Complaint
This three-part series looked at what became known as the Trojan Horse Affair – an alleged Islamic plot to infiltrate schools in Birmingham.  Its stated purpose was to explain how journalists covered the story and what propelled the dominant narrative.  A listener complained the programmes failed to show due impartiality through the omission of key facts and the inclusion of a number of false accounts about the differential treatment of girls at one of the schools involved, in particular a story about an alleged phone-hacking incident. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the ´óÏó´«Ã½â€™s editorial standards of impartiality.
Outcome
In the ECU’s view the decision by the programme-makers to focus on media coverage of the story, rather than undertake a reinvestigation of what happened, inevitably involved a process of selection, with only events most closely fitting the brief likely to be included.  In principle what to include and what to exclude is an editor’s prerogative and it would only engage the impartiality guidelines were it to be apparent that an omission might have risked leading listeners to being materially misled.
The complainant cited several areas he felt the programme should have explored, or subjects where in his view a significant point of view was omitted. In all but one of these the ECU concluded there was no case to answer.  The absence of a reference to the collapse in misconduct hearings against more than a dozen teachers and a detailed exploration of the role of the journalist Andrew Gilligan and the Department of Education, though all potentially interesting aspects of the story, did not in the ECU’s view undermine the programme’s impartiality, as the editors were entitled to focus on areas they believed were more closely aligned to the stated intention of the series.
This left, however, an account in the second episode of an alleged phone hacking incident involving a pupil at one of the schools.  In this case, in the ECU’s view, an interview with the former Chair of the school’s governing body ensured there was an appropriate right of reply to the general allegations of misogyny at the school; nor was it necessary to report that the Police decided to take no action with regard to the phone-hacking claim as, whether or not a criminal matter, it was important evidence of how pupils were treated at the school. But the seriousness of the allegation meant it was incumbent on the programme to seek a response from a member of the school authorities to the specific incident. It was not put to the former Chair, and the programme team had not approached any other representative of the school who might have been expected to address it. In the ECU’s judgement this fell short of the requirements of due impartiality as they applied in this context, and this aspect of the complaint was upheld.
Partly upheld
Further action
The finding was reported to the Board of ´óÏó´«Ã½ News and discussed with the programme-makers.