Ofcom will address the BBC’s “lack of transparency as a matter of urgency” for failing to publish its reasoning for its initial decision over Naga Munchetty, and the Director-General’s move to reverse it.
The BBC’s executive complaints unit (ECU) last month ruled that BBC Breakfast presenter Munchetty breached editorial guidelines when she remarked on comments made by US president Donald Trump telling female Democrats to “go back” to where they came from.
The ruling was overturned last week by D-G Tony Hall following a large public backlash.
However, Ofcom has said that, following its own assessment, the July 17 broadcast of BBC Breakfast was duly impartial in accordance with the Broadcasting Code, and that an investigation was not justifiable.
The media regulator said it has received 18 complaints, the majority of which related to the fact the ECU initially partially upheld a complaint against Munchetty.
Kevin Bakhurst, Ofcom’s group director for content and media policy, said: “Due impartiality rules are vital for maintaining high levels of trust in broadcast news.
“We took into account the format of the BBC Breakfast programme and the nature of the presenters’ exchange. Our assessment is that it would not breach our broadcasting rules and does not warrant investigation.”
Bakhurst added: “More widely, we have serious concerns around the transparency of the BBC’s complaints process, which must command the confidence of the public.
“We’ll be requiring the BBC to be more transparent about its processes and compliance findings as a matter of urgency.”
Ofcom said that the exchange between Munchetty and her co-host Dan Walker was not considered to have breached due impartiality rules.
The watchdog has published correspondence between the BBC and itself following what they said was a “lack of transparency” from the broadcaster.
A BBC spokeswoman said: “We note Ofcom’s finding and the fact they agree with the Director-General’s decision.”
We need your help ...
The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.
Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.
We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.
Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?