Does the idea of 'impartial journalism' deserve challenging?

Jeremy Paxman - The BBC's Newsnight anchorman

I’d like to look at how the requirement that is placed upon public broadcasters to be impartial impacts upon the quality of democracy in the UK. It’s a complex question, and I’d like to explore it over a few posts.

‘Impartial’ can mean many things. The most obvious expression of it is in the guidelines that ensure that correspondents are not imposing their own views on a story, and are instead attempting to assemble the facts – only the facts – for the viewers to review and draw their conclusions. The contrast between a fairly activist newspaper such as the UK’s Daily Mail (or perhaps, even better, Fox News in the US) and the BBC illustrates this very well.

Impartiality is also understood, at least in part, as a relative term – locating oneself at a ‘mid-point’ between the various mainstream political poles. Impartial journalists in the UK until recently would be expected to ensure that the current political centre of gravity – the variations upon the post-Thatcher consensus – are reflected in all debates. Similarly, in the early 1960s, they would have done the same for the Butskellite consensus. Now, in the post-Lehmans / Obama age, perhaps we will see another such shift?

Also, when we watch a news report, we can’t avoid looking at the people delivering it. They offer all kinds of nuances – either those of their social class or their political background.

It would be fair to say that few people arrive in a TV studio with their political virginity intact. They may attempt to be balanced on-camera, but the colour of their vests often shine through. The BBC’s Nick Robinson was a Conservative student activist. Andrew Marr edited a slightly left-liberal newspaper, and so on. Newsnight’s Paul Mason is thought to have a background in left-of-Labour politics and was certainly known as a fairly enthusiastic trades unionist when he edited Computer Weekly.

In order to report political issues, the BBC (wisely perhaps) hires people who have a rapport with politicians. This presents problems of its own. A very concrete challenge to the sociological make-up of the BBC was offered a while ago by an Irish Republican writer – Jim Gibney. Here, he called for the BBC to hire journalists to reflect the views of the electorate.

It may not be a view Gibney would have held a few years ago, but you can see why he’s on this one now. Because Sinn Féin have enjoyed a relatively rapid period of political growth over recent years, they may have a right to feel that the BBC isn’t stocked with ex-Shinner activists – and that this works against his party.

Is it possible for journalists to really mask their preferences? Should we be asking public broadcasters to go for a ‘diversity’ model of impartiality instead? Would we not be better served by lots of named correspondents with fairly well-known prejudices calling things as they really see them – rather than attempting the charade of even-handedness?

I would like to explore this in more detail, and I’ll be picking it up shortly as part of a wider questioning of how the word ‘impartial’ regulates democratic discourse – often with questionable results.

Update: Slugger O’Toole has picked this post up and the comments there are worth a look