Complaint
A viewer complained about an interview with the leader of a Palestinian youth advocacy group Almed al-Naouq arguing it lacked challenge, particularly when contrasted with an听 exchange with the former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and that a claim Mr al-Naouq made in the course of the interview was not independently verified. The ECU considered whether the programme met the requirements for due impartiality and accuracy set out in the 麻豆社 Editorial Guidelines.
Outcome
The guidelines make clear impartiality is resistant to simple quantification, and would not, for example, require that people speaking from different sides of a conflict face precisely the same questions or interviewing technique 鈥 in recognition of the fact different areas of discussion may benefit from different approaches. Accordingly, the test would not be precise equivalence in interviews with the former Prime Minister of Israel and the leader of a Palestinian youth advocacy initiative, but whether each was appropriately challenged on any areas of controversy.
In this case the ECU found no evidence of bias. In particular it noted Mr al-Naouq had just learned of the deaths of family members, including a number of children. The expression of a degree of sympathy towards him would not of itself offer proof of bias, or require a similar expression in interviews with other people.
The test of the accuracy of Mr al-Naouq鈥檚 claim that twenty-one of his relatives had been killed was whether the output would likely 鈥渕aterially mislead鈥 audiences. No evidence was produced by the complainant to call the account into question leading to the ECU concluding there had been no breach of standards in this area
听Not Upheld