大象传媒

The item in question was based on research published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies into inequalities. 聽The presenter, Paul Lewis, introduced one of the authors, Professor Hedi Mirva, by saying the research showed that 鈥減eople from diverse ethnic backgrounds on the whole earn far less than white people in the UK鈥�. 聽Professor Mirva cited a 42% pay gap in Bangladeshi, 22% in Pakistani and 13% in Caribbean populations. 聽She was questioned about the factors behind the relatively low pay of these groups, and suggested that racial discrimination was a significant cause.

The complainant objected that the focus of the interview was on 鈥渢he attitudes of one ethnic group as being responsible for the low earnings of another with no mention of the most successful ethnic groups鈥�. 聽The ECU took this as a reference to people of Indian and Chinese backgrounds whose pay, according to the research, is significantly higher than white people overall (by 13% in the case of Indians).

The ECU took the view that such a reference was not necessary where it was clear that the focus was on those statistics the authors and the programme considered most significant. 聽However, when the discussion turned to the wider range of potential factors influencing pay, including racial discrimination, the ECU thought it incumbent on the programme to point out that substantial disparities also exist between non-white ethnic groups, with some outperforming the white majority, as it was material to an understanding of the report and the extent to which it identified racism as a part of the problem.

In the ECU鈥檚 judgement the item was lacking in accuracy (rather than impartiality) in giving listeners a potentially misleading impression of the findings of the research in question.
Upheld