British Broadcasting Corporation Gaza Documentary Considered a 'Significant' Breach of Broadcasting Regulations, Says Broadcasting Watchdog
The British broadcaster engaged in a "significant breach" of industry standards by failing to disclose that the presenter of a film about Gaza was the child of a Hamas administrator, according to regulatory body Ofcom.
An probe by the broadcasting watchdog into Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone has found that the documentary was "materially misleading".
The chief executive of the broadcaster had already issued an apology, stating there had been "a significant failing in relation to factual correctness".
The regulator has instructed the corporation to broadcast a peak-time statement about its findings.
"Given this constitutes a significant violation of our code, we are ordering the BBC to air a statement of our determinations against it on the BBC's second channel at nine o'clock in the evening, with a date to be confirmed," it said.
'Potential to Erode Trust'
The regulator's statement said: "Our probe concluded that the documentary's lack of disclosure that the narrator's male guardian occupied a position in the Hamas-run authority was materially misleading.
"Consequently that the viewers did not have essential details which may have been highly relevant to their assessment of the presenter and the content he provided.
"Credibility is at the core of the relationship between a television network and its audience, notably for a state-funded media outlet such as the BBC.
"This error had the potential to undermine the very considerable levels of credibility that the public would have placed in a BBC factual programme about the Gaza conflict."
The programme was pulled from iPlayer in February after the narrator's familial connections emerged, and in this past July an corporation's own inquiry concluded it violated the organization's journalistic standards on factual correctness.
A representative for the broadcaster said: "The Ofcom ruling is in agreement with the results of Peter Johnston's review, that there was a serious error in the programme in relation to the BBC's Editorial Guidelines on truthfulness, which aligns with Rule 2.2 of the authority's broadcasting regulations.
"We issued an apology for this and we agree with the regulator's ruling in its entirety. We will adhere to the penalty as soon as the timing and language are confirmed."
