PANW Note: This is the text version (without references) of the report written by the British Office of Communications in relationship to a complaint that was filed and upheld against an interview with Abayomi Azikiwe, editor of the Pan-African News Wire, aired on Russia Today (RT.com) worldwide satellite news channel on July 11-12, 2012. To look at the actual Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin Issue Number 217, dated 5 November 2012, where the report is included on pages 15-27 with references, just log on to the website below:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb217/obb217.pdf
The Pan-African News Wire rejects the assumptions, conclusions and decision of the Office of Communications, an agency of the British government responsible for regulating compliance with rules for various radio and television stations shown via satellite in the UK.
We feel the report is reflective of the political and ideological struggles taking place over the role of Western states in Syria and other nations throughout the Middle East and Africa.
Since 1998, when the PANW was formed, its mission has been to provide alternative news and analysis in regard to African and world affairs.
Our existence is in contravention to the dominance of news and information that is presented by corporate and government-controlled sources which in our opinion are not representative of the majority of peoples throughout the world.
A growing interest shown throughout the United States and the world in regard to the work of the Pan-African News Wire is representative of the fact that the content and perspectives presented by the PANW is legitimate and much needed.
Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
---------------------------------------------
Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 217
5 November 2012
In Breach
News
Russia Today, 12 July 2012, 10:00
Introduction
Russia Today is a global news and current affairs channel produced in Russia, and funded by the Russian Government. In the UK, the channel broadcasts on the Sky digital satellite platform. The licence for Russia Today is held by Autonomous Non-profit Organisation TV Novosti (?TV Novosti? or ?the Licensee?).
A complainant alerted Ofcom to a news report about the armed conflict in Syria between the government of President Bashar al-Assad and opposition rebel forces. The complainant considered the news broadcast was biased, because, in the complainant?s view, an interviewee was crediting a ?massacre [in the Syrian conflict] to the rebels and not the government and was not challenged in any way?.
Ofcom reviewed the news item in question, which focused on developments in the Syrian uprising. We noted that at approximately 10:10, the news presenter introduced a clip from a pre-recorded ?down the line? interview with the Editor of Pan-African News Wire, Abayomi Azikiwe. This clip lasted for about one and a half minutes and for the duration of this content he spoke direct to camera and was uninterrupted.
Amongst other remarks Abayomi Azikiwe stated that the Syrian opposition had rejected Kofi Annan?s ?initial peace plan...that was endorsed by the Syrian Government?. (The former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan had been appointed the UN-Arab League special envoy to Syria in early 2012 but he resigned from this post at the end of his mandate in August 2010. Kofi Annan resigned on 2 August 2012, citing the intransigence of both the Assad government and the rebels, as well as the stalemate on the UN Security Council, as preventing any peaceful resolution of the situation.)
Abayomi Azikiwe added that the ?backers? of the Syrian opposition:
?...have opposed any effort aimed at dialogue to bring about a political solution to this crisis. They have refused to acknowledge any type of ceasefire. They have continued their aggressive activities against the Syrian Government, and as a result of that the Syrian Government has had no choice except to engage in these military manoeuvres that we?ve seen over the last couple of days. The onus for the resolution of this crisis strictly lies with the armed opposition and also the opposition which is around the Syrian National Council as well as the other Islamist groups, which have refused all peace plans that have been put forward by the United Nations Envoy, Kofi Annan.?
The news presenter then said that later in the programme, the Syrian conflict would be looked at from a ?different angle?.
We noted that at approximately 10:20 (i.e. approximately 10 minutes after the above), the news presenter introduced a report about a boycott of Syrian television and film production by certain Arab countries. The news presenter introduced the item as follows:
?Dramatic pictures from Syria have been streaming to our TVs for 16 months now, but there?s a different kind of drama unfolding behind the camera. Some opposition-supporting Arab nations have banned Syrian programmes and movies, but their producers say it has only hardened their resolve.?
The report had a duration of around three minutes and 50 seconds. In this news item, the reporter stated that during the current Syrian conflict:
?Gulf countries, which had traditionally helped fund [Syrian productions], withdrew from production leaving a huge financial gap, and matters were made worse when the Arab League called for a boycott of Syrian satellite channels...?
An actor, Mohamed Rafea then said:
?[The Arab nations opposing the Syrian Government] want to fight everything good in Syria. They don?t want us to show our drama to the world...?
