|
Thank you for your letter of 6 August in which you expressed your disappointment on the decision taken by the Commission in respect of your complaint about Granada Television.
I can assure you that the matter has been fully investigated and you have been given a full opportunity to make your submissions to us, both in writing and at the oral hearing on 27 June. I can also assure you that in reaching its decision, the Sub Committee took all relevant considerations into account.
I would draw your attention to the comment I made at the hearing....
"In looking at your complaint of Granada' s coverage, it is not our responsibility to determine the rights and wrongs of the Neil Hamilton/Mohamed Al Fayed saga. It is simply to determine whether or not Granada met their responsibility to report impartially on this particular issue. Furthermore, Granada has no statutory programme code obligation to commission or screen an investigative piece on any issue that might be in the public domain. We will, therefore, need to focus on the relatively narrow issue of whether Granada reported the Hamilton/Fayed saga with the due impartiality required by our codes."
And the paragraph in my letter of 20 July....
"In particular, after careful consideration of the evidence the Commission took the view that Granada reflected a sufficient range of points of views in reporting this case and that "due impartiality" was accordingly maintained in its news service."
The staff and Members of the Commission, having reviewed significant footage of ITV/Granada broadcasts on the Neil Hamilton/Al Fayed affair, believe that due impartiality was maintained by the licensee. The decision whether or not to review your research was a matter for their editorial judgement and in common with a number of other responsible broadcasters they chose not to do so.
The Commission's decision on this matter is final and I do not believe any purpose would be reached by continuing a discussion and debate on this matter.
|
|
