Latest news with #impartiality
The Sun
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Sun
Gary Lineker slams BBC for ‘losing their way' and ‘tying themselves up in knots' in first interview after MOTD axe
GARY Lineker says the BBC has 'lost their way' when it comes to impartiality in his first interview since he left Match Of The Day following an anti-semitism row. And in a talk at Glastonbury festival, he revealed that the Corporation had announced his exit before even making him aware of their decision. Lineker was ousted from his position on the football show following criticism when he shared a social media post about Zionism, for which he later apologised. Gary, 64, said: 'The impartiality issue has become a massive problem that I think they've probably created themselves by the rules that have been set within the business. 'I understand in your news and current affairs they have to be generally impartial but, I mean, it is hot today right? I think we can all say that we don't need someone to come in to tell us it's actually not hot. 'We just need to know the truth. 'I think they've lost their way a little bit with that and there's a degree of impartiality at the very top of the BBC. 'There are thousands of amazing people at the BBC but it's not reflected at the top. 'They've tried themselves up in knots with it.' Gary had intended to leave the flagship show after this summer's World Cup but instead hosted his last Match of the Day on June 26. Admitting his upset at his ill-judged post, which Gary says 'gave people ammunition to shoot me,' he added: 'I had a little group chat back then, particularly with Ian Wright and Alan Shearer. 'I said, I've got a feeling they're going to take me off air on Saturday and Ian Wright immediately said 'if they do that I'm going to go'. 'So the next day they announced I wasn't doing the show. 'They actually announced it without telling me first. 'I just thought what's the point of having a big platform if you don't use it to kind of push beliefs that you believe to be right.' But he later shared: 'I love the BBC. I always will and I'm not bitter or twisted about anything that happened.' He also showed his support for political hip hop trio Kneecap and said at the end of his talk at Glastonbury: 'Free Palestine.' 1
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Channel 4 to show Gaza doctor documentary after BBC refused to air programme
CHANNEL 4 have announced that it will air a documentary about the plight of medics in Gaza after the BBC confirmed it would not air the programme following concerns that it would 'not meet the high standards' of impartiality. The BBC had commissioned Gaza: Doctors Under Attack more than a year ago from the independent production company Basement Films, but had delayed airing it until an ongoing review into a different programme on the region was completed. The BBC said last week it would not show the film due to concerns it may create 'a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect'. The one-off documentary, which includes witness accounts from frontline Palestinian health workers in Gaza and documents attacks on hospitals and clinics, will now air on Channel 4 on 2 July at 10pm. READ MORE: Home Office staff concerned over 'absurb' ban on Palestine Action, reports say Gaza: Doctors Under Attack has been 'factchecked and compiled by Channel 4 to ensure it meets Channel 4 editorial standards and the Ofcom broadcasting code', an announcement by the broadcaster said. Louisa Compton, Channel 4's head of news and current affairs and specialist factual and sport, said in a statement: 'This is a meticulously reported and important film examining evidence which supports allegations of grave breaches of international law by Israeli forces that deserves to be widely seen and exemplifies Channel 4's commitment to brave and fearless journalism.' In an op-ed, Compton further explained: 'We are showing this programme because we believe that, following thorough factchecking and verification, we are presenting a duly impartial view of a subject that both divides opinion and frequently provokes dispute about what constitutes a fact. 'Channel 4 has a strong tradition of putting uncomfortable reporting in front of our audiences. In doing so, we know we will antagonise somebody somewhere sometime. But we do it because we believe it is our duty to tell important journalistic stories – especially those that aren't being told elsewhere.' She added: 'Doctors Under Attack was commissioned by another broadcaster, which took a different view of the original content and decided not to broadcast it. 'That other broadcaster will have had its own reasons for not showing the programme. 'For ourselves, after rigorous factchecking and assessing the film against our own editorial criteria as well as against all regulatory requirements, we decided that it was both compliant with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, but also that it was important journalism in the public interest. 'Any small changes were carried out with the producers to update the film and give viewers as much information as possible. 'The result is harrowing, no doubt. It will make people angry, whichever side they take, or if they take no side. 