Mark Easton gets it wrong again

And talking about the BBC getting its facts wrong...

As Arthur T notes on the open thread, blog favourite and arch-BBC narrative setter Mark Easton has been rebuked again by the corporation's Editorial Complaints Unit.

Here's that ruling as it appears on the BBC website's Executive Complaints Unit Findings page:

BBC News (6.00pm), BBC One, 12 April 2022

18 August 2022

Complaint

In a report on the Prime Minister receiving a fine for breaching lockdown restrictions the BBC’s Home Editor said:

Now each one of those Fixed Penalty Notices requires the police to believe that a criminal offence has been committed. Now it doesn’t go on anybody’s criminal record but it will go on the Police National Computer.

A viewer complained that this was incorrect, as breaches of lockdown restrictions incurring a fixed penalty notice were non-recordable crimes. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of accuracy.

Outcome

The Home Editor acknowledged that he was mistaken in saying the offence would be recorded on the Police National Computer. As the error could have misled viewers as to the seriousness of the offence, the ECU accepted that it was a breach of the relevant editorial standards.

Upheld

Further action

The finding was reported to the Board of BBC News and discussed with the programme-makers concerned.

As ever, beyond being published on a part of the BBC website very few people read [and being picked up by the odd newspaper], what is the BBC doing to make this known to BBC viewers who might have been misled? A prominent apology/correction on BBC One's News at Six?

I've scanned TVEyes to see if any apology/correction has been broadcast on BBC One since this ruling was published two days ago. You won't be surprise that it brings up no results.

Note also that it took four months and an escalation to the ECU to even get this. The BBC's complaints process isn't fit for purpose.

You really do have to watch them like a hawk.

Labelling the IEA

There's another interesting new ruling by the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU). 

The right-leaning Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) is a bogeyman for left-leaning types on Twitter. 'Who funds you?' is their repeated cry whenever someone from the IEA pops up, and they don't like it when IEA people appear on the BBC at all. 

Someone complained that The Papers on the BBC News Channel “repeatedly failed to provide an adequate description of the IEA”. I'm guessing they would like the BBC to label them with something negative. 

Anyhow, the BBC upheld their complaint and will oblige them from now on by making sure its presenters make “particular reference” to the IEA's “free market orientation”.

From what I can see, these instances relate to some rare appearances by Annabel Denham, Director of Communications at the IEA, alongside broadcaster John Stapleton. The latest ones, on 7 June, saw the IEA labelled as a “free-market think tank” each time she was introduced.

It will be most interesting to test again how consistent the BBC are with their labels, especially given that 'bias by labelling' is always a risk. Will they treat outfits from other parts of the political spectrum this way too?

I see, from a preliminary scan of TV Eyes, that the likes of the Resolution Foundation are being labelled “independent” or “a think tank that focuses on people of lower incomes” and Demos is “cross-party”. 

One last hurrah

I see that the BBC put out yet another ruling against the dearly departed Emily Maitlis earlier this month.

Their Editorial Complaints Unit judged against her retweet of an anti-Boris tweet from former Conservative MP Rory Stewart, saying that “in the absence of any indication to the contrary, retweeting the comment risked giving the impression that Ms Maitlis endorsed the view it expressed.” 

As she then apologised on Twitter they considered the matter “resolved”. 

She certainly kept them busy in recent years, which is why I instantly believed the reports this week that said some at the BBC were glad to see the back of her and her partner in crime Lewis Goodall. 

If you missed that, here's how the Daily Telegraph reported it on Monday:

BBC bosses believe they have solved the problem of perceived Left-wing bias on Newsnight, after Lewis Goodall announced he was leaving to join Emily Maitlis at a commercial rival.

The Telegraph understands that the corporation did not make a counter-offer when Goodall, the programme’s policy editor, told them he had been approached by Global.

The departure of Goodall and Maitlis is being viewed as an opportunity to reset the programme and focus on impartiality after the pair were at the centre of damaging rows with the Government.

Two down, several thousand to go. 

The BBC rules against Will Grant

 

Of the millions of people who watch an incorrect report on BBC One's News at Ten, how many ever become aware of the correction on the BBC website? 

I'd put it in the low thousands at best. 

