Governors' Programme Complaints Committee

October to December 2004

Issued January 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

In November last year I took over from Sir Robert Smith as chair of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee (GPCC). My thanks on behalf of the Committee to Sir Robert for his dedication and for his sound advice, first as a member and then as chair over the past five years.

As a contribution to the public debate about its mission and future, last year the BBC published Building public value. In it, Governors identified the BBC’s complaints system as one of the areas in need of reform. As a result, from 1 February this year, BBC management are introducing a new process for handling complaints. (Details of the new arrangements can be found at bbc.co.uk/complaints.) The aim is to deliver greater accountability, transparency and a speedier resolution of complaints.A key responsibility for the Committee will be to ensure that these commitments are met.

As Governors, we are also looking afresh at our own complaints processes as part of the radical review of governance structures announced in Building public value.We will be announcing proposals in due course to ensure that we continue fully to meet the public’s expectation of a rigorous, fair and independent complaints investigation process.

This bulletin provides a summary of appeals which the Committee considered between October and December 2004. During that period the Committee met three times and came to findings on 14 appeals: 13 related to matters of fairness and accuracy, and one concerned matters of taste and decency. Of these, one was upheld in part.

The Committee noted that during this period, in addition to appeals specifically about a transmitted programme, a small number of appellants also expressed the view that the time taken to consider their complaint before it came to GPCC had been too long. In some instances there were valid reasons for the length of time taken, but going forward, the Committee is committed to ensuring that this aspect of the new management complaints process is carefully monitored for improvement.

Richard Tait

Chairman of the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 1

Summary of appeals

Matters of fairness and accuracy

Nap Attack

BBC One, 1 October 2002

Horizon: Living Nightmare

BBC Two, 16 January 2003

2002 Greatest TV Moments

BBC One, 1 February 2003

A member of the Narcolepsy Association UK (UKAN) complained on behalf of the Association about the way that the condition, and those who suffered from it, had been presented in two documentaries: Nap Attack and Horizon: Living Nightmare. The complainant made the following points, some of which refer to only one of the programmes, and some of which refer to both.

1	The content of both documentary programmes (Nap Attack and Horizon: Living Nightmare) was promoted as factual and informative. The complainant asserted that the programmes, however, contained factually incorrect information and sensationalised the condition. The cases illustrated were not representative of the condition.
2	The programmes included sequences which were presented as being drawn from real life, but were, in fact, acted. UKAN was told by some of its members that they had been provided with scripts by the producers.
3	The names of medical experts were provided to the producers of both programmes by UKAN. The complainant was “astounded” that the input of the medical experts recommended by UKAN had not been a significant feature in each programme.
4	Sufferers of the condition were “lampooned, ridiculed and misrepresented”. The Nap Attack programme included a voice-over sequence lampooning a UKAN Committee meeting. These committee scenes were demonstrably false. In lampooning narcolepsy, both programmes had ridiculed and humiliated sufferers of the condition.
5	The programme disclosed that sufferers frequently required amphetamine and other class A stimulants to treat their condition, and that these drugs were self-administered in the home. The complainant argued that this information should not have been put in the public domain.
6	A number of those who participated in the programme did not sign consent forms agreeing their involvement in the filming. Indeed, some individuals had expressly refused their consent.
7	A clip from the Nap Attack programme had subsequently been shown on a Saturday night programme called 2002 TV Greatest Moments to uproarious laughter from the audience. This was a spontaneous reaction to the lampooning nature of the Nap Attack programme from which the clip had been taken. This was further evidence that the Nap Attack programme encouraged public ridicule and humiliation of vulnerable narcolepsy sufferers.
8	The programmes were seriously misleading. They had “gowned” themselves in the authority of factual documentaries when, in fact, they were prime-time programmes geared to entertain the general public with extreme and contrived portrayals of narcolepsy symptoms. As a result of these programmes, some members of UKAN had experienced negative treatment from colleagues at work, and from others who now regarded the condition as trivial and a source of humour.
9	In producing the programmes in the way it had, the BBC had failed to abide by its own guidelines.

The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint. He addressed the specific points raised by the Association concerning all three programmes.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 2

Horizon: Living Nightmare

The Head of Programme Complaints took the view that this programme was not about narcolepsy, but about the science of sleep, and in particular the discovery of a substance called Orexin.

UKAN had not pointed to any specific factual error, and none had been found by the Programme Complaints Unit (PCU). The producers had assured the PCU that the incidents shown were accurately depicted, and no scripts had been provided to any of the participants.
A co-producer confirmed that no list of experts had been submitted to Horizon by UKAN. The only individual suggested by UKAN had retired and had not wanted to take part in the programme. The Head of Programme Complaints found no reason to believe that Horizon’sresearch was inadequate.
No members of UKAN had appeared in this programme.
The fact that narcolepsy sufferers were sometimes prescribed amphetamines was well known. The PCU did not accept that this programme had put any new information on this point into the public domain.
The main contributors to the programme had all signed consent forms, and the Horizon production team had no record of any request from UKAN for information about consent forms.
Overall, there was no reason to believe that the programme was misleading, unfair or unrepresentative.

Nap Attack

The Programme Complaints Unit discussed the complaint with the programme’s Executive Producer. He told the PCU that he could “categorically state that no incidents were acted and no member of UKAN who took part in the programme was provided with a script”.
During the course of research for the programme the producers contacted more than 20 medical experts specialising in the research, diagnosis or treatment of narcolepsy, including the two experts mentioned by UKAN in their initial letter. The decision not to use these two experts was made on editorial grounds.
The PCU was satisfied that the programme did not set out to lampoon the committee or its members. The Executive Producer of the programme reported to the PCU: “During the course of research into narcolepsy and through our meeting or speaking to approximately 50 people with narcolepsy, the producers of Nap Attack became fully aware of the many difficulties experienced by sufferers in both their domestic and working lives. The difficulties of conducting a meeting where all the members suffer from narcolepsy were apparent and even the members themselves acknowledge this by having more than one person take minutes. The intention was not to lampoon but to highlight the specific difficulties this condition gives rise to.”
It would have given an inaccurate impression of the realities of narcolepsy if the programme had not included a description of the treatment for the condition. This section of Nap Attack had been filmed with the consent of the individual concerned.
The programme’s Executive Producer reported that “nearly all the committee members” signed consent forms once filming was complete and “all participants knew of the presence of cameras at least a month before filming”. The Head of Programme Complaints felt it would have been advisable to have obtained signatures from all those taking part. However, bearing in mind the practicalities of filming this kind of event, he felt it inconceivable that anyone in the room would have been unaware that filming was going to take place.
The producers’ responsibility was to reflect the views of those who appeared in the programme accurately, while ensuring a balanced account of the condition. The PCU’s own research concluded that there were a number of differing views of narcolepsy – not only among medical and scientific experts, but also among sufferers and those who work with them. The PCU took the view that the programme’s producers had taken due account of this fact.

