Editorial Complaints: Appeals to the Trust March 2007 Issued April 2007 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 Diane Coyle. It, and 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, one particular responsibility for the Committee is to consider appeals against decisions and actions of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) – or 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. This bulletin also includes a statement on any remedial action taken. It is published at bbc.co.uk/bbctrust or is available from: The Secretary, Editorial Standards Committee BBC Trust Unit Room 211, 35 Marylebone High Street London W1U 4AA Contents Summary of findings (March 2007) Your Place & Mine, bbc.co.uk (Northern Ireland) 3 Newsnight, BBC Two, 9 March 2006 4 Findings (March 2007) Your Place & Mine, bbc.co.uk (Northern Ireland) 5 Newsnight, BBC Two, 9 March 2006 10 Summary of findings (March 2007) Your Place & Mine bbc.co.uk (Northern Ireland) The complaint concerned an article that had been published on the community pages of BBC Northern Ireland’s area of the BBC website. It discussed the tradition of using nicknames to differentiate people with the surname Scullion in a named village and environs. The complainant felt the article was inaccurate as it suggested that the practice of the nicknames was still in common usage, which he disputed. He also stated that the majority of Scullions in the village and surrounding area found the use of such nicknames offensive. The complainant was also dissatisfied with the handling of the complaint by BBC Northern Ireland, and in particular was annoyed at a reference in a BBC response to his complaint to the Scullions being a “clan”. The Committee commissioned a report from an expert on the use of nicknames in Irish rural society. The Committee concluded that: • The item did not breach the guidelines on accuracy. The Committee was satisfied that the web team had carried out research that had made appropriate checks with members of the Scullion family and others living in the area. • The research carried out by the web team and the advice from the independent expert concluded that there was no general offence caused among Scullions in the area by the use of or discussion about the nicknames. • In terms of complaint handling, the Committee was generally satisfied with how BBC Northern Ireland had handled the complaint. In particular it did not feel that the term “clan” to describe Scullions as a family group was used pejoratively. The Committee did not uphold the complaint. For the finding in full see pages 5–9. Newsnight BBC Two, 9 March 2006 The ESC heard two third-party appeals against the same item in the programme. The complaints were very similar and concerned the repetition of a middle name (Israel) and an accusation of disloyalty to the UK. One complainant also suggested that the studio discussion at the end of the item was biased against one of the contributors. The Committee considered each complaint separately, although for the purpose of this bulletin both complaints are reported together. Summary of the finding The complaints concerned an investigation carried out by Newsnight, and presented by Michael Crick, that looked into the British government’s involvement in assisting Israel with its development of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. The item was based on recently released government papers suggesting that Michael Michaels, a senior civil servant and the British government’s representative at the International Atomic Energy Agency, had acted with dual loyalties when he had ensured the supply of plutonium and other radioactive materials to Israel without the knowledge of the Minister responsible, and possibly without the Prime Minister’s knowledge. Both complainants felt that the inclusion and repetition of Mr Michaels’ middle name (Israel) was unnecessary and, therefore, anti-Semitic. They also objected to the suggestion that he had dual loyalties, which they felt implied disloyalty. In addition to these points, one of the complainants felt that the studio discussion that followed the filmed report was biased against one of the guests, Avner Cohen. The Committee concluded as follows: • The use of Mr Michaels’ middle name did not breach the guidelines on harm and offence. It was satisfied that there was no intention to endorse a stereotype, and it was not anti- Semitic. In general, the use of the name had been as a form of shorthand to highlight Mr Michaels’ association with Israel. • With regard to “dual loyalties”, the Committee was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence put forward to suggest that Mr Michaels might indeed have had dual loyalties in his dealings with Israel. However, the Committee concluded that this was not the same as suggesting that Mr Michaels had been disloyal. The Committee also felt that the report had raised the possibility that the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, might have known about the shipment to Israel. The item therefore did not breach guidelines on impartiality. • Having reviewed the studio discussion, the Committee was also satisfied that it had found no bias in favour of one guest. It noted that Avner Cohen, who had been interrupted twice during the interview, was given sufficient opportunity to respond to questions asked of him. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the discussion did not breach the guidelines on due impartiality. The Committee did not uphold the complaints. For the finding in full see pages 10–14. Findings (March 2007) Your Place & Mine bbc.co.uk (Northern Ireland) 1 The article The complaint concerned an article on the Your Place & Mine (YP&M) area of BBC Northern Ireland’s website. The article ‘The Scullion Tree’ refers to those who are called Scullion and live in a named a village in Northern Ireland and, in particular, the nicknames which differentiate them and their families from other Scullions in the same area. 2 The website The YP&M web pages are situated within the Communities area of the BBC Northern Ireland section of the BBC website. 3 The complaint The complainant requested that: “BBCNI remove (or, at the very least significantly amend) the material in question from the YP&M website because of its capacity to offend and demean. The material is poorly sourced, poorly evidenced and inadequately tested. It does not reflect the reality of the distasteful practice of these nicknames being used in a derogatory fashion against families with the Scullion name in the village ... in modern times.” The complainant also raised a number of further points in his correspondence with the BBC, including: • If offensive or abusive terms are repeated on a public forum it only serves to make them acceptable. • The claim that the use of the nicknames was widespread in the area is not true. • The suggestion by BBC Northern Ireland that the website “does not single out an individual for ridicule” did not bear scrutiny as having a list of nicknames, by definition, singled out families with the Scullion name. • The choice of material and its impact must be balanced against the rights of those affected. • The offence could be ended by a minor alteration to the website. • The article accurately described a sociolinguistic feature of rural life in Northern Ireland. The Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU), which did not uphold the complaint, decided that: 4 Applicable programme standards • The research by BBC Northern Ireland had concluded that the practice of using nicknames is still widespread in the relevant county. • The article did not single out an individual for ridicule and did not require signposting as nothing emerged from the enquiries to suggest that the content was likely to be regarded as offensive by readers of the site in general, or by all or most of those with the surname Scullion. • The ECU was satisfied that the research it had carried out supported the research carried out by the website. It was therefore satisfied that the website had adhered to the guidelines on accuracy and harm and offence and that there was an “editorial purpose” to the article. However, in response to the research carried out by BBC Northern Ireland that suggested that there were some individuals whose nickname would not be used in their presence, the opening paragraph of the article was changed, with the following sentenced being added: “While most regard this as an inoffensive and colourful feature of rural life in Ireland, some families on occasions do take exception to the nicknames.” The complainant then appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee (now the Editorial Standards Committee), adding the following points about the handling of the complaint, summarised below: • BBC Northern Ireland did not provide, when requested, further details of the relevant formal complaints procedure. • BBC Northern Ireland refused to negotiate on amendments to the article and thus escalated the matter towards a conflict. • It was inappropriate and offensive for BBC Northern Ireland in its correspondence with the complainant to describe a number of families with the Scullion name as a “clan”, as clan-based society ended hundreds of years ago and does not exist today. • In replies from BBC Northern Ireland, the senior producer responsible for the site referred to one of the nicknames of a particular Scullion family (related to the complainant), which is a name to which the family takes offence. 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. We aim to achieve accuracy by: • the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources wherever possible. • checking and cross checking the facts. Section 8: Harm and offence Introduction 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: • 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. The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, including the BBC’s values and other standards set out in the Editorial Guidelines. The Committee took into account all the material before it relating to the appeal. This included submissions from all the relevant parties to the complaint who were asked to comment on the material going before the Committee. 