As Lord Justice Leveson comes towards the end of his scrutiny of the links between politicians, businesses and the national press, he may want to have a chat with the broadcasting regulator Ofcom for its views on what is happening in Tower Hamlets.
It goes without saying that the media has some influence over people’s opinions, but in Tower Hamlets its role is crucial. There is probably no other borough in Britain in which there is such an appetite for “news”. The Bengali population, particularly the more elderly, devour the bulletins broadcast in Bangla by several satellite TV stations, including ATN Bangla, Channel i and Channel S.
However, in all the years I’ve been covering Tower Hamlets, it has been rare to see reporters from those TV stations actually attend council meetings. Yes, cameras are banned, but that doesn’t stop proper journalists observing proceedings and filing reports outside.
Instead, these channels rely on council press releases and town hall handouts. When Labour was in power, they knew this and for years, their cabinet councillors quite sneakily and divisively held briefings exclusively for the Bengali media. Papers such as the East London Advertiser were deliberately excluded from these cosy affairs, often held at various curry houses in Brick Lane. When the Commission for Racial Equality found out, they ruled the practice divisive.
However, to some extent, this still goes on. Mayor Lutfur Rahman, more than anyone else, knows the power of these satellite channels and he has spent years courting them, including Channel S, which was founded (and quite possibly still run) by Mohammed Ferdaus Jalil, a convicted insurance fraudster.
So important is Channel S that Mayor Rahman poached its chief reporter Mohammed Jubair to act as his special political adviser on media affairs. Well, I say “poached” but that’s not strictly true because Jubair continued to work for Channel S.
Could you imagine the BBC’s political editor Nick Robinson doubling up as an adviser to David Cameron?
In Tower Hamlets, though, anything goes.
And this decision today from Ofcom (see p4 and I have copied it in full below) is the result of that blatant conflict of interest. The Evening Standard has reported it here. The regulator has said Channel S has breached its Code for producing an unbalanced report of Lutfur’s budget proposals last February. Ofcom said a voiceover by a Channel S reporter was biased and did not seek opposing opinions. It’s possible this was Jubair.
Channel S, in its defence, said the complaint to Ofcom was by a group out to get them. The complainant was Tory group leader Peter Golds.
No doubt Lutfur and his mates will plead they are victims of a little Establishment plot. But they should know that the Ofcom Code was drawn up for a reason: broadcasters have a duty, particularly at election time, to be impartial and balanced in their news coverage in the UK because of their privileged position in being able to speak to large numbers.
At the end of its decision, Ofcom states the following (my emphasis):
We are concerned that the breach in this case comes after three previous contraventions of the Code rules covering due impartiality and elections recorded against Channel S: in Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 1773; Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 1884; and Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 2035. We therefore put the Licensee on notice that further breaches of the Code of a similar or related nature will be considered for statutory sanction.
Lord Justice Leveson would be doing local democracy a good service were he to call Mayor Lutfur for his views.
Here’s the Ofcom ruling:
Standards cases
In Breach
Channel S News Channel S, 9 February 2012, 22:00
Introduction
Channel S is a free-to-air satellite general entertainment channel aimed at the Bangladeshi community in the UK and Europe. The licence for Channel S is held by Channel S Global Limited (“Channel S” or “the Licensee”).
A complainant alerted Ofcom to a news report in the above edition of Channel S News, which the complainant described as a “political press conference, broadcast as a „news‟ item without any attempt to give an alternative view”.
Ofcom reviewed the news item in question, which was broadcast in Urdu. Ofcom therefore commissioned an independent translation and transcript of the output from a native speaker. We noted the following from the transcript.
The news report concerned the proposed 2012/13 budget for Tower Hamlets Borough Council. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council is the local authority for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in Greater London.
The council is notable in that its executive function is controlled by a directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets, currently Lutfur Rahman, who was elected to this role in October 2010 as an independent candidate. He had previously been deselected as the official Labour Party candidate in the election to be directly elected mayor, and in that election beat the official Labour Party candidate.
Following the May 2010 election, Tower Hamlets London Borough Council was composed of 41 Labour Party members, eight Conservative Party members, one Respect Party member and one Liberal Democrat Party member. Eight councillors elected in May 2010 as Labour Party candidates, who support Lutfur Rahman, subsequently became independent councillors, and taking into account by-elections since May 2010 the council‟s current composition is: 32 Labour Party members; nine independents; seven Conservative party members; two Respect Party members; and one Liberal Democrat Party member.