2002 Greatest TV Moments

The sequence shown was taken from Nap Attack and revolved around an interview with Margaret Bidmead, one of the principal contributors to the programme. It featured Mrs Bidmead attending a UKAN meeting. The Head of Programme Complaints noted that the complaint against Nap Attack had not been upheld. He did not, therefore, feel that showing an excerpt from the programme was unacceptable, especially as it had the enthusiastic endorsement of its main participant.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 3

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee noted that many of the complaints did not refer to specific programmes but simply to “the programmes”. The Committee, therefore, considered the complaints in relation to each programme.

Complaint

The programme was marketed as being factual and informative, but did not give this impression. The programme had “gowned” itself in the authority of a factual documentary when in fact it was a prime-time programme geared to entertain the general public with extreme and contrived representations of narcolepsy symptoms.

Nap Attack

The Committee agreed that this was undoubtedly a factual programme. It had aimed to show how four individuals lived with varying forms of narcolepsy, and had done so in an informative and sympathetic way.

Horizon: Living Nightmare

The Committee considered the programme to be clearly a documentary programme.

Complaint

Incidents were clearly acted and not factual, and scripts were provided by the programmes’ producers.

Nap Attack

The Committee’s Editorial Advisor spoke to several of the principal contributors who assured him that no acting had been involved. The Committee found no evidence that sequences in the programme had been acted, or that scripts had been provided.

Horizon: Living Nightmare

Other than the sequences which were clearly “effect” shots of people sleeping, or were extracts from drama programmes, the Committee found no evidence that sequences in the programme had been acted or that scripts had been provided.

Complaint

The programme was a false portrayal of narcolepsy. It contained factually incorrect information and sensationalised the condition. The cases illustrated were not representative of narcolepsy.

The Committee noted that the appellant had not given specific examples of these inaccuracies, nor had they given reasons why the cases were not representative. They had also not explained why they thought the programme was a false portrayal of the condition.

Nap Attack

In the original correspondence the complainant’s lawyer had quoted Professor David Parkes’s definition of narcolepsy, as follows: “Narcolepsy is a rare neurological disorder consisting of two main symptoms resulting in voluntary episodes of unconsciousness and paralysis. The number and severity of the episodes varies by patient but can occur several times in each day. Cataplexy, the paralysis, is more correctly described as a transient motor neurone failure. Narcolepsy is extremely debilitating, considered more so than epilepsy or MS, and sufferers must make drastic alterations to lifestyle to engender any therapeutic management. There is no cure and it does not remit.”

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 4

Using this definition, the Committee did not consider the programme sensationalised the condition. Rather, it showed how narcolepsy had affected four individuals from four backgrounds in different ways.

Horizon: Living Nightmare

The Committee did not find evidence that the programme was a false portrayal of the condition.

Complaint

The names of medical experts were provided to the producers of Nap Attack and Horizon: Living Nightmare by UKAN. The complainant had been “astounded” that the input of the medical experts was not featured as a major part of each programme.

Nap Attack

The Committee discussed whether it was incumbent on the BBC to feature medical experts on screen. They agreed that while it was essential for the programme to be underpinned by medical knowledge, it was not necessary to feature medical experts discussing the issue. The programme had looked at the impact of narcolepsy on the individual, and provided an explanation of the medical condition, both in the voice-over and in the words of the principal participants.

Horizon: Living Nightmare

The Committee noted that the programme featured several scientific academics whose work featured the study of the hypothalamus, as well as the neurotransmitter Orexin and its possible future impact on narcolepsy sufferers.

Complaint

Sufferers who were portrayed in the programme were lampooned, ridiculed and misrepresented. The programmes had lampooned narcolepsy and had, therefore, ridiculed and humiliated the sufferers of this condition.

Nap Attack

The Editorial Advisor to the Committee noted that the principal contributors he had spoken to had not considered that they had been lampooned, ridiculed or misrepresented. Several of the contributors had themselves used humour to help cope with their condition.

Horizon: Living Nightmare

The Committee did not believe that the programme lampooned, ridiculed or misrepresented the three people featured in the programme.

Complaint

The Nap Attack programme included a voice-over sequence which lampooned a meeting of the UKAN Committee and its members. The UKAN Committee scenes were demonstrably false.

Nap Attack

With regard to the UKAN Committee scene, the GPCC noted that it had been included as it was a key part of the life of one of the programme’s contributors, Margaret Bidmead. The UKAN Committee scenes were interspersed with pieces to camera in which Mrs Bidmead gave her sometimes light-hearted view of the UKAN Committee meetings. This formed the basis for the voice-over during the UKAN Committee scenes.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 5

The GPCC also noted that the sequence had effectively highlighted the self-help support network which was available to narcoleptics. The GPCC acknowledged that a two-hour meeting had been edited into a sequence lasting only a couple of minutes. This had, however, been done to show the difficulties, highlighted in Mrs Bidmead’s comments, of running such a meeting. The GPCC did not believe that, in the context of the programme as a whole, the sequence lampooned the UKAN Committee and its members.

Complaint

The programme had disclosed that sufferers frequently required amphetamine and other class A stimulants to treat their condition, and that these drugs were self-administered in the home. UKAN argued that this information should not have been put in the public domain.

Nap Attack

The Committee noted that much of the information was already in the public domain. UKAN’s website itself mentioned amphetamines. The principal participants in the programme spontaneously mentioned the drugs they took daily to cope with their condition.