5 The Committee’s decision The Committee, as part of its investigation, commissioned a report by Dr Brian Turner, an academic who specialises in family names in Ireland, on the historical existence of nicknames in rural Irish communities and their usage within a modern context. The Committee considered this complaint in three parts: • Accuracy • Offence • Complaints handling Accuracy The Committee noted that all parties agreed on the existence of the nicknames and the specific names listed in the article. The main dispute regarding accuracy was about whether or not the names were in regular use within the relevant present-day village community. It noted the view of its expert on this matter, Dr Turner, who stated: “Nicknames of this type are still widely and commonly used in certain areas, usually rural areas where historical circumstances have led to there being a large number of people with the same surname. Their use is probably in decline with the decline of closely-knit and interdependent rural communities.” And: “...I have consulted with residents and natives of ... and ... . While not ruling out the possibility that some individuals might dislike the use of these names, there is no suggestion of general offence. Scullions of ... are known to use these names themselves.” The Committee also considered the research by the web team and noted that they had gathered their material from first-hand sources, including three members of the Scullion family living in the village, and had also checked and cross-checked their facts with other people living and working closely within the area who had actual experience of the use of the various nicknames in the present-day community. It was also aware that, while the complainant had raised the concern of “poor” research, he had not provided any substantive evidence of general disapproval of the use of the names among Scullions outside his immediate family. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the evidence provided by the web team and supported by the expert’s commissioned report was an accurate representation of the historical and modern usage of the nicknames. The Committee found that there had been a sufficient factual basis to warrant the inclusion of this material in the article. The Committee did not uphold this element of the complaint. Offence The Committee noted that nicknames were part of the social history of rural Irish culture and, from the evidence accumulated by the web team and Dr Turner, are still a factor in today’s village society. It noted Dr Turner’s comments on the issue of offence: 6 Actions “My information is that the names mentioned on the website are known in ... and are not generally regarded as offensive, and are used by at least some Scullions themselves. It seems likely that a name which was regarded as offensive, and was not accepted over generations by the group in question, would fail to serve its intended purpose of community identification and therefore would not survive in common currency.” The Committee also noted that BBC Northern Ireland’s research had not found any general offence among people with the name of Scullion about the use or discussion of the nicknames. It was also aware that the article had not led to other objections to its content from other Scullions. It was satisfied that the article on the website was looking at the tradition of the nicknames and, as such, was about the wider community of Scullions; it was not singling out or targeting a specific Scullion family or individual. The Committee was also satisfied that there was no malice intended in the article. The article had an appropriate editorial purpose in that it was highlighting a specific known local historical fact. The Committee also felt that the inclusion of the names on the website was also justified to help explain the matter properly. It was, therefore, satisfied that while the article ran some risk of offending some readers, it was editorially justified in that it not only reflected a historical fact but was pertinent to the terminology used in the community today. The Committee did not uphold this component of the complaint. Complaints handling The Committee then considered the complainant’s comments regarding the handling of his complaint. In general it was satisfied with how the complaint had been handled. It felt that the reference to the Scullions as a “clan” was not pejorative and, within this context, the word could have been used to describe any family. However, it was concerned that BBC Northern Ireland, when asked to provide information on the complaints process, had failed to do so. It acknowledged that this was not the right procedure and would write to BBC management to ask them to take appropriate action (see below). FINDING: NOT UPHELD The Chairman of the Committee will write to Mark Byford, Deputy Director-General and Chairman of the Complaints Management Board, to ask him to remind not only BBC Northern Ireland but all areas of the BBC handling complaints of the importance of providing appropriate information on the complaints procedure when asked to by a complainant. Newsnight BBC Two, 9 March 2006 1 The item The item, which was the lead story of that evening’s Newsnight programme, was introduced by Kirsty Wark as follows: “A Newsnight investigation reveals that British civil servants in Harold Wilson’s government supplied plutonium to Israel. Why weren’t ministers told we were helping to build the Israeli nuclear programme?” The report was a continuation of the programme’s investigation into the British government’s role in aiding Israel towards the development of its nuclear bomb in the 1950s and 1960s. In this report, the Newsnight investigation, which had earlier revealed that the British government had supplied heavy water to Israel in the late 1950s, found (through papers released under the Freedom of Information Act) that Britain had supplied Israel with plutonium under Harold Wilson’s government The filmed report, presented by Michael Crick, centred on the role of civil servant Michael Michaels, who had sponsored Israel’s