General Appeals Findings Appeals to the Trust considered by the General Appeals Panel

Transcription

1 General Appeals Findings Appeals to the Trust considered by the General Appeals Panel November 2011 issued February 2012 Getting the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers

2 Contents Remit of the General Appeals Panel 1 Rejected Appeals 3 Reporting sports results 3 BBC coverage of 2011 Snooker tournaments and matches involving Mark Williams 5 Scheduling of Songs of Praise 9 November 2011 issued February 2012

3 Remit of the General Appeals Panel The General Appeals Panel (GAP) is responsible for hearing appeals on complaints made under the general complaints procedures set out in the BBC Complaints Framework. Its responsibilities are set out in its Terms of Reference at: al_appeals_panel.pdf The Committee normally comprises two Trustees: one to be designated as Chair and one as a member. The Committee does not have a fixed membership. It is advised and supported by the Trust Unit. The Committee considers appeals against the decisions and actions of the BBC Executive in relation to general complaints, as defined by the BBC Complaints Framework and Procedures. General complaints are those which are not covered by the tailored complaints procedures for editorial, fair trading, TV licensing or Digital Switchover Help Scheme complaints, or complaints about the BBC Trust. The Committee will consider appeals concerning complaints which fall within the BBC s general complaints process as set out in the BBC Complaints Framework and which: raise a matter of substance in particular, that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the complaint has a reasonable prospect of success and there is a case for the BBC Executive to answer have already been considered by the BBC Executive under stages 1 and 2 of the BBC s general complaints procedures and which are now being referred to the Trust on appeal as the final arbiter on complaints The Committee will aim to reach a final decision on an appeal within 60 working days of agreeing to hear a complaint; an extended timescale will apply during holiday periods when the committee does not sit. The complainant and BBC management will be informed of the outcome after the minutes of the relevant meeting have been agreed. The findings for all appeals considered by the Committee are reported in this bulletin, General Complaints: Appeals to the Trust. As set out in its Terms of Reference, the Committee can decline to consider an appeal which in its opinion: is vexatious or trivial; does not raise a matter of substance; is not appropriate, proportionate and cost effective, for example, given the distinct roles and responsibilities of the Trust and the Executive, the Trust will usually not consider day-to-day operational issues; is a complaint where the complainant has recourse to the law; is a complaint where the complainant has recourse to other external authorities, for example the Information Commissioner or the Office of Fair Trading; and is a Human Resources complaint as defined by the Complaints Framework and Procedures. November 2011 issued February

4 The Committee also reserves the right to decline to hear an appeal whilst it relates to matters which are the subject of or likely to be the subject of, or relevant to, legal proceedings. The Committee will not generally reconsider any aspects of complaints that have already been adjudicated upon or considered by a Court. Any appeals that the Committee has declined to consider under the above criteria are reported in the bulletin. The bulletin also includes any remedial action/s directed by the Committee. It is published at bbc.co.uk/bbctrust or is available from: The Secretary, General Appeals Panel BBC Trust Unit 180 Great Portland Street London W1W 5QZ November 2011 issued February