Three months ago many US media outlets and senior US Democrat politicians falsely claimed that US border guards had used whips to beat Haitian illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico.. 

I saw many flat-out rebuttals of that at the time, including on the BBC's least favourite US channel Fox News, but BBC One's News at Ten featured a report on 23 September 2021 which simply parroted that false story. 

Will Grant, the BBC's Mexico, Central America and Cuba correspondent, said:

As migrants attempted to cross from Mexico to a makeshift camp in Texas this week, they were pushed back by mounted Border Patrol officers using whips.   

Here's the BBC Executive Complaints Unit's ruling:

Complaint 

A report about Haitian immigrants to the United States included this statement: As migrants attempted to cross from Mexico to a makeshift camp in Texas this week, they were pushed back by mounted Border Patrol officers using whips. A viewer complained that the claim that whips had been used was false. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of due accuracy.

Outcome 

Reports on social media and news media that Border Patrol officers had used whips were based on photographs taken by an agency photographer who subsequently stated that he had not seen whips being used at the time. Moreover the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for border control, stated on 20 September that the images showed long reins used to control horses – an explanation entirely compatible with the images themselves. In view of these points, the ECU agreed that the report’s claim about the use of whips was not consistent with the BBC’s standards of due accuracy. 

Upheld 

Further action

The finding was reported to the Board of BBC News and discussed with the programme-makers concerned.

This is such an interesting one as it shows the BBC simply joining the pack and spreading the same inaccurate lines that their cousins in the US media were spouting without verifying it first. 

Confirmation bias is trumping true fact-checking at the BBC these days on so many fronts - as per the Oxford Street incident too. 

[P.S. It took a lot of digging to find out the name of the BBC reporter responsible. The BBC don't make it easy in their complaints rulings]. 

Sunday morning reading

I

The Mail on Sunday quotes Sir Iain Duncan Smith not so quietly ripping into the BBC's Covid coverage:

The vaccines are really good at stopping hospitalisation and death, yet every night we report the infection rate – why?

Why does the BBC throw over every single bit of data, when Covid is about sixth on the death toll? Can we have the death toll for pneumonia while we're at it? 

Cancer, heart disease, liver problems? Why are we continuing with the Covid stuff on the BBC and the main news channels? It frightens people.

Older people are still asking, 'Are we allowed to hug now?' Even when they have had all the jabs.

We have people who are now scared of normal life.

We certainly don't do it for flu, and we don't do it for cancer. 

Either we go the whole hog and every night publish a list of how you're going to die, or not at all. Covid isn't the major reason for death.

II 

The same paper also reports Peter Hitchens's rare victory over the BBC Complaints department. 

It concerned an episode from a Radio 4 series Mayday: The Canister on the Bed, broadcast on 20 November 2020. The BBC summarised the case like this:

The programme, part of a series on aspects of the conflict in Syria, dealt with the chemical weapons attack at Douma, which it described as “one of the most contested events in the war”, and included an account of the role subsequently played by a former inspector with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), known pseudonymously as Alex, who had expressed concerns about the OPCW’s conclusions on the matter. The journalist Peter Hitchens complained that the programme had been inaccurate in insinuating that Alex’s disclosures had been motivated by a reward of $100,000 offered by WikiLeaks, that he believed the attack had been staged, and that he had made his views known only through “a select few journalists who share the Russian and Syrian state views on the war”. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of due accuracy.

And the BBC upheld Mr Hitchens's complaint, concluding that this episode in Chloe Hadjimatheou's Orwell Prize short-listed series [a] did indeed make an “insinuation” against Alex and that [b] the evidence for that insinuation wasn't strong enough to warrant the programme calling Alex's motives into question. It also found that [c] the programme's claim that Alex “believed the attack was staged” wasn't justified by strong enough evidence and [d] the programme mischaracterised Alex’s dealings with journalists, saying he had collaborated with journalists who held broadly the same views on the war as the Russian and Syrian governments, whereas he had in fact “also collaborated with journalists of whom that could not be said (Mr Hitchens among them)”.

The ECU found that, although they were limited to one aspect of a investigation into a complex and hotly contested subject, these points represented a failure to meet the standard of accuracy appropriate to a programme of this kind. The ECU noted that a posting about one point of the complaint had been made on the Corrections and Clarifications page of bbc.co.uk but, as it was not reflected in the extended version of the programme which continued to available on BBC Sounds and the website of the series, it did not suffice to resolve the issue in question.

