July to September 2004 Issued October 2004

Programme Complaints:

Appeals to the Governors

The Board of Governors is responsible for overseeing the running of the BBC, to ensure that the BBC serves the public interest.We do this in a range of ways, such as setting key objectives and approving strategy and policy. Most importantly for this bulletin, we are responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of complaints handling by the BBC, including hearing appeals from complainants who are not happy with the responses they have received from management to serious programme complaints.

The Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee is a sub-committee of five members drawn from the full Board of Governors. For a full account of our remit, please see the back page of this bulletin.

Foreword by the Chairman of the

Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee

This is the last bulletin for which I will be writing a foreword.This month, having served on the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee (GPCC) for five years, I am standing down as Chairman. I am delighted to be handing over to Richard Tait, who will be in place to oversee implementation of the BBC’s new system of complaints, which marks a big step forward in the BBC’s accountability to its audiences.

The GPCC, on behalf of the Board of Governors, will monitor the new arrangements on behalf of licence payers to ensure that they meet expectations.The new arrangements on their own are not, however, enough.The BBC’s response to complaints and its willingness to learn from them is the true test of accountability and the Governors will keep a close watch over management’s performance.

I would like to thank my colleagues Dame Pauline Neville-Jones and Ranjit Sondhi both of whom recently left the Committee, having served on it for a number of years, and to welcome Deborah Bull who, along with Richard Tait, will join existing members Angela Sarkis and Fabian Monds. Richard has vast experience of broadcast journalism which will prove invaluable in his GPCC work.

This bulletin provides a summary of the appeals which the Committee considered between July and September 2004. The GPCC met twice during this period and came to findings on 11 appeals: ten related to matters of fairness and accuracy and one concerned matters of taste and decency. Of these, two were upheld in full and one in part.

Sir Robert Smith

Chairman of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee

October 2004

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 1

Summary of appeals

Matters of fairness and accuracy

The Jon Gaunt Show

BBC London 94.9FM, 22 March 2004

The complaint related to the approach taken by the presenter Jon Gaunt to a phone-in following an incident on 20 March 2004 in which two Greenpeace protesters breached security at the Houses of Parliament and scaled Big Ben. This incident sparked concerns about policing and security around the Government. Opening the phone-in on 22 March 2004, Jon Gaunt asked what action listeners felt the police should have taken. He then put forward the view that the intruders should have been warned to come down and, if they ignored the warnings, they should have been shot.

Writing to the Head of Programme Complaints, the complainant expressed “grave concern” about Jon Gaunt’s opening comments. He said the presenter’s behaviour was “incredibly irresponsible” in suggesting that the police should shoot first, and ask questions later. He also complained that a police officer from Bromley, a subsequent caller, had been insulted by Jon Gaunt.

The Head of Programme Complaints upheld the element of the complaint relating to Jon Gaunt’s handling of the call from the police officer. He found that the caller had not been given a fair hearing or an adequate opportunity to respond to Jon Gaunt’s comments. He observed that the tone of the exchange, together with the personal nature of some of the presenter’s comments and the way the call was ended, went beyond what was acceptable.

The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the element of the complaint relating to Jon Gaunt’s opening comments. He concluded that the comments were designed to promote discussion by putting forward extreme views. Calls to the programme had shown that he was not alone in criticising the police handling of the incident, and throughout the programme callers expressed a range of opinions including direct challenges to his comments. The approach taken had been in line with the expectations of callers or regular listeners to the programme, who were familiar with Jon Gaunt’s robust and forthright manner.

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

In considering this complaint, the Committee noted that the presenter, Jon Gaunt, had opened the phone-in by criticising the actions of the Greenpeace protesters. He then referred to comments by the police who said that, once identified as “harmless protesters”, the view had been taken that they should be allowed to continue. Jon Gaunt then said:

“That’s not the right opinion – I’m sorry … We should have shot them down … These people should not have been protesting in this way, this weekend. We are under threat of terrorist attack. What signal does this give? If two Greepeace people can actually get to climb two hundred feet of Big Ben and the police say: ‘Oh that’s alright then’ … This is just nonsense – absolute nonsense. At seven foot they should have started to drench them with fire hydrants. They go any further, they should have been warned by loud hailers then be shot. I’m being deadly serious. This is a farce.”

The Committee considered that the comments by Jon Gaunt had been highly provocative, and inappropriate in the current atmosphere and environment. It understood that the role of the presenter was to promote

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 2

discussion, but judged that such extreme views should have been posed as rhetorical questions to provoke debate. It concluded that it was unacceptable for a BBC presenter to express the personal view that the police should have shot at the protesters.

The appeal was upheld.

Making History

BBC Radio 4, 25 November 2003

The complainant alleged that an interview with contributor Mr Nick Walmsley about the dirigible (airship), the R100, had contained a number of inaccuracies.

In particular, the complainant alleged that Mr Walmsley had inaccurately stated that the R100 was designed by Dennistoun Burney (in fact it was designed by Barnes Wallis); and that the R100 was “more of a Zeppelin copy” when compared with the R101 (whereas the R100 had many innovative features).

The complainant also took issue with Mr Walmsley’s description of “rippling” which occurred on the R100’s outer covering. He maintained that this had only occurred when the airship exceeded speeds permitted in the specification, and that Barnes Wallis had solved this problem by fitting stops to the engines so that the design speed could not be exceeded. The description given in the interview had therefore been partial.

The Head of Programme Complaints upheld the element of the complaint relating to the inaccurate statement that Dennistoun Burney was the designer of the R100. He did not uphold the two remaining elements of the complaint. He explained that the complaint relating to the claim that the R100 had been “more of a Zeppelin copy” had been referred to Mr Walmsley for comment. Mr Walmsley had substantiated his assertion, and also referred to articles by Norman Peake, including an interview with Squadron Leader Booth (commander of the R100). The complaint in relation to the “ripples” was also referred to Mr Walmsley for comment, who had substantiated his reference, and this background information was cited.

