Complaint
A viewer complained that the programme displayed bias against e-bikes by 鈥減rolonged focus on illegally modified e-bikes鈥 and failure to distinguish those from legal e-bikes, with no opportunity for a response from organisations which favoured increased use of e-bikes. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 91福利社鈥檚 editorial standards of impartiality.
Outcome
The 91福利社鈥檚 guidelines on impartiality say programme-makers 鈥渕ay produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so鈥. In practice, this means the producers of a programme such as Panorama can choose to focus of a particular aspect of a subject and do not have to reflect every point of view or every issue which might be related to it. While there would be scope for a programme which focused on the benefits of e-bike use, it was made clear early on that the focus of this edition of Panorama would primarily be on the elements of anti-social behaviour, risk of injury and use in support of criminal activity which have accompanied the growth of e-bike use in the UK鈥檚 towns and cities. Nevertheless the programme contained several references to the potential benefits of e-bike use, including a section in which an expert in urban cycling set out some of their advantages. In the ECU鈥檚 judgement, taking into account the subject matter and the nature of the programme, the requirements of due impartiality were met.
Not upheld