5 Rejected Appeals Reporting sports results The complainant appealed to the General Appeals Panel following the decision of the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser, BBC Trust, not to accept his complaint on appeal. The complaint The complainant contacted the BBC to complain that the results of the qualifying round of the Australian Grand Prix had been broadcast in news bulletins on BBC Radio 4 (in this instance on the Today programme) before he had had a chance to watch a recording of it. The complainant referred to an identical complaint made by him in March The complainant received a response from the BBC explaining that once the results of the Grand Prix qualifying round are in the public domain the BBC has a duty to report them. The BBC added that although a warning is often given if the event itself is broadcast immediately afterwards, this is not always possible because of time constraints. The complainant responded by saying that the problem is not restricted to the reporting of Formula One but applies to many major sporting events. The complainant said that sports listeners do not rely on BBC Radio 4 for up-to-the-minute sports results and that those really interested would already have sourced the information elsewhere. The complainant received a further response from the BBC which repeated the point that once results are in the public domain the BBC has a duty to report them. The BBC said that this is expected by some viewers and listeners, and in this regard broadcasting sports news is the same as reporting any other news event. The complainant escalated his complaint to the Director of BBC News at Stage 2 of the process and the Head of Editorial Compliance and Accountability for BBC News replied on her behalf. She said that, as the complainant had pointed out, the BBC would not be the only organisation reporting sports results. It would not therefore be in the BBC s interests to delay the reporting of sports results when others are reporting them freely. She said the duty of BBC News is to report up-to-date information on newsworthy events including sport. These are reported on editorial merit, regardless of when coverage may be broadcast on TV. The Head of Editorial Compliance and Accountability passed on comments from a senior Radio 4 news editor who said that all Grand Prix are broadcast live on BBC television although that means that some may therefore be covered late at night or in the early hours of the morning. It would therefore seem very odd not to broadcast the results on a subsequent news bulletin. The Head of Editorial Compliance and Accountability added that the same applies to other sporting events; audiences trust the BBC to report significant sports results as quickly as possible. She said that offering a warning that a result was about to be announced is one solution, but it would be time consuming and clumsy in a formal news bulletin. She also said that bulletins could begin the story in such a way as not to give away the result immediately for example by saying The Malaysian Grand Prix has been won by. rather than Jensen Button has won the Malaysian Grand Prix. However given the short time involved this is unlikely to work very well. She said that the Radio 4 news editor had commented that, although it is possible for results to be written in this way, flexibility is necessary when writing for live radio broadcasts. November 2011 issued February

6 Appeal to the BBC Trust The complainant contacted the BBC Trust on 17 August 2011 asking for his complaint to be considered. He suggested that one solution would be for the Today programme to restrict the broadcasting of sports results to sports bulletins, as long as these bulletins were broadcast only at published times. The Trust s Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser replied to the complainant. She explained that the Trust does not adjudicate on every appeal that is brought to it, and part of her role is to check that appeals qualify for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees) under the Complaints Framework. She said that she had read the relevant correspondence and did not consider that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, and she considered that it should not proceed to General Appeals Panel of the Trust. The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that the Royal Charter and the accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC draw a distinction between the role of the BBC Trust and that of the BBC Executive Board, led by the Director-General. She explained that the direction of the BBC s editorial and creative output is specifically defined in the Charter (paragraph 38, (1) (b)) as a duty that is the responsibility of the Executive Board, and one in which the Trust does not get involved unless, for example, it relates to a breach of the BBC s editorial standards. The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that decisions relating to the broadcasting of sports results fall within the category of editorial and creative output and are the responsibility of the BBC Executive. She therefore determined that there was no reasonable prospect of success and it was not appropriate that the appeal should proceed to the Trust for consideration. The complainant replied with a request for the Trustees to review the decision of the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser not to proceed with his appeal. He said that he found little in the reply which was either new or helpful. The Panel s decision The Panel was provided with the complainant s appeal to the Trust, the response from the Trust s Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser, and the complainant s appeal against the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser s decision. The Panel was also provided with the final reply to the complainant from the Head of Editorial Compliance and Accountability for BBC News. The Panel was mindful of the Royal Charter and Agreement s distinction between the responsibilities of the BBC Executive and the BBC Trust, and that the direction of the BBC s editorial and creative output is the responsibility of the Executive Board. The Panel noted the complainant s suggestions with regard to broadcasting sports results on the Today programme, and it noted the reasons put forward by the BBC for handling the matter in the way it does. Whilst the Panel was sympathetic to the complainant s concerns, it agreed with the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser that this was a matter which fell within the category of editorial and creative output and was therefore the responsibility of the BBC Executive. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the decision not to proceed with the appeal was correct. November 2011 issued February

