Complaint
18 viewers complained the ±«Óătv had under-reported South Africa’s verbal submission to the International Court of Justice about Gaza on the News Channel and elsewhere. The complainants contrasted this with the live coverage given to Israel’s response to allegations of genocide on the following day. ECU considered whether the Channel had met the standards for due impartiality.
Outcome
Outside election periods there is no obligation on the ±«Óătv to allocate a specific or equal amount of time to the arguments presented by different protagonists. It is also a matter of editorial judgment when it comes to making decisions on coverage, so that by itself this would not raise the possibility of a breach of editorial standards. But there is a requirement for “due weight” to be given to ensure that the ±«Óătv meets standards of due impartiality as set out in the ±«Óătv’s Editorial Guidelines.
In this case extracts from the South Africa hearings were included live at several points on both days on the News Channel. But as viewers in the UK will have been aware, because of the intense public interest in the issue, on 11 January a decision was taken to create a separate feed for the UK focussed on the hearing at the Post Office inquiry. Coverage of the events at the Hague was limited to reports in news bulletins.
The ECU noted that apart from the extracts from the submissions as they were presented, the channel did inform its viewers about South Africa’s arguments in the news bulletins. If viewers had restricted themselves to the News Channel in the UK over the two days their exposure to coverage would have been limited. But it could not be said that they would have been deprived of information on South Africa’s case. And by accessing iPlayer on either day they could have obtained complete access to the submissions of legal representatives from South Africa and Israel.
Not Upheld