We noted that the newsreader in the programme introduced the item as follows:
“Despite the government proposing a cut of £100 million in the proposed budget of Tower Hamlets Council for the financial year 2012/13…In a press conference this Thursday, Lutfur Rahman, the Executive Mayor, has labelled this budget as ‘aimed at the benefit of the people’”.
The news report included footage of Lutfur Rahman, the Mayor of Tower Hamlets, conducting a press conference announcing his proposed budget for 2012/13 for Tower Hamlets Borough Council. At the same time a Channel S reporter said in voiceover:
“In making the budget of the financial year 2012-13, Lutfur Rahman, the Executive Mayor, has given the most importance to the opinions of the residents of the Tower Hamlets Council. This is why he has described the budget as a progressive one for the local residents. Despite the massive funding cuts undertaken by the Conservative government, all attempts have been made to continue with all the important services in this budget. The services to be continued include free home care service, youth service’ funding, children centres, the requirement to pay a single parking fee (even if families own more than one vehicle) and Tower Hamlets Enforcement Officers (THEO). Lutfur Rahman stated that ensuring Council Tax freeze, just like last year, and ensuring employment of additional 17 police officers while there are number of police cuts across the country ongoing – these are the main objects of this budget”.
The item included the following statements in relation to the proposed 2012/13 budget for Tower Hamlets Borough Council:
Lutfur Rahman said:
“The central government has given us a target to find £100 million of cuts over four years, a very difficult time, we have to do it to remain with the legal means. We have found the cuts, but I can assure you that we have protected the front line services, we have protected our staff. Our swimming pools will be open, our libraries will remain open. We have invested money in our education service. You know the education maintenance allowance, the only council in the country, we have introduced that”.
Soon after, the Channel S reporter said:
“….This budget was described as „a budget of opposite flow to the national government‟ by the Finance and Resource Cabinet Member Alibor Choudhury”.
Alibor Choudhury then said:
“Tower Hamlets Labour Party have sought to work with the Tories to make life difficult for the Mayor [Lutfur Rahman] and this administration. Make it difficult for them to deliver a progressive budget and as far as most people are concerned, what the Mayor is proposing in his budget is progressive”.
This was followed by the Channel S reporter saying:
“Asad Ali, the Health Cabinet member, from his experience of 23 years of being involved with the budgets stated, ‘This is the only budget in this period in which the public opinion was given so much direct importance’”.
Asad Ali then said:
“Based on the history of this council in the last 23 years, I have never seen a budget being made for which the general public were being referred to so that their interests are taken care of. For this one, the public opinion was called for. Public involvement was welcomed…”.
Ofcom considered the material raised issues warranting investigation under Rule 5.1 of the Code, which states:
Rule 5.1: “News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality”.
We therefore sought the Licensee‟s comments as to how this material complied with this Rule.
Response
Channel S stated its view that the complaint in this case originated from “a group of people raising anything and everything that could cause Channel S inconvenience and make our life difficult in relation to the Mayor and Tower Hamlets Council”.
With regard to the news item itself, the Licensee said that the news item did not relate to a “Party political press conference”. Rather, the news item in question consisted of coverage of the press conference called by Lutfur Rahman to which “all the media in Tower Hamlets” were invited to “announce his budget for the financial year 2012-13”.
Channel S said that it had “a duty to broadcast this news [and]…At that time, we were not made aware of any other interests against” Lutfur Rahman‟s proposed budget for 2012/13. Further, the Licensee said, “If we were invited to attend any other press conference to raise their views or anyone making comments in the press conference, we would have entertained this”.
In conclusion, Channel S said that “Tower Hamlets is not a political organization but a public body. We do not see any reasons to take other views while a Council called a Press Conference to announce their annual budget”.
Decision
Under the standards objectives of the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom has a duty to ensure that news included in television and radio services is presented with due impartiality. This objective is reflected in Section Five of the Code.
When interpreting due impartiality, Ofcom must take into account the broadcaster‟s and audience‟s right to freedom of expression. This is set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 provides for the right of freedom of expression, which encompasses the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without unnecessary interference by public authority.
The broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression is therefore not absolute. In carrying out its duties, Ofcom must balance the right to freedom of expression on one hand, with the requirement in the Code to preserve “due impartiality” in news programmes. Ofcom recognises that this requirement acts to limit, to some extent, freedom of expression. This is because its application necessarily requires broadcasters to ensure that, for example, neither side of a controversy presented in news programmes is unduly favoured.
Rule 5.1 of the Code states that:
“News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality”.
The obligation in Rule 5.1 to present news with due impartiality applies potentially to any issue covered in a news programme, and not just matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy.