Horizon: Living Nightmare

The programme explained how Orexin might one day lead to a cure for narcolepsy. The Committee, therefore, thought it reasonable and responsible for the programme to show the extent to which sufferers currently relied on high doses of powerful stimulants.

Complaint

UKAN complained that a number of people participating in the programme had not signed consent forms giving their permission to be filmed. Some individuals had expressly refused their consent.

Nap Attack

While not all UKAN Committee members had signed a completed form, they had, however, clearly been aware that their meeting was being filmed, and no one, at the time of filming, had requested not to be included in the programme. By taking part in prearranged filming, the participants were, in effect, giving consent.

The GPCC noted that the purpose of consent forms was not to give the participant editorial control over the programme.

Horizon: Living Nightmare

The Committee noted that no member of UKAN was involved in the programme and was content that participants had all signed the necessary paperwork.

The Committee did not uphold any element of the appeal with regard to either Nap Attack or Horizon: Living Nightmare.

2002 Greatest TV Moments

The appeal concerned a clip from Nap Attack which was subsequently shown in a Saturday night programme, 2002 Greatest TV Moments, to uproarious laughter from the studio audience. The appellant claimed that this was a reaction to the lampooning nature of the Nap Attack programme. This proved that the Nap Attack programme had encouraged the general public to ridicule and humiliate vulnerable people suffering from a serious medical condition.

The Committee considered that it had been inappropriate to show the clip in question out of context. In the original programme, the audience had been attuned to the situation faced by the principal contributors. They had been made aware of how traumatic and debilitating narcolepsy could be for sufferers.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 6

The audience of 2002 Greatest TV Moments knew nothing about the condition or the effect it had on sufferers’ lives. Because the clip had been presented out of its original context, the audience had reacted to it with laughter.

Governors noted that since the complaint had been forwarded to them, measures had been implemented to ensure that producers undertook to check with the originating production team when using material marked as requiring referral before reuse.

The Committee upheld the complaint with regard to 2002 Greatest TV Moments.

Overall, the complaint was partially upheld.

Thought for the Day

BBC Radio 4, 1 September 2003

The complaint concerned the contribution of a Thought for the Day speaker, Islamic cleric Mr Abdal Hakim Murad.

The complainant alleged that a reference to Israel as “the traditional enemy of the Arabs” amounted to “the preaching of bigotry and hatred towards Israel”. He held that this served no other purpose than inciting hatred and violence. The complainant also maintained that the use of the term “traditional”, in this context, expressed the speaker’s approval of the tradition of hostility towards Israel. He observed that as Israel had only existed for 60 years, the actual message had been that the people of Israel had been the “traditional enemy” of Arabs. The complainant also held that “according to Mr Abdal Hakim Murad, any ally of Israel is a legitimate target for Arabs’ hostility”. The complainant concluded that the “BBC endorsed and presented a pulpit for this sermon of hate”.

In the absence of the Head of Programme Complaints, the response from the Programme Complaints Unit came from Editor, Programme Complaints. He did not uphold the complaint on the grounds that:

The purpose of Abdal Hakim Murad’s piece was to reflect on the impact of the murder of Shia cleric Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, both in Iraq and on his own congregation in the UK.
Abdal Hakim Murad was observing that the Iraqi people would increasingly blame the coalition for events such as these. In doing so, he drew a parallel between possible reactions to the coalition forces by Iraqis and the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Arab states. He also drew attention to the perceived alliance between America and Israel.
In both cases, the speaker was referring to an enmity which stretches back over 50 years and, in this context, could properly be described as “traditional”.
Editor, Programme Complaints said the essence of Mr Murad’s argument seemed to be that because America was often perceived to be closely allied to Israel, with which Arab states have a long history of conflict, Arabs in Iraq might be quicker to find cause for enmity with American forces in their own country.
He concluded that, far from advocating extremism, Abdal Hakim Murad was arguing that Muslims should keep the thoughts of the Prophet in mind, and so seek peace and reconciliation.

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee noted that the principal element of the complaint was the use of the words “with America allied so closely to Israel, the traditional enemy of the Arabs”.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 7

The Committee considered whether Abdal Hakim Murad had used the word “traditional” to mean approval of the hostilities, or as a reference to the long-standing nature of these hostilities. They noted that the piece had used language of conflict resolution and was specifically anti-war rather than indicating approval of hostilities.

The Committee also noted that Thought for the Day was a long-established personal view programme which required its contributors to look at current news issues from a religious perspective. The BBC Producers’ Guidelines on such programmes had not been breached by this broadcast.

The appeal was not upheld.

Promotion of DAB digital radio/PCU remit

December 2003

The complainant wrote to the Head of Programme Complaints stating that the BBC trails for digital radio promoted DAB without mentioning that digital radio was also available on satellite and Freeview. This, he claimed, breached the BBC policy of being “platform neutral”.

The Head of Programme Complaints considered that the complaint concerned technical rather than editorial issues and, therefore, fell outside the remit of the Programme Complaints Unit.

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee concluded that the issue was not editorial but one of BBC policy and, as such, sat outside the Programme Complaints Unit’s remit. Furthermore, it was not an issue which fell within the Committee’s own terms of reference. The Committee, therefore, asked the BBC’s Head of Marketing, Radio & Music, who was responsible for digital radio trails, to respond to the issues raised.

BBC News

BBC News 24, 10 March 2004

Mr Steve Moxon made a complaint against the BBC for attributing to him a point of view that misrepresented his true position, and which, he believed, amounted to defamation. Mr Moxon came to public notice as the “whistleblower” who disclosed that checks on immigrants in Eastern Europe were being waived to clear a backlog. It was his involvement with this story that resulted in his being at Westminster for a photocall with Michael Howard, the leader of the Conservative Party, and David Davies, the Shadow Home Secretary, on 10 March, the date of the broadcasts on BBC News 24 about which he was complaining.

