editorial standards findingsdownloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/... · the editorial...

June 2008 Issued September 2008

Editorial Standards Findings: Appeals and other editorial issues to the Trust considered by the Editorial Standards Committee

1

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, 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 agreeing to consider the appeal.

The findings for all appeals accepted by the Committee are reported in this bulletin, Editorial Complaints: Appeals to the Trust.

In line with its duty to consider topics of editorial concern to the Committee, whether or not such concern arises from a formal complaint, and to commission information requests from the Trust Unit or Executive to support such consideration, the Committee also from time to time requests the Executive to report to the Committee regarding breaches which have been accepted by the Executive and are therefore not subject to appeal to the Committee. The bulletin also may contain findings relating to such cases.

The bulletin also includes a statement on any remedial action taken.

It is published at bbc.co.uk/bbctrust or is available from:

The Secretary, Editorial Standards Committee BBC Trust Unit Room 211, 35 Marylebone High Street London W1U 4AA

Contents

Page

Remit of the Editorial Standards Committee 1

Summary of findings (June 2008) 3

Findings (June 2008) 7

Sarah Kennedy, Radio 2, 17 July 2007 7 Saving Planet Earth, BBC One (South West), 4 July 2007 16 BBCi, various stories concerning Microsoft 24 Life on Mars, BBC One, 6 March 2007 37

2

Summary of findings (May 2008)

Sarah Kennedy, Radio 2, 17 July 2007 The complainant alleged consistent right wing political bias in Sarah Kennedy’s choice of stories for her daily review of the newspapers, and in the way in which she presented and commented upon them. The complainant also believed that The Daily Telegraph was given too much prominence in the review, and that this amounted to an advertisement for the newspaper. The Committee concluded: Impartiality

• that although The Daily Telegraph appeared to receive “the lion’s share” of the newspaper review, the choice of stories featured in the programme which were taken from The Daily Telegraph provided a fair representation of the day’s news stories as reported across other newspapers

• it was not necessary to attribute a range of stories to different newspapers if the stories featured in one newspaper were the same as those featured in the others

• that given The Daily Telegraph’s well known right of centre editorial position, the listener was provided with an appropriate signpost as to the angle of the views on any given subject

• the use of The Daily Telegraph did not result in a biased review or constitute a breach of the guidelines on impartiality

Editorial Integrity

• that The Daily Telegraph’s domination of the review was not influenced by any political or commercial pressure

• that the consistently high usage of The Daily Telegraph in the newspaper review, given the range of newspapers available, amounted to undue prominence

• the consistent use of the newspaper and verbal references to the newspaper gave the impression of endorsing that particular newspaper over others

• this constituted a breach of guidelines on product prominence Overall impartiality of 17 July newspaper review

• that even though the programme was not a political or news based programme, the item - a newspaper review - covered political issues and therefore the onus was on the programme to remain within the guidelines whichever story it chose to select

• that while some comments about some stories were inappropriate they were still acceptable within the terms of the guidelines on impartiality

3

• the audience listening would have been aware of her style of presentation • the suggestion of rotating the newspapers in the review in future would

be of benefit as would the introduction of further measures to obtain tighter editorial control

• the programme had not breached guidelines on impartiality. The complaint was upheld in part with regard to undue product prominence. For the finding in full see pages 7 to 16 Saving Planet Earth, BBC One (South West), 4 July 2007 The complainant stated that the presenter had claimed in a programme looking at conservation issues in the South-West region of England that the decline in otter numbers on the River Dart during the 1970s had been due to both pollution and hunting. The complainant believed there was no scientific research to link the decline in otter numbers with hunting and that the programme had unduly emphasised hunting’s involvement. The Committee concluded:

• that even though the impact of hunting on the decline in otter numbers

may have been over stated the references to, and images of, the effects of pollution on the otter’s diet had offset the images of an otter hunt

• that the phrase “If you think that otters are having it easy now that hunting’s been banned you’d be wrong,” could have been better worded, but given the type of programme and audience expectation i.e. this was a series on wildlife conservation, the comments did not amount to a breach of the guidelines.

The complaint was not upheld. For the finding in full see pages 16 to 24 BBCi, various stories concerning Microsoft This complaint concerned the alleged biased reporting and product prominence of Microsoft in various stories on BBCi. The complainant believed that BBC online engaged in product placement and brand advertising instead of news reporting. The Committee concluded: Systemic bias and undue promotion

• there was no evidence to suggest that the BBC was corrupt in its commercial or editorial dealings with Microsoft.

4

• the complainant had not provided any evidence to support a claim that the BBC had entered into an improper relationship with Microsoft nor had the Committee found any evidence of such a relationship.

• the amount of coverage given to the Xbox by BBCi was editorially justified and did not promote or endorse the product.

Articles specifically related to Microsoft

• that all four online reports considered as part of the complaint had been editorially justified and had not provided undue promotion to Microsoft or its products.

BBC iPlayer • that this element of the complaint was not within the remit of the

Committee to consider. The complaint was not upheld. For the finding in full see pages 24 to 37 Life on Mars, BBC One, 6 March 2007 The complainant considered the drama to be biased against Margaret Thatcher. He also believed the programme referred unnecessarily to Enoch Powell and questioned the factual accuracy of references to OPEC, and alcoholism within the CID. The complainant also raised concerns about the ECU’s suggestion that a work of fiction does not require the same level of political balance as other programming. The complainant also raised issues regarding the handling of his complaint. In particular the complainant was concerned that the ECU at stage 2 of the process had initially considered the complaint against the wrong guideline and had been asked by the ESC to reconsider the complaint again. The Committee concluded:

• that the references highlighted in the complaint - made by fictional characters in a fantasy comedy drama - were meant to entertain and amuse.

• the remarks did not have political significance • in context they were not offensive. • that series two of Life on Mars did not breach the guidelines on due

impartiality or harm and offence. Complaints handling • the Trust may return a complaint to the Executive if it considers further

investigation should be undertaken. • the three stage appeal process did correct the guidelines error. • the new complaints procedures will enable the ECU and complainant to

5

attempt to agree the guidelines against which a complaint will be adjudicated before an investigation and finding is made.

• that the complaint had suffered delay when it had arrived at the Trust. • the issues that had caused the delay - a temporary increase in workload -

had now been dealt with enabling appeals to be heard more quickly. • that it would write to the complainant to apologise for the delays to the

complaint when at the BBC Trust.

The substantive element of the complaint was not upheld. For the finding in full see pages 37 to 48

6

Findings (May 2008)

Sarah Kennedy, Radio 2, 17 July 2007 1. The programme The Sarah Kennedy show is transmitted on Radio 2 weekdays from 06.00 - 07.30. It is a mixture of chat and music. 2. The complaint The complainant wrote to BBC Information with three concerns: Firstly, the complainant felt that the Daily Telegraph had been given the lion’s share of the paper review. Secondly, the complainant felt that Sarah Kennedy had chosen to highlight “the negative side of immigration”, and questioned the amount of times Sarah Kennedy had mentioned the “positive side of this contentious issue”. Thirdly, the complainant felt that Sarah Kennedy had described Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Cherie Blair in a “negative manner” but did not describe the members of the Conservative party in the same way. The complainant said Ms Kennedy had emphasised the “positive side of Boris Johnson”. The complainant felt that the programme showed bias and asked how the BBC ensured impartiality in the paper review on the Sarah Kennedy show. BBC Information responded with the following points from the Editor of Mainstream Programming for Radio 2:

• Sarah Kennedy usually uses the Daily Telegraph as “it has the most human interest stories in the most easily digestible form – even when stories appear in other papers they are simply easier to read from the Telegraph due to the paper’s simple style.”

• The paper review is a “personal trawl through the papers and is not a written journalistic piece. It is designed to entertain and highlight for an early audience some interesting stories.”

• “Sarah does not ‘do’ politics and court stories. Entertainment is the name of the game.”

