Complaint
A viewer complained about the decision to interview the Chief Executive of WhistleblowersUK as part of a discussion about a series of high-profile cases in which individuals had sought to expose criminal behaviour, negligence and mismanagement but had been ignored or discouraged from speaking out.  The ECU considered whether the programme had met the standards for due accuracy, in particular whether sufficient information had been given about the contributor’s background.
Outcome
The Editorial Guidelines say the subject and nature of a programme is an important consideration in assessing whether content has met the ±«Óătv’s standards for due accuracy.  In this case, Newsnight highlighted how cases such as those involving the Post Office and the University Hospitals Birmingham Foundation Trust had led to calls from politicians and campaigners for a new whistleblowing bill which would define whistleblowing in law and set up a new “Office of the Whistleblower”.  Georgina Halford-Hall was introduced as “the Chief Executive of the not-for-profit organisation Whistleblowers UK” and her contribution was confined to explaining the challenges facing those who would raise concerns and why whistleblowing was not, in her view, an issue which should be covered by employment legislation.  In the ECU’s view no further background information or reference to other claims made by the complainant were necessary in the limited context of this discussion.
Not Upheld