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

In considering this appeal, the Committee noted that the Radio Times described Making History as a series, presented by Sue Cook, which examined listeners’ historical queries. The item relating to this complaint was about the R100, a dirigible, designed by Barnes Wallis, and built in 1930 to carry 100 passengers. Sue Cook interviewed Mr Walmsley (author of a book about the contemporary airship, R101, and Editor of the Airship Heritage Trust journal, Dirigible) about what had happened to the R100.

The Committee noted further that the Head of Programme Complaints had already upheld the complaint that Mr Walmsley had wrongly identified Sir Dennistoun Burney as the designer of the R100.

The Committee then considered the assertion by Mr Walmsley that the R100 was “more of a Zeppelin copy”. Drawing on independent editorial advice, it reviewed a wide range of references to the innovative design of the R100. This included references by the acknowledged expert Norman Peake to the “many novel features” displayed by the R100; the description of the “unique geodetic design for much of the structure” (The Nevil Shute Norway Foundation) and the description by the Airship Heritage Trust that “the daring decision to move away from the more traditional Zeppelin design lines were shown in the more oval, streamlined, and aerodynamic shape of the R100 and the R101”, that “both the R100 and the R101 teams were the first to build the more aerodynamic airships than the traditional Zeppelin designs”, and that ”the R100 was designed as a unique and efficient craft.” The Committee recognised that the views of experts in the field would vary. The Committee regretted that

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 3

the investigation by the Programme Complaints Unit (PCU) had not drawn on a wider range of expertise, rather than simply returning to the original contributor for his comment. It concluded that, contrary to the findings of the PCU, there was sufficient evidence to support the complaint that Mr Walmsley’s description had not accurately reflected the significant degree of originality in the R100 design. This aspect of the complaint was upheld.

The Committee also discussed the complainant’s concerning comments about the “rippling” of the R100 outer covering. It observed that, on the basis of the further details provided by the complainant, a full account of this technical matter had not been given in the brief interview with Mr Walmsley. It concluded that this had contributed to the overall dissatisfaction with the account given of the R100, although it did not raise significant issues relating to accuracy.

The appeal was upheld in part.

Today

BBC Radio 4, 9 and 10 January 2004

The complaint concerned coverage of an appeal in the Danish courts by a British man (Mr Stephen Hoath) against his 14-year prison sentence for the murder of a convicted Danish paedophile (Villy Andersen) who, he alleged, had sexually assaulted his daughter. The complainant maintained that the Today coverage had presented the convicted murderer as a hero and would have the effect of encouraging violent vigilantism and even incitement to murder.

The complainant maintained in particular that:

• The reporter Mike Thompson had broken Danish law to interview Mr Hoath.
  
• A follow-up interview with a Danish police spokesman was trailed by the programme on 9 January, but then not featured.
  
• The interview with the police spokesman on 10 January was characterised by “continual haranguing” of the interviewee by presenter Edward Stourton, who had sought to besmirch the authority’s integrity in dealing with paedophiles.
  
• E dward Stourton had made a “fantastic claim” in saying that people in the UK would find it “extraordinary” that paedophiles in Denmark were allowed freedom of expression and the right to their own association.
  

The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint on the grounds that:

• The first interview with Mr Hoath by reporter Mike Thompson was not unduly lenient, and Mr Hoath had been pressed on how he could justify the killing. The reporter went on to point out that the prosecution was appealing against the sentence, hoping to see it increased.
  
• Mike Thompson did not breach Danish law: the Danish prison governor had denied permission for the interview, but Mr Hoath had chosen to defy that instruction.
  
• The Danish police officer, Per Larsen, had been called away at the last minute on 9 January, and had been unable to do the interview.
  
• E dward Stourton did not “harangue” the police officer, but asked a total of eight questions and only interrupted him twice (once when Per Larsen had clearly misunderstood the question).
  
• The question relating to freedom of expression and the Danish Paedophile Association was not inappropriate, and was clearly a case of the presenter playing “devil’s advocate”.
  

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 4

The Committee’s decision

The Committee noted that there were general and specific elements to the complaint and dealt with them separately.

The complainant considered that the Today programme “sexed up” Mr Hoath’s appeal and used it as a platform to express not only its moral outrage and hostility at the activities of paedophiles, but also its opposition to any free debate of the issue, instead of attacking the real question, in this case vigilantism.

The Committee assessed the two interviews and determined that whilst it was true that the interviewee, Mr Hoath, expressed a moral outrage and hostility at the activities of paedophiles, the programme was not unbalanced or unfair in its presentation and reporting of the story. The Committee did not uphold the appeal in general terms.

The Committee noted the following points in relation to the specific elements of the appeal.

Complaint

• It was reprehensible that, by his own admission, Mike Thompson broke Danish law to interview Mr Hoath.

The Committee considered that the PCU’s response to this element of the complaint had been appropriate.

Complaint

• The item was prejudiced in highlighting the victim’s previous conviction, but not Mr Hoath’s much more serious conviction for attempted murder.
  

The Committee noted that the reporter said the following: “Finally Stephen, who has a past criminal conviction of his own for attempted murder, decided to set out with a Danish friend to look for Andersen.”

Complaint

• That the item was disingenuous in making out that the murder was the result of the Danish authorities being soft on paedophiles and, unless they tightened up their approach, others might follow Mr Hoath’s example.
  

The Committee did not find any suggestion in the item that Danish law would provoke murder.

Complaint

• The item was dangerously subversive of law and order in appearing to ferment the present mass media-induced demonization of the subject which had led to vicious vigilante attacks on paedophiles.
  

The Committee did not concur with the complainant’s characterisation of the item. In fact they noted that it clearly showed the heavy price paid by Mr Hoath for his vigilante behaviour.

