Global Journalism Review

Big-hitters in TV impartiality debate

by Nicholas Jones

Two of Britain’s leading thinkers in the development of television news went head-to-head in a debate over demands that the rules on impartiality should be relaxed so as to allow broadcast journalism to become biased and opinionated.

Chris Shaw, Channel 5’s controller of news and current affairs, argued for a loosening in the regulations, claiming that "news with a slant" would create real diversity. Richard Tait, ITN’s former editor-in-chief, warned of the danger of allowing broadcasting in Britain to go down the American route. He feared that if Channel 5 was able to ape Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel then the public’s high level of trust in broadcasters would plummet.

The debate, organised by the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom and held at the headquarters of the National Union of Journalists, on June 23, could hardly have been more topical. The Independent Television Commission had just given the pro-war Fox News the all-clear after British viewers complained about bias in its coverage of the conflict in Iraq. The ITC rejected nine complaints, saying that Fox News, which holds a British licence, had not breached the programme code on "due impartiality" because the regulations did not require broadcasters to be "absolutely neutral on every controversial issue."

Chris Shaw welcomed the ruling, which he considered was as significant as the broadcasters’ decision to abandon the previous out-dated practice of timing political interviews with a stop watch. "News with a point of view is already here on British tv…news with a slant, which falls short of the most exacting standards of due impartiality, is already alive, kicking and growing in the United Kingdom." Shaw believed opinionated news would create real diversity, and he longed for the day when he could find coverage on tv which chimed with the kind of campaigns mounted by newspapers such as the Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Mirror.

He argued that "Every news programme already comes with a ready-made set of prejudices. It is the same on both BBC and ITN: a middle class, essentially liberal and English, but not British, point of view. Young people and ethnic groups are alienated by this, so are the not so well educated, the C2s and Es. They are the people who switch off tv news because the agenda, treatment, and prejudices do not chime with their attitude of what is important in their world."

Richard Tait was convinced that the long-standing British tradition of fair and accurate television reporting, which had been enshrined in the 1990 Broadcasting Act and which imposed a legal obligation for ‘due impartiality’, had served the public well. He cited a recent opinion poll which had shown that 70 per cent of people trusted television news whereas only 6 per cent trusted newspapers. Tait feared what might happen in Britain if Channel 5 followed the example of Fox News which flew the US flag on screen and had sent a reporter to Iraq armed with a gun.

"News programming must be done in a framework which is impartial. If we make it bent we might as well give up." Yet the framework which made Fox News possible in the US was already happening in the UK; soon there could be one ITV and it could be bought by one of the three or four big US companies and Channel 5 could be taken over by News Corporation.

"The fact that the ITC cleared Fox News shows the way things are going, but if the regulator says small channels can be judged by different criteria then we have sold the principle of impartiality."

Tait thought those arguing for a relaxation of the rules on impartiality were ignoring the fact that Britain had a media-literate society. "People buying a newspaper understand that their paper is taking a view…but it is the BBC and ITN, which are way ahead of the press, which the public trust. That is a public good and if you give it up, you must have a good rationale as to what you will get in return."

In winding up the debate the two speakers acknowledged that change was inevitable. Tait appealed to Shaw to accept that the impartiality rules were proving to be quite flexible as it was. "Before we smash up the regulations, beware of what might happen. My worry is that commercial interests will fill that gap and control more and more of the coverage. The notion that there might be dozens more news channels reflecting dozens of views is a fantasy. No one can launch a news channel without vast resources."

Shaw conceded that in the ‘raw jungle atmosphere’ which might result if Channel 5 was taken over by Murdoch or an American company, then his channel might stop doing news altogether. "But I don’t think we can go on doing news on tv as we do it at the moment. Yes we have had a revolution of diversity in the appearance of tv news but not in the journalism, balance or impartiality. I am talking about information…about people engaging with information. I think the rules on ‘due impartiality’ are going to go anyway, so let’s just rely on the laws of the land."

Democrat whip calls for close Congress scrutiny

Following the vote by the Federal Communications Commission (voting 3 - 2), to approve the new, relaxed regulations for media ownership, the House Democratic whip, Steny Hoyer (Maryland), on June 2 called for alterations to them "in a manner that serves the public interest."

Mr Hoyer said: "The changes to media ownership rules approved today by the FCC are one step forward for the media conglomerates who control an enormous share of our public airwaves, and one gigantic step backward for the American people and democracy, which depend on a wide range of divergent views to stay informed.

"The public interest is not served when the American media is controlled by a handful of powerful individuals and corporations. When commentators and interest groups from across the ideological spectrum - including the National Rifle Association, Consumers Union, the Newspaper Guild/Communications Workers of America, and many others - share the same view, it should be clear to America that the FCC is not acting in their best interest but rather in the interest of a few media conglomerates.

Broadcasting deregulation fears in US and Europe

The International Federation of Journalists has warned that the relaxation of media ownership rules in the United States and Europe opens the door to a new era of global media power that could damage democracy and diversity. IFJ leaders conferred in Brussels after regulators eased restrictions in the United States that will allow some of the world's biggest media companies to strengthen their grip on local press, radio and television outlets throughout the country.

New laws planned in the United Kingdom will open up the world's second largest English-language media market to further concentration, director Aidan White said. "The IFJ is concerned that across Europe and in other settled democracies, such as Canada and Australia, traditional rules to protect diversity in media will come under renewed pressure.

Copyright 1998-2003 Brennan Publications