And what Further Action has been taken? Well, “the finding was reported to the Board of BBC News and discussed with the programme-makers in question.” 

That'll teach 'em!

Partly Upheld

 

At the height of the BLM protests last year the BBC's News at Ten broadcast a report about the Bengal Famine that proved highly controversial, especially regarding accusations against Winston Churchill.

Our view, as expressed at the time, ran as follows:

Both last Monday's Today programme and last Monday's BBC One News at Ten featured reports by BBC journalist Yogita Limaye, and she clearly felt no obligation whatsoever to show fairness and impartiality. 

Her pieces were nothing more than concerted efforts to brand Winston Churchill a racist and hold him responsible for the 1943 Bengal Famine.

It generally aroused concerns that the activist foxes were taking over the chicken coop. 

Well, the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit has finally got round to ruling on complaints about this report - and by 'finally' I mean it's taken over 13 months to resolve - and it's partly exonerated Yogita Limaye's piece. But only partly. And what it upholds is that in the ECU’s judgement...:

...more exploration of alternative views of Churchill’s actions and motives in relation to the Bengal famine was required to meet the standard of impartiality appropriate to a report in a news bulletin of this kind. This aspect of the complaint was upheld

Or to put it another way, it wasn't fair and it wasn't impartial.

Jeremy Vine and Andrew Marr's discussion "misled listeners and did not meet the BBC’s standards of due accuracy"

Those who enjoy reading BBC Executive Complaints Unit findings that go against the BBC are in for a treat here. 

This one concerns an edition of BBC Radio 2's The Jeremy Vine Show on 6 October 2020 and an interview between the host and Andrew Marr.

Here's how the BBC summarises the complaint: 

The programme included an interview with Andrew Marr about his book “Elizabethans: How Modern Britain Was Forged” in which he referred to one of its subjects, Jayaben Desai, who was involved in the prolonged strike at Grunwick in 1976. The son of the late George Ward, the owner of Grunwick, complained that the discussion repeated statement about Mr Ward’s treatment of his workforce which were in conflict with the findings of the inquiry conducted by Lord Scarman, and for which the BBC had apologised when they were broadcast on previous occasions. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of due accuracy.

What's so striking there is that the BBC "had apologised" before "on previous occasions" for making such statements, and now thanks to Mr Vine and Mr Marr they've had to do it again! 

So what happened? Well, the BBC ruled against Jeremy Vine and Andrew Marr:

Outcome

As the ECU was presented with no evidence which would have allowed it to discount Lord Scarman’s conclusions, it accepted that the statements in question would have misled listeners and did not meet the BBC’s standards of due accuracy.

Upheld

And what happened as a result? Well, pretty much the usual:

Further action

The finding was reported to the board of BBC Radio and discussed with the programme-makers concerned. The inaccurate material will not be re-broadcast.

It doesn't sound as if the verdict had to be read out on The Jeremy Vine Show or a public apology given.

Emily Maitlis scores a hattrick

 

I wonder if Emily Maitlis now tops the charts for most 'Upheld' complaints over the past couple of years as far as the BBC goes? 

(Maybe she's aiming to get into the Guinness Book of Records?)

In September 2019 the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit upheld a complaint against her for her "sneering and bullying...persistent and personal" interview with Rod Liddle. 

In May 2020 the BBC found her to be in breach of their impartiality guidelines again over her (in)famous Newsnight Dominic Cummings monologue. 

And in December 2020 - on Christmas Eve to be precise (sneaked out the day before Christmas, when the Brexit deal was agreed and major new Covid lockdown measures announced, some nine months on from the original programme) - the BBC released their latest ruling against Emily Maitlis for her March 2020 documentary, Taking Control: The Dominic Cummings Story. 

Remarkably, they cleared her over impartiality but ruled against her over accuracy.

The News-watch complaint itself ran as follows:

This programme set out to explore the career, character and thinking of Dominic Cummings, with contributions from a range of critics and admirers. A viewer complained that the programme overall was biased against Mr Cummings (lacking “sufficient balancing opinion”), and gave the impression “That he was prepared to be recklessly violent towards political opponents; that he had ‘tribalist’ ‘neo fascist’ prejudice against Muslims; and that he was a liar who grossly misrepresented statistics in order to further his political aims”. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of impartiality and accuracy.