request for plutonium and other restricted materials. The report stated that the supply of such materials was against government policy at the time, and the supply to Israel was unknown to the Cabinet and the Minister in charge of Britain’s nuclear programme. During the report and studio discussion it was mentioned on three occasions that Mr Michaels’ middle name was Israel. The report also discussed whether or not Mr Michaels had had “dual loyalties” to both the UK and Israel, and whether or not this was compatible with being a civil servant. The presenter also suggested that there may have been “sleepers” sympathetic to Israel within the British Civil Service working independently of, so far as was known, the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson. 2 The complaints Both complainants raised similar comments in their correspondence with the BBC. Their points have been summarised below: • The item was ill researched, biased and anti-Semitic. • The item painted a misleading picture of Mr Michaels and Jewish people in general. Research would show he was a formidably skilful first Chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency. • There should not have been a repetition of Michael Michaels’ middle name as it inappropriately emphasised his faith and implied he was sympathetic toward Israel. • The association of his middle name with the supply of materials to Israel was used to suggest his dual loyalties/disloyalty. • Kirsty Wark also suggested he was a “sleeper”, implying he was a spy for an enemy power. An additional complaint was raised by one of the complainants, relating to the studio discussion that followed the filmed report: • The representative of the Arab League was allowed an “endless opportunity to put forward his side’s goodness, while Avner Cohen was repeatedly cut off after a few words”. The Head of the ECU did not uphold either complaint. To summarise his decision: • Kirsty Wark’s introduction made no reference to Mr Michaels and his faith. Civil servants were referred to as a group. The focus of the piece was Britain’s involvement in the supply of restricted materials. • The report’s identification that Mr Michaels was a crucial player was well founded from documentation obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and from the circumstantial evidence that he worked in London for the Israeli embassy when he had retired from the Civil Service. • As to the issue of dual loyalties and the complainants’ view that this implied disloyalty, the ECU quoted Michael Crick, who stated: “Newsnight did not accuse Michael Michaels of ‘disloyalty’ and there is a huge difference between ‘disloyalty’ and ‘dual loyalties’. Many British Jews, quite understandably, feel a sympathy to and affinity towards Israel as well as to the UK.” • The mention of Michael Michaels’ middle name in the discussion between Michael Crick and the intelligence expert, Peter Kelly, was no more than them drawing attention to what they saw as a coincidence of someone having translated their sympathies into active support for a country of the same name. The complainants then appealed to the Committee, adding the following points about the handling of their complaints: • One complainant had been unhappy with the handling of her complaint at Stages 1 and 2, describing the experience thus: “[the] endless delays in answering, the meaninglessness of the replies, and other tactics to shake off complainants...” • The other complainant was unhappy with the response at Stage 1 (BBC Information), in which he felt the explanation for the reference to Mr Michaels’ middle name was an “absurd baby-talk lesson in the history of Israel”. Section 4: Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion Introduction Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK ... to support fair 3 Applicable programme standards 4 The Committee’s decision and informed debate. It specifies 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 a political or industrial controversy. In practice, our commitment to impartiality means: • 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. Section 8: Harm and Offence Introduction 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. 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. The Committee considered the complaints against the relevant editorial standards, including the BBC’s values and other standards set out in the Editorial Guidelines. The Committee took into account all the material before it relating to the appeal. This included submissions from all the relevant parties to the complaint who were asked to comment on the material going before the Committee. The Committee first considered the use of Michael Michaels’ middle name and the suggestion of “dual loyalties”. It then considered the additional complaint by one complainant, relating to bias in the studio discussion. It then addressed the points about how their complaints were handled. Michael Michaels’ middle name The Committee noted that Mr Michaels’ middle name Israel had been mentioned on three separate occasions in the report by Michael Crick and Peter Kelly, and by Kirsty Wark in the discussion following the report. It felt that on all three occasions the name had been used as a form of shorthand to refer to Mr Michaels’ association with Israel and was satisfied that there had been no intention by the programme to offend viewers with its usage. In the case of Peter Kelly, a