The Alex Salmond Show on Kremlin-backed TV channel RT breached broadcasting rules, watchdog Ofcom has ruled.
The broadcast regulator investigated “audience tweets” in the former First Minister's debut show on RT, formerly Russia Today, which aired in November last year.
It found they were presented as having come from viewers, but most were posted by people working on the programme.
The show produced by Mr Salmond's own production company, Slàinte Media was found guilty of breaching a Broadcast Code provision that says factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.
But RT said it had "grave concern" over the process that led to the decision which it said meant Ofcom had not a chance to consider its representations.
And Slainte Media, which makes The Alex Salmond Show said the ruling was "out of all proportion to this very minor matter".
An Ofcom spokeswoman said: “We found this programme broke our rules by misleading its audience.
“A series of messages were presented on-air as having come from viewers. In fact, most of them were from production staff linked to the programme.”
In its ruling following a single complaint made about the broadcast, the watchdog said: "Ofcom considered that viewers would have been under the impression that the four questions quoted by Mr Salmond had originated from members of the public wholly unconnected with the programme or with him, when this was not, in fact, the case.
"The failure to disclose this information meant that viewers were misled. Because viewer trust in this current affairs programme would have been undermined, we considered that this was materially misleading."
The regulator said that TV Novosti, which held the RT broadcast licence, confirmed that four of the six tweets and emails referred to during this broadcast were "sent by people connected either directly or indirectly to the production of the programme or to the presenter in some way".
The regulator concluded that the programme, broadcast last November, was in breach of its code, adding it was “important that the content of current affairs programmes can be relied on by viewers and listeners, as breaches of that trust can result in material harm and offence”.
In its defence, the Slainte Media told Ofcom: "There was no agenda and no attempt to mislead nor can it be seriously argued that there was and the fact that only a single complaint was made demonstrated there was no harm or offence, particularly given the substantial prior publicity and the fact that the whole basis of that single complaint was clearly misconceived."
It said that no one could have had the impression that messages would have come from viewers instead of people connected to the programme as there were no existing viewers because this was the first episode.
And it said to rule out any acquaintance of Mr Salmond would exclude “a very substantial section of the population” from having the right to express their questions to the programme.
Ofcom said Slainte also argued that being an acquaintance of Mr Salmond should not disqualify someone from sending in a question.
Slainte said that to prevent them from doing so would be a limit to their right to freedom of expression, adding that they are just as entitled to have the same right to freedom of expression as any other potential viewer.
In the wake of the ruling RT accused Ofcom of a "notable and worrying example" of "media orchestration" by publicising the findings without giving them notice of the provisional findings for its decision.
RT said it meant Ofcom did not have time to consider its representations on its preliminary view.
"This gives rise to grave concern over the fairness of Ofcom’s process and agenda. The concern is heightened as Ofcom is using powers that exist for protection against serious matters to find a breach in relation to this trivial teething problem – a veritable sledgehammer to crack a nut," RT said.
And a spokesman for Slainte Media, said: “We are pleased that Ofcom in its ruling has rejected the basis of the sole complaint made against the programme and the inaccurate press coverage which provoked it."
This referenced an acknowledgment by the regulator that the questions read out by Mr Salmond were not ‘invented’ as alleged and that only one of the six tweets and emails referred to Brexit.
"Thus it seems extraordinary that, having dismissed the basis of the only complaint which they actually received Ofcom then finds a different reason for an 'in breach' finding, even if it is one which carries no sanction," said the spokesman.
"For the very first programme of a recorded series there were obviously no existing viewers or live tweets to draw on in order to illustrate the audience participation section. Thus we used comment from a variety of sources for the six questions.
"Ofcom suggests that in these circumstances the inclusion of three questions from people with even remote connections to the show is enough for an 'in breach' finding; not because their questions were included but because it was not specifically mentioned that they were from a freelance hairdresser, a friend of a camera man and someone who knew Mr Salmond!
"This ruling is despite the fact that the content of the questions were basically light hearted (eg the English meaning of the Scots Gaelic word Slainte) and clearly pursued no particular agenda nor could possibly have caused any offence. In other words this ruling, even one with no proposed sanction, is out of all proportion to this very minor matter.
"It is worth noting that since this very first Alex Salmond Show was broadcast, last November, and the audience established, we have produced no less than 34 shows featuring this particular section on viewers’ questions with no difficulty or complaint whatsoever.”
In April, the independent press watchdog rejected a complaint from Mr Salmond about The Herald’s reporting of the show.
Mr Salmond had complained about The Herald’s coverage of discrepancies among a series of tweets shown on the show.
Described as coming from an “avalanche” of contacts from the public, these included a tweet from an account which had never tweeted, and a tweet from the show’s series director.
Mr Salmond complained an article headlined “Salmond sparks ‘fake news’ row with new TV show" published online breached the Editor’s Code of Practice with regard to accuracy.
However the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) agreed there had been discrepancies in the comments broadcast on RT and The Herald “had a reasonable basis for characterising the response to this as a ‘fake news’ row.”
IPSO said there was no breach of the accuracy clause of the Code, and hence no need to publish a correction.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel