Ofcom Rules That TalkSport Host Crossed Line In Debate Over Gaza

Ofcom has considered listener complaints that TalkSport host and MP George Galloway breached the agency’s broadcast rules by urging his listeners to attend “anti-Israel” protests after Israeli forces moved into the Gaza strip late last December. Listeners complained to Ofcom that Mr. Galloway did not present a balanced assessment of the issue.

Ofcom investigated, and has ruled that Mr. Galloway did breach the rules. Said the agency:

Talksport pointed out that the Code makes clear that the approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience. It then addressed each of these factors in turn:

The nature of the subject
Talksport maintained that the Israel-Gaza problem crosses party lines in this country and is not a party political issue. It pointed out that the Israeli government’s actions in December 2008/January 2009 were condemned by the majority of the international community and that the situation in Gaza deteriorated to such an extent that it was regarded as a humanitarian crisis. In its view the nature of this subject had a very real bearing on the approach to due impartiality in this case.

The type of programme and channel
Talksport pointed out that the station has a national reputation as one that employs highly opinionated presenters. It said the phone-in format employed on George Galloway is well-known to the general public, who enjoy hearing heated debate about topics that are the talking points of the day. Talksport emphasised that George Galloway himself is famous in Britain for being an outspoken politician who, since his arrival on Talksport, has built up a reputation as a hard-hitting broadcaster. He and the audience recognise that Talksport phone-ins are not overly formal discourses, as may sometimes be the case on more traditional radio stations. They rely more on a passionate exchange of views which is sometimes combative and often emotive.
 
The likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience
The broadcaster said that both the station and the presenter are extremely well-known quantities so that people who tune in know what to expect. It also said that George Galloway’s views on the Middle East are equally well-known to regular listeners as well as non-listeners. In addition it was stressed that throughout his programmes, George Galloway encourages people with an alternative point of view to call. He prioritises such callers and terminates their calls only if he thinks they have made or are likely to make racist comments, defamatory comments or in his view are deliberately misinforming the listeners.

In summary therefore, Talksport argued that these factors should all be considered by Ofcom when reaching a decision on whether the approach to due impartiality on this occasion was appropriate.

The broadcaster then discussed how in its view the programmes met Code requirements. It said that central to the rules is the need for differing viewpoints to be aired and argued that far from opposing views being excluded on the programme, alternative views to the presenter’s are given priority by both the presenter and his production staff. It then went on to illustrate how these alternative views were aired.

Talksport began by saying that on a matter of controversy like this, the fact that more callers take one view rather than another is nobody’s fault. One view may be more popular, or listeners with a similar point of view to the presenter may be more numerous than those who oppose his view. It said that pro-Israeli callers were not just taken to air, but were prioritised and more callers with this viewpoint were asked for by the presenter. It referred to the programme of 27 December 2008, which was taken up almost entirely with the situation in Gaza (the Israeli offensive having commenced on that day). It said that the fact that five callers who disagreed with George Galloway were heard on air proved that alternative views were not excluded. It said that the fact that there were fewer callers who disagreed with him than agreed with him was beyond its control and was, in the station’s view, a fair representation of the general public’s sentiments on this issue. Talksport also directed Ofcom to a morning programme three days later when George Galloway stood in for a colleague. It said that on this programme George Galloway took many contributions from callers with a pro Israeli viewpoint and was joined by a pro-Israeli journalist.

