Complaint
A viewer complained that the programme’s editorial choices and “framing” of a discussion about proposals to ban pro-Palestinian marches were biased and inaccurate. The viewer argued that the programme focused on protests rather than the actions being protested, failed to reflect a sufficient range of views, and treated support for the actions of the Israeli government as though it were linked to Jewish identity. The ECU considered the complaint under the Editorial Guidelines on accuracy and due impartiality.
Outcome
The ECU found the programme was examining a current public and political debate about whether pro-Palestinian marches should be restricted following attacks on Jewish people, and that this was a legitimate and newsworthy subject for editorial scrutiny. It considered that the presenter’s questioning of political guests was appropriately robust and aimed at establishing their positions, rather than promoting a particular viewpoint.
The ECU did not agree that the choice to focus on proposed restrictions on marches demonstrated bias. Decisions about which issues to cover and which questions to put to politicians fell under the legitimate expression of editorial judgement. It also found that a range of perspectives was represented in the programme, including views opposing restrictions on marches and arguments that protests reflected concern about the actions of the Israeli government.
On accuracy, the ECU found that the programme was not required to address every related issue raised by the complainant in order to report adequately on the debate under discussion. It considered there was sufficient context for audiences to understand that characterisations of the marches were contested and concluded that viewers were not materially misled.
Not Upheld