7

• Sarah Kennedy was not trying “to thrust some kind of bias upon the audience.”

The complainant then wrote to the ECU with the following points: The complainant said he was ‘disgusted’ at the response from the Editor of Mainstream Programming on Radio 2, stating that the Editor’s statement was not qualified with any reference and therefore carried “absolutely no weight”. The complainant claimed that the Editor was “simply endorsing the Telegraph” which was exactly his criticism of Sarah Kennedy. The complainant also criticised the statement from the Editor of Mainstream Programming and his quote which said that “Sarah Kennedy does not ‘do’ politics and court stories.” The complainant said that his complaint had pointed out two political areas: immigration and how Sarah Kennedy had commented on Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Cherie Blair in comparison with Boris Johnson. The complainant said the Editor of Mainstream Programming had: - failed to address the issue of bias which he had complained about. - provided a “very weak argument” and “simply endorses the paper”. - failed to provide the data the complainant requested to prove there was no

political bias. - failed to admit that there was right wing bias in the paper review. - not acknowledged the fact that as a result of the complainant’s previous

correspondence, Sarah Kennedy had had a “personal discussion with the Controller of Radio 2. This meeting seems to have had no effect, therefore I demand more serious action.”

The complainant ended by asking that Sarah Kennedy’s future with the BBC be considered. The ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: The ECU considered the complaint in relation to the editorial guidelines on impartiality. The ECU first considered the question of “endorsing the Telegraph”.

• The ECU said the Telegraph was considered by journalists as a paper “that carries all the stories… to use the jargon, its ‘story count’ is significantly higher than any other papers”.

• Therefore the ECU concluded that to those journalists who want the broadest possible survey of the day’s news, the Telegraph was “the paper to turn to” and the paper to “carry quirky stories”.

8

• The ECU went on to say that these two characteristics alone make the Telegraph “an attractive source for compiling a newspaper review”.

• The ECU concluded that it believed that simply selecting a lot of stories from the Telegraph, as opposed to other papers “would not be sufficient to demonstrate bias.”

The ECU said that it had listened to both paper reviews on the day of the complaint.

• The first review covered two letters from the Telegraph on the theme of too much David Beckham coverage and was very brief. The ECU did say that one story contained “a dig at Mr and Mrs Blair”.

• The ECU said that Sarah Kennedy had read this review out without making any comment and the ECU considered that the item itself was too short to seriously suggest bias.

• Regarding the second review at 06.45, the ECU said the review started by pointing out that there was a large amount of coverage in all the papers of the decision of Boris Johnson to stand for the Mayor of London.

• The ECU said that Ms Kennedy had commented that his motto was to put a smile back on the face of the capital and went on to give, what the ECU described as her personal view, that London is not a happy place at the moment which the ECU ascribed to what she characterised as the rise of the police state which she blamed on terrorism.

• However, the ECU said it noted that she was careful to balance what might be taken as favourable comment on Boris Johnson by quoting from a highly critical article in The Guardian by Polly Toynbee which said of Mr Johnson: “He’s a toff, self absorbed, a sociopath and serial liar who has never run anything except his own image.”

The ECU then addressed Sarah Kennedy’s reference to an article which reported that the job market in rural areas was being affected by the large number of immigrants from Eastern Europe. Ms Kennedy said the issue was “very contentious, I know this from personal experience.”

• The ECU said it did not consider that describing an issue as ‘contentious’ amounted to endorsing any particular view of it.

Finally, regarding Sarah Kennedy’s suggestion that Gordon Brown was trying to put an end to the ancient ritual of ‘swan upping’ on the Thames, and that getting rid of such an ancient tradition would be ‘stupid’ the ECU stated:

• Although this is a critical remark “the fact that it is based on unfounded speculation is clear” and therefore not considered as “the kind of political attack that would cause many politicians particular concern”.

The ECU did not consider this political bias. The complainant wrote to the ESC to appeal against the finding of the ECU.

9

3. Applicable Editorial Standards 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. Special considerations apply during the campaign periods for elections. In practice, our commitment to impartiality means:

• we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale across all our output. We take particular care when dealing with political or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current public policy.

• we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented.

• we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so.

• we 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

10

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 Section 13 - Editorial Integrity and Independence Editorial integrity and independence editorial principles

• We must be independent of both state and partisan interests. • We must not endorse or appear to endorse any other organisation, its

products, activities or services. • We should not give undue prominence to commercial products or services.

Product prominence We need to be able to reflect the real world and this will involve referring to commercial products, organisations and services in our output. We must avoid any undue prominence or giving the impression that we are promoting or endorsing products, organisations or services. To achieve this we must:

• ensure that references to trade names, brand names and slogans are clearly editorially justified.

• not linger on brand names or logos and use verbal references sparingly unless there are very strong journalistic reasons for repeated references to a brand.

4. The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards.

11

In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the complainant and the programme team. This Appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to impartiality and editorial integrity and independence. Impartiality The editorial guidelines state that impartiality applies across all the BBC’s services. 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. 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. Editorial Integrity and Independence The BBC must also ensure that it is independent of both state and partisan interests and that its decisions are not influenced by political or commercial pressures, or by any personal interest. The BBC must avoid any undue prominence or giving the impression that the BBC is promoting or endorsing products. The Committee considered the appeal under two headings:

• The use of the Daily Telegraph o Impartiality o Editorial integrity and independence

• Overall impartiality • The Use of the Daily Telegraph Impartiality Firstly, the Committee considered the use of the Daily Telegraph in the programme’s news review, and whether this resulted in a breach of the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The Committee noted the appropriate guidelines and the concerns raised by the complainant. It also noted that in its own investigation of the complaint approximately 50% of the newspaper review in a sample of that week’s programmes was devoted to stories selected from the Daily Telegraph. The Committee then

12

considered whether this alone could constitute a breach of the guidelines on impartiality. The Committee concluded that although the Daily Telegraph appeared to receive what the complainant termed as the “lion’s share” of the review, it was satisfied that the choice of stories featured in the programme, which were taken from the Daily Telegraph, provided a fair representation of the day’s news as reported across the other newspapers. The Committee did not believe it was necessary to attribute a range of stories to different newspapers if the stories featured in one newspaper were the same as those featured in the others. The Committee was also satisfied that given the Daily Telegraph’s well known right of centre editorial position the listener was provided with an appropriate signpost as to the angle of the views on any given subject. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the use of the Daily Telegraph, over other newspapers, did not result in a biased review or constitute a breach of the guidelines on impartiality. Finding: Not Upheld Editorial Integrity The Committee then considered the newspaper review, in relation to the guidelines on editorial integrity and independence which state:

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.

The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that the dominance of the Daily Telegraph on 17 July, and on numerous other days, amounted to commercial endorsement:

“What bias is required before the BBC takes notice and it is not seen as merely a 6.45 advert for the Telegraph?”

