14 No. 59 JUSTICE BBC as a corporate body, but the wording10 may support the argument that it extends to institutional opinions of the BBC. The BBC’s UK public broadcasting services must also comply with the Broadcasting Code of the Office of Communications (Ofcom).11 This covers unjust or unfair treatment, unwarranted invasion of privacy, protection of persons under the age of eighteen, material likely to encourage or incite any crime or disorder, religious programs, offensive and harmful material, and subliminal messaging. However, as matters stand, the BBC is not required to comply with the Broadcasting Code to the extent that it concerns accuracy or impartiality.12 The BBC Trust is required to provide a code giving guidance as to the rules to be observed in connection the BBC’s obligations of accuracy and impartiality, and to do all it can to secure that this code is observed.13 This code is contained in chapters 3 and 4 of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.14 Other chapters of the Editorial Guidelines address matters covered by the Ofcom Broadcasting Code and general legal obligations such as defamation law. The Editorial Guidelines contain a large number of overlapping and often conflicting requirements, but are regarded by the BBC as a definitive code. The BBC Trust is also required to establish frameworks for handling complaints which “must ensure that all appeals that raise matters of substance are subject to a right of appeal to the Trust.”15 The procedures must “so far as practicable … place a complainant on an equal footing with the BBC” and “give detailing information on how complainants can expect to be treated (including, for example, in terms of timescales).” Despite the exemplary terms of these provisions, in practice, those complaining about the BBC’s coverage of Israel have faced massive obfuscation and delay. Those handling complainants at the BBC appear to have regarded it as their job to find ingenious ways of rejecting or avoiding decisions on complaints, rather than examining them promptly, objectively and fairly. Evidence given to the British government’s recent review of the BBC’s regulation revealed a catalogue of misconduct in the handling of complaints.16 Examples In one case (which concerned a straightforward issue of how a report would be understood by the audience), the timetable went as follows:17 the Stage 1A response18 to the complaint took 65 working days, against the target of ten days. The Stage 1B response was not forthcoming until the complainant wrote to the Director of News to inquire why there was no reply to his letter. The complainant eventually received it approximately 250 working days after his submission, in contrast to the target of 20-35 working days. The BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) sent an undated provisional finding to the complainant, indicating an intention to uphold the complaint in part, approximately 60 working days after he asked them to investigate. This was about twenty working days later than he had been advised he could expect to receive a response. Three months later, having received no further notification, the complainant wrote to the ECU to inquire about the final outcome of his complaint. The Head of the ECU responded promptly, stating that he would respond fully within a week. Two weeks later, the Head of the ECU wrote again to the complainant saying he should not have received the undated provisional finding he was previously sent, explaining: “What seems to have happened is that a draft of my provisional finding which was intended for internal consultation was sent to you in error. I should explain that the procedure, when we are minded to uphold any aspect of a complaint, is to allow a period for the BBC 10. In particular, the words “or its Trust or Executive Board” indicate that the BBC is viewed as an institution separate from its governing bodies. 11. The OFCOM Broadcasting Code, May 2016, available at stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/codemay16/Ofcom_Broadcast_Code_May_2016.pdf (last visited Feb. 17, 2017). 12. BBC Agreement, supra note 3, §§45, 46. 13. BBC Agreement, supra note 3, §44(5). In fact, the Trust delegated the drawing up of the Editorial Guidelines to the BBC Executive, subject to the Trust’s Approval: see BBC protocol B2 – Editorial standards §A1.1. This delegation is of questionable legitimacy, but difficult in practice to challenge. 14. Editorial Guidelines, BBC, available at http://www.bbc. co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines (last visited Feb. 17, 2017). 15. BBC Agreement, supra note 3, §89. 16. BBC Watch, available at https://bbcwatch.org/2016-bbccharter-review/uklfi-submission-to-bbc-charter-review/ (last visited Feb. 17, 2017). 17. Editorial Standards Findings: Appeals to the Trust and other editorial issues considered by the Editorial Standards Committee, Jan. 9, 2014, available at downloads.bbc.co.uk/ bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2014/ jan.pdf (last visited Feb. 17, 2017). 18. The procedure is characterized by a large and increasing number of stages.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=