July to September 2005 Issued November 2005 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 subcommittee 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 It is the job of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee (GPCC) to ensure that complaints are properly handled by the BBC.This includes taking appeals from people who are not satisfied with management’s response to serious editorial complaints.We review the programme or online content against the BBC’s editorial values and guidelines, and make a judgement on whether or not the content concerned breaches the standards set out. This bulletin provides a summary of the 27 findings published by the GPCC between July and September 2005.This includes 14 appeals which were considered between March and May, but of which the findings were held back while the Committee reviewed its processes. Of the findings published, one appeal was upheld in full and two were upheld in part. The majority of findings in the bulletin concern complaints about the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.This is a highly controversial area of international news.We consider individual complaints against the BBC’s obligations on impartiality and accuracy. As a Board, the Governors have also commissioned a comprehensive review of the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as part of its programme of annual impartiality reviews.This will provide an important overview of how the BBC approaches its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.The results will be published in spring 2006. Richard Tait Chairman of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee Contents Corrections to previous bulletins Ten O’Clock News, BBC One, 15 and 28 September 2004 4 Innovation Nation, BBC One, 12 November–17 December 2003 5 Summary of findings (July–September 2005): upheld in full or in part From Our Own Correspondent, BBC Radio 4, 30 October 2004 6 Six O’Clock News, BBC Radio 4, 5 and 8 November 2004 7 Parents who smack now face jail, bbc.co.uk/newsround, 15 January 2005 9 Summary of findings (July–September 2005): not upheld Ten O’Clock News, BBC One, 10 June 2003 10 Today, BBC Radio 4, 6 August 2003 12 BBC Radio News (8pm), BBC Radio 4, 6 August 2003 14 Bomb victim’s family praise video, bbc.co.uk/news, 31 January 2004 16 From Our Own Correspondent, BBC Radio 4, 31 January 2004 17 Sharon orders Gaza pull-out plan, bbc.co.uk/news, 2 February 2004 18 Tempers flare over settler beauty contest, bbc.co.uk/news, 7 February 2004 19 Who are Hamas?, bbc.co.uk/news, 18 April 2004 19 BBC News (6am and 7am), BBC Radio 4, 7 September 2004 20 BBC News (7am), BBC Radio 4, 7 September 2004 22 From Our Own Correspondent, BBC Radio 4, 17 April 2004 22 News bulletin (7am), BBC Radio 4 and bbc.co.uk/news, 25 October 2004 24 Ten O’Clock News, BBC One, 18 May 2004 25 Man killed in Jerusalem, bbc.co.uk/news, 19 March 2004 26 Small victory for barrier opponents, bbc.co.uk/news, 30 June 2004 27 Boy with toy gun shot by Israelis/Palestinian forces deploy in Gaza, bbc.co.uk/news, 20 and 21 January 2005 28 BBC News (8am), BBC Radio 4, 4 January 2005 30 One O’Clock News, BBC One, 3 February 2005 31 Islam and the Ethics of War, bbc.co.uk 33 Empire Warriors, BBC Two, 26 November 2004 35 Newsnight, BBC Two, 1 September 2004 38 The Politics Show, BBC One, 21 November 2004 39 Today, BBC Radio 4, 3 February 2005 41 Remit of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee Inside back cover BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 3 Page Corrections to previous bulletins Ten O’Clock News BBC One, 15 and 28 September 2004 In error, an earlier draft of this finding was published in the bulletin for January–March 2005. To follow below is the correct finding for the complaint about the Ten O’Clock News (BBC One, 15 and 28 September 2004). a) The reports The complaint concerned two news reports on the Ten O’ Clock News: the coverage on 15 September of the invasion of the House of Commons by hunt supporters and, on 28 September, of the protests during Mr Blair’s speech to the Labour Party conference. The complainant stated that the above items breached the BBC’s obligations to provide balanced coverage of controversial political issues. b) The complaint The original complaint was that: • The above items included one-sided interviews with pro-hunt demonstrators, while no time was given to the opposing point of view. • The BBC allowed anti-social stunts to be rewarded with free, unchallenged publicity, providing an incentive for such stunts to be repeated. The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint on the grounds that: • Neither item raised questions about the merits or otherwise of hunting with dogs, but about events in the political sphere. • On 15 September, the reports focused on the unprecedented breach of security in the House of Commons, and on the violence which occurred in the pro-hunt demonstration. • On 28 September, the report was about the demonstration, not an examination of the merits or otherwise of hunting. • In further correspondence, the Head of Programme Complaints said that, as a news organisation, the BBC is bound to report demonstrations when the nature of the protest (as distinct from the topic) justifies it. The complainant then appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee on the following grounds: • The core argument of his complaint had not been properly addressed, namely that whatever the focus of the BBC’s coverage of these pro-hunting demonstrations, the BBC had allowed them and the related staged incidents to be used as a platform for pro-hunting propaganda (through the packing of the screen with placards and the protesters explaining their actions or having their actions explained). • The Head of Programme Complaints had not dealt with the second part of his complaint relating to the anti-social element of demonstrations being rewarded with unchallenged publicity. The complainant was not opposed to the reporting of demonstrations per se but the incentive to indulge in related anti-social stunts might have been reduced by not allowing protesters to explain their actions or by presenting the views of the anti-hunting lobby in the package. c) The Committee’s decision The BBC Producers’ Guidelines note that “comprehensive coverage of demonstrations is an important part of the BBC’s news coverage”. The Guidelines also note that there are pitfalls in covering demonstrations, and that news coverage of a demonstration should offer a comprehensive and impartial view. The Committee BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 4 noted that the BBC was fully aware of the issues relating to coverage of protests and demonstrations and the risk of giving undue publicity to individual groups or factions. In coming to its finding, the Committee reviewed the transcripts and recordings of the reporting on the two days. It noted that coverage on 15 September 2004 focused primarily on the security breaches and issues arising, the violent protests, and the outcome of the vote to ban hunting. On 28 September, the stories focused on the nature of the protests. The Committee took the view that the reports had reflected on events of each day, describing how they unfolded, and assessing their significance. The concerns of the protesters had been noted in context, but it was not accurate to portray the reports as giving a platform for the “one-sided presentation of its views, without fear of contradiction or rebuttal”. In particular, the Committee noted that the protesters who were interviewed talked respectively about the confrontation with the police, and their willingness to break the law. They were not voicing their views in the hunting debate per se, and a balancing perspective of the anti-hunt lobby was not therefore needed. The Committee concluded that, in the two instances cited by the complainant, appropriate care had been taken, that the events being covered were of unanswerable importance and significance, and that the reports had been appropriately framed. The appeal was not upheld. Innovation Nation BBC One, 12 November–17 December 2003 This finding was published in the bulletin for April–June 2005. Under additional complaint 3, page 9, please note that the Producers’ Guidelines Section 2, Part 1.1 does not apply to this complaint. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 5 Summary of appeals Matters of fairness, impartiality and accuracy From Our Own Correspondent BBC Radio 4, 30 October 2004 a) The item This was an account by BBC correspondent Barbara Plett of covering Yasser Arafat’s illness and watching his departure by helicopter from the West Bank. She described covering Yasser Arafat’s illness and departure as “a real grind”, and then said: “Yet when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose from his ruined compound, I started to cry ... without warning.” b) The complaint The complainant maintained that the item was in flagrant violation of the obligations in the BBC’s Agreement with the Secretary of State and Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the Producers’ Guidelines. In particular, he complained that: • The BBC should not broadcast the opinions of its journalists on controversial matters. • This “tearful eulogy” for Yasser Arafat would not be matched by a BBC report extolling, for example, Ariel Sharon. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered this complaint against the relevant editorial standards, codes and guidelines. The Committee noted that the Director of News had already apologised to complainants for what she described as “an editorial misjudgement”. She went on to say that “by rooting this [Arafat’s departure] in her own tears, I think she unintentionally gave the impression of over-identifying with Yasser Arafat and his cause and of course the BBC doesn’t identify with people and causes. It is very, very important to us that we are impartial and fair.” The Committee concluded that they agreed with what the Director of News had said, and approved of the rapid and comprehensive way in which she had apologised to those who had been offended by the broadcast. The Committee noted that the complainant had described the report as “a tearful eulogy”, and had referred to three parts of the report which he believed supported this description: • “Mr Arafat’s life had been one of sheer dedication and resilience” • “Yet when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry” • “No one could accuse him of cowardice” The Committee concluded that the first and third of these extracts were balanced in the report by “his obvious failings – his use of corruption, his ambivalence towards violence, his autocratic way of ruling”. The item as a whole therefore could not be described as “a tearful eulogy” nor as a “flagrant violation” of the guidelines. The Committee, however, concluded that one element of the item – the reference to the reporter starting to cry – did breach the requirements of due impartiality as the complainant had suggested. The appeal was upheld in part. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 6 Six O’Clock News BBC Radio 4, 5 and 8 November 2004 a) The programmes These complaints concerned the accuracy of BBC reporting of the North East Assembly referendum in November 2005, and associated allegations of apparent pro-European Union (EU) bias. There were complaints concerning two reports on BBC Radio 4 news, on 5 and 8 November 2004. b) The complaints The complainant alleged that the BBC had “consistently and incorrectly” reported that the ‘No’ referendum result spelled the end of regionalisation. In particular he argued that: • The report on Friday 5 November stated that the “assembly” would not now be created, but then, ten minutes later, reported that “The ‘East of England regional assembly’ has authorised the building of half a million homes”. • The report on Monday 8 November stated that John Prescott was announcing the end of the regionalisation programme when, in fact, he was just announcing that there would be no more referenda on elected assemblies. More broadly, the complainant alleged that the BBC had “totally failed to report or do any journalistic research into the claim that the regionalisation programme is, in fact, a result of EU legislation that has been forced on to the government”. In particular that: • The BBC had failed to report and/or investigate the claim by the ‘No’ campaigners that the regions were being foisted on us by EU legislation. • The UK government had played down EU involvement in general, and the BBC appeared to be adopting a pro-EU stance by failing to investigate these matters. The Head of Editorial Complaints investigated the complaints about the reports on 5 and 8 November and did not uphold them. He noted that the broader complaint did not fall within the remit of the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU), which was to investigate specific programme complaints. The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee on the grounds that: • The Head of Editorial Complaints had failed to address the points made in the first element of the complaint. • The ECU had failed to investigate the second element of his complaint. c) The relevant programme standards The Committee considered the relevant broadcast standards, including the specific BBC Producers’ Guidelines that applied. In particular: Truth and accuracy: We will always strive to establish the truth of what has happened as best we can. We aim for the highest possible levels of accuracy and precision of language. Our journalism will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, and thoroughly tested. It will rely on fact rather than opinion, and be set in context. We will be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 7 BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 8 Weighing the facts: Accuracy 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 of what is reported or described. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. Impartiality: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. We report the facts first. Understand and explain their context. Provide professional judgements where appropriate, but never promote our own personal opinions. Openness and independence of mind is at the heart of practising accuracy and impartiality. We will strive to be fair and open-minded by reflecting all significant strands of opinion, and by exploring the range and conflict of views. Testing a wide range of views with the evidence is essential if we are to give our audiences the greatest possible opportunity to decide for themselves on the issues of the day. d) The Committee’s decision i) 5 November report The Committee concluded that the first report on 5 November (on the results of the referendum) had not made it sufficiently clear that the referendum concerned elected assemblies, rather than assemblies per se. For example, the correspondent said: “Some supporters of devolution to English regions believe voters weren’t offered enough autonomy, but even they no longer believe regional assemblies will be created in the near future.” This inaccuracy was thrown into sharp relief by the later item on the house-building plans of the East of England Assembly. The report therefore fell short of the BBC’s editorial standards on accuracy and precision of language. This element of the appeal was upheld. ii) 8 November report The Committee then considered the report of 8 November 2004. The complainant had alleged that the BBC had reported that John Prescott was “announcing the end of the regionalisation programme”, when in fact he was just announcing that there would be no more referenda on elected assemblies. The Committee noted the following transcript of the item, particularly the phrase underlined below: NEWSREADER: The government is shelving plans for devolution in the English regions, in the light of last week’s resounding ‘No’ vote in the referendum on an elected assembly for the North East. The Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, told the Commons that he would not be bringing forward orders for referendums in two other regions, the North West, and Yorkshire and the Humber. Reporting from Westminster, here’s our political correspondent, James Hardy. HARDY: It was the day John Prescott must have dreaded – an appearance in the Commons to tell MPs his twentyyear dream of elected regional assemblies was dead. There was a face-saving vow to continue handing greater powers to the regions, but there was no ducking the central issue. The North East assembly had been decisively rejected he said, and even if the government were to call votes in the North West and the Yorkshire and Humber regions they couldn’t be held before September next year at the earliest. The Committee considered that this report did make it sufficiently clear that the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement only concerned elected assemblies. This was in line with the requirements of the BBC Producers’ Guidelines. This element of the appeal was not upheld. iii) BBC coverage of the EU Finally the Committee considered the broader complaint about BBC coverage of the EU. The Committee agreed that this complaint did not fall within the remit of the ECU. The Committee noted that the Board of Governors had recently commissioned an extensive impartiality review of BBC coverage of the European Union. The review was chaired by Lord Wilson (documentation available at www.bbcgovernors.co.uk). The report, together with the management response, has been sent to the complainant, since the Committee felt that it addressed the thrust of the complainant’s concerns in detail. For information, the Governors’ most recent statement on the review (May 2005) is: We noted in January [2005] that the Independent Panel found no evidence of deliberate bias, but it concluded that the BBC’s coverage of Europe needed to be improved. Furthermore, we noted that, on the evidence of the MORI research, the BBC was not succeeding in providing basic accessible information on the topic of Europe for licence fee payers and urgent action was needed. ... When we considered management’s response, we as Governors concluded that the new measures outlined in the action plan would improve the quality of the BBC’s Europe coverage. We were pleased in particular by the decision to appoint a Europe Editor and the renewed focus on training to improve BBC journalists’ understanding of the complexities of Europe. In our discussions with management, we were encouraged by the new arrangements being implemented by the Director of News to involve programme editors in regular discussions about the BBC’s coverage of Europe and the recognition of their important role in driving enthusiasm for improvement. iv) In conclusion The appeal was upheld in part. Parents who smack now face jail bbc.co.uk/newsround, 15 January 2005 a) The online report This item concerned a new law on smacking (introduced 15 January 2005). Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 allowed mild smacking under a “reasonable chastisement” defence against common assault. But chastisement which caused visible marking would be classified as actual bodily harm, punishable by a jail sentence of up to five years. b) The complaint The complainant maintained that the Newsround site headline “Parents who smack now face jail” was inaccurate, because it gave the impression that jail sentences would apply to parents who used smacking as a mild chastisement. After an initial response from BBC Information, the complaint was escalated to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU). The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint. He noted that many readers expected headlines to “deal in absolutes”, relying on the accompanying article to add further detail and qualification. He agreed, however, that the phrasing of the article could be improved. With the agreement of the Newsround team, the headline had been changed to “Parents who smack now risk jail”. The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. He maintained that the Newsround article headline was still inaccurate and could still be disturbing to the site’s target audience of children. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 9 c) Relevant programme standards The Committee considered the complaint against the required broadcast standards, including the following parts of the BBC Producers’ Guidelines (in effect until 25 July 2005). Accuracy: The BBC must be accurate. Research for all programmes must be thorough. We must be prepared to check, crosscheck and seek advice, to ensure this. d) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered that the initial headline (“Parents who smack now face jail”) was indeed inaccurate and breached the BBC’s editorial standards. The Committee discussed the amended headline (“Parents who smack now risk jail”). It welcomed the prompt action taken by the Newsround team, and the amended headline was an improvement. It was still misleading, however, to state that parents who smack “risk” imprisonment. In fact, it is only parents who smack and who leave a mark who risk imprisonment. The amended headline was therefore also inaccurate. The complaints of inaccuracy about both the initial and the amended headline were upheld. Ten O’Clock News BBC One, 10 June 2003 a) The programme item The item concerned a report by Orla Guerin about two attacks by Israeli forces on Palestinian targets: the attempted killing of Dr Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, a senior member of Hamas; and an attack on a car in the Gaza Strip, killing five people. b) The complaint The complainant felt that the report was biased. In particular he stated that: • Orla Guerin “repeatedly” used the word “botched” to describe the two Israeli attacks. In using a pejorative term meaning “incompetently executed”, Orla Guerin expressed a personal opinion on a controversial matter which she was not qualified to assess. • Orla Guerin said in her report that Dr Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi supported but was not involved in attacks on Israelis. This impression was reinforced by the description of Dr Rantissi as a “spokesman” as well as a “PR man”. The complainant maintained that the Israeli government, however, had evidence to the contrary, and felt that Orla Guerin should have presented both points of view. • The report under-represented the threat to peace posed by Hamas. This included describing Hamas merely as a “hard-line group”. The report referred neither to several previous attacks on Israeli targets, nor to Hamas’s refusal to discuss a ceasefire with Abu Mazen. • Orla Guerin described the attacks as “motivated by revenge”. This excluded any recognition that the Israeli attacks might have been justified to prevent further attacks. It was also a personal view and should not have been expressed. • By describing the attack on Rantissi, and reporting criticism of it, but not “dealing fairly” with the justification for it, Orla Guerin produced a “slanted and partial” report. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 10 c) Relevant programme standards The Committee considered the complaints against the following BBC Producers’ Guidelines in particular. Impartiality in general: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. 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. Impartiality and accuracy: The Agreement specifies that news should be presented with accuracy and impartiality. d) The Committee’s decision i) Use of the word “botched” The Committee stated that the word “botched” was not used “repeatedly” in the report as the complainant had stated, but only twice. As the Israelis themselves describe such attacks as precision targeted killings which aim to minimise civilian casualties, the word “botched” was not wholly inappropriate, but in this case it would have been better to simply state what happened. In conclusion, the Committee agreed that the word was not the best choice, but its use in this context could not be seen as partial. ii) Description of Dr Rantissi The GPCC considered that the report gave a carefully constructed description of Dr Rantissi, which accurately reflected what was known for certain about his central role in Hamas. References were as follows: • “a Hamas spokesman” • “a senior member of the hard-line group, Hamas” • “a key political figure, a PR man for gruesome deadly attacks, but not a gunman himself ... a former paediatrician” Israel’s view was also contained in the report when Orla Guerin quoted the Israeli Prime Minister saying “we will continue to fight terrorism and the enemies of peace”. iii) The role of Hamas The GPCC considered that the report gave an appropriate description of Hamas, including the reference to Hamas as a “hard-line group”. The complainant also stated that “the report did not refer to the fact that Hamas had just refused to continue any discussion of a ceasefire with Abu Mazen”. The Committee noted that the report did in fact refer to this: “Hamas is promising retaliation, threatening to target Israeli politicians, and once again it’s ruling out a truce.” iv) Motivation for the attack The complainant stated that Orla Guerin had described the attacks as being “motivated by revenge”. The Committee noted that this was not an accurate assessment of what the report actually said: “Hamas is promising retaliation...”. This reference referred to potential Palestinian revenge. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 11 v) Overview of balance Although the complainant felt that not enough context had been given about previous attacks on Israelis, the report did in fact avoid the charge that it minimised the provocation under which the Israelis acted by mentioning the deaths of four Israelis soldiers a few days previously. The Committee also considered the item as a whole against the BBC Producers’ Guidelines on impartiality. The Committee was satisfied that the item was appropriately framed against those provisions: the items had set out the facts in a fair manner. No reasonable viewer would have misunderstood the description of the role of Hamas and its leadership in the continuing violence in the region. Nothing in Orla Guerin’s script suggested a lack of impartiality towards an organisation she described as “responsible for gruesome deadly attacks”. The appeal was not upheld. Today BBC Radio 4, 6 August 2003 a) The item This item concerned two interviews on Today on the day that around 330 Palestinian prisoners were due to be released by Israel. The first interview was with the daughter of a man about to be released. This was followed by an interview with Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator. b) The complaint The complaint related to three issues: • The absence of an Israeli voice. The complainant regarded this as a “flagrant breach” of impartiality. • The Palestinian negotiator interviewed, Saeb Erekat, had said prisoner release was required by the Road Map. • Mr Erekat was not challenged when he “equated Israeli victims of terrorism with Palestinian casualties of attempts to stop terrorism”. The complainant acknowledged that at the time the Israeli government was boycotting the BBC, but stated that the BBC should have provided balance by interviewing a member of the family of a victim of Palestinian terrorism, and a supporter of the Israeli government. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee (GPCC). c) Relevant editorial standards The Committee confirmed its view that the applicable guideline in this instance was the ‘News provision’ (originally paragraph 2.2, now 3.2) and agreed with the reasoning set out in the Head of Accountability’s letter to the complainant dated 12 May 2005. The ‘Series provision’ (originally paragraph 2.3, now 3.3) set out a different test to be applied to non-news programming, for example current affairs and documentary series. The most relevant extracts, against which the Committee considered the complaints, are as follows: News provision: The Agreement specifies that news should be presented with accuracy and impartiality. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 12 Reporting should be dispassionate, wide-ranging and well informed. In reporting matters of industrial or political controversy the main differing views should be given due weight in the period during which the controversy is active. News judgments will take account of events as well as arguments, and editorial discretion must determine whether it is appropriate for a range of views to be included within a single programme or item. Impartiality in general: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. The BBC applies due impartiality to all its broadcasting and services, both to domestic and international audiences. 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. d) The Committee’s decision i) Did the two interviews on 6 August comply with the applicable guidelines? The Committee considered the complaint that the interviews complained of (7.10am, 6 August 2003) should have included a balancing Israeli voice. The Committee agreed that, in an ideal world, the item would have been better had it been balanced with an Israeli voice, particularly as the two interviews were seven minutes long in total. The Committee did not consider, however, that this constituted a breach of editorial standards. It judged that, in line with the Producers’ Guidelines, Today had appropriately exercised its editorial discretion in determining the range of views to be included in the item. Given the ongoing coverage of events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it was justified to reflect on that day’s developments by hearing from Palestinians about the expected release of Palestinian prisoners. The Committee noted that the Today programme had carried previous reports (on 28 July) of the Israeli government plan to release prisoners, and that these reports had reflected the Israeli government’s perspective. In addition, a news report on 6 August which immediately preceded the two interviews in question on Today had also reflected the Israeli point of view. The Committee considered the complainant’s concerns that these four items were reasonably balanced within themselves, but therefore by definition they did not balance the interview complained of, which had only Palestinian voices. He also argued that the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) had not been entirely frank when it had referred to the interview with Yuval Steinitz on 4 August as balancing the interviews complained of, without mentioning that two Palestinians had also been interviewed in the 4 August report. The Committee noted that the complainant’s main arguments were based on the principle of “arithmetical” balance within or across programming in order to avoid charges of bias. The Committee concluded that a detailed arithmetical approach to balance was both impractical and undesirable. Editors must be able to exercise discretion. The important point was that, overall, the coverage reviewed represented a reasonable range of views in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It also took the view that the Head of Editorial Complaints was illustrating the appropriate range of voices over a period of time. ii) Road Map reference The complainant also stated that Saeb Erekat had suggested – unchallenged – that Israel was required by the Road Map to release prisoners. The Committee found that Mr Erekat had said no such thing. In particular, Erekat had said that the prisoner release was a “unilateral step” by the Israeli government. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 13 iii) The interview with Saeb Erekat The Committee then considered the complaint that Mr Erekat was not challenged when, in the complainant’s view, he equated Israeli victims of terrorism with Palestinian casualties of Israeli attempts to stop terrorism. Furthermore, the complainant argued, the interviewer’s question used the language “people who have taken up arms against Israel, in a cause which they believe to be just obviously”, implying military activity against the State of Israel rather than terrorist activities directed against civilians. The Committee reviewed the transcript of Mr Erekat’s comment: MR EREKAT: Israelis have taken arms up against Palestinians, Palestinians have taken arms up against Israelis, and the main point of peace is risk. The main point of peace is trying a new page; the main point of peace is a reconciliation, is rebuilding a trust. We have not been just witnessing the Israelis dying. Palestinians have been dying three times as much as the Israelis, which is unfortunate. We don’t want Israelis to be killed, we don’t want Palestinians to be killed, we want to give this peace process a chance, but to think with this mentality of foreign conflict and then ask to make peace I don’t think this is doable and that’s the crux of the problem. The Committee concluded that Mr Erekat had been making what would appear to many listeners to be a reasonable observation that people were dying on both sides in the conflict, and expressing his desire to see an end to the killings on both sides. These observations had not required a challenge by the presenter. The Committee also noted the transcript of the presenter’s question: JAMES NAUGHTIE: But if you look at it from the other side, Mr Erekat, it’s obvious, isn’t it, that many Israelis, many Israelis who are committed to progress towards peace, committed to the Road Map, who want to live side by side with Palestinians, are deeply anxious at the prospect of people who have taken up arms against Israel, in a cause which they believe to be just obviously, but have taken up arms against Israel over the years simply to be let out and, in their view, to do it again? The Committee did not agree that the phrase “people who have taken up arms against Israel” implied military activity against the State of Israel rather than terrorist activities directed against civilians. The Committee concluded that the question had been appropriately framed. iv) The Committee’s conclusion The Committee concluded that the programme complied with relevant programme standards and did not breach BBC guidelines on impartiality. The appeal was not upheld. BBC Radio News (8pm) BBC Radio 4, 6 August 2003 a) The report The news report said: “The first Palestinian prisoners to be released by Israel have been reunited with their families at checkpoints in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. More than three hundred inmates have been released, as part of the Middle East peace plan.” BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 14 b) The complaint This complaint alleged biased reporting as a result of the use of the term “Middle East peace plan” in the report. In particular, the complainant maintained that: • The phrase “Middle East peace plan” would mislead many listeners into believing that what was being referred to was the Road Map, and that many in the audience would, therefore, interpret the report as meaning Israel was not complying with its obligations in not releasing the majority of the prisoners. • The true position was that the release of Palestinian prisoners was not part of the Road Map, but a goodwill gesture by the Israeli government. c) The relevant programme standards The Committee considered the complaints against the BBC Producers’ Guidelines, including: Accuracy: The BBC must be accurate. Research for all programmes must be thorough. We must be prepared to check, crosscheck and seek advice, to ensure this. We aim for the highest possible levels of accuracy and precision of language. Accuracy 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 of what is reported or described. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. Impartiality and diversity of opinion: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. d) The Committee’s decision The Committee agreed that the phrase “Middle East peace plan” was not the best choice, and that the term “process” would have been better. Although the commitment to release prisoners was a ‘plan’, it was an Israeli plan, not part of an agreed plan between Palestinians and Israelis. This could have led to some confusion in the minds of the listeners. However, although the phrase could have been better expressed, the use of it did not imply bias and was not sufficient to constitute a serious breach of editorial standards. The Committee also noted however that, given that the Israeli government itself, on announcing the release of prisoners, had said that the act was part of its plan to achieve peace, this gesture could also be seen as part of the Israeli plan to respond to the Road Map process. In particular, an Israeli government communiqué included the following phrases: “Prime Minister Sharon added that the criteria presented by ISA Director Dichter are based on an appropriate compromise between the dictates of conscience, which require that criminals be imprisoned, and the need to move forward the security negotiating process with the Palestinians, which could lead to tranquility and peace.” On this basis, the Committee took the view that the plan to release prisoners and the Road Map were clearly not entirely unrelated. The Committee also found that as there was no actual provision in the Road Map for the release of prisoners, it would be difficult for the listener to assume that “Israel was not complying with its obligations” as the complainant suggested. The appeal was not upheld. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 15 Bomb victim’s family praise video bbc.co.uk/news, 31 January 2004 a) The report The report concerned the decision by Israel to release a video showing graphic images following a suicide bombing. It included reference to the security barrier being constructed by the Israeli government, and the paragraph: “Palestinians have said the barrier is an attempt to seize land. A number of countries have expressed opposition to its route, which does not follow the Green Line – the generally recognised boundary between Israeli and Palestinian territory.” b) The complaint The complainant maintained that the report carried the inaccurate statement that the Green Line was “the generally recognised border between Israeli and Palestinian territory”. In particular, he complained that: • The Green Line is the armistice line at which the invading Jordanian troops were held by the Israel Defense Forces in 1948. It has not been generally recognised as the border between Israeli and Palestinian territory. • The statement was placed in a context which would suggest that the route of the barrier is unjustified since it is located on Palestinian land. It was biased for the BBC to report this point of view without reporting alternative points of view. • It should also have reported that the final status of the West Bank has not been resolved, and that Israel has a legitimate claim to part or all of this area. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered this complaint against the relevant editorial standards, codes and guidelines. The Committee noted that this piece was primarily about the decision by Israel to release a video showing graphic images following a suicide bombing. As such it contained a range of views, including the view of the Israeli government that the security barrier would help prevent such attacks, and its view that the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over the barrier’s route. The Committee recognised that the Green Line is not universally accepted as the border but is, however, generally accepted to be such within the international community. The Committee also noted that the term “border” was changed to “boundary” to describe the Green Line. The Committee judged that the term Green Line, as used in the piece, was not inaccurate. The Committee concluded that overall this item was balanced, showed no evidence of bias and did not breach required editorial standards. The appeal was not upheld. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 16 From Our Own Correspondent BBC Radio 4, 31 January 2004 Uneasy times for Jordan’s Christians bbc.co.uk/news a) The item and website article The item and the article were written by the BBC correspondent Martin Buckley about Jordanian Christians, and recent excavations that suggested the site of Christ’s baptism was inside Jordan’s borders (rather than in Israel). b) The complaint The complainant said that: • The phrase “one of Israel’s farthest-flung corners” misleadingly suggested that Israel is a large country or empire. It is in fact tiny – an important fact which explains many of Israel’s actions and positions. • The report referred to “the other supposed site” having “become part of Israel’s lucrative Holy Land tourist industry”. This was both inaccurate as the tourist industry is currently making substantial losses, and sneeringly called to mind the anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews making money by sharp practice. The report also referred to the commercialisation of this site and the presence of litter. While this may be true, it was unbalanced to refer only to Israel and not to other historic sites where litter may be just as much of a problem. • The report said: “Israel, with its American support and Western economy, is used to coming out on top in brushes with its neighbours. But not this time.” It then described rival claims to the location of the baptism of Jesus. The choice of words and comparison with the rival archaeological claims misleadingly and offensively made light of the threats and attempts made by the much larger Arab countries to destroy Israel, which resulted in wars between Israel and its neighbouring countries. The report also misleadingly suggested that Israel had American support. America did not support Israel in the wars of 1948, 1956 and 1967 and provided only limited support in 1973. • On the main Middle East page of bbc.co.uk the report was identified by the caption “Side by Side Christianity and Islam thrive in Jordan despite the politics”. This contrasted with the usually critical tone adopted for reports on Israel. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered this complaint against the relevant editorial standards, codes and guidelines. The committee noted that “farthest flung” is a relative term which can be applied to a small region or country. It concluded that it was clear from the piece that the reporter was talking about a small area, and that the audience would therefore not have been misled about the size of Israel. The word “lucrative” was used only in the website version of the piece. While the complainant was right to say that at the time the tourist industry had been affected by the political situation and was less successful than it had been, the report was in no way “sneering”. The Committee concluded that while the word may have been badly chosen it did not amount to bias. The Committee considered all the points made about the phrase “brushes with its neighbours” and the alleged inaccuracies, as well as the complaint that this aspect had been misleading and offensive. The Committee BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 17 noted that the reporter had already accepted that his attempt at irony in this part of the piece did not appeal to everyone, and he had rightly apologised if this had caused offence. The Committee did not think, however, that the report breached required editorial standards and overall the Committee found that the piece was not partial. The complaint was not upheld. Sharon orders Gaza pull-out plan bbc.co.uk/news, 2 February 2004 a) The article The article reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had ordered a plan for the evacuation of all Jewish settlers from Gaza. b) The complaint The complainant maintained that the story lacked impartiality in describing Jewish settlements as “illegal under international law”. This represented an expression of just one opinion on a highly contentious subject. In particular, he complained that: • The legal status of the Gaza Strip has not been resolved. The League of Nations Mandate of 1922 mandated the UK to create a Jewish National Home in Palestine, including the Gaza Strip. • At the time of the Mandate there was a longstanding Jewish community in Gaza City, driven out by Arab violence in 1929. A Jewish settlement was established lawfully at Kfar Darom in Gaza in 1946, and re-established in 1970. There was a strong argument that the Jewish resettlement of Kfar Darom and other parts of the Gaza Strip was not contrary to international law. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered this complaint against the relevant editorial standards, codes and guidelines. The Committee noted that it was generally accepted by international organisations that the disputed Jewish settlements were illegal under international law. This item did also contain a balancing point of view to “the assertion that all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip are illegal”, namely: “many settlers may be expected to oppose physically any plans to move them from areas which they believe are theirs by right”. The Committee concluded that the item was editorially balanced and was not partial. The appeal was not upheld. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 18 Tempers flare over settler beauty contest bbc.co.uk/news, 7 February 2004 a) The online report This was a report about controversy caused by the ‘Miss Samaria’ beauty pageant, to be held in the settlement of Ariel and the surrounding areas in the West Bank. b) The complaint The complainant maintained that the above story was misleading when it referred to “the occupation of Palestinian territory”. In particular, he complained that: • The final status of the West Bank has not been resolved, and as Israel has a claim to parts of it, it is misleading to describe it as “Palestinian territory”. • Some of the Jewish settlements on the West Bank were created on land acquired lawfully under the League of Nations Mandate before Jews were expelled by the invading Jordanian forces in 1948. The settlements were restored when Israel regained control of the area in the 1967 war. Other Jewish settlements had been built since 1967 mainly on unoccupied or barren land. There had been a longstanding Jewish community in Hebron until the Arab riots of 1929 and 1936, and there was a Jewish community in the old town of Jerusalem until the Jordanian invasion. • If the BBC is committed to using neutral language, it should refer to the West Bank as “disputed territory”. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered this complaint against the relevant editorial standards, codes and guidelines. The Committee noted that the gist of this complaint had been entertained previously – and not upheld – in a finding published in July 2004 and more recently in February 2005. It recognised that there is disagreement over the use of such terms, but concluded for the same reasons as before that it was not unreasonable for the BBC to use terms in this context. The Committee agreed that this complaint did not raise any new issues to those previously entertained by the Committee on this subject. The appeal was not upheld. Who are Hamas? bbc.co.uk/news, 18 April 2004 a) The article This was an online article giving background information on Hamas as an organisation. It included sections on Hamas’s spheres of operation and support base. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 19 b) The complaint The complainant maintained that the above article was factually inaccurate and biased in its reference to “Palestinian territories”. In particular, he complained that: • The article referred to “Israeli troops and settlers in the Palestinian territories”. The final status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has not been resolved. The Oslo Agreements recognised this, but transferred responsibility for civil administration in parts of the West Bank and most of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority on an interim basis. Even if “Palestinian territories” could be regarded as referring to these areas, the statement in the article is false since there are no Israeli settlers in those parts of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. • The article continued: “[Hamas] also has a long-term aim of establishing an Islamic state on all of historic Palestine – most of which has been contained within Israel’s borders since its creation in 1948.” This is untrue – most of historic Palestine is contained in the Arab kingdom of Jordan. • The article sought to draw a distinction between the short-term aim of Hamas to “drive Israeli forces from the occupied territories” and the long-term aim mentioned above. This was misleading as Hamas has a single aim of destroying Israel and establishing an Islamic state. • The article referred to Israel occupying “Palestinian territory”. This was biased – giving one view on a controversial issue. It also referred to Israeli troops being responsible for the deaths of Palestinians there, quoting a member of Hamas referring to the killing of civilians. This misleadingly equated the deliberate targeting of civilians by Hamas with the unintended civilian casualties of Israeli security measures targeting terrorists. • The article referred to Hamas as periodically willing to suspend attacks in favour of Palestinian diplomacy, coming to an end when Israeli forces killed Hamas activists. However, Hamas suspensions were not a regular occurrence – the complainant believed there has only been one such suspension, coming to an end with an attack on Israeli civilians. This part of the complaint was upheld by the Editorial Complaints Unit. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the rest of the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered this complaint against the relevant editorial standards, codes and guidelines. The Committee noted that the gist of this complaint had been entertained previously – and not upheld – in a finding published in July 2004 and more recently in February 2005. It recognised that there is disagreement over the use of such terms, but concluded for the same reasons as before that it was not unreasonable for the BBC to use terms in this context. The Committee agreed that this complaint did not raise any new issues to those previously entertained by the Committee on this subject. The appeal was not upheld. BBC News (6am and 7am) BBC Radio 4, 7 September 2004 a) The reports The 6am report concerned an Israeli Air Force attack which killed 14 Palestinian militants while they were on a training exercise in the Gaza Strip. It reported that the Hamas movement, “which is fighting to end Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip”, had said it would take revenge. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 20 The 7am report by Alan Johnston concerned preparations by “the Hamas faithful” to bury those killed in the attacks. b) The complaint The complainant maintained that the news bulletins misrepresented the aims of Hamas, and sought to legitimise Hamas terrorism. In particular, he complained that: • The 6am bulletin stated that Hamas is “fighting to end Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip”, and the 7am bulletin stated that Hamas is “struggling to end Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank”. These misleadingly implied that Hamas is essentially concerned to end the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The true position is that they are fighting to destroy Israel. The complainant referred to www.hamasonline.com. • The BBC reports referred to Hamas as “militants”, in contrast to reports on the same bulletin referring to “terrorism” in Beslan. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered this complaint against the relevant editorial standards, codes and guidelines. The Committee agreed that these were both short news items, reporting on recent events. As such it was not unreasonable to limit the reports to a factual description without including background analysis. The Committee noted that in referring to the short-term aim of Hamas as “struggling to end Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank”, the report was expressing one aim of the group in the context of this particular story. The 7am piece made it clear that the activities of Hamas are not confined to this one aim by mentioning suicide bombings in cities like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Committee concluded it was therefore not an inappropriate phrase. BBC News has previously explained its policy on the use of words such as “terrorism”, “terrorist” and “militant”. The BBC uses the first two terms sparingly because of their controversial nature. The Committee noted that it was the act in Beslan that was described in the same bulletin as “terrorism” – the people who perpetrated the act were referred to as “militants”. This then was the same usage as was applied to the “militants” of Hamas in this case. The Committee concluded that this usage therefore was not inappropriate. The complainant also referred to a GPCC decision about a previous complaint in which the then Deputy Director of News had been allowed to give evidence to the Committee in person, unlike the complainant. The Committee agreed that all members had a very clear understanding of the previous complaint and the reasoning behind it. In order to be able to consider the previous complaint fully, the Committee had felt it necessary to get a similarly detailed response from BBC News. While this could have been achieved through a written response, the Committee asked the then Deputy Director of News to set out his response in person. The appeal was not upheld. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 21 BBC News (7am) BBC Radio 4, 7 September 2004 a) The report The report concerned an Israeli Air Force attack which killed 14 Palestinian militants, and preparations by “the Hamas faithful” to bury the dead. b) The complaint The complainant maintained that the above news bulletin misrepresented the aims of Hamas, creating an impression of freedom fighters legitimately fighting for independence. In particular, he complained that the 7am bulletin stated that Hamas is “struggling to end Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank”. This misleadingly implies that Hamas is essentially concerned to end the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. This is material in explaining Israel’s activities. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered this complaint against the relevant editorial standards, codes and guidelines. The Committee agreed that this was a short news bulletin, reporting on recent events. As such it was not unreasonable to limit the reports to a factual description without including background analysis. The Committee noted that in referring to the short-term aim of Hamas as “struggling to end Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank”, the report was expressing one aim of the group in the context of this particular story. The 7am item made it clear that the activities of Hamas are not confined to this one aim by mentioning suicide bombings in cities like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Committee concluded it was therefore not an inappropriate phrase. The appeal was not upheld. From Our Own Correspondent BBC Radio 4 (also published on bbc.co.uk/news), 17 April 2004 a) The item In this item, BBC correspondent James Reynolds was reflecting on a statement by US President George Bush at the end of a White House visit by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The item began with James Reynolds recollecting being asked to write his own job reference by a tutor who did not know him well. James Reynolds said he was “reminded of all this” while watching George Bush read the statement. At the end of the item the correspondent noted – from a conversation with an Israeli official – that Ariel Sharon’s team had helped to write the President’s statement. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 22 b) The complaint The complainant stated that the account made “snide remarks about Israel”. In particular, he complained that: • The report made a comparison between two things: George Bush’s statement at the end of Ariel Sharon’s visit to the White House, and a job reference that James Reynolds’ university tutor had asked the correspondent to write for himself as the tutor did not know him very well. This implied that Mr Bush had permitted or encouraged Mr Sharon to write a misleading statement for him to make without scrutinising the contents and without knowing anything about the situation. On the contrary, the terms and content of the statement had been the subject of extensive negotiation and nothing had been incorporated into it without careful scrutiny by Mr Bush’s staff. • This implication was reinforced by the words “blank cheque” in the title of the online version of the report. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) Relevant Producers’ Guidelines This appeal was considered against the BBC Producers’ Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality, including Chapter 2 Part 2 on accuracy and Chapter 2, Part 1, Section 2 on due impartiality which states that: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. 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. The Committee also considered Chapter 2, Section 3.2 on news programmes, which refers to standards for news programmes and reporting and the coverage of matters of industrial and political controversy. d) The Committee’s decision The Committee noted that the reporter James Reynolds was in fact recording his own observations and reporting a conversation that had taken place with Israeli officials. This item represented a factually accurate description of events, and the analogy of writing a reference under someone else’s name was an appropriate one to use. The Committee concluded that this item described an important political development within the boundaries of the personal style of From Our Own Correspondent. There was no indication that the item made “snide remarks about Israel” as the complainant had suggested. The Committee judged that the item complied with the approach normally taken by the programme, was not misleading and met the BBC’s obligations to be accurate and impartial. The appeal was not upheld. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 23 News bulletin (7am) BBC Radio 4, 25 October 2004 a) The report The item in the news bulletin reported that the Israeli parliament would begin discussions that day on whether to pull Jewish settlers out of “Palestinian land Israel occupied in the 1967 war”. b) The complaint The complaint concerned the reference to Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip as being on “Palestinian land”. In particular, the complainant maintained that: • Kfar Darom is built on land which has been owned by Jewish individuals or organisations for nearly a century. Other Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip were built on waste land not belonging to Palestinians. • The final status of the Gaza Strip has not been resolved. Israel has a legitimate claim to the territory of the Gaza Strip, even though it is one which many Israelis would be willing to concede, particularly if it would result in peace. Unless and until that concession is made, the BBC should use neutral language such as “disputed territory”. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) Relevant editorial standards This appeal was considered against the BBC Producers’ Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality, including Chapter 2, Part 2 on accuracy and Chapter 2, Part 1, Section 2 on due impartiality which states that: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. 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. The Committee also considered Chapter 2, Part 1, Section 3.2 on news programmes, which refers to standards for news programmes and reporting and the coverage of matters of industrial and political controversy. d) The Committee’s decision The Committee noted that the United Nations, the European Union and the International Court of Justice in its interim decision all deemed the terms to which the complainant objected to be appropriate. The Committee noted that it was similarly appropriate and reasonable for them to be used by the BBC in this context. The Committee also noted that BBC News must ensure that the Israeli view on this issue is also given as appropriate in other programming. This complaint is one which has been entertained by the Committee previously – and not upheld – in a finding published in July 2004. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 24 Ten O’Clock News BBC One, 18 May 2004 Today BBC Radio 4, 19 May 2004 and 21 May 2004 a) The reports These reports concerned the Israeli military operation (Operation Rainbow) at the Rafah refugee camp. The Israelis said the raids were designed to stop the flow of dangerous weapons being smuggled into Gaza. b) The complaint The complainant maintained that these reports were biased in their omission of certain pertinent facts. In particular, he complained that: • The reports failed to mention that the weapons smuggled across the border at Rafah are used not only against Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip but also against Israeli towns inside the Green Line. • These reports would therefore give a misleading impression that the operation was unnecessary and vindictive and solely to support Jewish settlements which Ariel Sharon was intending to evacuate. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint. His reasons included: • When discussing the military rationale for the operation, the correspondent simply reported what he was being told by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), namely that the operation was to stop weapons being smuggled across the border for use against Jewish settlements in Gaza. Israeli towns inside the Green Line were not mentioned by the Israeli army sources. The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee, making the additional point: • The briefing given by the IDF spokesman probably assumed that the recipients of the briefing would know that weapons are used to attack a variety of targets inside the Gaza Strip and across the Green Line. c) Relevant editorial standards This appeal was considered against the BBC Producers’ Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality, including Chapter 2, Part 2 on accuracy and Chapter 2, Part 1, Section 2 on due impartiality which states that: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. 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. The Committee also considered Chapter 2, Section 3.2 on news programmes, which refers to standards for news programmes and reporting and the coverage of matters of industrial and political controversy. d) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered whether the omission of certain facts in these reports meant that they were impartial or otherwise breached relevant editorial standards; in particular that “the reports failed to mention that the weapons smuggled across the border at Rafah are used not only against Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip but also against Israeli towns inside the ‘Green Line’.” BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 25 It noted that the key issue in the story was not where the weapons were going to be used, but the fact that they were being smuggled into the Gaza Strip for use against Israel. That the weapons were being used elsewhere was not excluded by the language used in the items in question. The Committee also noted that at the time the items were broadcast, the most immediate threat posed by smuggled weapons was to Jewish settlements and Israeli army positions inside the Gaza Strip, not to towns across the Green Line. This situation changed subsequently in June 2004 (after the broadcasts) when the first Israeli casualty occurred from a rocket fired from Gaza across the Green Line. The Committee also noted that in these items the reasons given by the Israelis at the time for taking this action were explained. The Committee concluded that the item fairly reflected what was happening at the time, and that the omission of further detail did not amount to bias or otherwise breach required programme standards. The Committee also considered the fact that the complainant had asked to see the notes made by the correspondent at the time and that he had said that the BBC’s refusal to do so was unfair. The Committee did not accept this. The content of the notes was not material to the Committee’s consideration of these complaints about breaches in programme standards, nor had the Committee seen the correspondent’s notes. The Committee noted that the BBC’s policy is that the Corporation does not disclose reporters’ notes to anyone unless they are the subject of a court order, usually involving a serious crime. The appeal was not upheld. Man killed in Jerusalem bbc.co.uk/news, 19 March 2004 a) The article This article referred to a shooting in Jerusalem in “the French Hill district of east Jerusalem” which was “annexed from the Palestinians in 1967”. b) The complaint The complainant said that the reference was inaccurate, and the district was in fact seized and illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948, then captured or liberated (depending on your point of view) by Israel from Jordan in 1967. Initially the Head of Editorial Complaints did not investigate the complaint as he was unable to find the article complained of. However, he quoted the World Editor at bbc.co.uk in his response: “We agree that to say ‘annexed from the Palestinians’ is inaccurate and it would have been better to omit the words ‘from the Palestinians’. Elsewhere we have described French Hill as follows: ‘The French Hill junction – which lies in a disputed enclave within the formerly Arab eastern half of the city annexed by Israel after the 1967 war...’”. Although the complainant subsequently supplied a copy of the article, the Head of Editorial Complaints felt that no further action was necessary. The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered this complaint against the relevant editorial standards, codes and guidelines. The Committee noted that this was an error of historical detail. It concluded that as the BBC had already admitted the error, the Head of Editorial Complaints had judged correctly that the complaint did not need BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 26 further investigation. The Committee also concluded that the error was not serious enough to warrant a published correction. The appeal was not upheld. Small victory for barrier opponents bbc.co.uk/news, 30 June 2004 a) The article The article reported on a decision by the Israeli High Court of Justice to order changes to the route of a section of the West Bank barrier. b) The complaint The complainant maintained that the item contained several inaccurate and unbalanced statements. In particular he complained that: • The statement “many Palestinians are instinctively wary of the Israeli court system, believing that it will ultimately back the army and settlers as it has done in previous cases” was inaccurate and misleading. In some cases the Israeli court system has found in favour of the army and settlers, but in others it has found against them. • The above statement was also unbalanced in that it stated that “many Palestinians are instinctively wary of the Israeli court system” but failed to mention that many others have taken advantage of it. • The statement “but now that the highest court in the land has ruled against the government, there may well be more group actions from affected Palestinian villages” was unbalanced and misleading in failing to mention that several such actions had already been brought in relation to the barrier. • The statement “and on this central issue of the barrier, which has enabled successive Israeli governments to tighten their hold on the West Bank, the court has again backed the Israeli establishment” is inaccurate and misleading. Since the barrier was introduced under the present government, it cannot have “enabled successive Israeli governments” to do anything. Nor could it be said to tighten the Israeli government’s hold on the West Bank – the most that could be said is that it might enable the Israeli government to tighten its hold on small parts of the West Bank on the Israeli side. • This statement also puts a misleading spin on the decision which is a substantial reverse for the Israeli government and army. This spin is also reflected in the misleading title “Small victory for barrier opponents”. The Head of Editorial Comlaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) Relevant editorial standards This appeal was considered against the BBC Producers’ Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality, including Chapter 2, Part 2 on accuracy and Chapter 2, Part 1, Section 2 on due impartiality which states that: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. 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. The Committee also considered Chapter 2, Part 1, Section 3.2 on news programmes, which refers to standards for news programmes and reporting and the coverage of matters of industrial and political controversy. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 27 d) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint that the statement “many Palestinians are instinctively wary of the Israeli court system, believing it will ultimately back the army and the settlers as it has done in previous cases” was unbalanced. It noted that in this statement the correspondent was reflecting what he considered to be the Palestinian perception of the Israeli court system, not his own view. It also noted that the item did not say that the court system had backed the army and settlers in all previous cases. The Committee concluded that omitting certain facts in this case did not amount to impartiality or otherwise breach relevant programme standards. Next the Committee considered the statement “now the highest court in the land has ruled against the Government there may well be more group actions from affected Palestinian villages”. The Committee noted that this sentence did not imply that this was the first such action. It concluded that the sentence was a reasonable journalistic judgement given the facts of the story, and did not demonstrate partiality as the complainant believed. The Committee then considered the statement “on this central issue of the barrier, which has enabled successive Israeli governments to tighten their hold on the West Bank, the court has again backed the Israeli establishment”. The Committee noted that this version of the item was indeed incorrect, but was changed when the error was noticed and on the same day the item was first published. The Committee concluded that as the inaccuracy of the statement was corrected as soon as the error was noted, the error was not sufficient to warrant a finding that guidelines had been breached, nor did the Committee think the original report demonstrated a lack of impartiality. The appeal was not upheld. Boy with toy gun shot by Israelis Palestinian forces deploy in Gaza bbc.co.uk/news, 20 and 21 January 2005 a) The complaint The complaint to the Head of Editorial Complaints was that the above items demonstrated an anti-Israeli bias. In particular, the complainant maintained that: • The first of these items started by saying in bold type that the boy was “playing with a toy rifle”. This together with the headline “Boy with toy gun shot dead by Israelis” contrasted with Al Jazeera’s reporting of the story which said the boy was “with a group of children and youths who were throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers when he raised a homemade toy gun ... and aimed it at the troops”. • The BBC item did not mention the youths and the fact that they were throwing rocks at the troops. • Overall the Al Jazeera report might lead the reader to regard the decision to fire as not unreasonable, whereas the reader of the BBC item might believe that the Israeli soldiers were unduly trigger-happy. The Al Jazeera report was posted before the bbc.co.uk item. • The second item contains a summary of the first which gives an inaccurate description of what appears to have happened. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 28 • He referred to comments by the Deputy World Editor at bbc.co.uk. He said that all the facts of the story were presented and the reader was left to make up their own mind about whether the actions were justified or not. The story was based on information from various news agencies – AP, AFP and Reuters. None of them at the time of writing made any mention of rock-throwing. bbc.co.uk would, in any case, have required that detail from two separate sources to have included it. • The Head of Editorial Complaints looked at other versions of the 20 January story published by the Los Angeles Times, The Australian, Ha’aretz and The Jerusalem Post. They showed inconsistencies. • Rock-throwing does not appear in The Jerusalem Post. Nor does it appear on the agency copy from AP or AFP. Only Ha’aretz and Al Jazeera refer to “youths”. There is no suggestion from bbc.co.uk that they used Al Jazeera as a source. • The story in The Jerusalem Post was updated on 21 January but still contains substantial differences to Al Jazeera. • On the second item, the Deputy World Editor accepted that the word “playing” was not ideal, though he pointed out that such ‘bullet points’ are designed only to provide a brief summary of related news. However, he believed the summary should have made clear that the Israeli army said that its soldiers had mistaken the boy for a gunman. This extremely brief summary though, which appears to be only slightly unsatisfactory in one respect, could not be described as biased in the way suggested by the complainant. The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee with the additional comments: • The bbc.co.uk item did not present all the facts – it did not mention the presence of youths, nor that they were throwing stones. • Omitting to mention rock-throwing because it did not appear on the agency copy is not a justification for not including it – if the BBC chooses to use agency copy it should take responsibility for errors, particularly if it uses that information without attributing it. • The suggestion that the BBC needs two sources for a story conflicts with previous correspondence from the Head of Editorial Complaints in his letter dated 24 January 2005, which refers to a story based only on Reuters news agency copy. Requiring two stories could in practice result in an anti-Israeli bias if several agencies receive the same copy from one Palestinian stringer who might be biased against Israel. c) Relevant editorial standards This appeal was considered against the BBC Producers’ Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality, including Chapter 2, Part 1, Section 2 which states that: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. 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. The Committee also considered Chapter 2, Part 1, Section 3.2 on news programmes, which refers to standards for news programmes and reporting and the coverage of matters of industrial and political controversy. d) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the complaint that the BBC’s report gave the impression that the Israeli soldiers were unduly “trigger-happy”. The Committee noted that it was clear from the item that the child had been mistaken for a gunman, and that the piece included a quote from an Israeli spokesman which made clear their reasons: “An Israeli military source confirmed troops had opened fire on a crowd after spotting what appeared to be a gunman...” BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 29 The Committee concluded that the item described the main facts of the story accurately, and this did not therefore amount to bias or otherwise breach relevant editorial standards. The Committee also considered the summary which appeared on bbc.co.uk the next day: “A teenage Palestinian boy was shot and killed by Israeli troops as he played with a toy rifle in the West Bank city of Jenin.” The Committee noted that this was a cryptic summary of the previous day’s story. It concluded however that it was factually accurate and did not breach impartiality standards. The appeal was not upheld. BBC News (8am) BBC Radio 4, 4 January 2005 a) The complaint The complaint to the Head of Editorial Complaints was that the above item was factually inaccurate and biased in referring to a “Jewish settlement” and “Israeli settlers”. In particular, he complained that: • Shellfire was in fact directed at Palestinian terrorists who had fired mortars at the Erez Industrial Zone. The complainant enclosed items from the Times of Oman, Ha’aretz and bbc.co.uk to support this point. • The Erez Industrial Zone is not a Jewish settlement – most of those who work there are Palestinians. • Attacks on the Zone are attacks on Palestinians as well as Israelis, and any Israeli military action to protect it is to protect both. • Attacks on Jewish civilians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank should not be referred to as attacks on “settlers” but on “civilians” – without identifying their nationality, ethnic origin or religion. • BBC reporters introduce such factual errors “in his or her eagerness to blame Jewish settlements for Palestinian terrorism”. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint: • He referred to comments by the Editor of Radio News who explained that the story was written from agency copy and the facts were attributed to hospital officials and the Israel Defense Forces. Such stories taken from agency copy are often written ‘on the hoof ’ and it is not always possible to bring to bear detailed knowledge there and then. • The Head of Editorial Complaints added that wire copy is only kept for three days and therefore it is not possible to be certain of the copy used for this story. But as the three cuttings sent by the complainant show, the facts were unclear at the time. However, the Reuters agency copy, which is generally reliable, said: “Israeli troops have shot dead seven Palestinians in a strawberry field in north Gaza after mortar fire from Palestinian militants there wounded two Jewish settlers.” It continued: “Israeli medics said the mortars landed near a bus filled with settler children, lightly injuring two adult escorts.” In the light of this it is highly likely that identifying them as settlers was accurate. • As the Editor of Radio News suggests, the London-based writer without expert knowledge may have made a mistake in identifying Erez as a settlement rather than an industrial zone. However, this is a small factual error which has no bearing on the significance of the story. • There is no evidence to support the allegation by the complainant that the location was deliberately misreported to reflect badly on Israel. • There is no reason that the BBC should avoid identifying the “nationality, ethnic origin or religion” of victims of attacks. The terms in this item were used for stylistic reasons. The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 30 b) Relevant editorial standards This appeal was considered against the BBC Producers’ Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality, including Chapter 2, Part 2 on accuracy and Chapter 2, Part 1, Section 2 on due impartiality which states that: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. 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. The Committee also considered Chapter 2, Part 1, Section 3.2 on news programmes, which refers to standards for news programmes and reporting and the coverage of matters of industrial and political controversy. c) The Committee’s decision The Committee noted that in this one item the reference to the attack on a “Jewish settlement” was inaccurate. However, this was a developing news story and later news bulletins were altered when more information became available. The Committee also noted that the inaccurate statement was attributed to the Israeli military. The Committee concluded that this initial inaccuracy during a developing news story did not amount to a breach of impartiality, and given the changes made as the story developed it was not sufficient to warrant a finding that other guidelines had been breached. The Committee considered the use of the terms “Jewish settlers” and “Jewish settlements”. It concluded that these are descriptive terms which explain why a group of people are living in a certain place, and their use does not in itself suggest that violence against them is condoned. The use of these terms in this piece therefore did not amount to a breach of impartiality. On the issue of wire sources, the Committee noted that the BBC considers Reuters to be generally reliable. However, it also noted that the BBC, as publisher of the material, accepts full responsibility for any inaccuracies. The Committee considered the suggestion by the complainant that the BBC left out detail about the mortar landing near a bus full of Jewish children because it might have justified the Israeli response. The Committee noted the seriousness of the allegation but found no evidence to suggest that it was true. The appeal was not upheld. One O’Clock News BBC One, 3 February 2005 a) The report The report concerned an item about the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by cancer patients. The item was prompted by a scientific paper which found that more than a third of cancer patients across Europe used one or more of 58 CAM therapies. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 31 b) The complaint The complainant stated that the report was biased: it featured two patients who were promoting the therapies they had used but gave no satisfactory scientific perspective. In particular he complained that: • The report used anecdotal evidence which was misleading and worthless. Cancer is unpredictable – there will always be patients who recover unexpectedly. • Giving prominence to a patient who refused chemotherapy was irresponsible. The dangers of refusing such treatment were not emphasised. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) Relevant editorial standards The Committee assessed the complaint against the standards set out in the Producers’ Guidelines. In particular: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. The BBC is committed to providing programmes of great diversity which reflect the full range of audiences’ interests, beliefs and perspectives. In order to achieve that range, the BBC is free to make programmes about any subject it chooses, and to make programmes which explore, or are presented from, a particular point of view. In relation to news programmes: The Agreement specifies that news should be presented with due accuracy and impartiality. Reporting should be dispassionate, wide-ranging and well informed. In reporting matters of industrial or political controversy the main differing views should be given due weight in the period during which the controversy is active. News judgments will take account of events as well as arguments, and editorial discretion must determine whether it is appropriate for a range of views to be included within a single programme or item. News programmes should offer viewers and listeners an intelligent and informed account of issues that enables them to form their own views. A reporter may express a professional, journalistic judgement but not a personal opinion. Judgement must be recognised as perceptive and fair. Audiences should not be able to gauge from BBC programmes the personal views of presenters and reporters on controversial issues of public policy. d) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered this complaint against the relevant editorial standards, codes and guidelines. In reviewing the item, the Committee recognised the need for care in reporting controversial and sensitive issues such as this. It noted that the introduction focused on the research findings, which was appropriate, although the phrasing was somewhat confusing. In particular, in the reference “they want doctors to be more aware of what medicines their patients are taking”, “they” might have referred to patients or researchers. The Committee felt that the inclusion of the late Michael Gearin-Tosh was also questionable, as he was an author with a particular enthusiasm for alternative treatments. The effect was mitigated, however, by the reference by the second patient to using CAM therapies to boost her well-being, which reflected the research findings. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 32 The report also included references to concerns about the lack of regulation and controls: • The presenter referred to the call for doctors to be more aware of what medicines their patients are taking, and for tighter regulation. • The reporter said that “most” people chose CAM therapies to complement not replace their orthodox drugs. • The reporter noted the lack of regulation and investment in research, and the calls for this to change. • The reporter concluded that – given that the CAM therapies receive less than 1% of the UK medical research budget – many patients are left to find out for themselves whether the treatments were worthwhile. The Committee noted that best practice would be for items looking at such controversial and sensitive issues to include a reference to mainstream, orthodox advice. The Committee concluded, however, that the report was an extremely brief item which set out to illustrate rather than analyse the Manchester University research findings. The report had met adequately the required standards, in particular the relevant parts of the Producers’ Guidelines. The complaint was not upheld. Further action will be taken to alert management to the observation about such reports, including a reference to mainstream, orthodox advice. Islam and the Ethics of War bbc.co.uk a) The complaint The complaint referred to information given on a page entitled ‘Islam and the ethics of war’, within BBC Religion & Ethics pages ‘The Ethics of War’. The complainant held that the page misrepresented the Islamic approach to war. In particular: • The page did not set out the Islamic laws of war. Instead it set out the view that a minority of westernised liberal Muslims and Muslim apologists and propagandists wished were the Islamic position. • The page omitted to refer to jihad, which was a religious duty on Muslims to convert everybody to Islam whether by persuasion or force. • The information implied that only self-defence was permitted, which was misleading. • The information wrongly stated that war to spread Islam is unlawful and that humane treatment of prisoners is enjoined. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. b) Relevant editorial standards The Committee assessed the complaint against the standards set out in the Producers’ Guidelines. In particular: Impartiality: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 33 Accuracy: The BBC must be accurate. Research for all programmes must be thorough. We must be prepared to check, crosscheck and seek advice, to ensure this. Accurate language: It is not sufficient that we get our facts right. We must use language fairly. That means avoiding exaggeration. We must not use language inadvertently so as to suggest value judgements, commitment or lack of objectivity. The portrayal of religious groups: People and countries should not be defined by their religions unless it is strictly relevant. Particular religious groups or factions should not be portrayed as speaking for their faith as a whole. Thoughtless portrayal can be offensive, especially if it implies that a particular faith is hostile or alien to all outside it. c) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered this complaint against the relevant editorial standards, codes and guidelines. Having reviewed the article, and the correspondence to date, the Committee noted that the purpose of the article was to give a short introduction to the subject. Whilst the information should provide an accurate summary, its purpose was not to give an in-depth analysis of the issues. Having reviewed the information and taken independent expert advice, the Committee was satisfied that the article gave an accurate summary of mainstream opinion within Islam, and not simply the minority view of “westernised liberal Muslims”. The Committee noted further that there were accurate references for the statements made in the article and that, whilst some information given might be open to debate, these were in areas of opinion not of fact. For example: • That the article correctly refers to the controversy within Islam surrounding the interpretation of the term jihad. • That Muslims hold that any war against unbelievers is morally justified. • Whether the Qur’an’s ‘verses of peace’ and ‘verses of war’ contradict each other. Questions were also raised about some assertions made by the complainant. For example: • The article did not, as alleged, imply that only defensive war is permitted in Islam. It stated: “Islam allows war in self-defence (Qur’an 22:39), to defend Islam (rather than to spread it), to protect those who have been removed from their homes by force because they are Muslims (Qur’an 22:40), and to protect the innocent who are being oppressed (Qur’an 4:75).” It then identified the ethics, rules and limits of engaging in warfare which – and as propounded by the Qu’ran – must only be used as a last resort. • The Qu’ran did not, as alleged, state that captured prisoners should be given the choice between conversion or death. The Qu’ran upheld specific rights of prisoners; the same rules applied to all captured combatants, regardless of their beliefs; and there were also strict rules about how victorious soldiers were to behave. • On the assertion that the rape and enslavement of non-combatants is claimed as a right by Muslims, the article correctly stated that: “The Prophet’s view of non-combatants is shown by a Hadith in which Muhammad sees a woman killed in the battlefield and condemns the action.” • The full passage for a reference made by the complainant was: “Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter.” (Sura 5.33-34). The actions upheld here imply defensive measures to be taken up against those “who take up war against Allah and His apostle” and “spread disorder in the land”. This cannot be translated as actions against “anyone who resists the Prophet”, but rather as against anyone who attacks the Prophet or spreads disorder. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 34 The Committee observed, however, that articles about other religions did include a fuller picture of the debates within that religion about the ethics of war. It cited, for example, the articles about Christianity and Buddhism. It considered that the article on Islam ought to have reflected some of the debate referred to by the complainant, and asked that the page be updated to include this. It concluded, nevertheless, that the article had been appropriately framed against required standards, in particular those set out in the Producers’ Guidelines. The complaint was not upheld. Further action will be taken by asking for a revision of the Islam ‘Ethics of War’ article to reflect the range of debate within Islam about war. Empire Warriors BBC Two, 26 November 2004 a) The programme This documentary examined the campaign of Jewish militants in Palestine who took up arms against the British mandate authorities. It included the bomb attack by the Irgun on the King David Hotel in 1946. The hotel housed the British administration and 91 people were killed. The documentary was one of a four-part series about the ‘war on terror’ during the final phase of the British Empire, told through the first-hand accounts of the security forces and guerrillas of the time. The Radio Times billing said: During the last years of the British Empire guerrilla warfare became the new enemy. Michael Pennington narrates some defining encounters. 