In particular the Committee considered the editorial guidelines principles regarding product prominence:

• We must not endorse or appear to endorse any other organisation, its products, activities or services

• We should not give undue prominence to commercial products or services

And the guidelines which state that:

13

We must avoid any undue prominence or giving the impression that we are promoting or endorsing products, organisations or services. To achieve this we must:



The Committee was principally concerned that reassurances given by the programme management two years earlier, following a complaint by the complainant, that Sarah Kennedy would take greater care in future about expressing personal opinions and that she had also started giving equal prominence to other newspapers, were no longer apparently being fulfilled. The Committee accepted the programme team’s assurances that the Telegraph’s domination of the review was not influenced by any political or commercial pressures. It did, however, agree that the consistently high usage of the Daily Telegraph in the newspaper review as the foremost newspaper to be featured, given the range of newspapers available, amounted to undue prominence. The Committee also agreed that the consistent use of the paper and verbal references to the paper, gave the impression of endorsing that particular newspaper over others. As such the Committee concluded that this constituted a breach of the guidelines on product prominence. Finding: Upheld • Overall Impartiality Finally, the Committee considered whether the newspaper review on 17 July 2007 breached the guidelines on impartiality in respect of the choice of stories, the manner in which they were presented and how the show’s presenter on occasion commented on those stories. The Committee did not accept the programme’s contention that the presenter did not “‘do’ politics”. It noted that although the programme may not be a political or news based programme, the item involved was a newspaper review covering political issues and therefore the onus was on the programme to remain within the guidelines whichever stories it chose to select. The Committee did note, however, that the review of that day contained many stories of a non-political nature. The Committee considered whether there was anything in the choice of stories which suggested a breach of impartiality. It noted that the main story featured on the day in question – the announcement that Boris Johnson was to stand as Mayor of

14

London – was covered in a similar way across all the press. The Committee felt the prominence given to the story in the paper review was fair, as was the choice of stories overall. The Committee agreed the main issue was the personal perspective given by the presenter when reviewing some of the stories. It accepted that the guidelines allow for a variety of tones across BBC output, and tested the newspaper review against the relevant section:

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.

The Committee also noted the requirement for the programme to be duly impartial. The ESC also considered how the review was signposted alongside consideration of the audience’s expectation. It noted that the Sarah Kennedy show has been running for 14 years and has an audience of 3.5 million. It also noted that the newspaper review was a longstanding item on the show. The Committee considered the specific examples provided by the complainant in turn and concluded that:

• while it felt the comments by the presenter regarding Cherie and Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were unnecessary and inappropriate, it did not feel they were serious enough to constitute a breach of the guidelines.

• comments that immigration was “contentious” were ambiguous at worst, and not a breach of the guidelines.

• the reported comment from Boris Johnson about putting a “smile on the face of London” and the presenter’s comment that “we certainly need it” was not an inappropriate airing of personal views and did not amount to a political opinion.

• the story about the swan uppers was more contentious. The presenter was re-cycling unfounded gossip, and using pejorative language in doing so. The Committee agreed that the comment and reference to being “stupid” was ill-advised. Nevertheless, it was satisfied that within the context of the item the issue was such that, it being a light-hearted story without any serious political significance, no breach had occurred.

The ESC concluded, therefore, that while the comments made by the presenter about some of the stories were inappropriate, they were still acceptable within the

15

terms of the guidelines on impartiality. The Committee agreed that Sarah Kennedy is a well known radio personality with a loyal audience following and people would, therefore, have been aware of her style of presentation. The Committee did, however, consider that it was the responsibility of the programme’s producer to ensure that the tone of the review was appropriate. The Committee recognised the beneficial value of the newspaper review and welcomed the programme’s suggestion to rotate the newspapers more during this item. The Committee also encouraged further measures to obtain greater editorial oversight over this section of the programme. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the programme had not breached guidelines on impartiality and thus did not uphold this element of the complaint. Finding: Not Upheld Saving Planet Earth, BBC One (South West), 4 July 2007 1. The content Saving Planet Earth was a series looking at wildlife conservation. It featured programmes on TV and online. It was broadcast during June and July 2007 on BBC One and included a special half-hour show broadcast on BBC South West on July 4 about conservation issues in the region. Presenter Dick Sawbridge focused on sharks off the Cornish coast; rare beetles in Devon; the ongoing attempts to boost numbers of cirl buntings in the South West and otters on the River Dart. The presenter met the conservationists working to protect the habitat of these species and looked at what they were doing to help conservation efforts. The Saving Planet Earth series ended with an appeal for donations towards wildlife conservation. 2. Summary of complaint to BBC Information (stage 1)

• The complainant asserted that the presenter had claimed that the decline in otter numbers during the 1970s had been due to pollution and hunting.

• “Hunting was given more emphasis than pollution and this emphasis was entirely negative.”

• The link with pollution has been demonstrated scientifically, the link with pesticides having been made in 1978. No such scientific research has linked the otter’s decline with hunting. The statements about hunting amount to nothing more than assertion.

• “…my main concerns are the complete lack of scientific objectivity, and what appears to be the casual indulgence of prejudice, in a programme that purports to be scientific.”

• It lends support to a partial and prejudiced view of hunting. • “…the present situation of hunting makes it all the more important that the

BBC is seen to be objective and fair in its treatment of this subject.”

16

3. Response from the programme team (stage 1)

• The producer said that the programme was thoroughly researched and was factually correct: “The commentary … states that in the 20 years leading up to the 1970s, the dual stresses of pollution and hunting combined to threaten the otter with extinction.”

• The producer said this was accepted by naturalists, conservationists and was supported by the Government’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee which he quoted: “Historically, otters (Lutra lutra) occurred over most of the UK. However, persecution, habitat loss and more recently, the impact of toxic organochlorine insecticides caused a marked reduction in the range of the species.”

• The producer said that at no point did the programme seek to identify either hunting or pollution as a predominant cause for the otter population crash in the 1970s.

• “Whilst hunting footage was used to illustrate the threat it posed, there was also supporting footage to illustrate the poisoning that otters were subject to from toxic chemicals found in pesticides.”

• “As producers we feel that the dual threat posed by hunting and pollution were presented even handedly and that the specific threat posed by hunting to a species whose numbers were perilously low, whatever the cause, was appropriately and accurately emphasised in the programme.”

4. Summary of complaint to the ECU (stage 2)

• Regarding the quote given by the producer from the website of the Government’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee “the word ‘hunting’ does not occur here so we can only guess at [the producer’s] train of thought.”

• “The words ‘persecution’ and ‘hunting’ are not synonymous.” • “Like most carnivores otters were widely regarded as vermin and slaughtered

indiscriminately. However opposed to hunting one might be it must be conceded that the word ‘persecution’ in this context includes practices other than hunting.”

• The complainant stated that although the producer claimed that at no point had the programme sought to identify either hunting or pollution as the predominant cause for the otter population crash in the 1970s, the website of the Government’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee writes “populations declined sharply during the 1960s and 1970s due to pollution, exacerbated by hunting and habitat loss.”

• The complainant asserts that the qualification from the Government website has been ignored and has “given a false impression of the equivalence of the effects of hunting and pollution.”

5. Response from the ECU (stage 2)

17

The ECU considered the complaint in relation to the editorial guidelines on accuracy. They did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds:

• “The script explains that both hunting and pollution played a part in nearly wiping out the otter population.”

• “The longer, second section featured pictures of both hunting and contamination of the food chain to illustrate the impact they had in bringing the otter to the edge of extinction. However, I don’t believe the way that this was expressed necessarily suggests that both causes were equally responsible or that viewers would have assumed that this was the case.”

• “…on close examination, I think the programme did suggest that pollution was to blame for most of the problems.”

• Although the ECU accepted that this could have been stated more explicitly it did not believe that the programme gave a misleading impression about the effect of hunting.

6. Appeal to the ESC

• “This programme gives an unbalanced prominence to hunting that is misleading.”

• The website of the Government’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee is quite clear as to the predominant cause of the otter’s decline: “Populations declined sharply during the 1960s and 1970s due to pollution, exacerbated by hunting and habitat loss.”

• “Hunting is a contentious subject. It is surely incumbent upon the BBC to pay particular attention to its own code of conduct with regard to any programme that touches upon it. This must especially be the case when the BBC broadcasts programmes that are popular and purport to be scientific.”

• “The otter was protected by the wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 under the terms of which the otter cannot be killed except under licence. This act protects the otter from what is referred to in the Government website as ‘persecution’.”

• “The code of conduct calls for clear precise language, it calls for the avoidance of distortion, but would a viewer be clearly informed by this programme..?”

With regard to the script line:

“If you think that otters are having it easy now that hunting’s been banned you’d be wrong.”