And this is the ruling against Emily Maitlis:

The attribution of prejudice against Muslims related to a sequence which included the following quotation from a paper entitled “How Demographic Decline and its financial consequences will sink the European Dream” published by a think tank directed by Mr Cummings: “The consequences of economic stagnation coinciding with rising Muslim immigration cannot fill anyone familiar with European history with anything other than a sense of apprehension, at least, about the future of the Continent”. The ECU agreed that, in the context of this sequence, the quotation tended to support the impression complained of. In the think tank paper the quotation stood in a context which pointed to Europe’s relative difficulty in integrating immigrants, rather than anything connected with Islam, as the source of tension, and the paper itself concluded “There is little reason to be optimistic about Europe’s capacity to avoid a growth of extremist political activity, or its desire to avoid the traditional response of polities in crisis – blaming foreigners”. In the ECU’s judgement, the quotation would have conveyed a different impression in the programme if more had been done to reflect its original context. As this risked misleading viewers, there was a breach of the BBC’s standards of accuracy, and this aspect of the complaint was upheld.

The BBC is notoriously poor at making concessions over such things, and now Emily Maitlis's failings have forced the BBC into admitting that its critics were right three times in the last year and a bit alone. You'd think they might take action.

Fear not though, if you're worried for Emily. I'm sure - as usual - that the full force of the BBC won't fall on her head and that she'll be allowed to carry on regardless. She's a world record to win after all. You go girl!

And the result is?

You will doubtless recall the furore over the Panorama edition titled 'Has The Government Failed The NHS?'. 

Guido Fawkes led the charge against the BBC for featuring six left-wingers, most with links to the Corbyn end of the Labour Party, three of whom directly criticised the Government for its handling of Covid-19. 

Newspapers took up the charge too. 

Well, large numbers of complaints went in and the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) gave its ruling this week. 

Now it has to be said that hhe Daily Mail headline yesterday, BBC admits Panorama DID breach its editorial standards by failing to reveal doctor who attacked government over PPE was long-time Labour member, promised more than it delivered.

Yes, the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) ruled that "the nature and extent" of former Labour election candidate Dr Sonia Adesara's political affiliation "was such that it might have been relevant to the audience's evaluation of her contribution insofar as it was critical of the Government, and that it was a breach of the BBC's editorial standards not to have given viewers appropriate information about it", but it caveated that by saying, "her criticism of the Government was in keeping with what might be expected from a doctor with experience of inadequate PPE provision, and that information about her political affiliations would not have called the validity of her concerns into doubt in the minds of viewers." 

And the rest of the ruling clears the programme of all the other charges, pronouncing it innocent over the presentation of and the participation of all the other five people featured in it - including Brian Eno's daughter and Professor John Ashton. 

So in the scheme of things it's the merest crumb of an 'admission' and unlikely to satisfy the programme's many critics, but at least, as the Mail says, the ECU ruled that the programme did breach BBC editorial standards, and that's something I suppose.

Upheld, upheld, upheld

Yes, complaining to the BBC does sometimes pay off. 

Here are three examples, published over the last three days.

The latest one concerns Sally Bundock's infamous interview with Tim Martin of Wetherspoons. We previously posted an earlier BBC Complaints response to criticism that was typically 'BBC' in its refusal to admit wrongdoing - except that the BBC has now admitted wrongdoing.

The directions of travel, bias-wise, here are interesting. The first suggests anti-Catalan independence bias, the second pro-transgender activism bias, and the third anti-Brexit bias.

Enjoy! 

Up All Night, Radio 5 Live, 21 December 2018: Finding by the Executive Complaints Unit 

Complaint
The programme included an interview about the political situation in Spain with Irene Lozano, the Secretary of State for Global Spain. A listener complained that terms used by both Ms Lozano and the interviewer had given the false impression that the leaders of the Catalan independence movement had been convicted of crimes. 

