Complaint
Part of this bulletin was overlaid with sound from another studio, when the presenter Nuala McKeever was heard to say (in connection with Dominic Cummings) “I was thinking he was such a dick I had written his name down as Richard Cummings. Freudian slip or what?â€. A listener complained that there had been no apology on air or online for the inappropriate language, or for the breach of impartiality which he regarded the remark as constituting. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s Editorial Guidelines on Harm and Offence, which say “The use of strong language must be editorially justified, and signposted if appropriate, to ensure it meets audience expectationsâ€, and on Impartiality.
Outcome
The comments came to be broadcast because, unknown to those occupying it, a microphone in a studio previously in use had been left open. As the broadcast was entirely unintentional, there was no question of editorial justification or signposting, and the ECU agreed that language was not in keeping with the expectations of the audience at that time of day. It therefore accepted that there had been a breach of editorial standards in relation to Harm and Offence.
In relation to impartiality, the ECU noted that the remarks in question coincided with the bulletin’s report of the latest developments in the story of Mr Cummings’ trip to Durham, which, though unintended, was particularly unfortunate. It also noted, however, that, though disparaging of Mr Cummings personally, they did not reflect directly on the controversy provoked by his actions; that the obviously inadvertent nature of the episode made it unlikely to affect listeners’ general perception of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s impartiality on the topic; and that the remarks were not such as to compromise Ms McKeever in her role as a presenter of a general interest programme unrelated to politics. The ECU therefore found no breach of editorial standards in relation to Impartiality.
Although a broadcast apology would be usual in such circumstances, the ECU recognised that the question is always a matter of editorial judgement. In this instance, the management of Â鶹ԼÅÄ Northern Ireland had considered broadcasting an apology, but judged that this would carry a risk of repeating or even amplifying the original offence, and that the already febrile atmosphere surrounding Mr Cummings’ planned statement later that afternoon was such that the risk was best avoided. They also took account of the fact that the episode had prompted very few complaints in the aftermath of transmission, and decided that the best course of action was to respond to press enquiries received during the afternoon with a statement making clear that the remarks should not have been broadcast and apologising for the upset caused – a decision made in the expectation that the story would be widely reported in Northern Ireland, which proved to be the case. Â鶹ԼÅÄ Northern Ireland had already removed the bulletin from Â鶹ԼÅÄ Sounds, and subsequently, in correspondence with the complainant, outlined a set of measures designed to guard against any repetition. In the ECU’s view these actions, taken together, were sufficient to resolve the issue of complaint in relation to Harm and Offence.
Harm and Offence: resolved
Impartiality: not upheld