|
(Continued from overleaf)
Our Programme Code states that:
"Licensees may make programmes about any issues they choose"
We therefore believe that Granada's decision not to commission a documentary about your investigation is not in breach of the Code.
It appears to us that from the evidence that Granada reported factually on the Hamilton story as it developed, on relevant occasions stating Mr. Hamilton's position and giving coverage to his statements, press briefing and point of view. It appears that the broadcaster has reported every major development of the story. On various occasions, it had interviews (both live and pre-recorded) with Neil Hamilton. As you well know, Mr Hamilton at various times during this period produced new evidence that he believed would exonerate him. Granada covered these major developments along with explanations of why and how Mr Hamilton believed he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
You claim that Granada failed to report the Court of Appeal ruling that enabled Neil Hamilton to take his libel action forward against Mr. Al Fayed. Granada's response to us points to the contrary. In March 1999, the broadcaster reported the Court of Appeal's ruling that paved the way for the former MP to go court, and followed it up with at least ten separate and substantive reports on the proceedings.
Following Mr Hamilton's defeat in the libel action, Granada did carry an interview with Martin Bell, but it also broadcast verbal statements from Mr and Mrs Hamilton (they were not participating in interviews that evening). Reports in the following days included vox pops from the constituency and a libel lawyer. Two days after the court case Granada Television conducted and transmitted the first interview with Neil Hamilton since losing his libel case.
The ITC does not involve itself in the decision-making process of individual programmes, before transmission. Broadcasters are at liberty to make their own decisions on what to cover, and who to interview. However, the licensee must still fulfil its requirements under the Programme Code. In this case, it appears to us that while some broadcasters gave coverage to your new angle on the story, others (including but not restricted to Granada) did not. We are satisfied that this decision did not in itself mean that Granada' s coverage overall was in breach of the Code.
We have found no evidence to support your assertion that ITN came under pressure or was influenced by Granada Television over its decision not to transmit your press conference. We have received a statement from ITN, outlining the sequence of events that occurred on that day. ITN unconditionally rebuts this allegation. When camera crews and journalists cover press conferences, or in fact any event, there is a customary understanding that filming such events is not tacit agreement to broadcasting the event. We note that ITN was not the only national media outlet that did not carry the news of your book and/or your research. ITN did devote extensive coverage to the wider story and was a major source of coverage of the story within the Granada region, as well as other ITV regions.
In summary, therefore, we have concluded that the coverage of the Al Fayed/Hamilton affair, within the Granada service, did not involve a breach of due impartiality requirements and complied with the Programme Code.
As you may know, you do have the right to appeal against this finding. However, you may wish to consider, if you have not done so already, raising this issue with the Broadcasting Standards Commission who consider complaints relating to fairness to individuals directly affected by programmes. It would, of course, be open to Mr Hamilton to do the same.
I am sorry that this reply will come as a disappointment to you. Nevertheless, I would thank you again for raising with us this matter which, as I have explained, we felt worthy of consideration outside the normal parameters of our complaints handling process.
Yours sincerely,
|
|
