Prominent UK media personalities have penned a letter to King Charles, seeking a dialogue concerning the Royal Television Society’s (RTS) recent cancellation of a journalism award dedicated to reporters in Gaza.
As the Royal Patron of the RTS, King Charles has been approached by a coalition of nearly 400 individuals who are calling for clarity and transparency in the decision-making process regarding the RTS journalism awards.
Signatories of the letter include notable BBC figures like Jonathan Dimbleby, Orla Guerin, and Fergal Keane, as well as Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Matt Frei. Dimbleby has openly criticized the RTS’s actions as cowardly.
The controversy began when the RTS decided to eliminate a special recognition award for Gaza journalists, citing concerns about escalating tensions surrounding the BBC documentary Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone, which faced criticism after it was revealed that the child narrator was the son of a Hamas minister. This decision has sparked widespread criticism, leading to the drafting of the letter by the Artists for Palestine UK group.
The letter highlights the sacrifices of 170 journalists who have died in Gaza, urging the RTS to reconsider and acknowledge the significant efforts of these reporters through the Special Award, which is intended to honor exceptional journalistic work outside conventional categories.
The letter addresses several concerns including the RTS’s decision-making process, the criteria and justification for the award, the need for procedural transparency, consistency in award handling, and the organization’s commitment to diversity.
The letter queries the specifics of how the decision was made, noting reports of RTS being influenced by external lobbying. Adrian Wells, chair of the RTS Television Journalism Awards, acknowledged in an email that the award had become politicized, referencing criticism from conservative media and Channel 4 News’ coverage involving the son of a Hamas government official.
The signatories argue that failing to reinstate the award could damage the RTS’s reputation and that of the British media at large. They express a keen interest in receiving a written response to this pressing issue.
The group has formally requested a meeting with King Charles and has shared their correspondence widely. Updates on their progress will be provided.
The RTS has been contacted for a statement regarding the letter. A spokesperson for the RTS mentioned that due to ongoing investigations into several news reports from Gaza, they felt it inappropriate to proceed with the award this year.
The letter in full
Dear Chair and Members of the Board,
We, television and film professionals including members, nominees, and winners of the Royal Television Society (RTS) awards, are writing to express our dismay at the decision to withdraw the 2025 Special Award, which was to acknowledge the journalists in Gaza documenting the conflict—a task that has tragically cost the lives of at least 170 journalists.
Originally, these journalists were to be honored at the Television Journalism Awards on March 5, 2025, but the decision was reversed on the award day. The Special Award is designed to recognize significant contributions to video journalism that transcend typical categories. The journalists in Gaza have accomplished this with their exceptional coverage, which, despite severe challenges, has brought the harsh realities of war to a global audience. Their work exemplifies the qualities of resourcefulness, creativity, and enterprise under extreme conditions, which are highly valued in the RTS awards criteria.
We are particularly concerned about the opacity of the decision to withdraw the award. The Special Award, according to your criteria, is granted at the discretion of the Society following a process that involves discussions and recommendations from Jury Chairs and nominators. This raises significant questions: Who participated in the decision-making process, and why was the Special Award for Gaza journalists withheld?
As members of the broader media community who uphold the principles of journalistic integrity, transparency, and recognition of exceptional work in challenging circumstances, we seek clarity on several aspects of this decision.
1. Decision-Making Process:
Could you please provide details on how this decision was reached? According to your published criteria, Special Awards are granted or deferred at the discretion of the Society following discussions and guidance from Jury Chairs and Entrants representatives, with recommendations from the RTS Committee of Neutral Chairs. We would like to understand:
- Who made the decision to revoke the Special Award? Was it the full Board of Trustees, a specific awards committee, or another body within the RTS structure? What role did the Chief Executive or other staff play? What consultations were held prior to this decision?
- What is the detailed timeline for the decision-making process, including initial concerns, discussions within the RTS leadership, and the formal basis and communication of the final decision?
- Was the initial decision to recognize Gaza journalists made through the established process outlined in your Television Journalism Awards Rules?
- Was the reversal of this decision carried out through the same process?
- Which specific body within the RTS had the final authority in this matter?
- Were all relevant stakeholders, including the Committee of Neutral Chairs, Jury Chairs, and nominators properly consulted at each stage?
- Were any representatives or members of the Centres Council or the Principal Patrons Group consulted?
- Were minutes kept of any meetings regarding this matter?
2. Criteria and Justification:
The RTS Journalism Awards’ criteria highlight several factors that are particularly relevant to the work of Gaza journalists:
– “Quality of the journalism… particularly in the context of the type of market where the entry is mainly targeted”
– “Impact and resonance with the target audience”
– “Enterprise… creative, original, resourceful and imaginative approaches”
– “Technical quality… measured in the context of production pressures; for example, turn-round time and the conditions under which an item is produced”
Given that journalists in Gaza have been working under unprecedented danger to provide eyewitness documentation of a major international conflict—often with minimal equipment, disrupted communications, and at great personal cost, including serious injury and loss of life—their work appears to epitomize these criteria in extraordinary ways. We would like to understand the specific rationale for withdrawing recognition that would appear to align so strongly with these stated values.
