British Broadcasting Corporation Gaza Documentary Considered a 'Serious' Violation of Broadcasting Rules, States Broadcasting Watchdog
The public service broadcaster was found to have committed a "significant breach" of media regulations by omitting to mention that the voice of a film about Gaza was the son of a Hamas representative, as ruled by regulatory body Ofcom.
An probe by Ofcom into Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone has concluded that the programme was "substantially inaccurate".
The head of the BBC had previously apologised, saying there had been "a significant failing in relation to factual correctness".
The regulator has instructed the BBC to air a evening announcement about its findings.
"As this represents a major infringement of our rules, we are directing the corporation to broadcast a announcement of our conclusions against it on the BBC's second channel at 21:00, with a schedule to be determined," the statement read.
'Risk to Damage Confidence'
The authority's announcement declared: "Our investigation found that the documentary's failure to disclose that the narrator's parent served in a position in the Hamas-administered authority was materially misleading.
"Consequently that the public did not have essential details which may have been extremely pertinent to their evaluation of the narrator and the content he presented.
"Trust is at the center of the bond between a media organization and its public, notably for a state-funded media outlet such as the public broadcaster.
"This failing had the possibility to undermine the significantly high levels of confidence that the public would have placed in a factual film from the broadcaster about the Gaza conflict."
The programme was withdrawn from the online platform in the month of February after the narrator's personal associations came to light, and in July an broadcaster's internal assessment found it violated the corporation's content policies on factual correctness.
A corporation official stated: "The regulator's decision is in accordance with the conclusions of Peter Johnston's review, that there was a significant failing in the programme in relation to the broadcaster's journalistic policies on factual correctness, which corresponds to regulation 2.2 of the authority's broadcasting regulations.
"We have apologised for this and we accept the regulator's ruling in complete. We will adhere to the directive as soon as the timing and wording are determined."