Another actor, Milad Yousef stated:
?They wanted to destroy not just our country, but all that?s good in our country, and even every positive images of Syria in the minds of other Arab people.?
The reporter remarked:
?Gulf countries headed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia were among the first to condemn the Syrian regime for its crackdown on protesters. They were also among the most active supporters of the Syrian armed opposition, sponsoring and arming the rebels.?
Ofcom considered the material raised issues warranting investigation under Rule 5.1 of the Code, which states:
Rule 5.1: ?News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.?
We therefore sought the Licensee?s comments as to how this material complied with this rule.
Response
The Licensee said that the news programme had complied with Rule 5.1 by reflecting the viewpoint of the Syrian opposition.
TV Novosti said that prior to the brief comments made by Abayomi Azikiwe, the news presenter stated the following (with the Licensee?s emphasis added):
?Syria?s main opposition alliance has failed to persuade Russia to help them oust President Assad. During talks in Moscow the Syrian National Council insisted Assad must go before there can be any transition [to a new government in Syria]??
According to TV Novosti this (underlined) statement chimed with what was being ?widely reported across other media (including the BBC), [namely] the Syrian opposition had indeed rejected Kofi Annan?s peace plan and insisted that Assad must resign?.
The Licensee said that Abayomi Azikiwe also commented on the position of the Syrian National Council in his interview as follows:
?...the Syrian opposition had rejected Kofi Annan?s initial peace plan that was put forward by Kofi Annan and the United Nations, that was endorsed by the Syrian Government, by other forces throughout the region.?
TV Novosti said there was ?no need to challenge? Abayomi Azikiwe?s viewpoint within the bulletin in question on 12 July 2012 because the full live interview with Abayomi Azikiwe had been broadcast in an edition of Russia Today?s News, broadcast at 17:07 the previous day (11 July 2012). By way of introduction to that full interview, the news presenter in the news bulletin broadcast on 11 July 2012 had said the following:
?The Syrian main opposition group is saying that the Syrian people are suffering because Russia has used its veto on the Security Council to prevent international action being taken against the Assad regime?; and ?The opposition has another demand as well...they are calling for a UN intervention to resolve the conflict there.?
The Licensee said that Rule 5.1 had therefore been complied with because ?Ofcom?s Rules and Guidance maintain that Due Impartiality may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole?.
TV Novosti also made several other points in relation to covering, of what was in its view, an on-going news story:
--it was incorrect for the complainant to ? and Ofcom should also should not ? focus on ?one particular programme? i.e. the news bulletin in question, broadcast on 12 July 2012;
--according to the Licensee ?a rolling news channel will naturally be editorially linking any continuing news ?story?...[but] it would be impossible to predict (and signpost) just how and in what form this would take?. Furthermore ?a rolling news channel does not have the ability to plan a ?series?, as would be the case for a more conventional channel where editorial and production decisions are planned in advance?;
--TV Novosti said that: ?We feel it would not be appropriate to fully reprise the history leading up to breaking events in live news coverage of current events ? and that the summary references were consistent with our earlier coverage, and factually correct?. In addition, ?it would also made for very boring and confusing television if news items had to be continually refer back to earlier programmes, purely as a means of ensuring regulatory compliance?. In this regard, the Licensee said that Russia Today complements its live news bulletins with documentaries and special reports analysing news issues ?in more depth and from different ?angles?, which might explore the history in more depth, as well as other aspects of a particular situation?.
In relation to the later report in the same news bulletin about a boycott of Syrian television and film production by certain Arab countries, TV Novosti said this item was an example of Russia Today?s practice of ?sometimes juxtapos[ing] ?raw? news with documentary material which goes beyond the headlines to explore other ?angles? of a major issue?.
Furthermore, this item was ?not intended as a direct counterpoise to the earlier news
coverage. Rather, it looked into the implications and impact of the conflict on one aspect of Syrian life (rather than bringing in the opposite standpoint)?. In this item ?a handful of actors vented their frustration over losing their jobs when the suspended transmissions reduced the funding for the series in which they acted?.
The Licensee said that this item ?contained negligible commentary from [TV Novosti] itself, but was a factual portrayal of one aspect of the tragedy in Syria, and its effect on ordinary citizens...[and] the statements from the actors were personal feelings relating to their plight.
We do not feel that this piece was one where issues of impartiality arise. By analogy, the personal feelings of a Western employee who has lost his job due to redundancies brought on by economic recession do not, we contend, require ?balancing? by a further explanation of the causes of, or views on, the recession itself?.
