Sky News Cleared by Ofcom Over Election Coverage Complaints

Sky News has been cleared by the Office of Communication on three counts relating to the conduct of Political Editor Adam Boulton, and presenter Kay Burley.  Ofcom released their regular broadcast bulletin in which the complaints were addressed, and said;

"During the 2010 General Election campaign and its aftermath, Ofcom received complaints about three items broadcast on Sky News.

"These included more than 600 complaints about the Sky News Leaders’ Debate and a further 1,008 complaints about an interview conducted by the Sky News presenter, Kay Burley, with David Babbs, the Executive Director of political reform lobby group, 38 Degrees.

"We also received 1,116 complaints about an exchange between Sky News’ Political Editor, Adam Boulton, and Alastair Campbell, the former Director of Communications and Strategy for the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair."

Commenting on his blog following the publication of the broadcast bulletin, Adam Boulton said;

"As I have said before I'm not proud of allowing myself to be provoked and becoming heated.

"However now we have this ruling I would like to take this opportunity to thank very much the very many of you who have contacted me by letter, email or in person to express your support for me in this row.

"At least it added to the gaiety of the Nation. But I'm afraid I'll have to leave the answer hanging in the wind to the FAQ "Why didn't you hit him?"

Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin

Not in Breach
Sky News Leaders’ Debate and other programmes

During the recent 2010 General Election campaign and its aftermath, Ofcom received a substantial number of complaints about three items broadcast on Sky News, as set out below.

The Sky News Leaders’ Debate, 22 April 2010

This was the second of three televised debates featuring the party leaders of the three UK-wide main parties: Gordon Brown (Labour), David Cameron (Conservative), and Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat). The other two televised debates were shown on ITV1 and BBC1.

It was widely reported ahead of the General Election campaign, that a detailed agreement (“the Agreement”) had been drawn up between the broadcasters televising the three debates and the political parties involved. The Agreement consisted of 76 rules. It covered, amongst other things, the format of the debate, including the role of the studio moderator and how questions should be put by the moderator to the three party leaders.

During The Sky News Leaders’ Debate, a member of the studio audience asked the following question:

“Given the scandals of the last year it is hard to find a person in my neighbourhood who believes in the power of their vote. How do you plan to restore faith in this political system?”

The moderator, Sky News’ Political Editor, Adam Boulton then asked the three party leaders - Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown and David Cameron - to give their initial response to this question. Following these initial responses, Adam Boulton (AB) asked each of the leaders in turn to give a second response, starting with Nick Clegg (NC), as follows:

AB: “Mr. Clegg, you’re on the front page of the Telegraph today?”

Nick Clegg responded: NC: “I am indeed for a complete nonsense story. But anyway, put that aside – complete, complete rubbish.”

The Daily Telegraph reference was to an article which referred to allegations that Nick Clegg had received payments into his personal bank account from party donors. Following Nick Clegg’s second response, Adam Boulton asked each of Gordon Brown and David Cameron to give their second response. Adam Boulton did this by simply stating the politician’s name and waiting for his response.

Ofcom received 671 complaints about Adam Boulton’s reference to the story in The Daily Telegraph about Nick Clegg. Complainants considered that Adam Boulton’s comment showed bias against the Liberal Democrats, because he made no such personal references to David Cameron or Gordon Brown. A number of complainants also stated that Adam Boulton had breached Rule 63 of the Agreement, which stated that, “It is not the moderator’s role to criticise or comment on the leaders’ answers”.

Some were also concerned about aspects of the presentation and format of The Sky News Leaders’ Debate which, in their view, showed that the programme was biased towards the Conservatives. For example, some suggested that the use of a ‘jagged’ Union flag on the set of the programme was intended to convey a message of ‘Broken Britain’.

Ofcom also received 37 complaints about the retransmission of The Sky Leaders’ Debate at 23:30 on the same evening on BBC2. The BBC Trust, and not Ofcom, has regulatory responsibility for matters relating to impartiality and accuracy in all BBC programming. Therefore Ofcom did not consider these complaints.

Ofcom considered this programme under the following Rules of the Code:

Rule 6.1, which states:

“The rules in Section Five, in particular the rules relating to matters of major political or industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy, apply to the coverage of elections and referendums”;

Section 5 of the Code, in particular:
Rule 5.11, which states:

“… due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy by the person providing a service...in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes”; and

Rule 5.12, which states:

“In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.”

