The Wethey Forecast

Below is the text of a letter written by the IPA to the BBC Panorama team complaining about the failure of the BBC to comply with its own editorial guidelines. No written response has been received to this letter: "We write on behalf of IPA new media agencies and their client advertisers concerning allegations which we understand may appear in your forthcoming Panorama programme about unsavoury websites and ‘cyber bullying’. We are concerned that there may be a misleading and inaccurate portrayal of the advertiser’s role in relation to these websites. We believe reference may be being made in your programme to such sites earning advertising revenues from, and thus being endorsed by, reputable advertisers. In fact, every effort is made to ensure that advertisers do not end up finding their advertisements on such sites. Advertising agencies that purchase media space through intermediary on-line networks require, in their contracts, specific warranties and obligations that advertising is not placed with disreputable website owners and when this occasionally occurs by mistake or human error, every effort is made to withdraw the advertising immediately and no fee is paid to the media owner. We trust this point is made abundantly clear in your programme and that there is no suggestion, explicit or implied, that advertisers and their agencies condone or endorse or in any way support advertising on such sites. However we have not received any such assurances from you. Indeed since the middle of last week we have been attempting to arrange an interview to explain that this is not the case, and last Friday and Saturday our Director General, Hamish Pringle, has left messages for you to phone him which you have not returned. We infer from this that you are not inclined to hear us, nor represent this serious issue in a balanced manner. The BBC’s editorial policy states that: “When we make allegations of wrong doing, iniquity or incompetence or lay out a strong and damaging critique of an individual or institution the presumption is that those criticised should be given a "right of reply", that is, given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations before transmission. Our request for a response must be properly logged with the name of the person approached and the key elements of the exchange. We should always describe the allegations in sufficient detail to enable an informed response. The response should be reflected fairly and accurately and should normally be broadcast in the same programme, or published at the same time, as the allegation. There may be occasions when this is inappropriate (usually for legal or overriding ethical reasons) in which case a senior editorial figure or commissioning editor for Independents should be consulted. It may then be appropriate to consider whether an alternative opportunity should be offered for reply at a subsequent date.” The IPA would like to know that its position on this matter is fairly and accurately broadcast in the programme. This is not a case where a separate opportunity to explain the advertising industry’s stance is appropriate, and there is no reason why our contempt for such websites is not made plain in the same programme. If for whatever reason you feel unable to present the complete picture we suggest you cut any reference to advertising on the websites featured in the programme. Should the programme be broadcast with reference to advertisers endorsing these websites without our comments, we reserve our position to object to the Editorial Complaints Unit and to take appropriate legal or such other action as is necessary to correct any misleading editorial content. We assume there is however no intention to broadcast misleading information on this subject and therefore look forward to hearing from you about how to resolve the matter prior to the programme being broadcast."