{"id":17405,"date":"2024-05-19T16:03:09","date_gmt":"2024-05-19T15:03:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/?p=17405"},"modified":"2024-09-22T17:47:34","modified_gmt":"2024-09-22T16:47:34","slug":"ndpa-succeeds-in-complaint-to-bbc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/2024\/05\/ndpa-succeeds-in-complaint-to-bbc\/","title":{"rendered":"NDPA succeeds in Complaint to BBC."},"content":{"rendered":"

The following Complaint was sent to BBC by David Raynes of the NDPA – the response is shown underneath the Complaint summary herein.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

David judges the BBC response to be “very defensive, but a partial win” for NDPA.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

************<\/span><\/p>\n

BBC Radio programme – ‘PM’, Radio 4, 27 October 2022<\/span><\/p>\n

Complaint<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

This edition of PM included a sequence prompted by Germany\u2019s plan to legalise<\/span>
\nrecreational cannabis. A listener complained about the absence of an alternative view and a<\/span>
\nlack of impartiality on the part of the presenter . The ECU considered whether the<\/span>
\nprogramme met BBC standards for due impartiality.<\/span><\/p>\n

Outcome<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The presenter, Evan Davis, explained that other countries (including Canada) had already<\/span>
\ntaken this step, as well as many states in the USA. He introduced a report from New York<\/span>
\nby a correspondent describing \u201chow life has changed there\u201d and then interviewed Professor<\/span>
\nAkwasi Owusu-Bempah of Toronto University, described as an expert in drugs policy. In his<\/span>
\nfinal question Mr Davis asked him \u201cin three words\u201d whether other countries should follow<\/span>
\nCanada\u2019s example: \u201cAre you basically thinking it\u2019s worked?\u201d. Professor Owusu-Bempah<\/span>
\nreplied \u201cDo it now, those are my three words\u201d prompting laughter from Mr Davis.<\/span>
\nIn the ECU\u2019s view the decriminalisation and\/or legalisation of cannabis possession is a<\/span>
\ncontroversial subject in the UK, even if the controversy is not \u201cactive\u201d in the sense of there<\/span>
\nbeing legislation before Parliament or immediate prospect of it. However, the question of<\/span>
\nthe social effects of legislation is not, on its own terms, a matter of controversy, and is open<\/span>
\nto empirical exploration. It was therefore legitimate for the programme to question an<\/span>
\nexpert on those aspects, and there was no need for an alternative viewpoint in that<\/span>
\nconnection.<\/span>
\nTaken as a whole the sequence highlighted negative as well as positive social consequences<\/span>
\nof changing the law. The presenter\u2019s laughter should be seen in the context of the succinct<\/span>
\nnature of the response rather than any expression of a personal view. But in posing his final<\/span>
\nquestion, he invited an opinion on a matter of controversy. Professor Owusu-Bempah<\/span>
\nhaving expressed unqualified support for immediate legalisation, in the ECU\u2019s view there<\/span>
\nwas a need to remind listeners of the existence of opposing opinions<\/span><\/p>\n

BBC conclusion:\u00a0<\/span>
\nPart Upheld<\/span><\/p>\n

*******<\/span><\/p>\n

British Broadcasting Corporation British Broadcasting Corporation BBC Wogan House, Level 1, 99 Great Portland<\/span>
\nStreet, London W1A 1AA<\/span>
\nTelephone: 020 8743 8000 Email: ecu@bbc.co.uk<\/span><\/p>\n

BBC<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Executive Complaints Unit<\/span>
\nDavid Raynes<\/span>
\npheon@cix.co.uk<\/span><\/p>\n

Ref: CAS-7325932<\/span>
\n2 March 2023<\/span><\/p>\n

Dear Mr Raynes<\/span>
\nPM, Radio 4, 27 October 2022<\/span>
\nThank you for your email to the Executive Complaints Unit about an item in this<\/span>
\nedition of PM on a plan to legalise recreational cannabis use in Germany. The<\/span>
\npresenter, Evan Davis, explained that other countries (including Canada) had already<\/span>
\ntaken this step, as well as many states in the USA. He introduced a report from New<\/span>
\nYork by a correspondent describing \u201chow life has changed there\u201d. She detailed the<\/span>
\nproliferation of cannabis sellers in the city and the greater evidence of its use. He then<\/span>
\ninterviewed Professor Akwasi Owusu-Bempah of Toronto University, described as an<\/span>
\nexpert in drugs policy. He was asked how the law applied in Canada, the effect on<\/span>
\nconsumption, the relationship between the illegal trade and overall crime, and the<\/span>
\nrelation between the police and \u201ccertain groups\u201d in the light of a \u201chuge\u201d drop in arrests<\/span>
\nand convictions for the possession of cannabis. The professor observed that, in line<\/span>
\nwith the aims of the legislators, legal sales in cannabis had overtaken illegal sales. Mr<\/span>
\nDavis then asked him \u201cin three words\u201d whether other countries should follow Canada\u2019s<\/span>
\nexample: \u201cAre you basically thinking it\u2019s worked?\u201d. Professor Owusu-Bempah replied<\/span>
\n\u201cDo it now, those are my three words\u201d, prompting laughter from Mr Davis.<\/span>
\nYou complained about the absence of an alternative view in the item, drew attention<\/span>
\nto reported ill effects on mental health from cannabis consumption and pointed to the<\/span>
\npossible risks to younger listeners who might have heard the question of legalisation<\/span>
\ndiscussed in these terms. You also objected to Mr Davis\u2019 laughter.<\/span>
\nThe BBC\u2019s Editorial Guidelines on impartiality say:<\/span>
\nWhen dealing with \u2018controversial subjects\u2019, we must ensure a wide range of<\/span>
\nsignificant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence,<\/span>
\nparticularly when the controversy is active.<\/span>
\nI would regard the decriminalisation and\/or legalisation of cannabis possession as<\/span>
\nbeing a controversial subject in this country, even if the controversy is not \u201cactive\u201d in<\/span>
\nthe sense of there being legislation before Parliament or any immediate prospect of it.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, the question of the social effects of legislation is not, on its own terms, a<\/span>
\nmatter of controversy, and is open to empirical exploration. I think it was therefore<\/span>
\nlegitimate for Mr Davis to question Professor Owusu-Bempah on those aspects, and<\/span>
\nthat there was no need for an alternative viewpoint in that connection. Taken as a<\/span>
\nwhole the piece highlighted negative as well as positive social consequences of<\/span>
\nchanging the law and seen through that prism was therefore more nuanced than you<\/span>
\nsuggest. But by posing his final question, as to whether other countries, including the<\/span>
\nUK, should follow Canada\u2019s example, Mr Davis invited an opinion on a matter of<\/span>
\ncontroversy. Professor Owusu-Bempah having expressed unqualified support for<\/span>
\nimmediate legalisation, I think there was a need at least to remind listeners of the<\/span>
\nexistence of opposing opinions, preferably with some reference to the arguments here<\/span>
\nin this country. In the absence of that or the inclusion of an alternative view elsewhere<\/span>
\nin the item, I agree there was a breach of the BBC\u2019s standards of impartiality and I am<\/span>
\nupholding this element of your complaint.<\/span>
\nOn your point about the possible risk to children, the PM programme is aimed at an<\/span>
\nadult audience \u2013 its average age is 60 – and accordingly I do not believe its output<\/span>
\nshould be judged on the basis of its potential effect on children. As for Mr Davis\u2019<\/span>
\nlaughter at the end of the interview, I can see how it might have struck you as \u201chumour<\/span>
\nfrom a top and admired presenter about the concept of harmful cannabis legalisation in<\/span>
\nthe UK\u201d. To my ear, though, it sounded like amused surprise at the fact that Professor<\/span>
\nOwusu-Bempah, having been told \u201cwe\u2019re entirely out of time\u201d, had so precisely met his<\/span>
\nrequest to state his opinion \u201cin three words\u201d. I am therefore not upholding these<\/span>
\naspects of your complaint.<\/span>
\nThank you for bringing this to the attention of the ECU. Please accept my apology for<\/span>
\nthis breach of standards. I attach a summary of the finding intended for publication on<\/span>
\nthe complaints pages of bbc.co.uk, at https:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/contact\/recent-ecu. It<\/span>
\nwill appear there later today. Meanwhile, as this letter represents the BBC\u2019s final view<\/span>
\non your complaint, it is now open to you to take it to the broadcasting regulator,<\/span>
\nOfcom, if you are dissatisfied. You can find details of how to contact Ofcom and the<\/span>
\nprocedures it will apply at https:\/\/www.ofcom.org.uk\/tv-radio-and-on-demand\/howto-report-a-complaint. Alternatively, you can write to Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a<\/span>
\nSouthwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA, or telephone either 0300 123 3333 or 020<\/span>
\n7981 3040. Ofcom acknowledges all complaints received.<\/span>
\nYours sincerely<\/span>
\nFraser Steel<\/span>
\nHead of the Executive Complaints Unit<\/span><\/p>\n

Source: David Raynes, NDPA.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The following Complaint was sent to BBC by David Raynes of the NDPA – the response is shown underneath the Complaint summary herein. David judges the BBC response to be “very defensive, but a partial win” for NDPA. ************ BBC Radio programme – ‘PM’, Radio 4, 27 October 2022 Complaint This edition of PM included […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[104,14,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17405","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-political-sector","category-social-affairs","category-social-affairs-papers"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17405","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17405"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17405\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17405"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17405"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17405"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}