Response From BBC Trust

[ian1964 10,625]

Mr ian1964 By email:

 

Our Ref:

 

17 May 2016

 

Dear Mr ian1964

 

Sportsround , BBC Radio Scotland, 1 March 2016

 

Thank you for writing to the BBC Trust. I am responding to your appeal of 31 March 2016. You appealed to the Trust about the BBC’s decision not to send journalists to the Ibrox Stadium, which you believed to be in violation of the BBC Charter.

 

I am sorry to send a disappointing response, but I have assessed your complaint and do not intend to put it before Trustees. The detailed reasons for my decision are in the following annex. In the second annex are relevant sections of the BBC’s complaints procedures and the Charter and Agreements which you may find helpful.

 

If you disagree with my decision, you can ask the Trustees to review it by contacting the Complaints Adviser, at trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk or at the above address, by 1 June 2016. Your request must be in one document and in fewer than a thousand words. Trustees will only exceptionally give more time, so if you do need longer, please reply giving your reasons as soon as possible.

 

If you do ask the Trustees to review this decision, that request as well as your original appeal letter and this letter will be put before Trustees. Your previous correspondence will be available to them. They will consider it in either their June or July meeting – we will let you know which nearer the time. Their decision is likely to be finalised the following month and will then be given to you.

 

If the Trustees agree that your case has no reasonable prospect of success then it will not be taken further as their decision is final. The decision will be published in the next complaints bulletin. If the Trustees disagree with my decision, then your complaint will be passed to an independent Editorial Adviser to prepare appeal paperwork and you will be informed of the new time scale for your appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Leanne Buckle Senior Editorial Adviser

Edited May 17, 2016 by ian1964

[barca72 440]

Thx, Ian. Good try at least.

[ian1964 10,625]

Annex 1 – Sportsround, BBC Radio Scotland, 1 March 2016

 

The complaint concerned a lack of radio coverage of the Rangers v Raith Rovers match on 1 March 2016. The complainant believed it was a snub by Radio Scotland regarding an ongoing issue between Rangers FC and BBC reporter Chris McLaughlin.

 

The complainant made the following points:

 

• Every other match in Scotland had a reporter present who gave instant updates during the match, except for the Rangers match at Ibrox, despite that match having the biggest crowd attendance in Scotland that night.

• If there was an ongoing issue with BBC reporter Chris McLaughlin, then he expected the BBC to send another reporter to cover the match.

• It was not the first time this had happened.

• He believed the BBC’s decision was against the Charter because: 1) the BBC was not acting in the public interest by not sending a reporter to the match; 2) the BBC was not representing Scotland when it failed to cover its most popular football club.

• He said all he was asking for was parity with other licence fee payers.

• He felt there was a clear bias against Rangers FC by the BBC.

 

Audience Services made the following points at Stage One:

 

• The BBC was disappointed that Rangers FC took the decision to ban one of its reporters from Ibrox. The BBC believed that was unjustifiable and stood by the integrity and quality of its journalism.

• The BBC would continue to report on Rangers both on and off the pitch, and would feature match action where appropriate, but until the issue was resolved, the BBC would not be sending journalists to Ibrox, nor would journalists be attending Rangers’ press conferences.

• The BBC would respond in exactly the same way if any institution or body acted in a similar fashion.

• In the specific case of Rangers v Raith Rovers the BBC provided score updates online and on radio. Additionally the BBC provided an online match report sourced from press agency copy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35637842.

 

The complaint went to Stage Two. The Head of Public Policy & Corporate Affairs did not uphold the complaint. He made the following points:

 

• BBC Scotland senior sports reporter Chris McLaughlin had his press privileges revoked by Rangers FC, in essence banning him from reporting within Ibrox Stadium.

• The BBC believed this action to be without justification and it had implications for the impartiality of the BBC and the trust of audiences in that impartiality. Consequently BBC Scotland would not be sending any journalists to Ibrox and would not attend Ibrox press conferences until the matter was resolved.

• The BBC was not in violation of its Charter as a result of taking this stance. Indeed, it was on the basis of protecting basic Charter principles of BBC independence and impartiality that such an action was taken.

• This decision did not mean that the BBC would not report on matters pertaining to Rangers FC. BBC ALBA would provide live coverage of the Rangers v Peterhead Scottish Challenge Cup Final from Hampden on 10 April and there would be live radio and TV highlights coverage of the Rangers v Celtic Scottish Cup semi-final from Hampden on 17 April.

