Now we are in the digital age, is there any need for the requirement that broadcasters in the UK must be impartial?

Digital technology has transformed the way broadcasting has been produced and viewed over the last two decades, less equipment and technical expertise is required for broadcasters to impart information to the audience who have more discretion about when, where and how to consume their output. Traditionally broadcasters worked under stricter regulations than print media which was self-evident in an analogue world, but now digital technology on the internet and a multi-channel set-up is leading to a convergence of the mediums and more exposure for non-British media. Richard Tait (2008 p.118) believes that this is making it ‘increasingly difficult to distinguish between’ regulated and unregulated media.  

The impartiality requirements placed on licenced broadcasters by the Office of Communications (Ofcom) in the UK is contested. Broadcasters and journalists have criticised impartiality as; a limit to freedom of expression (Murdoch, 2009), a misleading claim to audiences (Harcup, 2009 p.83), disengaging to sections of society (Petley, 2010 p.603) and an impossible thing for subjective beings to achieve (Moore, 2013). Ofcom (2007 p.71) also fears that ‘universal impartiality may become less enforceable in a digital environment, where regulated and unregulated services exist side by side on the same platform.

Principled and practical challenges to impartiality mean that its place in future British broadcasting must be reconsidered. In this discussion I will consider arguments made for relaxing impartiality, primarily based on Lara Felden’s proposal for tiered regulation, while also considering arguments for its maintenance.

The Communications Act of 2003 gives Ofcom statutory authority to regulate broadcasters in the UK.  Ofcom regulates by responding to people’s complaints about programmes that have been broadcast. Ofcom then assesses the complaint with the standards it has laid down and decides whether to punish the offending programmes. Punishments can range from a reprimand to a removal of licence to broadcast in the UK (Hanna and Dodd, 2012 pp.22-3). Section 5 of the Ofcom Code (2013) requires broadcasters to show ‘due impartiality’ and ‘due accuracy’ when presenting the news, it defines this as:

‘“Due” means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme ... . The approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience.’

The code stipulates with regards to programmes concerning a major political or industrial controversy and major matters of current public policy: ‘an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.’

The BBC (2013a) meanwhile adheres to its own Editorial Guidelines: ‘impartiality involves a mixture of accuracy, balance, context, distance, even-handedness, fairness, objectivity, open-mindedness, rigour, self-awareness, transparency and truth. But it is also about breadth of view and completeness. Impartiality in programme-making is often achieved by bringing extra perspectives to bear, rather than limiting horizons or censoring opinion.’ Felden (2011 p.41) spots inconsistencies between both codes, which could lead to confusion for consumers. For example the BBC Trust (2011) says that a “false balance” should not be given between well-established fact and opinion regarding science. Hypothetically this would mean that it unlike Ofcom it would have deemed Channel 4’s The Great Global Warming Swindle to have breached their code regarding a partial presentation of science because it did not present the view of the majority of the scientific community.

Statutory regulation in broadcasting has traditionally been seen as necessary due to the impact broadcasting has on the public, meaning anyone with access to the scarce analogue technology was obliged to rules of quality and diversity if they wished to broadcast. There is the view that the consequential impartiality requirements have had a positive impact on the British media as a whole because it counterbalances the more partisan press. (Hanna and Dodd, 2012 p.22-3)

This is supported by journalists like Michael Buerk who believe it’s a journalist’s job to inform via impartial reports of the world:

“It is not our purpose to solve the world’s problems but to so inform a working democracy that those people will come to their own conclusions about what is right and wrong... If that line is crossed… then people will detect that agenda and not believe you in the same way as they would beforehand.” (Franks and Seaton, 2009 p.13)

Tony Harcup (2009 pp.83-90) says one of the virtues of a professional journalist is checking to see if a story stands up. Attempts to report and verify information in an objective or impartial way help you aim for the truth because it leads you to assessing conflicting claims and evidence. Such an approach can help prevent a journalist falling into error, for instance before the 2005 general election Bloomberg Television was required to broadcast a summary of an adjudication from Ofcom (2005) for unintentionally giving the Labour Party partial coverage compared to the other parties. The station clearly did not show ‘due impartiality’ in a time of ‘political controversy’ meaning viewers would have less of an idea of alternative party pledges.

