Compare and contrast the way BBC News, ITV news and Channel Four News report the same political news story?

Curran and Seaton (p.341-3) believe that each of these channels has its own distinct purpose and take on news events; that the BBC try to purvey an image that its audience are ‘participants’ in the great actions of the nation, that commercial channels like ITV popularise the news medium and Channel 4 cater for the interests of a minority audience in a way that extends the idea of public service broadcasting. This theory was reinforced by their coverage of Culture Secretary Maria Miller’s resignation from cabinet on the 9^th April 2014 following a scandal over her expenses.

The expenses scandal was a story that first broke in 2009 when The Daily Telegraph newspaper revealed that most MPs had been spending taxpayer’s money on personal items. According to Blumler and Coleman (p.141-2) it caused a, ‘seemingly enduring stain upon the entire political class grew as public indignation exploded.’ Expenses became what Bennett and Lawrence (p.25) refer to as a ‘news icon’ because it symbolised larger cultural themes in British society, namely widening isolation between the elected and the electorate. Expenses led to ‘intensive public discussion’ (Bennett and Lawrence, p.26-7) where the topic appeared in a range of media including documentaries and films (Brooke, p.244-8).

Miller’s resignation was a major story in and the fact it involved a matter that had captured the public’s imagination meant it required extensive attention. All the channel’s evening bulletins led with the story and dedicated at least two packages and a two-way with their political editors offering commentary. The BBC dedicates 10 minutes to the story in its 30 minute bulletin, ITV dedicates 8 of 30 minutes, and Channel 4 covers the story for 22 minutes by including two live studio interviews in its 45 minute programme.

All use the same footage of Miller giving an interview where she explains her decision by saying she doesn’t want to be a distraction. The interview is a close-up shot so the audience can register her emotions (Erikson, p.630), which is something that the BBC and ITV voiceovers draw the audience’s attention to. All use the footage in the tease; Channel 4 use it at the beginning of the programme before any of the presenters have spoken while the BBC and ITV have the presenters introduce the clip as part of a trail of other news-stories. Evidently the BBC and ITV saw the story as just one of the stories that happened that day whereas Channel 4 saw it as the story of the day.

Channel 4 and ITV edit Miller’s interview as, “it’s become clear to me that this has become an enormous distraction and it’s not right that I’m distracting from the incredible achievements of this government.” BBC edits this last line out and include her saying, “I hoped that I could stay but it’s become clear to me that this has become an enormous distraction.” The BBC also uses the footage to end the first package with the reporter cuing it as, “her emotional decision to quit.” Miller then gives a statement with frequent stumbles: “I, I want to make sure the… situation… is is clear to everybody and make sure I can…move on.” Then the reporter closes the package by saying how the country has not moved on from expenses. In terms of what Esser (p.417) refers to as a ‘news situation’, Miller’s interview would be deemed a ‘partially controlled situation’ because while the story comes about because of wrongdoing the interview itself isn’t adversarial and Miller is able to get a message across about herself and the government. Zaller (p.127) hypothesised that the more strenuously politicians try to control news coverage; the more journalists will resist covering them. The BBC probably saw her line endorsing the government as an attempt to control the situation and therefore used the clips that exclusively focused on Miller’s decision.

When cuing their opening packages ITV and the BBC open by referring to Miller’s words about her resigning because she’d become a distraction, they both follow this by quoting opposing interpretations held by the leaders of the Conservative and Labour Parties. Alternatively Channel 4 starts with a two-way of its political editor giving commentary, this is cued by a more interpretive script which says expenses had not been forgotten, Miller was ‘pushed’ and asks the questions; what does this mean about MP’s integrity, Cameron’s judgement and the safety of Miller’s seat? 

All of the packages comment on press criticism about Miller, they all represent this by showing headlines while Miller walks in slow-motion in the background and the reporter gives commentary via a voiceover.  The story first emerged in the press so it needed to be mentioned by all, the fact the story had been running for a while meant that voiceover simply summarised this part of the story so that it only takes up 10 to 15 seconds because it was old news. Channel 4 was the only one to attribute headlines to newspapers which gives a clearer understanding of the public debate by knowing who was making the comments; this also served the programme’s narrative because one of those newspapers’ editors is interviewed later on and the Telegraph’s role in the scandal is discussed in detail.

Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) feature in all the packages, Jones (p.177) notes that PMQs is one of the few things to feature regularly in news packages from inside Westminster due to the potential for debate and noise. PMQs from that day featured lively exchanges between Cameron and Miliband as both questioned each other’s leadership ability in statements that led to loud cheers from their parties. All the packages edit in both ‘scoring’ points against each other and show them each shaking their heads as the other speaks. The BBC does feature more footage than the others, including Cameron stressing that politicians are honest and Miliband saying this story is about Cameron’s apologist attitude towards unacceptable behaviour. The BBC and Channel 4 packages precede the PMQs section with the same sound-bites of Cameron stating earlier in the week that he believed Miller should keep her job, whereas ITV state this was his stance in a voiceover by the reporter. ITV probably chose not to focus too much on Cameron’s U-Turn because they felt their subsequent opinion poll about him was critical enough. All the broadcasters try to be fair, balanced and impartial by covering both sides of the political argument. (Jones,p.172)

BBC and ITV both briefly show and analyse Miller giving a 37-second apology for her expenses in the Commons a few days before. The BBC comment on how brief it is and ITV suggest it was made grudgingly, both presenting her as showing contempt to the accusations against her. This is what Ekström and Johnanson (p.64) define as a ‘talk scandal’ in which a political career is jeopardised by a verbal utterance. Alternatively Channel 4 believes this was just part of the reason for her resignation and is only touched upon briefly in the political editor’s analysis. Instead they say ‘the final straw’ was Miller’s aide appearing on television saying this scandal was a ‘witch-hunt’ against Miller, this led to the Prime Minister then pressuring her to resign. The BBC mention Cameron’s backroom role in her resignation, while ITV simply refer to his “opaque” response to the question of whether he was involved in her resignation during PMQs in which Cameron says people should accept Miller’s reasons at face value.

ITV does not discuss Miller’s expenses scandal in detail only saying she was initially found not guilty of the charge by a Labour member. Channel 4 and BBC analyse the complex details of her mortgage claims and the legality of it through voiceovers and text graphics.  Channel 4 goes into the most detail about the following cabinet re-shuffle by saying there are only three women sitting on it and the new Women’s minister has had the equalities responsibility removed from her brief because she voted against gay marriage. BBC mentions the number of women and who assumed Miller’s job while ITV just says who has new roles.

All broadcasters follow this up with a package set in Miller’s seat of Basingstoke which includes vox pops from constituents. BBC and ITV use answers which focus more on the subject of expenses and how politician’s treat the system, ITV even suggest people are ignorant of the fact that the regulatory system for expenses is independent from MPs based on one of the answers they get. Both the BBC and ITV use graphics and voiceovers to explain how the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) has changed. BBC ask Conservative MP Gerald Howarth whether it is right for Westminster to still be involved in any way with expenses to which the MP replies yes. ITV ask a committee member for IPSA whether people are aware things have changed to which he replies they need to get the message out. They also do interviews with MPs Nick Clegg and Nadine Dorries who have opposing views over whether MPs should have expenses. Channel 4 has a more specific focus because it uses answers that reflect Miller’s reputation in the town and ask the public and the UKIP candidate there whether she might lose her seat to UKIP at the next elections. Both Channel 4 and the BBC close the package by mentioning Miller will get £17,000 in compensation for resigning from cabinet, but only Channel 4 clarifies that she has promised it to a local charity. ITV look into popular opinion further by referring to their ‘exclusive’ online polls asking about Miller’s resignation and Cameron’s handling of the affair.

All conclude with two-ways by their political editors, according to Jones (p.174) it is done this way to suggest their input is a conversation with the presenter rather than a lecture because the former is more engaging to the audience. The political editors have the last say on the matter, with ITV and the BBC’s commenting after the package and Channel 4’s featuring at the beginning and end of the news; this means they are the audience’s lasting impression on the story (Esser p.421). Both the ITV and BBC editors focus on how angry the public are about expenses and how Miller and Cameron underestimated that and therefore made blunders. ITV finish by saying that’s the end of the matter while BBC says UKIP will exploit this scandal. Channel 4 focuses more on the workings of power; saying Cameron had appeased backbenchers, Miliband had missed an opportunity to score a goal at PMQs, the Telegraph was probably unfair in portraying Miller’s guilt and how Miller made things worse for herself by having aides spread messages about a ‘witch-hunt.’

Channel 4 follow their second package with the presenter saying they had tried to get an MP to interview in the studio but none were available. The expenses scandal was embarrassing for the majority of Westminster therefore it is understandable that many would have wished to make themselves unavailable. (Dalen, Albæk, Vreese, p.151) Davis (2009, p.205) notes that the primary reason politicians speak to the media is to get publicity which is reflected by all the packages; input from the main parties primarily comes from sourced material like PMQs and Miller’s interview, the only exception is Clegg and Howarth defending the expenses system. Otherwise the political figures who do speak have something to gain from publicity; Dorries has a chance to attack expenses, UKIP to publicise itself and IPSA raise awareness of their work which ITV say is being overlooked.

Channel 4 interviews Nigel Farage and a former Telegraph editor in live two-ways. Both are characterised by adversarial questions. Farage is criticised for UKIP’s ‘appalling’ record for expenses in the European Parliament, Farage adopts a tactic of self-repair to re-focus the issue by saying he is using EU funds to get Britain out of EU which is a matter some of the electorate agree with. (Ekström p.690) The Telegraph editor is asked whether criticism of Miller was due to her involvement with Leveson and support for gay marriage, the editor gives a ‘minus response’ where he denies the suggestion and distances himself from it by saying this is about preventing MPs ‘marking their own homework’ when it comes to expenses. (Schegloff, p.59)

Curran and Seaton’s theory about the channels are largely vindicated. The BBC and ITV’s coverage are both rather surface accounts of what happened and interpret it almost exclusively as being about Miller and expenses. The BBC tries to involve the audience in the story by commenting heavily on the public’s anger over expenses and ITV expresses similar views while trying to engage popular opinion with its poll. Channel 4 is catering for those who have a special interest in politics by including more detail, open questions and interpretation about the scandal itself and its repercussions, thereby giving the audience more information to base their judgements on. Channel 4 also challenges assumptions the other channels made, first by asking whether press coverage of Miller was fair and that it was right she resign and secondly by challenging the assumption that UKIP can exploit this.
                                                                                                         

Bibliography

Bennett, W. and Lawrence, R. (1995) News icons and the mainstreaming of social change. Journal of Communication 45(3): 20–39.

Blumler, J. and Coleman, S. (2010) Political Communication in Freefall: The British Case—and Others? International Journal of Press/Politics 15(2) 139–154.

Brooke, H. (2010) The Silent State: Secrets, Surveillance and the Myth of British Democracy, Windmall.

Chapman, J. and Kinsey, M. (2009) Broadcast Journalism: A critical introduction, Routledge.

Curran, J Seaton, J. (1997) Power Without Responsibility, Routledge.

Dalen, A., Albæk, E. and Vreese, C. (2011) Suspicious minds: Explaining political cynicism among political journalists in Europe, European Journal of Communication 26 (2) 147-162.

Davis, A. (2007) Investigating Journalist Influences on Political Issue Agendas at Westminster, Political Communication, 24(2) 181-199.

Davis, A. (2009) Journalist-source relations, mediated reflexivity and the politics of politics, Journalism Studies 10 (2) 204-219.

Ekström, M. (2009) Announced refusal to answer: A study of norms and accountability in broadcast political interviews. Discourse Studies 11 (6) 681-702.

Ekström, M. and Johansson, B. (2008) Talk scandals. Media, Culture & Society 30(1) 61–80.

Eriksson, G. (2011) Adversarial moments: A study of short-form interviews in the news. Journalism 12 (1) 51-69.

Esser, F. (2008) Dimensions of political news culture: sound bite and image bite news in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. International Journal of Press/Politics 13(4) 401–428.

Franklin, B. (ed.) (1992) Televising Democracies, Routledge, London.

Franklin, B., Hamer, M., Hanna, M., Kinsey, M., & Richardson, J.E. (2005) Key Concepts in Journalism Studies, Sage.

Hudson, G. and Rowlands, S. (2012) The Broadcast Journalism Handbook, Pearson

Jones, N. (2009) Reporting Politics. in  Chapman, J. and Kinsey, M. (eds.) Broadcast Journalism: A critical introduction, Routledge, pp.171-180.

Lee, F. (2012) The life cycle of iconic sound bites: politicians’ transgressive utterances in media discourses. Media, Culture & Society 34(3) 343–358.