In addition, TV Novosti said to ?suggest there was no ?counterbalance? to the emotional outbursts of affected civilians is equivalent to suggesting that if [TV Novosti] had broadcast a news report containing the anguished outpourings of a mother who had lost a child in the conflict [that] would require us to have balanced the report with a counterview from parties who felt that the death of a child was justified.?
The Licensee added: ?It is true that Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both energetic stakeholders of the Arab League, declared their support for the suspension [of the purchase of Syrian TV programmes and films] that caused the Syrian actors to voice their invectives?. However, the item was ?an example of the complementary material which [Russia Today] regularly brings to its coverage of world events...highlighting the human plight of some affected by the crisis?.
In summary, in relation to the item about a boycott of Syrian television and film production by certain Arab countries, TV Novosti said that ?We accept that perhaps there might be a need to better separate the ?news? from the ?documentary?? with the latter ?analysing a particular aspect of what has become a major news item but which would not necessarily carry the same degree of impartiality that the News itself would present?. Although such a move would require a change in Russia Today?s ?scheduling format? the Licensee said that it was ?discussing the technical aspect of schedule presentation with the relevant editorial staff?.
The Licensee also made a number of points about the nature of Russia Today as an international news channel:
--in TV Novosti?s view: ?Plurality in international news coverage, particularly of conflict situations, is surely provided by virtue of the availability to viewers of a range of different viewpoints from different broadcasters?. In this regard, the Licensee cited an Ofcom document on media plurality ?which we feel in several respects reinforces our arguments?.
In addition, TV Novosti said that Russia Today?s ?viewers will of course also be watching other international news channels, from which they gain additional perspectives, often completely opposite to what they see on [Russia Today].
That, we contend, is the healthy plurality to which British citizens are privileged to have access?;
--on a related point, Russia Today ?reaches half a million regular UK viewers weekly? and the fact that ?only one complained about ?bias? does, we suggest, illustrate that the vast majority appreciate the portrayal of Russia?s view?;
--according to the Licensee ?if every international news channel had to be obliged to give ?due? coverage to all viewpoints (even if ?due? could be defined), all international news channels would in such case inevitably be reflecting the views of the country in which the channel is regulated?. This, in TV Novosti?s view, would impinge on freedom of expression and ?deprive viewers of insights into why different countries take a different view of conflict situations?;
--the Licensee stated that: ?The world today provides unlimited access through the internet to sites with all sorts of content, totally unregulated and having no ethical constraints. Responsible and regulated media organisations like ourselves command respect, and our integrity will be judged by viewers. Imposing constraints on the reporting of anything that might to some be controversial will only lead to citizens turning more and more to news sources that carry similar information, but presented in a totally irresponsible, unbalanced and unregulated way?;
--TV Novosti considered that ?war situations, and matters of international controversy? are not specifically dealt with by the Code ?nor can they be treated in the same way as domestic national issues.? Furthermore: ?What is controversial in one country may not be so in another...[and] [w]hat might be regarded as ?bias? or ?lack of impartiality? is itself often a subject of international debate?; and
--the Licensee suggested that the Code rules on impartiality in relation to international news ?perhaps need to be re-examined in the light of the current media structure and citizens access to information?. In the meantime, TV Novosti said that it ?definitely tries to abide by the spirit? of the Code.
In conclusion, the Licensee said that it had ?reemphasised the UK regulatory requirements? to all staff.
Decision
Under the standards objectives of the Communications Act 2003 (?the Act?), Ofcom has a statutory duty to set standards for the content of programmes as appear to it best calculated to secure the standards objectives, including that news included in television and radio services is presented with due impartiality. Broadcasters are required to comply with the rules in Section Five to ensure that due impartiality is preserved in news programmes.
When applying the requirement to preserve due impartiality, Ofcom must take into account the broadcaster?s and audience?s right to freedom of expression. This is set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 provides for the right of freedom of expression, which encompasses the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.
The broadcaster?s right to freedom of expression is not absolute. In carrying out its duties, Ofcom must balance the right to freedom of expression on one hand, with the requirement in the Code to preserve ?due impartiality? on matters relating to political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy.
Ofcom recognises that Section Five of the Code, which sets out how due impartiality must be preserved, acts to limit to some extent freedom of expression. This is because its application necessarily requires broadcasters to ensure, for example, that neither side of a debate relating to matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy is unduly favoured. Therefore, while any Ofcom licensee should have the freedom to discuss any controversial subject or include particular points of view in its programming, in doing so broadcasters must always comply with the Code.