Complaint

• The programme failed to explain why the Danish officer had not been interviewed on the same day as the main item.
  

The Committee noted that the Danish police officer, Per Larsen, had been called away at the last minute on 9 January, and had been unable to do the interview. As a result, he was interviewed the next day. The Committee did not consider that the fact that this was not explained on air raised issues of substance.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 5

Complaint

• That Edward Stourton continually harangued the Danish police spokesman and besmirched the authorities’ integrity in dealing with paedophiles, and that he criticised the country’s constitution in guaranteeing a freedom of expression extended to paedophiles and Danish law in permitting the existence of the Danish Paedophile Association.
  

The Committee noted that Edward Stourton interrupted the Danish policeman on only one occasion and this was because his question had not been clear. He questioned the small nature of average court fines in dealing with paedophiles and asked whether that suggested it was being taken seriously. The Committee did not accept that this amounted to “besmirching”. Regarding Edward Stourton’s comment that most people in the UK would regard the open existence of a paedophile association “extraordinary”, the Committee considered that this did not amount to a criticism of the Danish constitution, but a reflection of the different attitude taken in the UK.

Complaint

• The report slandered members of the Danish Paedophile Association by accusing them of not restricting their activities to merely propounding their views but to indulging in criminal sex abuse, because Edward Stourton suggested that they were bound to practice what they preached.
  

The Committee noted that Edward Stourton’s first question was “Would you accept that those 30,000 people who are members of the Paedophile Association by virtue of their membership lay themselves open to the suspicion that they are conducting paedophile activities?” He also suggested through the course of the piece that members of the Danish Paedophile Association were "reasonably confident they are not going to be picked up by the police" and "they don't think they're going to be caught?" Stourton focused on the fact that suspicion would be aroused by membership of the Danish Paedophile Association, and the Committee agreed that the clip of text from the Danish Paedophile Association’s website was in itself enough to give rise to such suspicions.

Complaint

• There was a failure to interview anyone associated with the victim or with the Danish Paedophile
  Association to balance Mr Hoath’s interview. There was a failure to interview any independent academic on the subject.
  

The Committee noted that the interview with the police was due to take place but had to be postponed. They considered that the failure to interview anyone from the Association, or an independent academic was not a substantive failure of balanced reporting.

Complaint

• The failure of the piece to tackle the police spokesman about Mr Hoath’s allegations that the police had not acted despite his daughter’s complaint of sexual molestation and how far that had led to the murder, and to question him about his views on Mr Hoath’s interview.
  

The Committee noted that the Danish police officer made it clear that he was not able to comment on the particular case because it was out of his jurisdiction.

Complaint

• That Edward Stourton’s claim that the people of this country would find it extraordinary that paedophiles in Denmark were allowed freedom of expression and the right to have their own association, was fantastic and unjustified.
  

The Committee considered Edward Stourton’s point to be a reasonable one.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 6

Complaint

• That the piece was a grave journalistic lapse for the accumulated reasons given.

The Committee did not uphold any of the specific elements of the appeal. Consequently, it did not uphold this generalised complaint about the item concerned.

The appeal was not upheld.

The Daily Politics

BBC Two, 29 January–11 February 2004

The complainant maintained that The Daily Politics was biased against the Government. He identified the following features of the programme as evidence of bias:

• O f the 14 guests on six editions of the programme between 29 January and 11 February, only one had been favourable to the Prime Minister.
  
• The guests discussing Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) included Emma Nicolson, Liberal Democrats and Teddy Taylor, Conservative, who had given the Prime Minister a “verbal kicking”.
  
• The presenters, Andrew Neil and Daisy Sampson, had shown partiality, and in particular that Andrew Neil had conducted a “soft” interview with Michael Howard.
  

In a further letter, the complainant listed further examples of “anti-Government bias”, and argued that over a further four-week period there had been seven Tories, four Liberal Democrats and only two Labour MPs.

BBC management’s initial response came from the Acting Director-General who conveyed the response of the producer of The Daily Politics. It was explained that all items in the programme were counted when looking at balance, rather than only the guests for the papers and PMQs. Nevertheless, the producer maintained that, taking the guests alone, they had been balanced politically during this period. He also noted that the producers regularly and continuously invited Government ministers onto the programme but, in the majority of instances, these requests were refused.

The complainant was not satisfied with the response received, and his complaint was passed by the Acting Director-General to the Head of Programme Complaints. Having investigated the complaint, the Head of Programme Complaints did not find any evidence of bias against the Prime Minister and the Government. He noted that the political allegiances of guests were an important consideration, but not the sole consideration in maintaining impartiality. In particular, the programme sought lively comment and discussion, representing a range of views and shades of opinion. Other features focused on major political events and issues of the day, while the features identified by the complainant provided a forum for more informal, relaxed and spontaneous discussion. They included not only politicians and journalists, but also celebrities from other fields. The Head of Programme Complaints then gave more detailed analysis of the editions of the programme identified by the complainant.

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee noted that the complaint was about the political make-up of the guests who reviewed the papers and commented on PMQs. There was no complaint about the overall content of the programme. In other words, the charge of bias and impartiality came from a tally of the supposed political allegiance of the guests who took part in one section of the programme in each edition, and not what they said. The Committee agreed that it was not appropriate to attempt to judge the impartiality of a programme by

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 7

examining an individual segment of it, or by a simple headcount of political allegiances. They pointed to the BBC Producers Guidelines which clearly state “in achieving due impartiality the term ‘due’ is to be interpreted as meaning adequate or appropriate to the nature of the subject and the type of programme. There are generally more than two sides to any issue and impartiality in factual programmes may not be achieved simply by mathematical balance in which each view is complemented by an equal and opposing one.”

After viewing the programming in question, the Committee did not agree that the Prime Minister had been given “a verbal kicking” by the guests on the programme. They did not agree that the presenters Andrew Neil and Daisy Sampson had displayed partiality, or that Michael Howard had been treated lightly in his interview.