However, in judging whether due impartiality has been preserved in any particular case, the Code makes clear that the term “due” means adequate or appropriate to the subject matter. Therefore “due impartiality” does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of the argument has to be represented. Due impartiality may be preserved in a number of ways and it is an editorial decision for the broadcaster as to how it ensures due impartiality is maintained.
We noted that the news report in question showed Lutfur Rahman, the independent mayor for the Tower Hamlets Borough Council, at a press conference announcing his proposed 2012/13 budget for Tower Hamlets Borough Council. In Ofcom‟s opinion because Lutfur Rahman was elected to his post, and exercises certain important executive financial powers in that post (including setting the Tower Hamlets budget), a press conference called to announce and promote his budget could reasonably be regarded as a press conference dealing with policy matters that were politically controversial. In presenting a news item on a press conference dealing with such a matter, a broadcaster must present that news with due impartiality.
In assessing whether any particular news item has been reported with due impartiality, we take into account all relevant facts in the case, including: the substance of the story in question; the nature of the coverage; and whether there are varying viewpoints on a news story, and if so how a particular viewpoint, or viewpoints, on a news item could be or are reflected within news programming.
In this case, Ofcom noted that the news item in question included various statements that could be characterised as: supportive of Lutfur Rahman’s proposed 2012/13 budget; critical of the cuts that Tower Hamlets Borough Council was reported to having been required to make by central government; and critical of the current and past actions and policies of the Conservative Party and Labour Party in Tower Hamlets. In our view, these statements clearly related to aspects of public policy and would have been likely to attract a range of viewpoints. For example, we noted the following statements within the news item:
“The central government has given us a target to find £100 million of cuts over four years, a very difficult time, we have to do it to remain with the legal means…I can assure you that we have protected the front line services, we have protected our staff”.
“… .This budget was described as ‘a budget of opposite flow to the national government’ by the Finance and Resource Cabinet Member Alibor Choudhury”.
“Tower Hamlets Labour Party have sought to work with the Tories to make life difficult for the Mayor and this administration. Make it difficult for them to deliver a progressive budget…”.
“I have never seen a budget being made for which the general public were being referred to so that their interests are taken care of.”
We considered that the news item did not reflect any alternative viewpoints to Lutfur Rahman’s as the independent directly elected mayor or to those who were supportive of his policies. For example, there was no reflection of the viewpoints of the Conservative Party and Labour Party on Tower Hamlets Council in reaction to Lutfur Rahman’s budget. Nor was there any indication in the news item that alternative viewpoints were even sought by the broadcaster.
There is no requirement on broadcasters to provide an alternative viewpoint in all news stories or all issues in the news. All news stories must however be presented with due impartiality: that is with impartiality adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. Presenting news stories with due impartiality in news programmes very much depends on editorial discretion being exercised appropriately in all the circumstances.
In reaching our decision, we took account of Channel S‟s various representations in this case.
Firstly, we noted that, in the Licensee’s view, the complaint in this case originated from “a group of people raising anything and everything that could cause Channel S inconvenience and make our life difficult in relation to the Mayor and Tower Hamlets Council”.
In fulfilling its duties in relation to enforcing broadcast standards, Ofcom does not investigate matters on the basis of broadcast complaints alone. Complaints are useful because they alert Ofcom to potential issues. Ofcom however only proceeds to a full investigation of broadcast content after carefully assessing programme content as broadcast against the provisions of the Code, and deciding that the content does in fact raise potential issues under the Code. Therefore, whatever the alleged provenance of a particular complaint, broadcasters must comply with the Code.
Second, Channel S said that the news item did not relate to a “Party political press conference”, but rather, a press conference called by Lutfur Rahman to which “all the media in Tower Hamlets” were invited to “announce his budget for the financial year 2012-13”. Irrespective of whether the press conference in this case was being run under the auspices of for example a political party or a local government institution, as already pointed out the matters discussed at the press conference related to policy issues which were politically controversial. In broadcasting a news report of that press conference it was therefore necessary for the broadcaster to ensure alternative viewpoints were appropriately reflected to ensure that due impartiality was preserved.
Third, the Licensee also stated that it had a “duty” to broadcast this particular news item. Ofcom recognises that broadcasters will want to include in their news programmes reports on issues relating to public policy affecting the broadcaster‟s target audience. We further recognise that Channel S, as a channel serving the UK Bangladeshi community, would want to report on policy matters relating to Tower Hamlets Borough Council, given the large Bangladeshi community residing in that borough. However, whatever the understandable sense of obligation the Licensee felt it was under to report this particular press conference, it was also obliged to comply with Rule 5.1.
