two, 21 May 2007 This item included a package by correspondent Paul Mason and followed comments made by James Johnson (who had just resigned his post of chair of the British Medical Association) that doctors’ morale was at an all-time low. The complaint • Paul Mason’s comment (“the huge reduction in NHS waiting times”) is misleading. The average time patients wait in the NHS has not undergone a huge reduction. BBC Information responded with the following (stage 1): • We have little to add to what we have previously said about our coverage in general on this topic. The ECU responded with the following (stage 2): • The ECU put your points to Paul Mason of Newsnight who said: “My statement has to be taken as a whole and in context. I was trying to explain why the government persists in its health reform programme despite record levels of discontent among the NHS workforce. The key to understanding its stance is, as I said: ‘For the government, the huge reduction in NHS waiting times is all the valediction they need.’ “Nowhere did I suggest that ‘average’ waiting time had fallen: most health specialists accept that it has fallen very little (though it has slightly). But this was not a piece about waiting times, it was about rationales for political standpoints: the doctors don’t like the reforms because they are weakening their ability to deliver the kind of care they would like to (they say); meanwhile the government will continually point to the end result, which is contained in the figures. If the piece had been about NHS waiting times, obviously the sentence standing alone would have been inadequate. Remember, this was a piece where the main line or angle taken was that of the Government’s critics: the correspondent has to state clearly what the Government’s basic defence is, and that was it. • Paul Mason was aware that average waiting times have stayed about the same. What he said in this piece was not inaccurate. Further points raised by the ECU in response to the complaint NHS statistics • How statistics showing waiting times should be used is clearly complex, and there are valid arguments on both sides for using either of two methods – Official Inpatient Waiting Time figures or Hospital Episode Statistics. The BBC, as an impartial organisation, cannot simply unilaterally decide that one side is right and the other wrong. It can only expose the arguments on both sides in programmes devoted to such topics, such as More or Less. • You make the case that average waiting times should only be calculated using Hospital Episode Statistics. However my research shows that on the basis of Official Inpatient Waiting Time figures, the median inpatient wait in March 1998 was 14.8 weeks. In June 2006 it was 7.1 weeks, and by March 2007 it had fallen further to 6.2 weeks. I’m sure you will agree that a fall in a median average of a very large dataset by more than 50% could fairly be described as a “dramatic” or “tremendous” fall. In the circumstances, any attempt to challenge an interviewee on the basis that average waiting times had not fallen risks starting an argument over whether the figures are either valid or accurate, which might be less than informative to the audience. • When we spoke to Professor Appleby of the King’s Fund he explained that the Government gave the NHS a series of targets to reduce inpatient waiting times. The targets for 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 were, successively, to eliminate all waits above first 18 months, then 12 months, then 9 months, then 6 months. The final target was attained at the end of 2005. • Because of this, it is therefore essential, in our view, to verify the precise nature of any claim, and the basis on which it is being made, before concluding that it is inaccurate. The complainant also raised this additional point to the ECU at stage 2: • In her report on the coverage of waiting times for the GPCC, the Director of BBC News said: “Another issue is that even if maximum waits are down (i.e. those waiting longer than six months), the picture is much more mixed for average waiting times.” She concluded: “There could have been a greater focus on measures which are not the subject of government targets such as average waiting times.” Given this, I do not understand why the BBC continues to broadcast that waiting times (by implication, average waiting times) have fallen “dramatically”. The complainant then appealed to the Editorial Standards Committee 2 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. 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. 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 web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion. The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting. Special considerations apply during the campaign periods for elections. 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 can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply. • we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. • the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality. • our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters. • we 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. News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. 3 The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaints against the relevant editorial standards as set out in the Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and subsequent submissions from the complainant and the Head of the ECU. This appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to accuracy and impartiality. The Agreement of 2006 between the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC requires that: “The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in ... news or [output dealing] with matters of public policy or of political ... controversy.” Accuracy The Editorial Guidelines state that the BBC’s commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value. The BBC’s output must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. The BBC must check and verify information, facts and documents. The BBC should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or knowingly do anything to mislead audiences. Impartiality The Editorial Guidelines also state that impartiality applies across all the BBC’s services. The BBC is required to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs to support fair and informed debate. This commitment to impartiality requires the BBC to rigorously test contributors expressing contentious views during an interview while giving them a fair chance to set out a full response to questions. News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. The BBC must 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. It will vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the content and approach is signposted to the audiences. Background This appeal involved two complaints, both of which concerned claims about improvements to the NHS under the present Government. The first complaint related to an interview with the Public Health Minister, which was broadcast as part of the Today programme on Radio 4 on 10 October 2006. This complaint concerned statistics and targets regarding death rates from cancer and heart disease. The second complaint concerned seven separate broadcasts (three on radio and four on television) from November 2006 to May 2007, which all featured claims made about NHS waiting times. The Committee considered each complaint in turn, and within the second complaint considered each broadcast individually. Before turning to the complaints, and the individual programmes, the Committee considered that it would be useful to address some of the general issues raised by these complaints. General comments There was a difference between the degree of accuracy and impartiality that the BBC must strive to achieve when it had time to prepare scripts or articles for broadcast or publication and the degree of accuracy that was expected of a contribution by an interviewee. This was even more the case in a live programme when opinions and facts might well be compressed or inadvertently mis-stated by contributors who were free to express their own views and judgements. The degree of accuracy and impartiality that was ‘due’ in these circumstances would differ, even taking into account the ability of the interviewer to challenge the contributor. The Committee acknowledged that health service statistics were controversial and complex. Statistics did not always provide an empirical truth but were open to interpretation. There were different ways of measuring health service outcomes. Interviewees were free to choose the statistics which they felt most effectively supported their views. The Editorial Guidelines did not require an interviewer to challenge every issue discussed during the course of an interview covering a wide range of topics. It would be unrealistic to do so. In addition BBC interviewers could not reasonably be expected to know everything about every issue and so be aware that a contributor had been factually inaccurate or imprecise. While the Committee accepted that interviewers should be well briefed, they did not have to have a detailed knowledge about matters which were incidental to the main topic under discussion. The Committee concluded that BBC interviewers should be well informed when statistics of this sort were considered in detail. However, when such statistics were used by contributors and were incidental to the main area of discussion, there was no obligation to challenge the contributor provided that the claims made were not clearly unreasonable. A significant part of the second complaint concerned the meaning of the phrase ‘waiting times’. The complainant contended that this phrase could only mean average waiting times, and that therefore any claim that waiting times had been reduced was inaccurate, as average waiting times had not fallen significantly, if at all. The Committee carefully considered the complainant’s contention, but did not accept that all references to waiting times must be to average waiting times. Politicians could choose to refer to waiting times in the context of performance against government targets. In this respect, a claim that waiting times had been reduced was supported by the statistics. Complaint 1 Today, 10 October 2006 To put this complaint in context, the Committee considered the purpose of John Humphrys’ interview with Caroline Flint. The interview with the Public Health Minister was framed against the background of the publication of a report which pulled together an extensive set of health statistics primarily concerning obesity and smoking. The interview was not about deaths from cancer and heart disease, nor was it about the extent of the Government’s responsibility for a fall in those death rates. The complainant maintained that the claims made by Caroline Flint were inaccurate and that the BBC failed in its duty to challenge those claims. The Committee noted what Ms Flint said in this section of the interview: “We now have got fantastic progress with fewer people dying from cancer and heart disease than ever before. Now targets contributed to tackling that particular problem, but this isn’t about us just sort of setting targets from the centre, it’s about giving the information to those who plan our health services locally but also recognising that this isn’t just a health service issue, this is about others working with the health service to tackle these problems which are really about prevention rather than just treatment.” (our emphasis) The Committee concluded that Caroline Flint did not say that the Government was wholly responsible for bringing down death rates. The Committee was satisfied that while Ms Flint had said there had been “fantastic progress”, she had also indicated that the progress was as a consequence of a number of factors, which included the targets set by the Government. The Committee also acknowledged that there was independent evidence to support the contention that progress had been made in reducing death rates from cancer and heart disease. The Committee noted the quotes from the King’s Fund report An Independent Audit of the NHS under Labour 1997–2005, which related to heart disease: “Again, the question needs to be asked whether all this activity [which includes government expenditure and targets] has made any difference to the number of people dying from or living with heart disease. The Government wants to cut the number of people aged under 75 dying from cardiovascular diseases by a fifth by 2010. This looks on course to be achieved. The most recent data shows a healthy 27% drop in mortality (see Figure 28), compared to the baseline years of 1995/96/97.” It also considered the recent Department of Health report Coronary Heart Disease Ten Years On by Professor Professor Roger Boyle CBE, National Director for Heart Disease and Strokes, published in April 2007, in which it was stated: “In 2000, many patients were waiting more than a year for an outpatient assessment. Now, we have a network of rapid access clinics that ensures that over 95% of newly referred patients are seen within two weeks.” And: “Cardiovascular mortality rates had been falling but not as fast as in other West European nations. The challenge in 1999/2000 was to build on this foundation and accelerate the rate of improvement by ensuring better prevention and better, faster treatment. In fact we have seen a rapid decline since 1997 so that the headline target of a 40% reduction by 2010 is certain to be reached several years earlier than planned.” With regard to cancer rates, the Committee also considered a report that looked at the Government’s Cancer Plan in a report commissioned from the King’s Fund by Cancer UK called Future Trends and Challenges for Cancer Services in England, A Review of Literature and Policy. The report stated: “The Cancer Plan has achieved impressive results since it was published in 2000. However, demographic trends, new treatments, increasing survival rates and reforms in the NHS have altered the context in which cancer services operate.” The Committee also noted Professor John Appleby’s contribution to a special report on the Today programme’s website that looked at where the Government’s extra spending on the NHS had gone. In his contribution he stated: “Cancer survival rates have also improved. But it is difficult to know what the NHS contribution to these improvements has been. More money for the NHS? Probably. But better standards of living, improvements in diets and other lifestyle changes all contribute too. And some of the investment in the NHS – especially in preventative medicine – will take years before we see significant improvements in the population’s health.” The Committee therefore concluded that it was reasonable to suggest that significant progress had been made to reduce the mortality rates for cancer and cardiovascular disease even though there was no general agreement on the weight to be given to the many possible contributing factors. In the circumstances, the Committee did not consider that there had been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to truth and accuracy. In considering the BBC’s obligations in relation to impartiality, the Committee was of the view that it was appropriate for the BBC to allow politicians to make reasonable claims without it having to challenge every issue that was raised in the course of an interview. The Committee was also satisfied that on this occasion the item with Ms Flint had been balanced by an earlier interview with Professor Karel Sikora, Professor of Cancer Medicine, who had been critical of the Government’s over-reliance on specific targets. 3 The ECU’s reply to the complainant dated 12 July 2007 recorded the Government’s targets on waiting times: “The Government therefore gave the NHS a series of targets to reduce inpatient waiting times. The targets for 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 were, successively, to eliminate all waits above first 18 months, then 12 months, then 9 months, then 6 months. The final target was attained at the end of 2005.” ECU sourced the figures from Fig 76a in ‘Public Expenditure on Health and Personal Social Services 2006, Memorandum received from the Department of Health containing Replies to a Written Questionnaire from the Committee’. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that there had not been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to impartiality. Finding: Not upheld. Complaint 2 A Newsnight, BBC Two, 4 January 2007 This programme included an interview with the Health Minister, Andy Burnham. In the course of the interview, Mr Burnham referred to “a massive reduction in waiting times”. The Committee did not accept that the reference to waiting times was a reference to average waiting times, or that this issue could only be addressed in the context of average waiting times. The Committee considered the accuracy of the phrase “massive reduction in waiting times”, and concluded that it was reasonable for politicians to refer to waiting times by reference to their own targets, and that in the context of government targets, this phrase was accurate3. Accordingly the Committee concluded that there had not been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to truth and accuracy. In terms of impartiality, the Committee noted that the Opposition Spokesman on Health took part in the discussion which followed Mr Burnham’s interview. It noted that the Opposition Spokesman had the opportunity to challenge Mr Burnham on this issue, though he did not do so. Accordingly the Committee concluded that there had not been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to impartiality of opinion. Finding: Not upheld. B The Politics Show, BBC One, 15 April 2007 This was an interview with the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. It was a wide-ranging interview about many issues. It was not an interview specifically about NHS waiting times. The Committee considered some extracts from the interview: Tony Blair: “We will reach by the end of 2008, despite all the difficulties we see from the health service report today ... we will have an average waiting time for operations down to seven or eight weeks, maximum in-patient and out-patient of eighteen weeks...” And: Jon Sopel: “You’re not doing new things then, you’re just trying to make things that you’ve been trying to make work over the last ten years work better now.” Tony Blair: “Well, of course they have worked. To a huge extent, I mean when people take a step back over the last decade. When we came to power, people used to die on waiting lists, waiting for their heart operation. People don’t do that any more. That’s why the number of people who’ve died from cardiac diseases is down by something like a hundred thousand since we’ve been in office.” The Prime Minister later added: Tony Blair: “Today we have a workforce which is 300,000 more than it was in 1997 and as a result of building up that capacity and as a result of the changes although there are difficulties with putting it in place You will get to the situation where by the end of 2008 the issue of waiting that was the issue of in the health service when we came to power in 1997 is effectively dealt with.” The Committee considered that the Prime Minister’s claims about waiting times and improvements in cardiovascular care were not unreasonable in the context of the Government’s targets (please see footnote on targets to the finding regarding complaint A and Professor Roger Boyle’s comment noted in complaint 1). The Committee noted that here had been reductions in waiting times, as the Prime Minister claimed, but they did not believe the Prime Minister to be asserting that his Government was solely responsible for those reductions. The Committee accepted that this had been the Prime Minister’s own interpretation of the figures and that it was reasonable for politicians to refer to targets they had set. The Committee also noted the response of the programme editor with regard to the interviewer challenging the Prime Minister on every statement made: “This was a long interview, reviewing Tony Blair’s time as Prime Minister. The preparation and briefing for the interview was extensive and thorough, taking place over several days... “Even with this preparation, no interviewer is in a position to challenge every assertion made by the Prime Minister. It is necessary to take decisions on the spot about what to pursue in the interests of a coherent and challenging interview ... Obvious major factual inaccuracies should be picked up, but if every assertion is contested, the interview might need almost limitless airtime.” The Committee accepted that in the course of a live interview every assertion could not be contested. The Committee concluded that there had not been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to truth and accuracy. The Committee considered the interview as a whole in terms of impartiality; it was satisfied that, during a broad and wide-ranging interview, the interviewer had challenged the Prime Minister where it had been reasonable given that it was not possible to challenge him on all occasions and that the audience would not expect every assertion to be challenged. This approach to impartiality was adequate and appropriate to the output. The Committee was therefore satisfied that there had not been a breach of the guidelines. Finding: Not upheld. C The World Tonight, Radio 4, 1 November 2006 This part of the complaint concerned an interview with Anna Walker, the Chief Executive of the Health Commission. She stated that “...we also see dramatically reduced waiting times”. The Committee noted that the Health Commission is the independent watchdog body for healthcare in England. Its role is to inspect and monitor the work of healthcare bodies in the NHS and the independent sector. The Committee considered the context of this interview. It noted that Ms Walker was commenting on the Health Commission’s own findings. As Chief Executive of the Health Commission, the Committee was satisfied that it was entirely appropriate for her to do so. The Health Commission has confirmed that Ms Walker had accurately described its findings. The Committee therefore concluded that there had not been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to truth and accuracy. In terms of impartiality, the Committee was satisfied that the presenter had provided appropriate balance by challenging the Health Commission’s finding on the issue of staff perception and morale. Considering the interview as a whole, the Committee concluded that there had been no breach of the guidelines relating to impartiality. Finding: Not upheld. D Today, Radio 4, 3 February 2007 This was an interview with Professor John Appleby of the King’s Fund. Professor Appleby was asked what difference government targets were making to the health service and expressed his views. The Committee noted that the King’s Fund is a respected source of NHS data and that John Appleby was commenting in respect of the Fund’s own research on this subject. The Committee considered the extract which had been challenged by the complainant: John Appleby: “So you’ve got to set the targets in the right way. I mean, this government really drew its objectives from what the public were saying which is they wanted to wait less time, so that became a set of key targets for the NHS.” Ed Stourton: “And the impact has been what?” John Appleby: “I think broadly the impact has been very good. Directly on waiting times, inpatients, outpatients, waiting in A & E departments so on all come down tremendously.” The Committee was satisfied that Professor Appleby was entitled to summarise the Fund’s research and express a view on the basis of the research. The Committee concluded that there was no breach of the editorial guidelines relating to accuracy. The Committee considered the item as a whole, which included views by Angela Coulter of the Picker Institute whose organisation’s purpose was to promote the understanding of the patient’s perspective of healthcare, and who did not dispute John Appleby’s statement on waiting times. This approach to impartiality was adequate and appropriate to the output. The Committee was satisfied that there had not been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to impartiality. Finding: Not upheld. E Newsnight, BBC Two, 27 February 2007 In this programme the reporter Stephanie Flanders analysed the findings of a survey by the Health Service Journal of Chief Executives in the NHS. The views of Dr Gill Morgan, Chief Executive of the NHS Federation, were included in this report. She talked specifically about waiting list targets. The Committee noted what Dr Morgan said about waiting list targets: “Without doubt if you look at the success of the waiting list target, which truly has transformed waiting times in this country for patients, it’s really made a difference. I think that people were surprised as managers how effective that is, and managers therefore have come to like targets.” The Committee agreed that Dr Morgan was talking on behalf of the organisation she represented and, as such, was entitled to express her views. What she said was accurate in the context of the report. The reference to waiting list times was a direct reference to the targets set by the Government, and did not mean average waiting times. The Committee was therefore satisfied that there had not been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to truth and accuracy. With regard to the issue of due impartiality, the Committee noted that the interview with Dr Gill was followed by another with Professor Nick Bosanquet of Reform, an independent non-party think-tank, who stated: “I would ask them [the NHS Federation] to have a look at what’s happening with waiting times in the unpopular areas of care like COPD or long-term lung disease, audiology ... in the choice programme in coronary surgery and in cataract operations, more choice, more availability of alternative providers had dramatic and permanent effects on waiting times that are down to three months. Now those incentives have in fact had much greater effects than the targets.” The Committee concluded that adequate and appropriate impartiality was achieved in the report with the inclusion of the opposing views of Professor Bosanquet. Accordingly, there had not been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to impartiality. Finding: Not upheld. F The World Tonight, Radio 4, 15 December 2006 This was an authored report from the specialist Julian Le Grand. He had been an adviser to Tony Blair on health matters from 2003 to 2005. The reporter set out to find out why many NHS staff were unhappy despite the money committed by the Government to improving the service. In the introduction to his report, the reporter referred to “tumbling waiting times”, “falling heart disease rates” and “increased cancer survival rates”. Later in the report he went on to say that “waiting times have fallen dramatically”. The Committee was of the view that it was clear that the reporter was referring to government targets in the context of reduced waiting times. ‘Waiting times’ in this context did not mean average waiting times, as the complainant contended. The Committee also concluded that the reference to improvements in heart disease and cancer survival rates was backed up by statistical evidence (see the finding regarding complaint 1). This reference was not, therefore, inaccurate. In the context of this report the Committee did not consider that there had been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to accuracy. The Committee then considered the nature of this report with regard to the guidelines on impartiality. It concluded that it was an opinion piece covered by the editorial guidelines relating to personal view and authored programmes. The Committee was satisfied that Julian Le Grand’s position as an adviser and supporter of the Government was clearly signposted in the introduction to the piece when Robin Lustig, presenter of The World Tonight, stated: “There were more protests against cuts today when campaigners demonstrated outside the Department of Health in Whitehall – and there were similar scenes last month when protesters took to the streets in towns and cities all over the country. Who better to try to solve this mystery than the man who played a crucial role in coming up with reforms in the first place – a former senior adviser on health policy to Tony Blair. We asked him to go out and ask the people at the sharp end of the NHS what’s gone wrong...” The Committee also noted that, while Julian Le Grand put forward the case for the Government within his report, the piece also included various voices whose comments, generally critical of the Government’s health policy but not necessarily critical of the view on waiting times, had ensured that the item was balanced. This approach to impartiality was adequate and appropriate to the output. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that there had not been a breach of the impartiality guidelines. Finding: Not upheld. G Newsnight, BBC Two, 21 May 2007 This was a report by correspondent Paul Mason on morale among NHS doctors. It preceded a studio discussion on the topic. In introducing a clip of the Prime Minister, the reporter used the following phrase: “For the Government the huge reduction in NHS waiting times is all the valediction they need.” The complainant contended that this was a reference to average waiting times and was inaccurate. The Committee, having considered the meaning of the phrase ‘waiting times’, did not accept that it must mean average waiting times. The Committee noted how the issue was raised in the programme. The item was introduced as follows: “Gordon Brown says it’ll be the priority of his government. David Cameron says much the same. Tony Blair boasts about how much he’s done for it. The National Health Service has never been more publicly loved by politicians. Yet according to the outgoing head of the doctors’ trade union, morale is at an all time-low. With over a hundred and twenty thousand members he ought to know. Yet doctors have never been better paid, and conditions of work for many have been immensely improved. So what’s up? First tonight, Paul Mason reports...” In the item the presenter Paul Mason referred to waiting times thus: “For the Government, the huge reduction in NHS waiting times is all the valediction they need.” The phrase was used to introduce a contribution from the Prime Minister in which he specifically referred to waiting lists for appointments with consultants. The Committee noted what Tony Blair said: “People used to wait just on the consultant’s waiting list for a year or 18 months ten years ago and I will say to people, look, every time you solve a problem in the health service another problem appears, but the big problems for us was waiting, that’s, ten years ago, what we were asked to sort.” The Committee, having listened to the item, was satisfied that it was clear that this reference to waiting times was in respect of government targets. It was not, therefore, inaccurate to refer to a reduction in waiting times in this context. Accordingly, the Committee did not consider that there had been a breach of the guidelines relating to accuracy. The Committee further concluded that the report, while it put forward the Government’s claims, also made clear that those claims were generally disputed, although no one specifically disputed the Government’s view on waiting times. The Committee was therefore satisfied that appropriate critical opinions were included in the report and in the studio discussion that followed. This approach to impartiality was adequate and appropriate to the output. In the circumstances, taking into account the report as a whole, the Committee concluded that there had not been any breaches of the editorial guidelines relating to impartiality. Finding: Not upheld. Heaven and Earth Show, 18 March 2007 1 The programme The Heaven and Earth Show was a weekly religious magazine series transmitted on Sunday mornings. It looked at ethical, moral, cultural and spiritual issues. The programme was broadcast for nine years between 1998 and 2007. Its final presenter was Gloria Hunniford. 2 The complaint • The complainant stated that homophobic remarks made by the broadcaster and religious commentator Joanna Bogle had remained unchallenged during and after the programme. These were: “Homosexuality is sinful”, “Homosexuality is wrong”, “Homosexual relationships are wrong”, and “little children should not be given to homosexual couples”. • “These remarks caused me and other people distress, harm and harassment. ... homophobic hate is a criminal offence.” 3 BBC Information response • The programme editor stated that Joanna Bogle’s view that homosexual acts were sinful was clearly challenged by another studio guest on the programme – Jonathan Bartley from Ekklesia, a ‘progressive’ Christian group. Referring to homosexuality, Bartley said: “They [Christians] have made a huge issue of it ... Christians have appeared bigoted and some cases they have been bigoted about homosexuality.” • The editor went on to say that there was a second exchange between the two panellists during which Ms Bogle criticised the practise of allowing gay people to adopt. Again, Mr Bartley was given the opportunity to respond to this allegation: “There are a number of areas where the Christian community is repeatedly discriminating.” • The programme did not invite people to appear on it because they have a history of homophobia. • It was pointed out that Ms Bogle was an outspoken representative of the conservative wing of the Catholic Church. She was relevant to the discussion because of a poll being discussed about whether Christians were discriminated against. • The two other panellists on the programme disagreed with her view and her comments were rebutted. • “We do not believe that her views constitute homophobic hatred, they simply reflect her honestly held opinion on homosexuality.” 4 The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) • “The BBC i.e. Gloria Hunniford [the presenter] or the producer should have challenged them NOT other guests in the programme.” • The complainant claimed that a large number of people invited by the programme were homophobic and caused people distress, harm and harassment. • “This is a criminal offence. These comments would not be tolerated by the BBC if they referred to any ethnic minority groups, women or any religious group regardless of context or editorial purpose.” • The complainant stressed his complaint was not only about Ms Bogle but also about the programme ethos of “regarding homophobic hate as a view when thankfully it is no longer only a view but a criminal offence”. 5 The ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds The ECU approached the complaint under three headings: a) That a contributor to the Heaven and Earth Show, Ms Joanna Bogle, was allowed to make homophobic remarks which went unchallenged by the presenter, Gloria Hunniford. b) That these claims amounted to hate crime, which is a criminal offence. c) That they appeared to be the programme’s view regarding homophobic hate. a) Joanna Bogle • Ms Bogle’s statement was not a statement so imbued with prejudice that merely broadcasting it would represent a serious breach of the BBC’s guidelines. • The statement was also within the limits of debate which might be anticipated by the audience which dealt with issues of religious and moral controversy: “...given the extent to which such views are held within the Christian churches, it seems ... unreasonable to exclude them from a debate such as this.” b) Hate crime • The ECU said it could not deliver a legal opinion on whether the view was a hate crime but directed the complainant to the Home Office website for a definition. • It noted that from the definition that a hate crime was more than simply causing offence or hostility. • The ECU could not see that any criminal offence was committed by anyone on or involved in the programme. • However, it recognised that such remarks could breach guidelines. The ECU noted the producer’s comment that it was impossible to pretend that homosexual practice was not a hugely contentious area in the realms of the biggest religions of the world. “This is therefore a legitimate area of discussion for a religious current-affairs programme – and the discussions we have had have been balanced and fair – and reflect a genuine discussion happening in large sections of society.” b) The programme’s view regarding homophobia • On the role of the presenter, the ECU said the proper responsibility of the presenter was to: “moderate the discussion, ensuring ... there is a proper challenge coming from people who hold a different view”. 6 The complainant appealed to the ESC setting out the areas that had not been resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction • Area 1: The complainant had suffered unfair treatment either in a transmitted programme or item or in the process or making the programme or item. • Area 2: “There has otherwise been a failure to observe required editorial standards.” 7 Complaints handling The complainant raised concerns at the length of time it had taken the ESC to respond to his initial letter of appeal. He also noted that he had sent letters which had not been responded to. 8 Applicable programme standards Section 8 – Harm and Offence The BBC aims to reflect the world as it is, including all aspects of the human experience and the realities of the natural world. In doing so, we balance our right to broadcast and publish innovative and challenging content appropriate to each of our services with our responsibility to protect the vulnerable. When we broadcast or publish challenging material which risks offending some of our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose. Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, humiliation, sexual violence and discriminatory treatment. We must be sensitive to audience expectations, particularly in relation to the protection of children, as well as clearly signposting the material. Harm and offence editorial principles • We keep in touch with the expectations of our audiences for all of our services. Audience expectations We should judge the suitability of content for our audiences... in relation to the expectations of the likely audience at a particular time on a particular day, and in relation to the nature of the service as well as the nature of the content. We should ask ourselves the following questions: • What is the likely composition of the audience... • Does the talent, slot, genre or service carry pre-existing expectations which may be challenged by the content? • is harm or offence likely to be caused by misleading the audience or in the inclusion of difficult or challenging material? • has any difficult or challenging content been clearly signposted?... Portrayal We aim to reflect fully and fairly all of the United Kingdom’s people and cultures in our services. Content may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage which exist in our society but we should not perpetuate it. We should avoid offensive or stereotypical assumptions and people should only be described in terms of their disability, age, sexual orientation and so on when clearly editorially justified. 9 The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards as set out in the BBC 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, harm and offence, and impartiality. This appeal also raised a separate issue about the handling of this complaint. Fairness It is part of the complaint that the broadcast caused the complainant to suffer unfair treatment. The consideration of unfair treatment applies only to those who have directly featured or participated in a BBC programme or have been personally involved in the making of a programme. As the complainant did not directly feature or participate in the programme, nor was he personally involved in the making of it, the Committee confirmed that it was not appropriate to consider the editorial guidelines relating to unfair treatment in respect of this complaint. The Committee would therefore consider issues relating to fairness, in the sense of challenging the views expressed, under the guidelines relating to impartiality and diversity of opinion. Harm and offence 4 Article 9 (2) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society ... for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 10 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers... The Editorial Guidelines state that the BBC must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose when broadcasting challenging material which risks offending some of the audience. It must balance its right to broadcast innovative and challenging material (appropriate to the service with its responsibility to protect the vulnerable). The Committee considered the two elements of the programme which were the subject of this complaint. It noted what was said by the panellists Joanne Bogle and Jonathan Bartley and by the presenter, Gloria Hunniford. The first comments: Joanna Bogle: “I was a bit cheesed off with that bishop. I mean, when he was raising his children nobody stopped his children from being told, for instance, that homosexual acts are sinful but now, if he had children, and he’s a big grown-up, they would be given books that absolutely conflict with their faith and there would be nothing that he could do about it.” Gloria Hunniford: “Do you go along with everything Joanna says?” Joanathan Bartley: “No. ... we have to ask why Christians are being discriminated against; because they have stood up too much. They have made an issue out of homosexuality. They have appeared bigoted and, I’m afraid to say, in some cases they have been bigoted.” The second comment: Joanna Bogle: “I think the issue too relates to gay adoption. If I think that children should not be brought up by two practising homosexuals because they’ll be taught that homosexual activity is right, when it’s wrong, I have an absolute right to do that. I’m sure people say I’m wrong.” Jonathan Bartley: “No-one’s saying you can’t do that. What they’re saying...” Joanna Bogle: “Yes, they are. They’re saying that I have to allow my children to be adopted by homosexuals and I don’t have the right to stop it.” Jonathan Bartley: “What they’re saying is that the taxpayer should not pay for that...” Joanna Bogle: “No they’re not. Even if it’s entirely funded by the Catholic Church it must give little children up to homosexuals. No question. That’s the law. If you think it’s fair, fine.” The Committee concluded that the panellist, Joanne Bogle, was entitled to express her opinion as a statement of her sincerely held religious views (article 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights4). They were representative of one strand of conservative religious thought. There was no statement by the presenter in support of these views and the Committee concluded that the programme did not endorse those views. As to whether the discussion as a whole would prove a risk to vulnerable people, or that it could have been interpreted as an incitement to homophobic bullying, the Committee was satisfied that, given the context of the programme – a mediated and appropriately conducted debate on religious opinions – such a view was not sustainable. The Committee was also satisfied that an acceptable balance of opinions was provided in the form of contributions from one of the other panellists. The Editorial Guidelines further state that BBC programmes may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage, which exists in society, but should not perpetuate it. The BBC should avoid offensive or stereotypical assumptions. The Committee accepted that some viewers would find Ms Bogle’s view offensive. However this was one view expressed in a discussion programme, and other views were expressed – particularly by John Bartley – that countered the opinions of Ms Bogle. The Committee considered that there was clear editorial justification for including those views within the context of the discussion. Taking account of the audience expectation for a programme of this nature, i.e. that the programme encouraged debate on differing opinions on ethical, moral and religious issues, the Committee concluded that the guideline on harm and offence had not been breached. Impartiality The Editorial Guidelines state that impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. In practice, the BBC’s commitment to impartiality means, among other things, that the BBC strives to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views. The BBC must ensure that bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects is avoided. The Committee considered the comments made by Joanne Bogle in the context of the discussion as a whole, together with the opposing views put forward by Jonathan Bartley, one of the other panellists. The Committee was satisfied that the programme did explore a range and conflict of views on this issue and that the discussion was balanced. The Committee concluded that in the circumstances there had not been a breach of the impartiality guidelines. Complaints handling The Committee considered the delay by the BBC Trust Unit at stage 3 of the complaints process. The Committee recognised that the delays had been unfortunate. It recognised that the delays in part might have been caused by the postal dispute as it was clear that certain letters of the complainant had never arrived at the Trust and that the correspondence had occurred during the time of the postal strike. The Committee asked that in future, to avoid uncertainty as to whether or when the Trust received a letter, the Trust Unit should send out either a reply or an acknowledgement of receipt as soon as a letter was received. The Committee also noted that it would formally apologise to the complainant in its finding letter to him. Finding: Not upheld. Action: The Committee will write to the complainant to apologise for the delay at stage 3 of the complaints process. The Trust Unit is now required to acknowledge receipt of an appeal letter from a complainant as soon as it is received. Sunday Half Hour, Radio 2, 1 January 2007 1 The programme Sunday Half Hour is a weekly programme of hymns and prayers. The Reverend Canon Roger Royle presented the programme for 16 years until April 2007. Roger Royle regularly contributes to Pause for Thought on Wake up with Wogan. He is Honorary Canon to Southwark Cathedral. 2 Background This edition of Sunday Half Hour was broadcast during a week of prayer for Christian unity and this provided the theme for the programme. The format of the programme dictates that there is no forum for discussion and only the presenter’s voice is heard. In the course of half an hour the presenter introduces hymns and prayers. The comments at the centre of this complaint were made in one of those scripted links between hymns. Here is the comment the complainant objected to: “I have to say the divisions within the Church of England sadden me – people have taken up entrenched positions from which they will not budge. They tried it with the ordination of women and that didn’t work and so now it’s the inclusion of gays over which the battle lines are drawn. No holds barred – insults are thrown, threats are made and money is withheld – which sadly means that the world walks by on the other side – ‘look at how these Christians love one another’ passes through their minds and so they pass by.” 3 The complaint The complainant considered that the presenter, the Reverend Canon Roger Royle, in making the above statement had inappropriately used his “powerful role as presenter” to offer a personal opinion on the current divisions in the Anglican Church without the alternative view being put. The complainant considered there was not a fair presentation of both sides of the argument. 4 The producer of the programme replied on behalf of Roger Royle (stage 1) • The producer wrote that the presenter had commented that he had been saddened by division within the Anglican Communion. “This was a personal opinion and he clearly stated that this was so. He did not however, give a personal opinion on the cause of the division.” • The producer clarified that Roger Royle cited two instances which have divided Anglicans: “the ordination of women to the priesthood and the debate over the ordination of homosexual persons”. • The producer said that the presenter did not comment on the right or wrong of any position. The presenter did say that the situation of those outside the church who see division “sadly means that the world walks by on the other side”. • The producer said that the presenter’s comments had ended with the plea that all people should submit to the will of God. “This was a personal opinion which is rooted in the presenter’s Christian faith, which considering the nature of the programme, was acceptable editorially.” 5 The complainant responded to the producer’s reply, pointing out: • The words “They tried it with the ordination of women and that didn’t work” clearly expressed a view on one side of the argument because the presenter could not be referring to both of the entrenched positions. • The presenter, when referring to the inclusion of gay people, saw this as a cause parallel to that of women and that “the ‘it’ that is tried is either to the backward reference of an entrenched position to hold up the development, or a forward one – insults, threats and money withheld”. 6 The producer passed the complainant’s further points to the Editorial Complaints Unit to reply (stage 2). The ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: • It believed the crux of the matter was what was meant by “they” and “it”. • The complainant took “it” to mean attempts to hold up the developments in question and “they” to mean those engaged in such attempts. • The ECU acknowledged that the words did not exclude the interpretation assumed by the complainant, but they considered that the more natural application was that the “they” were those on either side of the debate who approached the question in a spirit of divisiveness, and that “it” was a manner of addressing issues inconsistent with the aspiration to Christian unity. • The ECU pointed out that it had approached Roger Royle who had confirmed he had meant his words to apply to both sides of the discussion. 7 The complainant disagreed with the decision of the ECU and wrote to the ESC setting out his appeal, including his dissatisfaction with the view of the ECU: • “The key to the paragraph is the first half of the first sentence: ‘They tried it with the ordination of women and that did not work’ ... What was it that was tried? – clearly to prevent the ordination of women.” • The complainant acknowledged that both the ECU and the presenter had admitted that the text “was patient of the meaning” the complainant had taken from it. He argued that if it was “patient of the meaning”, it was at least possible that some listeners, including him, had formed the distinct impression that the presenter was not being impartial. 8 Complaints handling The complainant also raised in his letter of appeal his dissatisfaction at the time it had taken the ECU to come to a decision. He noted that the ECU had acknowledged receipt of his complaint on 2 February 2007 but took until 6 August 2007 to send out its finding. The ECU had informed the complainant in late June that because of an administration error the complaint had not been investigated as early as it should have. 9 Applicable programme standards 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 web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion. In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: • we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so. • we 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. • the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality. • our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters. Achieving impartiality Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach to achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the content and approach is signposted to our audiences. Impartiality is described in the Agreement as “due impartiality”. It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view. News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. Personal view, authored programmes & websites We have a tradition of allowing a wide range of individuals, groups or organisations to offer a personal view or opinion, express a belief, or advance a contentious argument in our programmes or on our websites. Personal views can range from the outright expression of highly partial views by a campaigner, to the authored view of a specialist or professional including an academic, scientist, or BBC correspondent, to those expressed through contributions from our audiences. Each can add to the public understanding and debate, especially when they allow our audience to hear fresh and original perspectives on well known issues. Content reflecting personal views, or authored by an individual, group or organisation, or contributed by our audiences, particularly when dealing with controversial subjects, should be clearly signposted to audiences in advance. Personal view and authored programmes and websites have a valuable part to play in our output. However when covering controversial subjects dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy we should: • retain a respect for factual accuracy. • fairly represent opposing viewpoints when appropriate. • provide an opportunity to respond when appropriate for example in a pre-arranged discussion programme. • ensure that a sufficiently broad range of views and perspectives is included in output of a similar type and weight and in an appropriate time frame. It is not normally appropriate for BBC staff or for regular BBC presenters or reporters associated with news or public policy related programmes to present personal view programmes on controversial subjects. 10 The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching their decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and 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 impartiality. This appeal also raised a separate issue about the handling of this complaint. Impartiality The Editorial Guidelines provide that impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audience. This means, among other things, that the approach to and tone of BBC stories must reflect editorial values. Presenters are the public face and voice of the BBC and can have a significant impact on the perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality. The Committee considered the type of programme, audience expectation and the context in which the comment was made. It noted that this was a religious programme in which the presenter introduces hymns and prayers. On occasion, such as an event in the Christian calendar, the programme would have a specific theme. This was the case for this edition of the programme. On this Sunday the programme was themed around a week of prayer for Christian unity. The presenter had alluded to this issue of unity within the Church throughout the programme. The Committee was satisfied therefore that the audience was likely to be aware of the format of the programme and of the range of issues the programme addressed. The Committee confirmed that the programme was not a personal view programme within the meaning of the editorial guidelines. It was not a programme in which the presenter as a campaigner or author of a partial viewpoint was invited to express that view on a specific issue to add to the public understanding or the wider debate on an issue. It was not, therefore necessary to consider this programme in the context of the editorial guidelines relating to personal view programmes. The Committee then considered the words, which are the subject of this complaint. It noted what Roger Royle said: “I have to say the divisions within the Church of England sadden me – people have taken up entrenched positions from which they will not budge. They tried it with the ordination of women and that didn’t work and so now it’s the inclusion of gays over which the battle lines are drawn. No holds barred – insults are thrown, threats are made and money is withheld – which sadly means that the world walks by on the other side – ‘look at how these Christians love one another’ passes through their minds and so they pass by.” The Committee concluded that, while the programme as a whole had been thoughtfully produced, the choice of phrasing in a sentence of this section could have led some to believe that the presenter was expressing his own views. The choice of words could have been better, but the Committee noted that throughout the programme he had talked of his sadness at the division within the Church without blame. The Committee was therefore satisfied that, while the phrasing of one sentence of this section might have been open to interpretation, in the context of the programme as a whole due impartiality had been achieved. The Committee concluded that the approach to impartiality was adequate and appropriate to the output. Accordingly, the Committee did not consider that the phrase breached the editorial guidelines relating to impartiality. Complaints handling The Committee considered how the complaint had been handled. In particular it noted the long delay the complaint had experienced whilst being considered by the ECU. It noted that the complaint was relatively uncomplicated and, as such, considered the delay at stage 2 unacceptable. The Committee was aware, however, that since ECU considered this complaint the unit was now answering the vast majority of complaints within 20 working days (or 35 if complex). Nevertheless, the Committee would formally write to the complainant apologising for the delay to his complaint. Finding: Not upheld. Two associated BBC News Online items A The death of Turkish former prime minister Bulent Ecevit B The French Parliament voting on a law to make it a crime to deny that Turkey perpetrated genocide against Armenians in 1915–17 1 Background The complaint concerned two articles on BBC News Online. A On 5 November 2006, BBC News Online reported on the death that day of Turkish former prime minister Bulent Ecevit. B On 12 October 2006, BBC News Online carried items about the French parliament voting that day on a law to make it a crime to deny that Turkey had perpetrated genocide against Armenians in 1915–17. One of the web pages was entitled Q&A Armenian ‘genocide’. 2 The complaint The complainant summarised his complaints as follows. 2.1 Complaint A • The 6 November complaint, regarding the 5 November report, questioned the way a historical event (namely the 1974 invasion of Cyprus) was presented in a report on the death of a former Turkish prime minister. The highly controversial interpretation of this event adopted by the invading country to justify the invasion (“he ordered the invasion of Cyprus in 1974 to protect the Turkish Cypriot minority”) was presented in the report as the undisputable reason for the invasion. • “This is only the official Turkish excuse for ordering the invasion and it is accepted by very few other countries...” 2.2 BBC Online via BBC Information replied: • “I see no need to correct our story – the fact is that the invasion came after the Greek Cypriot coup backed by the Greek junta at the time.” • “Earlier there had been clashes between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, so I have added this line: ‘Thousands of Turkish Cypriots had already in the 1960s sought refuge in enclaves, displaced by clashes with Greek Cypriots.’” 2.3 The complainant escalated his complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU), noting: • The reply and the added sentence “simply confirm that the piece takes clear sides on the Cyprus dispute. The question of whether ‘protecting the Turkish-Cypriot minority’ was the real reason for the invasion is a matter of heated international controversy central to the whole Cyprus Issue...” • “The fact that all countries except for Turkey consider the occupation illegal shows that the protection of the Turkish-Cypriot minority as the real reason for the invasion and occupation isn’t viewed as self-evident as you indicate.” • “The factual background contained in the added sentence simply repeats the elaboration of the justification for the invasion usually given by the Turkish government.” 2.4 The ECU did not uphold the complaint but made the following comments: • The ECU gave the complainant the following response from BBC Online regarding, in particular, the phrase “he ordered the invasion of Cyprus in 1974 to protect the Turkish Cypriot minority”. It pointed out that they had amended the wording. “We don’t believe the report ‘takes clear sides’ on the dispute. But in light of the continuing controversy over events immediately before the invasion, we have changed the wording to this: ‘He ordered the invasion of Cyprus in 1974, arguing that the Turkish Cypriot minority needed protection’. In so doing, we make it clear that this was Turkey’s justification for the invasion. “We have also added a line lower down to reflect the Greek Cypriot viewpoint: ‘Greek Cypriots maintain that the invasion was illegal and today the breakaway Turkish “republic” in the north is recognised only by Ankara’.” • The ECU thought the original wording was unsatisfactory as it could bear two meanings. However, even though it could have been more clearly and less ambiguously expressed, the original wording was not a serious breach of standards. The ECU believed the revised wording avoids any ambiguity contained in the original. 2.5 The complainant, who was satisfied with the action taken by the ECU stating that the article as modified was “now objective and balanced”, appealed to the ESC to comment on the initial rejection of his complaint at stage 1 by the online team. 3 Complaint B “The 26 December complaint focused on the coverage of the Armenian Genocide in the wake of the French vote on a law against genocide denial. My main point was that regardless of whether BBC acknowledges this genocide or not, pieces on this issue must report the correct balance of opinion among the historians and other experts (who overwhelmingly accept the genocidal character of the massacres). Since this balance of opinion is quantifiable and verifiable, failing to report that the overwhelming majority of historians accept the Armenian Genocide amounts to a factual inaccuracy.” “I was further concerned by the failure of the BBC reports to appropriately respond to and reflect the human aspects of that part of the events which is not denied by Turkey.” 3.1 The complainant wrote initially to BBC Online with these specific points about the two web pages entitled ‘France to vote on ‘genocide’ law’ and Q&A: Armenian ‘genocide’ that went online in October 2006. • He complained that the articles reduced the issue to “a dispute between Armenia and Turkey” which contradicted “the very nature of Genocide which, by definition, is a matter of universal concern”. • He also stated that by doing so it misrepresented “the extent of the agreement among historians, legal experts and political scientists about the genocidal nature of the Armenian massacres”. • He also listed “a number of factual errors” on the Q&A page “concerning what is actually a matter of controversy and what is not”. • “It stated as a fact that the first massacres of Armenians were ‘reprisals’ for some Armenians siding with the Entente during WW1. This is a matter of controversy...” • “It stated that during the mass deportations and marches ‘Many died en route’. This is the official Turkish view but the prevalent expert opinion is that, in addition to the extraordinary hardships of marching through the Anatolian desert, there was systematic killing, rape etc. by parliamentary groups.” • “What does Armenia say?” is blatantly misleading. • “The question ‘Why does the row continue?’ is unacceptable given that remembering genocide should not require a justification today...” • “[The] BBC has failed to cover the moral, legal or, simply, the human aspects of this undisputed part of the story...” 3.2 BBC Online Europe desk responded explaining that they had amended the story following the complaint: • They did not think the story was presented as a dispute between two countries. However, the articles were changed in that ‘Armenia’ was replaced by ‘Armenians’ “because the Armenian diaspora plays such an influential role”. • They also added to the Q&A: “Many Western historians believe it falls into the category of genocide.” • The Europe desk also stated: “Our Q&A does not suggest that we accept the Turkish version of ‘deaths en route’. We state clearly here: ‘Armenians say 1.5 million of their people were killed in this period, either through systematic massacres or through starvation’.” • It also remarked that the World team had been reminded how important it was to present this issue in a balanced way, with sufficient background. 3.3 The complainant remained dissatisfied with the response of BBC Online and took his complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) at stage 2. He outlined his complaint, adding: • BBC Online using “Armenians” instead of “Armenia” still misrepresented the issue as a matter of primarily Armenian concern. • The inserted sentence gave the wrong impression about the extent of agreement among historians on the genocidal nature of the massacre. • “The matter of the hardships of the enforced march as captured in the statement ‘Many died en route’ is included in the sub-section ‘What happened?’ whereas the sentence ‘Armenians say 1.5 million of their people were killed in this period, either through systematic massacres or through starvation’ appears under the heading ‘What do Armenians say?” • He suggested that the article had failed to “reflect the human dimension of that tragedy, beyond the question of its designation as genocide”. 3.4 The ECU did not uphold the complaint, stating: • The ECU noted the response from BBC Online regarding the amended wording: “In the Q&A, our answer to the first question says this: ‘Many Western historians believe it falls into the category of genocide.’ As you are aware, the term ‘genocide’ in this case is internationally disputed – but our piece makes it clear that the arguments for describing it as such are strong.” • It also noted BBC Online’s further amendment: “...we have expanded the section under the question ‘What happened?’ to underline the evidence that many Armenians were killed during the deportation. So now it says: ‘Many died en route and numerous eyewitnesses reported massacres by Turkish forces.’” • The ECU acknowledged that the revised wording did not reflect the fact that there might be non-Western historians or other expert opinion who accepted that genocide occurred. However, it did not believe the wording was inaccurate as it strongly reflected the idea that there was a preponderance of opinion that genocide did take place. As such it did not represent a serious breach of standards. • The ECU also stated that even in the original version of the article the context of the story made the point that the dispute is wider than merely between Armenia and Turkey. • However, the ECU noted that the piece had suggested that the possible motive for the massacres was that some Armenians had sided with the Entente during WW1. As such the online team accepted the complainant’s point that this was a matter of controversy and amended the piece, so that after the phrase “Turkey took reprisals” it says: “...but historians argue over the extent to which Turkish policy towards Armenians in 1915 was motivated by wartime conditions.” • The ECU concluded that the earlier version, though not strictly accurate, did not represent a serious breach of standards. 