The Guidelines are clear that accuracy and impartiality can only be properly understood in context.  In this case the key issue was whether Sir Keir should face investigation by the Commons Privileges Committee after the Conservatives accused him of misleading MPs over the process to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US. Listeners were told Sir Keir had dismissed this as a “political stunt”.  In the interview, Mr Robinson noted Sir Keir had said he would be different from previous Prime Ministers by behaving decently and having a mastery of the details and went on to explain Sir Keir had been forced to plead with his own MPs “not to inquire into the fact that he hasn’t been decent and he hasn’t dealt with the details”.

The ECU accepted it would have been better if Mr Robinson had attributed claims about Sir Keir’s conduct or made it clear his actions were matters of political debate.  But for listeners to be misled, they would have had to disregard the context of the interview and the subject of the discussion. The use of the word “fact” was imprecise but not in a way which would lead the audience to suppose the description of Sir Keir’s behaviour was accepted by everyone.  Nor was there persuasive evidence, in the ECU’s view, that a single word, taken in isolation, amounted to political bias.  Listeners in general would have understood Mr Robinson was merely trying to summarise criticisms made by Sir Keir’s political opponents. 

Not Upheld