In reaching decisions concerning due impartiality, Ofcom underlines that the broadcasting of comments either criticising or supporting the policies and actions of any government, state or political organisations is not, in itself, a breach of due impartiality. Any broadcaster may do this provided it complies with the Code. However, depending on the specific circumstances of any particular case, it may be necessary to reflect alternative viewpoints in an appropriate way in order to ensure that Section Five is complied with.
Rule 5.1 of the Code states that: ?News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.?
The obligation in Rule 5.1 to present news with due impartiality applies potentially to any issue covered in a news programme, and not just matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy. In judging whether due impartiality has been preserved in any particular case, the Code makes clear that the term ?due? means adequate or appropriate to the subject matter. Therefore ?due impartiality? does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of the argument has to be represented. Due impartiality may be preserved in a number of ways and it is an editorial decision for the broadcaster as to how it ensures due impartiality is maintained.
In assessing whether any particular news item has been reported with due impartiality, we take into account all relevant facts in the case, including: the substance of the story in question; the nature of the coverage; and whether there are varying viewpoints on a news story, and if so, how a particular viewpoint or viewpoints on a news item could be or are reflected within news programming.
In this case, by way of background, Ofcom noted since the onset of the Syrian conflict in March 2011, the Russian Government has taken a position which has been characterised by many commentators as being supportive of the current Syrian Government.
Ofcom also noted that in the news bulletin in question broadcast at 10:00 on 12 July, there were only two news items about Syria: firstly, an excerpt from a pre-recorded interview with Abayomi Azikiwe; and, second, ten minutes later, a pre-recorded item about a boycott of Syrian television and film production by certain Arab countries. We assessed these two news items together to reach a decision overall as to whether the news in this programme was presented with due impartiality.
Abayomi Azikiwe?s comments
We considered that taken together these two items included a number of statements which could be reasonably characterised as being strongly critical of the Syrian opposition movement (including the Syrian National Council) and Arab Nations supportive of the Syrian opposition movement, and/or supportive of the Syrian Government. For example, we noted that Abayomi Azikiwe: labelled the Syrian opposition as having undertaken ?aggressive activities against the Syrian Government?; stated that the Syrian Government had had ?no choice? but to undertake military operations against the Syrian opposition; and that the ?onus for the resolution of this crisis strictly lies with? the Syrian opposition. We also noted that in the second news item, there were comments critical of Arab nations who had boycotted Syrian film and television productions, so that these Arab nations were characterised as wanting to ?fight everything good in Syria? and to ?destroy not just our country, but all that?s good in our country?.
The issue of the conflict in Syria between the Assad regime and opposition forces was, and is, one clearly where there are differing viewpoints of importance ? principally those of the government of President Assad and of the opposition, and of the states which express or give support in various forms to one or the other.
We therefore considered what evidence there was of alternative (i.e. Syrian opposition) viewpoints presented in this news programme on the morning of 12 July 2012.
We took into account the following points put forward by the Licensee: the news presenter stating that: ?During talks in Moscow the Syrian National Council insisted Assad must go before there can be any transition? (?Comment 1?); and the following comment made by Abayomi Azikiwe: ?...the Syrian opposition had rejected Kofi Annan?s initial peace plan that was put forward by Kofi Annan and the United Nations, that was endorsed by the Syrian Government, by other forces throughout the region? (?Comment 2?).
We acknowledge that these statements to some degree gave a factual description of the position of the Syrian opposition.
We noted however that these statements were made in the context of comments by Abayomi Azikiwe as a commentator that overall were critical of the Syrian opposition.
He stated for example that the opposition had undertaken ?aggressive activities against the Syrian Government?, and that the ?onus for the resolution of this crisis strictly lies with? the Syrian opposition). Before, during and after this clip of interview Abayomi Azikiwe?s critical remarks were not challenged by other content in the programme.
Further, we noted that there were no other statements included in the news programme broadcast at 10:00 on 12 July 2012 that could be reasonably described as reflecting or supporting the viewpoint of the Syrian opposition, the Syrian National Council, or Arab states critical of the Syrian administration of Bashar al-Assad, in relation to the ongoing conflict of Syria. As a result we concluded that Comment 1 and Comment 2 did not: sufficiently articulate the viewpoint taken by the Syrian opposition during the Syrian conflict at that time; or sufficiently counter the criticisms being made of the Syrian opposition.
