Complaint
Nigel Farage, as leader of Reform UK, followed the co-leader of the Green Party in England and Wales in facing 30 minutes of questioning moderated by Fiona Bruce. 20 viewers complained that the programme showed bias against him in the selection of the studio audience, the lines of questioning pursued, excessive interruption by Ms Bruce and failure on her part to call out members of the audience who accused Mr Farage of racism. Some complainants drew unfavourable inferences from the inclusion in the audience of someone they understood to be a 鶹Լ employee, who was allowed to put a question to Mr Farage. The ECU considered the complaints in the light of the 鶹Լ’s editorial standards of impartiality.
Outcome
At the beginning of the programme Ms Bruce described the audience as representing “a mix of political sentiment including many who are still making up their mind and supporters of both the Greens and Reform”, but the lack of audible or visible support for Mr Farage led some complainants to doubt whether Reform supporters had in fact been included. In the selection process, prospective members of the audience were asked about their voting intentions, and the ECU established that enough of those selected had expressed the intention of voting for Reform to guard against any danger of Reform supporters being under-represented.
The questions put by the audience were challenging rather than supportive, but this was in keeping with an occasion which offered the opportunity of putting party leaders and their policies under scrutiny. The ECU noted that the questioning gave Mr Farage an opportunity to speak at length about a wide range of his party’s policies and to rebut allegations of racism within the party following the Channel Four News undercover investigation broadcast the previous evening.
As to interruption, the ECU saw no material difference between the way Ms Bruce handled the two segments of the programme. As to accusations of racism from the audience, Mr Farage’s own forceful denial rendered any intervention by Ms Bruce superfluous.
The audience member believed to be a 鶹Լ employee was not a member of the 鶹Լ’s staff, but a freelance drama director who had worked on some 鶹Լ productions in that capacity. As his work for the 鶹Լ was unconnected with news or current affairs, the ECU saw no impropriety in his being selected for the audience and allowed to put a question.
Not Upheld