7 BBC coverage of 2011 Snooker tournaments and matches involving Mark Williams The complainant appealed to the General Appeals Panel following the decision of the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser, BBC Trust, not to accept his complaint on appeal. The complaint The complainant wrote initially to the Director-General of the BBC to complain about BBC coverage of the 2010 UK Snooker Championship. The complainant said that prominence had been given in the BBC s coverage to matches not involving Mark Williams. The complainant noted that he had complained about a similar issue in coverage of the 2009 Championship. BBC Audience Services replied on behalf of the Director-General saying that there had been no bias in in choosing which match to cover on the BBC Red Button or on BBC Two, and neither had there been any bias when it had come to choosing the highlights and where particular players had been placed within them. The BBC said that that the choice of matches had been based on what the BBC had felt were the most entertaining, although the BBC appreciated that its decisions would have differed from those of some viewers. The BBC said that due to bandwidth restrictions on the Freeview platform, the BBC only had one channel available for sport, although the BBC kept viewers up to date with scores online and on Ceefax. The complainant wrote again to the Director-General in response to the reply to this complaint and contacted the BBC with another complaint about what he saw as the BBC s bias against Mark Williams and his fans in the coverage of the 2011 World Snooker Championship. The complainant received replies regarding his second complaint about the 2011 World Snooker Championship coverage and in response to his follow-up letter to the Director- General. The BBC said that there had been no bias in choosing which player to broadcast on Freeview and it had been an unfortunate coincidence that Mark Williams games had not been available. In response to the complainant s second letter to the Director-General, the BBC Red Button production team said that when snooker was being shown on BBC Two the BBC always aimed to show the alternative match on the Freeview red button service. However, when BBC Two coverage ended at 8pm the red button service had switched to the match that was being shown on BBC Two on the assumption that a larger number of viewers would have been watching that match. The Red Button team also said that both matches could have been watched via the BBC Sport website or via the satellite and cable red button services. The complainant asked to escalate his complaint and a reply was sent from the Chief Adviser and Business Manager, BBC Sport which said that he had reviewed the exchange of correspondence to date and he could only reaffirm that the BBC does not show any bias towards or against a particular competitor. He said that matches were selected based on the production team s assessment of what the majority of snooker fans would like to watch at any particular time. November 2011 issued February

8 The Chief Adviser and Business Manager for BBC Sport said that the BBC had covered many matches which featured Mark Williams in the past, and, as befitting a player at the top of the world rankings, it would no doubt continue to do so in the future. Appeal to the BBC Trust The complainant wrote to the BBC Trust to appeal against the decision of the Chief Adviser and Business Manager for BBC Sport. He said that none of the matches at the World Snooker Championship featuring Mark Williams had been given prominence when two matches had been played at the same time. The complainant said that this same scenario had occurred in all snooker competitions shown by the BBC in the last two years. The complainant said that none of the matches involving Mark Williams on 17, 22 and 26 April 2011 had been featured on the Freeview red button. The Trust s Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser replied to the complainant. She explained that the Trust does not adjudicate on every appeal that is brought to it, and part of her role is to check that appeals qualify for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees) under the Complaints Framework. She said that she had read the relevant correspondence and had reviewed some analysis of the BBC s televised coverage of Mark Williams matches at recent major tournaments, and she considered that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and it should not proceed to General Appeals Panel of the Trust. In the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser s view, making decisions about the scheduling and content of live and recorded snooker coverage can pose a significant challenge for BBC producers, especially during the early stages of major tournaments when some lower-key matches may be involved. She said that it is not easy to come up with a solution that will please everyone as different supporters and viewers may have their own preferences as to what should be given priority at any particular moment. She noted that the red button service is aimed at giving the audience more control over what they watch. Those with the Sky/Virgin red button can always choose which match they want to watch at major snooker championships as they always have access to all the live action. She noted that viewers with the Freeview red button are offered some degree of choice but, as the complainant had pointed out, this can sometimes be limited. As BBC Audience Services explained, due to bandwidth restrictions on the Freeview platform, it was not possible to make available all the live action at the recent major snooker tournaments. Producers of the BBC snooker coverage are also constrained by the length of time allocated to them by the schedulers of BBC One and BBC Two. The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser considered that the basis for the editorial choices of the production team had been appropriately outlined to the complainant by the Chief Adviser & Business Manager, BBC Sport, who said that matches are selected on the production team s assessment of what the majority of snooker fans would like to watch at any particular time. For instance, one factor may be whether there is the prospect of any chosen match being close. This may be particularly relevant in the opening rounds of competitions when some matches are likely to be one-sided and predictable. The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser explained that, in general, the BBC Trust leaves such scheduling and creative decisions to the specific programme teams and the supervision of BBC Management. This is based on a provision of the Royal Charter and the accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC which draw a distinction between the role of the BBC Trust and that of the BBC Executive Board, led by the Director-General: November 2011 issued February