The appeal was not upheld.

Top 10 Egypt

BBC Two, 27 December 2003

The complaint concerned the above programme which set out to be an odyssey around Michael Wood’s top ten favourite Egyptian historical sites and was described as a “whistle-stop tour” in the Radio Times.

The complainant maintained that Michael Wood tracked the progress of monotheism as the progress of civilisation, mentioning only Christianity and Islam. Specifically he suggested that:

• By referring to the “triumph of monotheism” “first by Christianity and then by Islam” there was the “extraordinary omission” of any references to the importance of Judaism both in Egypt through the community and its scholars at Alexandria, and outside in initiating monotheistic belief in the West.
  
• This was damaging to Jews and Judaism.
  
• The omission of the Jewish role without which there would be no Christianity and no Christian or Islamic monotheism.
  
• E gypt’s intellectual revolution did not itself lead to the triumph of monotheism, and the crucial part played by Judaism could not be ignored without distortion.
  
• To ignore this disparaged the Jewish contribution to civilisation.
  

The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint. He noted that the programme did not set out to be an historical analysis of all the cultures and religions that impacted on Egypt, and its development. Furthermore, when considering what was actually said by Michael Wood about the development of the monotheistic religions, he pointed out that the following quote from Michael Wood clearly set the context for the reference as Egypt.

“After Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt, there was a tremendous stirring up of religious ideas – new cults, weird sects, new religions – and that led in the end to the triumph of monotheism, the worship of one God, first of Christianity, and then Islam. And that perhaps was Egypt’s greatest revolution.”

Therefore, whilst the omission of Judaism would be a serious one in any global view of the growth of monotheism, here it was a reflection of historical reality, because Islam is the majority religion in Egypt, with Coptic Christianity making up a small but not insignificant minority.

The complainant appealed to the GPCC, saying that that the omission of any reference to the importance of Judaism, both in Egypt through the community and its scholars in Alexandria, and outside, in initiating monotheistic belief in the West was damaging to Jews and Judaism.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 8

The Committee’s Decision

The Committee noted that the purpose of Top 10 Egypt was to introduce the viewer to Michael Wood’s choice of Egypt’s top historical sites. Of these, eight were pharaonic sites; one was the oldest Christian monastery in the world, and another one was the old city of Cairo with its splendid Muslim mosques. The programme was not, however, intended to document the global rise of monotheistic religions.

One of the pharaonic stories covered the rise and fall of King Akhenaten, a pharaoh who demanded to be worshipped like God on earth. His reign was in many ways revolutionary, as he freed up the way that Egyptian artists portrayed the kings and queens of the time and as he created a new personalised religion. After this story, Michael Wood did the piece to camera which the complainant had criticised for not referring to Judaism. After seeking expert opinion the Committee concluded that, whilst there was no doubt that monotheism emerged through Judaism and the Old Testament long before the birth of Christ, it was valid to claim that it was through Christianity and Islam that monotheism became the leading religious principle throughout the Middle East and the Western world. Triumph of monotheism refers to the fact that – suddenly – monotheism engulfed humanity throughout the entire Roman Empire, as well as northern Africa. And in this revolution, Egypt played a crucial role. The Committee therefore determined that Michael Wood’s comments were fair, accurate and historically valid.

The appeal was not upheld.

Coverage of MMR controversy

BBC News, 22 February 2004 onwards

The complainant alleged that in BBC coverage of the MMR debate there was a general bias against the concerns that have been raised about the vaccine, and against Dr Andrew Wakefield, the researcher who originally linked the MMR vaccine with autism. The complainant appealed against the response he received. The Committee gave initial consideration to this appeal in May 2004.

In replying to these complaints, the Director of News had explained that Karen Allen, a correspondent involved in the reporting, had assured him that the BBC’s health team had made strenuous efforts to put Dr Wakefield’s side of the story by securing an interview with him, but that Dr Wakefield had declined the BBC’s offers to talk to him. On the question of reporting that Dr Wakefield had intended to sue Dr Richard Horton, the Director of News explained that the BBC would not report any such statement until papers had been filed to that effect.

At its meeting in May 2004, the GPCC received copies of the original complaints, the response from the Director of News, and the complainant’s letter of appeal. On the basis of this correspondence, the GPCC asked the Director of News to provide a fuller response to the complaint. In relation to the conflict of interest allegations in particular, BBC News was asked to supply:

• Analysis of the coverage of the original allegations of conflict of interest, based on viewing of the VHS tapes or transcripts.
  
• Analysis of the coverage of developments later in the week, when on 27 February 2004 The Independent reported that Dr Wakefield did reveal his links with the Legal Aid Board in a letter in The Lancet on 2 May 1998.
  
• A note to explain the original coverage and coverage (or lack of it) of developments on 27 February.
  

The response from BBC News, which did not uphold the complaints, was then supplied to the GPCC for scrutiny.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 9

The Committee’s decision

The Committee noted that at the heart of this complaint was the issue of omission. The complainant clearly had a detailed high-level interest in every aspect and nuance of the MMR story. Much of his grievance was based on his belief that the BBC had failed to report all elements of the story that he felt were significant. The question was whether, across the period in question and the total range of output, BBC News was guilty of “selective, naive and biased reporting”, as the complainant argued.

The Committee concluded that the issues raised in the complaints did not constitute a serious breach of editorial standards, and the appeal was not upheld. The Committee noted the following points in relation to individual elements of the complaint.

Complaint

• A. Any professional who spoke out in support of Dr Wakefield would, the complainant believed, “bear a heavy professional price”.
  
• B . Furthermore, there was no free or open debate about this subject in the medical or scientific profession, and no one professionally to represent the case apart from Dr Wakefield. All this had gone unremarked by the BBC.
  

