British Broadcasting Corporation Gaza Documentary Ruled a 'Significant' Violation of Media Regulations, Declares UK Media Regulator
The BBC was found to have committed a "significant breach" of industry standards by failing to disclose that the presenter of a documentary about the Gaza conflict was the child of a Hamas administrator, according to UK media regulator Ofcom.
An investigation by the broadcasting watchdog into the documentary titled Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone has found that the documentary was "significantly deceptive".
The head of the BBC had previously apologised, noting there had been "a serious error in relation to factual correctness".
The authority has instructed the corporation to air a prime-time declaration about its conclusions.
"Given this constitutes a major infringement of our code, we are ordering the corporation to air a message of our conclusions against it on the BBC's second channel at nine o'clock in the evening, with a date to be finalised," it said.
'Possibility to Undermine Credibility'
The watchdog's report declared: "The inquiry we conducted determined that the programme's lack of disclosure that the presenter's male guardian served in a position in the Hamas-run government was significantly deceptive.
"This implied that the public did not have vital facts which may have been extremely pertinent to their evaluation of the voice and the information he shared.
"Confidence is at the center of the bond between a media organization and its public, notably for a state-funded media outlet such as the BBC.
"This failing had the potential to damage the very considerable degrees of credibility that audiences would have invested in a factual film from the broadcaster about the Gaza conflict."
The film was removed from iPlayer in February after the presenter's familial connections were revealed, and in the month of July an internal BBC review determined it breached the corporation's journalistic standards on truthfulness.
A BBC spokesperson said: "The regulator's decision is in line with the findings of Peter Johnston's review, that there was a serious error in the film in relation to the corporation's content standards on factual correctness, which reflects regulation 2.2 of the authority's broadcasting regulations.
"We issued an apology for this and we agree with the authority's determination in its entirety. We will follow the directive as soon as the schedule and wording are determined."