2/4 The Jewish War. On 22 July 1946, in British administered Palestine Jewish guerrillas bombed the King David Hotel which housed the British administration. 91 people died in the attack. Members of the British security forces describe their unenviable encounters with the birth of modern guerrilla warfare, and former guerrillas tell of their violent campaign to establish a State of Israel. b) The complaint The complainant’s statement to the Head of Editorial Complaints argued that the programme itself and a trailer preceding it breached the BBC Producers’ Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality. In particular the complainant felt that the programme made two totally false statements: • That Jews were the first terrorists of the 20th century when, in fact, acts of terrorism existed before 1946. • That Jews were the ‘role models’ for future terrorists. The complainant also maintained that, while the BBC defended the use of the word “militants” to describe Muslim terrorist organisations, this programme referred to Jewish fighters as “terrorists”. The complainant concluded that the programme would incite hatred and compound the prejudice that some people already have against the UK Jewish population. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint. In appealing to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee, the complainant cited a number of specific instances before the 1946 attack which, she argued, showed that this was not the first terrorist BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 35 attack of the 20th century. For example, the Resistance during World War Two used explosives to destroy trains killing civilians in the process. She maintained that Irgun had as much right to view the British as illegal occupiers as the French had had to view the Germans as illegal occupiers of France. Why then, she asked, were they not the “first modern terrorists”? c) The relevant programme standards The Committee considered the complaint against the required broadcast standards, including the following parts of the BBC Producers’ Guidelines. Accuracy: We aim for the highest possible levels of accuracy and precision of language. Our journalism will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, and thoroughly tested. It will rely on fact rather than opinion, and be set in context. We will be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation. The BBC must be accurate. Research for all programmes must be thorough. We must be prepared to check, crosscheck and seek advice, to ensure this. Wherever possible we should gather information first-hand by being there ourselves or, where that is not possible, by talking to those who were. Impartiality and diversity of opinion: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. Racial discrimination: Section 70 of the Race Relations Act, 1976, makes it “an offence to publish or distribute written matter which is, or to use in any public place words which are, threatening, abusive, or insulting in a case where hatred is likely to be stirred up against any racial group”. Language and terminology: Neutral language is key: even the word “terrorist” can appear judgemental in parts of the world where there is no clear consensus about the legitimacy of militant political groups. d) The Committee’s decision i) The trailer There were no trailers for the programme. The programme was introduced as follows: “Now on BBC Two, Empire Warriors recounts the birth of modern guerrilla warfare in British Palestine.” It did not make the statements which the complainant alleged it had made. The Committee did not therefore uphold the complaint about the trailer. ii) Use of the word “terrorist” The committee noted that: • In line with requirements of the BBC’s editorial standards, the commentary did not use the terms “terrorism” and “terrorists” unthinkingly. Both terms were used sparingly and carefully – the term “guerrilla warfare” had been used in preference most of the time. • The references to “terrorist” were made mainly in the first-hand testimony of interviewees. This reflected the terminology used at the time, where there was little dispute that the bombing was an act of terrorism. The Board of Jewish Deputies, for example, issued a statement following the attack saying: “The Board of Deputies of British Jews is horrified by the latest crime committed by a gang of terrorists in Jerusalem, and expresses its strongest and unqualified condemnation of this dastardly act.” BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 36 The Committee concluded that the use on occasions in the programme of the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” were justified in this particular historical context. iii) The programme’s thesis In the Committee’s view, the three key phrases to consider were: • “This conflict was Britain’s first encounter with a new kind of guerrilla warfare during the final years of Empire.” • “The birthplace of modern terrorism lies here in Jerusalem.” • “A unit of Royal Engineers reached the hotel before dusk ... they found themselves dealing with the first major terrorist attack of the 20th century.” It noted that: • It was made clear that the series set out to examine events in the Empire after the Second World War. In this historical context, “modern” was defined as post-1946 (the post atomic bomb world). The programme exercised appropriate editorial discretion in adopting this definition. • There was historical justification to support the programme’s assertion that the attack on the King David Hotel was marked out by hitherto unfamiliar elements. This warranted the attack’s description as “a new kind of guerrilla warfare”. • There was also historical justification to support the programme’s assertion that this act of terrorism played a significant role in influencing other post-war terrorist organisations. The Committee felt that these phrases were therefore editorially justified. iv) Racism The Committee noted that the programme did not use the phrase “the Jews were the first terrorists of the 20th century”. It noted again the British Board of Jewish Deputies’ statement at the time. In conclusion, the Committee felt that the programme was a well-researched historical documentary looking at a significant landmark event. It did not believe the programme was racist. v) In conclusion The Committee concluded that the programme met the requirements of the Producers’ Guidelines and broadcast standards generally. In particular, it met the standards set out on accuracy and impartiality, precision of language, well-sourced and tested journalism, thorough research, and racial discrimination. The appeal was not upheld. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 37 Newsnight BBC Two, 1 September 2004 a) The programme This complaint concerned a discussion about the Beslan crisis in September 2004. In the course of the interview the presenter, Kirsty Wark, referred to the members of the Chechen extremist group as “martyrs”, then as “would-be martyrs”. The Newsnight headline said more than 130 children were among 300 hostages taken by armed hijackers, who were threatening to kill the children and blow up the school if attacked. This was followed by a report including a reference to another Chechen suicide bomber who had blown herself up in Moscow the previous evening, killing at least ten people. b) The complaint The complainant wrote first to BBC Information, and then to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU). He felt that the term “martyr” had supportive connotations, and therefore should not be used in reference to acts of terror. He also asked for a public apology from the BBC. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. BBC Information had already apologised to the complainant if he felt the remark was inappropriate, noting that in a live, unscripted programme even the most experienced of presenters occasionally makes a mistake. c) The relevant programme standards The Committee considered the complaint against the required broadcast standards, including the following parts of the BBC Producers’ Guidelines: News programmes should offer viewers and listeners an intelligent and informed account of issues that enables them to form their own views. A reporter may express a professional, journalistic judgement but not a personal opinion. Judgement must be recognised as perceptive and fair. Audiences should not be able to gauge from BBC programmes the personal views of presenters and reporters on controversial issues of public policy. Also that: We must not adopt terrorist language as though it were our own. Terrorist groups use military and judicial terms to give themselves status: if we report their use of words like “volunteer”, “execute”, “liberate”, “court martial” and so on, we should attribute them. d) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the transcript of Kirsty Wark’s first question to correspondent Steve Rosenberg in New York: KIRSTY WARK: Well, Steve Rosenberg, in terms of this particular siege, the threat was made by the hostage-takers this afternoon, that for every fighter, as they call them, injured, fifty children would be slaughtered. No matter how much President Putin says he’s going to be tough on this and take a hard line and believe that the Russian people are behind him, it’s a sobering thought that these people, these would-be martyrs, would take children with them. It also considered the transcript of Kirsty Wark’s question to correspondent Robin Horsfall: KIRSTY WARK: What in a way is the best case scenario? I mean the martyrs, the would-be martyrs to take their own lives and of course they’ve already killed eight people – or eight people have subsequently died from injuries BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 38 sustained this morning. We know there’s gunshot inside the building, but is the best case scenario that they might die without taking any more people with them, because we know they want to die? The Committee felt that it was clear from Kirsty Wark’s questioning and the Newsnight reporting that the nature of the unfolding crisis in Beslan was properly reflected. This included repeated references to, for example, armed terrorists, extremists and suicide bombers. The Committee did not believe viewers would conclude that Kirsty Wark was in any way showing any implicit approval of the attackers through the use of the word “martyr” or “would-be martyr”. The description “would-be martyrs” was both accurate, and sufficiently disparaging, to be appropriate. The reference to “martyrs” (rather than “would-be martyrs”) was unfortunate, although apparently a slip of the tongue and quickly corrected. In conclusion, the Committee felt the apology already offered by BBC Information was appropriate. The slip of the tongue was not serious enough to warrant a further, more public apology. The Committee did not believe that Kirsty Wark had shown partiality. The appeal was not upheld. The Politics Show BBC One, 21 November 2004 a) The report The report was one item in The Politics Show. In his introduction to the report, presenter Jeremy Vine stated that the Conservative Party was struggling, and asked why it did not simply offer tax cuts to attract voters. A report by Max Cotton then explored the arguments for and against a Conservative policy on radical tax cuts, and the position of the Shadow Chancellor, Oliver Letwin, in that debate. In the course of the report, Max Cotton said that some suggested that the Shadow Chancellor was stuck “in the middle” over the issue of tax cuts, with “on the one hand Liberal Democrats threatening to take his seat from the left, on the other he can expect a UKIP candidate attacking him from the right”. The report was followed by an interview by Jeremy Vine with Oliver Letwin about tax cuts. b) The complaint The complainant maintained that it was inaccurate for The Politics Show to describe the UK Independence Party (UKIP) as being to the right of the Conservative Party. He held that UKIP was, in fact, to the left of the Conservative Party, and provided analysis to that effect. After an initial response by BBC Information, the complaint was escalated for investigation by the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU). The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. c) Relevant programme standards The Committee considered the complaint against the required broadcast standards, including the following parts of the BBC Producers’ Guidelines (in effect until 25 July 2005). Truth and accuracy: We aim for the highest possible levels of accuracy and precision of language. Our journalism will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, and thoroughly tested. It will rely on fact rather than opinion, and be set in context. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 39 Accuracy: The BBC must be accurate. Research for all programmes must be thorough. We must be prepared to check, crosscheck and seek advice, to ensure this. d) Extracts from the transcript The report was introduced by Jeremy Vine (presenter): The Conservatives are struggling, they aren’t that much popular than they were under Iain Duncan Smith. The obvious answer is to do something big and the obvious something for a lot of Tories is tax cuts. Why don’t they give us the simplest sound bite of all – vote for us and we will slash your taxes? The Shadow Chancellor, Oliver Letwin, who we’ll speak to in a moment, says nobody would believe him if he did that, but desperate times require desperate measures, don’t they? Max Cotton reports. Max Cotton reported from Oliver Letwin’s constituency and talked, at one point, about the Shadow Chancellor’s experience in the previous election: Remember this [points to a poster of Oliver Letwin, reading “Wanted, Oliver Letwin, Reward £20 Billion”]? The last time Oliver Letwin got serious about cutting taxes he had to go into hiding. Rumour has it that he was holed up in a barn in this village during the last General Election campaign after he suggested that the Tories could dish up £20billion worth of tax cuts – it caused chaos. Some suggest he’s been scarred by the experience, leaving Letwin stuck, politically, in the middle, on the one hand Liberal Democrats threatening to take his seat from the left, on the other he can expect a UKIP candidate attacking him from the right. Philip Colfox owns more than a thousand acres of Letwin land, his grandfather was Tory MP here. Philip’s the sort of voter Tories need to win back but an appeal from the right, like cutting taxes, isn’t likely to woo those who deserted the Conservative fold for the Liberal Democrats. e) The Committee’s decision The Committee recognised – in general – the difficulties of using the terms “left” and “right” in an increasingly complex political landscape. This was well illustrated by UKIP, whose policies made it difficult to place the party on a simple left/right political spectrum. The complaint was a useful reminder that the terms should be used carefully and needed to be justified. It noted that the report and following interview were specifically about tax, and the stance being taken by the Shadow Chancellor, Oliver Letwin, on tax cuts. Max Cotton had reported from Oliver Letwin’s constituency. During the report he had attributed to others (“some suggested”) the idea that the Shadow Chancellor was under attack from other candidates in his constituency for his stance on tax (the Liberal Democrats on the “left” and UKIP on the “right”). The Committee also considered UKIP’s policies on taxation. It noted that the UKIP manifesto envisaged wholesale reform of taxation, and an urgent need for some tax reduction, with a longer term lowering of the overall tax burden. Although UKIP wanted to remove 2.5 million low earners from income tax altogether, its proposed cuts in Council Tax and Inheritance Tax were both reductions in taxation on wealth. In addition, UKIP described itself as “sympathetic to proposals for a ‘flat tax’”. The Conservative Party had not proposed this, or withdrawn its support for the principle of progressive taxation. The film about Mr Letwin had shown that his own approach to tax cuts and public spending had laid him open to criticism from the right of his own party. The Committee concluded that the reference to “left” and “right” in this instance was editorially justified. It related to specifically to taxation, and to the situation in Oliver Letwin’s constituency. It was also attributed, rather than stated as fact or the reporter’s opinion. The appeal was not upheld. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 40 Today BBC Radio 4, 3 February 2005 a) The item This was a two-way between the Today presenter, John Humphrys, and correspondent James Reynolds. It discussed the forthcoming Sharm al-Sheikh summit between the Israeli leader, Ariel Sharon, and the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas. It followed the first confirmation of who would attend the summit the following week, and where it would be held. b) The complaint The complaint was handled at Stage 1 of the complaints process by Kevin Marsh, Editor of Today. It was then escalated for investigation by the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) at the request of the complainant. The complainant felt that the item was biased in that it looked at the forthcoming summit from the perspective of Israel alone, and did not cover Palestinian fears and concerns. He also complained that James Reynolds had identified Syria as part of the ‘Axis of Evil’, which was inaccurate. The Head of Editorial Complaints did not uphold the complaint. His reasons included: • The item was part of the ongoing coverage of the developments since the election of Mahmoud Abbas, including reporting on the United States’ attitude to the summit; the prospects for the summit, including Palestinian concerns; and an interview with the Palestinian General Delegate in London (Afif Safieh). • The reference to Syria as part of the ‘Axis of Evil’ was not seriously misleading, and the correspondent took care to describe the concerns here as Israeli ones. The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. He challenged the ECU finding, particularly on the grounds that: • There was no coverage of the summit between 3 February and 7 February, and it was not reasonable to argue therefore that coverage on 7 February provided a balance to the item complained of. • It was not appropriate to regard the views of Afif Safieh as equivalent to the reporting by James Reynolds. The first would be perceived as a partisan viewpoint and the second as impartial. • The Head of Editorial Complaints was misleading when he pointed to the interview with Afif Safieh on 8 February as part of the balancing coverage to the item complained of. The Head of Editorial Complaints omitted to include, in his account of coverage that day, an interview with the Israeli Foreign Ministry (Mark Regev), an interview with Senator Mitchell (a former US Senator, from a country that openly states it has a pro-Israel policy), and Ambassador Avi Pazner (spokesman for the Israeli government). c) Relevant editorial standards The Committee considered the complaint against the required broadcast standards, including the following parts of the BBC Producers’ Guidelines (in effect until 25 July 2005). Impartiality and diversity of opinion: We report the facts first. Understand and explain their context. Provide professional judgements where appropriate, but never promote our own personal opinions. Openness and independence of mind is at the heart of practising accuracy and impartiality. We will strive to be fair and open-minded by reflecting all significant strands of opinion, and by exploring the range and conflict of views. Testing a wide range of views with the evidence is essential if we are to give our audiences the greatest possible opportunity to decide for themselves on the issues of the day. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 41 Impartiality in general: Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth. 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. The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter specifies that the Corporation should treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality both in news programmes and other programmes that deal with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It states that due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles. News programmes: The Agreement specifies that news should be presented with accuracy and impartiality. Reporting should be dispassionate, wide-ranging and well informed. In reporting matters of industrial or political controversy the main differing views should be given due weight in the period during which the controversy is active. News judgments will take account of events as well as arguments, and editorial discretion must determine whether it is appropriate for a range of views to be included within a single programme or item. News programmes should offer viewers and listeners an intelligent and informed account of issues that enables them to form their own views. A reporter may express a professional, journalistic judgement but not a personal opinion. Judgement must be recognised as perceptive and fair. Audiences should not be able to gauge from BBC programmes the personal views of presenters and reporters on controversial issues of public policy. Accuracy: The BBC must be accurate. Research for all programmes must be thorough. We must be prepared to check, crosscheck and seek advice, to ensure this. Accurate language: It is not sufficient that we get our facts right. We must use language fairly. That means avoiding exaggeration. We must not use language inadvertently so as to suggest value judgements, commitment or lack of objectivity. d) Transcript of the item HUMPHRYS: Good news from the Middle East for a change. The White House has welcomed the news of a meeting between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Egypt next week. Our correspondent in Jerusalem is James Reynolds. What is going to happen, James? REYNOLDS: There’s going to be a meeting between Ariel Sharon, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, and they’ll be joined by Hosni Mubarak from Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan. This is very much “look no hands” peace-making because the Americans and the Europeans will be taking a back seat; the leaders from this region will be doing it all by themselves. HUMPHRYS: And why are they doing it? REYNOLDS: Because they’ve been invited to do so by Mr Mubarak because he wants to try to cement this moment of opportunity – an opportunity, of course, which arose when the Palestinians elected Mahmoud Abbas, the new leader. And this summit will mark the first time that the ultimate Israeli and Palestinian decision makers will have met face to face for four and a half years. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 42 HUMPHRYS: Is the Israeli Prime Minister genuinely persuaded that the Palestinian leader can stop the attacks and does he believe it’ll continue, because that’s the key to it, isn’t it? REYNOLDS: Yeah, that’s the key. What do the Israelis think of Mahmoud Abbas? And at the moment they seem to think he’s doing pretty good. They’re pretty impressed by his decision to deploy his own forces in the Gaza Strip. They believe that there has been a reduction although not a complete obliteration of violence and it seems as though they’ve been persuaded by the Egyptians, whom Israel has come to trust a lot in the last few years, and also by the Americans, really to give Mahmoud Abbas a chance. Now of course it could all go wrong if there is a suicide bomb against an Israeli target, but for now the peace-making carries on. HUMPHRYS: And there are still plenty of people who want to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. REYNOLDS: There are, led by Hamas and Islamic Jihad and also, Israel believes, led by that “axis of evil” that George Bush talked about just three years ago in his, in one of his previous State of the Union speeches. Israel said that Syria, that Iran and Hezbollah, the Lebanese group, do not want to see the calm continue so they believe that that’s their enemy at the moment. HUMPHRYS: James, thank you very much. e) The Committee’s decision The Committee considered the following elements of the complaint. i) The range of views The Committee discussed first whether it was appropriate for Today to have decided to focus on the Israeli perspective in the two-way on 3 February 2005. It noted that in the developing story about the summit, Israeli perceptions of the new Palestinian leader going into that summit were a key story. The Committee concluded that, provided other main differing views had been given due weight in other recent broadcasts, the programme had exercised appropriate editorial judgement in deciding to focus in this particular news item on one perspective as part of its ongoing coverage. The Committee then reviewed whether the BBC had given due weight to the range of differing views in the period leading up to and during the summit. It received a summary of the Radio 4 output relating to Palestinian concerns in the month prior to the item complained of. In all, more than 20 stories, sequences, interviews and reports were featured, the majority on Today. Coverage included the views of Palestinians on the election of Mahmoud Abbas, the European Union and US perspective on the election, Abbas’s plans to strengthen the Palestinian security forces, and Palestinian demands for Israel to release Palestinian prisoners. The Committee concluded that news programming over the period had provided a wide range of views, perspectives and speakers, and had given due weight to the range of views involved in the period leading up to the summit. Finally, the Committee reviewed the coverage on 8 February (the day of the Sharm al-Sheikh summit. It noted the complainant’s concern that the Head of Editorial Complaints had been “remiss” in citing the interview with Afif Safieh on 8 February as providing balance, without mentioning that coverage also included interviews with two Israeli spokesman, who were given considerably more time. On 8 February, Today coverage of the summit featured interviews with: • Senator George Mitchell, former envoy • Mark Regev of the Israeli Foreign Ministry • Avi Pazner, Israeli Ambassador • Dr Naeb, PLO spokesman in Washington • Afif Safieh, Palestinian representative in London BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 43 The Committee observed that the Israeli representatives had talked about their hopes for the summit, whilst the Palestinian representatives had focused on their concerns and worries. It noted further that balance was not judged solely by the duration of individual items. This was in line with the guidance in the BBC Producers’ Guidelines that impartiality was not a matter of “mathematical balance”. The Committee did not believe that the Head of Editorial Complaints had intended to mislead the complainant as the issue was whether a credible Palestinian voice had been included in Today’s coverage: the inclusion of other Israeli voices did not alter the fact that a senior Palestinian representative had had the opportunity to talk about Palestinian concerns. The Committee concluded that a range of views were reflected in these interviews, and that coverage on 8 February 2005 was appropriately framed against the Producers’ Guidelines. ii) Issue of equivalence when comparing a BBC correspondent with a Palestinian spokesman The Committee discussed the complainant’s view that a Palestinian spokesman (the Palestinian General Delegate in London, Afif Safieh) did not provide an “equivalent” balance to the account of the Israeli perspective by a BBC correspondent. The Committee noted the requirement for news programmes to expose audiences to a balanced, fair and accurate range of views. It considered that this could be done using a variety of techniques, such as interviews with politicians, members of the public, or experts; extracts from press conferences, speeches or other news events; or interviews with correspondents. It concluded that Today’s approach had been in line with this principle, and it was appropriate to have a correspondent talking about Israeli concerns and a Palestinian representative talking about Palestinian concerns. iii) Evidence of bias in James Reynolds’ delivery The Committee discussed the two aspects of the complainant’s concern about bias in James Reynolds’ delivery. In the Committee’s judgement, the correspondent had not expressed the Israeli perspective “forcefully and dramatically” as the complainant alleged. Rather, James Reynolds had provided a well-balanced reflection on Israeli hopes and fears. The Committee also reviewed the allegation that James Reynolds “hissed” the word Syria, indicating a “very negative and hostile tone”. The Committee concluded that the correspondent’s approach had reflected his usual presentation style, and it did not infer any bias from his style of speaking and emphasis. iv) Was Reynolds’ reference to Syria appropriate? The Committee discussed the complaint that James Reynolds, in his final answer, implied that Syria was mentioned in the ‘Axis of Evil’ reference in President Bush’s State of the Union speech three years ago. In his speech, the President named only North Korea, Iran and Iraq. The Committee considered that James Reynolds was reporting what he understood to be the Israeli attitude and position towards a range of groups and countries, including Syria. The attitudes and position were clearly attributed to Israel, including references to “Israel believes” and “Israel said”. These reflected Reynolds’ journalistic judgement and were in line with BBC guidelines on impartiality. The complaints were not upheld. BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 44 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 has 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 Richard Tait (Chairman), Deborah Bull, Professor Fabian Monds, Angela Sarkis and Professor Merfyn Jones. The GPCC undertakes regular reviews of the BBC’s processes and performance in relation to complaints handling. 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 that 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 Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) 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. The bulletin is also available online at www.bbcgovernors.co.uk. For a copy of the full remit of the GPCC or for further copies of this quarterly bulletin of appeals to the GPCC, please write to: The Secretary to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee BBC Room 211 35 Marylebone High Street London W1U 4AA BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 45