OFCOM will address the BBC’s “lack of transparency as a matter of urgency” for failing to publish its reasoning for its initial decision over presenter Naga Munchetty and the director-general’s move to reverse it.
The broadcaster’s executive complaints unit (ECU) last month ruled that BBC Breakfast host Munchetty had breached editorial guidelines when she remarked on comments made by the US president. Munchetty and co-presenter Dan Walker had discussed a tweet from Donald Trump, in which he had told four congresswomen of colour to “go back” to where they came from.
READ MORE: BBC rules presenter 'breached guidelines' with comments on Trump
Democrats Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are all US citizens, with only Omar born overseas.
The ruling was overturned last week by Tony Hall after backlash. “Racism is racism and the BBC is not impartial on the topic,” he wrote.
Now, Ofcom has said, following its own assessment, that the July 17 broadcast of BBC Breakfast was duly impartial in accordance with the Broadcasting Code, and that an investigation was not justifiable.
The regulator said it received 18 complaints, the majority of which related to the fact the ECU initially partially upheld a complaint against Munchetty.
Kevin Bakhurst, Ofcom’s group director for content and media policy, said: “Due impartiality rules are vital for maintaining high levels of trust in broadcast news.
“We took into account the format of the BBC Breakfast programme and the nature of the presenters’ exchange. Our assessment is that it would not breach our broadcasting rules and does not warrant investigation.”
Bakhurst added: “More widely, we have serious concerns around the transparency of the BBC’s complaints process, which must command the confidence of the public.
“We’ll be requiring the BBC to be more transparent about its processes and compliance findings as a matter of urgency.”
SEE ALSO: Stuart Cosgrove: BBC claims of 'impartiality' are easily exposed
Ofcom said that the exchange between Munchetty and Walker was not considered to have breached due impartiality rules.
The watchdog has published correspondence between the BBC and itself following what they said was a “lack of transparency” from the broadcaster.
In a letter from the BBC’s director of editorial policy and standards David Jordan to Ofcom on October 2, he states: “We do not agree that the Royal Charter provides Ofcom with any self-standing power to investigate a BBC programme for breaches of content standards.
“Those powers are set out in, and are limited to, the BBC Agreement and Ofcom’s Procedures.”
In a reply on October 3, Bakhurst said they had investigated the complaints, stating an article from the Charter saying that “one of the principal functions of Ofcom as the external regulator of the BBC is that it must secure the observance of standard in the relevant UK Public Services which must be in accordance with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code”.
He added: “In light of the complaints we have received and given the amount of public concern expressed about this case, and in particular the conflicting views coming from the BBC, we consider that it is in the public interest for Ofcom, as the external regulator of the BBC, to assess this programme against Section Five of the Broadcasting Code (due impartiality).”
A BBC spokeswoman said: “We note Ofcom’s finding and the fact they agree with the Director-General’s decision.”
The initial decision from the ECU prompted a backlash from the likes of Sir Lenny Henry and Krishnan Guru-Murthy, who were among a group of black and Asian journalists and broadcasters who called for the BBC to reverse its ruling.
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