Manx Radio failed to ensure that a claim made by its director of programming was accurate.

Alex Brindley was not named by the Communications and Utilities Regulatory Authority, but the edition of the Mannin Line which sparked the complaint is available on YouTube.

On June 29, 2022, Mr Brindley was hosting the show with guest Kate Lord-Brennan MHK, who was appearing in her role as Minister for the Cabinet Office. After a phone call from a woman who raised the issue of a disconnect with Manx Care, Mr Brindley began asking Mrs Lord-Brennan about the government’s communications team and transparency.

He said: ‘We have been told repeatedly by a civil servant in your department that we should not put in freedom of information requests for ministers for off-island costs, as an example.

‘Now surely this is stuff that the communications team and your department should be trying to be as transparent as possible, is it a case that communications is there almost as a spin department to stop bad news getting out?’

Mrs Lord-Brennan denied that this was the case and said that freedom of information request is not the responsibility of the communications team. Following this, a person complained that Manx Radio had essentially got it wrong and asked for a correction to be made.

A complaint was then received by the CURA from ‘an individual acting in a personal capacity’, that person was Peter Boxer, who was a senior civil servant until earlier this year.

The complaint received by the CURA on the August 8, 2022, alleged that Manx Radio had ‘broadcast claims during a live interview with the Minister for the Cabinet Office which were believed to be inaccurate and lacked impartiality’.

The CURA reviewed all of the information provided and was of the view that, among other things, the documentation provided evidence of:

•The statement broadcast by Manx Radio being based on recollections of indefinite verbal remarks made by one individual to individual members of Manx Radio’s news team, but also indicated that there was no explicit written or recorded evidence;

•The various questions, which culminated in an accusation being put to the interviewee during the broadcast and could reasonably be construed as one of serious wrong-doing, were pre-determined by Manx Radio in advance of the programme being broadcast; and,

•The steps Manx Radio had taken to review and respond to the complainant prior to the complaint being referred to the authority.

The regulator said that in its response, Manx Radio ‘undertook to qualify the information and sources that informed the statement made after the broadcast took place, but not beforehand’.

evidence

It said that the taxpayer-backed station had: ‘Provided the authority with excerpts of emails between various members of Manx Radio’s news team, together with excerpts of contemporaneous notes made by members of its news team during two communications/media briefings as evidence to support the statement broadcast.’

The station also put forward the case that the statement made on Mannin Line was not broadcast as a news programme.

Subject to a further allegation that it had failed to ensure that Ms Lord-Brennan had been made adequately aware of the format, subject matter and purpose of the programme, it said that there is often a natural flow to interviews and that questions are often raised in response to other issues raised in the moment.

CURA found that Manx Radio could not prove that its staff were ever told not to put a freedom of information request to the Cabinet Office for off-island travel costs.

It added: ‘While the authority accepts Manx Radio’s argument that there can be a natural flow to interviews and that questions are often raised in response to other issues raised in the moment, the evidence clearly demonstrates that there is no doubt that the series of questions and statements made by Manx Radio during the broadcast in question were predetermined, and leaves little doubt that Manx Radio intended to lead the interviewee to respond to a specific allegation.

‘The evidence also leaves little doubt that Manx Radio intended to put the allegation to the interviewee regardless of the flow of conversation in that moment.’

Reacting to the CURA’s findings, Mr Boxer said: ‘I welcome CURA’s ruling and thank them for their work. I however regret the amount of time and resources that they and I have had to spend on this issue over almost 12 months. A correction and apology would have prevented this.

‘As documents show, the incident on which CURA have ruled was the result of long-standing and systemic contempt for me by Manx Radio and a petty desire to discredit me publicly.

‘Manx Radio actively planned to make the serious allegation about my integrity directly to my employer on live radio. They made no prior effort to check its accuracy. They accused me of doing something that I simply had not done and then allowed me neither the opportunity to defend myself nor a right of reply. This is unprofessional, distasteful and hurtful.

‘After the incident, I asked the person who made the allegation to correct it and apologise. He did not. I then sent a formal complaint to the managing director and the chair. They rejected my complaint and invited me to refer the matter to the regulator. I did so and am grateful to CURA for setting the record straight.

‘Manx Radio is a publicly-funded broadcaster.

‘It has a responsibility to uphold the high standards that taxpayers expect and deserve. In this instance, personal animosity displaced professional standards and regulatory obligations.

‘That is unacceptable. I hope that the Manx Radio board will now consider the matter carefully.’

The station has released its own news item on this, in which managing director Chris Sully said: ‘We have worked with CURA throughout this inquiry.

‘We would like to thank the authority for its work and we will act on the recommendations made.’