We took account of TV Novosti?s representation that an alternative (i.e. the opposition?s) viewpoint had been reflected in its news output the previous day (11 July 2012) at 17:07, when the full live interview with Abayomi Azikiwe had been broadcast on Russia Today. According to the Licensee during that interview news presenter said: ?The Syrian main opposition group is saying that the Syrian people are suffering because Russia has used its veto on the Security Council to prevent international action being taken against the Assad regime?; and ?The opposition has another demand as well...they are calling for a UN intervention to resolve the conflict there? (?Comment 3?).
We noted the Licensee?s view that: Ofcom should not focus on ?one particular programme?; and that TV Novosti had complied with Rule 5.1 because ?Ofcom?s Rules and Guidance maintain that Due Impartiality may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole?.
We did not agree with this argument put forward by TV Novosti. The reference to due impartiality being achieved ?over a series of programmes taken as a whole? is in Rule 5.56 of the Code and not Rule 5.1. We recognise there may be occasions when a broadcaster may be able to comply with Rule 5.1 in one news programme by broadcasting material in a different news programme or programmes. For example, due impartiality in news might be achieved through broadcasting different viewpoints on a particular issue on successive days in a series of explicitly linked ?special? news reports which each separately focused on one particular viewpoint on a particular subject. Depending on the circumstances in each case, such an editorial approach might ensure compliance with Rule 5.1, as long as it was clearly signposted to the audience, in line with Rule 5.67 of the Code. In the present case, this approach was not taken.
Second, we noted the Licensee?s representation that ?a rolling news channel will naturally be editorially linking any continuing news ?story?...[but] it would be impossible to predict (and signpost) just how and in what form this would take?. TV Novosti also stated that ?a rolling news channel does not have the ability to plan a ?series?, as would be the case for a more conventional channel where editorial and production decisions are planned in advance?. We acknowledge the challenges faced by rolling news channels in ensuring compliance with the Code, especially in fast-moving news stories. In response, we note that it is possible for a rolling news channel to plan ahead to commission and broadcast items in a series of linked reports (as just suggested above) to help preserve due impartiality on a particular issue. In any event, it is still incumbent on all broadcasters to ensure sufficient alternative viewpoints are broadcast within its news programming, as appropriate. In this case, on succeeding days, the Licensee broadcast first the full interview with Abayomi Azikiwe on 11 July 2012, and then an excerpt from that interview on 12 July 2012. However, by way of balancing alternative viewpoints, TV Novosti only broadcast the three short Comments 1, 2 and 3 over the two days in question. In our view, having regard to all the circumstances, Comments 1 to 3 by themselves did not provide sufficient balance within the context of news programming to the other statements being made by Abayomi Azikiwe, for example, criticising the Syrian opposition, and supporting the Syrian Government.
We also took account of the Licensee?s representations that: ?We feel it would not be appropriate to fully reprise the history leading up to breaking events in live news coverage of current events ? and that the summary references were consistent with our earlier coverage, and factually correct?; and ?it would also made for very boring and confusing television if news items had to be continually refer back to earlier programmes, purely as a means of ensuring regulatory compliance?. In response, depending on the circumstances in each case, Ofcom underlines that the Code does not in any way require that: each news report includes the ?history leading up to breaking events?; or that news items ?continually refer back to earlier programmes?.
However, broadcasters must ensure that alternative viewpoints are reflected in a proportionate and appropriate way in news reports (in many cases this may need only be very briefly) to ensure news is presented with due impartiality.
Report on boycott of Syrian television and film production
We went on to assess the second news item in the programme broadcast on 12 July 2012, namely a report about a boycott of Syrian television and film production by certain Arab countries.
We noted first TV Novosti?s representations that this item: was not ?intended as a direct counterpoise? to the earlier content featuring Abayomi Azikiwe. Irrespective of the editorial intention, we noted that following the news item featuring Abayomi Azikiwe, the news presenter did signal to viewers that later in the same news programme the Syrian conflict would be looked at from a ?different angle?. In our view because of this comment, and the fact that the second item (concerning a boycott of Syrian television and film production by certain Arab countries) contained statements that could be characterised as critical of Arab states opposed to the Syrian Government, viewers would have been likely to have perceived the two items, to some degree, as dealing with the same politically controversial subject matter, namely the Syrian conflict. This news item, together with any other items dealing with the Syrian conflict, therefore needed to be presented with due impartiality in accordance with Rule 5.1.
