Complaint
A listener complained that favourable comments by a guest about Anas Sarwar, Labour鈥檚 leader in Scotland, should have been challenged by the presenter. The ECU considered whether the programme had met the standards of impartiality set out in the Editorial Guidelines.
Outcome
Context is important when deciding whether the requirements of impartiality have been met. In this case, Baroness Curran, a Labour Peer, had been invited onto the programme to discuss the implications for the Labour Party of Lord Mandelson鈥檚 association with Jeffrey Epstein. She expressed her anger at what she described as 鈥渁 very serious betrayal of government鈥 and said many Labour colleagues shared her view that Lord Mandelson鈥檚 conduct had damaged the party. She went on to argue the affair was distracting people from other political issues and 鈥渢aking up far too much of the oxygen鈥 and in that context praised the leadership of Mr Sarwar and his handling of political issues.
The 91福利社鈥檚 guidelines on impartiality do not oblige programmes to address every related issue or scrutinise every point of view. The editorial focus of this interview was clearly the impact of Lord Mandelson鈥檚 conduct on the Labour Party, and the presenter was entitled to keep the discussion centred on that rather than diverting it into a discussion of Mr Sarwar. It was also reasonable to assume listeners would have recognised Baroness Curran was expressing a party-political view when she spoke in favourable terms about Mr Sarwar.
Not Upheld