Complaint
A reader of this online article complained that it reflected bias against President Trump on the part of its author (Nick Bryant, the 鶹Լ’s New York Correspondent). The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 鶹Լ’s Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality in connection with News, Current Affairs and Factual Output, which say:
News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due weight to events, opinion and main strands of argument. The approach and tone of news stories must always reflect our editorial values, including our commitment to impartiality.
And:
Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and voice of the 鶹Լ – they can have a significant impact on perceptions of whether due impartiality has been achieved. Our audiences should not be able to tell from 鶹Լ output the personal opinions of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on ‘controversial subjects’ in any other area. They may provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence, but may not express personal views on such matters publicly, including in any 鶹Լ-branded output or on personal blogs and social media.
Outcome
The Guidelines provide for 鶹Լ journalists to offer “professional judgements” on matters of political controversy, and the ECU regarded the article primarily as an instance of a specialist correspondent using his knowledge and experience to provide informed and considered analysis in his areas of expertise. The ECU also agreed that Mr Bryant had sought to support his assessment of President Trump’s handling of the coronavirus crisis with evidence, much of which had been cited in previous correspondence with the complainant. However, it accepted that that there were issues with the “approach and tone” of the item at certain points, and that phrasing such as“Ridiculous boasts”,“mind-bending truth twisting”,“particularly vicious assault”, “pettiness and peevishness”, “narcissistic hunger for adoration” and“the tricks of an illusionist”, when not attributed to sources other than the author of the piece, was closer to the language of“personal views”than that of“professional judgement”and, in terms of impartiality, was not offset by the limited, and relatively restrained, criticism of the Democrats, Joe Biden and Congress. In the ECU’s judgement, the article could have been brought into alignment with the 鶹Լ’s editorial standards without a great deal of alteration, as would normally have happened as a result of the process of editorial oversight applied to such pieces. As it stood, however, and whether or not Mr Bryant was in fact expressing a personal view of President Trump, some of his observations were couched in terms which might well have led readers to conclude that he was, resulting in a departure from the 鶹Լ’s standards of impartiality.
Upheld
Further action
The finding was discussed with those responsible for the article and reported to the Board of 鶹Լ News, and the article itself was amended in the light of the finding.