Main Index

First page of this document

(Continued from overleaf)

The fifth paragraph of your letter concludes thus:

'We took account of the fact that your research received some coverage on regional BBC News, BBC News 24, and in the Daily Telegraph.  But we also noted that Granada Television was far from being the only news outlet not to cover it.'

With respect, it is irrelevant that other news outlets failed to air news of our investigation.  Indeed, as I stated in my Appeal, other broadcasters' failures to air our investigation is no justification for Granada's, given that their behaviour, if deliberate, will also have breached the Act and might in any event have been brought about by Granada's influence in the first place.  Moreover, as was pointed out to the Sub-Committee, Granada's obligation to air our investigation was much greater than any other broadcaster operating under the aegis of the ITC, being as it is the ITV franchise holder for the North West of England where Neil Hamilton's Tatton seat was located and where our investigation was largely conducted.  The ITC recognises this extra obligation borne by regional broadcasters in its Code under Section 3.4:

'The Act requires the Code to take particular account of the impartiality due to major matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy.
      What is a major matter will vary according to the current public and political agenda, whether national or regional. It would in most circumstances include political or industrial issues of national importance...  For licensees serving a regional audience, it would also include issues of comparable importance within their region. Clearly, a regional newsroom will have a different set of priorities from that of a network programme serving the nation as a whole. 
      In dealing with major matters of controversy, licensees must ensure that justice is done to a full range of significant views and perspectives during the period in which the controversy is active.'

I submit that Granada's enduring censorship of news of our investigation does indeed amount to partial reporting of a political controversy, contrary to the provisions of the Act and Code.  If my assessment is wrong, it must follow that our legislators, when drafting the Broadcasting Act's requirement for the impartial reporting of political controversies, would have considered that a broadcaster's deliberate and sustained censorship of news of an independent investigation challenging the prevailing opinion of a political controversy did not constitute partial reporting of that controversy. 

With respect, the proposition is absurd.  Indeed, if the Broadcasting Act was not framed to prevent broadcasters from exercising such political censorship, one is at a loss to imagine just what our legislators did have in mind. 

One is also left wondering what the ITC had in mind when drawing up the Code's requirements that 'licensees must ensure that justice is done to a full range of significant views and perspectives during the period in which the [political] controversy is active'; and also that 'reporting [of political controversies] should be dispassionate and news judgements based on the need to give viewers an even-handed account of events'; and also that 'in reporting on matters of industrial or political controversy, the main differing views on the matter should be given their due weight in the period during which the controversy is active'. 

With respect, it would be preposterous to suppose that the Code's heavy emphasis on a licensee's obligation to report political controversies inclusively also allowed the licensee to censor news of a major independent investigation challenging the prevailing view of a political controversy, purely on the basis that the licensee had aired other opinions relating to the said controversy. 

The nub of my complaint of 13.07.00 is that Granada deliberately censored news of our investigation, contrary to the provisions in the Broadcasting Act and the ITC Code requiring political controversies to be reported impartially.  In my Complaint I reproduced key documents showing the occasions that Granada had been informed of our investigation and pointing up the importance of the evidence we unearthed.  However, in its adjudication of 23.02.01 the ITC did not contest any of the essential facts that made up my complaint, nor did the ITC suggest that my interpretation of its Code was wrong.  Instead, the ITC substituted discussion of the key issues with argument based on false premise and side issues, whilst relying ultimately upon unspecified evidence to which the ITC has nevertheless denied me sight. 

In my Appeal of 31.03.01 I focused again on the key issues, and responded separately point-by-point to the ITC's adjudication.  In the Sub-Committee hearing of 27.06.01 Mr George Gittos and myself restated the key issues, following which we answered questions from Commission Members.  In the event, no Member expressed any disagreement with anything that we said (or that I had written in my Complaint and Appeal).

Your recent letter articulating the ITC Commission's final decision, with respect, follows similar form.  You do not contradict my submissions that the 'cash for questions' affair was a major political controversy; or that our investigation represented a main point of view; or that Granada enacted deliberate and sustained censorship of our investigation.  Nor do you identify any flaw in my interpretation of the Act and Code.  As before, your confirmation of the ITC's rejection of my complaint relies ultimately on evidence submitted by Granada to which the ITC and Granada have nevertheless denied me access. 

I am aware that your letter represents the collective view of the Commission and I remain grateful to you personally for the warmth with which you received Mr Gittos and myself at the Sub-Committee hearing. 

In summary, Granada's censorship of our investigation goes to the heart of an issue that affects the very health of our democracy and justice system.  It is clear that our legislators drafted the Broadcasting Act and approved the ITC Code specifically to prevent such behaviour.  I do not believe that the ITC has acted fairly in its handling of my complaint or that it has interpreted the Act and Code correctly.  With regret I therefore give you notice that the ITC's adjudication of my Complaint has persuaded me to take this matter further. 

I look forward to receiving from you at your earliest convenience copies of all of Granada's submissions upon which the ITC has based its decision.


Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Boyd Hunt

c.c.
Ms Patricia Hodgson
Mr Gerald Howarth MP
Mr Roger Gale MP
Mr George Gittos

previous page

Sir Robin's final letter, closing down the correspondence