British Broadcasting Corporation Gaza Documentary Ruled a 'Serious' Infringement of Broadcasting Standards, Says Broadcasting Watchdog
The public service broadcaster committed a "significant breach" of industry standards by not revealing that the voice of a programme about the Gaza situation was the offspring of a Hamas representative, as determined by regulatory body Ofcom.
An investigation by the media regulator into the programme Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone has determined that the film was "materially misleading".
The chief executive of the broadcaster had previously apologised, noting there had been "a major oversight in relation to truthfulness".
The regulator has instructed the BBC to transmit a prime-time statement about its conclusions.
"As this represents a major infringement of our rules, we are ordering the corporation to transmit a announcement of our findings against it on BBC2 at 21:00, with a schedule to be determined," it said.
'Possibility to Undermine Trust'
The authority's statement declared: "Our probe found that the film's lack of disclosure that the voice's father served in a role in the Hamas-controlled authority was significantly deceptive.
"It meant that the public did not have essential details which may have been very significant to their judgment of the voice and the details he shared.
"Confidence is at the heart of the bond between a media organization and its audience, notably for a national broadcasting corporation such as the British Broadcasting Corporation.
"This error had the risk to damage the significantly high levels of confidence that the public would have placed in a documentary produced by the BBC about the Gaza conflict."
The documentary was withdrawn from the online platform in the month of February after the boy's personal associations emerged, and in July an corporation's own inquiry determined it breached the corporation's journalistic standards on factual correctness.
A representative for the broadcaster stated: "The regulator's decision is in agreement with the conclusions of Peter Johnston's review, that there was a significant failing in the film in relation to the corporation's content standards on factual correctness, which aligns with regulation 2.2 of the regulator's media standards.
"We expressed regret for this and we comply with the authority's determination in full. We will adhere to the sanction as soon as the date and wording are finalised."