3.5 The complainant appealed to the ESC with the following further points: • “All BBC reports misrepresent the extent of the agreement among historians, legal experts and political scientists about the genocidal nature of the Armenian massacres.” • The answer to ‘Why does the row continue?’ is inappropriate because it focuses on political and diplomatic disputes between the states. • All reports fail to stress the human cost. 4 Complaints handling The complainant raised concerns about how both his complaints had been handled initially by BBC News Online. In particular he was concerned about the tone of the initial response he received from the website team with regard to the article on the death of the former Turkish prime minister. The complainant was also concerned about how BBC Information had responded to his telephone enquiry when he was trying to find out what had happened to his complaints. He was also concerned about a follow-up reply from BBC Information which did not guarantee that he would receive a reply to his response to BBC Information’s initial reply. He believed the failure to offer a reply was in breach of process and did not offer him the opportunity to escalate his complaint to the ECU. 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. 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 Section 4 – Impartiality & diversity of opinion Introduction Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. It applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion. In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: • we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented. • we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so. • we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply. • we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. 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 13 – Editorial Integrity and Independence Introduction The BBC’s global reputation is based on its editorial integrity and independence. Our audiences need to be confident that our decisions are influenced neither by political or commercial pressures, nor by any personal interests. We must not undermine these values by any actions which could bring the BBC into disrepute. Editorial integrity and independence editorial principles • We must be independent of both state and partisan interests. • We must not endorse or appear to endorse any other organisation, its products, activities or services. 6 The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching their decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and BBC information. This appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to accuracy, impartiality, and editorial integrity and independence. The appeal related to two complaints, which the Committee considered separately. The appeal also raised a separate issue about the handling of the complaints by BBC Online at stage 1 of the complaints process. Complaint A This complaint related to the accuracy and impartiality of an article published by BBC Online on 5 November 2006. For the purposes of this appeal, the complaint concerns only the way in which the complaint was dealt with by BBC Online at stage 1 of the complaints process. Complaints handling At stage 1 of the complaints process, BBC Online rejected the complaint outright, with the words: “I see no need to correct our story...” The Committee noted that the tone and language of BBC Online’s stage 1 response was inappropriate, regardless of its merits. At stage 2 (ECU) of the complaints process, BBC Online accepted that the wording of the article should be revised to deal with the issues raised by the complainant. The ECU concluded at that stage that the original wording of the article was unsatisfactory, but did not consider that it amounted to a serious breach of standards. The complainant accepted that the revised wording now ensured that the article was objective and balanced, but he remained dissatisfied with the way in which BBC Online initially responded to his complaint. In considering this complaint it was clear to the Committee that the original article had been factually incorrect. The wording had suggested a settled version of events was accurate when in fact this was disputed as a matter of controversy. Accordingly there had been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to truth and accuracy. The Committee noted that the BBC was required to make it clear when it was reporting claims and counter-claims, but failed to do so in this article. In presenting a one-sided interpretation of the events there had also been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to impartiality and diversity of opinion. In the circumstances, an apology should have been made to the complainant when the article was revised. The Committee would now be writing formally to the Complainant to apologise. Finding: The article breached both truth and accuracy and impartiality and diversity of opinion guidelines, but because of the changes made to the article at stage 2 of the process the complaint has been resolved as to its content. The Committee was not satisfied with the handling of the complaint at stage 1 and upholds this element of the complaint. Action: The Committee will write to the complainant to apologise for the errors in the original article and the way in which BBC Online handled the complaint. Complaint B This complaint concerned a further BBC Online article entitled Q&A Armenian ‘genocide’. This accompanied another article reporting on a proposed new law in France, which would make it a crime to deny that Turkey had perpetrated a genocide against Armenia from 1915 to 1917. Despite revisions made to the article, largely in response to this complaint, the final version remained in dispute. This was the version of the article that the Committee considered in determining this appeal. Truth and Accuracy and Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion The Committee considered the article as a whole in the context of the guidelines relating to accuracy and impartiality. The Committee recognised that the article reported on a matter of controversy, but failed to reflect all of the main views. It dealt with contentious issues, which were reported as fact. It noted that although the Q&A article had been revised, it still only referred to “Western historians” who believed the event could be categorised as genocide and not the wider international community. The article also did not make it clear that there was more than one view about the cause of the conflict. The Committee noted how the article described the background to the event: During World War I, as the Ottoman Turkish Empire fought Russian forces, some of the Armenian minority in Eastern Anatolia sided with the Russians. Turkey took reprisals. But historians argue over the extent to which Turkish policy towards Armenians in 1915 was motivated by wartime conditions... As such, the Committee concluded that the article as a whole was misleading, as it failed to represent the events accurately. Accordingly there had been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to truth and accuracy. A consequence of the failure to accurately report both sides of the dispute was that the article lacked impartiality. It was not objective or even-handed. The Committee concluded that there was also a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to impartiality and diversity of opinion. In addition, the Committee noted the wording of the article ahead of the Q&A, in particular the phrasing used to describe the sentiments of the Armenian and Turkish sides to the news of the passing of the French law: “The decision had delighted Armenians and infuriated Turks.” The Committee felt the words “delighted” and “infuriated” were inappropriate as they displayed a lack of sensitivity to the seriousness of the subject matter. In the light of its finding that the article breached the editorial guidelines on accuracy and impartiality and that the tone was in part inappropriate, the Committee will ask for the article and Q&A to be taken down and re-written in order that these issues can be addressed. Editorial Integrity and Independence The Committee considered whether the articles that were the subject of this complaint were influenced by political or commercial pressures, or by any personal interest. The Committee concluded that there was no evidence to support the suggestion that the articles had been influenced in this way and accordingly there had been no breach of the editorial guidelines relating to editorial integrity and independence. Finding: The complaint was upheld on truth and accuracy and impartiality and diversity of opinion. The Committee did not uphold the complaint on editorial integrity and independence. Action: The Chairman on behalf of the Committee will ask BBC management for the article and Q&A to be removed from the BBC website and rewritten to address the Committee’s concerns. The Committee will also write to the complainant to apologise for the difficulties he encountered at stage 1 of the complaints process. Today, Radio 4, 19 January 2007 1 Background This edition of the Today programme included a report by Jeremy Bowen who looked at the possibilities of a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. 2 The complaint • The complainant stated that this report was biased in favour of the Palestinians and did not accurately show the Israeli viewpoint by “including Israelis who are in no way representative of Israeli public opinion”. • He also stated that Jeremy Bowen’s “partial attitude” to the Middle East had been documented in a leaked email. [The Committee did not consider this email as it did not constitute content published by the BBC.] 3 BBC Information response (stage 1) • “Jeremy is an experienced journalist and broadcaster and the BBC is satisfied that his reports are impartial.” • “Across our news and online services we have endeavoured to provide a wide ranging balanced view from both sides of the divide...” 4 The complaint was then passed to the Editorial Complaints Unit (stage 2). The ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: • The ECU pointed out that the report was part of BBC News’ efforts to follow up on one of the recommendation of the Thomas report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the former BBC Governors, which was to make greater efforts to explain the complexities of the conflict. • “The Today broadcast was part of the ongoing attempt to inform audiences of the broader issues which can get overlooked in day to day news coverage.” • The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines make it clear that an individual report does not need to cover every argument or devote an equal amount of time to each view. • “Mr Bowen was reporting on how a two state solution might affect the Palestinians so I do not think it is unreasonable that he included more Palestinian voices.” • “...the report accurately reflected the Israeli position and explained the context to the listener.” • “Mr Bowen explained the Israeli position on restricting access to East Jerusalem. ... He explained why many Israelis are concerned about a Palestinian state ... And he reported that Israel rejects claims that its policy towards areas like the West Bank and East Jerusalem is a form of apartheid.” 5 The complainant was dissatisfied with the ECU finding, commenting: • It was a standard trick of the BBC to claim balance by including the view of an Israeli who was not supportive of the Israeli government’s policies. In this case it concerned the views of an Israeli human rights lawyer. • Regarding the lack of historical background: “The only major part of east Jerusalem that is holy to Islam are the two mosques built on the site of the Jewish temple that existed 1,000 years before Mohammed was born. The BBC never mentions this in its impartiality.” 6 The ECU reiterated its finding, adding: • Nothing in the report could be regarded as factually inaccurate or misleading. • “Mr Bowen reported that Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be their capital and this is an idea which Israel opposes.” • “The listeners would have been clear about the situation” and omitting the historical background did not breach BBC standards. 7 The complainant appealed to the ESC, adding: • ECU’s response states: “Israel opposes the idea that East Jerusalem should be the capital of an independent Palestine.” The complainant feels this “ignored and not quoted is the UN proposal that Jerusalem should be independent of both.” 8 Complaints handling The complainant also complained about the delays he had met in being reassured that his complaint had been escalated to the ECU from BBC Information. 9 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. 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. 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 web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion. The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting... In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: • we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented. • we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so. • we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply. • we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. • the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality. • our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters. 10 The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and BBC Information. This appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to impartiality and accuracy. The appeal also raised a separate issue about the handling of this complaint. Impartiality Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output. The approach to achieving impartiality will vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the content and approach is signposted. The Editorial Guidelines state that the BBC’s commitment to impartiality means, among other things, that the BBC has 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. News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. The BBC must be fair and open-minded when weighing and examining the facts as well as being open-minded and objective in its approach. Impartiality does not require the representation or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view. The Committee considered the context in which this report had been commissioned. It noted that the report was commissioned at a time when all the talk was of a two state solution providing a way forward for the region. It was agreed between the Today team and Jeremy Bowen that Mr Bowen would provide a counter-intuitive piece which would look at whether such a solution would work on the ground and what obstacles it might face. The Committee noted that the Editorial Guidelines encouraged the BBC to look at controversial subjects from different angles in order for the audience to have as broad an idea as to the various arguments on a particular issue as possible. As such, individual reports were not therefore required to provide equal time to, or the presentation of, every argument reported. With regard to this report, the Committee was of the view that an item of this nature, in which a different view (focusing on Palestinian attitudes to the proposed two-state solution) was being put forward, was a valuable addition to the BBC’s news output and was to be encouraged. In reaching this conclusion the Committee noted where the report had provided balance to the views expressed by Palestinians and the Israeli civil rights lawyer. It noted the scripted comments by Jeremy Bowen. In response to the Palestinian view on the restriction of movement for Palestinians between the West Bank and East Jerusalem, he said: Jeremy Bowen: Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be their capital, an idea Israel opposes deeply. After years of trying, Rania now has a permit to be here. Israel accepts that restricting Palestinians’ freedom of movement makes life difficult for them but it says it’s the best way to protect Jews in Israel and more than 400,000 others who have settled in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem in violation of most countries’, though not Israel’s, reading of International law. Later, in relation to Mikhail Sfarad’s comment, Jeremy Bowen added further scripted comments: Mikahail Sfarad (Israeli civil rights lawyer): When this happens in the context of attempting to strengthen domination of one ethnic group over another, this is exactly the legal definition of apartheid. Jeremy Bowen: Israel denies all of that. Mark Regev of the Foreign Ministry insists Israel would allow a Palestinian state as part of a proper peace deal and rejects the allegation of apartheid. The Committee also noted Mr Bowen’s final comment: Jeremy Bowen: Many Israelis believe that Palestinians would use a fully independent state as a base to attack them. Some believe the West Bank and East Jerusalem were given to them by God and even talk about a civil war if they were forced to give them up. But if they don’t, they might never have peace with the Palestinians whose population is doubling every twenty years. What a choice. The Committee also noted the contribution of Mark Regev of the Israeli Foreign Ministry: Mark Regev: On that word “apartheid”, I think it’s used incorrectly. It’s like when settlers in the West Bank or Gaza use the term “ethnic cleansing” to describe the pull out from Gaza and the forcible removal of the Jewish population there. I think this is using a politically loaded term for a very partisan political purpose. The Committee concluded that the report contained a sufficient balance of views (both scripted and interviewed) for a report of this nature, and did not breach the impartiality guidelines. In considering impartiality the Committee considered the introduction in the light of the guideline regarding impartiality which refers to the “extent to which the content and approach is signposted to our audiences”. The Committee recognised that by its nature an introduction should be scripted well enough to ensure that the audience knows what a report is about and what to expect. The issue, therefore, was whether the introduction was such that it did not set up the nature of the report sufficiently and so caused a breach of guidelines. Did it lead listeners to believe they were about to hear a report which canvassed both the Palestinian and Israeli perspective? The Committee noted what was said in the introduction: “You hear a lot of talk about a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The United States, Britain, the rest of the EU, the Israeli government and the Palestinian president, they all support the idea – which means setting up a Palestinian state alongside Israel. But many think that it is becoming less and less feasible. One problem, if they were negotiating about it, which they are NOT, is how much of the land Israel captured in 1967 it would allow the Palestinians to have – and whether they would accept anything less than 100%. Another is whether Jewish settlement of the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem is now so extensive that no Israeli government will ever have the strength to defy the settler movement and pull out. Here’s our Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen.” The Committee concluded that in itself the introduction did not breach any guidelines. It indicated that many thought the two-state solution was “becoming less and less feasible” and so led into the report which was examining the views of Palestinians who doubted the two- state solution even though many believed they were in favour of the policy. The Committee was therefore satisfied that whilst the introduction could have been better scripted to have ensured clearer signposting to the item that followed the introduction and report did not breach editorial standards. Accuracy The guidelines provide that the BBC should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead audiences. The complainant contended that the report, by omission, misrepresented the status of Jerusalem. The Committee considered the complainant’s contention in the context of the guidelines relating to accuracy. It noted what Jeremy Bowen said about the status of Jerusalem: Jeremy Bowen: Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be their capital, an idea Israel opposes deeply. The Committee also noted what the complainant said regarding the inclusion of that comment in the piece: “As the BBC recently reminded us, Jerusalem cannot be referred to as the capital of Israel because the UN want (east) Jerusalem to be an international city available to all. After the creation of Israel in 1948, the desecration of Jewish historical sites and graveyards is well documented. Yet you feel it is OK to make the above statement without explanation.” The Committee concluded that, given that Jeremy Bowen was making a brief point as to the aspiration of Palestinians, while also clearly stating Israel’s opposition to that view, within the context of the piece it was not a requirement for Jeremy Bowen to provide additional information of this issue. The Committee was satisfied that Jerusalem’s status had not been misrepresented and that accordingly there was no breach of the guidelines. Complaints handling The Committee noted the complainant’s concerns about the conduct of BBC Information in dealing with this complaint at stage 1 of the complaints process. The Committee agreed that BBC Information had not provided an appropriate service to the complainant. The Committee concluded that the mistakes had not been intentional, i.e. that the complaint had been closed in error and, therefore, not properly addressed until he contacted the BBC Trust. Nevertheless, it considered the confusion over the complaint and subsequent delay had been unacceptable. The Committee was satisfied, however, that in light of this complaint BBC management had taken steps to ensure that such errors would not be repeated. The Committee was therefore satisfied that no further action was needed, but it would formally write to the complainant to apologise for the errors and delay. Finding: Not upheld. Action: The Committee will write to the Complainant to apologise for the delays in dealing with his complaint at stage 1 of the complaints process. Six O’Clock News, Ten O’Clock News and Look North (Leeds) BBC One, 8 March 2007 1 Background The Six O’Clock News on 8 March 2007 showed CCTV footage of a police officer falling down a flight of stairs outside Sheffield’s Niche nightclub, while trying to restrain suspect Ms Toni Comer. The CCTV footage showed the police officer repeatedly punching the woman during the arrest. This footage was also shown in an item about the incident on the regional news programme that followed the Six O’Clock News, Look North (Leeds) and the Ten O’Clock News later that evening. 2 The complaint The complainant made three broad complaints about the showing of the footage: • The footage was prejudicially edited “to give the effect of a gratuitous and sustained beating”. • The footage was aired too frequently. • The BBC should not have turned it into a race issue. In his exchanges with BBC Information he stated: Frequency • “...on the return to the Six O’Clock news, after we had seen the clip played time and time again on the Six O’Clock news, and after Look North when we had seen the clip shown ad nauseam we returned to see the clip shown yet again from the six o’clock team...” Editing • “...the clip had been edited ... and one series of five blows was seamlessly edited over another to create the effect of a sustained beating.” • “This trick was repeated at the Ten O’Clock news but a reporter blurted out ‘here it’s shown again’.” The race issue • “...during the Look North coverage of the event the reporter went to interview Sheffield residents, all of whom, without exception were black (not everybody in Sheffield is) reinforcing the impressions that this was a race issue that the BBC had uncovered yet another demonstration of the institutional racism within the police.” 3 BBC Information’s response (stage 1) • “The CCTV footage of Toni Comer’s arrest was central to the story and we felt justified in screening it in order, not to sway opinion, but to allow viewers to make up their own minds.” • “We are sorry you felt it was screened too many times – the aim was to allow viewers to make as informed an opinion as possible and we ensured that our scripting provided appropriate context and analysis.” • “Across our output we made clear that Police said the woman was drunk and violent [and] that Toni Comer had pleaded guilty in court to causing criminal damage the night of the arrest, and was by her own admission, aggressive.” • “Overall, we aimed to offer a fair and balanced account of both the Police’s view and that of Ms Cromer. We included the statement PC Mullhall issued at the time.” • “We also carried the views of Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes of South Yorkshire Police saying: ‘What is shocking is that such a short piece of film can be taken out of context and shown on the media without us having time to put the context round that.’” • “We included comments from police officers with experience in the field, such as Malcolm Knight, former Metropolitan police officer, who reviewed the footage for the Six O’Clock News bulletin.” • “As regards the subsequent coverage on Look North, the bulletin interviewed people in Sheffield’s black community to see how they reacted to this incident ... the bulletin also made clear that ‘South Yorkshire Police said they were outraged at any suggestion that this was a racist incident’ and they interviewed the Chief Constable on this issue, to ensure balance and hear their side of things.” • “It is also worth bearing in mind that the definition of a racial incident (as defined by the Macpherson report on the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and as used by the UK’s police forces) is ‘any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.’ The Guardian newspaper – which broke the story – reported that Ruggie Johnson (a local race relations manager), who obtained the CCTV tape, has maintained from the outset that the incident was racial. Therefore, under the definition, he is the aforementioned ‘other person’.” 4 The complainant then took his complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) (stage 2), adding the following points: • “Unfortunately the response does not satisfactorily answer my prime concern about the ‘sexing up’ of the footage by editing the images back to back.” • “How many times did PC Mullhall hit the young women in fact, and how many times was he shown hitting her on the six o’clock and Look North news coverage?” 5 The ECU reply did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds. Race issue • “...the story was first reported in Newsnight the previous evening, after the footage was made available to the programme by The Guardian newspaper, to which it had been passed by the local race relations manager Ruggie Johnson. The footage was discussed in terms of racism because that’s the context in which Mr Johnson placed it in the public domain, claiming that it reminded him of the treatment meted out to Rodney King during the 1992 race riots in Los Angeles.” ‘Sexing up’ • “The item was introduced in the headlines as ‘...CCTV footage shows PC Anthony Mulhall punching Toni Comer five times. Police say the woman was drunk and violent and that the officer had to use force to subdue her.’” • “The report on the Ten O’Clock News was almost identical, with the exception that where the Six O’Clock included footage from a Radio Sheffield phone-in, the Ten had substituted a diagrammatic description of approved police restraint techniques before returning to the piece at a later point.” • “Judith Moritz’s report in the Six did include the line ‘Here it is again’ which you thought had been added to the Ten. They were in fact the same report at that point.” • “The reason for showing two versions of the footage initially was that the officer was in the bottom left of a quite distant shot and it was not very clear to viewers what was actually happening. The decision was then made to show it a second time, zoomed in, with the commentary highlighting that this was a repeat of the same footage.” • “The sequence was then shown again twice, but not back to back as the reporter read PC Mulhall’s statement, which provided an important insight into the officer’s account of events, particularly in light of Toni Comer’s claim that she was suffering an epileptic fit at the time.” Frequency • “The footage when reviewed in context did not seem gratuitous. It was at the heart of the story and was not therefore surprising that it was included a number of times.” • “The references in the introduction to ‘five times’ and in the initial showing of the blows to ‘here it is again’ would not have misled viewers into believing that the sequence showed ten consecutive blows.” 6 The complainant then appealed to the ESC, adding: Editing • “I don’t consider the treatment to be fair and objective ... the footage was shown time and time again and edited together to give the effect of a gratuitous and sustained beating.” Frequency • “For viewers in my area, we were shown the footage in the trailer for Look North, again repeatedly on the Six O’Clock News, repeatedly on Look North, and then again on the epilogue, for the Six O’Clock news. As with most other nights the Ten O’Clock news was a ‘copy and paste’ of the six O’clock.” Race issue • “It appears the BBC has a mandate to exploit racist expose stories to parade its moral superiority.” • “I don’t believe the journalists and editorial staff acted maliciously or with bad intentions, rather were used by others with axes to grind...” 7 Complaints handling The complainant raised concerns as to the process of making a complaint and with the lack of information as to how the process worked. He also complained about the delays in responding to his complaint at stages 1 and 2. 8 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. 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. 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 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 web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion. The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting. Special considerations apply during the campaign periods for elections. In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: • we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented. • we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so. • we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply. • we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. • the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality. Achieving impartiality Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach to achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the content and approach is signposted to our audiences. Impartiality is described in the Agreement as “due impartiality”. It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view. News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. 9 The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team, BBC Information and the Head of the ECU. This appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to accuracy and impartiality. The appeal also raised a separate issue about the handling of this complaint. Truth and Accuracy The Editorial Guidelines state that the BBC should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead audiences. The Committee considered each of the programmes (the Six O’Clock News, Look North and the Ten O’Clock News) in turn. 1 Six O’Clock News Having viewed the programme in the context of the editorial guidelines on truth and accuracy, the Committee concluded that the programme did not breach the guidelines. The footage was shown twice in succession. The Committee noted that in the commentary to the piece it was clearly stated: “he hit her five times”. The Committee also noted that when the sequence was shown again in close-up the commentary stated: “Here it is again.” The Committee was satisfied that the commentary had made it clear that the footage was being seen twice. The Committee concluded that it was clear from the programme as a whole that Toni Comer had been hit five times and that the programme did not distort the known facts or mislead the audience. Accordingly the Committee did not consider that that there had been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to truth and accuracy. 2 Look North Having viewed the programme in the context of the editorial guidelines on truth and accuracy, the Committee concluded that the programme did not breach the guidelines. The footage was shown six times (in whole or in part) in the programme. During a sequence which showed the incident twice in succession, the Committee noted that the incident was shown in close-up and at a distance. The sequences also included the phrase “Watch it again” in the commentary between the two clips. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the programme had made it clear to the audience that the footage was being seen twice. As to the other times when the clip was used in the programme, the Committee noticed that its use had been to support the item and had not been unreasonable given the context of the piece. The Committee noted that, although the programme did not specifically refer to the number of times Toni Comer was hit, the story had been articulated clearly enough to ensure that the audience would not have been misled about the extent of the incident. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the programme did not distort the known facts or mislead the audience. Accordingly the Committee did not consider that there had been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to truth and accuracy. 3 The Ten O’clock News Having viewed the programme in the context of the editorial guidelines on truth and accuracy, the Committee concluded that the programme did not breach the guidelines. The footage was shown twice in succession, but the Committee noted the inclusion of the words “Here it is again”, which accompanied the showing of the footage, making it clear to the audience that the footage was being shown twice. It was clear from the headline, the newsreader’s introduction and the body of the story that Miss Comer had been hit five times. The programme did not distort the known facts or mislead the audience. Accordingly the Committee did not consider that there had been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to truth and accuracy. Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion The Editorial Guidelines provide that the BBC must avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. Impartiality is described as “Due impartiality” and requires the BBC 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 the 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. The Committee considered each of the programmes in turn. 1 The Six O’clock News The Committee considered the broadcast as a whole. It noted how the incident had been reported in the bulletin: • An independent enquiry would now investigate whether the degree of force used was justified and proportionate. • Toni Comer had pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage. • She accepted that she had been drunk and aggressive. • She claimed to be having an epileptic fit. • The police said she was resisting arrest. • The arresting officer, in his own words, had to use brute force both in self-defence and to subdue her. • The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire said that the footage should not be taken out of context. • A former Metropolitan Police Officer had confirmed that the type of force used was considered by the police to be reasonable force. The Committee concluded that the item had been thoughtfully produced to ensure that all sides to the story had been properly and fairly presented and explained. The Committee also considered whether the issue of race had been raised in the context of this broadcast and concluded that it had not. The Committee concluded that there had not been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to impartiality and diversity of opinion. 2 Look North The Committee considered the broadcast as a whole and noted how the incident had been presented in the programme: • An independent enquiry would now investigate whether the degree of force used was justified and proportionate. • Toni Comer had pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage. • She accepted that she had been drunk and aggressive. • She claimed to be having an epileptic fit. • The police said she was resisting arrest. • The arresting officer, in his own words, had to use brute force both in self-defence and to subdue her. • The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire said that the footage should not be taken out of context. The Committee concluded that the item had ensured that all sides to the story had been fairly presented and explained. As to the issue of race, the Committee noted that this had been raised in the public domain prior to broadcast. In examining the issue, the item focused on the local impact of the story and how it had affected the local community. The Committee noted that the story was carefully presented so that both sides of the issue were examined with both vox pops with members of the Sheffield community and an interview with the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, who was given a full opportunity to answer the points that had been raised. The Committee concluded that there had not been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to impartiality and diversity of opinion. 3 The Ten O’clock News The Committee considered the broadcast as a whole. It noted how incident had been reported in the bulletin: • An independent enquiry would now investigate whether the degree of force used was justified and proportionate. • Toni Comer had pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage. • She accepted that she had been drunk and aggressive. • She claimed to be having an epileptic fit. • The police said she was resisting arrest. • The arresting officer, in his own words, had to use brute force both in self-defence and to subdue her. • The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire said that the footage should not be taken out of context. • A former Metropolitan Police Officer had confirmed that the type of force used was considered by the police to be reasonable force. The Committee concluded that the item had been thoughtfully produced to ensure that all sides to the story had been properly and fairly presented and explained. The Committee considered whether the issue of race had been raised in the context of this broadcast and concluded that it had not. The Committee concluded that there had not been a breach of the guidelines relating to impartiality and diversity of opinion. Complaints handling The Committee considered the way in which this complaint had been handled at all stages of the complaints process. The Committee concluded that the complainant had raised an important issue as to what should be the appropriate course of action taken by the BBC at stage 1 of the complaints process to ensure that complainants were adequately informed about the BBC complaints policy. The Committee would contact BBC management asking it to confirm that the procedures for ensuring people were aware of the complaints process were adequate. The Committee would write to the complainant apologising for the difficulties he encountered in progressing his complaint. Finding: Not upheld. Action: The Committee will write to the complainant to apologise for the difficulties he encountered in progressing his complaint. The Committee will also write to the Deputy Director-General to request that he confirm that appropriate procedures are in place to ensure that people who are not using the internet to complain to the BBC are adequately aware of the BBC’s complaints policy. Breaking Point in the Middle East, bbc.co.uk, BBC News, 15 June 2007 1 Background This was an article by Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East Editor, who was reporting that the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had taken a decision to dismiss the elected Hamas Prime Minister and to declare a state of emergency. 2 The complaint • “It is implicit in the article that responsibility for the collapse and carnage (in the Palestinian Authority) lies with Israel.” • “There is a complete lack of balance: Israel’s actions have been taken in response to a murderous terrorist campaign mounted from Palestinian territory, but there is no mention of this.” • “It is absurd to imply that the murderous Hamas attack on Fatah ... was caused by the despair of the Palestinian people, which in turn was the responsibility of Israel and other powers.” • The complainant also believed the reference to the present situation being similar to the “destruction of Palestinian social structures in 1948” was an “implicit blaming of Israel ... but no recognition that the ‘years of pressure’ were in fact caused by the Arabs who attacked Israel in 1948, who ordered the Arabs out of Israel but denied them citizenship or settlement, keeping them in existence in misery as a political weapon, who attacked Israel illegally in 1967, and who have denied Israel a peace treaty and security for 60 years.” • He also said: “The meltdown and destruction have been wrought by Arabs, terrorists and gunmen. Also Palestinian social structures within Israel were not destroyed. Arabs that did not obey the military order to leave continue to live peacefully in Israel enjoying full legal and political rights.” • The complainant also stated that “...the hardships imposed by financial sanctions should be compared with the effects of gross corruption on the part of Palestinian politicians”. • The complainant ends: “...the chaos and hardship among the Palestinians are due to their addiction to violent politics and their intention to destroy Israel.” 3 BBC Information responded (stage 1), including a comment from the production team: • “The opening half of the article describes and analyses the Palestinian infighting that ended with Hamas’s take-over of Gaza by force. This section ends with the expression of the fear among Palestinians that the Palestinian Authority would collapse and with it the apparatus of what might have become an independent state. None of this mentioned Israel.” • “...it is undeniable that much of the Palestinian’s economic hardship and despair can be blamed on their leaders – corruption and incompetence are widely blamed by ordinary Palestinians.” • “This said Israeli military action and settlement building in Gaza and the West Bank has undoubtedly resulted in considerable hardship for the Palestinians in these areas. Beginning in 2002, Israel specifically pursued a policy of destroying institutions and facilities belonging to the Palestinian Authority. The rightness or otherwise of the Israeli military action is not addressed here, though its effects are observed. This is crucial context. Mr Bowen would have been remiss if he hadn’t mentioned it.” 4 The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) at stage 2. The ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: • The ECU did not agree with the assessment of the complainant regarding the reference to 1948: “The point of view you put would not, I think, be accepted by Palestinians or a number of governments in the region.” • It also noted that it was made clear that the reference to 1948 from a Palestinian perspective and the acceptance of it was left to the reader to decide. • The ECU also believed the article was accurate in that “...without wishing in any way to underplay the severity of Palestinian attacks on Israel, I think it is reasonable for Jeremy Bowen to point out that Israeli action in Gaza has had a significant impact on the population in general, such as a huge rise in unemployment.” • It argued the use of the word ‘battering’ in this instance meant that “Israel’s actions have adversely affected many of the Palestinians in the Gaza strip”. • The ECU suggested that, in these circumstances, the decision to exclude mention of Palestinian attacks on Israel did not constitutes bias. • It also noted that it was not implied that Israel was solely to blame for isolating Hamas: “You go on to paraphrase a second section of the item, but as you noted by inserting the phrase ‘the big powers’ into it, there is no implication that Israel is solely to blame for isolating Hamas – it is something most of the world agreed on.” 5 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. 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 Introduction Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. It applies across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to reflecting a diversity of opinion. The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. 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. • we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects. • the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our impartiality. • our journalists and presenters, including those in news and current affairs, may provide professional judgments but may not express personal opinions on matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC programmes or other BBC output the personal views of our journalists and presenters on such matters. Achieving impartiality Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach to achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the content and approach is signposted to our audiences. Impartiality is described in the Agreement as “due impartiality”. It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view. News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. 6 The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards as set out in the BBC Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the programme team and the Head of the ECU. This appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to truth and accuracy and impartiality and diversity of opinion. Accuracy The Editorial Guidelines state that accuracy is a core editorial value. All output must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear precise language. Impartiality The Editorial Guidelines also state that impartiality must be adequate and appropriate in each instance, and will vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of output, the likely audience expectation, and the extent to which the content and approach is signposted. News in whatever form must be presented with due impartiality. The BBC is required 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 its approach to a subject. Due impartiality 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. The Committee considered the complaint in its entirety against the background of the news at the time the online article was published. The Committee concluded that this was not a general article about the Middle East conflict. It was an article reporting on the events which had occurred that week – specifically the decision of the Palestinian Authority President “to dismiss the elected Hamas prime minister and declare a state of emergency” leaving “Hamas gunmen in control of most of the centres of power in Gaza”. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s two specific complaints: a) That it was implicit (and inaccurate) in the article that responsibility for the “murderous Hamas attack on Fatah” and “the collapse and carnage in the Palestinian Authority” “was caused by the despair of the Palestinian people, which in turn was the responsibility of Israel and other powers”. b) That the article, in quoting a Palestinian analyst who likened the situation to that in 1948 when Palestinian social structures collapsed, was inaccurate and biased against Israel. “...Palestinian social structures within Israel were not destroyed. Arabs that did not obey the military order to leave continue to live peacefully in Israel enjoying full legal and political rights”; “the ‘years of pressure’ were in fact caused by the Arabs who attacked Israel in 1948, who ordered the Arabs out of Israel but denied them citizenship or settlement, keeping them in existence in misery as a political weapon, who attacked Israel illegally in 1967, and who have denied Israel a peace treaty and security for 60 years”; and the current “meltdown and destruction have been wrought by Arabs, terrorists and gunmen”. The Committee noted that the opening sentence said: “It was a momentous day for Palestinians”, and that the article began by setting out the news events, the fighting between Fatah and Hamas and the declaration of a state of emergency. It noted that Israel was not mentioned at this point. The article then went on to say that it was feared that the end of the unity government “could cause the collapse of the Palestinian Authority and the other institutions”. The Committee noted the reference to Israel which followed, in which it was stated: “The institutions, and the hopes behind them, have already taken a severe battering from Israel’s military actions over the last seven years and, more recently, by the punishing financial sanctions imposed by Israel and other countries after Hamas won a free election at the beginning of last year.” The Committee concluded that this reference to Israel provided context to the state of the institutions and was factually accurate. The Committee noted that the article also said that “the financial sanctions they [the world’s big powers] imposed, caused severe hardship and helped fuel the violence in Gaza by making people even more desperate...” The Committee decided that Israel could not be taken to be one of the world’s big powers. It considered whether in the context of this article (which had referred to “punishing financial sanctions imposed by Israel and other countries”) some could take this