BBC Trust British Broadcasting Corporation 180 Great Portland Street London W1W 5QZ T. 020 3214 4994 bbc.co.uk/bbctrust Ms Debbie Kennett Via email: debbiekennett@aol.com Our Ref: 2939512 19 November 2014 Dear Ms Kennett The Mark Forrest Show BBC Radio Leeds 6 March 2014 Thank you for writing to the BBC Trust about The Mark Forrest Show. I am very sorry that you were unhappy about elements of this programme and I m sorry too that you feel the BBC has not given you a proper response to your complaints. The Trust is the last stage of the complaints process and everyone who works within the Trust Unit is outside the day-to-day operations of the BBC. We review the complaints that come to us to assess whether they should be put before the BBC s Trustees for them to reach a final decision. If you want to find out more about how the complaints system works and in particular about how the BBC Trust fits in this is the web link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/ I should explain that the Trust does not take every appeal that comes to it. In deciding which ones should be considered by the Trustees, we look at the merits of the complaint and only those which stand a reasonable chance of success are passed to Trustees. The Trust acts in the interests of all licence fee payers and it would not be proportionate to spend a good deal of time and money on cases that do not stand a realistic prospect of success. The link that I have given above gives more information about this. I am sorry to send a disappointing response, but I do not believe your appeal should be put in front of Trustees. The BBC s journalists and programme-makers are expected to work to a high standard; those standards are set out in the BBC s Editorial Guidelines 1 which underpin all BBC output. I have looked at your appeal in relation to those Guidelines. This means I have assessed if the points you have raised can be judged against the standards set down in the Guidelines. I have attached a summary of your appeal as well as the reasons behind my decision with this letter. As this Annex may be drawn on when the Committee minutes are written, the writing style is formal. While I regret the impersonal feel of this, I hope you will appreciate it allows the Trust to work efficiently. 1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/guidelines/
If you disagree with my decision and would like the Trustees to review it, please reply with your reasons by 4 December 2014 to the Complaints Advisor, at the above address or trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk. Please send your reasons by this deadline in one document if possible. Correspondence that is received after this date may not be considered as part of your request for a review of the decision. If, exceptionally, you need more time please write giving your reasons as soon as possible. If you do ask the Trustees to review this decision, I will place that letter as well as your original letter of appeal and this letter before Trustees. Your previous correspondence will also be available to them. They will look at that request in either their December or January meeting. Their decision is likely to be finalised at the following meeting and will be given to you shortly afterwards. If the Trustees agree that your case has no reasonable prospect of success then it will close. If the Trustees disagree with my decision, then your case will be given to an Independent Editorial Adviser to investigate and we will contact you with an updated time line. Yours sincerely Leanne Buckle Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser
Annex The Mark Forrest Show BBC Radio Leeds 6 March 2014 The Trust s Editorial Appeals procedure states that: Complaint The Trust will only consider an appeal if it raises a matter of substance. 2 This will ordinarily mean that in the opinion of the Trust there is a reasonable prospect that the appeal will be upheld as amounting to a breach of the Editorial Guidelines. In deciding whether an appeal raises a matter of substance, the Trust may consider (in fairness to the interests of all licence fee payers in general) whether it is appropriate, proportionate and cost-effective to consider the appeal. 3 The complainant contacted the BBC on 24 March 2014 to express her concern that an interview with Alistair Moffat, MD of BritainsDNA, was inaccurate and misleading. She felt that an academic geneticist should have been invited onto the programme for the sake of balance and to challenge the claims made by Mr Moffat, whose research she said had not been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journals. She also had concerns that Mr Moffat disguised the commercial nature of the company he represented and she considered that his research seemed to be nothing more than a PR stunt to advertise BritainsDNA. The BBC accepted at stage 1 that the claims made by the interviewee should have been more rigorously tested. The response stated: we do accept that Mr Moffatt should have been challenged more rigorously during his interview on The Mark Forrest Show and certainly had the team been aware of the controversy surrounding his claims he would have been. We are sorry that he was not and we thank you for making us aware of your concerns. The complainant remained dissatisfied and renewed her complaint. The complaint was escalated to Stage 2 and was investigated by the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU). The ECU found that the programme did not breach Guidelines on Product Prominence. In relation to Accuracy, the ECU accepted that the item gave the impression that greater certainty attached to the results of genetic ancestry testing than was the case. However, the Executive Producer had accepted that point in his correspondence with the complainant. Accordingly, because the BBC had recognised that there had been a breach of editorial standards in terms of Accuracy and as this 2 Under the Charter and Agreement, the Trust has a role as final arbiter in appropriate cases, and must provide a right of appeal in cases that raise a matter of substance. 3 For example, if an appeal raises a relatively minor issue that would be complicated, time-consuming or expensive to resolve, the Trust may decide that the appeal does not raise a matter of substance, and decline to consider it.
was to be put into the public domain by the ECU publishing a summary of the complaint on the complaints pages of bbc.co.uk on 29 October 2014, the ECU considered this had been resolved. The summary stated: The Mark Forrest Show, BBC Radio Leeds, 6 March 2014: Finding by the Editorial Complaints Unit Complaint The programme included an interview with a representative of the company BritainsDNA, about genetic evidence of Viking ancestry in the population of the UK. A listener, noting that an earlier interview with the same contributor in Radio 4 s Today programme had been the subject of an upheld finding, complained that this item had again been inaccurate in relation to genetic ancestry testing and inappropriately promotional in character. Outcome In the ECU s view, the impression given on this occasion had not been unduly promotional, and the programme-makers previous acknowledgement that the interview had not been challenging enough sufficed to resolve the complaint in relation to accuracy. Resolved It can also be found at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/comp-reports/ecu/themarkforrestshow06032014 Appeal The complainant appealed to the BBC Trust on 26 September 2014. She said that the ECU had dealt with some of the points she had raised to her satisfaction but there were additional issues which fell outside their remit and which she would like the Trust to consider. These were: The complainant wanted the Trust to investigate why Alistair Moffat was originally selected to be interviewed by the BBC on the subject of Viking DNA, given that he did not have a specialist knowledge of the subject, and his claims had already been the subject of a prior complaint which was upheld by the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/compreports/ecu/today9july2012radio4) The complainant noted the BBC s response that Mr Moffat had been selected because he was an engaging speaker on the subject of DNA but she did not consider that being an engaging speaker meant that he was sufficiently expert in the field. She accepted that the production team were unaware of the previously upheld complaint about Mr Moffat, but she was disappointed that there was no apparent attempt to find more suitably qualified speaker on the subject.
The complainant was also disappointed that Mr Moffat was given free rein to promote his pseudoscientific views without any other qualified scientists being given the right of reply. The complainant referred to the ECU s Stage 2 finding which explained that the BBC should show due impartiality over time. The complainant considered that the BBC s coverage of genetic ancestry had been unbalanced over time, and that one company had been singled out for disproportionate attention. The complainant also asked the Trust to investigate how Mr Moffat had been granted a disproportionate amount of coverage on the BBC in the past few years to promote his genetic ancestry company. She noted that the ECU had stated an investigation into this aspect of her complaint to be outside its remit and she hoped it would fall within the remit of the BBC Trust. With regard to Product Prominence, the complainant stated that it would appear that on a number of occasions BBC presenters were provided with free DNA tests from Mr Moffat s company and they subsequently discussed the results on air. She believed this to be in breach of clause 14.4.9 of the BBC s guidelines on Product Prominence. Decision of the Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser (the Adviser) carefully read the correspondence that had passed between the complainant and the BBC and listened to the relevant output. She acknowledged the strength of the complainant s feelings about this matter but she did not consider the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The Adviser noted that the complainant accepted the ECU Stage 2 finding on the specific points of Accuracy and Product Placement raised in her original complaint about The Mark Forrest Show. However, she noted that the complainant had raised concerns in her appeal about Mr Moffat s appearances on the BBC over a period of some years, and how they might breach the BBC Guideline requirements for due accuracy and due impartiality over time. The Adviser noted that, under the procedure for editorial complaints, complainants were required to raise complaints within thirty working days of broadcast or publication. She considered this time limit was set for good reason as it became increasingly difficult to address complaints fairly or accurately as time passed. She noted that only exceptionally were complaints considered outside this timeframe. She noted that the complainant had sought a response to her query about: how Mr Moffat has been granted a disproportionate amount of coverage on the BBC in the past few years to promote his genetic ancestry company. However, she considered it would not be appropriate for Trustees to consider this aspect of the