Outcome
As was made clear in the interview, the trial of Catalan leaders had not yet begun. However, the use of terms such as “these crimes that they committed” by the interviewer and “political leaders that have committed criminal offenses” by Ms Lozano conveyed the false impression that their guilt had already been established.
Upheld 

Further action
The presenter has been reminded of the importance of precise language, especially when legal proceedings are imminent.

The Stephen Nolan Show, BBC Radio 5 Live, 17 February 2019: Finding by the Executive Complaints Unit 

Complaint
The programme included a discussion of Martina Navratilova’s recently-published views on trans women athletes, in which the trans woman cyclist Rachel McKinnon participated. Five listeners objected to the fact that an invitation to another speaker, Nicola Williams, had been withdrawn after Dr McKinnon had made that a condition of her own participation, and complained that the resulting discussion was one-sided. 

Outcome
The decision to accept Dr McKinnon’s terms was a matter for the programme-makers’ editorial discretion (exercised in view of the fact that Ms Navratilova had cited Dr McKinnon in the article in question and that Dr Williams would be invited to take part in a subsequent edition of the programme), and not a matter for judgement by the ECU. In Dr Williams’ absence, however, there was no challenge to the views expressed by Dr McKinnon, either from the presenter or the other guest, and the result was not duly impartial.
Upheld 

Further action
The programme team has been asked to ensure that debates properly reflect due impartiality either in their casting or in the nature of the questioning.

Business Briefing, BBC News Channel, 28 March 2019: Finding by the Executive Complaints Unit 

Complaint
The programme included an interview with Tim Martin, Chairman of Wetherspoon, who was described by the presenter as a business leader “who wants a clean break from the EU”. Two viewers complained that the interview was not conducted in a properly impartial manner, with Mr Martin being persistently interrupted by the presenter. 

Outcome
In the ECU’s judgement, it would have been easy for viewers to form the impression that the presenter held a distinct view of her own on Mr Martin’s support for leaving the EU without a deal, and the interview fell short of the BBC’s standards of due impartiality in that respect.
Upheld 

Further action
It has been stressed to the presenter that the way questions are framed should make it clear to the audience that this is for the proper purpose of impartial challenge and that a personal view is not being expressed.

Stats and BBC complaints

The BBC's latest complaints report (covering 13-26 May 2019) reveals that the three most complained about programmes were The Andrew Marr Show (twice) and One Day in Gaza. Both editions of The Andrew Marr Show concerned complaints about anti-Brexit bias, the One day in Gaza programme was complained about for anti-Israel bias. There were 788 complaints in total about anti-Brexit (and/or anti-Nigel Farage bias) on those two editions of The Andrew Marr Show and 132 about One Day in Gaza.

As for the Stage 2 findings of the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit (ECU), the BBC made 19 findings. Only 1 of the 19 complaints was upheld - it was against a Radio 4 programme that featured a "misleading claim that clothes can be disinfected by freezing". 

Mark Easton gets rapped over the knuckles by the BBC

Browsing through the latest BBC ECU findings, I though you might be interested in this one:

BBC News (10pm), BBC One, 21 August 2018: Finding by the Executive Complaints Unit 

Complaint

The bulletin included a report on the possible effect of Brexit on import-export traffic through Dover. A viewer complained that the reporter’s statement “210 million containers a year will be potentially added to those requiring customs checks” was misleading. 

Outcome

The 210 million figure reflected the HMRC estimate of the annual number of additional customs declarations resulting from Brexit, including crates, drums, boxes and cases as well as intermodal freight containers. However, the context would have given the impression that it referred to intermodal containers only, which was misleading.

Upheld 

Further action

Journalists have been reminded to be careful when they attempt to reduce complex statistics to a more understandable overall picture and to ensure that in doing so the pictures match the conclusion they have reached.

Naturally, I was curious to find out who the "misleading" BBC reporter was. Using the Wayback Machine, it turns out to have been the BBC's home editor Mark Easton.  

For Mash gets smash

So Susan Calman made a political remark on The News Quiz back in June accusing Mrs May of being "a coward" over abortion rights in Northern Ireland. Comedians are, of course, always making political remarks (or ranting) on The News Quiz, usually just as one-sidedly as Susan, but this one - to some surprise - actually earned the programme a rap on the knuckles from the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit. 

The ECU found against the programme on the grounds of bias against the Conservatives.