Mr Moxon made a number of complaints to the Programme Complaints Unit (PCU). He was not satisfied with the response he received from the Head of Programme Complaints. As a result he appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee. Each complaint is dealt with separately below.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 8

Complaint 1

Mr Moxon’s original complaint to PCU concerned a live broadcast on BBC News 24 on Wednesday 10 March at 1.48pm when a BBC News 24 crew and anchorman confronted him on College Green, Westminster. Mr Moxon complained that he had been asked to comment, out of context and on live television, on an email posted on the BBC Panorama website three years previously. (In his complaint Mr Moxon did not dispute that he and the Mr Moxon who had written the email to Panorama were the same person.)

Below is a transcript of the relevant section of the interview.

Interviewer:You do appear to have aligned yourself with the Conservatives?

Mr Moxon: I must point out here I am not a member of any political party, I do not support the Conservative Party – I’ve never voted for them, I’ve only ever voted for the Lib Dems... I came today at the invitation of Michael Howard who obviously at the despatch box is the main source of criticism of the Prime Minister, so it was sensible to keep the issue in the public spotlight – because I’m doing this in the public interest – that I accept his request [sic]. I don’t see there’s anything wrong with that – I’ve not been told by the Home Office there would be anything wrong in principle with me continuing to speak out.

Interviewer:Those who suggest you may have an agenda have pointed out you’ve written letters toPanorama criticising Islamic migrants.

Mr Moxon:What on earth has this got to do with this issue?

Interviewer:Well, if you were critical of immigration policies...

Mr Moxon: No, I’m absolutely not. I support the whole idea of immigration. In any developed country you get an exchange of people...

The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold this part of Mr Moxon’s complaint on the grounds that when an accusation is made against an individual, it is fair to put the accusation before the individual concerned and allow him to respond. Mr Moxon’s response on this occasion had been to deny the relevance of what he had written to Panorama to the matter in hand.

Mr Moxon was dissatisfied with this finding and appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee took the view that Mr Moxon had been in a position during the interview to correct any misrepresentation of his views which he might have felt had occurred. In coming to this conclusion, the Committee reaffirmed the principle that news reporters should not have to agree beforehand with news sources the questions they wanted to ask.

The Committee did not uphold this part of the appeal.

Complaint 2

In his original complaint to the PCU, Mr Moxon claimed that the view had been wrongly attributed to him that he advocated the use of nuclear weapons against Islamic fundamentalists.

The Head of Programme Complaints took the view that in his response to the 1.48pm broadcast on BBC News 24, Mr Moxon had had an opportunity to refute the question put to him by the news reporter, but had chosen to deny its relevance.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 9

The Committee found that this part of Mr Moxon’s complaint did not stand in relation to the 1.48pm broadcast as the specific reference to deploying nuclear weapons against Islamic fundamentalists had not been raised by the interviewer.

Regarding the broadcast at 6.18pm on BBC News 24, the Head of Programme Complaints concluded that the channel’s Chief Political Correspondent, Guto Hari, had fairly summarised what Mr Moxon had written in his email to Panorama, and that neither the 6.18pm broadcast nor the 1.48pm broadcast were in any sense unfair to Mr Moxon.

In his email to Panorama Mr Moxon had written:

“An international alliance of Islamic Year Zeros feverishly exporting death to “infidel” and non-fundamentalist Muslim alike, by Kamikazes literally in their millions, eventually will have to be silenced by nuclear weapons.”

In his review of the day’s events at Westminster broadcast at 6.18pm on BBC News 24 on 10 March, Guto Hari paraphrased this comment from Mr Moxon’s email as follows: “Among other things he said that an international alliance of extreme Islamic fundamentalists will have to be silenced by nuclear weapons.”

The Committee’s decision

The Committee agreed that while the phrase “will have to be silenced“ could be interpreted as implying that Mr Moxon regarded this prospect as a historical inevitability, it did not represent an allegation by the BBC that he was advocating a nuclear solution to the issue.

The Committee found no evidence in either the 1.48pm or the 6.18pm broadcast of any allegation by the BBC that Mr Moxon was advocating the use of nuclear weapons against Islamic fundamentalists.

The Committee, therefore, did not uphold this part of the appeal.

Complaint 3

Mr Moxon complained that his booking for the TV programme The Daily Politics was withdrawn as a result of what he considered as the BBC’s misattribution to him of a point of view.

The Committee’s decision

In considering Mr Moxon’s complaint concerning the withdrawal of his invitation to appear on an edition of The Daily Politics, the Committee affirmed the right of programme producers and editors to alter programme running orders and contributors as they judged appropriate in accordance with changing editorial priorities.

The Committee, therefore, did not uphold this part of the appeal.

Complaint 4

Mr Moxon argued in his original complaint that he had been denied a right of reply against what he regarded as a serious misrepresentation of a point of view attributed to him.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 10

The Committee’s decision

Governors considered that as there was no case to answer in respect of defamation or misrepresentation, this aspect of Mr Moxon’s appeal was without substance.

This aspect of the appeal was not upheld.

Overall, the appeal was not upheld.

News bulletins

BBC Radio 4, 22 March 2004

This complaint was about alleged anti-Israeli bias in Radio 4 news bulletins on 22 March between 9pm and 11pm. The complainant cited the reporting of “Israeli warplanes” attacking “Palestinian targets” in Lebanon.

Specifically, the complainant noted that the reports omitted to mention that several rockets had been fired from Lebanon at Israeli targets earlier that day. This was despite there being an Israeli Defence Force (IDF) statement saying that the strike was conducted in response to a rocket barrage.

In considering the complaint, the Head of Programme Complaints noted that:

The 9pm report had been carried 13 minutes after the IDF’s announcement. It was, therefore, unsurprising that the BBC in London was not aware of this statement. Also, in the absence of a formal statement saying the air strikes were in retaliation for the earlier rocket attack, any link between the two would have been speculation.
The reports at 10pm and 11pm then focused on the assertion in the IDF statement that the target for the strike was a terrorist base used by Palestinian militants, and the correspondent’s view that the strike had gone deeper into Lebanese territory than usual.
In the judgement of the Duty Editor, the most important news point was the Israeli decision to mount an air strike deep into Lebanon.

The Head of Programme Complaints concluded that the news summaries were not biased in the way the complainant suggested.

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

In considering the appeal the Committee investigated each bulletin in turn.

9pm news bulletin

The Israeli attack had been reported within the previous hour. It was, therefore, a new story. A two-sentence report was broadcast: “In the past hour Israeli warplanes have carried out an attack in Lebanon. They struck at Palestinian positions about 12 miles south of the capital, Beirut.”
The following IDF statement had been issued at 8.47pm London time:
“This evening the IDF targeted a terrorist base located near Beirut, which is used as a platform for the terrorist activity in Lebanon. The strike follows rocket fire from Lebanon at an Israeli Naval vessel, patrolling in Israeli territorial water this morning. The State of Israel is determined to stop terror acts emanating from Lebanon and places the responsibility for these terror activities on the governments of Lebanon and Syria.”

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 11

This timing of this statement did not allow sufficient time for the BBC newsroom to put into place the necessary editorial checks to confirm the story.
Without confirmation it would have been inappropriate for the BBC to speculate on a link between the two attacks.

10pm news bulletin

A slightly longer report was broadcast:
“Israeli warplanes have launched air strikes close to the Lebanese capital, Beirut. A spokeswoman for the Israeli army said the target was a terrorist base used by Palestinian militants. Our correspondent says attacks across the border between Israel and Lebanon are not unusual but this one appears to have gone deeper into Lebanese territory.”
In this report the first part of the IDF statement of 8.47pm was given, quoting an Israeli army spokeswoman as saying that the target was a terrorist base used by Palestinian militants.
The Committee considered that the bulletin had reported the main story, which was the air strikes on the terrorist base.
The omission of the second part of the IDF statement did not amount to anti-Israeli bias.

11pm news bulletin

A short report was broadcast:
“Israeli warplanes have launched an air strike close to the Lebanese capital, Beirut. A spokeswoman for the Israeli army said forces had targeted a terrorist base used by Palestinian militants.”
As with the 10pm bulletin, the Committee considered that the main story had been reported, and the omission of the IDF justification for the action did not amount to anti-Israeli bias.

The Committee noted that the length of the bulletins meant it had been impossible to fully contextualise the story. The main element of the story had been the attack, and this had been reported.

The Committee further noted that the Radio 4 midnight bulletin had included a report from Alan Johnston which said: “The Israeli military has said only that it targeted what it described as a terrorist base. A spokeswoman said that this followed an attack on an Israeli naval vessel earlier in the day. She said that the vessel had been in Israeli territorial waters at the time.”

Additionally, the news bulletins on Radio 2 at 11pm and midnight both quoted the Israeli statement about the Lebanese attack on the Israeli vessel.

The Committee considered there was no evidence that there had been a deliberate omission of any justification for Israel’s action, nor did the omission of the second paragraph of the IDF statement constitute a serious lapse of editorial standards leading to a “distorted picture of events”.

The appeal was not upheld.

The Message

BBC Radio 4, 30 April 2004

The complaint concerned a discussion in The Message about media coverage of Europe. The complainant alleged that the clear implication from the contributors and presenter was that to be anti-EU was to be xenophobic. There had been no contribution from a Eurosceptic and the programme was clearly an attempt to portray all anti-EU activists as ignorant racists.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 12

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

The item had not concerned the merits, or otherwise, of the EU.
The peg for the item was a report by the Centre for Policy Studies which had accused the BBC of failing to give adequate coverage of EU matters in general, and the 1999 European Elections in particular.
The purpose of the item, therefore, was to explore why people were underinformed. The item had been set up in the opening menu by the presenter, Jenni Murray, asking: “Why is the British media accused of failing to report on Europe?”
The discussion looked at the responsibilities of the BBC and, in passing, mentioned that most newspaper coverage is negative and can appear xenophobic or racist. The Head of Programme Complaints concluded that the characterisation was not unreasonable.

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee, with the additional claim that the Head of Programme Complaints had handled the process in a biased way.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee considered that the item had been about the British media’s coverage of the EU, not about the merits of the EU. The programme had taken the form of a discussion in which guests had given their own views about the media’s coverage of the EU. Any accusations made had been the opinions of the contributors rather than those of the programme.

The Committee did not believe there was evidence of extreme bias, or that the programme had been a clear attempt to portray all anti-EU activists as racists.

The Committee noted the unfortunate phraseology used by the Head of Programme Complaints in his initial response. It did not, however, believe that this indicated evidence of bias.

The appeal was not upheld.

BBC News bbc.co.uk, 1 June 2004

The complainant wrote to the BBC Chairman about BBC News’ online reporting of the Advertising

Standards Authority’s (ASA) criticism of a Countryside Alliance pro-hunting advertisement. The complainant maintained that the BBC News online report was a “particularly insidious” example of anti-hunting bias.

The complaint was originally handled by the Editorial Investigation Team, BBC Information, who then referred the complainant to the Head of Programme Complaints.

The BBC News online report had concerned a ruling by the ASA that the Countryside Alliance advertisement had been misleading. The ASA had investigated the matter following a complaint from the League Against Cruel Sports about the advertisement’s claim that 59% of the public supported hunting. The BBC News online report of this ruling had featured a highlighted quote from a League Against Cruel Sports representative, saying: “These inaccurate claims have been plastered all over the countryside in a blatant attempt to deceive the public.”

The complainant noted that by highlighting the quote in this way the BBC had manipulated the news “to try to obtain an advantage for one particular side”.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 13

In investigating the complaint, the Head of Programme Complaints noted that the practice of highlighting quotes was primarily a matter of style. The judgement about whether the use of a highlighted quote raised editorial concern should be made in the context of the story as a whole. It might be compared, for example, to the use of headlines, which accentuated an aspect of the story. There could only be an accusation of bias if the quote or headline was misleading in relation to the substance of the story. He concluded that the quote used in the ASA story had been appropriate.

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee discussed the issues having studied a copy of the online report. They noted that the story was about the Advertising Standards Authority’s criticism of the Countryside Alliance’s poster campaign and the adjudication in favour of the League Against Cruel Sports.

In this context, the highlighted quote was reflecting the main content of the story, rather than trying to obtain an advantage for one particular side.

The Committee believed that highlighting and repeating the quote had been done for stylistic reasons and there had been no intent to show bias.

The appeal was not upheld.

Today

BBC Radio 4, 3 June 2004

The complainant alleged that a headline sequence during Today which reported that the Muslim Council of Britain was urging voters to vote in the forthcoming elections in order to halt the rise of far-right parties had been biased. He noted that there had been no opportunity for the British National Party (BNP) to respond and this was, therefore, an example of the BBC endorsing the Muslim Council’s opinion.

The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint.

He noted that during the programme there had been three main news bulletins at 6am, 7am and 8am. There had also been four two-minute summaries on the half-hour – at 6.30am, 7.30am and 8.30am and at 9am just after the end of Today. On the day in question, the bulletins carried a report from the BBC’s Religious Affairs Correspondent, Robert Pigott, on the letter from the Muslim Council urging members to vote in the forthcoming local elections. The report concluded with a response from the BNP. The summaries, however, only included the headline or main point of the story, which was the action taken by the Muslim Council.

The Head of Programme Complaints considered that most listeners familiar with the format of Today, and the bulletins and summaries included within it, would be aware that the summaries were simply that, and that they would need to listen to the longer bulletins for fuller coverage.

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee noted that this broadcast was during an election period and considered it in light of the BBC Producers’ Guidelines, which state: “The way in which due weight is achieved between parties will vary.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 14

It could be done in a single item, a single programme, a series of programmes or over the course of the campaign as a whole. But Producers and Editors must take responsibility for achieving fairness in their own programmes and not rely on other BBC programmes or coverage to redress any imbalance for them.”

The Committee noted that the purpose of a headline sequence was to report the key issue of a story. In this case that was the letter from the Muslim Council of Britain. It was unreasonable to expect such a sequence to include a range of responses beyond the main story.

The Committee, therefore, considered how the story had been reported throughout the Today programme, both in the short headline sequences and in the main news bulletin at the top of the hour.

6am bulletin

Newsreader: “The Muslim Council of Britain has urged Muslims to turn out to vote in the European and council elections because it’s concerned that voter apathy will allow the far-right British National Party to do well. It’s written to mosques and Islamic organisations, accusing the BNP of harbouring extreme hatred of Islam. Here’s our Religious Affairs Correspondent, Robert Pigott.”

Newsreader: “In response, a spokesman for the BNP said that the Muslim Council of Britain was threatening the traditional British democratic process.”

6.30am bulletin

Newsreader: “Muslim leaders in Britain have urged their communities to use next week’s local and European elections to halt the rise of far-right parties. In a letter to the country’s mosques and Islamic organisations, the Muslim Council of Britain draws particular attention to the British National Party which, it says, has a hatred of Islam.”

7am bulletin

Newsreader: “The Muslim Council of Britain has written to members of the Islamic community to urge them to use their votes in next week’s elections. In an open letter, the Council warns that the rise of the far right poses a dangerous threat to Muslims. Here’s our Religious Affairs Correspondent, Robert Pigott.”

Robert Pigott: “The letter is a sign of real alarm that a low turnout could hand success to the BNP.The Muslim Council of Britain reminds Muslims of a recent party political broadcast by the BNP which, it claims, was threatening and anti-Muslim.Twice the document exhorts both men and women to turn out to oppose the party it claims is menacing and fascist-leaning.The Council says the BNP would need less than 10% of the vote to win election to the Greater London Authority and the European Parliament – successes that would entitle it to public funding. Churches are also running hard-hitting campaigns against the BNP, especially for its policies on race and asylum.The BNP said that the campaign had misrepresented the party and that inclusiveness in British society should not be compulsory but left to voters to decide.”

7.30am bulletin

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 15

8am bulletin

8.37am bulletin

The Committee also noted that, based on audience figures for the third quarter of 2004, the average listening to Today is 78 minutes.

Given that a response had been given by the BNP during the news bulletins at 6am, 7am and 8am, it was not unreasonable to assume that most listeners would have heard the BNP response.

The broadcast did not, therefore, breach the BBC Producers’ Guidelines.

The appeal was not upheld.

One Life message board bbc.co.uk, July 2004

The complainant reported that the moderators of the One Life message board refused to remove a posting from a fellow contributor which had described him as “catty”. He further claimed that the moderators had behaved in a homophobic manner towards him.

In his response, the Head of Programme Complaints explained that his remit was to confirm whether there had been a serious breach of editorial standards in what the BBC had broadcast or published on bbc.co.uk. In this case, that was a question of whether the complainant had been the victim of unfair treatment as a result of anything posted on the message board.

He noted that the moderators of the message board had considered the description “catty person” as lighthearted and inoffensive. The complainant’s initial reaction showed that he shared that judgement. While the complainant might have changed his mind about the intention of the comments, the Head of Programme Complaints did not think it was wrong for the moderators to stand by their initial view.

Furthermore, the Head of Programme Complaints did not believe that there had been any evidence to suggest that the complainant’s treatment had been homophobic. Rather, the correspondence between the complainant and the forum managers had concentrated on the language and tone of the postings and emails, not their subject matter or content.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 16

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee considered the events which had led to the complaint.

The initial complaint related to a posting in one section of the One Life message board which deals with homosexual matters and related topics.
The topic being discussed was a gay couple who were refused a double-bedded room by a Scottish guesthouse keeper.
A fellow contributor, ‘David’, posted the following messages as part of the discussion:
“Well I only ever stay in hotels on work related junkets. Being a doggy person it is easier to rent houses and even they are few and far between when they find out you have three dogs. FSW is, as we all know, a catty person, and has enormous experience of hotels.”
The complainant replied later that day with the following message:
“Catty person, my foot, David, oh you mean the toms. I can report that in Germany we did stay at a guesthouse and the woman said “you know what I mean when I am going to say it” – we thought oh dear...”
The following day the complainant contacted the moderators of the message board about David’s original message saying: “‘FSW is as we all know a catty person’ ... In the context that it was said in I think it was going too far. The preamble about dogs is a smoke screen... to say that I was “catty” is name calling, divisive, and not conducive to the board. Don’t know what he is getting upset about. Rather than squabbling on line about this remark it would be useful to delete it and I think it does break your rules of treating people with respect.”
The moderators considered this but did not conclude that the phrase “catty” was malicious, particularly in the context of David’s posting and the “doggy”/“catty” conversation.
They therefore left the post on the board and informed the complainant of their decision.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee noted that the spirit of the message board was one of free speech in which regular participants fully understood the rules of engagement. The moderators of such boards had to ensure that the house rules of the board were maintained while allowing the spirit of the chat room. In this case the moderators had to make a judgement call based on the tone of the discussion. Given that the complainant had initially responded to the comment in a light-hearted manner, there was little to suggest that the remark had caused offence.

The second part of the complaint concerned the complainant’s allegation that subsequently the message board management had dealt with the matter in a homophobic fashion.

The Committee considered the correspondence between the complainant and the moderators and management of the message board, and did not find any evidence that the complainant had been treated in a homophobic manner.

The complaint was not upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 17

10 O’Clock News

BBC One, 5 August 2004

The complaint concerned a report on the 10 O’Clock Newson 5 August 2004, in which the BBC’s Middle East correspondent, Orla Guerin, made the comment that Israel was to blame for many of the problems in the Middle East. For a journalist to express a view on such a controversial subject was, the complainant asserted, contrary to the BBC Producers’ Guidelines. If such a view were expressed, it should be balanced by other views, and the party criticised given an opportunity to reply.

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

The only use of the word “blame” was when Orla Guerin said: “Nearby in the heart of the old city, discontent. Israel’s occupation is to blame for many problems here, but not for them all.”
The word “here” made it clear that Orla Guerin was referring to Nablus, the town from which she was reporting. It was not a general statement about the Middle East situation, or an observation about ultimate responsibility for the problems there.
It followed an exchange with the former mayor of Nablus who had resigned from office because the violence was out of control, and who said: “It’s a disaster. We are losing the society itself. The people are losing hope. Without the society, without the security I believe we are collapsing.” In this context, the Head of Programme Complaints stated that Orla Guerin’s link was less a statement of her own views than a paraphrase of views just heard, followed by an anticipation of the views about to be heard from, or attributed to, residents of Nablus critical of Palestinian leadership.
Even if it were Orla Guerin’s view, the Head of Programme Complaints felt there was no lapse in impartiality in speaking of Israel as being to blame for some aspects of the current situation in the West Bank, any more than it would be a lapse to speak of Palestinians being to blame for others.
The piece was not a discussion of the roots of the Middle East problem but a specific report on the problems facing the Palestinians, for which, the item made clear, their own leadership bore substantial responsibility.

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee agreed it was clear, in the context of the overall report, that Orla Guerin’s use of the term “here” referred to Nablus and not to the Middle East as a whole. The report was a fair and impartial piece of journalism emphasising the extent to which the problems in Nablus were being caused by fundamentalists.

Orla Guerin was clearly using the word “blame” to assign responsibility to both sides in the conflict. Her statement that Israel’s occupation was also responsible for “many of the problems here, but not for them all” had legitimately highlighted this point.

The Committee concluded that, in this instance, there had been no breach of BBC Producers’ Guidelines.

The complaint was not upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors

Page 18

BBC News

BBC News 24, 23 August 2004

The complaint concerned a report by Julia Caesar on BBC News 24 on 23 August 2004. The item focused on the findings of a survey of investments showing that women averaged a much higher growth for their portfolios than men, or the market as a whole, for a selected period. The complainant claimed that the report caricatured men as being cognitively simple, impatient and having only a shallow understanding of the processes involved. According to the complainant, the report presented gender and racial stereotyping as news. He was particularly offended by the quotation of a comment made by Angela Knight, Chief Executive of the Association of Private Client Investment and Stockbrokers. Ms Knight was quoted as saying that ”women invest with their heads and men invest with testosterone”.

By quoting this comment the complainant considered the report had entered the “field of eugenics” and that such theories equated to “hate crime”. He further claimed that the broadcasting of such material was in violation of the BBC’s Charter.

The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint. He noted that:

The tone of the item was light-hearted. The female presenter had expressed surprise that an investment survey would have suggested women were better investors than men. The reason for this was that women tended to hold “defensive” stock, while men had more “aggressive growth” stocks.
The programme suggested a number of reasons why this might have come about. The quote “men invest with testosterone” was attributed to a leading industry figure. In the context of the report, it was appropriate to refer to it.
While there was a risk of offence, the programme had not entered the “field of eugenics” or perpetrated a “hate crime”.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee took the view that the report by Julia Caesar had aimed to deal with a complex subject in an accessible way. The item was based on a serious piece of market research (100,000 portfolios). Its findings were balanced: for example, in referring to women’s tendency to blame themselves when they lost money (in contrast to men who tended to blame the market), it attributed a failing to each sex.

One of the main editorial lines to emerge from an analysis of the survey’s findings was that women tended to research more and were more balanced about which stocks they got into, whereas men tended to take more risks. In light of this finding, the Committee felt it appropriate that the views of a respected industry figure such as Ms Knight should be quoted in the report.

Governors did not agree that the report had entered the realm of eugenics or that the material broadcast was tantamount to a hate crime.

The complaint was not upheld.

The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy

BBC Two, 1 September 2004

The complainant maintained that The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy was biased and one-sided in that it did not include any interviews arguing in defence of Lee Harvey Oswald, the man the Warren Commission concluded had been the lone assassin of President Kennedy in November 1963. According to

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Governors Page 19

the complainant, the programme contained many falsehoods, and allowed “hearsay”, “conjecture” and “uncorroborated, second-hand accounts”.

The complainant also took issue with the programme’s presentation of the following:

The description of the wounds to the back of Kennedy’s head, the so-called “back and to the left” theory.
The demonstration by Dr John Lattimer of how it was possible that the rifle used in the assassination could have been fired three times in eight seconds.
The accuracy of Dale Myers’ computerised graphics. The complainant asserted there had been no independent verification or authentication of this exercise, nor did the programme present any experts with an alternative point of view.

