Complaint
A viewer of the debate between the main party leaders in the upcoming election for the Scottish Parliament wrote that three of the four prepared questions from the audience struck him as coming from an anti-independence viewpoint. As this did not reflect the balance of opinion within the Scottish electorate as indicated by opinion polls, he queried whether the selection of audience-members had been properly impartial. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the ’s editorial standards of impartiality.
Outcome
While not entirely endorsing the viewer’s characterisation of the questions, the ECU agreed that the anti-independence strand of thought was more to the fore than might have been expected if the audience had been selected to reflect levels of support for the parties represented on the panel. Because of the nature of the programme, however, that was not the intention. The purpose of such debates is to give the leaders of the main parties an opportunity to make their respective cases to the viewers in the context of addressing issues of importance to the relevant electorate. In pursuit of that purpose, the ’s approach to debates of this kind (bearing in mind that they are restricted to parties deemed “major” for the election in question) is that there should be approximately equal support in the audience for each of the parties participating in the debate, primarily to ensure that minority views are not denied effective representation. That approach was adopted in this instance, though with some weighting towards pro-independence views among the section of the audience undecided about which party to support. In relation to impartiality in this context, the primary test was not what viewpoint the questions emanated from but whether the panel-members who were the subject of criticism or challenge had due opportunity for rebuttal. In the ECU’s judgement, this test was met.
Not upheld