to include a reference to Israel. The Committee considered that, even if that were the case, the suggestion that financial sanctions created hardship that made people more desperate and thus fuelled violence was a professional judgement based on the facts. The Committee noted that the word ‘helped’ indicated that the financial sanctions were one of the causes of violence through the severe hardship created, but that they were not given as the only reason. The Committee also noted that the article went on to explain that the sanctions “were designed to either force Hamas to recognise Israel or to push it out of power. The policy had achieved neither objective”. The Committee concluded that necessary explanation and a balancing argument was provided for the imposition of sanctions by the world’s big powers. The Committee noted the section in the article which said: “One Palestinian analyst contacted by the BBC said he feared the damage being done to Palestinian society by the current meltdown and the years of pressure that created it would be on a par with the destruction of Palestinian social structures in 1948, when Israel was created. It is an event Arabs still refer to as ‘the catastrophe’.” The Committee noted that the analyst had considered the “meltdown” was created by the “years of pressure”, but the article was not explicit as to what internal and external matters he was referring to. The Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate to cover the views of a Palestinian analyst in an article on the Palestinian state of emergency. The Committee concluded that (even accepting the complainant’s position that Palestinians who remained in Israel maintained their institutions) it was a statement of fact that social structures for the Palestinian Government in 1948 did break down as a result of the creation of Israel. The article clearly sourced the view. It did not endorse it. The Committee then considered the points made by the complainant which he felt should be present to achieve impartiality and accuracy. The Committee noted the concern of the complainant that: “Israel’s actions have been taken in response to a murderous terrorist campaign mounted from Palestinian territory, but there is no mention of this.” And: “...the hardships imposed by financial sanctions should be compared with the effects of gross corruption on the part of Palestinian politicians.” And: “...the ‘years of pressure’ were in fact caused by the Arabs who attacked Israel in 1948, who ordered the Arabs out of Israel but denied them citizenship or settlement, keeping them in existence in misery as a political weapon, who attacked Israel illegally in 1967, and who have denied Israel a peace treaty and security for 60 years” And: the current “meltdown and destruction have been wrought by Arabs, terrorists and gunmen”. The Committee agreed that there was a limit within an online article about current events as to the amount of historical and political context that could be provided. It was not necessary in every short item on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict to report the views of those on either side of the conflict who believe that all the blame for the situation should be attributed to their opponents. Taking all the above references into account and considering the article overall in context, the Committee considered that there was no need in this case to set matters in a full historical and full current political context to achieve impartiality or accuracy. In particular the Committee concluded that it was not incumbent upon the writer to refer to the attacks on Israel to explain the decision to impose financial sanctions, or to refer to corruption on the part of Palestinian politicians and its role in creating hardship or to the Arab actions listed by the complainant. In this instance the writer had selected motives and actions which were relevant in that they had a direct impact on the matters being reported. The Committee also noted that complainant’s belief that “the chaos and hardship among the Palestinians are due to their addiction to violent politics and their intention to destroy Israel.” The Committee noted that the article had commenced by setting out the factional fighting within the Palestinian Authority. It had explained that the state of emergency could not do much to touch the Hamas military wing in Gaza. It had explained that it was not clear how much influence the elected Hamas politicians had over events, that Hamas masked gunmen were in control and Fatah’s force had been defeated and its headquarters seized. More detail on Hamas and Fatah was given. The Committee concluded that the article had explicitly addressed violent politics. The Committee also concluded that, within the context of this article about the imposition of a state of emergency, it was not necessary to refer to Palestinian intentions to Israel. Accordingly the Committee concluded that, in the context of this article, impartiality was adequate and appropriate and due impartiality and due accuracy had been achieved. Finding: Not upheld. Book of the Week: Gunter Grass – Peeling the Onion Radio 4, 9–13 July 2007 1 Background Book of the Week features books of non-fiction, biography, autobiography, travel, diaries, essays, humour and history. It is broadcast on weekdays at 0945–1000 and repeated at 0030–0045. In Book of the Week: Gunter Grass – Peeling the Onion, Kenneth Cranham read extracts from the autobiography of the early life of Nobel Prize winning author Gunter Grass. The book caused controversy when it was published in Germany in 2006. 2 The complaint The complainant summarised her complaint as follows. The complainant was offended by the broadcasting of an original soundtrack of the Hitler Youth (it was later clarified as being a soundtrack of the Jungvolk) at the beginning of Book of the Week: Gunter Grass – Peeling the Onion. No warning was given at the start of the programme about the content to follow. The complainant wrote to the Controller of Radio 4 and the Director-General, as well as complaining by telephone to BBC Information. 3 BBC Information responded on behalf of the Controller of Radio 4 and the Director- General at stage 1 • It stated that, in abridging a book this size for broadcast, the producer chose to concentrate on Grass’s early life as a child and adolescent under the Nazis, and his war service: “Grass is very interesting about his time in the Jungvolk and how he felt and thought about the Nazis, how seductive some of his manifestations of the ideology were.” • It said that the producer of the programme had deliberately picked a song sung by children in the Jungvolk because “it was a song Grass might have sung, a song with a seductive and exhilarating power which illustrates Grass’s own memories of his feeling at the time, a song whose emotional impact contrasts totally with the hideous reality of the Reich as told in the reading which follows it”. 4 The complainant then wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) at stage 2, via the ESC The ECU did not uphold the complaint stating: • The ECU acknowledged that the complainant might have found the inclusion of the song personally upsetting but reiterated the earlier comment of the programme producer, adding: “In his first radio extract, Grass confesses that he joined the Jungvolk voluntarily, and describes how as a member ‘we sang as if our songs could make the Reich bigger and bigger’.” • The ECU noted: “The use of the music was not to glorify the Nazi regime but to help illustrate how young people like Grass were initially seduced by Nazi ideology.” • As to a warning ahead of the programme’s broadcast, the ECU believed sufficient notice had been given in the introduction as to the programme’s content. The introduction stated: “Grass was renowned for his opposition to the secrecy and suppression of the old federal republic, so caused a furore when he revealed a secret of his own, that during the war he’d been a member of the Waffen-SS, a regiment later indicted for war crimes. This week on Radio 4 we present five extracts from Peeling the Onion which cover Grass’s wartime experiences and his reactions to the memories.” 5 Complaints handling The complainant was concerned with the time it had taken for the BBC to reply to her complaint and with the quality of the reply which she said caused her further upset. 6 Applicable programme standards Section 8 – Harm and Offence The BBC aims to reflect the world as it is, including all aspects of the human experience and the realities of the natural world. In doing so, we balance our right to broadcast and publish innovative and challenging content appropriate to each of our services with our responsibility to protect the vulnerable. When we broadcast or publish challenging material which risks offending some of our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose. Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, humiliation, sexual violence and discriminatory treatment. We must be sensitive to audience expectations, particularly in relation to the protection of children, as well as clearly signposting the material. Harm and offence editorial principles • We signpost and label challenging material to ensure our audiences have enough information on which to judge whether content is suitable for themselves or their children. • We keep in touch with the expectations of our audiences for all of our services. Audience expectations We should judge the suitability of content for our audiences, including children, in relation to the expectations of the likely audience at a particular time on a particular day, and in relation to the nature of the service as well as the nature of the content. We should ask ourselves the following questions: • does the talent, slot, genre or service carry pre-existing expectations which may be challenged by the content? • is harm or offence likely to be caused by misleading the audience or in the inclusion of difficult or challenging material? • has any difficult or challenging content been clearly signposted? • are there any special sensitivities surrounding the slot, for example religious festivals, and anniversaries of major events? • what is the likely “pull-through audience” i.e. what is the nature of the preceding content and what kind of audience is it likely to attract? Signposts & content information To ensure that our audiences are not taken by surprise, we must clearly sign post difficult content on all of our services using a combination of appropriate scheduling and content information which is simple, consistent, and factual. Whenever possible, this information should appear in press releases and other publicity, billings, Ceefax, trails, on air and online announcements, and electronic programme guides. We must consider giving clear information about the content of some pre-Watershed programmes, programmes which start before the Watershed and run beyond it, and post-Watershed programmes as well as for radio programmes broadcast when children are particularly likely to be listening. 7 The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and subsequent submissions from BBC Information and the Head of the ECU. This appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to harm and offence. The appeal also raised a separate issue about the handling of this complaint. Harm and Offence The Editorial Guidelines state that, when the BBC broadcasts challenging material which risks offending some of its audience, a clear editorial purpose must always be demonstrated. The Committee did not consider the music in question to be challenging. It also considered that its broadcast was not unsuitable for children. Accordingly there was no need to consider the guidelines relating to signposting and content information. The Committee accepted that the music, by its very nature, risked offending some of the audience. Nevertheless, the Committee considered the music to be editorially justified in the context of the book which was the subject of the programme. The Committee’s view was that the music set the context for the book as a whole. The Editorial Guidelines state that suitability of content should be judged in relation to the expectations of the likely audience at a particular time on a particular day, and in relation to the nature of the service as well as the nature of the content. The Committee noted that this was a programme that was clearly broadcast on a radio station, Radio 4, at a time in the morning, and repeated very late at night, that would attract a particular adult audience. The music was suitable for this audience. For these reasons the Committee concluded that there had not been a breach of the editorial guidelines relating to harm and offence. Complaint handling The Committee considered the issues raised by the complainant about the handling of her complaint by BBC Information at stage 1 of the complaints process. The Committee was satisfied that there had not been any significant delays in responding to the complainant and that the responses she received had been appropriate. Finding: Not upheld. Ten O’Clock News, BBC One, 18 May 2007 1 The complaint The complainant stated that the BBC failed to observe its own procedures in providing the prescribed redress (publication of a finding) after his complaint was upheld by the Editorial Complaints Unit. The complainant also raised concerns about how the BBC handled his complaint throughout this period. 2 Summary of the complaint to BBC management The complainant complained about the lead item on the Ten O’Clock News, which was about the vote in the House of Commons to exempt Parliament from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The complainant complained that this item was biased and unbalanced from its beginning to its end. The complaint was upheld by the Editorial Complaints Unit. 3 Details of the appeal made to the ESC relating to the processing of the complaint • Initially the complainant’s complaint was treated as a comment, then dismissed, and then, some two months after he referred it to the ECU and three months from the date of the transmission of the item, it was upheld. • The complainant complained that another two months after his complaint was upheld his finding remained unpublished. Note: The ECU published the item on 6 November 2007. 4 Applicable programme standards 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. 5 The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards as set out in the BBC Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence including (but not limited to) the Head of Editorial Standards note, and the subsequent submissions from the complainant, BBC Information and the Head of the ECU. This appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to accountability. Accountability The Editorial Guidelines state that the BBC must be accountable to its audiences. The Committee considered the handling of this complaint at stages 1 and 2 of the BBC complaints process. The Committee concluded that the initial response from BBC Information had not been appropriate. It recognised that at times it could be difficult to establish the difference between a comment and complaint, but this was not the case on this occasion. The complainant had clearly established that his email was a complaint from the outset. As such it was reasonable that he should have received a reply that considered the points mentioned in his complaint. This had not happened with BBC Information’s first reply, although a later reply to the complainant had provided a fuller response. The Committee would therefore contact BBC management to request that management confirm that procedures were in place for a complaint to be addressed appropriately in the first instance. As to the delays in the ECU investigation and posting of the finding on the BBC website, the Committee concluded that the delays had been unacceptable. The resource and management issues which led to the delay were recognised by the Committee, but the Committee were nonetheless concerned about the delays. The Committee recognised that since the summer the ECU had improved its turnaround times on investigations and was now answering over 90% of complaints within 20 or 35 working days, dependent on their complexity. However, the Committee was still concerned about the time it took for the ECU to post a finding on the BBC website. The Committee would write to BBC management to ask how findings such as this one could be posted on the BBC website more quickly than had happened in this case. The Committee would formally write to the complainant to apologise. Finding: Upheld. Action: The Committee will write to the complainant to apologise. The Committee will also write to BBC management to raise the issue of the appropriateness of the reply at stage 1 and the timing of the publishing of ECU findings on the BBC website at stage 2.