9 The direction of the BBC s editorial and creative output is specifically defined in the Charter (paragraph 38, (1) (b)) as a duty that is the responsibility of the Executive Board, and one in which the Trust does not get involved unless, for example, it relates to a breach of the BBC s editorial standards. She said that the decisions involved in choosing which snooker match should be broadcast also fall under what are described as operational matters in the Royal Charter and the accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC. Here too The operational management of the BBC is specifically defined in the Charter (paragraph 38, (1) (c)) as a duty that is the responsibility of the Executive Board, and one in which the Trust does not usually get involved. The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that the question in this case was whether there were any potential grounds for an exception to be made regarding an issue which comes under the direction of the BBC s editorial and creative output and the operational management of the BBC. In particular, was there any prima facie evidence that the BBC s coverage of recent major sports competitions had breached the BBC s editorial guidelines on bias and impartiality, especially in relation to the coverage of the matches involving Mark Williams? The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser referred to analysis of the BBC s televised coverage of Mark Williams matches at recent major tournaments. She said that this indicated overall that there had been a substantial amount of BBC live coverage of the matches involving Mark Williams at two major championships in 2010 and In her view therefore the figures did not indicate any prima facie evidence of bias against Mark Williams. The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser concluded that, given the analysis, and the issues outlined earlier in her letter, she did not believe the complainant had made a case for the Executive to answer. She therefore determined that there was no reasonable prospect of success for the appeal and it was not appropriate that this appeal should proceed to the Trust for consideration. The complainant replied with a request for the Trustees to review the decision of the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser not to proceed with his appeal. He said that the analysis referred to by the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser was fatally flawed as it included coverage of stages of the competition where there was only one match being played and therefore no alternative to showing Mark Williams playing. The complainant stated his belief that the analysis relied on by the Senior Strategy Adviser was not valid as all matches played in a session need to be covered. The complainant repeated his point that, of the matches involving Mark Williams, not one was shown until the latter stages of the tournament when there was no alternative. The complainant also pointed out that he does not have cable or satellite television and the internet access in his area has been described as amongst the worst in the country. The Panel s decision The Panel was provided with the complainant s appeal to the Trust, the response from the Trust s Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser, and the complainant s appeal against the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser s decision. The Panel was also provided with the final reply to the complainant from the Chief Adviser and Business Manager, BBC Sport. The Panel noted the complainant s objections to the analysis of the coverage referred to in the decision of the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser. It was also mindful of the Royal Charter and Agreement s distinction between the responsibilities of the BBC Executive and November 2011 issued February

10 the BBC Trust, and that the direction of the BBC s editorial and creative output is the responsibility of the Executive Board unless, for example, it relates to a breach of the BBC s editorial standards. Notwithstanding the complainant s objections to the analysis, the Panel noted that the BBC had provided an explanation of restrictions it faced and the criteria used when choosing between matches to cover. The Panel was satisfied that there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that the BBC s coverage of recent major sports competitions had breached the BBC s editorial guidelines, and that this was therefore a question of editorial and creative output and not a matter for the Trust. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the decision not to proceed with the appeal was correct. November 2011 issued February

