A BBC ruling that presenter Naga Munchetty breached guidelines when she condemned racist comments by Donald Trump has been overturned by the broadcaster’s director-general.
The corporation’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) had deemed that the BBC Breakfast host contradicted editorial guidelines when she asked about US President Donald Trump telling female Democrats to “go back” to their own countries.
But last night Tony Hall said in an email to staff that he had personally reviewed and reversed the ruling.
The director-general, however, made no mention of why Munchetty had become the sole subject of the BBC probe, after it was revealed her co-host Dan Walker had also been mentioned in the initial complaint.
Hall wrote: “I don’t think Naga’s words were sufficient to merit a partial uphold of the complaint around the comments she made.”
Referencing a huge backlash by BBC staff and high-profile media figures, the BBC chief added that the ruling had “sparked an important debate about racism and its interpretation”.
“Racism is racism and the BBC is not impartial on the topic,” he wrote. “There was never a finding against Naga for what she said about the president’s tweet.”
He continued: “I have looked carefully at all the arguments that have been made and assessed all of the materials. I have also examined the complaint itself. It was only ever in a limited way that there was found to be a breach of our guidelines. These are often finely balanced and difficult judgements.
“But, in this instance, I don’t think Naga’s words were sufficient to merit a partial uphold of the complaint around the comments she made. There was never any sanction against Naga and I hope this step makes that absolutely clear.”
The initial decision had prompted fury, including from high-profile figures such as Lenny Henry and Krishnan Guru-Murthy. Concerns were also raised that a white, male presenter was let off scot-free by the BBC while a woman of colour was punished.
Hall’s email makes no mention of such concerns – despite the emergence of correspondence, seen by The Guardian, showing Walker was included alongside Munchetty in the original complaint.
The BBC’s editorial standards chief David Jordan had previously said only Munchetty had been the subject of complaints. “The simple fact is we haven’t had a complaint about Dan Walker’s role,” he said in one interview. “The complaint was about Naga Munchetty.”
But the viewer’s complaint seen by the Guardian describes Walker as “very unprofessional” and accuses the presenter of “repeatedly expressing incredulity” that Trump could be defended over the remarks. A second message, after the initial one was rebuffed by the BBC, also cites Walker’s conduct.
The broadcaster did not dispute the content of the initial complaints, but argued that when the viewer was invited to appeal to the executive complaints unit they only raised concerns about the female host.
A BBC spokesperson insisted that the final complaint “specifically focused on Ms Munchetty’s comments rather than Mr Walker’s, which is why this was the focus of the ECU investigation”.
Responding to the revelation, a senior BBC journalist told the Guardian: “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.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel