THE complaint that led to BBC presenter Naga Munchetty being found in breach of the broadcaster's guidelines also included her co-host Dan Walker despite the corporation's claims, The Guardian has revealed.
Last week Munchetty was found to have gone against the BBC's editorial guidelines when she commented on racist comments from US President Donald Trump.
After the BBC Breakfast show covered a story in which Trump told four congresswomen of colour to "go back to the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came" back in July, Munchetty spoke about her own experiences.
“Every time I have been told, as a woman of colour, to go back to where I came from, that was embedded in racism,” she said. “Now, I’m not accusing anyone of anything here, but you know what certain phrases mean.”
READ MORE: BBC rules presenter 'breached guidelines' with comments on Trump
Co-host Walker then asked how she felt when she heard Trump use the language. She said: “Furious. Absolutely furious and I can imagine lots of people in this country will be feeling absolutely furious a man in that position thinks it’s OK to skirt the lines by using language like that.”
She then said: “Anyway, I’m not here to give my opinion.”
A BBC spokesperson said it “ruled that while Ms Munchetty was entitled to give a personal response to the phrase ‘go back to your own country’ as it was rooted in her own experience, overall her comments went beyond what the guidelines allow for”.
The broadcaster's ruling drew criticism with some anger over the fact Munchetty was found to have breached the guidelines while Walker had not. The BBC defended the move and denied the complaint had focused on Walker.
“The simple fact is we haven’t had a complaint about Dan Walker’s role,” the BBC's editorial standards chief David Jordan said in one interview. “The complaint was about Naga Munchetty.”
Now correspondence seen by The Guardian has shown Walker was in fact included alongside Munchetty in the original complaint.
The complaint saw a member of the public describe him as "very unprofessional" and accuse the presenter of "repeatedly expressing incredulity" that Trump could be defended over the remarks.
A second message after the initial one was rebuffed also referred to Walker’s conduct.
The broadcaster did not dispute the content of the initial complaints, but it argued that when the person who had complained was given the chance to appeal to the executive complaints unit they were asked to clearly and concisely explain why they were still not satisfied.
READ MORE: BBC seeks to clarify Naga Munchetty ruling after staff backlash
A BBC spokesperson said this version of the complaint “specifically focused on Ms Munchetty’s comments rather than Mr Walker’s, which is why this was the focus of the ECU investigation”.
A senior BBC journalist said there was fury over the decision: “They’ve chosen to interpret the complaint as only being about Naga and made her a sacrificial lamb. The process is a mess. David Jordan has led two programmes to believe that the complaint wasn’t about Dan Walker, when it clearly was.”
The original complaint said: “Dan Walker, whilst interviewing a guest about President Trump’s recent tweets regarding 4 Democrat politicians in the USA, repeatedly expressed incredulity that anybody could defend Trump’s tweets. Very unprofessionally, he then asked his fellow presenter Naga Munchetty for her personal opinions on this news story! She foolishly complied with his request and launched into an attack on Trump, including stating that she was personally ‘furious’ about his comments.”
It continued: “These two presenters have never made any secret of their left-wing and anti-Trump bias but usually in more subtle ways, such as eye-rolling and looks of exasperation when reporting on news stories. However, personal commentary on controversial news stories is surely going too far and is way outside of their remit. They are employed as presenters not political commentators and as such should at least feign impartiality. It’s about time they were reminded of this.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here