friend of Mr Michaels, its use was wholly justified as it appeared to be his way of explaining Michael Michaels’ relationship with Israel. The Committee agreed that there was less of an editorial purpose for Michael Crick and Kirsty Wark to use it, but it certainly did not form a stereotype or suggest anti-Semitism. There was, however, still sufficient editorial justification to outweigh any risk of offence. The Committee was satisfied that the use and repetition of the name did not breach the guidelines. Dual loyalties The Committee noted that there was a very clear difference between “dual loyalty” as suggested by the programme and “disloyalty”, which the complainants believed was implied by the item. The Committee noted that at no time did the report suggest that Mr Michaels had been disloyal to the UK. It was also satisfied that the report had provided enough evidence to indicate that he had sympathy for Israel’s intention to develop a nuclear bomb, and therefore it was reasonable to suggest that he might have had dual loyalties. However, the Committee also commented that the report certainly did not rule out that Harold Wilson, Prime Minister at the time of the plutonium shipment to Israel, might have known of the agreement, as indicated in Michael Crick’s discussion with Tony Benn: Tony Benn: “I do not know whether Harold Wilson knew, I would be surprised if he did. He was very sympathetic to Israel, I know that, but I cannot believe that something that might have come into the public domain and would have revealed the ignorance of the responsible Minister would have been acceptable to him. So, I would, my belief is he didn’t know but he might have done, I can’t rule that out.” It was also suggested by Avner Cohen during the studio discussion that Harold Wilson might have known something about, or been a party to, the shipment of radioactive materials to Israel: Kirsty Wark: “While Avner Cohen, you wrote the book, do you know anything about the involvement of British civil servants, particularly Michael Israel Michaels?” Avner Cohen: “No. No, it’s news to me, it’s interesting news but I think the pattern that emerged is quite different, the pattern is that there was a lot of sympathy in various kinds of circles including at the top, including in this case Harold Wilson, to the case of Israel. Sometimes it was difficult to justify it formally in terms of bureaucracy, but I think there was a sense of sympathy to a small country surrounded by enemies which essentially had vowed to destroy it. So the help was a help in order that the Holocaust would never happen again. This happened in Norway, this happened in the UK, and I think a similar thing happened in America as well.” The Committee also noted that in the studio discussion Kirsty Wark’s mention of “sleepers” in the Civil Service did not allude directly to Michael Michaels. The Committee therefore felt that, while the report may have had sufficient evidence to suggest that Mr Michaels had dual loyalties towards Israel and Britain, it did not imply disloyalty. The item also raised sufficient doubt to question whether or not he was acting outside the knowledge of the Prime Minster Harold Wilson. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the report did not breach required broadcast standards. Studio discussion The Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that Avner Cohen was, in her view, “repeatedly cut off after a few words”. Having reviewed the item, including the transcript, it was satisfied that Mr Cohen had been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the questions asked of him. It noted that the first interruption was due to Kirsty Wark not making it clear that she was addressing the guest in the studio rather than Avner Cohen, who was on the satellite link from the BBC’s Washington studio; the second was when she was bringing the discussion to an end. Prior to both interruptions Mr Cohen had been given an opportunity to respond to a question posed from the studio. The Committee was therefore satisfied there was no evidence of bias and there had been no breach of guidelines regarding due impartiality. Finally, the Committee considered the report as a whole. It noted that the report had been well researched and that it had raised important issues concerning British involvement in nuclear proliferation. It was satisfied that the item had not breached guidelines on due impartiality, portrayal or harm and offence. Complaints handling One complainant objected to the “absurd baby-talk lesson in the history of Israel” in the Stage 1 response. The Committee noted his comment but felt the reply was neither disrespectful nor inaccurate in what it said. The Committee was satisfied that as a first reply it had provided a reasonable answer to the questions posed. The second complainant objected to the length of time it had taken to get her complaint to the final stage of the process. It noted that there had been a considerable delay in the investigation of the complaint at Stage 2 of the process and that the explanation for this was unacceptable. The Committee would raise this with BBC management. FINDING: NOT UPHELD The Chairman of the Committee will write to Mark Byford, Deputy Director-General and Chairman of the Complaints Management Board, to request that he remind the ECU of the need to keep complainants informed of delays to their complaint and that delays should be kept to a minimum. 5 Actions