Complaint
The programme included an item on the controversy over Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the US Supreme Court, featuring an interview with a law professor who had worked with Anita Hill in her pursuit of a sexual harassment complaint against an earlier nominee, Judge Clarence Thomas. A listener complained that the allusions to the Clarence Thomas case were immaterial and prejudicial, that the selection of the main interviewee resulted in bias, and that the presenter had expressed her own view on a controversial topic.
Outcome
The item made clear the differences, as well as the points of comparison, between the Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh cases, and the inclusion of an interviewee who clearly represented one viewpoint in the current case did not of itself lead to bias.Β However, the presenter gave the impression of sympathising with that viewpoint, and did not challenge the interviewee in a manner which would have ensured due impartiality.
Partly upheld
Further action
The Editor of Woman’s Hour has briefed the whole team about the importance of impartiality in their programmes. Β In addition the Woman’s Hour team (along with other Production staff) have attended a Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Radio briefing session on impartiality.