Â鶹ԼÅÄ

Mr Waters’ interview was preceded by an introduction by the reporter who had interviewed him, in which she explained that he was promoting a Free Assange rally in London the following day. She said that Mr Assange had been imprisoned in London since April 2019 for “publishing classified documents about US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistanâ€�.  She went on to explain that he had been charged in the United States with “h²¹³¦°ì¾±²Ô²µâ€� and breaches of the Espionage Act.  In the interview Mr Rogers was critical of the motives of the US government which he maintained was “trying to killâ€� Mr Assange by sentencing him for long periods if found guilty.  He stated that Assange was guilty of no crime and was in his view a journalist attempting to speak truth to power.  His views were not challenged by the reporter.  In the ECU’s view, the item amounted to a strong statement of one viewpoint in what was self-evidently a controversial matter.  A previous reply from the Â鶹ԼÅÄ had suggested that, being devoted primarily to news about the music industry, the programme was not subject to the requirements which would apply to mainstream news and current affairs programmes, but the ECU noted that the guidelines expressed the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s commitment to achieving due impartiality “in all its outputâ€�, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.  The ECU saw nothing in the expectations attaching to a programme about music industry news, or in the nature of its content, which would warrant presenting only one view on a matter of current controversy without appropriate challenge, and agreed that the item had been in breach of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s editorial standards.

Upheld