Cases of BBC bias referred to Secretary of State
Westminster Committee on Iran | 09.10.2007 14:52
Two cases concerning alleged anti-Iranian bias in BBC news coverage were today passed on to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, James Purnell. The letter drafted by the Westminster Committee on Iran following a cross-party parliamentary meeting last week, was also forwarded to the BBC’s Director General, Mark Thompson
Letter as follows:
Dear Mr Purnell
We are writing to express some concerns regarding the objectivity of the BBC’s news coverage on Iran and the efficacy of the BBC’s internal complaints procedure.
The matter involves concerns raised about political objectivity in the BBC’s reporting around the ongoing “crisis with Iran” earlier this year. Letters were written to the BBC’s complaints department from the Westminster Committee on Iran regarding a number of specific instances where it was felt the reporting on news stories fell below the standards of objectivity set out in the BBC’s Code of Practice. It was felt that the responses that were given by the BBC complaints department were inadequate.
The BBC’s complaints procedure promises “transparency, objectivity and accountability” as well as a commitment to making “speedy corrections” where appropriate. However, in our experience the procedure has been none of these things and has left us with concerns as to whether it is even worth taking the time and effort to lodge formal complaints.
The first letter concerned a news report on Sunday 25th February 2007, in which Frances Harrison addressed President Amadinejads expressed intention to continue with a civilian nuclear enrichment programme. The report showed archive images of missiles being shot into the sky. The use of this footage whilst discussing Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme seemed designed to create a connection in the viewers mind between Iran’s enrichment programme and a nuclear weaponisation programme. As the IAEA have stressed, there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of such a programme, and therefore this footage should not have been juxtaposed with the story.
A complaint was sent on 25th February to the BBC Complaints Department. No response was forthcoming and the complaint was followed up with numerous letters and phone calls. On 25th June, Stewart McCoullough wrote a letter in which he admitted that the graphics shown on the report were in fact Reuters images dating from November 2006. He however attempted to justify the use of these images by saying “it was felt the pictures were sufficiently contemporaneous and, combined with the script, accurately reflected recent events “. Mr McCoullough also said that the 4 month delay in answering the complaint was due to an administrative error “combined with the fact that the editor responsible was on a period of leave”.
The second complaint was about a BBC news broadcast on 25th March during the detention of the British marines in the Shat-el-Arab. The broadcast described Iran as having “abducted” the 15 British sailors and marines. The BBC also referred to the British service personnel as “hostages” in this, and in numerous subsequent news reports.
Although a response was received from BBC complaints department on 5th May, it attempted to justify the report and it failed to offer any explanation on how the misleading reporting was allowed to be aired or what steps are being taken to ensure that biased reporting of this kind cannot happen again. The BBC’s Katherine Tsang, attempted to justify the use of the word “abducted” by claiming “…at the time, it was the very early stage of the story and information was still coming in and journalists need to provide the public with the information that they have at the time. Of course as the story developed then facts became clearer.”
We do not accept that because a story is at an “early stage” misleading reports are therefore acceptable. Using the word “abducted” instead of “captured” and the word “hostages” instead of “detainees” is not an example of linguistic objectivity.
The Government has entrusted the BBC to police itself and investigate complaints it receives about its output. Suggestions of political partiality are always contentious, especially in these post-Hutton days, but it is essential that the BBC strives towards objectivity and that serious complaints are dealt with the seriousness they deserve.
We feel that it is incumbent upon the BBC to undertake a full and an open investigation as to how these two reports on Iran were allowed to be broadcast and the subsequent failings of their own internal complaints procedure.
Yours sincerely
Westminster Committee on Iran
Dear Mr Purnell
We are writing to express some concerns regarding the objectivity of the BBC’s news coverage on Iran and the efficacy of the BBC’s internal complaints procedure.
The matter involves concerns raised about political objectivity in the BBC’s reporting around the ongoing “crisis with Iran” earlier this year. Letters were written to the BBC’s complaints department from the Westminster Committee on Iran regarding a number of specific instances where it was felt the reporting on news stories fell below the standards of objectivity set out in the BBC’s Code of Practice. It was felt that the responses that were given by the BBC complaints department were inadequate.
The BBC’s complaints procedure promises “transparency, objectivity and accountability” as well as a commitment to making “speedy corrections” where appropriate. However, in our experience the procedure has been none of these things and has left us with concerns as to whether it is even worth taking the time and effort to lodge formal complaints.
The first letter concerned a news report on Sunday 25th February 2007, in which Frances Harrison addressed President Amadinejads expressed intention to continue with a civilian nuclear enrichment programme. The report showed archive images of missiles being shot into the sky. The use of this footage whilst discussing Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme seemed designed to create a connection in the viewers mind between Iran’s enrichment programme and a nuclear weaponisation programme. As the IAEA have stressed, there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of such a programme, and therefore this footage should not have been juxtaposed with the story.
A complaint was sent on 25th February to the BBC Complaints Department. No response was forthcoming and the complaint was followed up with numerous letters and phone calls. On 25th June, Stewart McCoullough wrote a letter in which he admitted that the graphics shown on the report were in fact Reuters images dating from November 2006. He however attempted to justify the use of these images by saying “it was felt the pictures were sufficiently contemporaneous and, combined with the script, accurately reflected recent events “. Mr McCoullough also said that the 4 month delay in answering the complaint was due to an administrative error “combined with the fact that the editor responsible was on a period of leave”.
The second complaint was about a BBC news broadcast on 25th March during the detention of the British marines in the Shat-el-Arab. The broadcast described Iran as having “abducted” the 15 British sailors and marines. The BBC also referred to the British service personnel as “hostages” in this, and in numerous subsequent news reports.
Although a response was received from BBC complaints department on 5th May, it attempted to justify the report and it failed to offer any explanation on how the misleading reporting was allowed to be aired or what steps are being taken to ensure that biased reporting of this kind cannot happen again. The BBC’s Katherine Tsang, attempted to justify the use of the word “abducted” by claiming “…at the time, it was the very early stage of the story and information was still coming in and journalists need to provide the public with the information that they have at the time. Of course as the story developed then facts became clearer.”
We do not accept that because a story is at an “early stage” misleading reports are therefore acceptable. Using the word “abducted” instead of “captured” and the word “hostages” instead of “detainees” is not an example of linguistic objectivity.
The Government has entrusted the BBC to police itself and investigate complaints it receives about its output. Suggestions of political partiality are always contentious, especially in these post-Hutton days, but it is essential that the BBC strives towards objectivity and that serious complaints are dealt with the seriousness they deserve.
We feel that it is incumbent upon the BBC to undertake a full and an open investigation as to how these two reports on Iran were allowed to be broadcast and the subsequent failings of their own internal complaints procedure.
Yours sincerely
Westminster Committee on Iran
Westminster Committee on Iran