Complaint
The programme included a discussion about the future of populism after the defeat of Donald Trump in the US presidential election.聽 Mark Wallace, Chief Executive of the website ConservativeHome, complained that it was inaccurate for one of the contributors to take ConservativeHome alongside 鈥渢he Tea Party鈥r other similar movements鈥 as an example of 鈥渢he way in which the equivalent of Africanised bees鈥ave invaded decent political parties鈥, ConservativeHome not being a 鈥渕辞惫别尘别苍迟鈥, nor having an agenda of 鈥渋苍惫补诲颈苍驳鈥 a political party, nor deserving of the implication that it was less than 鈥渄别肠别苍迟鈥.聽 He also complained that a later comment by the same contributor wrongly associated ConservativeHome with conspiracy theorists, and argued that both misconceptions should have been corrected on air.聽 The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 大象传媒鈥檚 standards of accuracy.
Outcome
In the ECU鈥檚 view, the contributor鈥檚 comments about conspiracy theorists, in which ConservativeHome was not mentioned, were sufficiently separated from his earlier reference to the website for there to be little prospect that they would lead listeners to associate the two, and this aspect of the complaint was not upheld.
In relation to the comments which named ConservativeHome, the ECU noted the website鈥檚 description of itself as a forum designed 鈥渢o champion the interests of grassroots Tory members and to argue for a broad conservatism鈥.聽 The ECU found no grounds for regarding that description as controversial, and agreed with Mr Wallace that it was the contributor鈥檚 description which was inaccurate.聽 Although the inaccuracy was not pointed out on air, the presenter of the item did describe the comments as 鈥渁 very particular characterisation of populism鈥, which would have indicated that listeners should not take them as definitive, and 大象传媒 News subsequently posted the following entry on the Corrections and Clarifications page of the 大象传媒 website:
In a discussion about the impact Donald Trump has had on populist politics a contributor referred to the role played by the Tea Party, ConservativeHome 鈥榓nd other similar movements鈥.聽ConservativeHome has been in touch to make clear the company is a media outlet, staffed by journalists who write about the Conservative Party and Conservative politics, that it is not a 鈥榤ovement鈥 and it is not in any way equivalent to or similar to the Tea Party or any 鈥榦ther similar movements鈥.
In the ECU鈥檚 judgement, this would have sufficed to resolve the issue of complaint but for the fact that, while generally dissociating the website from populist movements, it did not address the characterisation of ConservativeHome as invasive and as standing in contrast to 鈥渄ecent political parties鈥 鈥 the elements of the comments which, in the ECU鈥檚 view, made them objectionable as well as merely inaccurate.聽 The ECU therefore upheld this aspect of Mr Wallace鈥檚 complaint.
Partly upheld
Further action
The finding was reported to the Board of 大象传媒 News and discussed with the programme-makers concerned.