The complainant stated:

• “This statement is made in isolation, with no reference to any reduction in the use of pesticides. With no mention of improvements in habitat. With no mention of any reduction of other forms of ‘persecution’.”

a. Following scrutiny of the complaint by the ESC, the ECU was

18

asked by the BBC Trust to consider the complaint in terms of impartiality as that had not previously been considered.

The ECU provided a reply regarding impartiality. The ECU considered whether the hunting of otters was a matter of public controversy which would have required the programme to have avoided bias or an imbalance of views. The ECU decided it was not a controversial issue as set down in the BBC’s editorial guidelines:

“They include political or industrial issues or events which are the subject of intense debate or relate to a policy under discussion or already decided by local government”.

Nevertheless, the ECU did not believe that “a misleading impression of the relative importance of hunting in the otter’s decline could materially prejudice viewers’ appreciation of the issues.” 7. Applicable Editorial Standards Section 3 – Accuracy Introduction 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.

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.

19

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... In practice, our commitment to impartiality means:




8. The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and the ECU. The Appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to accuracy and impartiality. Accuracy

20

The Committee considered whether the script of the programme was appropriately accurate. It noted that the relevant editorial guidelines states that the BBC: • will weigh all relevant facts and information to get at the truth.

• output will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and

presented in clear, precise language.

• will aim to achieve accuracy by:

• the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources wherever possible.

• checking and cross checking the facts.

• should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences.

The Committee noted that during its investigation of the complaint three separate experts in otter husbandry were asked to consider the script of the programme and they had agreed the scripts were acceptably accurate. The Committee noted what they said – in particular:

Paul Chanin (a professional mammal ecologist): “My personal view is that hunting was not the cause…but it took a while to realise that the otter population was declining and people continued to hunt – some would say that it could have made things worse. It is my opinion that hunting was not the cause of the decline, it was the pesticides. Otters were hunted in considerable numbers before the decline and there was no evidence of that having an impact…but some believe that hunting may have made it worse, that it hastened the decline. At least one respectable scientist believes that the otter population was iffy before the pollution. There are disagreements between respectable scientists about the impact of hunting.” Dr Paul Yoxon (works for the International Otter Survival Fund): “It sounds fair. Pollution is the main cause but it doesn’t help a declining population if you hunt them as well…it doesn’t decline just because of one thing…overall that sounds OK.”

Vic Simpson (a veterinary pathologist from the Wildlife Veterinary Investigation Centre): “Yes, it sounds fair but has maybe over-emphasised the impact of hunting. From the late 1700s organised hunts started and did kill off a lot of otters. A status report in 1957 – (with the research done 55-56) as a result of a Commons Select Committee inquiry into whether hunting was a good way of controlling otters, concluded that the otter population was very strong and common. So the emphasis on hunting is a bit misguided. All the evidence is

21

that organo-chlorides used in agriculture and timber were to blame….not much doubt that organo-chlorides taken, as the programme said, through eels, were the real problem. …hunting is over-emphasised and it’s difficult to target hard facts. Despite 150 years of systematic hunting the otter population was strong…it was not responsible for the crash in the population…it’s worth pointing out, though I am neither pro nor anti hunting, that nothing would have been known about the crisis in the 60s if not for the hunts who reported that they were not finding any otters…”

The Committee noted that there was some margin of doubt regarding the weighting given to the impact of chemical pollution and hunting. The Committee concluded that even though the programme may have somewhat over stated the hunting issue with the images of the otter hunt at the beginning of the piece. It was satisfied that as a whole the images of hunting had been offset by the references to and footage of the effect of pollution on the otter’s diet. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the programme had not misled the audience and had not breached the editorial guidelines on accuracy. Finding: Not upheld regarding accuracy 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, amongst 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 examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts as well as being even handed and objective in its approach. Impartiality does not require the representation or every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view. The Committee considered the concerns raised by the complainant, including:

“It [the programme] lends support to a partial and prejudiced view of hunting.” “…the present situation of hunting makes it all the more important that the BBC is seen to be objective and fair in its treatment of this subject.”

22

“This programme gives an unbalanced prominence to hunting that is misleading.”

The Committee noted that this was an environmental programme that was concerned with the otter population – not the merits or arguments about hunting in general. It also noted that there was considerably more information about the effect of chemicals on the otter population in the main part of the script compared to what had been said about hunting. The Committee noted what was said in the main introduction to the piece:

Presenter: “The otter has had a rough time over the last five decades. In the 20 years leading up to 1970 most of Britain’s otter population disappeared. For centuries it was classed as vermin it was so common but hunting and pollution nearly wiped it out forever. Hunting otters with hounds was a popular sport throughout the UK but it wasn’t solely field sports that threatened its survival. “In the late 1950’s pesticides became commonplace and toxic chemicals found their way into streams and rivers. Eels, the otter’s favourite food, absorbed more of the pesticides than any other fish and so poisoned the otter population. “The otter has teetered on the brink of extinction but fortunately it’s making a comeback albeit a slow one.”

The Committee agreed that there may have been a slight over emphasis on the impact of hunting on the declining population of the otter and that the phrase used later in the item “If you think that otters are having it easy now that hunting’s been banned you’d be wrong” could have been better expressed. However, the Committee was satisfied that given the nature of the programme, the type of output and the likely audience expectation i.e. this was a series looking at wildlife conservation, the comments did not amount to a breach of the editorial guidelines on impartiality. Impartiality was adequate and appropriate to the programme. The Committee therefore did not agree that the programme resulted in a prejudiced view of hunting, or that viewers were likely to have been misled. The Committee concluded that the programme did not breach the editorial guidelines on impartiality.

23

Finding: Not upheld regarding impartiality BBCi, various stories concerning Microsoft The articles:

(1) Microsoft facing $1bn Xbox bill – 5 July 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/business/6275728.stm)

(2) Microsoft’s Xbox safety effort – 12 October 2006 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/technology/6043256.stm

(3) Problems hit Xbox video service – 24 November 2006 (http://bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6180120.stm)

(4) Game net distribution ‘lift off’ – 24 May 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6687405.stm)

1. Summary of the complaint to the BBC (stage 1)

• The complainant claimed that BBC News online carried a disproportionate number of items about Microsoft products, and that the tone of these items was influenced by Microsoft's own marketing.

• The complainant felt that the alleged bias in favour of Microsoft was related to business relationships between the BBC and Microsoft.

• The complainant saw the alleged prominence given to Microsoft as a breach of the BBC's guidelines.

2. Response from the BBC Online team (stage 1)

• The Technology correspondent of BBCi told the complainant that the BBC

was not engaging in product placement and brand advertising instead of news reporting.

• “It might be the case that Microsoft turns up more often than Sony or Nintendo in a search of news articles but that proves nothing … we have striven throughout our coverage to be fair to all three consoles producing equal amounts of material about all of them. We really have no agenda here.”

• “The deals that the BBC has struck over the media player have no bearing whatsoever on what we write about.”

• Regarding the report ‘Microsoft facing $1bn Xbox bill’ “I know that the Xbox 360 is easily the third most popular console in Japan. I have not seen up to date sales figures for the UK but I would be very surprised if it was a marginal product on these shores not least because it has been out longer and is cheaper than the Playstation 3.”

• “I think Microsoft crops up so many times in the stories we write because it dominates many areas of the technology landscape. It has a presence in mobiles, on the net, office software, home computing, games, music and TV.”

24

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/business/6275728.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/technology/6043256.stm

http://bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6180120.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6687405.stm

• “We write about Microsoft a lot because it is a big company that is active in many of the areas that we look at.”

3. The complainant responded to BBC Online’s reply: The complainant highlighted the effectiveness of Microsoft's publicity department and expressed the view that news items regarding Microsoft were reported more objectively by other news sources. The complainant suggested that the BBC published Microsoft PR material without questioning it or checking facts.

4. Further response from the BBC Online team (stage 1):

• The Technology correspondent of BBCi responded to the complainant’s points regarding Microsoft’s PR department...

