|
(Continued from overleaf)
3.6(i) Personal view programmes: the timescale
As with current affairs and documentary programmes, a series of personal view programmes has no need to give equal time to every relevant point of view. But licensees should take care to ensure that a sufficiently broad range of views is expressed in any series of such programmes, taking account of the frequency of the programmes within the series, the length of individual programmes and the nature of the subject matter.
For series which are a regular fixture in the schedules, such as a nightly, weekly or monthly access programme, the views expressed on controversial matters should be kept in reasonable balance throughout the progress of the series and licensees must be able to demonstrate this.
For an occasional series of programmes dealing with different aspects of the same subject matter it will normally be necessary to maintain impartiality within the series. Occasionally, however, the series itself may take a particular approach to a controversial issue or comprise a group of programmes presented from the same personal viewpoint, perhaps reflecting an original body of thought or research which may not readily be balanced.
The ITC recognises that such series are likely to have a long gestation period and are unlikely to be included in the schedules very often. However, the views expressed on controversial matters covered by the Act must be kept in reasonable balance throughout the period of the licence and the ITC will require the licensee to demonstrate at the end of each calendar year that a sufficiently broad range of views and perspectives has been included in such series, or planned for the following calendar year.
3.7 Drama and drama-documentary
Drama is by definition the work of a creative imagination and the impartiality due in respect of a play is not the same as that required of a current affairs programme. Nevertheless, questions of impartiality and fairness may arise in the area of drama, particularly drama-documentary, when the boundaries between what is fact and what is fiction may become blurred. For this reason, a clear distinction should be drawn between plays based on fact and dramatised documentaries which seek to reconstruct actual events. Much confusion may be avoided if plays based on current or very recent events are carefully labelled as such, so that the fictional elements are not misleadingly presented as fact.
The dramatised documentary which lays claim to be a factual reconstruction of events is bound by the same standards of fairness and impartiality as those that apply to factual programmes in general. It is inevitable that the creative realisation of some elements (such as characterisation, dialogue and atmosphere) will introduce a fictional dimension, but this should not be allowed to distort the known facts.
The evidence on which a dramatic reconstruction is based should be tested with the same rigour required of a factual programme. Sequences which are based on extracts of court proceedings or other matters of public record must be fair and accurate.
Care should be taken in scheduling drama and drama-documentary programmes portraying controversial matters covered by the Act. Impartiality may need to be reinforced by providing an opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be expressed. This might take the form of a studio discussion following the drama itself, or a separate programme providing a right of reply within a reasonable period.
Section 2.2(iii) also refers to dramatised reconstructions and the revisiting of past events.
3.7(i) Dramatised 'reconstructions' within factual programmes
The use of dramatised 'reconstructions' in factual programmes is a legitimate means of obtaining greater authenticity or verisimilitude, so long as it does not distort reality.
Whenever a reconstruction is used in a documentary, current affairs or news programme it should be labelled so that the viewer is not misled.
3.7(ii) Simulated news bulletins
Any simulation of a television news bulletin or news flash to be included in any programme should either be subtitled or produced in such a way that there can be no reasonable possibility that it could be taken to be an actual news bulletin.
3.8 Fairness in the conduct of interviews
Interviewees should be made adequately aware of the format, subject matter and purpose of the programme to which they have been invited to contribute, and the way in which their contribution is likely to be used. Written confirmation should be provided if requested.
See also Sections 2.8, 2.9.
For programmes dealing with political or industrial controversy or current public policy, interviewees should also be told the identity and intended role of other proposed participants in the programme, where this is known.
Sometimes, interviewees - including spokesmen for the Government - will seek to impose their own conditions on the conduct and use of their interview. Such requests are not improper in themselves, but care should be taken to ensure that what is included in the programme is determined by editorial criteria and not as the result of pressure. Licensees should consider whether, in the interests of due impartiality and fairness, they should disclose such agreements to viewers at the time of the broadcast.
On occasion, proposed interviewees will be unable or unwilling to accept an invitation to participate in a programme. This need not prevent the programme going ahead, but in order to meet the terms of the Code, care must be taken to give a fair account of the subject under discussion, particularly when this is one of controversy or public policy covered by the Act.
Reference to the absence of such a spokesman should be made in as detached and factual a manner as possible. (NB There are particular requirements, under the Representation of the People Act, at times of elections [See Appendix 3].)
|
|
