Biased neutral impartiality

MANY news organisations (including this newspaper) take pride in their ‘impartiality’ and neutrality. But these terms are fluid and interchanging; it’s often unclear what they mean.

The mark of impartiality is a respected label to have, and upholding it means defending free speech and ensuring a balanced press. But what does this label mean, and what does it look like in reality?

Impartiality is defined as ‘treating all rivals or participants equally’. That doesn’t mean spending the same amount of time covering each group/ person involved, but instead proportionally reporting the views of every stakeholder.

If John Redwood wasn’t doing his job properly (imagine!), impartial reporting would naturally say such a thing, while allowing him to respond.

Were the Council proposing a new method of funding schools then they’d have their due, but any opposition would be given a voice.

This isn’t always done well – impartiality is often confused for absolute balance. When this happens, the news is devoid of feeling and passion, weighed down by points and counterpoints and alternative points. This is ‘false balance’.

In 2011, the BBC faced criticism when it gave full coverage to climate change sceptics, a tiny minority in society, and seemed to place them equal to the huge evidence supporting global warming. They wanted to seem neutral and let all parties have a say, but what resulted instead was equal coverage, and not impartiality.

If you’re impartial, you’re therefore neutral (‘not supporting or helping either side in a conflict’). But as we’ve seen above, neutrality doesn’t mean impartiality. Neutrality is hard – it takes conscious and determined reporting, and no human can remove their basic preferences.

Yet when done consistently and skilfully (as the BBC generally do it) it makes for far better coverage.

In our divisive and divided politics, writing impartially is underrated, yet so important. Being impartial means reporting the truth, without putting a certain spin or angle upon it. It allows balanced, but not disproportionate, views from across the board. It means courage.

We accuse the news organisations of telling it wrong because we can’t face the fact that we may be incorrect ourselves.

But they endure our unwarranted abuse and quietly report the news hoping that, one day, we’ll come to appreciate them for it.