Negrine, R. (1999) Parliaments and the Media: A Changing Relationship? European Journal of Communication 14 (3) 325-352.

Robinson, N. (2009) Moats, Mortgages and Mayhem http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lh47j

Schegloff, E. (2007) Sequence Organisation in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge.

Zaller, J. (1998) The Rule of Product Substitution in Presidential Campaign News. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 560 (Nov.) 111–28.

Critical review of Frank Esser's Dimensions of Political News Cultures

Frank Esser, Dimensions of Political News Cultures: Sound Bite and Image Bite News in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States, The International Journal of Press/Politics October 2008 13: 401-428.

Professor Frank Esser’s 2008 study into the length of sound and image bites in broadcasting in four western democracies forms the statistical basis of an analysis of media coverage in those nations during political election campaigns. This enables him to assess the value of multiple hypotheses made about media and political cultures involved in these countries. Primarily it seeks to test Patterson’s (1993: 74-5) assertion that candidates in countries like the USA have become ‘voiceless’ due to the decline of their verbal input into election coverage and as well as Bucy and Grabe’s (2007) theory that image is becoming increasingly important in political and journalistic cultures due to it subconscious impact upon audiences.

Ultimately this allows Esser to make conclusions about the levels and manner of journalistic intervention in the broadcasting of election campaigns. In professional journalism, the media structure influences the extent of journalistic interventionism in the political structure. This model asserts that interventionism occurs when public opinion is distrustful of political institutions. Media that has achieved a high status of independence, especially from political control, is more likely to be interventionist. Consequently interventionist reports are made up of sound bites of politicians that tend to be rather short whereas those from the journalists tend to be longer. High interventionism in an election campaign also leads to “a smaller amount of election news coverage in general.” Journalists as opposed to politicians or the subject being enabling them to “increase their influence, authority, and prestige.”

The statistical basis of the study was compiled by a multinational team of ‘coders’  categorising material from Germany, France, the UK and the USA in order to calculate the time amounts that feature in tables dedicated to things like news situations and images bites. At times it is missing a miscellaneous option, meaning answers can seem oddly specific and limited especially when it comes to news that is regarded as anti-candidate, where apparently you can only use television editing to be rude in three ways. The quantitative nature of the study also can lead to ambiguities as to the significance of terms such as ‘interventionist’, although this is defined as a time in which a journalist makes professional interpretations it does not state whether this means the news is biased, objective or impartial. Qualitative information is provided in the form of context on occasions, usually to explain exceptions and national uniqueness.

By mapping the television news in these countries, Esser reaches the conclusion that the French media is the most deferential (and ‘civilised’) towards politicians, giving politicians a greater voice and responding more favourably to their attempts to manage the news so they can prepare for a situation. British and German media’s tendency for interpretation in news reports leads to a moderately interventionist broadcasting culture, with the British media being more cooperative to politician’s attempts to manage the news despite using it as a platform to challenge politicians and put them on the defensive. Esser interprets findings about US news culture, with its briefer sound bites, as vindicating Zaller’s theory that high levels of news management leads to a more sceptical and hostile media because the media’s desire for independence. However Esser refutes the suggestion that this means US media is exclusively about confrontational campaigning when it comes to sound bites, noting that there is still ample ‘substance’ within them, which leads him conclude that the US just get to the point quicker.

The study does limit itself to a western-centric analysis and bases its conclusions upon two of the largest channels in those nations, excluding News International channels such as Fox News and Sky News which could have led to a more nuanced view of contemporary western broadcasting. As a result Esser encounters only one exception (Germany’s RTL channel) to his conclusion that organisational differences between market-oriented and public interest-oriented newsrooms do little to determine sound bite usage in news as opposed to national differences.

Bibliography

Bucy, Erik P., and Maria Elisabeth Grabe (2007) ‘Taking Television Seriously: A Sound and Image BiteAnalysis of Presidential Campaign Coverage, 1992–2004’, Journal of Communication 57(4), pp.652–75.
Frank Esser (2008) ‘Dimensions of Political News Cultures: Sound Bite and Image Bite News in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States’, The International Journal of Press/Politics, Vol.13, pp.401-428.
Patterson,Thomas E. (1993) Out of Order,  NewYork: Knopf.

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]