Fourth, Channel S stated that “we were not made aware of any other interests against” Lutfur Rahman‟s proposed budget for 2012/13 and if “we were invited to attend any other press conference to raise their views or anyone making comments in the press conference, we would have entertained this”. In addition, the Licensee stated that, “Tower Hamlets is not a political organization but a public body. We do not see any reasons to take other views while a Council called a Press Conference to announce their annual budget”. Given that this news item was: dealing with issues relating to the public policy of an elected mayor and the local government administration he is leading; and included statements that endorsed that elected mayor‟s policies and criticised other political parties locally, we considered it was incumbent on Channel S to seek to reflect appropriately alternative viewpoints on the matters under discussion. This is irrespective of whether the policy issue being reported on originates with a political party or a public body. Further, in such circumstances, it was not acceptable for the Licensee to wait to be “invited” to attend press conferences that might express alternative viewpoints. Given the seriousness of the issues being discussed, at the very least, Channel S should have sought and reflected the views of, for example, political parties that oppose Lutfur Rahman on Tower Hamlets Borough Council, and specifically his proposed 2012/13 budget. In this regard, we are aware of, for example, the publicly stated viewpoint of the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets to certain proposals contained in Lutfur Rahman‟s proposed 2012/13 budget2. It is an editorial decision for the broadcaster as to how such alternative viewpoints are reflected within news programming, but when reporting the news, broadcaster must ensure that it is presented with due impartiality.
Given the above, we concluded that on the specific facts of this case these news items were not presented with due impartiality. We have therefore recorded a breach of Rule 5.1 of the Code.
We are concerned that the breach in this case comes after three previous contraventions of the Code rules covering due impartiality and elections recorded against Channel S: in Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 1773; Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 1884; and Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 2035. We therefore put the Licensee on notice that further breaches of the Code of a similar or related nature will be considered for statutory sanction.
Breach of Rule 5.1
Trial by Jeory 
Thank heavens we have the impartial reporting of Ted Jeory to set an example.
This is a blog, Dan.
Wouldn’t the language have been Bangla rather than Urdu…? In which case, have they completely cocked up the translation…?
“Ofcom reviewed the news item in question, which was broadcast in Urdu”.
Urdu? Really?
Did Leveson have a look at this Ted? 😉
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/eu-doesnt-really-want-your-pets-for.html
Ha! Actually, that was a perfectly legitimate story based on a Government consultation and a campaign group’s concerns. I never wrote the headline and nor did I write the word ‘pets’ in the intro itself. The story, as I wrote it, was about the potential relaxation of rules surrounding specially-bred dogs and cats.
You can also see that I mentioned high the concerns about using strays, something which was picked up a year later, last week, by the Press Association: see here.
I think it would make an interesting little case study for a student journalism course.
Ted – two things
1) Leveson will not consider it unless the relevant issues are presented to him as evidence. Maybe you better start drafting a submission referencing all relevant supporting evidence – including the recent judgement by OFCOM!
2) with regard to Channel S’s defence ie “the complaint to Ofcom was by a group out to get them” – this is completely ludicrous. Nobody – no matter who they are – can ever “get you” if there is no case to answer. If you play by the rules and behave as required then nobody can touch you. If you ignore the rules, operate without regard for “due impartiality” and generally disregard the need to maintain a balanced perspective then a channel runs the risk of having its licence cancelled.
Given the previous contraventions I’d say the tightrope that Channel S is walking with respect of “due impartiality” has just become extremely precarious.
I read upto the 3rd paragraph of the Ofcom report and realised it was written by an idiot who doesn’t know the difference between Bengali and Urdu. It would have been checked and authorised for release by a bunch morons. And for it to be quoted in Evening Standard and cut and pasted here without correction beggars belief. Thought you had bit more knowledge of the locals Ted?
Yes, i did mean to put ‘sic’ after Urdu. From memory, they used that word in their last report about Channel S so i think they just cut and pasted the background blurb, which is unfortunate but a rather small error in the scheme of things.
You say this Ted but I would argue it is essential to get the translation right. And to say it’s a cut and paste mistake begs the question how many other mistakes are there?
I think Ofcom are competent enough to get the translation right…
In fact, Ofcom would have sent the parties a copy of the translation and there doesn’t seem to be any dispute about it. Concentrate on the substance of the report ather than look for excuses.