• He pointed out that BBCi does not recycle copy from chosen suppliers “We’re completely independent. We choose what stories we run ourselves.”

• Regarding external links “…the fact that the links appear on some but not all stories means nothing. There’s no conspiracy – it’s down to who put the story together…The three stories you cited are all centred on Microsoft – it seems reasonable to point people to Microsoft on those stories given the passing mention of Nintendo and Sony.”

• The Technology correspondent also highlighted that some of the stories were about big problems with the Xbox.

• Regarding the complainant’s point that a disproportionate number of news articles relate to one console brand (Microsoft), online stated “I’d guess that a search for ‘Playstation’ compared to ‘Xbox’ would turn up far more stories for Sony because it is on the third iteration of its console whereas Microsoft is only on version two.”

• The Technology Editor of BBCi stated: “We cover each of the consoles on merit, on a story by story basis, reflecting editorial values. Nowhere is there a stipulation that for every story about Sony we do a story about Microsoft and one about Nintendo. I am happy that our coverage is fair, balanced and accurate.”

5. Response from the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) (stage 2)

• The ECU considered the complaint against the editorial guidelines relating to accuracy and impartiality. The ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds:

• The ECU said that the BBC did have a widely publicised agreement to develop digital opportunities with Microsoft, but as to whether this affected news coverage there was nothing it could add to the Technology correspondent’s comment that the deals the BBC had struck “[had] no bearing whatsoever on what [BBC News] write about.”

Microsoft facing $1bn Xbox bill (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/business/6275728.stm)

25

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/business/6275728.stm

– It did not see that it could be described as favourable to Microsoft. – The ECU said that in general terms; it would be wary of a term employing a

judgement such as “marginal” and saw nothing wrong with “sticking to the facts”.

– The ECU quoted one of the editors at BBCi who in response to the question of why the item quoted Microsoft said “we did go to them for a comment: not to have done so would have been irresponsible given the damaging nature of the report”.

– The ‘due impartiality’ requirement is usually interpreted to mean that when a damaging story about an individual or organisation is published the organisation should be offered an opportunity to respond.

– “Finding a customer whose Xbox had failed is no small task, and although I agree an interview with one would have added “colour” to the story, I’m not certain the absence of such an interview excluded any material fact.”

Microsoft’s Xbox safety effort (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/technology/6043256.stm)

– The ECU said the question of whether BBCi should carry a particular story was a matter of editorial discretion and did not raise an issue of a potential breach of the guidelines.

– The ECU said it seemed “the added justification ….to an appeal from a minister a week earlier – makes the decision to carry it reasonable.”

Problems hit Xbox video service (http://bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6180120.stm)

– The ECU said this story also seemed less than good news for Xbox. – The ECU referred to the impartiality guidelines which require that the story

be put to Microsoft. The ECU considered that therefore there was no breach of the guidelines.

Game net distribution ‘lift off’ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6687405.stm)

– The ECU said this story was plainly based on an announcement from a company as it began “Steam, an online distribution platform for videogame content, has signed up more than 13 million users, the systems’ owners Valve has said.”

– A BBCi editor stated “Mention of Microsoft in the context is entirely reasonable given that it, like Valve, is moving to this model of distribution. Sony and Nintendo are also mentioned in passing. More detail is given about Microsoft because it is the most established of the three with more online video and game content available for purchase and download than rivals in this field.”

– The question of whether the figure of “13 million users” is significant enough to justify news coverage is, again a matter of editorial discretion.

26

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/technology/6043256.stm

http://bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6180120.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6687405.stm

6. The complainant responded to the ECU and raised a number of

issues about how his complaint was dealt with. 7. Applicable Editorial 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.

Gathering material We should try to witness events and gather information first hand. Where this is not possible, we should talk to first hand sources and, where necessary, corroborate their evidence. We should be reluctant to rely on a single source. If we do rely on a single source, a named on the record source is always preferable. We should normally only rely on an agency report if it can be substantiated by a BBC correspondent or if it is attributed to a reputable national or international news agency. We should record our interviews with sources wherever possible. In circumstances where recording might inhibit the source, full notes should be made, preferably at the time, or if not, then as soon as possible afterwards. Misleading audiences

27

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... 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.




• 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

28

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. 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. • We should not give undue prominence to commercial products or services. • There must be no product placement in programmes...

There are specific issues concerning BBC commercial services for audiences in the UK and around the world. Promotional material/stories supplied by outside bodies We must select and cover stories for our own independent editorial reasons. We must be on our guard for "spin" from outside bodies and commercial companies who may also try and place stories across our services in a short space of time. We must ensure that when a product, service or organisation is named in a news report or factual content it is clearly editorially justified. Product placement We must never include a product or service in sound or vision in return for cash, services or any consideration in kind. This is product placement. It is illegal to make any such arrangements in the EU. Product prominence We need to be able to reflect the real world and this will involve referring to commercial products, organisations and services in our output.

29

We must avoid any undue prominence or giving the impression that we are promoting or endorsing products, organisations or services. To achieve this we must:



• not accept free or reduced cost products or services in return for on air or online credits, hotlinks or off air marketing.

• take particular care to minimise product references in output designed to appeal to children.

• only use material from advertising campaigns or promotions when clearly editorially justified. Generally, it will only be acceptable to use a short extract. There may also be copyright considerations.

Section 14 - External Relationships External relationships editorial principles When entering into an external relationship we must ensure that:

• our editorial impartiality and integrity are not compromised and that we retain editorial control of our output.

• our choice of partners is editorially justified and will not bring the BBC into disrepute.

• we do not accept money or other services in exchange for broadcast coverage or publicity.

• we work with a range of organisations and do not unduly favour one above another.

• we do not promote or appear to endorse other organisations, products, services, views or opinions.

• we fairly credit others where editorially appropriate.

8. The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and the ECU. The Committee considered this appeal looking at the BBC’s editorial guidelines against the published content. The appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the

30

editorial guidelines relating to accuracy; impartiality; editorial integrity and independence; and external relationships. 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 whilst 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. Editorial integrity and independence The main issues here are that the BBC must not be influenced by either political or commercial pressures, nor by any personal interests. It must not undermine these values by any actions which could bring the BBC into disrepute. It must be independent of both state and partisan interests and not endorse or appear to endorse any other organisation, its products, activities or services.

It must not give undue prominence to commercial products or services and there must be no product placement in programmes.

External relationships

31

The BBC must ensure, when entering into external relationships, that its editorial impartiality and integrity are not compromised and that it retains editorial control of its output.

It does not accept money or other services in exchange for broadcast coverage or publicity. The BBC must not unduly favour one organisation above another and it must not promote or appear to endorse other organisations, products, services, views or opinions.

The BBC should fairly credit others where editorially appropriate.

Background The Committee, in considering the complaint, divided its finding into three elements: systemic bias and undue promotion; the four identified Microsoft stories on the BBC website; the introduction of the BBC iPlayer and the lack of access for non-Microsoft users. 1. Systemic bias and undue promotion First, the Committee considered the complainant’s overall complaint – that the BBC allegedly shows systemic bias in favour of Microsoft which manifested in undue prominence for Microsoft and its products. The Committee noted the complainant’s points on this issue, including that he had alleged that:

• special privileges are provided to Microsoft, in that it receives unique coverage and flattering copy especially when entering new markets

• the BBC’s business and technology correspondents invite Microsoft to

interfere with or markedly influence BBC reporting in order to either promote Microsoft or undermine its competitors

• it was unnerving that a company found guilty of continually abusing

competition principles was being given privileged treatment by the BBC whose responsibilities were different to commercial newsgatherers

The Committee considered this issue against the editorial guidelines dealing with impartiality, external relationships, product prominence and those dealing with promotional material supplied by outside bodies. The Committee agreed that no evidence had been provided to suggest that the BBC was corrupt in its commercial and editorial dealings with Microsoft. The complainant had not provided any evidence to support a claim that the BBC had entered in an improper relationship with Microsoft nor had the Committee’s own editorial adviser found evidence of such a relationship.

