These reports are case summaries of complaints which appeared to raise issues of substance in relation to the interpretation of the ITC Programme Code. Summary statistics of non-substantive complaints can be found in the full reports which are obtainable from the ITC.
Showing Complaints & Interventions Report for RICHARD AND JUDY
Channel: Channel 4
Date & time: Thursday 1 May: 5.00pm
Category: Accuracy
Complaint from: 1 viewer
Background
Richard and Judy, presented by Richard Madely and Judy Finnigan, appears every weekday on Channel 4 between 5 and 6pm. One item focused on the work of DDAT (Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, and Attention Disorder Treatment) in treating dyslexia. Richard and Judy interviewed Dr Roy Rutherford, DDAT's Medical Director, and two people for whom the treatment was successful.
Issue
One viewer challenged a number of statements made during the programme, to the effect that DDAT treatment methods represented "a long-awaited and remarkable breakthrough", and that DDAT had "pioneered" the theoretical basis of the treatment (that the fault of the dyslexic's brain functioning lay in that part of the brain called the cerebellum). The complainant also queried whether it was legitimate for the programme's website to refer viewers directly to DDAT with no independent assessment of the DDAT treatment on offer.
The reporting of the claims in this item had strong parallels with a programme broadcast on ITV in January 2002 in the Tonight with Trevor McDonald strand. Having consulted with leading dyslexia organisations and other practitioners in the field, the ITC concluded that claims made by this earlier programme that the DDAT treatment was both revolutionary and a breakthrough were not sustainable. That finding was published in the ITC Programme Complaints Report.
Assessment
Channel 4 stated that neither they nor the programme makers, Cactus Television, were aware of the ITC's earlier ruling prior to the broadcast of Richard and Judy. Channel 4 argued that Richard and Judy was not a current affairs programme (such as Tonight with Trevor McDonald ), but a magazine show. Therefore Richard and Judy was not obliged to be exhaustive in its treatment of a subject. This item, Channel 4 claimed, focused on human interest rather than scientific comprehensiveness. While Channel 4 accepted that the tone of the piece was enthusiastic, they said that it was conducted with a proper degree of objectivity and scepticism.
The ITC acknowledges that viewers may not expect quite the same degree of journalistic rigour from an entertainment show that they would expect in a current affairs programme. However, this particular item purported to be factually-based and was clearly designed to be informative. Richard and Judy failed to acknowledge that some of the claims being made about this dyslexia treatment were a matter of debate in the medical and teaching professions. The ITC feels that broadcasters have a particular responsibility to contextualise material in items relating to the treatment of illness or disability in such a way as to leave no room for viewers to be misled. The ITC was not convinced that the background to the type of treatment DDAT offered had been fairly and accurately presented.
As for the reference to DDAT in the programme's website, the ITC Programme Code does not obligate the broadcaster to exercise editorial control to links over other websites. The Channel 4 website makes clear that the broadcaster "is not responsible for third party sites".
Conclusion
The programme was in breach of section 2.1 of the ITC Programme Code.
Footnote: This finding deals exclusively with Channel 4's reporting of DDAT treatment for dyslexia. In making its adjudication, the ITC does not express, nor does it seek to express, any view whatsoever on DDAT as an organisation or the relative efficacy of its treatment for dyslexia, neither of which was the subject of this finding.
|