Complaint
The programme, broadcast two days after Israeli forces had entered southern Lebanon, included an interview with the Lebanese Ambassador by Emma Barnett. Four listeners complained that Ms Barnett failed to provide contextual information necessary to an understanding of the current conflict, and that a comparison with an earlier interview by Ms Barnett with an Israeli government representative suggested bias in favour of Israel. The ECU considered the complaints in the light of the ´óÏó´«Ã½â€™s editorial standards of accuracy and impartiality.
Outcome
In relation to impartiality, the question for the ECU was whether the 3 October interview met the ´óÏó´«Ã½â€™s editorial standards, not whether a biased approach might be inferred from comparison with another interview on a different occasion and in a different context. In the ECU’s judgement, the interview was conducted in a way listeners in general would expect of a discussion with the representative of a nation involved in a controversial conflict – robust and searching, but with opportunity for the guest to express his views and put his position. In relation to accuracy, the ECU noted this was an interview with the representative of the Lebanese government at a critical point in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, who are based in and operate out of Lebanon. For that reason, the interview focused on the issues arising from the exchange of fire and the Israeli offensive, and the presenter sought to pin down the Ambassador on Lebanon’s attitude towards Hezbollah and its position on their actions. Given the topical focus of the interview, the ECU saw no need to provide contextual information on other aspects of the conflict which had been covered extensively elsewhere in the ´óÏó´«Ã½â€™s output.
Not upheld