ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

The graph in question tracked the number of applications over the previous ten years from white, black, Asian and mixed ethnic backgrounds, and appeared to show what the reporter termed β€œa huge gap” between the white group and the ethnic minorities.Β  The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ’s first response to the complaint acknowledged this was misleading, not least because the graph had made no adjustment for the much larger size of the white group, and suggested it should have shown the proportion of each group applying.Β  That would not in fact have been possible, as no data which would allow application rates to be expressed as a proportion of each group is published.Β  The figures for entry rates however, and the proportions of ethnic applicants gaining entry to higher education places, are published and are generally thought to reflect application rates.Β  These show a significantly lower entry rate from the white group than from any ethnic minority, so the impression of a disparity in favour of the white group given by the graph and the accompanying commentary was misleading.

The ECU considered that a broadcast correction might well have been appropriate if the misleading character of the graph had been recognised closer to the date of transmission.Β  By the time complaints had been received and investigated, however, the judgement was that the passage of time rendered a posting on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ’s Clarification and Corrections page more appropriate than an on-air correction.Β  In such circumstances the ECU would normally regard a published correction as resolving the issues of complaint, but in this instance the posting, though comprehensive in other respects, did not say why application rates (as distinct from rates of admission) are believed to show marked differentials in favour of the ethnic minorities, and would therefore have left readers less than clear about the extent to which the programme had given a misleading impression on the point at issue. Consequently the complaint was upheld.

Upheld