Complaint
A viewer complained thatÌýa statement by the commentator on this live event that the regeneration of the Cardiff Bay area had been “financed in a large part by European money†was both inaccurate and intended to influence viewers in relation to the controversial issue of Brexit.Ìý The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s editorial standards of accuracy and impartiality.
Outcome
As Â鶹ԼÅÄ Wales had already acknowledged in correspondence with the complainant, the statement was inaccurate, the regeneration of Cardiff Bay, which began in 1987, having been funded by the UK Government and private sector investment.Ìý As the statement was materially misleading to viewers, the ECU agreed that it did not meet the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s standards of due accuracy.Ìý
As to impartiality, the ECU considered the explanation, provided by Â鶹ԼÅÄ Wales after discussion with the commentator and the production team, that the statement in question was simply an error, arising from the commentator having read, in the course of compiling background information for his commentary, that substantial EU funds had been invested in South Wales, and failing to realise that the regeneration of Cardiff Bay was not a case in point.Ìý The ECU also considered the complainant’s arguments that simple error was not a credible explanation in the case of a Â鶹ԼÅÄ broadcaster of 37 years’ experience, and that his remark that his statement “might be controversial†indicated that he knew it was not factually accurate.Ìý The ECU took the view that no amount of experience rendered broadcasters immune from error, and that the complainant’s understanding of the commentator’s reference to controversy was implausible, in that it implied that, having knowingly attempted to mislead his audience, he had immediately gone on to signal that his statement might have been misleading.Ìý If his intention had indeed been political, he could as easily, and more accurately, have referred to EU investment in the wider South Wales area, and a more natural understanding of his remarks was that he had alluded to controversy because he was aware that his statement could be construed as touching on a currently controversial issue.Ìý The ECU therefore did not accept that the remarks represented a deliberate and politically-motivated attempt to mislead viewers; and, as the context was not one in which the question of Brexit was at issue, and as the remarks in question expressed no attitude to the controversy, the ECU saw no grounds for upholding the complaint in relation to impartiality.
In the absence of a breach of standards in relation to impartiality, the ECU judged that the apology and acknowledgement of error already made by Â鶹ԼÅÄ Wales was sufficient for it to regard the issue of accuracy as being resolved.
Impartiality: not upheld
Accuracy: resolved