Complaint
This edition of the programme included extracts from local radio interviews with the then Prime Minister Liz Truss.  A listener complained that, in two of these, the Â鶹ԼÅÄ presenters inaccurately stated 40% had been wiped off pensions and inflation made worse by the Government’s mini-budget.  The complainant also considered that a comment from the presenter of The World at One which drew attention to a long pause before Ms Truss answered a question was indicative of bias. The ECU considered whether the item met Â鶹ԼÅÄ standards of accuracy and impartiality.
Outcome
The World at One analysed whether the Government was to blame for what was described as “the chaos in the marketsâ€. It included an extract from Â鶹ԼÅÄ Radio Tees in which the interviewer observed “Your decisive action so far has knocked 40% of people's pensionsâ€. This was followed by a short contribution from Mark Carney, the former Governor of the Bank of England, and an interview with a Â鶹ԼÅÄ Economics Correspondent. Inflation was not mentioned in the questions.
On the accuracy of the propositions put to Liz Truss, in the ECU’s view it was apparent that the local radio interviewers were quoting from or reflecting comments made by listeners, and not making statements.  It had been open to Ms Truss to counter these observations, and her answers were included and heard by listeners.  It was not in dispute that the Bank of England raised interest rates in response to the mini-budget, with an immediate effect on the mortgage market, and it was in this connection that reference was made to an increase in costs.
The 40% drop in people’s pensions is likely to have been a reference to reports of what was subsequently described as a "full-scale liquidation event" by pension fund managers, which was another consequence of the abrupt change in fiscal policy and rising interest rates.  While the figure may have been inexact, in the ECU’s view it would have been understood by listeners as a further example of financial instability.  Taking the context for these observations into account , the ECU did not conclude listeners would have gained a materially misleading impression.
Turning to the presenter’s observation about a long pause before Ms Truss responded to a question, there was, as listeners could hear, something of a delay.  In the ECU’s view nothing was intended or suggested by this comment, other than the fact that Liz Truss took time to respond to questions she appeared to have difficulty with.
Not Upheld