British Broadcasting Corporation Gaza Programme Ruled a 'Significant' Infringement of Media Standards, States Broadcasting Watchdog
The public service broadcaster committed a "significant breach" of broadcasting rules by not revealing that the presenter of a programme about Gaza was the son of a Hamas representative, as ruled by regulatory body Ofcom.
An investigation by Ofcom into Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone has concluded that the documentary was "significantly deceptive".
The chief executive of the broadcaster had earlier expressed regret, noting there had been "a significant failing in relation to factual correctness".
The regulator has ordered the BBC to transmit a prime-time statement about its decisions.
"Since this amounts to a significant violation of our code, we are directing the broadcaster to transmit a statement of our conclusions against it on BBC Two at 9pm, with a date to be determined," the regulator stated.
'Potential to Erode Credibility'
The authority's announcement said: "Our probe concluded that the documentary's failure to disclose that the narrator's male guardian served in a post in the Hamas-controlled authority was substantially inaccurate.
"Consequently that the audience did not have essential details which may have been highly relevant to their evaluation of the presenter and the information he provided.
"Credibility is at the heart of the bond between a broadcaster and its public, especially for a public service broadcaster such as the British Broadcasting Corporation.
"This failing had the possibility to undermine the very considerable amounts of credibility that viewers would have put in a BBC factual programme about the conflict in Gaza."
The film was withdrawn from the BBC's streaming service in last February after the boy's personal associations came to light, and in the month of July an corporation's own inquiry found it breached the broadcaster's content policies on factual correctness.
A corporation official said: "The Ofcom ruling is in agreement with the conclusions of Peter Johnston's review, that there was a significant failing in the film in relation to the broadcaster's journalistic policies on factual correctness, which corresponds to regulation 2.2 of the authority's broadcasting regulations.
"We issued an apology for this and we accept the authority's determination in full. We will adhere to the sanction as soon as the timing and language are finalised."
