THE BBC has not answered several key questions from The National asking how Kaye Adams came to read out a text on her show that compared an SNP slogan to the Nazi’s “final solution”.

On the Mornings show on BBC Radio Scotland, Adams read out a contribution from a listener that asked whether the party’s “Tory-free Scotland” slogan was “Humza’s [Yousaf] final solution for dealing with the Tory problem?”

The line is a reference to the Nazi slogan "Endlösung der Judenfrage" – the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question". The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum says this phrase describes "the deliberate and systematic mass murder of European Jews".  

The decision to amplify this comment was condemned by Scottish Government minister Emma Roddick, and SNP MPs Gavin Newlands and Philippa Whitford. 

READ MORE: PMQs: Stephen Flynn quip sparks laughter from MPs and Rishi Sunak

Whitford said it was an “unjustifiable” move as she blasted Adams and the BBC for trivialising a horrendous moment in history.

The National put seven questions to the corporation - after it eventually apologised for the offence caused - asking who decided the text was appropriate to be read out, what action had been taken following the incident and what will be done ensure this lack of editorial judgement does not happen again.

The questions were:

  • The BBC guideline 4.3.3 talks about making "reasoned decisions, applying consistent editorial judgement" on whether to include or omit perspectives. Do you believe this guideline was followed by Kaye Adams and those that work on the programme? 
  • What is the process a listener's text goes through before it is seen by the presenter?
  • What is the decision-making process for deciding whether a text is appropriate to be read out on air? Who is ultimately responsible for deciding whether a text is appropriate to be read-out?
  • You said in your apology that the production team and senior editors have been spoken to. What has been said to the production team and senior editors following this incident?
  • Has anyone spoken to Kaye Adams about her reading out the text? If so, what has been said?
  • What actions will be taken to ensure poor editorial judgement like this does not happen again? 
  • Will the BBC make a public apology for this error of judgement?

 

The BBC was given a deadline of 5pm on Wednesday but has still not acknowledged receipt of the email.

BBC editorial guideline 4.3.3 states: “There is no view on any subject which must be excluded as a matter of principle, but we should make reasoned decisions, applying consistent editorial judgement, about whether to include or omit perspectives.”

The previous guideline, 4.3.2 states:  “…minority views should not necessarily be given similar prominence or weight to those with more support or to the prevailing consensus".