Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-319)
11 JANUARY 2005
MR BOB
SATCHWELL, MR
ROBIN ESSER,
MR MARK
EASTON AND
MS CLAIRE
POWELL
Q300 David Winnick: That is the very
point I am making.
Ms Powell: For our drama producers
it is very important that the beautiful woman who walks into a
room could be Hindu, could be Muslim, as long as they are acting
in a way which is not offensive to their religion. We had a complaint,
for example, that a woman who was featured in Casualty
this weekend was wearing the traditional headscarf, and the complainant
said "Not all Muslim women wear the headscarf". They
do not, but most of them do, and I think it is absolutely fair
that we portrayed the woman in that way. So I think, yes, we do
make great efforts to bring characters of different ethnic backgrounds
and different religions into our dramas, and I think we have been
hugely successful. Certainly the research that we have done reflects
that Muslim, Hindu and Sikh audiences, in particular, are avid
followers of our soap operas, and I think we have worked very,
very well there. It is difficult. We have looked long and hard
to get a Muslim family in Eastenders, for example. There
is a tiny, tiny pool of Muslim actors; it is very, very difficult,
and we have to carry on working at it.
Q301 David Winnick: During the next Parliamentary
recess I will look up the titles of the soaps that you have mentioned
and see if I shall watch; it might be quite educational. Coming
to the print side of it—perhaps Mr Esser because your paper
seems to be at the forefront of some criticism—would you
take the view that this coverage on extremists, such as one person
in particular, who has obviously been much featured, just makes
better copy, but the danger is that such people, individuals,
who may well be dangerous to the community (and certainly their
remarks, to say the least, are extreme) can be taken as representative
of the whole community because of the way in which your paper,
in particular, prints the stuff? We have quite a lot of coverage
here, which I will not show you, but is the constant focus on
one or two well-known extremists (who may or may not have broken
the law, for all we know, but, as I say, their views are extreme,
to say the least) really necessary? Does it serve much purpose
to give headlines to these individuals on so many occasions?
Mr Esser: I think that extremists
deserve their exposure. We may not always succeed but we always
try to include comment from Muslim leaders showing that this is
not typical of all the imams, this is not typical of all the mosques.
In one particular case we have written several pieces explaining
that the mosque in North London is not typical of all the peaceable
ones up and down the countryside. I think it is certainly a part
of any newspaper's job to expose the rantings and ravings of extremists.
Q302 David Winnick: What about the BNP?
I would be the last person to suggest coverage on an extensive
scale of our homemade national fascists—if that is the way
to describe such people. Your paper would not dream of giving
such coverage to these people, as you make clear. Look at this
sort of stuff [Indicating headlines from copies of the Daily
Mail ].
Mr Esser: I do not think there
is any point in sweeping it under the carpet. The BNP is a vile
organisation. The Daily Mail says so on a regular basis.
Q303 David Winnick: Yes, but what I am
saying is that you would not dream fortunately of giving such
coverage to such extremists, as—
Mr Esser: We have.
Q304 David Winnick: Yes, but nowhere
near on this scale—and, as I say, I am very pleased that
your paper does not, to say the least, unlike, say, in the 1930s.
Why give such extensive coverage to one or two extremists who
happen to claim they speak in the name of Islam?—which we
know is totally repudiated by mainstream Islam opinion. Do you
really not feel that by doing it—and I do not mean you personally
but your paper—it does provide a sort of feeling amongst
your readers that these are not just isolated individuals but
they are representative of a large body of opinion of Muslims
in this country?
Mr Esser: Well, you pick out,
I do not know, half a dozen stories which feature this particular
individual. You should look at the whole picture. There are 350
issues each year of the Daily Mail and I do not think anyone
would suggest that we figure this person every day. One must look
at the balance of these things. It is terribly easy, as Mr Dacre
said in his written evidence, to pick little things, but one must
look at the broader picture. One must look at the analysis which
the Daily Mail runs; the explanations of this person's
extremism; the contrast between the moderates and the non-moderates;
the features that we run by Muslim leaders saying that this man
is not representative of the Muslim community. There are certainly
as many of those as there are pictures of the imam in question.
Q305 David Winnick: May I say, in passing,
since my remarks are clearly critical, that many of us, and certainly
myself, were extremely pleased by the way your paper covered the
Stephen Lawrence story. I think that was a very proud moment for
your newspaper. Your editor refers to it in the memorandum, and
rightly so. I think that should be said as well. Mr Satchwell,
when complaints are made—some of which you have just heard
from me—regarding coverage of minority groups by newspapers,
how are they dealt with? Does your organisation have a policy
apart from the general policy of dealing with complaints from
readers?