The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold Mr Kelly’s complaint. In doing so he referred to the following points:

Given the innumerable films broadcast about the Kennedy assassination, the complainant could not claim that the “researchers” he thought should have been included had not been given sufficient airtime over the years.
The assumption at the time of the Warren Commission was that Oswald had only six seconds in which to shoot the President. The current thinking accepted by the House Select Committee (and most people in the “research community”) was that the first shot missed, giving Oswald 8.4 seconds to fire two shots.
Dr John Lattimer, the person referred to by the complainant in the demonstration of the type of gun used in the assassination, was regarded as a leading expert on the Kennedy shooting, and had conducted more simulations of it than anyone else. (He was also the author of a book on the subject.)
The complainant made a number of points concerning the type of gun used in the assassination. One was that the gun was “cheap” and, therefore, of poor quality. There were, in fact, good reasons why this type of gun had been widely available at the time.
There was no difference in the setting of the gun for a right- or left-handed person, a fact which addressed another of the complainant’s points concerning the gun used during the assassination.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee concluded that it was reasonable for a programme broadcast by the BBC on the Kennedy assassination to consider events from a particular perspective – in this instance, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin. In coming to this conclusion the Committee noted that BBC Producers’ Guidelines on impartiality state: “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. ...There will be times when a wide range of views is appropriate, and times when a narrow range is acceptable ... the key is for programmes to be fair to their subject matter.”

The Committee noted, however, that the programme could have made it clearer from the outset that this was the standpoint it was taking.

The Committee noted that over the years there had been numerous arguments and theories about the precise details of the assassination. These included points raised by the complainant. The Committee took the view that it was not for it to adjudicate on these detailed forensic points. It was, however, satisfied that the BBC had properly externally validated the work of computer analyst Dale Myers whose work was at the core of the new evidence examined by the programme. (Mr Myers’ work was assessed by one of the most experienced companies in the field of forensic reconstruction in the US, Z Axis.) The Committee also felt it was perfectly valid for the programme to present a demonstration by an expert on the Kennedy shooting, Dr John Lattimer, on how the type of rifle used in the assassination could fire three shots in eight seconds.

The appeal was not upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Govenors

Page 20

BBC News bbc.co.uk, 1 September 2004

The complaint concerned an item on bbc.co.uk/news which reported the forthcoming trial of a Nigerian transvestite. The complainant claimed that by referring to Abubakar Hamza as “he” rather than “she”, the BBC Producers’ Guidelines were breached.

In not upholding the complaint the Head of Programme Complaints noted that:

The Oxford Dictionary defines a transsexual as ”a person born with the physical characteristics of one sex, who emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex”, whereas a transvestite is defined as “a person who derives pleasure in dressing in clothes considered appropriate to the opposite sex”. This does not necessarily imply a desire or intention to change sex.
The BBC Producers’ Guidelines relating to transsexuals refer specifically to those who have undergone, or are in the process of seeking, surgery to change their sex: “Transsexuals who have completed surgery to become a member of the opposite sex should be referred to as the gender they have become. Pre-operative transsexuals should be described as they wish. If their wishes are not known, and it is not possible to find out, take an informed view, based on knowledge of the individual’s lifestyle. For example, it is reasonable to assume that a woman living as a man would wish to be referred to as “he” rather than “she”.”

The Head of Programme Complaints, therefore, took the view that the story on bbc.co.uk/news was about a transvestite, not a transsexual.

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee considered that the description of Hamza as a transvestite was further confirmed by the phraseology he was quoted as using in a version of his story carried by the news agency AFP. This included phrases such as: “I promise I will change and never play a girl again ... I began dressing like them and gradually moved to their homes to live with them ... When my Father’s disapproval of my dressing like a girl became unbearable I left home and lived with a family in a nomadic settlement dressing and behaving like other girls in the family ... But I dared not sleep with any of them for fear that my true identity could be exposed ... whenever I sensed my disguise was threatened…”

The Committee took the view that this lent credence to the view that Hamza was a male posing as a female. It could not be presumed that Hamza might wish to be perceived as a transsexual; he could, just as equally, be content to be described as a transvestite.

There was also an issue concerning how the details of the case could be conveyed clearly to the online audience. The criminal charge faced by Hamza was that of “living and dressing as a woman”. If Hamza had been referred to as a woman, the story would have become incomprehensible.

The Committee stated that no disrespect was meant to Hamza or his choices concerning his sexuality. The BBC, however, had clear guidelines about how it described transsexuals. This guidance, combined with the available evidence in this case, and the importance of ensuring clarity for the audience, had led the Committee to conclude that Hamza should be referred to as a man.

The complaint was not upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Govenors

Page 21

Matters of taste and decency

Countryfile

BBC One, 15 August 2004

The complainant alleged that, during a Countryfile report on the Silver Jubilee of the World Worm Charming Championships, Ben Fogle had said: “It’s now time to count the slippery little f*ckers.”

BBC Information responded by stating that Ben Fogle had actually said “…the slippery little suckers”. Not satisfied with the response, the complainant contacted the Programme Complaints Unit. The Head of Complaints did not uphold the complaint.

He noted, however, that throughout the worm-charming item the sound quality was somewhat less than perfect, and that there was a loss of distinctiveness in the sibilants. There were various possible technical explanations for this. However, the unlikelihood of a presenter deliberately introducing the f-word into a scripted piece for a daytime programme, the generally sub-optimal sound quality, and the fact that the phrase “slippery little suckers” had an alliteration which the alternative lacked, led him to believe that “suckers” was the word spoken.

The complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee watched the extract from Countryfile several times and concluded that there was no doubt that Ben Fogle had said “slippery little suckers”.

The appeal was not upheld.

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Govenors

Page 22

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 and Angela Sarkis; a fifth Governor will be appointed to the Committee shortly.

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

In line with the GPCC’s responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of complaints handling by BBC management, it is also the specific function of the GPCC to consider appeals against decisions and actions of the Programme Complaints Unit (PCU) 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

(From 1 February 2005, as part of the new arrangements for handling complaints, the GPCC will consider the decisions and actions of the Editorial Complaints Unit which will replace PCU.)

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 bbc.co.uk/info.

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 MC3 D3 Media Centre Media Village Wood Lane London W12 7TQ

BBC Programme Complaints:Appeals to the Govenors

Page 24