±«Óătv

The film included interviews with several former members of the Bruderhof community, some of whom contributed anonymously to the programme.  Their concerns included, among other things, experiences of public shaming, a perceived lack of support for those who chose to leave, and restricted opportunities for contact with family members. The film emphasised the historic nature of the allegations but, to the extent that they still affected those who contributed to the programme, they raised contemporary issues.

The Guidelines require film makers to show due impartiality by reflecting a range of views as well as a right of reply where serious allegations are made. The ECU noted that the programme acknowledged the communities’ charitable works and good relations with local people, but saw no reason for it to have included contributions from those with a positive experience of life in the Bruderhof community, which would not have been directly relevant to the purposes if the film.  The complaint was not upheld in relation to impartiality.

In relation to privacy the ECU reviewed the relevant footage and noted that it consisted mainly of material placed in the public domain by the Bruderhof. Where scene-setting shots of the community grounds and buildings were used they did not identify any individuals, and therefore were unlikely to have infringed the privacy of the residents.  The complaint of infringement of privacy was not upheld.

The ECU also considered concerns about the nature and subsequent handling of the right to reply offered to the Bruderhof via their legal representatives. It noted that the responses on behalf of the Bruderhof identified the material provided as “not for publication” but given they constituted a reply to a request for comment from a broadcaster on a matter of significant public interest it seemed reasonable for the programme makers to have relied on the contents to ensure a duly balanced account – particularly given the Bruderhof’s unwillingness to be interviewed for the programme. It further noted that towards the end of the film the reporter read out extracts from the brief, formal statement provided by the Bruderhof.  This aspect of the complaint was not upheld.

Another element in the complaint about right to reply arose from the fact that the former members of the community who contributed to the programme were not identified to the Bruderhof in the correspondence prior to transmission (though some were identified in the programme itself), and the complaint maintained that this deprived the Bruderhof of the opportunity to provide adequate responses and correct inaccurate claims. Explicit provision is made in the ±«Óătv’s Editorial Guidelines for the use of anonymous contributors, subject to it being editorially justified. The ECU was shown evidence that direct and indirect pressure had been placed on contributors to change their accounts (though none to suggest the complainants were aware of such behaviour) and this, along with the highly personal nature of much of the testimony, provided sufficient grounds not to disclose their identities.  In any case, the contributors’ accounts were mainly not of a kind amenable to individual rebuttal, and the programme-makers were seeking comment on multiply-sourced claims about the behaviour of the Bruderhof community from the 1990s onward, rather than on any individual allegation. 

The ECU therefore concluded that no unfairness arose in principle from not identifying the contributors to the complainants, but found that there was one instance, concerning the contribution of a woman named in the programme as Cecily (her real forename).  Cecily’s account was one of many the reporter had gathered in the course of her investigation and, to the extent that her recollection was corroborated by others, or irreducibly personal in nature, her account did not require a direct response. But in one area the ECU agreed that her contribution was specific and open to direct challenge.  In the programme she spoke of her relationship with her family in these terms:

They don’t know about my life, they don’t know what I’ve studied, they don’t know where I’ve lived. I’ve travelled the world, I’ve worked in numerous jobs and I’d love to share my life with my parents – you know -  I love them more than anything my parents, and my brothers and sisters…

The complainants provided evidence of some contact between Cecily and family members still in the Bruderhof, on the basis of which they characterised her account of the matter as false.  Having reviewed this evidence and the evidence provided by Cecily to the programme-makers, the ECU concluded that her words in the programme did not constitute a false statement but reflected a sharp difference of opinion with the complainants about the adequacy of the family contacts she had been allowed.  Nevertheless, the ECU accepted that, given their context in the programme, her words were likely to have conveyed the impression that she had had no contact with her family at all since leaving the community – an impression which was less than fair to the complainants, and which could have been avoided if the programme-makers had put them in a position to provide the relevant evidence before transmission.  This aspect of the complaint was upheld, on the grounds of unfair treatment of the complainants.

Partly upheld