Wonder if Susan Calman's wife was puzzled about that? After all, most BBC comedy shows with a political slant must surely be flouting the 'due impartiality' rules on a very regular basis, and yet they don't get into trouble, do they? 

Take The Mash Report on BBC Two, for example, where presenter Nish Kumar delivers a Guardian editorial each week. How's that allowed? 

Incidentally, I thought this summed that programme up pretty well: "The Mash Report - a show so bad that even the canned laughter sounds halfhearted".

Bias complaints against Evan Davis and Eddie Mair upheld

Evan Davis, sitting on the BBC's naughty step

This week's Feedback ended with Roger Bolton saying:

Finally, last week under pressure from Ofcom, its new regulator, the BBC agreed to publish the number of complaints it receives each fortnight and to reveal which individual programmes had over 100 complaints. We promised to keep you up-to-date with those that concerned radio. Well, the corporation has now published the first wave and...[drum roll]...O bathos! As yet no radio programmes have reached that bar. How inoffensive! The corporation must try harder.

It's quite surprising to think that, say, Today has received fewer than 100 complaints over a fortnight. People are always complaining about Today without, it seems, ever actually complaining about it (if you know what I mean!). 

According to the Guardian, only two BBC programmes have received over 100 complaints - Have I Got News For You and Strictly Come Dancing. 

There are, however, a couple of intriguing passages in that Guardian piece relevant to the main theme of this little blog of ours. 

Firstly,

The BBC has also revealed that a complaint regarding due impartiality and bias against Radio 4’s PM, which is presented by Eddie Mair, was upheld. The complaint related to an episode on 8 June, but details of the issue raised was not provided.

And secondly, 

An episode of Newsnight was also ruled to have bias in its coverage of the French presidential election, giving the impression that the host Evan Davis favoured Emmanuel Macron over Marine Le Pen. The BBC’s executive complaints unit, which handled the complaint, said: “Newsnight has been reminded of the requirements of due impartiality, so that the perception of its coverage matches its intent.”

The Eddie Mair one is mysterious. The BBC isn't saying how Eddie fell foul of the BBC's rules on bias. 

The Evan Davis one is much less mysterious. The only mystery there is why he's not received such a telling-off before!

Into the Labyrinth

Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday piece today contrasts how hard it is for most complaints to successfully pass through the eye of a needle that is the BBC's labyrinthine complaints process with just how easy it appears to be to get a happy result out of the BBC if you're complaining about the BBC allowing 'climate sceptics' onto programmes and then failing to do the decent thing and pour boiling hot oil over them throughout. Along the way Mr H. gives a neat description of the BBC complaints process for the rest of us mere mortals:

Complaints and Clarifications

The BBC's listen-known-about Complaints and Clarifications page has been very quiet recently, so much so that I suspected they'd chosen to abandon making their findings public. Then suddenly, this past week, came a small rush of rulings.

Here's one of them that you may have missed:

Victoria Derbyshire, BBC Two & BBC News Channel, 6 June 2016

A viewer complained that, during a debate on the issues in the referendum campaign, Victoria Derbyshire had misleadingly suggested that reallocating the UK’s net contribution to the EU budget to other areas such as the NHS would have a severe impact on farm subsidies.

Challenging a point made by Jane Collins MEP, Victoria Derbyshire said “if that £8.5bn went to the NHS, that would mean farmers who get more than 50% of their income from the EU would be decimated”.

This reflected a confusion between the UK’s net contribution (of £8.5bn after payments from the EU to the UK, including agricultural subsidies, have been taken into account) and its gross contribution. 

Although Ms Collins tried to rebut the suggestion, she did not do so in terms which would have removed the misleading impression.

The complaint was upheld and the relevant information was drawn to the presenter’s attention after the broadcast, and will be borne in mind when the programme returns to the subject.

And here's another story you might have missed, as reported in The Catholic Herald...

The BBC's editorial complaints unit has ruled against BBC One's News at Six for a July report that stated “Silence was the response of the Catholic Church when Nazi Germany demonised Jewish people and then attempted to eradicate Jews from Europe.” 

The ECU called that "unfair", saying that the BBC's reporter “did not give due weight to public statements by successive popes or the efforts made on the instructions of Pius XII to rescue Jews from Nazi persecution, and perpetuated a view which is at odds with the balance of evidence.”

