Impartiality and the future of public service broadcastsing
Debate hosted by Polis at the LSE (in association with the BBC
College of Journalism)
Chair: Roger Bolton; panel: Evan Davis (BBC Economics editor); Emily
Bell (Guardian Online editor) and RDN 8 November, 2007
Here's
an audio podcast of the event.
Notes of what RDN said. (Or ought to have done: I overtstated things
on the day.)
1 Impartiality is good for journalists, editors and media organisations
- sometimes.
2 "Impartiality" is not a good banner for a media organisation
like the BBC.
3 British broadcasters are not allowed to be biased - so they can't
have opinions.
4 The British print media thrives on biases, and competes in a
"marketplace" of opinion.
5 The British print media provides truthful news, but does it without
a mission to impartiality.
6 Impartiality has led to broadcasters being "dissident"
and contemptuous of all politics.
7 Impartiality has led the BBC especially to think of itself as
"authoritative".
8 Impartiality might have been necessary when broadcasting was
in the hands of a monopoly.
9 In a multi-channel world, broadcasters should have the same variety
as print media.
10 Impartiality doesn't guarantee robust truthfulness.
That's it, in a nutshell.
More broadly, RDN does not hate broadcasters or the BBC or think
they're a lefty conspiracy. But he does think that there's nothing
broadcasters do that wire services and newsprint or even the web
don't do better. You could take away broadcasting (TV especially),
and we would be no less informed than now. You can't say that of
wire services, print, or even the web (and maybe not of radio, which
could read out any of the others).
What's more, there's nothing to worry about. An increasinlgly educated
and affluent world will have lots of ways of disseminating and validating
news and comment. Much of it will be provided commercially. "Market
failure" will probably be taken care of by voluntary associations
along the lines of the National Trust or the RNLI, or by private
philanthropy.
ends
|