Jeremy Vine, Radio 2, 28 July 2022

Complaint

A listener complained the presenter expressed his own political beliefs and mocked the views of guests during a discussion on the programme. 聽The ECU considered whether the interviews met the 大象传媒 standards for due impartiality 聽


Outcome

The complaints related to interviews with Baroness Prosser, a Labour Peer and Michael Walker, the Editor of Novara Media, about the sacking of an MP from the Shadow Cabinet for supporting striking workers. 聽Jeremy Vine challenged Baroness Prosser on the record of the Labour party in Government after she sought to highlight what she regarded as its success compared to the current Conservative government. 聽In doing so he made reference to the recession which began during Labour鈥檚 term in office. 聽The Baroness attributed this to an international banking crisis, and Mr Vine responded by questioning whether a problem in the US mortgage market, the trigger for the US credit crunch, could be blamed for the 鈥渃ollapse in our economy鈥.

Taking the exchange as a whole, the ECU did not consider Mr Vine was disputing Baroness Prosser鈥檚 explanation for the origin of the crisis but simply questioning whether an assessment of Labour鈥檚 record in government 鈥 which she lauded 鈥 could ignore the recession and the subsequent deficit in the UK. 聽He was, as he explained to listeners, putting the other side of an argument, and in the ECU鈥檚 view he was offering the kind of challenge which listeners might reasonably expect to hear. 聽The same consideration applied in relation to Mr Vine鈥檚 reference to the reason why the MP Sam Tarry had been sacked. 聽The programme highlighted the explanation which had been given by the Labour Party and this was reiterated by Baroness Prosser but Mr Vine then offered a different perspective.

The ECU took the view that the discussions were conducted with respect, whilst involving a degree of banter and challenge on all sides. 聽Whilst the ECU accepted the presenter put his points in robust terms, it concluded the audience would have understood he was simply questioning the official Labour line and not giving his own political opinion.
Not Upheld