BBC: getting beyond impartiality?

The BBC has announced changes in its editorial policy largely in response to questions raised by the Hutton report. There’s also been a plethora of other material going public this week that raises a number of related issues.

However the corporation continues sustain criticism from outsiders. The issue of Israel and Palestine, for instance, brings out enormous polarisation of opinion.

Tom Gross argued earlier this week that the BBC looks critically at Israeli government actions, to the exclusion of depth coverage of the words and actions of Palestinian leaders and activists. He argues too that it should keep in focus qualitative differences in governance within the Israeli state and that of the wider Arab world. This interview with the BBC’s Middle East ‘ombudsman’ Malcolm Balen in the liberal Ha’aretz newspaper reflects some of these concerns.

Meanwhile the Media Group at the University of Glasgow, took the opportunity to re-launch Bad News from Israel, a depth study of news broadcast coverage of the issue. Contrary to Gross’s findings they found a persistent reliance on Israeli official sources, and a consequent bias towards Israeli views. They also note that British audiences have developed an events view of what is happening there with little understanding of the underling issues; a surfit of whats and hows with very few whys.

What both critiques have in common is the call for more context. However in interview on Monday morning the BBC’s John Simpson expressed the fear that in pushing too deeply into issues journalists may themselves get caught up in the argument.

But perhaps space for context, with all its conflicting and competing claims to truth, cannot be found within the older broadcast media. Nigel Chapman, acting Director of the BBC World Service, writing in the FT yesterday argued that the promotion of conversation (subs may be needed) through the internet and other new media is the way forward:

“All over the world the story is heading in the same direction, if at different speeds. People want a dialogue, not a monologue. They want their opinions to be heard, and their culture respected and understood. Even if they never call a radio station or send an e-mail, they expect their community’s views to be reflected on air and online”.

That’s a tall order for such a large media player with a presence over many platforms and cultures. The suspicion is that it will take more than investment in technology. A new approach that both works with and against audiences may be needed. A combination, perhaps, of recruiting its own brand of Gonzo journalists and the opening of new common spaces where conflicts can be aired often and thoroughly.


Discover more from Slugger O'Toole

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

We are reader supported. Donate to keep Slugger lit!

For over 20 years, Slugger has been an independent place for debate and new ideas. We have published over 40,000 posts and over one and a half million comments on the site. Each month we have over 70,000 readers. All this we have accomplished with only volunteers we have never had any paid staff.

Slugger does not receive any funding, and we respect our readers, so we will never run intrusive ads or sponsored posts. Instead, we are reader-supported. Help us keep Slugger independent by becoming a friend of Slugger. While we run a tight ship and no one gets paid to write, we need money to help us cover our costs.

If you like what we do, we are asking you to consider giving a monthly donation of any amount, or you can give a one-off donation. Any amount is appreciated.