6.4.3.4 The Value of Impartial Reporting
The value of impartial reporting is that it gives people an unbiased picture of what politicians are doing, to hold them to account.
If people choose channels which reinforce their views, the value of media contribution to public debate is much reduced – because a divided audience cannot know what has been omitted and what degree of ‘spin’ is being applied. Instead of interaction there is a deepening polarisation. As noted above, some media outlets aim to please a target audience and they disregard truthfulness and objectivity (6.4.3.3). And there has been no requirement since 1987 for US broadcasters to be impartial.
Impartiality
It is usually possible to find published fact-checks on major speeches or party manifestos (platforms), but not all reporting can easily be checked. Ad Fontes Media publishes a chart on media bias, mapping reliability of reporting on one axis and political leaning on the other – as assessed by chosen panels of American commentators. It shows One America News Network (OAN) as “Hyper-Partisan Right”, for example, with its output being classified as “Selective or Incomplete Story / Unfair Persuasion”. Subscribers to the Ad Fontes service can ask for any article on any outlet to be checked.
It would clearly be less time-consuming for people to have access to a media outlet that they can trust. Three outlets with a strong economic focus – The Economist, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times – were highly rated for reliability, but they require subscriptions and they are not targeted at the general public.
The New York Times declared that “We seek the truth and help people understand the world”. The Washington Post has a similar aim: “Democracy Dies in Darkness”. Both organisations are claiming a degree of objectivity, but both have been accused of being slightly to the left of centre in the American political landscape. They also require subscriptions.
A news organisation needs a stable income to maintain the resources necessary for investigative reporting. Advertising revenue would be higher for outlets with a wider public appeal, but subscriptions can provide stability. People with a serious interest in politics are prepared to pay these subscriptions, and PatternsofPower.org has several – but it tries to quote them sparingly, to avoid inconveniencing its readership. It uses the BBC and Reuters where possible.
The BBC
It is rated highly for reliability and its website is stable, so it is a preferred source for this book. The BBC Charter states its mission:
“The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.”
The Charter requirement for impartiality is potentially a problem for the BBC, as noted in a New Statesman article on The BBC and the battle for truth:
“If its journalists strive to be bolder, what one person considers courageous will be to another nothing more than bias. And if its reporters eschew controversy altogether, the public may, as we move on from the pandemic, simply turn to news outlets offering more vivid representations of the world.”
BBC employees have political views, as does everyone, but the Charter prevents news reporting from being biased. A controversy over Gary Lineker’s personal opinions was entirely artificial, for example, as noted on this website. He has as much right to free speech as any another individual, and he is clearly not a news reporter.
The BBC is often criticised for a liberal bias, notably by Conservative politicians and some newspapers but, as Professor Ivor Gaber remarked in his Analysis: The Beeb, the bias and the bashing, “newspapers see the BBC as a formidable competitor, not just for audiences but for income as well”. He noted that there are “demonstrable connections between the BBC and Conservatives” and a “paucity of connections on the other side”, and cited Hard Evidence: how biased is the BBC? as showing that BBC coverage “tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world”.
It is funded by a licence fee, which is mandatory for all British households with televisions (but access to its website does not require a licence). The licence fee is highly contentious, and is being reviewed. It is also a source of vulnerability, because the amount that can be charged is under political control and there is a danger of the corporation trying to avoid antagonising the government of the day.
Reuters
PatternsofPower.org has recently taken to quoting Reuters more often, for several reasons:
● Its impartiality as a provider of factual information is above reproach. Its declared purpose is: “Together, we help inform the way forward to a more understanding, trusting world for all”.
● It has considerable resources and global reach, gathering news from all over the world.
● Its website is stable.
● It is not under political pressure, whereas the BBC faces problems.
● Occasional users do not require a subscription, but may need to register. Media organisations pay for the right to regularly quote Reuters reports – so its trustworthiness is an essential part of its business model.
Trust
The value of impartial reporting depends upon people trusting it. The BBC provides a lot of impartial and educative material as, for example, in its coverage of general elections – where it makes every party’s manifesto available. It was also able to act as umpire in assessing the truthfulness of statements made by rival politicians in 2016 in its Reality Check: The EU referendum.
It would be better if falsehoods and misleading statements were challenged at the time that they were uttered, and the BBC was criticised for not doing this. It has a formal duty to report both sides of every political argument, but it should also comment on lack of honesty. It has sometimes, but not always, done so.
There are obvious dangers in having an officially-sanctioned source of news if it could be manipulated by a government and used for propaganda – though people would quickly realise that this was happening and would cease to trust it. The BBC is trying to escape that fate. Reuters does not have the same problem (but nor is it trying to provide a broad national information and education service). There will always be a role for trustworthy commercial media organisations.
This page is intended to form part of Edition 4 of the Patterns of Power series of books. An archived copy of it is held at https://www.patternsofpower.org/edition04/6434a.htm.