Mr Satchwell: As an organisation,
we do not have a policy, but I can tell you that editors of regional
papers would generally deal with complaints themselves; national
papers, bigger organisations, will have senior executives who
are set aside to do that job of dealing with complaints; and of
course the BBC and other TV organisations have their procedures
and they are dealt with very, very carefully. Within the context
of what has been happening over the last few years, since 9/11
particularly, I would say that editors take particular concern
over complaints which come from minority communities.
Q306 David Winnick: Mr Esser, do you
carry articles by representatives of minority communities, particularly
those who find themselves under large attack: Hindus, Muslims,
Sikhs? Do you carry those articles?
Mr Esser: Yes, we do. We have
a very broad church as far as the features side of the newspaper
is concerned. We have carried a great many articles from leaders
of minority groups, many of which I believe Mr Dacre specified
in his written evidence. We are always ready to open our pages
to argument and counter-argument.
Q307 David Winnick: Would you say that
is the same with other newspapers, Mr Satchwell: The Daily
Express, The Sun?
Mr Satchwell: Without picking
on any one particular newspaper, I think that generally, throughout
the national and regional press over the last few years, there
has been a much wider investigation, explanation and reporting
of Muslim issues and other minority issues and I think that leads
to a greater understanding. Certainly editors who are in our membership
have said to us that they have reacted much more vociferously
over the last few years in trying to make sure that they are dealing
with these kinds of community issues properly.
Q308 David Winnick: Finally in this section
of questions, could I ask the two press representatives about
the proposed offence of incitement to religious hatred. Mr Esser,
does your paper oppose that?
Mr Esser: I do not think I can
answer for the editor of the Daily Mail on that one, but
my own view would be that anything which threatens the important
democratic principle of freedom of speech ought to be treated
very, very carefully indeed.
Q309 David Winnick: Do you consider that
would be a threat to the freedom of speech?
Mr Esser: I think it could be
because, whatever the Government may say about what the legislation
will mean, that does not bind future governments. The other point
is I would make is that I doubt the effectiveness of trying to
ban in law human emotions and human feelings.
Q310 David Winnick: You do not take the
view that, since other groups' views are protected by incitement
to race hatred, it does not cover Muslims or Sikhs and therefore
the Government is trying to achieve an even balance between the
minority communities.
Mr Esser: I see that but I would
have thought that the situation is covered by the law and the
attitudes to race.
Q311 David Winnick: The argument is not
covered by race, but be that as it may. Mr Satchwell?
Mr Satchwell: I agree with what
has been said about the dangers which are inherent there. I do
see the genuine attempt to deal with this issue. Editors may have
very differing views and I think some of them out in the regions
will be looking at it in terms of the context of their local communities.
But I think the main point is: if you are trying to deal with
this specific problem, do not create another bigger problem. Part
of that could be created by perhaps creating a greater expectation
amongst Muslims, for example, about where the law might go.
Q312 David Winnick: Could I ask the BBC,
if there had been such a law at the time, do you feel the programme
featuring Alf Garnet would have been subject to charges against
the BBC or attempts by minority communities to bring the BBC to
court?
Ms Powell: I could plead that
it is a little before my time!
Q313 David Winnick: I would understand
that.
Ms Powell: All I can say is that
certainly now, when we repeat—although some of you may think
we repeat endlessly—classic comedy, we do take care with
the content of comedy from the past. There are phrases, scenes,
sometimes characters which were acceptable in the past which are
simply not acceptable in today's society. I do not feel able to
comment on Alf Garnet but I do know that it is an issue at which
we look very, very carefully today. Society changes very, very
quickly. Attitude, and, in particular, terminology, changes so
quickly and really can give offence, and we are very, very, careful
about that. What was funny back in 1975 may not be funny to a
modern-day audience.
David Winnick: Thank you very much.
Q314 Chairman: Just to pursue that point,
in Mr Dacre's evidence he made the point that he thought some
minorities were too sensitive to criticism—and he puts himself
on the side of the people rather than on the side of "self-aggrandising
quangos, self-appointed media critics and even parti-pris
politicians" which I presume is directed at this Committee—but
we have had a Sikh play banned, we have had 30,000 people campaigning
against the BBC's choice of programme for Saturday night. Should
this Committee in our report be coming out and saying, "Look,
everybody just has to be more tolerant of stuff they don't like"?