appeal as it called for a review out of output that was well outside the time frame set out in the complaints process. Similarly, the Adviser noted that the complainant considered the output raised issues about impartiality. However, she considered it was beyond the remit of the Trust Unit to investigate within the parameters of this appeal whether Mr Moffat s appearances over an extended period of time had an impact on BBC impartiality on the subject of genetic ancestry in its overall coverage. She noted that the complainant had sought further information about the circumstances around the decision to invite Mr Moffatt to be interviewed. However, she considered this point had been addressed already at stage 1 and the BBC had explained that Mr Moffat had been approached by the production team: the BBC approached him, rather than the other way round. A member of the team heard an interview with him on BBC Radio York last year. They felt that he was an engaging speaker on the subject of DNA and noted that he might be an interesting guest for the programme. The Adviser acknowledged that the complainant considered there were better qualified speakers who could have addressed this subject. However, she noted that the Royal Charter and the accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC drew a distinction between the role of the BBC Trust and that of the BBC Executive Board, led by the Director-General. The direction of the BBC s editorial and creative output was specifically defined in the Charter (article 38, (1) (b)) as a duty that was the responsibility of the Executive Board, and one in which the Trust did not get involved. The Adviser considered that decisions about who should be invited to contribute to a programme were editorial ones which rested with the BBC. The Adviser noted that the Executive had addressed the choice of Mr Moffat as a guest at Stage 1, and had apologised for the fact that Mr Moffat was not challenged more rigorously during the programme as he should have been under the Editorial Guidelines for Accuracy. The Adviser considered that, although the BBC had not met the requirements of the Editorial Guidelines for Accuracy because they had not sufficiently challenged the claims made by Mr Moffat, it nonetheless remained a matter of the Executive s editorial and creative decision making in terms of who was invited to participate in a broadcast. The Adviser noted too that the complainant considered scientists with a specialist knowledge of this field, should have been invited to have a right of reply to the claims made by Mr Moffatt. However, she noted that a right of reply was appropriate if an individual or company was subject to criticism where the right of reply was a matter of fairness. In this situation, she considered there was no requirement for scientists to be invited to contest the claims that were made instead, she noted that the BBC had accepted that it had a responsibility to challenge Mr Moffatt more rigorously and that it had failed to do this. She therefore considered this element of the appeal related to the part of the complaint which had been resolved.
With regard to Mr Moffat s appearance on The Mark Forrest Show, which was the subject of the original complaint, the Adviser noted that the complainant still had concerns about this matter and had stated: it would appear that on a number of occasions BBC presenters were provided with free DNA tests from Mr Moffat s company and they subsequently discussed the results on air. She believed this to be in breach of clause 14.4.9 of the BBC s guidelines on Product Prominence, which stated: Under no circumstances should anyone working for the BBC receive personal benefits from suppliers, or accept goods or services as inducements. The Adviser noted that during the interview with Mark Forrest, there was no indication that the presenter had had DNA testing and the complainant had not referred to any specific output where she understood this had occurred. The Adviser therefore did not consider it was appropriate for Trustees to consider this element of the appeal. The Adviser believed Trustees would be likely to agree that the interviewee had not been sufficiently challenged and that this had resulted in the programme failing to meet the requirements of the Editorial Guidelines in relation to Accuracy. She noted this had been the subject of the complainant s initial contact with the BBC and considered that it was the principal point of the complaint. She noted that the BBC had accepted this at stage 1, and this had been recorded through the ECU s publication of its summary of the matter. The Adviser considered Trustees would be likely to conclude that the central point of the complaint had been resolved. For the reasons set out above, the Adviser considered the other elements of complaint raised in the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and she did not propose to put them before Trustees.