11 Scheduling of Songs of Praise The complainant appealed to the General Appeals Panel following the decision of the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser, BBC Trust, not to accept his complaint on appeal. The complaint The complainant wrote to the BBC outlining three complaints he wished to make about Songs of Praise. The complainant said that the programme s time-slot changed from week to week and this demonstrated bias against it. The complainant said that the programme featured less hymn singing from churches and was turning into something more like a documentary series. Thirdly, the complainant referred to a specific show broadcast on 26 July which he said featured its guest, Dana, too prominently. In its response the BBC sympathised with the complainant s frustration at the changing times the programme was broadcast but did not accept that this represented bias. The BBC said that Songs of Praise aimed to reach as broad an audience as possible and therefore it was necessary, in a show that ran 52 weeks a year, to use both a variety of ways and a range of musical approaches. The response also said that, whilst the Christian hymn-singing tradition was a fundamental part of the appeal the programme did occasionally feature modern worship songs and inspirational music alongside traditional hymns to showcase the range breadth and evolving nature of Christian worship in the UK. The complainant repeated the points he had made previously, which he did not feel had been addressed. The BBC replied saying that it understood how problematic late changes could be for the audience and it assured the complainant that it tries to keep such changes to a minimum. The BBC reply set out some of the reasons for schedule changes and recognised that this issue was a concern to viewers. It said that the BBC was intending to provide better information when such situations arose in the future. On the issue of Songs of Praise morphing into a documentary series and not showing enough songs, the response reiterated what the Executive Producer had said in a telephone conversation with the complainant, that the number of songs was normally seven and sometimes more. In the 15 years the Executive Producer had worked on the programme the balance has remained more towards music than speech. With regard to the complainant s concerns that an episode had featured Dana too heavily, the BBC said that although the programme is designed to give more time for a conversation with one special guest, the congregational singing is very much at the heart of the programme and that the balance of music on the Dana programme was completely normal. The complainant was subsequently contacted by BBC Audience services who clarified that the response regarding schedule changes was a standard reply and was not in response to the specific concerns that the complainant had about the fact that Songs of Praise did not have a fixed time-slot. Audience Services also said that senior management had read the entire correspondence and were satisfied that the essence of the complaint had been addressed and they therefore had nothing further to add except to reassure the complainant that Songs of Praise is and will remain the BBC s flagship Christian worship strand. Appeal to the BBC Trust The complainant appealed to the BBC Trust, repeating the three strands of his complaint and saying that he did not feel that they had been fully addressed by the responses at November 2011 issued February