With regard to A: The allegation that professionals who spoke out in favour of Dr Wakefield would “bear a heavy professional price”, was not addressed by the output, and members of the Committee considered that it could only be supposition.

With regard to B: From the list of participants provided by BBC News, members considered that a wide range of views was aired on the BBC by medical professionals such as Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, the Government’s Chief Medical Officer; Dr Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet; Dr Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP; Dr David Salisbury, Head of Immunisation at the Department of Health and, putting Dr Wakefield’s case, Dr Peter Mansfield; Paul Shattock, Director of the Autism Research Unit; David Weldon, a USA Congressman and doctor, as well as a number of anti-MMR GP’s including Dr Richard Halverson. The coverage also featured contributions from a number of anti-MMR campaigners and parents.

Furthermore, the Committee recognised that BBC News had tried to obtain interviews with Dr Wakefield himself, but he had refused.

Complaint

• The BBC failed to report on an Institute of Medicine Conference in Washington on the subject of vaccination in February 2004.
  

The Committee noted that along with other broadcasters and newspapers BBC News did not cover this event because the health correspondents were not aware of any significant research to be published at this event.

Complaint

• That the BBC failed to report on a story in the Daily Mail alleging conflicts of interest on the part of 19 government scientists who had interests in firms making the MMR triple vaccine, and sat on the key committees which declared the vaccine safe. Some, claimed the Daily Mail, had shareholdings in these companies while others had received research grants. The paper then listed the scientists by name and their various interests and connections with these companies.
  

The Committee noted that the point at issue was that the government scientists had disclosed their conflicts of interest, whereas The Lancet alleged that Dr Wakefield had not. Therefore, BBC News saw no value in reporting the story.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 10

Complaint

• That the BBC had omitted to cover a newspaper report that Dr Wakefield had revealed his involvement in the MMR Legal Aid Board work in a letter to The Lancet three months after the publication of the article. This, in his view, had put an entirely different complexion on the matter, and he was outraged that that this had not been reported by the BBC.
  

The Committee accepted BBC News’ response. This refuted the complainant’s assertion that the revelation had meant that the conflicts of interest charge was “substantially unfounded” on the basis that the revelation was a partial disclosure, made after the publication of the article. The Committee considered that there would have been interest in examining why The Lancet had not, at that point, declared the original publication fatally flawed rather than wait six years until The Sunday Times revealed the story of conflict of interest. It did not consider, however, that this constituted a serious editorial omission.

Complaint

• The BBC had failed to report Health Minister Stephen Ladyman’s admission in a publication called Epolitix that Dr Wakefield’s patients did indeed have measles antigen in their gut.
  

The Committee noted that the existence of the measles antigen in the gut of some of Dr Wakefield’s patients was not a matter of dispute, but rather how it got there. On this basis, it considered that the Health Minister’s statement was a matter of detail only, with no material impact on the story as a whole.

Complaint

• The BBC had failed to report Dr Wakefield’s announcement that he was going to sue Dr Richard Horton, the Editor of The Lancet.
  

The Committee accepted the explanation by the Director of News in his letter to the complainant of 22 March. This stated that BBC News would not report any such intention until papers had been filed. The Committee noted that, even then, the decision to sue would not necessarily have merited a separate BBC News story.

Complaint

• The BBC had failed to report a letter in The Daily Telegraph from a group of parents whose children had suffered as a result of their MMR jab, and who were supporters of Dr Wakefield.
  

The Committee did not consider that this letter contributed anything new to the debate. Its author, Martin Hewitt is the chairman of the Autism Research Campaign for Health, and he was in fact interviewed by BBC News on 21 February.

The appeal was not upheld.

BBC News

BBC One, 2 June 2004

The complainant alleged that a report about fuel prices on BBC News (10pm) on 2 June 2004 lacked impartiality.

The item concerned a number of factors relating to oil prices, and to the pressure on the UK Government from the Conservative Party to reverse its decision to increase fuel duty from September 2004. The item

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 11

included a graphic showing Automobile Association (AA) statistics comparing the price of petrol per litre, and the amount taken in tax and duty, in the UK, Spain and the USA.

The complainant maintained that, as a motoring organization, the AA statistics were “utterly biased”. He maintained moreover that the item lacked impartiality in that no reference was made to:

• The rough parity across Europe of car ownership.
  
• The fact that petrol prices had fallen in respect of inflation since the 1970s.
  
• The argument that the revenue from petrol in no way covers the environmental damage from cars.
  

The Head of Programme Complaints explained that the item concerned the effect of taxation on fuel prices, and did not uphold the complaint on the grounds that:

• A reference to the parity of car ownership was not needed in the context of the report.
  
• The AA had a high reputation for research, and the Programme Complaints Unit had independently verified the figures used in the programme by looking at the Department of Trade and Industry’s quarterly Energy Prices Bulletin and the American Petroleum Institute’s data on tax rates. On the basis of this research, there was nothing to suggest that the AA’s figures were inaccurate.
  
• The item had included a quote from a Green Party spokeswoman, saying that concern about fuel prices was misplaced, and the focus should be on alternatives to car use.
  

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

Having viewed the item and reviewed the correspondence, the Committee came to the view that the item had been appropriately framed.

In relation to the use of AA statistics, the Committee took the view that this had been a legitimate source of reliable data, and that the source had been clearly flagged. The Committee noted that BBC News drew on a range of sources for data of this sort. In two other reports on fuel costs in May, for example, it drew on information from the Office of National Statistics and the Economic and Social Research Council.

The Committee discussed the issue of car use across Europe. It understood that the item was explicitly about cost increases in petrol caused by the international situation and a planned increase by the UK Government on fuel tax. It did not consider in this context that it was necessary to feature total motoring costs compared with other countries.

Finally, the Committee noted that the item had included a quote from a Green Party spokeswoman. This had provided an appropriate reference to broader environmental concerns: particularly the view that concern about fuel prices was misplaced, and the focus should be on alternatives to car use.

