Complaint
A viewer complained about the reporting of efforts by MI5 to prevent the BBC from identifying someone who had sought to use his status to avoid facing prosecution for domestic abuse. The complainant argued that without qualification as to what the word “agent” meant, audiences would have been misled into believing the man in question was directly employed by MI5, rather than an “arm’s length informant”. The ECU considered the complaint against the standards of accuracy set out in the BBC Editorial Guidelines
Outcome
The story featured in the latter two bulletins cited by the viewer, though not in the first. The reports in question detailed how a man had used coercion and his status with intelligence services to terrorise his partner. It explained his use by the service as a source and that he told her he was informing on networks of right-wing extremists. The BBC reporter explained what informers did, and how they worked with MI5 officers. In the ECU’s view this was sufficient to ensure audiences understood the distinction between informants who are “agents” and their handlers at MI5. It did not therefore think audiences would have been misled in the manner suggested. It also did not believe in this context that the distinction had the potential to materially mislead. The story concerned the efforts of MI5 to prevent the BBC from identifying someone who had sought to use his status with them to avoid facing prosecution for domestic abuse, and the precise terms of his relations with MI5 did not bear directly on audience understanding of that story.
Not Upheld