Complaint
A viewer complained about the reporting of efforts by MI5 to prevent the 大象传媒 from identifying someone who had sought to use his status to avoid facing prosecution for domestic abuse.聽 The complainant argued that without qualification as to what the word 鈥渁gent鈥 meant, audiences would have been misled into believing the man in question was directly employed by MI5, rather than an 鈥渁rm鈥檚 length informant鈥. The ECU considered the complaint against the standards of accuracy set out in the 大象传媒 Editorial Guidelines
Outcome
The story featured in the latter two bulletins cited by the viewer, though not in the first. The reports in question detailed how a man had used coercion and his status with intelligence services to terrorise his partner. 聽It explained his use by the service as a source and that he told her he was informing on networks of right-wing extremists. The 大象传媒 reporter explained what informers did, and how they worked with MI5 officers. 聽In the ECU鈥檚 view this was sufficient to ensure audiences understood the distinction between informants who are 鈥渁gents鈥 and their handlers at MI5. 聽It did not therefore think audiences would have been misled in the manner suggested. 聽It also did not believe in this context that the distinction had the potential to materially mislead. The story concerned the efforts of MI5 to prevent the 大象传媒 from identifying someone who had sought to use his status with them to avoid facing prosecution for domestic abuse, and the precise terms of his relations with MI5 did not bear directly on audience understanding of that story.
Not Upheld