On the first two points, the ECU found that the inclusion of the n-word in the broadcast (which was also streamed live on iPlayer) was highly offensive, had no editorial justification and represented a breach of the BBC’s editorial standards, but that the breach was unintentional.  The members of the production team who were monitoring the event in the outside broadcast vehicle all say they did not hear or recognise the n-word[1] when it occurred at about 14 minutes and 45 seconds into the broadcast (while Delroy Lindo and Michael B Jordan were introducing the first award).  The ECU accepted their account, for two reasons. Firstly, the use of the n-word in that instance was extremely indistinct, to the point where it might well not have been recognised by the production team.  Secondly, there was another occurrence of the n-word about 10 minutes later, which was recognised by the production team and immediately edited out in accordance with the protocols on offensive language which were in place.  There is no reason to conclude they would have applied the protocols in one case while deliberately ignoring them in the other.  The ECU noted, however, that the BBC received one complaint from a viewer about the use of the n-word in the segment of the programme concerned while the programme was still on air and another very shortly after it ended. While this tends to support the view that the word was almost unintelligible (because we would expect a use of the word which had been clear to viewers in general to have caused a large number of complaints during the broadcast and immediately afterwards), it also means that we cannot say it was entirely so.

In relation to the third point, the ECU also finds that there was a breach of the BBC’s editorial standards.  The production team became aware shortly after the transmission of the first award that the interjection while Delroy Lindo and Michael B Jordan were on stage consisted of the n-word.  There was a lack of clarity among the team as to whether the n-word was audible on the recording.  This resulted in there being a delay before a decision was taken to remove the recording from iPlayer; that decision was not taken until approximately 9.30 the following morning.  In the ECU’s view, this delay was a serious mistake, because there could be no certainty that the word would be inaudible to all viewers, and because there was a greater likelihood of its being found intelligible by viewers coming to the iPlayer in the knowledge that it had been spoken (the fact that the n-word had been included at that point in the programme became widely discussed overnight on social media and had become the subject of broadcast news stories by the time the decision to remove the programme from iPlayer was taken).  The fact that the unedited recording remained available for so long aggravated the offence caused by the inadvertent inclusion of the n-word in the broadcast.

In relation to the fourth point, many complaints characterised the excision of part of Akinola Davies Jr’s acceptance speech as an instance of censorship improperly applied to views which, though contentious in the eyes of some, Mr Davies had a right to express – in effect, as a misapplication of the BBC’s editorial standards of impartiality.  The ECU found, however, that the production team’s decision did not hinge on considerations of impartiality.  The principal consideration was that approximately three hours of recorded material had to be edited to fit a two-hour transmission slot. The priority in the editing was to focus on the main thrust of the event, namely the content being celebrated. As is usual in coverage of events of this kind, cuts were made in some of the longer acceptance speeches, including that of Mr Davies.  The reasons why the editing of the speech, taken with what may have appeared to viewers as a decision not to edit the n-word, gave rise to critical comment were readily apparent to the ECU.  But, as explained above, there was no such decision in relation to the n-word – and it appeared to the ECU that the content of what was cut from Mr Davies’ speech played no part in the decision to edit it except to the extent that it was remote from the event’s main thrust and the likely focus of the audience’s interest.  The ECU therefore concluded that the editing of his speech did not raise an issue of editorial standards.

[1] It was spoken by John Davidson, author of “I Swear: My Life with Tourette’s”, which was the inspiration for the film which won the Leading Actor and Casting awards and was also nominated for Best Film. The complaints showed a high level of awareness that Mr Davidson’s interjection was an involuntary result of his condition, and that no blame attached to him.

Upheld in relation to Harm and Offence