British Broadcasting Corporation Gaza Film Deemed a 'Major' Violation of Broadcasting Standards, Declares UK Media Regulator
The British broadcaster was found to have committed a "major breach" of industry standards by failing to disclose that the presenter of a programme about the Gaza situation was the child of a Hamas official, as ruled by British broadcasting authority Ofcom.
An probe by Ofcom into the programme Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone has determined that the film was "substantially inaccurate".
The chief executive of the broadcaster had already issued an apology, saying there had been "a significant failing in relation to accuracy".
Ofcom has directed the BBC to broadcast a evening declaration about its findings.
"Since this amounts to a serious breach of our regulations, we are directing the corporation to transmit a announcement of our determinations against it on the BBC's second channel at 21:00, with a timing to be determined," the regulator stated.
'Possibility to Erode Credibility'
The authority's report declared: "Our investigation found that the documentary's omission to reveal that the voice's parent occupied a role in the Hamas-controlled government was materially misleading.
"This implied that the audience did not have vital facts which may have been highly relevant to their judgment of the voice and the content he provided.
"Credibility is at the center of the bond between a television network and its audience, especially for a public service broadcaster such as the British Broadcasting Corporation.
"This oversight had the possibility to undermine the significantly high amounts of credibility that audiences would have invested in a BBC factual programme about the Gaza conflict."
The programme was removed from the BBC's streaming service in last February after the presenter's personal associations emerged, and in July an corporation's own inquiry found it breached the organization's editorial guidelines on accuracy.
A corporation official commented: "The authority's determination is in agreement with the results of Peter Johnston's review, that there was a serious error in the film in relation to the BBC's Editorial Guidelines on truthfulness, which corresponds to clause 2.2 of the authority's broadcasting regulations.
"We have apologised for this and we comply with the authority's determination in its entirety. We will adhere to the penalty as soon as the date and wording are determined."
