Complaint
A viewer complained two reporters, in different items in this bulletin, had “used language which was passing judgement on an issueâ€, thus departing from impartiality.  Scott Bingham, reporting from Plymouth on a day when rival demonstrators had clashed, referred to “so called anti-fascist protestorsâ€, implying scepticism about the accuracy of “a²Ô³Ù¾±-´Ú²¹²õ³¦¾±²õ³Ùâ€, while Natalie Pirks, reporting from the Olympics, referred to “the boxing scandal engulfing these gamesâ€, implying that the decision of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in relation to two boxers disbarred from fighting in the female category by the International Boxing Association (IBA) was scandalous.  The ECU considered the complaint in the light the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s editorial standards of impartiality.
Outcome
In connection with the report from Plymouth, the ECU considered the term “so called†does not necessarily imply scepticism about the denomination which follows it, and saw nothing in the report to warrant the view that it did so on this occasion. In connection with the report from the Olympics, the ECU noted that the phrase complained of came in the introduction to a report by Dan Roan which set out the parameters of the controversy and included contributions from both the IOC and the IBA. The ECU considered that, in this context, Ms Pirks’ words should be taken as a reflection of the continuing intensity of the controversy, not an implied judgement on the merits of either side.
Not upheld