What is the point of Dan MaCcurry, does anyone know? He seems to be either what Lenin called a “useful idiot” when talking about the European left and fellow travelers who uncritically supported the Soviet Union or is he actually on Lutfur Rahman’s payroll?
Any criticism, however reasonable and factually based, of the current Tower Hamlets regime is immediately rubbished by Dan the Man who then has to climb down when he is torn to pieces. Actually he usually stops commenting probably out of embarrassment.
The Bangla/Urdu issue is a sideline which should not deflect from the seriousness of the OFCOM decision.
Sure ofcom should have exercised greater diligence before releasing their report as regards the Urdu Bengali issue. But when the Lutfurite ‘intellectuals giants’ (not) find nothing else to comment about, you know they have nothing of any substance to say. But we always knew that. More importantly, is the question what Channel S/ Abdul Mahee Jalil will do in relation Jubair. Jalil will now ofcourse find it almost impossible to support Lutfur Rahman in the 2014 elections. Anyway, if Rupert Murdoch can ask, according John Major, changes in goverment policy by the Priminister, then why can’t Lutfur Rahman wangle biased support from a convicted felon (criminal). You get the joke right?
All I’ve said is Ted is not impartial. Does Ted dispute this?
The reason I don’t answer other people’s comments is because I don’t subscribe. I don’t have time for a clogged up mailbox.
I’m not impartial when I have an opinion. By definition. But I have no party affiliation, if that’s what you mean. And I think the executive is there to be scrutinised.
That’s a bit rich coming from a journalist who works for one of Sleazy Desmonds papers. Oh yes the proprietor who does not believe in press regulation. Withdrew from the PCC when it criticised him and is always bleating on about freedom of the press.
What freedom is that? The freedom to hack peoples phones?
The freedom to make up stories about people you don’t like?
The freedom to abuse black people, asians and women you don’t like.
I’m not defending Chanel S or Lutfur or Dan Mc Curry I am pointing out your hypocrisy.
But then again I don’t suppose a jouno with the ultra-simplistic, grovel-to desmond,celebrity-worshipping, right-wing mindset understands the word ‘hypocrisy’.
Your sub editor would probably tell you off for using long words that neither you or your editor let alone your proprietor understand either
I think my sub-editor would tell you off, Stuart, for your lack of commas, apostrophes, full stops, hyphens and capping up of proper nouns.
I think she would also ask why you were banging on about a French perfume. And I think she would pull you up on your accuracy.
But I’m glad this sleazy journo has so inspired you to contribute to this blog. Truly.
And just when I spoke of “useful idiots” up pops Tower Hamlets own Super Trot the spectacularly misnamed Stuart Madewell.
Mr Madewell is engaging in his favourite form of political analysis called ” whataboutery”. This involves totally disregarding the subject nature of whatever is being discussed and concentrating on peripheral issues to distract from the main theme.
It is a time honoured tactic of extremists of both the right and left and in regard to the latter I have seen it used many times in various campaigns to distract and confuse the unwary and inexperienced as the campaign was being taken over.
Any opposition to the tactics and the Monty Python accusation of ” splitter, wrecker ” was employed, a la the Judean Popular Front.
Madewell has always been a figure of fun on the left in East London and of course he has had serious competition in that department. I recall a fight in Brick Lane in 1977 when a group of young Bangladeshis attacked some National Front members who were marching up the Lane shouting slogans one Sunday morning.
Whilst the battle was going on Madewell was dancing around the outside holding up whatever paper he was trying to sell shouting out its name. Pure Python!
Stuart and his ilk have never got over the fact that the working class have consistently rejected their revolutionary policies and that the last gasp of the sixties radicals like Stuart, Respect, fell apart in a couple of years when the Bangladeshis, who made up the majority of the members and all of the councillors, defected to more profitable fields.
Having always been a member of groups that could hold their AGMs in a phone box, may I suggest that Stuart forms his own group with just himself as a member, he could call it Workers Split. He could then have a disagreement with himself, expel himself and then for the first time in history there would be a revolutionary group with no members!
In the interests of impartiality I think the ” where” in, “Lord Justice Leveson would be doing local democracy a favour where he to call Mayor Lutfur for his views” should be “were”.
I don’t know what you mean…
You’re avin a larf geezer, innit? Do I have the question mark in the correct place?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/were.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/where.
And some news just in! It seems that Stuart Madewell is a director of Tower Hamlets Community Housing. At freebees, ie grub to you and me, he loads his plate up to groaning point, eats a bit and then gets a doggy bag for the rest. Sounds like a Tower Hamlets Trot, always on the ponce. You there Stuart?