It resulted from a complaint from cross-bench peer Lord Alton of Liverpool and Fr Leo Chamberlain, the former headmaster of Ampleforth. 

The complaint took "nearly six months" to resolve, says The Catholic Herald (though as the report went out on 29th July and the Herald reported this on 9th December it might have been more accurate to say 'over four months'). 

Historian wins ruling against BBC

Here's something you may have missed (as I did, until now)...

Hold the presses! The BBC Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) has actually ruled against a BBC website article:

The “sanitised narrative” of Hiroshima’s atomic bombing, bbc.co.uk: Finding by the Editorial Complaints Unit

Complaint

According to this online article, the rationale that the use of the A-bombs was intended to shorten the war and avoid an indefinite number of casualties “was constructed after the war, by America’s leaders, to justify what they had done”.  The historian Antony Beevor complained that this stated as fact a view which conflicted with contemporaneous evidence.

Outcome

There are contemporaneous sources which make clear that extremely high estimates of casualties in the event of an invasion of Japan played a major part in US thinking. The ECU concluded that what the article stated as a fact was strongly contested, on the basis of credible evidence. Upheld

Further action

The matter was discussed in detail with the author of the article (the BBC’s Tokyo Correspondent), who revised it in the light of the finding. The headline, which was not the responsibility of the author, was also changed.

The article in question was by Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, and blogs like this (including this very blog) criticised it strongly at the time. 

Would the BBC have 'fessed up though if it hadn't been someone as prestigious as Antony Beevor complaining?

So what happened to James Naughtie over 'the DNA scandal'?

Just to 'bump up' an exchange on an earlier comments thread...

...and to update you on a story we covered in March 2014...

Anonymous, 19 July 2015 at 13:17

Speaking of Naughtie, was there ever any public statement from the BBC about him and his mate with the DNA business?

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/genetic-ancestry/interview

Craig, 19 July 2015 at 14:37 

That's a very good question. We last heard about that on 9th March last year.  

From what I can see, the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit finally published its ruling on 15th April 2014, and this was then published on the (barely-read) Corrections and Clarifications page website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/comp-reports/ecu/today9july2012radio4 

The odd thing about its public summary is that it doesn't mention James Naughtie by name, despite upholding the complaint [against him].  

The key bit is what action was then taken:

"Further action:

The Editor of Today discussed the findings with the team and emphasised the need for careful scrutiny of the claims of commercial companies and the avoidance of undue on-air promotion."

So, there you have it. All that happened was that the Today editor discussed it with the Today team. 

The long slog by UCL to get anywhere is outlined in all its gory detail here:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/genetic-ancestry/Correspondence/bbc

It makes for interesting reading, especially as UCL tried to have the matter taken further, up to the BBC Trust - but got nowhere with that. They don't seem at all happy with the BBC's further responses either.

Jonathan Dimbleby commits "a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality"

You may or not have spotted this (as I believe only the Guardian and the Daily Mail have covered the story), but the BBC Trust has issued a rare damning verdict on a high-profile BBC presenter - namely Jonathan Dimbleby:

Trail for Any Questions? In Today, Radio 4, 29 May 2015

Summary of finding 

The Committee considered the serious editorial breach which occurred during a trail for the programme Any Questions? on Radio 4’s Today programme. In the trail, the Any Questions? presenter Jonathan Dimbleby included information on the charity he had helped to establish in memory of his father and explained how listeners could support it. 

The Committee concluded that this was a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality, Conflicts of Interest, and External Relationships and Funding.

The offending exchange on Today ran as follows:

Jonathan Dimbleby: And Justin, I just want to add a football, a personal football, a footnote not football – well it’ll turn out to be a football...

Justin Webb: Not some kind of confession is it? 

Jonathan Dimbleby: Well it’s going to hit me in the face I think probably– I’m not going to be with you next Friday morning. I haven’t resigned, I haven’t been sacked - yet. But when Any Questions? goes on air, I shall be leading a fifty kilometre night-time walk through London to raise funds for the cancer charity we set up after the death of my father fifty years ago. If you want to support our work, our walk, you can find out more online – Dimbleby Cancer Care. Er, now I will be sacked won’t I? 

