John Lloyd has a piece in today’s FT about “Bias and the Beeb”. Part of it involves quotes from BBC types saying - in more or less sophisticated fashion - “Gosh, impartiality is difficult these days”. True, it is. But I disagree with the way the problem is framed.
The Bridcut report is about “examining impartiality in an era of blogs and multiple channels” [Lloyd’s description]. An abundance of channels is important for impartiality, because it undercuts the rationale for imposing impartiality on commercial broadcasters. If you have a limited spectrum which can only support a limited number of viewpoints, then the risk of opinion being monopolized or oligopolized by a few powerful interests is high. If you have an unlimited spectrum - or unlimited newsprint - then in-principle barriers to entry are low, and the free flow of ideas will ensure that the good will out.
But the ever-greater number of channels is not why impartiality is more difficult now. It’s not just technology. It’s politics too.
“Impartiality in broadcasting”, says the report, “has long been assumed to apply mainly to party politics and industrial disputes” - but now, we imply, it is also being (mis)applied in other areas. But what is important is not changes in how impartiality is applied, but changes in the ability of party politics to structure debate on a wide range of issues.
Current political parties, with a much reduced organisational capacity, are less good at structuring post-materialist concerns about the environment, civil liberties, and so on. Consequently, these issues are fissiparous, and lack easily selected spokespeople. Therefore, broadcasters have less to go on - there are no regular elections to gauge the popularity of issues that fall outwith the principal battle-lines of party politics.
If you believe that technology makes it difficult to maintain impartiality, then you face an ongoing challenge: we’re stuck in a multi-channel age. If you believe that changes in politics and society make it difficult to maintain impartiality, there are more possibilities. Systems of party competition may be frozen, meaning that new cross-cutting issues will make life difficult for broadcasters. Or, party systems may adapt as new cleavages form - meaning that current difficulties in applying impartiality may represent a particularly uncomfortable but temporary moment for broadcasters.
Post a Comment