The appeal was not upheld.

Thought for the Day,Today

BBC Radio 4, 30 April 2004

The complainant alleged that the Thought for the Day (TFTD) speaker, the Reverend Dr Johnston McMaster, used the slot to propagate political ideas: namely that the European Union is a democratic organisation, and that the formation and expansion of the EU was conducive to peace in Europe. The complainant maintained that both statements were “demonstrably untrue”.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 12

The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint on the grounds that:

• The context for TFTD on 30 April was the ceremony that evening, and the following day, to mark the enlargement of the EU. This reflected the briefing for TFDT speakers to look at current news issues from a religious perspective.
  
• The Executive Producer responsible for TFTD, Christine Morgan, did not believe Reverend Dr Johnston McMaster was expressing a political view, or offering political analysis in the way the complainant had taken it. In particular, that the speaker had not said either that “the European Union was a democratic organisation” or that it “was likely to enhance peace in Europe” as had been alleged.
  
• R everend Dr Johnston McMaster had said “Tonight, large parts of Europe will be united in peace and democracy.” The Head of Programme Complaints concluded, however, that from the historical context in which Reverend Dr Johnston McMaster set that statement, it was reasonable to conclude that he was referring to the political processes which, for each new member state, had preceded their joining, rather than the nature of the organisation they had joined.
  
• R everend Dr Johnston McMaster’s subsequent reference to “the European Union dream” having become “an international project in conflict transformation” might have caused the complainant to interpret the earlier mentions of “peace” in the way he did. The speaker did not, however, go on to argue that the Union was going to continue to exert this kind of influence. He, in fact, developed the talk in a very different way, looking at diversity within Europe and then within the Church which expressed strong support for pluralism in both. The Head of Programme Complaints did not consider, therefore, that there were grounds to question the balance of the piece.
  

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee noted the following excerpt from the TFTD script:

“Tonight large parts of Eastern and Western Europe will be united in peace and democracy. It’s not only historic it’s momentous because peace and democracy were not characteristic of Europe in the 20th Century. The European Union dream born in 1948 was meant to be and has become an international project in conflict transformation. Tonight we reach another stage in the healing of our past divisions, Europe’s internal legacy of inhumanity, brutality, wars and violence. At midnight Europe will celebrate its peace, democracy and larger sense of belonging.”

It considered this against the claims that the contributor stated that “the European Union is a democratic organisation” and “the formation and expansion of the European Union is conducive to peace within Europe”. The Committee recognised that the script was ambiguous. On close analysis, however, it concluded that the speaker had been suggesting that a group of democratic countries were being brought together in a stronger bond and relationship rather than joining together in a democratic organisation per se; and that the speaker was referring to the historical progress towards peace in Europe rather than attributing this directly to the action of the European Union.

The Committee concluded that the script had been appropriately framed within the BBC Producers’ Guidelines on personal view programmes, and did not uphold the complaint that the slot had been used to propagate political ideas.

The appeal was not upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 13

Today

BBC Radio 4, 6 December 2001, 4 December 2002 and 2 December 2003

This complaint to the Director-General and the Director of News concerned Today’s coverage of the Plain English Campaign Limited (PEC).

In correspondence which began on 9 December 2002, the complainant made complaints in relation to the following incidents:

• 6 December 2001: John Humphrys presented the PEC Awards for which he was paid a “substantial” fee.
  
• 6 December 2001: Sue MacGregor conducted an interview with a PEC spokesman about the awards, and concluded “all power to your elbows”. Sue MacGregor had previously received a PEC Award in 1999 for “plain speaking”. The interview made no reference to the commercial status of the PEC.
  
• 5 December 2002: Today ran a “favourable” piece about the PEC Awards, followed by an “uncritical” interview with no reference to PEC’s commercial status. The programme also “lauded itself ” for having won a PEC Award for best radio programme “or some such”.
  
• 2 December 2003: John Humphrys interviewed a PEC spokesman about the awards which, the complainant alleged, was “wholly uncritical” and a “puff ” for the PEC. The complainant maintained further that the interview constituted a conflict of interest, as John Humphrys had previously received a “substantial fee” from PEC to present its annual “awards” in 2001.
  

The complainant maintained – in general terms – thatToday coverage had lacked impartiality in two ways:

• That the Today coverage failed to refer to the commercial status of the PEC.
  
• That Today had been uncritical in its approach to the PEC Awards.
  

The complainant alleged that the PEC Awards were not conducted with an independent panel of judges, and that awards had been given to organisations which were also fee-paying customers of the PEC, but that this was not acknowledged in PEC press releases.

In replying to the complaint relating to the interview on 6 December 2001, the Director-General maintained that:

• Coverage of the PEC reflected the interest of the BBC Radio 4 audience in the origins and best use of the English language.
  
• The PEC’s annual awards offered an opportunity to deliver a serious message in an engaging and lighthearted way, and to give examples of best and worst practice.
  
• Sue MacGregor’s conduct of the interview had not been affected by her status as winner of a Plain Speaking Award. Her final comment, “all power to your elbow” was intended to reflect the thoughts of Today programme listeners, who are quick to condemn poor use of English, and to support any effort to improve it.
  
• Today held no brief for the PEC, and that the PEC was not the only group with an interest in language featured on the programme.
  
• In the interests of clarity, however, editors had been reminded that it would be appropriate to mention the organisation’s commercial status from time to time, when editorially appropriate.
  

In replying to the complaint relating to the interview on 2 December 2003, the Head of Radio News said that:

• The interview had been a brief and light-hearted discussion about the various ways in which language could be abused.
  
• In the context of this light-hearted item, it was not necessary for John Humphrys to tell the audience he had presented the PEC Awards, nor was it editorially appropriate to mention PEC’s commercial status.
  

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 14

In further correspondence relating to PEC’s commercial status, the Director of News detailed the BBC’s policy. He noted that:

• As a general principle, the commercial status of an organisation does not invalidate its expertise being used by the BBC, or unduly influence whether we involve them in BBC programmes.
  
• Considerations would include whether the commercial status had relevance to the subject being discussed, and whether other similar organisations were also featured so that no one company was given disproportionate exposure.
  

The complainant remained dissatisfied with the responses received and appealed to the Governors' Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee noted that there was a clear community of interest between the BBC Radio 4 audience and the issues raised by organisations such as the Plain English Campaign. This made the PEC Awards a natural subject for the Today programme. It also noted that an undertaking had been made to refer to the commercial status of the PEC where that was editorially justified, and confirmed that this was appropriate.

The Committee concluded that the programmes’ coverage of the PEC Awards had been appropriately framed, and had not suggested partiality in its approach to the organisation.

The appeal was not upheld.

BBC’s conduct of the Song for Europe 2003 competition

BBC One, 2 March 2003

The complaint to the Head of Programme Complaints concerned the manner in which the BBC conducted the Song for Europe (SFE) 2003 competition, in which acts competed to represent the UK in the Eurovision Song Contest in May 2003. Eight semi-finalists were featured on BBC Radio 2, with the four songs gaining the highest number of votes announced on 31 January 2003. These four songs then featured in the final of the SFE contest, broadcast live on 2 March 2003.

The complainant, Mr Hill, is a songwriter who wrote one of the four songs in the final of the competition, ‘Help Me’. In his complaint, he maintained that the competition was run in a prejudicial manner, in which one song (‘Wait for a moment’) was favoured over the others, with a consequent adverse effect on other finalists.

Mr Hill cited nine instances in which the BBC demonstrated “considerable favouritism” towards the song ‘Wait for a moment’ (renamed ‘Now and Forever’):

• The BBC allowed substantial changes to the lyrics and title of ‘Wait for a moment’ between the BBC Radio 2 vote and the televised SFE vote. In particular, the “message” of the song changed from one of sadness at having to wait an eternity, to one of happiness at being with someone forever.
  
• The artist(s) performing ‘Wait for a moment’ were changed twice following the BBC Radio 2 vote, the second change occurring a few days before the televised final. Mr Hill had been informed initially by programme producer, Dominic Smith, that ‘Wait for a moment’ would be sung by a gospel choir (United Colours of Sound), and had been reassured that represented the final decision on the performers. Mr Hill then tailored the performance of his song (‘Help Me’) to ensure that it was distinctive from the other
  

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 15

three acts. A few days before the final, however, the performer for ‘Wait for a moment’ was changed to a male soloist. Mr Hill’s performer was also a soloist, and many distinctive features of the performance were lost.

• Further to the above point, Dominic Smith had sent an email on 17 February 2003 stating that the Radio Times billing had been submitted, so no further changes would be allowed to the performances.
  
• Mr Hill had been offered an alternative and highly experienced artist to perform his song. However this offer was received after Dominic Smith’s email of 17 February. Mr Hill maintains that he therefore declined the offer on the basis of Dominic Smith’s email.
  
• D ominic Smith had been involved in arranging for United Colours of Sound to perform ‘Wait for a moment’. Dominic Smith had denied this, but Mr Hill supplied an email from the manager of United Colours of Sound to that effect. Mr Hill compared this to the BBC’s refusal to assist any other finalists in this way.
  
• M r Hill had complained, when Dominic Smith had informed him of the last-minute change to the performer of ‘Wait for a moment’, that Dominic Smith had assured him that all other options had been considered. In particular that they had considered substituting ‘Wait for a moment’ with the fifth runner-up from the BBC Radio 2 vote, ‘Smile’ performed by Gallico. Dominic Smith stated, however, that this option was not pursued because the song would not be ready at such late notice. However, Mr Hill contacted the co-writer of ‘Smile’ who maintained that no such contact had been made.
  
• The SFE rules allow the BBC to substitute performers at any time in the competition, but this did not absolve the BBC from its responsibility to conduct a fair competition.
  
• D ominic Smith had maintained that SFE was a songwriting competition, and therefore that changes to the performers were not relevant. Mr Hill refuted this, particularly because a song will also be judged on its performance, and the ability of the performer.
  
• ‘Help Me’ had come last in the SFE voting. Nevertheless, with a different scenario, it might have won.
  

Having examined the way in which Mr Hill was dealt with during the SFE competition, the Head of

Programme Complaints did not feel able to conclude either that the rules of the competition had not been observed or that Mr Hill had been treated unfairly in other ways. In relation to the nine points, the Head of Programme Complaints held that:

• There was nothing in the SFE rules which says that the lyrics, title or message of a song cannot be changed. Any competitor would have been able to make such changes had they wished.
  
• Rule 7 clearly stated that BBC Television had the right to choose the performer(s) for the songs at all stages of the SFE competition, and to substitute another performer for the one chosen.
  
• There was nothing in the rules to say that songwriters cannot change their performers, while rule 7 seemed specifically to allow for it.
  
• The deadline given in Dominic Smith’s email of 17 February was given in an effort to discipline largely amateur performers/writers. They were not intended as hard and fast rules.
  
• Dominic Smith was only indirectly involved in United Colours of Sound coming together with the writer of ‘Wait for a moment’, in that he put the manager of United Colours of Sound in touch with the latter.
  
• D ominic Smith had been referring to the detailed technical arrangements for the transmission, which often cannot easily be changed, when he said the ‘Smile’ option was not pursued because the song would not be ready at such late notice.
  
• This issue was covered elsewhere in his response.
  
• I f the producer justified changing the performers on the grounds that it was the song and not the performers that was being judged, this would not preclude him being concerned about the performers and the presentation of the song.
  
• This issue was covered elsewhere in his response.
  

