NewsBreakingOnline

Conservative MP says media regulator ‘entirely missed the point’ of his claim that news programme misled viewers Zac Goldsmith has reacted angrily to a ruling by Ofcom after the media regulator rejected a complaint he made about a Channel 4 News interview in which the MP clashed with the programme’s presenter, Jon Snow. Goldsmith said the regulator had “entirely missed the point” of his complaint and said he was “puzzled by its workings”. Ofcom also refused to uphold his complaint about a Channel 4 news report which accused the Conservative MP for Richmond of bending the rules on how much parliamentary candidates are allowed to spend on election expenses. The regulator’s ruling had said Channel 4 gave Goldsmith “an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond to the allegations”, which were contained in a 15 July report. Goldsmith complained the broadcaster had conveyed the impression that he had refused to be interviewed by the programme. Ofcom said this was not the case. The interview between Goldsmith and Snow took place the following day, 16 July, live on Channel 4 News. Goldsmith arrived at short notice, and the extended interview became increasingly heated as Goldsmith accused Channel 4 News of misleading viewers. But Ofcom concluded in its ruling: “Given that Mr Goldsmith was able to put forward his response to all the assertions relating to his offer to contribute to the 15 July programme … the programme as broadcast was fair.” Channel 4 News said Goldsmith had spent slightly less than the £10,000 legal limit on his successful 2010 general election campaign. But an analysis of those expenses suggested he had underpaid for several items. If had paid the full price, the expenses would have come to more than £10,000, it claimed. Goldsmith said: “Despite eight months of deliberation, Ofcom has entirely missed the point of my complaint. Given some of its recent judgments, I assume I am not alone in being puzzled by its workings. What matters is that Channel 4′s allegations about my general election campaign expenditure were dismissed by the Electoral Commission.” The Channel 4 News editor, Jim Gray, said: “We have always maintained that our investigation into Mr Goldsmith’s election spending, and our dealings with him throughout have been absolutely fair and balanced – so it is pleasing to see Ofcom’s research into his complaints reach the same conclusions.” Following Ofcom’s ruling, Snow demanded an apology from Goldsmith. He used his Twitter account to say: “Ofcom find against Zac Goldsmith on every single count of his complaint again myself and C4 News. Is an apology in the post from the MP? In the 10-minute live interview in the Channel 4 News studio, Goldsmith objected to the assertion the previous day that he had chosen to give an interview about the allegations to Sky News. Goldsmith insisted he had offered to be interviewed at 5.30pm on 15 July, 90 minutes before the programme was aired. Snow said Channel 4 had been seeking a response to the accusations for a week and accused Goldsmith of “bottling it”. He said Goldsmith’s claims were: “a travesty of the truth”. Ofcom pointed out in its ruling that six minutes of the interview were spent discussing Goldsmith’s complaint about the way his offer to do an interview had been reported. “During this time, Mr Goldsmith was able to put forward his version of events running up to the 15 July broadcast. Mr Goldsmith was able to assert that Jon Snow’s version of events was untrue.” The programme’s editor, Gray, added: “When you commit to asking awkward questions you accept that your findings may provoke criticism – so we welcome Ofcom’s thorough handling of the complaints, and their vindication of our journalism. At the centre of all of this remain important questions about the clarity and enforcement of campaign spending limits.” The Electoral Commission investigated Goldsmith’s expenses and said in December that it would not be taking further action. However, it criticised his claim as “unclear in places”. It also said the practice of combining expenditure on Goldsmith’s parliamentary campaign with money spent on the local election campaign fought at the same time “was not consistent with the commission’s guidance or good practice”. •