British Broadcasting Corporation Gaza Programme Ruled a 'Significant' Infringement of Broadcasting Regulations, States Ofcom
The British broadcaster committed a "serious breach" of broadcasting rules by omitting to mention that the presenter of a film about the Gaza situation was the offspring of a Hamas representative, according to British broadcasting authority Ofcom.
An inquiry by the media regulator into the programme Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone has found that the film was "materially misleading".
The BBC's director general had previously apologised, saying there had been "a serious error in relation to truthfulness".
The authority has instructed the BBC to air a prime-time declaration about its findings.
"Given this constitutes a significant violation of our rules, we are instructing the broadcaster to broadcast a announcement of our conclusions against it on BBC2 at 21:00, with a schedule to be finalised," the statement read.
'Potential to Damage Credibility'
The authority's statement declared: "Our probe concluded that the programme's omission to reveal that the narrator's parent occupied a role in the Hamas-controlled administration was materially misleading.
"Consequently that the viewers did not have essential details which may have been very significant to their judgment of the narrator and the details he shared.
"Confidence is at the center of the bond between a broadcaster and its audience, particularly for a national broadcasting corporation such as the British Broadcasting Corporation.
"This failing had the potential to damage the exceptionally strong amounts of credibility that viewers would have placed in a factual film from the broadcaster about the conflict in Gaza."
The documentary was removed from the BBC's streaming service in the month of February after the narrator's personal associations emerged, and in this past July an corporation's own inquiry concluded it breached the corporation's editorial guidelines on accuracy.
A corporation official said: "The authority's determination is in line with the findings of Peter Johnston's review, that there was a serious error in the programme in relation to the BBC's Editorial Guidelines on factual correctness, which corresponds to regulation 2.2 of the authority's broadcasting regulations.
"We expressed regret for this and we agree with the authority's determination in full. We will comply with the directive as soon as the timing and language are determined."