Impartiality is especially useful for public service broadcasting (PSB) in order to achieve their aim of universal appeal and avoiding ‘vested interests’ which thereby justifies any public funding or support they receive. (Frost, 2011, p.207) According to a BBC report (2007 pp.19-21)  impartiality is something audiences want with 84% agreeing that while impartiality was difficult to achieve broadcasters must try very hard to do so. Other BBC (2013b) research suggests PSBs are perceived to be the most accurate, impartial and trustworthy media ahead of broadsheets and commercial broadcasters.

However aiming for objectivity and/or impartiality is difficult because you will inevitably have to select what to investigate and publish. (Harcup, 2009 p.88) This means you can overlook certain ground that will give viewers only a partial look at the world. For instance the BBC (2007 p.3) said in business stories they put too much emphasis on the consumer, whereas views on the workplace and international context went under-reported.  There are also times when overall reporting is not perceived to be representative leading to disengagement with the media and politics due to it seeming irrelevant or unfair; this was something an Ofcom report spotted in young viewers and black and minority ethnic communities. (Tait, 2008 p.111) Impartial presentation can be misleading if “due weight” is not applied, this was something Richard Sambrook acknowledged in the BBC’s coverage of the MMR vaccine where they got the balance wrong between a ‘maverick’ view and the rest of the scientific community, leading to a health scare. (YouTube, 2012b)

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky (2002 pp.293-303) also noted the influence of hegemony in defining the outlook of journalists, saying objectivity was possible but within ‘acceptable premises,’ thereby severely limiting alternative views. People have decried the tax-payer funded BBC as an organisation for not being impartial despite contrary claims. Melanie Phillips (2009) says it has an ‘inherent liberal bias’ when selecting stories and has the arrogance to deny it, while Cushion and Lewis (2009 p.149) and Berry (2013) believe that it’s overall selection of sources leads to it presenting a more conservative, Establishment view of the world. With regards to individual journalists Peter Horrocks (2006) believes the initial motive of most broadcasters was the desire “to tell people what to think.”

Impartiality is hard to achieve due to these ideological pressures, but the fact it is required and expected facilitates good quality journalism as well as public trust and debate.

The digital age is also known as the information age due to the way it has made knowledge and data more accessible for everyone.  In 2010 Ofcom Media Tracker found that after television, the internet was the second most trusted source for unbiased information, this was most noticeable amongst young respondents with 13% of 15 to 24 year olds saying they trusted it most, presumably indicating its influence is likely to grow (Felden, 2011 p.97). Broadcasters have responded by being active on the digital sphere with Channel 4 being the first of more than 80 broadcasters worldwide to make their catch-up content available on YouTube (Felden, 2008 pp.77-80), while the BBC has become a pioneer with regards to its extensive online services (Chapman, 2008 p.11). There is a desire amongst broadcasters to build popular digital spaces in order to spread their journalism and make it more informative, for instance the BBC (2012 p.8) wants to encourage its television broadcasters to refer viewers to the website so they could understand more and engage younger viewers.

This new environment they operate in is largely unregulated; easier access to a public space and broadcasting technology means people can publish partial and even distorted versions of the news (Harcup, 2008 p.253), for whatever reason they choose (YouTube, 2012a). This probably explains why a BBC report (2013b) found that online news and social media ranked lowest in people’s perception of trustworthiness, accuracy and impartiality. Yet Jeff Jarvis (2006) sees the digital space as a reason to be confident that debate will no longer be dominated by public and private media but the public themselves. Sambrook (2012 p.16) observes that the digital space has witnessed a proliferation of unverified journalism and that within this space that it is consumers rather than journalists that are choosing which regulated and unregulated, partial and impartial stories to consume. The internet is completely open to freedom of expression and consequently the spread of misinformation, meaning that users have to be more wary of a sources’ trustworthiness to avoid being misled.

