REGULATOR Ofcom has found the BBC breached impartiality guidelines in an interview with Baroness Ruth Davidson on the anticipated appearance by Alex Salmond before a committee investigating Holyrood’s handling of harassment allegations against him – and of which he was later cleared.
However, it has decided the broadcaster will not be sanctioned – this time.
A spokesperson told The National: “We are recording a breach which will go on to the BBC’s compliance record. We are not considering the imposition of a statutory sanction in this instance.”
Radio engineer John Parker, a reader of The National, went through the BBC complaints process following the Radio 4 World at One (WATO) interview on February 24 last year, in which the former Scottish Tory leader said the issue raised questions about whether Scotland’s democratic institutions were corrupt – remarks that went unchallenged by presenter Sarah Montague.
READ MORE: BBC has 'no obligation to give parity' after Tory leadership debate
Parker – an Englishman and long-time resident of Wales – has doggedly pursued his complaint for more than a year, and even sent a transcript of the entire programme segment to Ofcom along with his complaint about the delay.
The story led the programme, as well as the news bulletin at the top of it, and the 12-minute segment also featured analysis from political correspondent Nick Eardley and Sarah Smith, who was then the BBC’s Scotland editor.
In its ruling, Ofcom said: “We acknowledged that the above statements reflected, to a limited extent, alternative viewpoints on the ongoing dispute between Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government, and in particular on the Scottish Government’s recent actions regarding the publication of Alex Salmond’s evidence.
“However, given the gravity of Ruth Davidson’s accusations regarding the Scottish Government, her strong and continued criticism and the fact that she was able to express her views at length, we did not consider that alternative perspectives were given due weight within the programme.
“For example, in our view the position of the Scottish Government on allegations that it was corrupt, undemocratic, 'running riot' in Holyrood and was 'denying the Parliament its right of scrutiny' was insufficiently represented in the programme.
“We acknowledged that this was a developing story and the BBC had ‘respond[ed] accordingly’ in terms of its planned coverage.
“However, the interview with Ruth Davidson was pre-recorded and the content of the interview was not affected by the developing news per se.
“As such, and in any event, it was incumbent on the broadcaster to present the programme with due impartiality.”
READ MORE: Tory supporters anywhere can choose our PM after paying just a few pounds
The BBC had argued that Radio 4 had an established and “clearly connected” programme sequence, and regular listeners understood that stories would be regularly updated throughout the day – in this case from WATO to the PM programme.
However, the watchdog dismissed that, saying: “It is clear that national radio broadcasters, such as the BBC in the case of Radio 4, cannot preserve due impartiality by relying on what is broadcast across their service as a whole. Rather … due impartiality can only be achieved within clearly linked and timely programmes.”
Complaints about BBC programmes go through the broadcaster’s own executive complaints unit, and Parker’s was rejected at every level.
He previously told The National of his frustration at the Ofcom delay in investigating, and pointed out that the report had gone out weeks before the Scottish Parliamentary elections.
“Bearing in mind that the uncontested insinuations included allegations of institutional corruption and misleading parliament – a resigning offence – how much is there really to consider?”
An SNP source said: “We welcome this ruling which must be a wake-up call for BBC bosses.
"It is high time the BBC started reporting matters relating to Scotland with consistent due fairness and due accuracy and stopped giving credence to wild claims from unelected Tory members of the Westminster system."
A BBC spokesperson said: “We note this 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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel