Complaint
A viewer complained that a report on the defamation case between the actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard 鈥減ortrayed Ms Heard as the victim鈥 whereas 鈥淭he real victim was Mr Depp who lost six years out of his life鈥.聽 The complainant also criticised the omission of any discussion of how the outcome would affect men who have been falsely accused of domestic violence. The ECU considered whether the report met the 大象传媒鈥檚 editorial standards for impartiality which are set out in its Editorial Guidelines.
Outcome
The programme set out the verdict of the jury but also looked at the potential implications of its decision. 聽This was set out by the presenter who said 鈥淢s Heard says she鈥檚 heartbroken, while Johnny Depp says he has his life back.聽 But many questions are being raised about the level of online abuse and the wider impact this case could have鈥.聽 聽Viewers would, therefore, have expected the subsequent report to go beyond the outcome of the court case and assess some of the potential consequences, particularly around the effect of online comments during the trial and the online abuse directed, in particular, at Ms Heard.
In the ECU鈥檚 view the report met the requirements for due impartiality, giving due weight and prominence to an appropriate range of significant views and perspectives on those broader issues.聽 It reflected, for example, the fact the trial and the issues it raised had been widely discussed on social media platforms such as TikTok, and noted videos posted in support of Johnny Depp under the hashtag 鈥#justiceforjohnny鈥 had been viewed more than 19 billion times. 聽There was also a contribution from someone who regularly posted on social media during the trial, reflecting concerns that Ms Heard鈥檚 testimony and her character had the potential to damage those seeking to protect women鈥檚 rights.
The ECU did not agree the report portrayed Ms Heard as a victim or was biased against Mr Depp. 聽The report considered what impact the case, and online reaction to it, might have on those who say they are victims of domestic abuse, regardless of their gender, and on women鈥檚 rights.聽 In that context, there was no requirement to consider the impact on men (or women) accused of such abuse.
Not upheld