Justin Webb: Er, I won’t answer that actually Jonathan.... 

Jonathan Dimbleby: …No I think you’d better not, otherwise you could be… Eight o’clock this evening, we’re on air anyway. 

Justin Webb: …exactly, but I will support you privately at least. 

Jonathan Dimbleby: You’re a good man, thanks.

This was the response from the BBC Executive:

The Executive confirmed that they considered this was a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines. They noted that it was an off-the-cuff addition to an otherwise scripted trail. 

They stated that it was not uncommon for presenters who were well known to audiences to mention activities they were involved in from their personal lives. However, they noted that it was less usual for this to happen during a brief trail slot and that, in this case, the information about how listeners could support a presenter’s charitable endeavour went significantly beyond what could be editorially justifiable. They stated that the Director of Editorial Policy had written to Jonathan Dimbleby very shortly after the broadcast and the Director, Radio Production, had also discussed it personally with the presenter. The head of the department responsible for the programme’s production had also reminded the presenter about the requirements of the Editorial Guidelines conflicts of interest. 

(No mention of whether anything was said to Justin Webb about his "but I will support you privately at least.")

And this was the Trust's final decision:

Trustees noted that the presenter’s trail had been scripted and that the script had been seen prior to transmission. However, the presenter had ad-libbed to refer to a charity event of considerable personal significance to him. They appreciated that he had a strong emotional link to the charity. However, they noted that a considerable number of other well-known BBC correspondents and presenters also had enduring links with particular causes and charities to which they had an equally significant emotional commitment. 

Trustees noted that the BBC had set up strict protocols around the broadcast of charitable appeals. They also noted that the Editorial Guidelines guarded against any individual’s interest having an undue impact on broadcast output and that this also served to protect charities generally from an individual favouring one particular cause. They noted that the timing of the trail gave the presenter access to a very large audience – and that other charities did not have the opportunity to reach that audience. 

Trustees noted the action that had been taken by the Executive and considered this was an isolated case and would remind presenters and correspondents generally of the requirements of the Editorial Guidelines. They considered that the broadcast was a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines for Impartiality, Conflicts of Interest, and External Relationships and Funding but it had been mitigated by the swift Executive action. 

(Good old BBC Executives, eh!)

I can't say that Jonathan's transgression is one I feel particularly outraged about (rather the reverse in fact), but there you have it anyway. Just thought you'd like to know.

Is the BBC Trust biased in favour of anti-Israel complainants?

Moving onto the latest batch of Editorial Standards Findings (every complaint and appeal being, as usual, "not upheld")...

Among the published rulings, there's one attacking the BBC for being pro-Israel (p.38) and another for being anti-Israel (p.25) - just the way the BBC seems to like it so they can claim to be 'getting it about right'.

The BBC has thrown both complaints out, but there's a notable difference between their rulings:

The one criticising Jeremy Bowen's reporting (the one where he said “After the attack on the centre for the disabled it is clear that the Israelis have some serious questions to answer”) is firmly rejected, while the one quibbling about how Douglas Murray was introduced on Newsnight includes the following emollient passage:

In considering the appeal the Trustees had some sympathy with the complainant’s view. While not agreeing with the complainant that the Henry Jackson Society should have been described as “an extreme pro-Israel organisation”, and considering it to be an organisation which expresses views on a variety of issues, Trustees felt that it was unfortunate that the introduction to the discussion had not included more detail and were not persuaded that most viewers would have been familiar with the work of the Henry Jackson Society. However, they did not consider that this would amount to a breach of editorial standards. Mr Murray’s viewpoint was clear in the interview and so the Guidelines had been complied with. 

I've been reading a fair few of these complaints in recent months and a proper study of the BBC's rulings is needed. (When time permits, I'll put it together). It's my strong impression that the BBC gives more ground - even to the extent of upholding some complaints - to the anti-Israel side. 

Hadar's dogged work at BBC Watch must have detailed scores and scores of examples of the BBC not giving "more detail" about anti-Israel organisations that "most viewers wouldn't have been familiar with" (and some with very dodgy links to extremist organisations). 

Complaints doubtless go into the BBC based on them. I've not seen a single one receive "some sympathy" from the BBC Trustees yet.

Is the BBC Trust biased in favour of anti-Israel complainants?