Complaint
The ECU received a complaint about coverage of Belfast Royal Academy on two editions of the programme. Both editions focused on a letter sent to parents by the head teacher informing them about the school uniform recycling programme which also urged them not to buy uniforms at high street retailers because they might be made by child labour. The ECU considered whether the programme met the Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s standards for due accuracy, impartiality and fairness.
Outcome
The complainant raised a range of issues in relation to the broadcasts. On accuracy it was claimed that the broadcasts rested on a fundamental misconception as the school had not banned parents from buying school uniforms from the high street as the programme suggested. On impartiality the complainant argued insufficient account was taken of the school’s position and highly critical and personal comments were broadcast without a right of reply. And on fairness there was concern that the coverage given to the school was disproportionate and the Academy unfairly targeted by the programme.
On accuracy, the ECU noted the broadcasts contained repeated references either to the school having banned parents from buying school uniforms in the high street or to stopping pupils from wearing those uniforms in school. But given the head teacher’s position at the school, the ECU took the view that her wishes carried considerable weight, not least because she had the authority to enforce any dress code. It was therefore not inaccurate to suggest the school’s refusal to "condone" such purchases, as set out in the letter to parents, was likely to amount to a prohibition.
On impartiality the ECU noted the school’s point of view was reflected in both programmes either in quotation, or through questions posed by the presenter. The school chose to offer only a limited response to a series of written questions sent by the programme team, and this was duly reflected on air. Stephen Nolan read out extensive sections from, and made frequent reference to, the contents of the letter to parents and put the school’s case at numerous points during the programmes. Voices critical of the school were matched by those more sympathetic to the school’s argument.
The programme’s choice of stories was a matter of legitimate editorial discretion, and in the ECU’s view there was a persuasive argument that what made the school uniform item newsworthy was peculiar to the Academy, namely the letter sent to parents.
Not Upheld