'But while we would never judge anyone who decides that showing something could create a risk of being thought to be taking sides, we believe there are times when the same risk is run by not showing anything at all.' Basement Films said: 'This is the third film we have made about the assault on Gaza since 7 October at Basement Films, and while none of them have been easy, this became by far the most difficult.' The production company said it owed 'everything' to its Palestinian colleagues in Gaza and 'the doctors and medics who trusted us with their stories'. It added: 'We want to apologise to the contributors and team for the long delay, and thank Channel 4 for enabling it to be seen.' Gaza: Doctors Under Attack was greenlit for broadcast by Compton, and was made by reporter Ramita Navai, executive producer Ben De Pear, who was previously editor of Channel 4 News, and director Karim Shah for Basement Films. De Pear was also previously the executive producer on 2019's For Sama, which won a Bafta and was nominated for an Oscar. The BBC pulled the documentary How to Survive a Warzone in February after it emerged that its 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official. In a statement last week, the BBC said it had paused production of Gaza: Doctors Under Attack in April, having made a decision that it could not broadcast the film while a review into a separate Gaza documentary was ongoing. The BBC said that with both films coming from independent production companies, and both about Gaza, it was right to wait for any relevant findings – and put them into action – before broadcasting the film.
The Guardian
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
A campaign of complaints about Antoinette Lattouf put the ABC under pressure – and it buckled
I can't remember who said it, but I've never forgotten it. Someone was once being invited by a journalist to buy into a controversial issue. 'Surely you must have a view!' demanded the journalist. 'Of course I have a view,' came the reply. 'What I don't have is a comment.' I thought of that exchange again this morning as I considered the judgment in the Antoinette Lattouf case, a case comprehensively lost by the ABC after it was found to have terminated Lattouf from her on-air role at least partly because of her political opinions. At the centre of the case was a social media post from Lattouf described by the judge as 'ill-advised and inconsiderate'. It shared the findings of a Human Rights Watch report about the use of starvation as a 'weapon of war' by Israel in Gaza. Sometimes silence is golden, particularly when trying to maintain the impartiality of the ABC on controversial issues. And there is no doubt that, in the wake of the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas and the subsequent Israeli attack on Gaza, social media posts on the topic by ABC presenters are bound to be controversial. My advice, when I was the editorial director of the ABC, was generally that journalists and presenters should let their on-air work speak for them as far as possible. And so it's understandable that Lattouf's social media activity caused controversy and consternation. It is possible for people of good faith and common sense to differ in their views on whether Lattouf's posts undermined the ABC's impartiality. I happen to think they didn't, and I also happen to think employing her in the first place was not a mistake. Sign up to get Guardian Australia's weekly media diary as a free newsletter But ultimately, none of that matters. The simple facts are that her on-air performance for the few days she presented the ABC Sydney morning program was impeccable, and none of her social media posts were ever found to have breached ABC policy. What did take place, however, was a campaign of complaints from the moment she began in the role, accusing her of being biased against Israel. That campaign was described by the judge in the case as 'an orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists to have Ms Lattouf taken off air'. The key issue was how the ABC behaved in the face of that campaign. The ABC's first editorial standard is about maintaining the broadcaster's independence and integrity above all else. That means ensuring that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by any outside interests, including political, sectional or commercial ones. In my years as the editorial director of the ABC, I saw many attempts to pressure or influence the ABC into making decisions. Often, they were decisions about what content the ABC ran, but sometimes they were about who the ABC employed, or who they should stop employing. I should hasten to add that there are many people who would argue that I was part of management decisions that buckled under that pressure. I hope that's not the case, but that's for others to judge. One thing I did try to do though, without exception, is to urge that decisions should be made calmly, carefully, and after following due process. That usually meant allowing the established complaints handling processes to deal with any allegations of bias, and ensuring that any staff accused of wrongdoing were given ample opportunity to respond, defend themselves and, more often than not, be provided with opportunities to learn and improve rather than being shown the door. Based on today's judgment, that didn't happen in the Lattouf case. Sign up to Weekly Beast Amanda Meade's weekly diary on the latest in Australian media, free every Friday after newsletter promotion In his findings, Justice Darryl Rangiah said that the campaign of complaints against Lattouf 'caused great consternation' among senior management at the ABC, and once she made her social media post about Gaza there was 'a state of panic'. The decision to remove her from air was made quickly, despite no breaches of ABC policy being clearly identified, and Lattouf was given no opportunity to defend herself. One of