No justice from the BBC

Last May, BBC Farming Today broadcast an interview with the British Game Alliance (BGA), a new organisation aiming to stimulate the game meat market and introduce enforceable standards into game shooting. Despite this being a good news story for the countryside, the interview was immediately followed by a response from an anti-shooting activist.

The Alliance raised concerns about this programme as the segment on the British Game Alliance was the only one in which an opposing voice was heard, and the decision to seek a response from an animal rights organisation about an issue simply because it related to shooting reeked of exactly the sort of "metropolitan bias" the BBC Trust had found in its review of the BBC's rural coverage.

The BBC responded by stating that "It was the first time we ever covered British Game Alliance (BGA) on the programme… We felt that it was both important and appropriate to have more than one view … the BGA is clearly lobbying and marketing on behalf of a section of the industry and therefore was clearly on the programme to give their own message. In that context, it is completely appropriate for a news programme to include other views."

Fast forward a few months to February and Farming Today featured another organisation for the first time. This group was called Wild Justice which claimed it would "stand up for wildlife using the legal system and seeking changes to existing laws". The group is fronted by three self-described activists including Chris Packham, who as you may remember is not a regular BBC presenter, although he appears very regularly on the BBC. Mr Packham was interviewed on Farming Today where he was allowed to make unsubstantiated and often inaccurate claims about wildlife crime law.

He claimed that sentences for wildlife crimes set by Parliament and subject to regular review are infrequently appropriate and argued that laws in certain areas of wildlife crime are inadequate and need to be changed. He referenced Judicial Reviews of decisions by government agencies in England and Scotland and signalled that his new organisation would be carrying out such actions. It has subsequently launched a Judicial Review against Natural England.

He claimed that the law on hunting is not being implemented properly despite government data showing that 476 people have been convicted of Hunting Act offences and a prominent anti-hunting group stating that the Hunting Act is "the most successful wild mammal protection legislation in England and Wales". As the interview ended we waited for a response, an alternative voice, an opportunity for someone, anyone, to put forward other views. But, of course, no such voice was heard.

The BBC's response to our complaint about the failure to provide anyone the opportunity to challenge Mr Packham's assertions was as laughable as it was predictable. The BBC's 'rural champion' Dmitri Houtart, who is also producer of Farming Today, was so sycophantic that we were forced to ask whether his response was made on behalf of the BBC or Wild Justice. At the second phase of the complaints process the BBC changed tack and decided that Wild Justice was not "controversial" and that the BBC was therefore not required to air alternative views. Our state broadcaster is really arguing that an activist organisation dedicated to changing the law, bringing prosecutions and challenging the decisions of statutory agencies is not controversial.

Having ploughed through the pointless BBC complaints process we have now elevated the complaint to Ofcom. We will see whether the independent regulator is more willing to apply consistency and fairness than the BBC and its 'rural champion'.