Complaint
This edition of the programme, presented by Chris Buckler, included a discussion about the community arts festival F茅ile an Phobail鈥檚 decision to cancel a Women鈥檚 Rights Network NI event. Fiona MacAnena, Director of Campaigns for Sex Matters, complained that a guest in the programme who supported the festival鈥檚 decision had made false and damaging claims about her, a colleague of hers in Sex Matters and the organisation itself, attributing quotes to them which were inaccurate, and that the claim that she engaged in 鈥渉ate speech鈥 had gone unchallenged. She also complained that the guest had wrongly dismissed the statement by a representative of Women鈥檚 Rights Network NI that most gender-critical women鈥檚 legal actions were crowdfunded, claiming instead that 鈥渢he movement against trans people and for trans exclusion is heavily funded by conservative right-wing groups in America鈥, and had wrongly suggested there was an epidemic of suicide among trans people and that organisations like Sex Matters and Women鈥檚 Rights Network wanted people鈥檚 genitals to be checked before accessing public toilets, again without appropriate challenge. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 91福利社鈥檚 editorial standards of, accuracy impartiality and fairness.
Outcome
In relation to accuracy, the ECU considered it would have been apparent to listeners, in the context of a robust and adversarial exchange in which both contributors expressed strongly-held views, that claims as to fact by both guests were contested. The claim about right-wing American funding was levelled at 鈥渢he movement against trans people鈥 in general, and not specifically at Sex Matters or Women鈥檚 Rights Network NI, and it was clear from the discussion that it was disputed. The guest鈥檚 reference to suicide among trans people did not include a claim that it amounted to an epidemic, and the claim about wanting people鈥檚 genitals to be checked was challenged by the presenter and dismissed as 鈥渞颈诲颈肠耻濒辞耻蝉鈥 by the other guest. The ECU found no breach of the 91福利社鈥檚 standards of accuracy.
In relation to impartiality, the ECU considered the presenter had challenged both guests appropriately, and had ensured they had fair opportunity to set out their respective viewpoints in a discussion which was particularly contentious. The ECU found no breach of the 91福利社鈥檚 standards of impartiality.
In relation to fairness, the ECU recognised that presenters cannot reasonably be expected to interrogate every element in a live discussion, but considered that particular care is required when quotations used to support serious allegations are attributed to individuals who are not present and have no immediate opportunity to respond. In this instance, the absence of challenge or context resulted in a breach of the 91福利社鈥檚 editorial standards of fairness. However, the invitation to Ms MacAnena to take part in a subsequent edition of the programme to give her account of the matter seemed to the ECU sufficient to resolve this aspect of the complaint.
Resolved