the reasons for the decision being made so quickly was pressure from both the then managing director, David Anderson, and the then chair of the ABC, Ita Buttrose, who wrote in an email about Lattouf that 'we owe her nothing'. Put simply, the process failed all those involved. It failed the presenter herself, and it failed the test of law. Today's judgment makes that painfully clear. People often laugh at the ABC's sometimes cumbersome and slow-moving processes when dealing with complaints. And they are often right – they can always be improved and streamlined. But when the ABC, as so often is the case, becomes a pawn in the culture wars and is subjected to intense political or sectional pressure, those calm and considered processes are often all that stand between the ABC and perceptions of caving in to that pressure. Often, the biggest pressure I perceived inside the ABC was the pressure to make problems go away as soon as possible. At the highest levels of an organisation, the demand for a quick solution can be loud and insistent, all the more so as those calling for a quick fix don't have to administer it themselves. In those situations, being able to point clearly to a policy that has been found to be breached after a process that is consistent and fair to everyone is the only thing preventing the perception of an organisation in retreat from its values and its people. The wheels of justice turn slowly, and so most of the key players involved in this sorry affair have now left the ABC. What lessons remain for the ABC itself, and for those who believe in brave and principled public broadcasting? Only to redouble the efforts in defence of independence, integrity and calmness under pressure. The world these days is filled with those who seek to control, bully and pressure public interest journalism in all its forms. The role of senior managers is to stoutly resist that pressure, and protect journalists from it as much as possible. A quick fix is rarely a good fix, and never the right fix. Alan Sunderland is a former editorial director of the ABC
Daily Mail
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
BBC staff are told 'they must represent unpalatable and offensive views'
BBC staff have been told they should be willing to represent 'unpalatable' opinions and 'minority' views even if some people find them offensive. The broadcaster released updated editorial guidelines stating output must be impartial so the public feels comfortable expressing taboo perspectives. Journalists are reminded 'impartial output may "require the inclusion of opinions which some […] communities or groups may argue ought not to be included, because they find them unpalatable or offensive"'. The revisions signal an update to 2019 guidance and come after years of ' cancel culture ' which critics have said imposed a mainstream consensus on issues like immigration and gender identity. This week, the BBC backed Martine Croxall, a news presenter who corrected her script from 'pregnant people' to 'women' live on air. The support marked a shift from 2024 when the BBC upheld a complaint against presenter Justin Webb as he called transgender women 'males' on air. Last year the Migration Observatory in Oxford said the BBC ought to better reflect public views on immigration. The organisation claimed some BBC journalists were anxious they could appear 'hostile' to migrants by reporting on migration. The new BBC guidance states it is 'committed to reflecting a wide rang of subject matter and perspectives across its output' Earlier this month, bosses at the corporation met to discuss how best to rebuild trust. It followed April's Supreme Court ruling that transgender women are not legally women. This also came in the aftermath of Reform UK's success in local elections and reports of record high levels of migration. The new BBC guidance states the corporation is 'committed to reflecting a wide range of subject matter and perspectives across its output'. It adds: 'On occasion, that will include attitudes and opinions which some may find unpalatable or offensive.' Staff are also told to be aware 'opinion may change over time' and they should try to reflect accurately altered public opinion in their coverage. However, the guidance does make clear 'fringe' opinions need not be given the same weight as viewpoints deemed to be backed up by greater evidence. The new editorial guidelines, updated roughly every five years, have been embraced by BBC director-general Tim Davie. He said that the rules would 'provide editorial values and standards that make the BBC distinctive and reliable'. Mr Davie added in a foreword: 'The BBC is committed to freedom of expression but this doesn't mean that anything goes. In a world of misinformation and disinformation, the BBC's editorial values of accuracy, impartiality and fairness are more crucial than ever. 'So too, in the context of the ugliness of much social media, is the fundamental decency embodied in sections like Harm and Offence or Children and Young People.' The sections continue to warn staff to be mindful of giving air time to views that could be considered offensive, and to ensure there are appropriate content warnings on iPlayer. Among the other new aspects of the guidance are rules around use of AI, to reflect the emergence of new technology. One new rule says: 'A senior editorial figure must be responsible and accountable for overseeing the deployment and continuing use of any AI. 'They should seek advice from Editorial Policy, who may consult the AI Risk Advisory Group, before any decision to deploy the AI.'