Digital technology has increased the amount of broadcasters in the UK with Ofcom licencing around 750 channels, some of which target specific ethnic groups or non-UK audiences (Suter, 2008 p.117). Jackie Harrison (2008, p.65)  notes that the sheer volume and diversity of news outlets and their views on impartiality means: ‘that any evaluation of the news values of a particular news organisation needs to take into account the cultural, political and economic setting of the news organisation itself.’  Tim Suter (2008 p.117) feels this may make it difficult for impartiality requirements to be upheld due to the severe scale and limits affecting the regulator’s ability to monitor output.

Ofcom (2007 pp.2-10) has considered whether impartiality is worth enforcing on anything but PSBs, noting that a diverse voices maybe being excluded by the centrist news culture, mainstream news agenda and traditional ‘both-sides-of-the-argument’ approach: ‘It is possible that universal requirements for due impartiality may actually impeded the expression of genuine diversity of views, and that a less rigid approach might in future encourage greater engagement among those not currently inspired by mainstream sources.’

Myra MacDonald (Keeble, 2009 pp.17-19), notes that while subjective reporters are more susceptible to egotistical presentation their reports can help viewers understand the stories they are telling better. Hargreaves and Thomas (2002 pp.105-6) expressed the view that in the case of minority interest channels Ofcom could afford to be more flexible with ‘due impartiality,’ allowing such channels to depart from standard impartiality rules: ‘so long as consumers know what they are getting and which services conform to impartiality rules and which do not.’

While he was still Director General to the BBC, Mark Thompson stated that with the collapse of distinction between digital and broadcast spaces there were valid arguments for non-PSB channels dropping impartiality:

“Why shouldn't the public be able to see and hear, as well as read, a range of opinionated journalism and then make up their own mind what they think about it?  The BBC and Channel 4 have a history of clearly labelled polemical programmes. But why not entire polemical channels which have got stronger opinions?” (Sherwin, 2010)

Ofcom has in the past fined special interest non-PSB channels such as Press TV, an Iranian international television network, for not presenting alternative views in a programme about the Israeli-Palestine conflict, thus breaching Section 5 of Ofcom’s Code. In a news release Press TV were evidentially incredulous about being fined for being bias in this non-news program:

‘How could it help but be biased?... Remember, we are talking about a program showcasing Palestinian and pro-Palestinian views on various events. This particular episode was about the flotilla incident, so it should come as no surprise that the

guests would express pro-Palestinian views. In fact, the program makes no bones about the views expressed on it. To start out with, there’s the title, Remembering Palestine. That, in itself, is a dead giveaway.’(Felden, 2011 pp.29-31)

Press TV’s argument that it had an obvious agenda supports the argument put forward by Suter (2008 pp.118-9) that future regulations should only rarely take decisions away from consumers and instead help the audience make their own informed decisions. He states that while impartiality is important and could never conceivably be taken away from public broadcasters its primary purpose was to create and ensure trust.

The expansion of broadcast on regulated and unregulated digital technologies has led to something of a crisis of trust as increasingly consumers make choices to watch and listen to things where impartiality may not be assured, while websites like the BBC take an impartial line a great deal of other online broadcasters don’t. Lara Felden (2011 pp.117-26) suggests that the main way to ensure people can trust sources or make informed decisions about perceived bias is to distinguish between broadcasts. This would be achieved via a tiered regulation system to be applied across platforms where the level of quality would be determined by a kitemark:

• ·         Tier1 : All public service content has a compulsory requirement for impartiality whether it be broadcast, on-demand or online. Non-PSBs can opt in as a mark of quality and excellence.
•        Tier2: Accuracy in news is still essential with voluntary, incentivised, transparent, ethical media standards encouraged in a framework with fewer rules. It would apply to private media, print and online, non-PSBs video and audio on-demand providers and independent bloggers. It would still be liable to statutory requirements which could lead to sanctions and investigations. Also as well as being a mark of a certain quality to be viewed by consumers, joining will also reap benefits like accredited court reported and greater favour with advertisers.
•              Tier 3: Minimum statutory requirements agreed for TV and video on-demand on a European level in relation to child protection and hate speech. Unregulated content includes print and online and would receive no standards kitemark.

Steven Barnett (2010) is critical of the arguments against impartiality, that it discourages; choice, innovation, engagement, diversity and appeal in the media. He states there is no evidence to show that moving away from it would improve any of these things. He also states that even in a digital realm Ofcom wouldn’t be overstretched because they operate depending on complaints rather than monitoring round-the-clock. Many of the problems noted above are largely down to a lack of representation rather than impartiality, Horrocks (2006) argues that a wider net needs to be cast by broadcasters to achieve ‘radical impartiality’ which will enable a  wide range of views from all sides to be heard regularly and honestly by the bulk of the population.

Without impartiality a competitive media market can become a prejudiced media market, as Harvard  economists Sendhil Mullainathan and Andrei Shleifer (2005 p.1041)  concluded in their research into the newspaper market, ‘competition forces newspapers to cater to the prejudices of their readers, and greater competition typically results in more aggressive catering to such prejudices as competitors strive to divide the market.’ In their study of Fox News Joseph Amann and Tom Breuer (2007 pp.8-11) noted that even when a study by the University of Maryland showed Fox News’ viewers were ‘morons’ as a result of how much they had been misled by the channel with regards to the Iraq War, the channel made no effort to rectify this. They say Fox’s personality- and opinion-based infotainment is a great seller of right-wing pandering and/or propaganda. Washington Post journalist William Raspberry said in 2005 that public confidence in news was threatened by Fox News because its popularity was leading to its competitors mimicking its reporting style leading to a decline in quality. Felden (2011 p.34) contests that slack accuracy requirements have caused the most damage rather than the relaxing of impartiality requirements, with reprimands for distortion of news only being given out when there is provable intent. Whatever the reason surveys show that TV is trusted by 85% of the British public compared to a third in the United States (Cushion and Lewis, 2009 p.149). Murdoch’s desire to turn Sky News more into Fox News certainly has journalists and regulators worried about the consequences. (Petley, 2010 pp.610-1) Richard Sambrook (Youtube, 2012b) laments that impartial broadcast voices in the USA are lost amongst the competition and that regulation is unlikely to return there, which offers validity to Suzanne Franks (2009 p.14) assertion that ‘impartiality is rather like virginity, it cannot be recovered.’

The overreaching regulatory framework is still supported my many. Cushion and Lewis (2009 p.150) say it helps maintain journalistic standards even on non-PSB channels like Sky News. Channel 4 (Ofcom, 2007) argues that Sky News is the only major non-PSB news-provider and that if impartiality rules were relaxed it could become the partial news supplier; giving it the power to choose a political agenda could lead to other political parties being without any voice in the TV news market leading to unrepresentative public influence.  Channel 4 also contends that any limits to expression have been virtually removed by the unregulated internet which means there isn’t a pressing need to deregulate TV news as well.

Sambrook (2012 p.21) notes while it may be easy to express yourself online it’s distinctly harder to be influential. Tait (2008 p.111)  observes that in this online environment, ‘there is scarcely a shortage of opinionated, targeted news and comment for those who do not want their existing view of the world challenged.’ Sunstein (2007) believes that such a trend, ‘works against the chance of any kind of shared public forum that signifies a democratic environment.’ David Cox feels a solution to social polarisation could be impartial broadcasters:

‘Arguably, the forces threatening broadcasting impartiality make it all the more necessary. The more society atomises, the more important a common thread of meaning becomes. The limitations inherent in the quest for impartiality need not be decisive. Complaints about the bias and perspective can be acknowledged, debated and accommodated. In the process, they can themselves help reshape, enhance and enlarge the area of potential agreement.’ (Sambrook, 2012 pp.31-2)

Impartiality requirements are likely to remain in place across all television and radio in the UK. Demands on deregulation lack substantial support amongst politicians, the public or broadcast journalists. The American experience of news deregulation is not appealing to many here because it isn’t seen as beneficial to public debate or awareness. Impartiality requirements are a limit to prejudice and a facilitator for diversity due a broadcaster’s obligation to be representative. People can find and express partial information and misinformation on the unregulated internet without it having much of an adverse effect on the standards of professional broadcast journalism and the majority of the population. Felden’s proposal for tiered regulation could be a useful feature for consumers of online media whether it is for broadcasters or print. In cyberspace anyone can hear you scream and it’s hard to be heard amongst the billions of voices, but with a widely recognised kitemark it can help show you have something trustworthy to share and if you’re not a widely recognised brand like the BBC this could be invaluable.