We noted the Licensee?s argument that this was not a news item which needed to be presented with due impartiality because it was a report that: ?contained negligible commentary from [TV Novosti] itself?; was a ?factual portrayal of one aspect of the tragedy in Syria?; was looking at the ?impact of the [Syrian] conflict on one aspect of Syrian life?, and included statements from the actors in the news item that were ?personal feelings relating to their plight?. However, as mentioned above, Rule 5.1 applies potentially to any issue covered in a news programme, and not just matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy. In any case, we considered that this news item touched to some degree the controversial subject of the Syrian conflict, through certain contributors? criticisms of opponents of the Syrian Government.
Given the above, we considered that the overall effect of the Syrian actors? statements critical of certain Arab states opposing the Syrian Government, was to build on Abayomi Azikiwe?s statements made ten minutes earlier, criticising the Syrian opposition and supporting the Syrian Government. Further, we considered that there were not sufficient alternative viewpoints provided either in the news programme itself broadcast on 12 July 2012, nor any editorially linked material in the news bulletin identified by the Licensee broadcast on 11 July 2012, to ensure that this news item was presented with due impartiality in this case.
In assessing this second news item, we had regard to TV Novosti?s representation that although ?[i]t is true that Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both energetic stakeholders of the Arab League, declared their support for the suspension [of the purchase of Syrian made programmes] that caused the Syrian actors to voice their invectives?, the item was ?an example of the complementary material which [Russia Today] regularly brings to its coverage of world events...highlighting the human plight of some affected by the crisis?. In response we point out that the Code does not in any way prohibit a news broadcaster producing programming content that complements different aspects of its news output (indeed Ofcom wholeheartedly supports broadcasters reporting and presenting the news from different and creative angles). However, all news items must comply with Rule 5.1, as necessary and appropriate.
In considering the report about a boycott of Syrian television and film production by certain Arab countries, we noted TV Novosti?s argument that to ?suggest there was no ?counterbalance? [a counterbalance was needed] to the emotional outbursts of affected civilians is equivalent to suggesting that if [the Licensee] had broadcast a news report containing the anguished outpourings of a mother who had lost a child in the conflict [that] would require us to have balanced the report with a counterview from parties who felt that the death of a child was justified?. In our view, TV Novosti?s argument is based on an incorrect analogy. It does not adequately consider how or why the due impartiality requirements in the Code applied in this case.
We noted that the item concerning a boycott of Syrian television and film production by certain Arab countries: contained statements that could be characterised as critical of Arab states opposed to the Syrian Government; and, followed shortly after the earlier content featuring Abayomi Azikiwe which included views that were, for example, supportive of the Syrian Government. The report therefore did in our view require alternative viewpoints to be reflected as appropriate, on the Syrian conflict. The fact that this item, in the Licensee?s words was examining the effect of the Syrian conflict on ?ordinary citizens? did not obviate the need for due impartiality to be maintained in this case.
In reaching our overall decision, we took into account the Licensee?s various representations relating to the nature of Russia Today as an international news channel.
Firstly, we noted TV Novosti?s argument in relation to plurality. For example, the Licensee cited the recent Ofcom document8 on media plurality and said that that: ?Plurality in international news coverage, particularly of conflict situations, is surely provided by virtue of the availability to viewers of a range of different viewpoints from different broadcasters.? Furthermore, TV Novosti stated its view that Russia Today?s ?viewers will of course also be watching other international news channels, from which they gain additional perspectives, often completely opposite to what they see on? Russia Today. Ofcom recognises the importance of media plurality, which we have defined as, for example, ensuring there is a diversity of viewpoints available, and consumed, across and within media enterprises.
However, this does not mean that individual Ofcom licensees do not have to reflect alternative viewpoints in their own news programming, as appropriate, in accordance with Rule 5.1 of the Code. They must not and cannot rely on the output of other services and channels to help them present their news output with due impartiality.
Second, the Licensee said that: Russia Today ?reaches half a million regular UK viewers weekly?; and the fact that ?only one complained about ?bias? does, we suggest, illustrate that the vast majority appreciate the portrayal of Russia?s view?. In reply, Ofcom underlines that our investigations are not influenced by the number of complaints received in a particular case, but the potential issues raised. The fact that only one complaint was received by Ofcom in this case does not affect the facts and reasoning leading Ofcom to conclude that TV Novosti did not present the news with due impartiality.