Interview conducted by Kay Burley with David Babbs, 8 May 2010

Ofcom received 1,008 complaints about an interview conducted by the Sky News presenter, Kay Burley, with the Executive Director of 38 Degrees, David Babbs. This organisation had helped to arrange a protest march in favour of proportional representation, which was taking place in Westminster on 8 May 2010 when the Conservative and Liberal Democrats were in talks about a possible coalition Government.

Complainants considered that Kay Burley constantly interrupted the interviewee and refused to let him answer the questions being put to him. They also complained that she was aggressive and rude to David Babbs. In addition, viewers complained that Kay Burley was biased against electoral reform, and in favour of the Conservative party.

At the outset of the interview, David Babbs explained the reason for the protest:

“We’re hopeful that the confusing situation we see today could be the beginning of something new where our votes could actually count…all kinds of
organisations have come together, and we’re sending a clear message to the politicians: If one thing happens now, that thing must be a change to our voting
system”.

However, for a period of about three minutes (in the six minute interview) Kay Burley repeatedly interrupted David Babbs so that he could not finish an answer.

Ofcom considered the content under Section 5 in particular Rules 5.11 and 5.12 of the Code (see above). In addition, we considered the content under the following Rules of the Code:

Rule 2.1, which states:

“Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public
from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material”.

Rule 2.3, which states:

“In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context”.

Exchange between Adam Boulton and Alistair Campbell, 10 May 2010

On 10 May 2010, there was an exchange between Sky News’ Political Editor, Adam Boulton, and Alastair Campbell, the former Director of Communications and Strategy for the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The presenter Jeremy Thompson was interviewing both men live in the wake of Gordon Brown announcing that he would resign and that the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties were to hold formal talks about possible cooperation in a Government. This followed several days of negotiations between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.

The discussion between Adam Boulton and Alastair Campbell centred on Gordon Brown’s tactics to explore the possibility of forming a coalition Government with the Liberal Democrat party. Alastair Campbell defended Gordon Brown seeking to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrat party, and other minority parties, if need be. Adam Boulton questioned Alastair Campbell as to whether Gordon Brown’s desire to seek to build such a coalition was really in the national interest, given the alternative of a possibly more stable coalition between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.

The discussion became heated and the following remarks were exchanged between Adam Boulton (AB) and Alastair Campbell (AC), with interjections by the presenterJeremy Thompson (JT):

AC: “Adam, you’re obviously upset that David Cameron’s not Prime Minister.”
AB: “I’m not upset.”
AC: “You are. You probably are.”
JT: “Oh, come on.”
AB: “Don’t keep casting aspersions on what I think!”
JT: “Alastair, Alastair.”
AC: “Adam, calm down.”
AB: “I am commenting. Don’t keep saying what I think!”
AC: “This is live on television. Dignity. Dignity.”
AB: “Don’t keep telling me what I think…This is what you do. You come on and
say no one won the election, and you clearly did worse. You talk to me. I’m
fed up with you telling me what I think.”
AC: “I don’t care what you’re fed up with. You can say what you like. I can tell you
my opinion.”
AB: “Don’t tell me what I think.”
AC: “I will tell you why you’re reacting…”
JT: “Alastair, you are being a bit provocative here, and unnecessarily so.”
AC: “ Sometimes, politics is about passionate things.”
JT: “I understand that.”
AB: “You - totally unelected – have plotted this.“
AC: “Me? And you’re elected are you?”
AB: “No.”
JT: “Gentlemen, gentlemen.”
AB: “No, he’s [Gordon Brown] got a Parliamentary party. You’re the one who’s
cooked this up. You’re the one who’s cooked this up with Peter Mandelson.”
AC: “Unbelievable, calm down, calm down.”
JT: “Let this debate carry on later.”
AB: “I actually care about this country.”
AC: “You think I don’t? You think I don’t?”
AB: “I don’t think the evidence is there.”
AC: “Adam, you’re pompous.”
JT: “This is Gordon Brown’s Statement” [cuts to footage of Gordon Brown].

Ofcom received 1,116 complaints about this content, with complainants considering that Adam Boulton was biased towards the Conservative party and against the Labour party, and was confrontational, bullying and aggressive towards Alastair Campbell. Some complainants considered that it was inappropriate for a presenter to lose his temper on television.

Ofcom therefore considered the programme under Section 5, in particular Rules 5.11 and 5.12, as well as Rules 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code.

Decision

It is a key element of the Code that coverage of a General Election campaign is considered a matter of major political or industrial controversy or a matter relating to current public policy. Rule 6.1 therefore has the effect of applying Rules 5.11 and 5.12 to programmes covering General Election issues broadcast before polling, such as The Sky News Leaders’ Debate.

