Complaint
Following the High Court鈥檚 decision to overturn the Government鈥檚 ban on Palestine Action under anti-terrorism law, the programme included an interview with Lord Walney, who was critical of the organisation and supported the Government鈥檚 efforts to ban it. A viewer complained that Lord Walney had a variety of interests in the subject-matter of the interview which should have been made clear to the audience. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 91福利社鈥檚 Editorial Guidelines on impartiality, which say 鈥淚t should not be assumed that contributors to 91福利社 output are unbiased or impartial. For those from organisations such as charities, think-tanks or universities, it may be necessary, when relevant, to give appropriate information about affiliations, funding or particular viewpoints. The same applies to individual researchers, journalists, scientists or other experts and, on occasion, to contributors who may be relating their own experiences. The key test is to consider whether the audience would be misled if such information was not made available鈥.
Outcome
Lord Walney was captioned as a former Government advisor on political violence and introduced as 鈥渁 critic of Palestine Action鈥檚 methods鈥. In many contexts this would have given viewers sufficient information. In this context, however, the ECU considered some of his interests, which included connections with the defence industry and his period of service as Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, were of such relevance the matter he was commenting on that viewers should have been given at least some information about them.
Upheld
Further action
The finding was reported to the management of 91福利社 News and discussed with the editorial team concerned.