In a statement provided to The New Arab, the RTS mentioned: “Investigations have recently been launched into a number of news reports from Gaza and, as those reviews are ongoing, we didn’t feel it was appropriate to proceed with the award this year.”
As the RTS has made explicit its assertion of a link between the Special Award and those other news reports from Gaza, could you explain to us what the nature of that link is? What do alleged mistakes made as the results of editorial decisions and/or failures within broadcasters in London have to do with a cohort of people reporting in the most deadly conflict for journalists since the Second World War?
Further, in relation to this statement, we would like to note point 4 of the RTS Awards conditions of entry (below) and to point out that no regulatory investigation has been announced in relation to any Gaza films. On the contrary, OFCOM last week announced they would NOT be conducting a regulatory investigation into the BBC’s film, and would allow the BBC to independently make their own internal reviews. Does this mean that ANY programme which is subject to an internal review by its broadcaster can, as a result, have its designated awards rescinded from it because those internal reviews are underway?
4. REGULATORY ISSUES: If an entry is under investigation for any reason, the entrant should make this known at the time of entry. The RTS may reject an entry which is subject to a regulatory investigation.
3. Procedural Transparency:
Given that it has been widely reported that the RTS has been lobbied on this matter, we ask the following questions:
Were any external factors or pressures involved in this reversal? What lobbying did the RTS become subject to, from whom, at which time? Where lobbying was done by special interest groups, were any efforts made to seek out counter-balancing sources or views and were those also taken into consideration? If so, please provide details of those counter-balancing arguments and who they were sought from.
Please also provide details of all emails and discussions from the RTS around this discussion and decision.
Was this decision to withdraw the Special Award made in accordance with the RTS Articles of Association and the established rules and procedures for your awards programs?
4. Precedent and Consistency:
Has the RTS previously considered or awarded Special Awards to journalists working in conflict zones? If so, were any of those withdrawn? If not, what distinguishes those situations from the current circumstances in Gaza such that they could be awarded but this award to journalists in Gaza could not?
At last year’s RTS Awards, there was going to be an award presented to Palestinian journalists too, but it was felt that it was too soon after 7 October 2023. Is this still the case 18 months on?
5. Diversity Commitment:
The RTS awards criteria explicitly state that “judges are asked to ensure that these awards reflect diversity within the industry and within wider society.” Given this stated commitment, we question whether the withdrawal of recognition for journalists working in Gaza upholds this principle of reflecting diverse perspectives, particularly from a region where independent journalism faces extreme challenges.
The work of journalists in Gaza during this conflict has been recognized globally for its courage and importance. Many of these journalists have lost colleagues, family members, and homes while continuing to report. Over 170 have lost their own lives. Their commitment to bearing witness under extraordinary circumstances represents the highest ideals of our profession.
We are concerned that the decision to withdraw the Special Award for Gaza’s journalists, and the manner in which it has been made, reveal a concerning lack of independence, due process, and accountability at the RTS.
Does the manner in which this has been done mean that ANY award can be rescinded after a RTS jury has decided it?
Is the RTS suggesting everyone in Gaza, and specifically its journalists, can be assumed to be guilty of something and must be proven innocent before they are worthy of recognition for their hard work and sacrifices? Has the RTS ever applied this standard to any other groups of journalists anywhere else in the world?
We urge the RTS to reconsider its stance and re-evaluate the extraordinary efforts of these journalists. Their coverage is precisely the type of work that should be honored through the Special Award, which aims to acknowledge achievements outside traditional categories. Failure to recognize these contributions undermines the RTS’s commitment to integrity, diversity, and excellence in journalism.
As you may know, a number of RTS members have in the last few days resigned their memberships of your organization as a result of your decision. We urge you to treat their concerns and ours with the seriousness and urgency which they merit. It is imperative that British television bodies abide by – and are seen to abide by – the same high standards of impartiality, balance, and due process that we demand of the freelance journalists who are dying in unprecedented numbers in order to bring the news to British screens.
We strongly urge that the RTS Board of Trustees reinstates the Special Award at the RTS Television Awards ceremony. Not to do so will continue to cause further serious damage to the reputation of the RTS, and the British media more widely. We ask that RTS leadership meet with a delegation from among our numbers to discuss what has happened, as soon as possible.
We look forward to receiving your response in writing on this pressing and urgent matter.
Yours faithfully,
Daniel Hayes is a business journalist with a focus on market trends, startups, and corporate strategies.
His sharp analysis and investigative reports make complex financial topics accessible to all readers.