In addition, we also considered that the interview with David Babbs, and the exchange between Adam Boulton and Alastair Campbell, (both broadcast after the General Election) dealt with matters of major political controversy. Section 5, and in particular Rules 5.11 and 5.12, applied in the case of these two programmes as well.

When setting and applying standards in the Code to provide adequate protection to members of the public from harmful and offensive material, Ofcom must have regard to the need for standards to be applied in a manner that best guarantees an appropriate level of freedom of expression. This is in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998. This is the right of a broadcaster to impart information and ideas and the right of the audience to receive them. Accordingly, Ofcom must exercise its duties in light of these rights and not interfere with the exercise of these rights in broadcast services unless it is satisfied that the restrictions it seeks to apply are required by law and are necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. We note, in particular, the high level of importance that should be attached to freedom of expression in the context of political debate.

It is also important to note the Code’s definition of “due” in relation to “due impartiality”: “Due" is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself means not favouring one side over another. "Due" means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. So "due impartiality" does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience.

We considered each of the three programmes in turn.

The Sky News Leaders’ Debate, 22 April 2010

In this programme, we note that many complainants considered that at one point in the debate the moderator, Adam Boulton, seemed to go beyond what was apparently the agreed format of the debate, as contained in the Agreement. This point was when he briefly referred to an unfavourable newspaper report that had been published about Nick Clegg on the same day. We noted that Adam Boulton did not make similar references, at any time during the programme, when asking the other two participants in the debate to speak. However, whether or not there was a breach of the Agreement is not a matter for Ofcom. Rather, Ofcom’s regulatory remit is purely concerned with the Code and, in this case, whether this intervention resulted in a breach of the due impartiality requirements.

The reference to the newspaper story was seen by some as the presenter seeking an answer to a specific question about Nick Clegg’s conduct where similar interventions were not made as regards the other participants. However, this one question by Adam Boulton would not - on its own – in Ofcom’s view raise issues concerning due impartiality under the Code. Further, this comment by Adam Boulton should be seen in context. His comment was related to a question posed by a member of the audience to which the party leaders were responding: how to restore faith in the British political system after various “scandals”. It should also be noted that The Sky News Leaders’ Debate was a 90-minute programme in which all the three leaders had numerous opportunities for each of them to make their points on a range of subjects, and to cross-examine each other on those subjects.

Given this, it is clear that the programme was presented with due impartiality with all the politicians facing questions from each other and the audience. We also considered the programme was a serious and detailed debate on a number of political and policy matters during the General Election campaign. One brief comment by a presenter during a 90-minute programme (to which Nick Clegg had an immediate opportunity to respond) could not in itself reasonably cause the programme to breach the due impartiality requirements of the Code. As such, we considered that the broadcaster had preserved due impartiality and therefore did not breach Section Five or Section Six of the Code.

We also considered that the format and presentation of the programme did not raise issues under the Code. In summary, the manner a broadcaster presents a programme to the audience is an editorial matter for the broadcaster as long as it complies with the Code. In this case, we consider it unreasonable to infer any bias or slant in the programme’s approach to due impartiality through, for example, the choice of set for this particular programme. Ofcom concluded that the choice of set for this particular programme, including the presentation of the British flag, was not designed to make a political statement in itself, but simply provided a themed studio backdrop related to the debate.

Interview conducted by Kay Burley with David Babbs, 8 May 2010

As this interview was broadcast after the end of the General Election campaign, Section Six (Elections) did not apply.

However, the interview conducted by Kay Burley, with David Babbs, focused on why he and others were marching in protest in favour of proportional representation. This issue was important during the General Election campaign and was clearly an issue dominating the then on-going discussions between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties as to whether they could form a coalition government. The issue was therefore a matter of major political controversy and the relevant rules in Section Five (due impartiality) applied.

We understand why some viewers may have objected to the manner in which this interview was conducted. There was a period during the interview when Kay Burley appeared to prevent the interviewee from fully responding and he was interrupted frequently. However, such an approach to an interview does not, on its own result, in a breach of due impartiality. On this occasion, while some complaints may have referred to Kay Burley’s interviewing as “aggressive” and “rude,” on balance, Ofcom concluded that David Babbs was able to state his and 38 Degrees’ position on various issues. For a reasonable period at the beginning, he was able to put forward arguments for electoral reform, why he and his fellow protesters were marching at that particular time, and why the inconclusive result of the General Election presented a chance, in his opinion, for the politicians to agree to electoral reform.

Further, there was nothing in Kay Burley’s questioning, in itself, which would indicate that she was supporting any political party or policy position. It is, of course, legitimate, and sometimes necessary in maintaining impartiality to put the opposing arguments to interviewees.