32

The Committee then considered the issue of the amount of coverage given by BBCi to each games platform – Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo. The Committee noted the complainant’s point that:

• in stories concerning xbox, wii, gamecube and playstation Microsoft’s product, even with its low sales, gets the second most promotional mentions and a lot of positive press including a large amount of complimentary links and videos.

It also noted the response from BBC Technology’s Index editor:

“One of the reasons that we write about the Xbox and PlayStation platforms more than Nintendo’s systems is because of the differing range of services each of the systems offer.

Nintendo’s consoles have primarily been pure gaming platforms. They do not have High Definition output, the majority do not play CDs, DVDs or high definition DVDs, there is no multimedia online store, and until very recently it was not possible to watch video content on the system.

By contrast, the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 have been designed as multimedia hubs – they are entertainment centres, offer video download services, the ability to stream content from PCs and other devices, can record TV(PS3) and offer DVD and high definition DVD playback. Given the wide number of industries these features touch upon, it is only natural that we end up writing more stories about these platforms – they simply offer more functionality to the consumer.”

The Committee considered this issue against the editorial guidelines for undue prominence. The Committee concluded that the amount of coverage given to the Xbox by BBCi was editorially justified and did not promote or endorse the product. It concluded that the BBC did not breach the editorial guidelines, including those relating to product placement and product prominence. 2. The four identified Microsoft stories on the BBC website The Committee next considered the four identified stories concerned with Microsoft on the BBC website: Game net distribution ‘lift off’ – 24 May 2007 The Committee noted the complainant’s objection to the article about Steam and its distribution model:

33

• He noted that the article moved away from Steam so that it could include

another PR piece from a company that had shown itself to be against consumers, governments, companies and legislators.

The Committee also noted that there were references in the article to Sony and Nintendo as well as Microsoft. It accepted the view put forward by BBCi in a note to the ECU: “Mention of Microsoft in this context is entirely reasonable given that it, like Valve, is moving to this model of distribution. Sony and Nintendo are also mentioned in passing. More detail is given about Microsoft because it is the most established of the three with more online video and game content available for purchase and download than rivals in this field.” The Committee concluded that the story met the following guideline.

We must ensure that when a product, service or organisation is named in a news report or factual content it is clearly editorially justified.

The Committee was satisfied that the article did not breach the BBC editorial guidelines. Microsoft facing $lbn Xbox bill – 5 July 2007 The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that the article is an example of bias and it was a barely reworked press release. The Committee noted that this story dealt with negative news about Microsoft and the fact that Microsoft would have to spend upwards of $1bn after failings of Xbox 360. The Committee was satisfied that the report had been editorially justified and chosen on it news value. It was also satisfied that the language contained in the piece had not been selective nor had it raised concerns about the BBC’s ability to report on an issue with accuracy and impartiality. The Committee was also satisfied the report preserved the BBC’s editorial independence and integrity. Problems hit Xbox video service – 24 November 2006 The Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that the report was biased and did not have external links to Nintendo and Sony. The Committee also noted that the complainant had stated that the report had “competing comments and derogatory spoilers.”

34

In considering this article the Committee considered the editorial guidelines on impartiality and undue prominence, together with the online services guidelines regarding what links are chosen and why. These include:

All links on the BBC public service site or on the editorial pages of a commercial site must be editorially justifiable.

Criteria for linking to external sites or other content

Criteria for linking to third party sites will vary to some extent depending on the reason for offering the link. In general terms, the external site should:

• be relevant to the BBC content from which a link is envisaged • meet the needs of a UK-based audience • meet the expectations of the likely audience. For example, a link from a

BBC site which is likely to appeal to a high proportion of children should contain content which is suitable for children. It should not contain content which is clearly unsuitable for children

• be regularly reviewed and refreshed where necessary • normally be free to access.

The Committee noted that this report also dealt with negative news about Microsoft. The Committee agreed that the item was editorially justified and was satisfied that it did not breach the guidelines on impartiality. The Committee also agreed that the story did not endorse the product and it was in accordance with the BBC guidelines regarding external links. The Committee noted that there would be an audience expectation to provide links to external sites so they could pursue the story themselves. The Committee concluded therefore that the article was not in breach of the guidelines on external links. Microsoft’s Xbox safety effort – 12 October 2006 The Committee considered the complaint, which is that the article contained no related internet links for competing products as only Microsoft was named in an external link. The Committee noted the view by one of the editors at BBCi that on the face of it this was not the strongest of technology stories but took account of his explanation that:

35

36

“It was a follow on piece from a debate a week earlier regarding a government minister’s appeal to the games industry on children and video habits1.”

The Committee considered this article against the editorial guidelines on impartiality, undue prominence and the online services guidelines regarding external links. The Committee concluded the story was editorially justified given the recent comments from the government minister. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the article met the guidelines on impartiality. It was also satisfied that the article met the requirement for the use of external links. The Committee was therefore satisfied that all four online stories highlighted by the complainant were editorially justified, and, as such, did not break BBC guidelines, including those on providing external links. 3. BBC iPlayer

The Committee did not consider the third element of the complaint regarding the BBC iPlayer, as this was not within the remit of the Committee. The Committee did note, however, that the BBC Trust had carried out a Public Value Test on BBC iPlayer. One of the Trust's conditions for approval of iPlayer was that it must be accessed across a range of platforms in order to meet the BBC’s requirement of platform neutrality. The Committee would include this explanation in a letter to the complainant. Finding: NOT UPHELD ACTION: The Chairman of the ESC will write to the complainant to explain that it was a condition of the Public Value Test (PVT) that the iPlayer would be accessed across a range of platforms and it is the policy of the Trust/BBC to be platform neutral. Life on Mars, BBC One, 6 March 2007 1. The programme Life on Mars is a drama series about DI Sam Tyler, the time-travelling detective who, following a car accident in the present day, finds himself back in 1973. Sam Tyler has to come to terms with the attitudes and technology of the seventies, convinced that if he can find out how he came to be trapped in the past, he can find his way home.

1 Shaun Woodward the Creative Industries minister made a plea to the games industry to get involved in the debate surrounding children and playing videogames on 5 October 2006 see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5409460.stm

Alongside Sam Tyler are his seventies colleagues, who have to get to grips with the DI’s new ways of investigating crime. In the second series of Life on Mars, viewers finally learn the truth about DI Sam Tyler and how he came to be stuck in 1973. 2. The complaint The complainant began by raising concerns about episode two of Life on Mars transmitted on 20 February 2007. • He objected to the following: “One of the characters, a senior police officer is

found collapsed. He’s in possession of a hip flask. Sam says to him something like ‘A third of all CID officers will become alcoholics by the time Margaret Thatcher becomes prime minister.’ The second police officer replies to the effect ‘If she becomes prime minister I’ll need something stronger than that.’ It then transpires that he is suffering from a terminal illness.”

• The complainant claimed these script lines: “were created for no other reason than to insult the memory of Mrs Thatcher as they bore no relation whatsoever to the story line of the series. These lines were clearly of a political nature and implied that Mrs Thatcher as prime minister would be worse than the terminal illness he was suffering from.”

• The complainant went on: “I am all for making our politicians accountable and the subject of satire. Even our retired politicians cannot escape from being besmirched but only in the right context….These lines in this episode were not, in my view, the correct scenario for the BBC to make a political point about a woman who is highly controversial. She is hated by the left and admired by the right.”

• The complainant also pointed out that in the same episode a black actor hoped he would not get deported by Enoch Powell and wondered why the remarks about Enoch Powell and Mrs Thatcher were included in a fictional programme that had not got a political connection or theme.

