Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 8, 2008 20:21:25 GMT
While the fact that the BBC purposefully tried to defame this IVF specialist, and has now been ordered to pay him £500k for doing so is bad enough, but that it continues to try and justify its behaviour until they are cornered just adds to their unethical character.
Read how the BBC misrepresented its 'independant panel' to put across the 'truth' they wanted portrayed.
Read how the BBC misrepresented its 'independant panel' to put across the 'truth' they wanted portrayed.
BBC ordered to pay £500,000 to IVF expert Mohamed Taranissi
The BBC has been ordered to pay an estimated £500,000 to a leading fertility expert after a Panorama investigation which he alleges used "Alice in Wonderland" tactics to libel him.
By Graham Tibbetts
Last Updated: 8:30PM BST 08 Oct 2008
Mr Mohamed Taranissi: 'I knew [the BBC] could not defend its position' Photo: PA
Mohamed Taranissi claimed that the programme made defamatory allegations about his techniques in treating infertile couples.
Mr Taranissi, whose two clinics have been rated the most successful in the country, is suing the corporation for libel.
At the High Court the BBC confirmed it was abandoning a key part of its defence so that it does not run the risk of revealing its sources ahead of the trial next year.
Mr Justice Eady said that Mr Taranissi, 53, was entitled to payment of his costs relating solely to the BBC's "Reynolds" defence of qualified privilege for responsible journalism in the public interest, which it has withdrawn.
Mr Taranissi's counsel, Richard Rampton QC, said that the BBC had "thrown in the towel" but the Corporation continues to deny libel and is still claiming the defence of justification.
Mr Rampton also attacked the "one-sided and biased programme" which focused on his Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre in London.
He said it was "deliberately distorted to portray claimants in the worst possible light."
Among Mr Taranissi's complaints are that the programme, aired in 2007, used a panel of six independent experts - including Lord Winston - who criticised his techniques.
"The inescapable conclusion is that the statement made on the programme was intended to fool the viewing public into thinking these experts were truly independent," said Mr Rampton.
Although the programme, IVF Undercover, said the panel were not aware of the clinic being investigated, Mr Taranissi claims they not only knew the clinic's identity but helped choose the undercover patients who visited it.
"Far from being a body of independent experts coming to meet for the first time - five out of six had involvement in the programme and knew who it was aimed at for several months before it was broadcast," said Mr Rampton.
He said that Panorama had claimed its investigation was based on 100 sources.
However, these had dwindled to 17 and included a secretary, he claimed, describing the BBC's tactics as akin to "Alice in Wonderland".
The BBC initially chose to defend the action on the grounds of responsible journalism and justification but has now dropped the former.
Mr Rampton added: "I wish to seek a ruling that (the BBC pay the) costs of this issue which has been withdrawn in this extraordinary way, so that (Mr Taranissi) knows that he is going to be reimbursed by this defendant for all the time, money, energy and effort he has expended on what now turns out to be a puff of smoke and has been from the beginning."
He went on: "It's not that the case has crumbled but that it has never been made."
Adrienne Page QC, for the BBC, said Panorama relied on more than 100 sources, half of which were patients and half of which were "clinical or other professionals - working in a professional capacity in the field".
Referring to the panel of experts she said: "We explained that they were not told where the undercover filming had taken place. They weren't told it was from any one clinic and they weren't told it has anything to do with Taranissi. They may have surmised that Taranissi was among them because his is one of the few clinics where (the treatment) is practised."
She said that the panel had "some involvement in setting up the profiles (of the undercover reporters) with a view to filming" but added that they had not chosen them.
"The BBC stands fully behind its journalism and fully behind the programme."
The details of the costs have still to be worked out but are expected to run to more than £500,000.
Mr Taranissi, who has helped mothers give birth to 2,300 babies in seven years, said afterwards: "I am very pleased that the BBC has withdrawn this major part of its defence. I knew it could not defend its position.
"Indeed, it's very surprising that it chose to go ahead with the programme at all."
The trial is expected to begin in January.
The BBC has been ordered to pay an estimated £500,000 to a leading fertility expert after a Panorama investigation which he alleges used "Alice in Wonderland" tactics to libel him.
By Graham Tibbetts
Last Updated: 8:30PM BST 08 Oct 2008
Mr Mohamed Taranissi: 'I knew [the BBC] could not defend its position' Photo: PA
Mohamed Taranissi claimed that the programme made defamatory allegations about his techniques in treating infertile couples.
Mr Taranissi, whose two clinics have been rated the most successful in the country, is suing the corporation for libel.
At the High Court the BBC confirmed it was abandoning a key part of its defence so that it does not run the risk of revealing its sources ahead of the trial next year.
Mr Justice Eady said that Mr Taranissi, 53, was entitled to payment of his costs relating solely to the BBC's "Reynolds" defence of qualified privilege for responsible journalism in the public interest, which it has withdrawn.
Mr Taranissi's counsel, Richard Rampton QC, said that the BBC had "thrown in the towel" but the Corporation continues to deny libel and is still claiming the defence of justification.
Mr Rampton also attacked the "one-sided and biased programme" which focused on his Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre in London.
He said it was "deliberately distorted to portray claimants in the worst possible light."
Among Mr Taranissi's complaints are that the programme, aired in 2007, used a panel of six independent experts - including Lord Winston - who criticised his techniques.
"The inescapable conclusion is that the statement made on the programme was intended to fool the viewing public into thinking these experts were truly independent," said Mr Rampton.
Although the programme, IVF Undercover, said the panel were not aware of the clinic being investigated, Mr Taranissi claims they not only knew the clinic's identity but helped choose the undercover patients who visited it.
"Far from being a body of independent experts coming to meet for the first time - five out of six had involvement in the programme and knew who it was aimed at for several months before it was broadcast," said Mr Rampton.
He said that Panorama had claimed its investigation was based on 100 sources.
However, these had dwindled to 17 and included a secretary, he claimed, describing the BBC's tactics as akin to "Alice in Wonderland".
The BBC initially chose to defend the action on the grounds of responsible journalism and justification but has now dropped the former.
Mr Rampton added: "I wish to seek a ruling that (the BBC pay the) costs of this issue which has been withdrawn in this extraordinary way, so that (Mr Taranissi) knows that he is going to be reimbursed by this defendant for all the time, money, energy and effort he has expended on what now turns out to be a puff of smoke and has been from the beginning."
He went on: "It's not that the case has crumbled but that it has never been made."
Adrienne Page QC, for the BBC, said Panorama relied on more than 100 sources, half of which were patients and half of which were "clinical or other professionals - working in a professional capacity in the field".
Referring to the panel of experts she said: "We explained that they were not told where the undercover filming had taken place. They weren't told it was from any one clinic and they weren't told it has anything to do with Taranissi. They may have surmised that Taranissi was among them because his is one of the few clinics where (the treatment) is practised."
She said that the panel had "some involvement in setting up the profiles (of the undercover reporters) with a view to filming" but added that they had not chosen them.
"The BBC stands fully behind its journalism and fully behind the programme."
The details of the costs have still to be worked out but are expected to run to more than £500,000.
Mr Taranissi, who has helped mothers give birth to 2,300 babies in seven years, said afterwards: "I am very pleased that the BBC has withdrawn this major part of its defence. I knew it could not defend its position.
"Indeed, it's very surprising that it chose to go ahead with the programme at all."
The trial is expected to begin in January.