Bibliography

Secondary Sources: Books

Amann, Joseph Minton and Breuer, Tom (2007) Fair and Balanced, My Ass!: An Unbridled Look at the Bizarre Reality of Fox News, New York: Nation Books.

Chapman, Jane and Kinsey, Marie (eds.) (2008) Broadcast Journalism: a critical introduction, London: Routledge.

Chomsky, Noam and Herman, Edward S.(2002) Manufacturing consent : the political economy of the mass media, New York : Pantheon Books.

Frost, Chris (2011) Journalism Ethics and Regulation, Harlow: Longman.

Hanna, Mark and Dodd, Mike (2012) McNae’s Essential Law for journalists, 21^st edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harcup, Tony (2009) Journalism: principles & practice, 2^nd edition, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Frost, Chris (2011) Journalism Ethics and Regulation, Harlow: Longman.

Keeble, Richard (2009) Ethics for Journalists, 2nd edition, London: Routledge.

Lowe, G.F. & Steemers, J. (eds.) (2012) Regaining the initiative for public service media, Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.

Sunstein, C. (2007), Republic 2.0, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Secondary Sources: Articles

Barnett, Steven, 2012, 'Broadcast journalism and impartiality in the digital age: six fallacies and a counter-factual'. in Lowe, G.F. & Steemers, J. eds., Regaining the initiative for public service media. Nordicom, Göteborgs universitet, Göteborg, pp. 201-218.

BBC (2007) From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century [pdf] BBC. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/research/impartiality/century21.html  [Accessed 16 January 2014]

BBC (2013b) Public Perceptions of the impartiality and trustworthiness of the BBC [pdf] BBC. Available at: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/pdf/bbc_report_trust_and_impartiality_report_may_2013.pdf  [Accessed 24 January 2014]

BBC Trust (2011) Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science [pdf] BBC Trust. Available at:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/july/science_impartiality.shtml [Accessed 24 January 2014]

BBC Trust (2012) A BBC Trust report on the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of the events known as the “Arab Spring” [pdf] BBC Trust. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/arab_spring.html  [Accessed 24 January 2014]

Chapman, Jane (2008) ‘Broadcast journalism: yesterday, today and the future’, in Chapman, Jane and Kinsey, Marie, eds., Broadcast Journalism: A Critical Introduction. Routledge, pp.7-16.

Cushion, Stephen and Lewis, Justin (2009) ‘Towards a ‘Foxification’ of 24-hour news channels in Britain?: An analysis of market-driven and publicly funded news coverage’. Journalism, 10 (2) pp. 131-153.

Felden, Lara (2011) Regulating for Trust in Journalism: Standards Regulation in the Age of Blended Media [pdf] Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Available at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/Publications/Other_publications/Regulating_For_Trust_in_Journalism.pdf [Accessed 24 January 2014]

Franks, Suzanne and Seaton, Joan (2009) ‘Is saving the world journalism’s job?’ British Journalism Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 13-20.

Harcup, Tony (2008) ‘Fair enough: ethics and regulation in broadcast journalism’, in Chapman, Jane and Kinsey, Marie, eds., Broadcast Journalism: A Critical Introduction. Routledge, pp.247-256.

Hargreaves, I. and Thomas, J. (2002) New News, Old News [pdf] London: Independent Television Commission/Broadcasting Standards Commission. Available at: http://slb.cf.ac.uk/jomec/resources/news.pdf [Accessed 23 January 2014]

Harrison, Jackie (2008) ‘Exploring news values:  the ideal and the real’, in Chapman, Jane and Kinsey, Marie, eds., Broadcast Journalism: A Critical Introduction. Routledge, pp.59-68.

Moore, Charles (2013) ‘Why does the impartial BBC not tell the story of the great majority?’ The Telegraph, [online] 12 July. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10176199/Why-does-the-impartial-BBC-not-tell-the-story-of-the-great-majority.html  [Accessed 18 January 2014]

Mullainathan, S. and Shleifer, A. (2005) ‘The market for news’, The American Economic Review, 95: 4, pp.1031-53.