In a further letter to BBC Information he complained about episode three of the second series. • He stated: “In this episode Detective Chief Inspector Hunt compliments DC

Cartwright on her work in a case. A detective then said something like, (she) “may end up running the country next.” Cartwright replied: “We may well be better off if a woman did run the country. We couldn’t make a worse job of it than what fellas have done.” Sam sits down beside her and cynically said, “I’ve got a feeling you might regret saying that some day.”

• “Why did Sam say this? What exactly will she regret about a woman running the country some day? Sam is obviously not a sexist so he must be referring, as he is a time traveller, to Mrs Thatcher. What did she do to warrant him having a “feeling” that DC Cartwright will regret what she said? It appears that Sam has made his mind up about Mrs Thatcher.”

• “These attacks are uncalled for and unnecessary. They bring nothing to the series

37

other than political bias.” • “I regard the comments made about her as being in contravention of your duty

to be impartial and unbiased.” • The complainant also referred to a further reference to Enoch Powell in episode

three. The complainant wrote again, following receipt of response from BBC Information (see below), dissatisfied with the response and raising a further issue regarding another episode in the series. • He stated: “In the episode Sam is seen tied down with an electric iron strapped

to his chest. In the nick of time he is saved by a ‘power cut’… How in the world you managed to get OPEC into saving Sam’s life I can’t figure out. The reason OPEC came to the rescue MUST be explained to me.”

3. BBC Information replied to the complaint at stage 1 of the complaints process. Its reply included a response from the executive producer of the programme, Jane Featherstone: • She stated: “Life on Mars is a fictional comedy drama and as such is not afraid to

have a laugh at both the left and the right. The show is a satire and the references to Margaret Thatcher are meant in exactly that vein. We apologise for any offence caused.”

In a further reply from BBC Information, further comment by Jane Featherstone was added: • “Sam Tyler, was not a fan of Mrs Thatcher but that this would be simply his

personal view. She assures me that Sam’s views are in no way to be construed as political bias – the show is ultimately a comedy drama series and should be viewed as such.”

4. The complainant wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU). The ECU did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: • “The first point I would like to make is that Life on Mars is a fictional drama.” • The ECU went on to point out the Editorial Guidelines say that the BBC’s

commitment to impartiality means “we offer artists, writers and entertainers scope for individual expression in drama, arts and entertainment”, and that “When drama portrays living people or contemporary situations in a controversial way it has an obligation to be accurate and to do justice to the main facts”.

The ECU stated: “I think this makes it clear that drama does not need to strike the same kind of political balance that would be expected from a factual programme or news report.”

38

• “Even so, the executive producer of the show, Julie Gardner, has assured me that there was no discussion among the creative team about including any kind of political agenda. The aim, she said, was simply, ‘to make entertaining, challenging drama that remains truthful to the characters that have been created’.”

The ECU also stated: • “Life on Mars shouldn’t be regarded as a strictly realistic portrayal of life in the

seventies.” • “The twist is that Sam Tyler has travelled back in time, so everything we see is

influenced by his perception (and I suspect our own perception) of what life was like then.”

• “It seems to be that everything is slightly exaggerated, nearly all Sam’s colleagues are portrayed as tough, hard drinkers, women in the workplace are tolerated rather than encouraged and racism is commonplace.”

• “This is because Sam really does have the benefit of hindsight. Everything he does and says is based on his knowledge of what happens in the future and that brings a unique, humorous dimension to the show.”

• “When Sam makes a comment about Margaret Thatcher becoming prime minister, for example, we are invited to laugh at the reaction of the seventies characters, who clearly regard this as impossible, because we know how wrong they are.”

The ECU concluded: • “There’s no reason or requirement for a quirky drama like Life on Mars to

provide the kind of balanced political view you suggest. The fact is the characters in the programme are made up. Sam Tyler and the rest are fictional people, expressing fictional views.”

The ECU quoted the views of the Executive Producer, Julie Gardner: • “When we first meet Sam Tyler in the present day it’s clear he’s a moderate,

liberal, ‘New Labour’ type of police officer. He’s been deliberately characterised as such so he can contrast with the more instinctive, get-the-job-done copper, Gene Hunt.”

• “The references to Mrs Thatcher are borne solely out of the character, Sam Tyler’s attitude to her. Mrs Thatcher is an iconic, strong figure who, more than anyone, changed the shape of the political and national landscape during her extraordinary time in government.”

• “Given her status, it is natural that Sam Tyler would reference her and no one else. His jokes about a woman in power are all said within the context of his character and are uttered within the context of the 70’s where the idea of women holding any kind of power is clearly unimaginable to Gene Hunt.”

The ECU then went on to refer to some of the examples which the complainant claimed were included in the programme.

39

5. The complainant responded to the ECU reply asking for clarification of the ECU finding: • He stated: “I must confess and say I do not quite understand how this guideline

applies to this series.”

“This guideline appears to be designed to apply to dramas that are portraying living people as characters and when you do so, you have a duty to be accurate and do justice to the main facts. How then does this apply to Sam? Who the BBC repeatedly tells me, is a fictional character?”

The complainant also pointed out that: • “You further state that the aim was ‘to make entertaining, challenging drama that

remains truthful to the characters that have been created’. If you are referring to Sam why did you have to wait until the second series to introduce controversy into it.”

• “Sam’s mention of Mrs Thatcher was completely out of the blue and unexpected. It was only at this point that Sam and the series took on a political complexion.”

With regard to Julie Gardner’s assertion that that there was no discussion of any kind of a political agenda, the complainant stated: • “She states that Sam is ‘moderate liberal, New Labour’ type of police officer. If he

is when did she decide to cast him in this role? Surely by her doing this there MUST have been some sort of discussion regarding his political allegiance prior to the commencement of the series in order for him to be a contrast to his superior?”

6. The ECU in response to this complaint noted: • “Life on Mars was a well established drama series and the audience would have

been well aware of the fictional nature of its content. There was only the occasional political reference and I don’t think these were given the kind of prominence you suggest.”

• “Sam may express the occasional political view but I don’t believe this is anything like his defining characteristic. I imagine most viewers would consider him to be a policeman who does things ‘by the book’, stands up to authority and fights for equal opportunities”.

The ECU addressed the point made in the complainant’s previous letter. Firstly, it considered the relevance of particular BBC Guidelines. • “The BBC Guidelines do not require drama series to meet the same standards of

impartiality as other programmes such as documentaries or news.” • “When I quoted the guideline which says:

40

When drama portrays living people or contemporary situations in a controversial way it has an obligation to be accurate and to do justice to the main facts.

I was trying to show that a drama about a contemporary situation (in this case Manchester in the early 1970’s) only needs to do justice to the ‘main facts’.”

• “I take that to mean a fair and accurate portrayal of the basic social, economic and political aspects of life at the time, rather than a need to balance every comment about the political right with a similar comment about the left.”

The ECU went on to address BBC bias against the right: • “I am afraid I don’t agree with your conclusion that the occasional ironic or

humorous political reference is proof of a BBC bias against the right. This is after all, a programme which featured a wife-swapping party attended by ‘Tony Blair’, hardly a positive image for the prime minister of the time.”

7. The complainant appealed to the ESC. During the course of the ESC

investigating the appeal it found that the ECU had considered the complaint against the wrong guideline. The ESC stated that the ECU’s interpretation of the series “as a contemporary drama was inaccurate and, as such, requested that it reconsider [the] complaint afresh.”

8. The ECU reconsidered the complaint under the guidelines concerning ‘Achieving Impartiality’. It did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds: • The ECU noted the achieving impartiality guidelines, “makes it clear that

achieving an appropriate balance depends very much on the nature of a particular programme.”

• “The requirement that ‘Impartiality must be … appropriate to our output’ is I think the key phrase here.”

• The ECU noted that Life on Mars was not a news programme or a documentary “and so has more flexibility on how it deals with particular topics.”

• The programme was a drama with a highly, fictionalised format “and was intended to be viewed in that context.”