Mr Hill appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 16

The Committee’s decision

In considering this appeal, the Committee reviewed all correspondence relating to the complaint, and met with Dominic Smith (Producer, Entertainment) to discuss the issues raised by this appeal. The complaint was judged against the requirement of the BBC Producers’ Guidelines that BBC competitions “should be conducted in a manner which is fair, honest, legal and decent”.

The Committee understood that Mr Hill had been disappointed by the result of the competition. It reviewed the detailed response from the Head of Programme Complaints, however, and took the view that the response had been appropriately framed.

The Committee also discussed the broad context for the competition. It heard from Dominic Smith that he had given more help to the writer of ‘Wait for a moment’ than other lyricists. However he confirmed that offers of such assistance had been open to all finalists.

The Committee questioned Dominic Smith about the change to the performer of ‘Now and Forever’, despite the impression given in the email of 17 February that no further changes would be accepted. He maintained that the email was a “practical” reminder to the songwriters about the Radio Times deadline.

The Committee considered that, for the sake of clarity, the competition rules should state explicitly that performers (as well as lyrics) could be changed. It noted that, in the final vote, ‘Now and Forever’ had scored no points. It concluded that Mr Hill’s complaint did not provide evidence of unfair treatment, and his assertion that his song would have won given different circumstances was speculative.

The appeal was not upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 17

Matters of taste and decency

Cyderdelic

BBC Three, 15 March 2004

This complaint to the Head of Programme Complaints concerned two “extremely offensive” references in this comedy series. The complainant said that they had watched and enjoyed previous episodes, but complained that the references concerned were both blasphemous and gratuitous.

The references occurred in a supposed local arts centre, where the character, Su, is attending the opening of his art exhibition entitled ‘England is shit’. The complainant described the two references in the following terms:

• “The cross, one of the most central symbols of the Christian faith and representative of the Crucifixion was shown covered in ‘shit’ as the show put it.”
  
• “Later in the same scene one of the central characters stated repeatedly that ‘Jesus Christ is a bell end.’”
  

The complainant referred the Head of Programme Complaints to the following two sections of the BBC Producers’ Guidelines:

• Section 6.9 states that “Deep offence will also be caused by profane references or disrespect, whether verbal or visual, directed at deities, scriptures, holy days and rituals which are at the heart of various religions – for example, the Crucifixion, the Gospels, the Koran and the Jewish Sabbath.”
  
• Section 6.8 states that “Offence is often caused by the casual use of names considered holy by believers, for example the use of ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘God’ or of the names held holy by other faiths. In particular, the use of these names as expletives in drama or light entertainment causes distress far beyond their dramatic or humorous value.”
  

The Head of Programme Complaints conveyed the regrets of the producer, Karen Rosie, for the offence caused. He did not uphold the complaint on the grounds that:

• The cross exhibit and remarks about Jesus had been made by a character, Su (a man), and were in keeping with the “ludicrous pretensions of this pompous and self-regarding character”.
  
• The art exhibition overall had been a satire on the contemporary art scene which included human excrement among art works on display, and it seemed that Su was going out of his way to be as offensive as possible.
  
• Some of the dialogue in the programmes is unscripted and some of the participants are not professional actors. He noted that two visitors had challenged Su’s “beliefs” on religious matters.
  
• He appreciated that involving religion in comedy is a highly sensitive issue, and was sorry for the offence caused. There had, however, been no other complaints on the BBC’s log of audience comments, which suggested that viewers in general had not understood the humour as the complainant had.
  

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee appreciated that the programme was scheduled late in the evening on BBC Three, a channel which is charged with providing experimental comedy which may challenge the audience, and that the programme itself was a satire on the contemporary art scene. However, members agreed with the complainant that the references about which he had complained were clearly in breach of the BBC Producers’ Guidelines points 6.8 and 6.9.

The appeal was upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 18

Remit of the Governors’

Programme Complaints Committee

The Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee (GPCC) consists of five Governors of the BBC, to whom the full Board of Governors have delegated responsibility for ensuring that complaints made by viewers and listeners are “given due consideration by and are properly handled” by the Corporation, as required under the Charter. The activities and conclusions of the GPCC are reported to the full Board of Governors. The Committee members are Sir Robert Smith (Chairman), Deborah Bull, Professor Fabian Monds, Angela Sarkis and Richard Tait. Deborah Bull and Richard Tait replaced Dame Pauline Neville-Jones and Ranjit Sondhi in September 2004.

In fulfilling this remit, the GPCC undertakes regular reviews of the BBC’s processes and performance in relation to complaints handling. In particular, the GPCC is responsible for the independent oversight of the BBC’s strategic approach to complaints handling, and for monitoring the effectiveness of its processes, to ensure both serve the public interest and reflect best practice.

In line with the GPCC’s responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of complaints handling by BBC management, it is also the specific function of the GPCC to consider appeals against decisions and actions of the Programme Complaints Unit (PCU) or of the directors of BBC divisions in dealing with serious editorial complaints, where complaints allege:

• that the complainant has suffered unfair treatment in a transmitted item
  
• that the complainant’s privacy has been unjustifiably infringed, either in a programme or item as transmitted or in the process of making the programme or item or
  
• that there has otherwise been a failure adequately to observe the BBC’s editorial guidelines
  

In order to give full consideration to an appeal, the GPCC may make any further enquiries of the complainant or those responsible for making the programme which it considers necessary to determine the appeal fairly. The GPCC aims to reach a final decision on an appeal within 12 weeks of receiving the request.

The findings for all appeals are reported each quarter in this bulletin Programme complaints: Appeals to the Governors. This is published in hard copy and on the BBC website at bbc.co.uk/info

For a copy of the full remit of the GPCC or for further copies of this bulletin, please write to:

The Secretary to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee

BBC

Room MC3D3 Media Centre Media Village Wood Lane London W12 7TQ

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 19