The station went on to give details of pro-Israeli guests on George Galloway during the timeframe of the complaints. It described how, in the programme of 22 November 2008, Lorna Fitzsimmons of the British Israeli Communications and Research Centre responded in a highly articulate way to comments made by a previous guest (the journalist Lauren Booth) who had described the unfolding of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The station pointed out that the appearance of a pro-Israeli guest had been signalled to listeners in advance by George Galloway, who explained that he had “a strong point of view on this”, which was the same as Lauren Booth’s and pointed out that another view was needed. When Lorna Fitzsimmons came to air, she contradicted George Galloway and was able to make her points without interruption for much of the interview. She criticised Booth for making comparisons between the Gaza crisis and concentration camps and told George Galloway that Israel unfairly gets all the blame for the humanitarian crisis which, she said, was not of its making. She went on to describe Hamas as brutal and described their “terror”.Talksport maintained this was a clear and fair presentation of an alternative viewpoint on the programme. Other examples of alternative views on the Gaza conflict on George Galloway were: an extended interview on 30 December 2008 with a pro-Israeli journalist toward the end of the show which had been signalled to listeners on the previous day; a discussion on 2 January 2009 between George Galloway and a well known, pro-Israeli journalist; and the defence of the Israeli position by the pro-Israeli American Republican Samuel Joe Wurzelbarcher on 9 January 2009.

Talksport also wished to highlight that, on 3 January 2009 when news broke that Israeli forces had occupied the Gaza Strip, in order to comply with the Code rules on due impartiality in news, Talksport’s Programme Director replaced George Galloway with an enhanced news programme presented by the non-partisan presenter Ian Collins to reflect the fact that a rolling news event was being dealt with.

Talksport then provided details of what it said was a wide variety of viewpoints alternative to Galloway’s on this issue on the station’s output generally during the relevant timeframe. On 29 December 2009 for example the presenter Ian Collins discussed the situation in the Middle East from a non-partisan point of view, allowing all sides to have their say and putting forward the Israeli point of view. Similarly, on 30 December 2008, presenter Mike Graham defended the Israeli point of view and Ian Collins discussed the issue again, in a non-partisan way, later that evening from 10pm. Finally, on 14 January 2009, the broadly pro-Israeli presenter David Prever was joined by the pro-Israeli Lorna Fitzsimmons discussing what they described as the lack of news headlines on Gaza.

Talksport argued that these examples demonstrated that, in common with many other issues, George Galloway finds himself on the opposite side of the argument to most of his fellow presenters on Talksport. It also said that George Galloway’s brand of socialist views is unique in the radio industry in this country. Consequently, argued Talksport, his role as a presenter on the station is of itself a valuable contribution towards the Code’s requirements for broadcasters to provide alternative voices and viewpoints.

Finally, in relation to the complaints concerning George Galloway’s various requests to listeners to attend anti-Israeliprotest demonstrations, Talksport said that George Galloway did invite listeners to take part and apart from that, said nothing other than for people to peacefully protest. Talksport pointed out that the demonstrations were not illegal, having been agreed with by the police and George Galloway said nothing that would encourage racial hatred or violence.
 
Decision

Under the Communications Act 2003, broadcasters are required to treat all major matters of political or industrial policy with due impartiality. However, Ofcom must also take into account the broadcaster’s and listeners’ right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority ^(-1-). The broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression is not absolute. In carrying out its duties, Ofcom must balance the right to freedom of expression on one hand, with the need to preserve “due impartiality” on matters relating to political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. Therefore, whilst any Ofcom licensee should have the freedom to discuss any controversial subject or include particular points of view in its programming, in doing so broadcasters must always comply with the Code.

Ofcom recognises that Section Five of the Code, which sets out how due impartiality must be preserved, acts to limit, to some extent, freedom of expression. This is because its application necessarily requires broadcasters to ensure that neither side of a debate relating to matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy is unduly favoured.

All of the complaints Ofcom received about George Galloway concerned the presenter’s handling on the programme of the situation in Gaza between November 2008 and January 2009. It was not disputed that this issue was a “matter of major political controversy” under the Code and that the rules in Section Five were applicable, in particular Rules 5.11 and 5.12 which require due impartiality to be observed on major matters. Ofcom noted that many complainants objected to the concept of the programme itself – a well known politician being permitted regularly to promote his views on a national radio programme. However the Code permits presenters to express their own views on controversial issues so long as alternative views are adequately represented and regular presenters (such as George Galloway) do not promote their views in a way that compromises due impartiality. The Code also requires presenter phone-ins, like this one, to encourage and not exclude alternative views. In Ofcom’s view it is of paramount importance that broadcasters and presenters continue to explore controversial subject matter even when, as here, opinion becomes polarised.