 

Appeal

 

The complainant appealed to the BBC Trust on the substance of his complaint. He made the following points:

 

• The Head of Public Policy & Corporate Affairs, BBC Scotland had not explained why the BBC was not acting outside its Charter.

• He said the whole ongoing issue between the BBC and Rangers FC was over a lack of impartiality, so he did not feel the BBC could justify not sending another journalist on the grounds that their independence was at risk.

• He said that to the best of his knowledge the Charter did not mention the word ‘impartiality’ which would support his contention that no thought was being given to the Charter in the decision-making process of the BBC.

• He felt that the decision not send another journalist to Ibrox implied that the BBC had no confidence in the quality of other journalists.

• He felt the action taken by the BBC in this case was a severe over-reaction.

• He had been informed that Dundee FC had also banned a BBC reporter but in that case different reporters were sent to Dens Park instead while the matter was being resolved. He felt that was a mature way to deal with a dispute. He asked the BBC to confirm whether that was the case and if so, explain why that approach could not be taken in the Rangers case.

Edited May 17, 2016 by ian1964

[ian1964 10,625]

Decision of the Trust Adviser

 

The Senior Editorial Adviser (the Adviser) carefully read the correspondence that had passed between the complainant and the BBC. She decided that the complainant’s appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

 

The Adviser understood that the BBC had decided not to send any reporters to Ibrox until the dispute with Rangers FC was resolved. She noted that the complainant had questioned the basis of that decision, believing that the BBC’s commitment to impartiality would be better served by sending other reporters to Ibrox in place of Chris McLaughlin. She also noted that the complainant believed that the BBC’s decision not to send reporters to Ibrox until the dispute with Rangers FC was resolved violated the BBC Charter.

 

The Adviser noted that the Royal Charter is the constitutional basis for the BBC. It sets out the public purposes of the BBC, guarantees its independence, and outlines the duties of the Trust and the Executive Board. The current Charter runs until 31 December 2016. The Agreement with the Secretary of State sits alongside the Charter and provides detail on many of the topics outlined in the Charter and also covers the BBC's funding and its regulatory duties. The Agreement accompanying the Charter requires the BBC to do all it can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. However, the BBC goes further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects.

 

The BBC’s commitment to due impartiality is fundamental to its reputation and the trust of audiences, as explained at Stage Two by the Head of Public Policy & Corporate Affairs, BBC Scotland. As previously explained, that commitment to due impartiality is part of the Agreement which accompanies the Charter and the action by the BBC with regard to the dispute with Rangers FC was taken to protect the principles of independence and impartiality.

 

The Adviser noted the complainant’s view that the BBC was handling the situation in the wrong way, and that the decision not to send other journalists to Ibrox in place of Chris McLaughlin indicated that the BBC had no confidence in its other journalists, and was a severe over-reaction to the situation. However, she noted that this was not the view of the BBC and she considered that the reasons for not sending another journalist to Ibrox had been clearly explained at Stage Two by the Head of Public Policy & Corporate Affairs, BBC Scotland. She noted that decisions about how to report on BBC output in the event of a dispute with a third party were part of the operational management of the BBC. In this case the decision not to send a reporter to Ibrox until the dispute with Rangers FC was resolved was taken by the BBC Executive. The Adviser noted that the BBC was entitled to make operational decisions without interference and the Trust would only have a role if the BBC was potentially in breach of any of its other commitments – for example, if one of the licence-fee funded services has not operated within the terms set out in its Service Licence. The Adviser had not seen evidence to suggest that was the case here. She noted that the BBC would continue to report on Rangers both on and off the pitch, and would feature match action where appropriate, but until the issue was resolved, the BBC would not be sending journalists to Ibrox, nor would journalists be attending Rangers’ press conferences.

 

The Adviser noted that the complainant had also mentioned in his appeal a dispute between the BBC and Dundee FC. She noted that this was a new point that had not been raised with the BBC. The Trust was the final stage of the complaints process and could only consider matters that the BBC had already had the opportunity to respond to. It therefore was not appropriate to address this point.

 

Taking this into account the Adviser considered Trustees would be likely to conclude that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success. She therefore did not consider it was appropriate, proportionate or cost-effective to proceed with the appeal and did not propose to put it before Trustees.

Annex 2

 

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. We read the correspondence in each case and also review the relevant BBC content in order to make this assessment.

 

The Trust acts in the interests of all licence-fee payers and it would not be proportionate, appropriate or cost-effective to spend a good deal of time and money on cases that do not stand a realistic prospect of success.

