Complaint
A viewer complained that the 91福利社鈥檚 Political Editor, Chris Mason, improperly expressed a personal opinion in the course of an item in this bulletin, and that the opinion was in any event inaccurate because it conflicted with posts on the same matter by the 91福利社鈥檚 Economics Editor, Faisal Islam. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 91福利社鈥檚 editorial standards of impartiality and accuracy.
Outcome
The item was prompted comments by Professor David Miles of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) in which he told MPs about repeated leaks by the Treasury in the lead-up to the Budget and sought to 鈥渟et the record straight鈥 in relation to misconceptions about the OBR which had resulted. This was the latest development in a chain of events in which the Chancellor had given a news conference prior to the budget in which she described the state of the public finances as 鈥渧ery challenging鈥, but the budget itself reflected a more optimistic assessment, with consequent controversy over whether the Chancellor鈥檚 earlier statement had been misleading. In that connection, Professor Miles was quoted in the item as saying 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think it was misleading for the Chancellor to say that the fiscal position was very challenging at the beginning of that week. Whether a message was then put out to say, well, it鈥檚 less challenging by the end of the week, I don鈥檛 know, and I don鈥檛 know where that message would鈥檝e come from. It certainly didn鈥檛 reflect anything that was news from the OBR being fed into the government鈥. Mr Mason then said (in the comments to which the complainant took exception) 鈥淲ell, I can tell you where that news came from. It came from the Treasury. They hoped that that would be sufficiently significant to reassure the markets at the time, but they hadn鈥檛 chosen to share it the week before. So, whilst there鈥檚 little doubt that the spreadsheets that the Chancellor confronted were grisly, it鈥檚 on that specific point that I, alongside others judge that what we had been told in the round was misleading鈥. In the ECU鈥檚 view, the statement that 鈥渨hat we had been told in the round was misleading鈥 was not an expression of personal opinion but a professional judgement rooted in evidence, of the kind which expert correspondents are expected to offer, and was appropriately presented as such. The ECU saw no conflict with Mr Islam鈥檚 posts because they focused on the broader fiscal arithmetic (including the implications of limited headroom and the scale of potential fiscal tightening) whereas Mr Mason鈥檚 analysis concerned the presentation and timing of information around the Budget.
Not upheld