The approach to due impartiality
In assessing whether due impartiality has been preserved the Code explains that the approach may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience. As was pointed out by Talksport, the station is known for its highly opinionated presenters, such as George Galloway, who engage in heated debate with listeners. The profile of the Respect Party MP is also a relevant consideration when assessing whether the approach to due impartiality on these programmes was acceptable. He is recognised in this country for trenchant views on many issues and his sympathy for the Palestinian viewpoint in relation to the Middle East question is particularly well known. In the programme of 22 November 2008, George Galloway makes this clear when he says:

“I am not impartial on this subject, nor can I be…”
 
However, it is important that the subject matter itself is treated with due impartiality. Ofcom noted that the tension in Gaza at the time of these broadcasts was extremely high and had resulted in armed conflict by the time of the second programme under investigation (27 December 2009). This meant that the views of the presenter, the guests and the callers to the programmes could be expected to be outspoken, emotive and at times reproachful. Ofcom also noted Talksport’s argument that, such was the strength of feeling about Israeli actions, the issue had effectively crossed party political lines. All of these considerations do not obviate the need for due impartiality however they demonstrate that the views espoused by George Galloway would not necessarily come as a surprise to listeners, familiar as they would be with his opinions and personality. Due impartiality does not require there to be an equal balance of views on the controversial subject matter being discussed. To secure compliance with the Code, what must be ensured is that firstly, there is a wide range of significant views and secondly, that these views are given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes (Rule 5.12).

Wide range of significant views

During the five programmes examined by Ofcom in this investigation there was a large volume of views expressed which were critical of Israeli government policy towards Gaza – in the programme of 22 November 2008 these views were critical of the Israeli blockade of Gaza then in place, and in the other programmes listeners criticised the Israeli military action in Gaza which had begun on 27 December 2008. On the programme of 22 November 2008 for example, guest Lauren Booth described the Israeli blockade of Gaza as:

“the most cruel siege in human history”

and on the same programme a caller remarked:

“I can’t understand how they have the nerve to come on and defend Israel…they just tell lies.”

Ofcom also noted that on the programme of 27 December 2008 calls which could be described as pro-Israeli were greatly outnumbered by calls which were critical of the Israeli position. Callers expressed anger and disgust at Israeli “aggression” and the attack which began that day was described as a “barbaric”.

At the same time however Ofcom noted that in all programmes, George Galloway encouraged listeners with differing viewpoints to call in. He told listeners, for example on the programme of 2 January 2009 that:

“you’re welcome whatever your point of view but you’re especially welcome if you disagree with me…”

Bearing in mind the factors relating to the approach to due impartiality in this case described above, in Ofcom’s view these differing views were brought to air with adequate frequency on all the programmes examined. On 27 December 2008 for example, one caller referred to Israel and asked:

“…do you not think a country has the right to defend itself when hundreds of rockets are coming over?”

Further, on 22 November 2008 there was a detailed interview with Lorna Fitzsimmons of the British Israeli Communications and Research Agency who responded articulately to many of the points raised earlier by George Galloway and Lauren Booth. She was also given the opportunity to defend the Israeli government. There were clearly other significant views expressed on the station throughout this period such as a journalist and the pro-Israeli Republican Samuel Joe Wurzelbarcher. Other examples, as cited by Talksport, demonstrated that the station had achieved on air a range of significant views on this issue.

Due Weight
Ofcom accepts that as a way of encouraging debate and generating interest in a subject, broadcasters may legitimately be controversial and challenging, even to the extent of taking a position where they “may express their own views” (see Rule 5.9 of the Code). However, broadcasters need to be careful in ensuring that this approach does not impinge on the Code’s requirement to give “due weight” to other significant views. In its consideration of the programmes Ofcom was at times concerned that George Galloway did not necessarily afford callers who disagreed with him an adequate opportunity to present their argument and at times appeared to cut callers off who disagreed with him. For example on the programme of 22 November 2008 during a discussion with one caller about the origins of the conflict, George Galloway indicated that if the caller was not prepared to accept that Israel was “illegally occupying” territory that did not belong to it, there was “nothing further to talk about…” before cutting the caller off. Although other callers were given an appropriate opportunity, broadcasters need to strike the right balance between being provocative and ensuring compliance with the Code.