• The ECU said: “The element of time travel, the frequent flashbacks and Sam’s extreme neurosis (apparitions, messages from his television etc) made it clear this was a work of fiction only partially based in the real world.”

• “Viewers didn’t know whether all, some or any of what they were seeing was actually based on truth.”

• The ECU said it accepted that this does not give Life on Mars, “limitless licence in the way it portrays politicians and political parties.”

But the ECU said: • “It has a good deal more latitude than a programme which makes a greater claim

41

to realism.” The ECU went on to consider the content of the episode in question: • “There were only occasional political references, and they were entirely

incidental to the main plotlines.” • The references were largely included to add an element of humour and it could

imagine, “the audience would have understood that the fleeting comments to which you refer were little more than in-jokes based on hindsight.”

• “Since Life on Mars was a work of fiction, I don’t believe it required the kind of political balance you suggest.”

9. The complainant appealed to the ESC • The complainant did not agree with the ECU’s finding. He also believed the ECU

should have looked at the merit of each of his complaints. • As to whether a work of fiction does not require political balance, the

complainant stated: “Can this really be true? [The ECU] is saying that any work of fiction can include anything it likes and nobody, short of slander or breaches of the criminal law can do anything about it? If this is true impartiality and accuracy and all the other commitments the BBC have made to me have gone out of the window.”

10. Complaints Handling The complainant had raised issues during the course of the complaint regarding the handling of his complaint by the ECU. He had been particularly concerned at the error by the ECU when referring to an inappropriate guideline which had been used to reject his complaint. He was also concerned that the ECU had not considered the merit of each of his complaints. The complaint also suffered severe delay at stage 3 (ESC) as a result of the high number of complaints being handled by the BBC Trust at the time. The delay was also caused by the Committee’s increased workload as a result of BBC management’s discovery of a number of serious editorial issues which required immediate attention. 11. 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...

42

In practice, our commitment to impartiality means:...

• we offer artists, writers and entertainers scope for individual expression in drama, arts and entertainment and we seek to reflect a wide range of talent and perspective...

Achieving impartiality Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach to achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the content and approach is signposted to our audiences. Impartiality is described in the Agreement as "due impartiality". It requires us to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view. Section 8 - Harm and Offence Introduction 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. 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. Feedback & complaints Audiences are at the heart of everything the BBC does. Audience feedback is invaluable to us and helps improve programme quality. Our commitment to our audiences is to ensure that complaints and enquiries are dealt with quickly, courteously and with respect. The first point of contact for a complaint should be BBC Information, although people can contact the programme directly if they prefer. We are committed to

43

responding to complaints within ten working days of their first receipt and to keeping complainants informed of progress. 12. The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards, as set out in the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The guidelines are a statement of the BBC’s values and standards. In reaching its decision the Committee took full account of all the available evidence, including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s Report and the subsequent submissions from the complainant, the programme team and the ECU. This Appeal raised issues requiring consideration of the editorial guidelines relating to impartiality, harm and offence and accountability. Impartiality The editorial guidelines state that impartiality applies across all the BBC’s services. 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. Harm and offence The BBC is also required to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose if we broadcast or publish challenging material which risks offending some of our audience. The BBC must be sensitive to audience expectations, particularly in relation to the protection of children, as well as clearly signposting the material. Accountability The guideline provides that the BBC, which is accountable to its audience, will act in good faith by dealing fairly and openly with them. The guideline also notes that the audience is at the heart of everything the BBC does and that it is committed to ensuring that complaints are dealt with quickly, courteously and with respect. The Committee noted the complainant’s belief that comments made about Margaret Thatcher and Enoch Powell in Life on Mars by fictional characters were offensive and unnecessary and in contravention of the BBC’s duty to be impartial and unbiased. The Committee also noted that the complainant had questioned the factual accuracy of references by fictional characters to OPEC, and alcoholism within the CID. The Committee took into account that this was the second series of a popular BBC One drama, and viewers’ likely expectations would have been conditioned by their understanding of its fictional nature.

44

The Committee noted some of the references made by the character Sam Tyler (the emphasis is that of the ESC): With regard to Margaret Thatcher:

SAM enters police station restroom to see HARRY WOOLF slumped in a chair his hip flask is on the floor. SAM: “Sir!! Harry!” HARRY WOOLF: “It’s not what you think.” SAM: “I saw your hands shaking before.” HARRY WOOLF: “You have no idea—.” SAM: “I do. I’ve seen it a dozen times. Look half of CID will be alcoholics by the time Maggie Thatcher becomes Prime Minister—.” HARRY WOOLF: “If Margaret Thatcher ever becomes Prime Minister, I’ll have been doing something a lot stronger than whisky.”

And

SAM: “Well I did have a bit of help from DC Cartwright.” GENE: “Credit where credit’s due. Way you’re going, Cartwright, you’ll end up Commissioner.” RAY: “Steady on guv, you’ll have her running the flamin’ country next.” ANNIE: “Well maybe we’d be better off if a woman did run the country - she couldn’t make a worse job of it than what the fellahs have done.” SAM: (Aside) “I’ve got a feeling you might regret saying that one day.”

Included is a reference to Enoch Powell:

45

GENE: “We’ve got an extra pair of hands seconded from C Division - DC Glen Fletcher.” In walks DC GLEN FLETCHER. Late 20s, fresh-faced, well turned out. Black. Pan across the whole of CID in shock, SAM the most shocked of all. DC GLEN FLETCHER stands in the middle of the room. SAM: “DI Sam Tyler. Welcome.” SAM fixated on their hands connecting. He’s shaking hands with a dead man. SAM removes his hand and looks at it disbelieving. DC GLEN FLETCHER: “Don’t worry. It doesn’t rub off.” CHRIS: “DC Chris Skelton.” ANNIE: “WDC Cartwright. Annie. I’m sort of new round here too.” RAY (to CHRIS): “First women, now a coloured. What’s going to be next, dwarves?” RAY: “You’re here to do the spadework. Only can get a bit cold round here. It’s not like being back home.” DC GLEN FLETCHER: “What, Burnage?” SAM: “You’ll have to excuse DS Carling. He’s our resident Neanderthal.” DC GLEN FLETCHER: “No, good point, though. When that heat wave hit last month, I thought Enoch Powell had had me deported!” DC GLEN FLETCHER: “Don’t worry if there’s a power cut. I’ll roll my eyes and you can follow me out to the exit.” SAM: “Right that’s enough! Look, you don’t have to play Uncle Tom to fit in here. You’re better than that.”

46

The Committee concluded that all the references highlighted in the complaint - made by fictional characters in a fantasy comedy drama - were meant to entertain and amuse. It did not feel they had any political significance or that in context they were offensive. The Committee was therefore satisfied that series two of Life on Mars did not breach the guidelines on due impartiality or harm and offence. The Committee also noted the complainant’s concerns about procedures and specifically the objection to the ECU adjudicating the complaint a second time following its initial failure to adjudicate against the right BBC Editorial Guidelines. The ESC’s procedures allowed the Trust to return a complaint to the Executive if it considered further investigation should be undertaken. The Committee noted that the three stage appeal did correct the guidelines error. The Committee believes this issue should not happen in future because of enhanced procedures in a new BBC Complaints Framework which should be in place later this year. The Committee noted that the new framework will require the ECU and complainant to attempt to agree the guidelines against which a complaint will be adjudicated before the full investigation begins and a finding is made. The Committee also noted that the complaint had suffered delays when it had arrived with the BBC Trust. The Committee was aware of why the delays had occurred and was pleased to note that the increase in workload for the Trust team supporting the Committee had reduced recently to enable appeals to be heard more quickly. The Committee agreed to write to the complainant to apologise for the delays the appeal had suffered when at the BBC Trust. Finding: Not upheld

47

editorial standards findingsdownloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/... · the editorial...

Documents