Telegraph
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
BBC staff told impartiality means they must represent ‘unpalatable views'
BBC staff have been told they must be willing to represent 'unpalatable' views. The broadcaster has released updated editorial guidelines stating that a range of views, including 'minority' opinions, should be taken into account to ensure output is impartial. Updated clauses tell staff to be aware of potentially silenced opinions that the public may be 'reluctant to express', or opinions rarely expressed because 'opportunity to do so is limited'. Staff have been told to do so even if some groups might find these opinions offensive. The guidance reminds journalists that impartial output may 'require the inclusion of opinions which some […] communities or groups may argue ought not to be included, because they find them unpalatable or offensive'. The revisions update 2019 guidance, and come after years of 'cancel culture', which some believe enforced a mainstream consensus on issues such as immigration and gender identity. The BBC itself upheld a complaint against presenter Justin Webb in 2024 when he called trans women 'males' on air, a biological definition of gendered terms which has since been supported by a Supreme Court ruling. Last year the Migration Observatory in Oxford urged the BBC to better reflect the public views on immigration. The organisation claimed that some BBC journalists were anxious that reporting on concerns about migration could appear 'hostile' to migrants. It comes after the BBC backed Martine Croxall, the news presenter, when she corrected her script from 'pregnant people' to 'women' live on-air. The UK Supreme Court ruling in April was said to have encouraged staff to speak up for women. Earlier this month, BBC bosses met to discuss how best to rebuild trust with Right-leaning audiences. This followed Reform UK's success in the local elections, and immigration becoming a key political issue after both legal and illegal migration reached record highs. BBC staff have been told in fresh guidance that they should be aware that 'opinion may change over time', and to try to accurately reflect altered public opinion in their coverage However, guidance makes clear that while the consensus should be questioned and not presumed, fringe opinions do not need to be given the same weight as viewpoints that are backed up by greater evidence. The new editorial guidelines, updated roughly every five years, have been welcomed by Tim Davie, the director-general. He said that they would 'provide editorial values and standards that make the BBC distinctive and reliable'. He added in a foreword: 'The BBC is committed to freedom of expression but this doesn't mean that anything goes. In a world of misinformation and disinformation, the BBC's editorial values of accuracy, impartiality and fairness are more crucial than ever. 'So too, in the context of the ugliness of much social media, is the fundamental decency embodied in sections like Harm and Offence or Children and Young People.' These sections continue to warn staff to be mindful of broadcasting views that could be considered offensive, and to ensure there are appropriate content warnings on iPlayer. Reflecting the emergence of new technology, the guidance also contains new rules on the use of AI. One new rule stipulates: 'A senior editorial figure must be responsible and accountable for overseeing the deployment and continuing use of any AI. 'They should seek advice from Editorial Policy, who may consult the AI Risk Advisory Group, before any decision to deploy the AI.'
