Can TV ever be impartial?
The institution of the media has never been easily definable. It encompasses news, entertainment and all manner of human social interaction committed to screens, paper and airwaves. It can also be subjective – what is news to me might not be news to you.
To make things more complicated, the definition of what the media is has rapidly expanded in the digital age, threatening the business model of the traditional or ‘mainstream’ media with breaking news on Twitter and commentators on Tik Tok. Social media is populated by citizen journalists as well as professional reporters or producers. Many of us will now learn far more about a news-worthy event, like a protest or a fire, from a 10-second clip on Facebook rather than a 1,000-word report in a newspaper. Trained journalists are often left playing catch up or reproducing content from social media.
What do these changes mean for the values of the traditional media establishment like impartiality? Shunning bias was once the sacred cow of British broadcasting; written into law and enforced by the regulator Ofcom. We previously drew a distinction between the regulation of newspapers and the world of TV and radio. But now, every major British newspaper broadcasts video and audio content online and every broadcaster produces written content on their website.
The rise of online radio and Smart TVs led many to believe the reach of Ofcom’s enforced impartiality to be limited, as their legal power only extended to analogue airwaves. In response, the Online Harms White Paper, published at the end of last year, proposed to extend the regulators’ power to the web. In effect, new proposals would mean Ofcom could have the power to regulate content which is often hosted and produced overseas. The debate over how such measures will be enforced when it comes to tech giants, or how free expression will be safeguarded online, is raging on.
Has this boom period in online content – almost all unregulated – been beneficial or detrimental to our respect for impartiality? Opinionated news and current-affairs shows, most often associated with American-style programming, have well and truly arrived in the UK. LBC went national in 2014, GB News hit Freeview this spring, talkRADIO is becoming an online TV station and shows like Channel 4 News have evolved to become more campaigning and ideological. All are still bound by ‘due impartiality’ rules and must air different views, but some argue that this is the ‘Fox News-ification’ of British broadcasting. On the other hand, others point out that fears about impartiality are unfounded, as all manner of views are now available at our fingertips online.
Some worry that a heavy reliance on opinion over impartial news might expose readers to radical views and hate, whipping up division. Others argue that a proliferation of views, and the democratisation of news through new mediums, is proof that consumers are tired of the old and sluggish institution of the media. On all sides of the political divide, trust in the ‘mainstream media’ is falling. Many no longer believe broadcasters’ claims of impartiality, after scandals surrounding presenters like Emily Maitlis, Lewis Goodall and Gary Lineker showed how hard maintaining political impartiality is in the era of Twitter.
Is impartiality in the media worth fighting for? Or has our concept of what the media entails expanded, making it increasingly difficult (and even harmful) for Ofcom to rule where the middle ground lies? And from politics to culture, epidemiology to astrophysics, who should decide what content readers, listeners and viewers are exposed to?