12 Stages 1 and 2. He added, however, that he had the utmost respect for the programme editor who had discussed the complainant s concerns with him by telephone. He said that the programme editor had agreed that the programme should be given the same time and channel on a Sunday night. The Trust s Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser replied to the complainant. She explained that the Trust does not adjudicate on every appeal that is brought to it, and part of her role is to check that appeals qualify for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees) under the Complaints Framework. She said that she had read the relevant correspondence and did not consider that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, and she considered that it should not proceed to General Appeals Panel of the Trust. The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that she appreciated the complainant s loyalty and enthusiasm for the programme and was aware how such commitment from the large audience who enjoy Songs of Praise is such an important factor in its continuing success. However, she said that the scheduling of programmes is solely a matter for the BBC Executive and it is not BBC Trust s role to intervene. The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that she did not believe the Trustees would accept the argument that irregular time slots can be interpreted as amounting to a bias against Christianity. The BBC is duty-bound to show due impartiality to subjects, such as Christianity, within its programmes, but it is not duty-bound to show impartiality between programmes, whatever their content. The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser added that the question as to whether Songs of Praise is a documentary or predominantly a broadcast of hymn-singing is also a matter for the BBC Executive. She said that these are editorial and creative decisions which must remain their prerogative. However, in this case, as the Executive Producer had advised the complainant, the basic format of the programme approximately seven songs an episode has remained more or less unchanged for at least the past 15 years. She added that the complaint about the amount of time given to Dana on the edition of the 26 September 2011 is also a matter which is an editorial and creative decision for the BBC Executive alone and so cannot be adjudicated by the Trust. The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser referred to a statement in a letter of response from the BBC which she believed set out very clearly the importance that the BBC Executive attaches to the place of Christian worship within the BBC schedules: Christian programming is the cornerstone of our religious output on television and radio and we are committed to delivering programmes which reflect on and celebrate the Christian faith. Songs of Praise aims to reach as broad an audience as possible and for a show that runs 52 weeks a year it is essential that we celebrate the Christian experience in a variety of ways and through a range of musical approaches. It has always had congregational hymn singing at its heart and will continue to do so however it is vital in the mix that singing is presented in a variety of ways. Solos, choirs and groups give us that mix. The Christian hymn singing tradition remains a fundamental part of the appeal of Songs of Praise however we occasionally feature modern worship songs and inspirational music alongside traditional hymns to showcase the range breadth and evolving nature of Christian worship in the UK. Explaining the distinction between the role of the BBC Trust and that of the BBC Executive in matters relating to editorial and creative output, the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that this distinction is made in the Royal Charter and accompanying Agreement November 2011 issued February

13 between the Secretary of State and the BBC. She said that the BBC s editorial and creative output is specifically defined in the Charter (paragraph 38, (1) (b)) as a duty that is the responsibility of the Executive Board, and one in which the Trust does not get involved unless, for example, it relates to a breach of the BBC s editorial standards. She explained that decisions relating to on-screen talent, such as the use of Dana in Songs of Praise, fall within the category of editorial and creative output and are the responsibility of the BBC Executive. In the light of this, the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser determined that there was no reasonable prospect of success for this aspect of the appeal and it was not appropriate that it should proceed to the Trust for consideration. In relation to the complaint about the scheduling of Songs of Praise, the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that the same consideration applied. She said that the Royal Charter and the accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC also draws a distinction between the role of the BBC Trust and that of the BBC Executive with regard to operational matters. She said that the operational management of the BBC is specifically defined in the Charter (paragraph 38, (1) (c)) as a duty that is the responsibility of the Executive Board, and one in which the Trust does not usually get involved. The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that decisions such as those relating to scheduling are day-to-day operational matters, and as such they are the responsibility of the BBC Executive. She said that she did not consider that the complainant had made a case for the Executive to answer. The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser concluded by saying that there was no reasonable prospect of success for the appeal as a whole and that therefore it was not appropriate that the appeal should proceed to the Trust for consideration. The complainant replied stating that he accepted some of the findings but wished the Trustees to review the element of his complaint regarding the lack of a regular time or channel for Songs of Praise. He said that he could not think of another regular programme which continually moved to a different time slot or channel. He noted, however, that in the last 3-4 weeks the programme had been given the same time-slot and said that, whatever the outcome of his appeal, he hoped that this would continue. The Panel s decision The Panel was provided with the complainant s appeal to the Trust, the response from the Trust s Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser, and the complainant s appeal against the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser s decision. The Panel was also provided with the Stage 2 reply to the complainant from the BBC. The Panel noted the issues that the complainant had raised in his appeal request, and the response given by the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser, which referred to replies provided to the complainant by the BBC at stages 1 and 2. The Panel noted that the complainant had been satisfied with the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser s response with the exception of the scheduling issue. On the scheduling point, the Panel stated that it had a great deal of sympathy with the complainant, however it agreed that it did not have the locus to consider this matter as it was an operational issue and was therefore the responsibility of the BBC Executive. The Panel noted with approval that the scheduling of Songs of Praise had been more consistent over recent programmes. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the decision not to proceed with the appeal was correct. November 2011 issued February