Mr Esser: Chairman, I would like
to quote to you a paragraph from this morning's Daily Mail,
in which the leader of the Muslim Association of Britain said,
"It is immensely important that we demonstrate a high level
of common sense and tolerance towards one another. Otherwise we
will turn into a society where every utterance is skewed to fit
the political agenda." I think that demonstrates exactly
what Mr Dacre was saying. There is not any doubt that some of
the Muslim leaders have moved towards a situation of more reasonable
comment and do not take every slight as a major insult to the
whole of their community and religion. We have, as I said earlier,
an ongoing dialogue with them, particularly Inayat Bunglawala,
who, again, we quoted this morning. He has been in to visit us.
We have a dialogue. We understand more of the sensitivities of
the Muslim communities.
Q315 Chairman: Mr Esser, I have the gist
of your response. Mr Esser, should we as a Committee be saying
to everybody: "Look, just be more tolerant"?
Mr Esser: I do believe so and
I think Mr Dacre believes so.
Q316 Chairman: Mr Satchwell?
Mr Satchwell: Yes. I think that
paragraph which has just been read out does sum up the situation.
I think most editors at some point become concerned, either locally
or nationally, wherever it is coming from, about the spread of
political correctness. The message that I get so often is that
political correctness in itself can be damaging to community relations.
You have to have some common sense if you are going to have really
cohesive communities.
Q317 Chairman: The final question, if
I may, to either of you from the BBC: If the programme on Saturday
night had been deemed offensive to a similar number of a minority
faith group, would the BBC have taken such a robust position and
shown the programme?
Ms Powell: We both look at each
other! I think it is very difficult for either Mr Easton or me
to speak on behalf of the BBC in such a way—
Chairman: That is a fair answer. We may
pursue it separately. Thank you very much.
Q318 Mr Green: Could I pick up with the
BBC one of the points David Winnick made in relation to newspapers,
which is access to the airwaves, your airwaves specifically, of
white racists, essentially. It has been a long debate in the BBC.
In my misspent youth, when I was a trainee journalist in the BBC,
there was some active debate about the National Front: Should
they be given air time? In a sense, it is even more acute in current
circumstances and with the BNP. They get elected in a few places;
they have a few councillors somewhere. What rights do they have
to express their vile and repellent views on the BBC airwaves?
Mr Easton: I think that is one
for you, Claire!
Ms Powell: We are governed by
the same laws as every other broadcaster, which talk about
representation and which I can send to you in detail. I know that
when the BNP had a party-political film, which they were entitled
to show, we looked at it very carefully. I speak at third-hand,
but the film went backwards and forwards until it was acceptable
both to the BBC and to the legal department. We took programme
legal advice on it. We do not encourage racial hatred and there
is a balance to be struck between people expressing their views
and going beyond what is acceptable. For example, on radio phone-ins
we take tremendous care over whom we put on air and over how we
brief our presenters, particularly on subjects such as asylum
and terrorism. We want a constructive debate. I think that is
what is always aimed for on the BBC, whether it is on radio or
on television—and also on-line. That plays a very big part
in BBC output now and that is something that we look at carefully
when contentious issues are actually being discussed.
Mr Easton: Could I add something
to that which relates perhaps to the Muslim community and the
way that our efforts to try to aid understanding of where al-Qa'eda
come from and the philosophies which drive them. I think actually
it would be very dangerous for us to censor anything that was
said that might actually aid understanding. In other words, you
need to know what these people are saying. You need to offer them
some form of platform, if you like, to explain it. You need always
to be aware of the context. I think it would be dangerous for
any part of the media to self-censor beyond the law of the land
in respect of inciting racial or, in the future, perhaps, religious
hatred. That act of self-censorship ultimately leads to ignorance
about what people are really on about. Certainly in the current
climate people are very anxious to try to reflect why it is that
a young man from Derby or Bradford or Oldham might decide to head
off to an al-Qa'eda training camp in Afghanistan or in Georgia.
If we were to censor in that way, people would not be able to
understand that quite so well.
Q319 Mr Green: Sure, but exactly the
same thing applies to what I was asking. I was asking why respectable
housewives in Burnley vote for the BNP.
Mr Easton: I think we do cover
that.
| 
