Complaint
The programme included an interview with a representative of the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce about the potential impact on the area of the Government鈥檚 proposal to award new licences to extract oil and gas from the North Sea.
A listener questioned whether the item was genuinely newsworthy, rather than a reflection of 鈥a calculated industry agenda鈥 with the 大象传媒 being used 鈥渁s a conduit for policies that serve a narrow sector at the expense of the common good鈥. 聽He complained that the interviewee鈥檚 contribution, which was in favour of the proposal, 鈥渨as not balanced by expert or opposing views鈥, and that listeners would have been misled by what the interviewee presented as beneficial effects of new extraction.聽 The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 大象传媒鈥檚 editorial standards of impartiality and accuracy.
Outcome
The 大象传媒鈥檚 guidelines on impartiality recognise that programme-makers are entitled to produce content about any subject at any point on the spectrum of debate so long as there is a sound editorial reason for doing so.聽 In this instance, the General Secretary of the GMB union鈥檚 public statement that Labour鈥檚 opposition to the Government鈥檚 proposal would be 鈥渂ad for jobs鈥 and 鈥渂ad for the environment鈥 provided ample editorial reason for exploring the potential impact of the proposal on the region most directly affected.聽
As to balancing the interviewee鈥檚 views, the ECU noted that it was not a requirement of impartiality that proponents of one viewpoint in a controversial matter should on every occasion be balanced by contributions from other viewpoints, but that it was nonetheless incumbent on the programme-makers to ensure that other viewpoints were appropriately reflected.聽 In this instance, the interviewee was not challenged in a way which would have made listeners sufficiently aware of other viewpoints, and this aspect of the complaint was upheld.
As to accuracy, the ECU recognised that some of the interviewee鈥檚 statements could have been contested, but judged that listeners in general would have regarded him as an advocate on behalf of employers and workers in his region rather than a disinterested authority聽 on the issue, and would have evaluated his contribution accordingly.聽 The fault in the item lay not in what he said but in the extent to which it was left unchallenged by reference to alternative viewpoints.
Partly upheld