Murdoch,  James (2009) The Absence of Trust [pdf] Edinburgh International Television Festival McTaggart Lecture. Available at: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Media/documents/2009/08/28/JamesMurdochMacTaggartLecture.pdf [Accessed 14 January 2014]

Ofcom (2007) New News, Future News: the Challenges for Television News After Digital Switchover [pdf], London: Office of Communications. Available at: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tv-research/newnews.pdf [Accessed 4 January 2014]

Petley, Julian (2010) Impartiality in Television News: Profitability versus Public Service [pdf]. Available at: http://www.meccsa.org.uk/pdfs/policy-network/PolicyNetwork-julian-impartiality-092010.pdf [Accessed 22 January 2014]

Phillips, Melanie (2009) ‘The BBC won’t show the Gaza appeal to protect its impartiality. But does anyone really believe it’s impartial?’, Daily Mail [online], January 26. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/debatesearch/article-1127433/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-BBC-won-8217-t-Gaza-appeal-protect-impartiality-But-viewers-really-believe-impartial.html [Accessed 21 January 2014]

Raspberry, William (2005) ‘Fox’s Sandstorm’, The Washington Post [online], 18 April. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/04/18/AR2005041800425.html [Accessed 17 January 2014]

Sambrook, Richard (2012) Delivering Trust; Impartiality and Objectivity in the Digital Age [pdf] Oxford: Reuters Institute of the Study of Journalism. Available at: http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid%3A65d540e2-22e7-4a9c-a766-62c4db2fa4c3/datastreams/ATTACHMENT01 [Accessed 26 January 2014]

Sherwin, Adam (2010), ‘Mark Thompson: Britain needs a channel like Fox News’, The Guardian [online], December 17. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/mark-thompson-bbc-fox-news [Accessed 25 January 2014]

Suter, Tim (2008) ‘Impartiality – The Case for Change’, in Gardam,  Tom and Levy, David A. L. eds., The Price of Plurality-  Choice, Diversity and Broadcasting Institutions in the Digital Age. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, pp.116-119.

Tait, Richard (2008) ‘Impartiality – why it must stay,’ in Gardam,  Tom and Levy, David A. L. eds., The Price of Plurality-  Choice, Diversity and Broadcasting Institutions in the Digital Age. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, pp.110-115.

WEBSITES

BBC, 2011, How the BBC is Run. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/running/ [Accessed 20 January 2014].

BBC, 2013a, Editorial Guidelines. [online] Available at:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/guidelines/  [Accessed 5 January 2014].

Berry, Mike (2013) Hard Evidence- how biased is the BBC?. [online] 23 August. Available at: https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign [Accessed 23 January 2014]

Horrocks, Peter (2006) The future of news?. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/11/the_future_of_news.html [Accessed 24 January 2014]

Jarvis, Jeff, (2006) The fate of the BBC’s impartiality. [online] Available at: http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/12/04/the-fate-of-the-bbcs-impartiality/ [Accessed 22 January 2014]

Monck, Adrian (2007) Impartiality — Ofcom retreats from a Fox News future. [online] November 23. Available at: http://adrianmonck.com/2007/11/impartiality-ofcom-retreats-from-a-fox-news-future/  [Accessed 18 January 2014]

Ofcom, 2013, Section Five: Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions. [online] Available at:  http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/impartiality/ [Accessed 25 January 2014]

Ofcom, 2005, Ofcom Contents Standards Committee: Considering sanctions against Bloomberg LP. [online] Available at:  http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/content-sanctions-adjudications/bloomberg.pdf [Accessed 25 January 2014]

Youtube, 2012a, Cassetteboy vs the News.  [online] Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-kbMF1GF2A [Accessed 27 December 2013]

Youtube, 2012b, Richard Sambrook on the BBC & impartiality. [online] Available at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCFljlXxvQ4  [Accessed 23 January 2014]

Youtube, 2013, Archive: BBC values – impartiality. [online] Available at:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugaKVhqrcvc [Accessed 8 January 2014]