Although we appreciate why some viewers might have been frustrated by the presenter’s approach we believe that David Babbs was, overall, able to put his point across. In particular, we noted that even during the parts of the interview where Kay Burley was repeatedly interrupting David Babbs, the interviewee was still able to get some points across to a limited degree. As such, we considered that the subject matter at hand was treated with due impartiality in line with the requirements of the Code for major matters of political controversy.

We also considered whether the interview complied with Rules 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code because some viewers complained that the interview was “offensive” and “disgusting". We recognised that Kay Burley’s interviewing style, in this case, had the potential to offend some viewers, and her approach to questioning David Babbs would not be to everybody’s taste. However, we considered that any offence that might have been caused could be justified by the context. We note, for instance, that the presenter did not use any abusive language and the interviewee did not at any time appear distressed. Further, while it could be argued that Kay Burley was acting in the role of devil’s advocate in terms of her interviewing style, it did not result in any personal or gratuitous abuse. Given the nature of the content (a live 24 hour news programme), the likely expectation of the audience and the degree of offence that could be caused by this material we believe it did not breach Rules 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code.

Exchange between Adam Boulton and Alistair Campbell, 10 May 2010

We considered the complaints about this particular exchange under two broad grounds, due impartiality and offence. Firstly, with regard to due impartiality, as this programme was broadcast after the end of the General Election campaign, Section Six (Elections) did not apply. However, the programme was dealing with arguments for and against Gordon Brown’s attempt to form a coalition administration with the Liberal Democrats. We considered that discussions around the formation of the UK government was clearly a matter of major political controversy and the relevant rules in Section Five (due impartiality) applied.

We noted that this was a heated exchange by two well-known figures, who would have been used to the cut and thrust of political debate. First, given that Alastair Campbell had effectively accused Sky News’ Political Editor of wanting a Conservative Prime Minister, we consider that it was not unreasonable, and within the requirements of due impartiality, for Adam Boutlon to defend his position. Adam Boulton did become visibly angry – but that does not, in itself, impact on the due impartiality of the content.

In terms of the issues under discussion on the programme, Alastair Campbell was able to argue that Gordon Brown was constitutionally able to remain as Prime Minister, in the particular circumstances of the post-election period following 7 May 2010, unless another leader was able to construct a coalition that would command a majority in the House of Commons. Within this context, Alastair Campbell was arguing that, although the Conservative Party had won most votes and seats at the General Election, no party had won an overall majority. Therefore, Gordon Brown could legitimately, in his view, seek to form a coalition.

In contrast, Adam Boulton was able to press Alastair Campbell on whether, given that the Labour Party had come second in terms of votes and seats at the General Election, it was appropriate for Gordon Brown to seek to form a coalition Government and remain in power, taking into account the Parliamentary arithmetic of the numbers of MPs of various parties that would be involved. We considered that it was legitimate for Adam Boulton to question a leading representative of the Labour Party about whether it was appropriate for the Labour Party to try to continue in Government in these circumstances. It was also legitimate for the programme to explore the stability of a potential Labour Government in coalition with a number of other political parties.

Further, we considered that Alastair Campbell was able to effectively get his points across. While the conduct and manner of the discussion was certainly unusual, in terms of impartiality we consider that relevant views and issues were aired. We also considered whether the exchange complied with Rules 2.1and 2.3 of the Code, since some viewers complained that the exchange was “horrendous” and “offensive”. We recognise that the discussion between Alastair Campbell and Adam Boulton may have proved surprising or even to be uncomfortable viewing to some, and we also accept that the exchanges were heated. However, given the nature of the programming (a live 24 hour news service), the important political issues that were being discussed and the overall context of the programme, we concluded that generally accepted standards were applied to this content.

Two well-known personalities from the worlds of politics and journalism were taking part in a debate about a matter of topical and serious concern. We considered that although the tone and content of this exchange was unusual, it would not have been beyond the likely expectations of the audience for this channel. It should be noted that the discussion at no time resulted in any abusive language or gratuitous insults. Therefore to find that these heated exchanges could not be transmitted would be an unnecessary interference with the broadcaster’s and the viewer’s right of freedom of expression.

We therefore considered there was no breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.3.

Sky News, 22 April 2010, 20:00: Not in breach of 5.11, 5.12, and 6.1
Sky News, 8 May 2010, 15:15: Not in breach of 2.1, 2.3, 5.11 and 5.12
Sky News, 10 May 2010, 15:39: Not in breach of 2.1, 2.3, 5.11 and 5.12