Complaint
A viewer complained that the presence of two Labour Parliamentarians on the panel for this programme was inconsistent with the requirements of impartiality in a programme broadcast on the eve of the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, and that one of them (Lord Haughey) had been introduced as a 鈥淟abour donor鈥, which was only partially correct, because he also sat as a Labour member of the House of Lords. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 91福利社鈥檚 editorial standards of impartiality and accuracy.
Outcome
While the composition of the panel would have been inappropriate for an item governed by the 91福利社鈥檚 election guidelines, these apply in the case of by-elections only to coverage of the by-election itself or the constituency in which it is taking place. The item in question was unconnected with the impending by-election, and focused on the future regeneration of Glasgow, a topic on which (as the ensuing discussion illustrated) there is a large measure of cross-party agreement. The ECU considered the composition of the panel appropriate to the circumstances and found no breach of the 91福利社鈥檚 standards of impartiality. It accepted that the programme should have made Lord Haughey鈥檚 status as a Labour peer clear and agreed that not doing so represented a breach of the 91福利社鈥檚 standards of accuracy. It noted, however, that 91福利社 Scotland had already published a posting to that effect on the Corrections and Clarifications page of the 91福利社 website, and considered this sufficient to resolve the issue of complaint.
Resolved