It is important to note however that the Code requirement for due weight may be met “within each programme or (Ofcom’s emphasis) in clearly linked and timely programmes”. In this case, while the views of some callers may not have been afforded due weight in specific programmes, it was Ofcom’s view that overall, on the service, due weight was achieved through firstly the detailed interviews on George Galloway with recognisable commentators such as Lorna Fitzsimmons and The Times journalist Oliver Kamm who defended the Israeli government position. It was also met by programmes such as the edition of George Galloway of 30 December 2008, to which Ofcom was directed by Talksport. The programme began with George Galloway making a specific call for listeners who disagreed with him to call in. He said:

“…everyone knows where I’m coming from on this subject…but that doesn’t mean I want to hog the microphone. On the contrary, I want an argument with you. So, please, if you have a different perspective from me, please call…”

George Galloway also signalled that a pro-Israeli journalist would be joining him at a certain point in the programme. Ofcom noted that when the sequence on Gaza began, three callers with a pro-Israeli perspective were brought to air in succession.

Finally Talksport directed us to material across the service, in the days and weeks in which the conflict continued in which alternative views were extensively canvassed. As a result Ofcom concluded that the due weight requirement of Rule 5.12 was met.

Calls to join demonstrations
A number of complainants highlighted George Galloway’s support for and encouragement to listeners to attend demonstrations against Israeli actions planned for London and elsewhere. At various points the presenter said:

“…everyone of us has a duty. I will myself at 2 o’clock tomorrow afternoon be in the demonstration outside the Israeli embassy at Kensington Church Street, Kensington High Street in London at 2 o’clock tomorrow.”

“…go to the ‘Stop The War’ coalition website, you’ll get details of the local Stop The War organisation in the North-East and they definitely should be doing something.”

“Well you can join me at 2 o’clock tomorrow afternoon outside the Israeli embassy in Kensington Church Street in London, for what I think is going to be a very big demonstration.”

“I hope everyone who’s in Scotland can reach George Square [Glasgow], is there at half four tomorrow afternoon.”

“We’ll be out at…[details of addresses and times of the demonstrations in London, Edinburgh, and Glasgow]… Stand up, stand up against the great crime that took place in Gaza today!”

We accept, as Talksport argues, that the presenter did not in any way encourage or incite hatred or violence.

However, in Ofcom’s view, at these junctures the programme turned from debating points of views and opinions into active campaigning on a major matter of political controversy. The broadcaster was actively encouraging listeners to participate in a political activity with details of the events, addresses and times. These calls to action did not come from an interviewee (who was for instance a campaign organiser on the demonstration itself) but from the presenter himself. At this point, we consider, the broadcaster crossed the line from legitimate and provocative debate with adequate alternative views to one who was calling listeners to action. By actively becoming involved in one side of a campaign on a matter of political or industrial controversy this element of the programme failed to comply with the due impartiality requirements which are set out in legislation and in Ofcom’s Code. 

Conclusion
Overall, for the reasons outlined in this decision, Ofcom concluded that there was an appropriately wide range of significant views aired on the station and on George Galloway during the period to which these complaints related. On balance Ofcom concluded that these views were also afforded due weight, particularly for example on the programmes of 22 November 2008 and 30 December 2008.

However, in encouraging listeners to attend demonstrations with details of dates, times and locations, the programme move away from legitimate debate and started to campaign on a major matter of controversy resulting in a breach of Rule 5.11.

Not in breach of Rule 5.12
In breach of Rule 5.11 (in respect of the calls to join demonstrations)

Read the adjucation here.