 

For information about the complaints system – and in particular about how the BBC Trust fits in – this is the web link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/

 

All BBC output is required to meet the standards set out in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. These are written by the BBC and are commissioned and approved by the BBC Trust. They are publicly available and can be found through this link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines. Where a complaint relates to a potential breach of the Editorial Guidelines, we will refer to the relevant Guidelines in our response.

 

The Trust’s Editorial Appeals procedure states that:

 

The Trust will only consider an appeal if it raises “a matter of substance”. 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 costeffective to consider the appeal.

[ian1964 10,625]

For non-editorial complaints, the relevant procedures can be found through the link given above. However, in general, the Trust only considers appeals which raise “a

matter of substance” and for non-editorial complaints this means appeals will only be

considered which relate to “…significant issues of general importance”.

 

Again, the Trust operates in the interests of all licence-fee payers and will bear in mind whether it is appropriate, proportionate and cost-effective to consider the appeal.

 

The BBC’s complaints system has three stages. Complaints are answered at stage one by BBC Audience Services. Complainants who remain dissatisfied after this can request a further response at stage one. If they are still dissatisfied they may be able to escalate their complaint to stage two, where their complaint will either be answered by the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit or by a senior manager within the relevant division. The third and final stage is an appeal to the Trust. Time frames are set throughout the complaints process and complaints that are made outside those limits will only exceptionally be considered.

 

Under the Complaints Framework, it is open to the BBC to decline to correspond further about a complaint. The BBC can do this at any stage if it considers the complaint is trivial, misconceived, hypothetical, repetitious or otherwise vexatious. It can also stop replying to an editorial complaint that does not raise an issue of a breach of the Editorial Guidelines. The complainant can appeal to the Trust if they consider the BBC is wrong to stop corresponding about their complaint.

 

Where a complainant appeals to the Trust in these circumstances, if Trustees agree that the BBC was wrong to close down correspondence, the complaint will be sent back to the BBC for a further response. It will remain open to the complainant to appeal again to the Trust once the BBC has finished responding.

 

The Royal Charter and 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. “The direction of the BBC’s editorial and creative output” and “The operational management of the BBC” are defined as duties

that are the responsibility of the Executive Board under paragraph 38, (1)(b) and (1)©.

 

These are important because they are intended to protect the BBC’s editorial freedom and independence. They mean that the BBC is entitled to make editorial decisions without the Trust’s intervention – and the Trust would only have a role if, for example, a complaint raised a matter that was a potential breach of the BBC’s editorial standards (as set out in the Editorial Guidelines).

 

Similarly, the BBC is entitled to make operational decisions without interference and the Trust would only have a role if the BBC was potentially in breach of any of its other commitments – for example, if one of the licence-fee funded services has not operated within the terms set out in its Service Licence.

 

A high proportion of complaints that reach the Trust are either about editorial and creative decisions or operational decisions. However, it is outside the remit of the Trust to consider those complaints. Examples of the kind of complaints that Trustees would not be able to consider are:

 

• a particular programme should not have been made

• a contributor was not a good guest for a programme

• a complainant disagreed with the line of questioning taken by an interviewer

• a complainant was upset that a scheduled programme was not broadcast

[RANGERRAB 3,461]

If the BBC think McLaughlin is an impartial reporter they are having a laugh.

[boabie 230]

As I forecast Ian. I got to the same point a couple of years ago.

What they forget is, despite saying they are acting within their charter and regulations, they conveniently ignore the fact that they are acting to the detriment of the hundreds of thousands of people who do hold an active interest on what Rangers are doing at that moment.

I just hope our guys upstairs don't come out with any clear the decks and start over guff during the close season and keep the bassas out next season.

[pete 2,499]

If the BBC think McLaughlin is an impartial reporter they are having a laugh.

 

That is not what the complaint was about and they had no reason to take that into consideration.

[Frankie 8,371]

It's not a surprise.

 

Hopefully we'll have better luck next year when OfCom take over the Trust's role.

[Bluedell 5,472]

It's been well worth following up and making the BBC at least review and consider what BBC Scotland have been up to, so well done, Ian, on your tenacity.

 

I haven't read the reply in great detail yet, but it seems that they are not putting it forward due to the responsibilities of the Trust not really covering what we are complaining about, and not the fact that we don't have a good basic argument. It's a flaw in the complaint process and basically give the BBC a freedom to act unreasonably without any level of question despite the fact that they are publicly funded.

 

It may give us scope for fine-tuning future complaints.