Third, we noted the Licensee?s representation that ?if every international news channel had to be obliged to give ?due? coverage to all viewpoints (even if ?due? could be defined), all international news channels would in such case inevitably be reflecting the views of the country in which the channel is regulated [Licensee?s emphasis]?. This, in TV Novosti?s view, would impinge on freedom of expression and ?deprive viewers of insights into why different countries take a different view of conflict situations [Licensee?s emphasis]?. We disagree. As mentioned above, we recognise that Section Five of the Code acts to limit to some extent freedom of expression.
However, the requirement to ensure that news programming is presented with due impartiality is a requirement on all Ofcom licensees and, as mentioned above, reflects an explicit statutory requirement in the Act. The way due impartiality is preserved in news is an editorial matter for each individual broadcaster. It does not mean that news programmes on for example international news channels cannot be supportive of certain nation-states, nor be critical of the policies of particular governments, including the UK. However, all news stories must be presented with due impartiality. This does not mean that international TV news channels licensed and regulated by Ofcom must reflect the views of the UK. They must however comply with the regulatory framework of the UK ? and expressly agree to do so by choosing to base themselves in this jurisdiction. An important part of that framework is the rules about due impartiality put in place by UK statute and set out in the Act.
Fourth, the Licensee also stated that the ?world today provides unlimited access through the internet to totally unregulated? websites compared with regulated entities such as Russia Today. In TV Novosti?s view imposing ?constraints on the reporting of anything that might to some be controversial will only lead to citizens turning more and more to news sources [on for example ?unregulated? websites] that carry similar information, but presented in a totally irresponsible, unbalanced and unregulated way?. Ofcom acknowledges that audiences are able to obtain news from a vast range of media ranging from the printed press, through linear broadcasting, to various forms of online services. However, broadcasters licensed by Ofcom must comply with the statutory regime set down by the Act, which reflects Parliament?s desire to require all linear TV broadcast channels to comply with certain standards, including the preservation of due impartiality.
Fifth, the Licensee considered that ?war situations, and matters of international controversy [Licensee?s emphasis]? are not specifically dealt with by the Code ?nor can they be treated in the same way as domestic national issues?. Furthermore: ?What is controversial in one country may not be so in another...[and] [w]hat might be regarded as ?bias? or ?lack of impartiality? is itself often a subject of international debate?. In response, we would point to the fact that the meaning of due impartiality laid out in Section Five of the Code is flexible, and makes clear that contextual factors are important in considering the application of due impartiality.
Therefore, in reaching our decision in this case, we have given due regard to the fact that the content was broadcast on an international news channel, broadcasting from a Russian perspective. Furthermore, we have taken account of the fact that Ofcom?s published Guidance to Section Five of the Code states that Ofcom published research ?demonstrated that there are greater expectations [in relation Rule 5.1] for news channels that are perceived to be aimed at a UK audience than there are for channels with a global audience or for retransmitted news services made originally for non-UK audiences?.
Ofcom emphasises that there is no requirement on broadcasters to provide an alternative viewpoint on all news stories or issues in the news, or to do so in all individual news items or programmes. It is also legitimate for news on a licensed service to be presented in broad terms from the viewpoint of a particular nation-state. However, all news must be presented with due impartiality: that is with impartiality adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. Presenting news stories with due impartiality in news programmes very much depends on editorial discretion being exercised appropriately in all the circumstances.
Given the above, we concluded that, overall and on the specific facts of this case, the news bulletin broadcast at 10:00 on 12 July 2012 was not presented with due impartiality in respect of its treatment of the Syrian conflict. We have therefore recorded a breach of Rule 5.1 of the Code.
??Due? is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself means not favouring one side over another. ?Due? means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. So ?due impartiality? does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section Two: Harm and Offence of the Code, is important?.
We noted that this breach follows other breaches of Section Five recorded against the Licensee in Bulletin 213. Ofcom is therefore requiring the Licensee to attend a meeting to explain its compliance procedures in this area.
See Broadcast Bulletin 213, 10 September 2012 (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb213/obb213.pdf).
Source: http://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2012/11/abayomi-azikiwe-panw-editor-focus-of.html
arik armstead sag awards red carpet torrey pines nhl all star game 2012 pollyanna samuel adams snowy owl
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.