Media Bias
Media Bias
“The biases the media has are much bigger than conservative or liberal.
They're about getting ratings, about making money, about doing stories that
are easy to cover and keeping us in an uproar.”   W.W. Adams
Anyone concerned about the quality and truth of the information they read in the media — or on Wikipedia — needs to seek out sources that they can trust [1] whilst remaining alert to the possibility of bias, both the media outlet's bias, and their own bias, unconscious or otherwise!
On this page we explore the difference between media bias and 'fake news' / misinformation. If your time is limited do please read the section Forum vs Tribune. It says it all.
Page Content
1   What is Media Bias?
Wikipedia defines media bias as “the bias or perceived bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media in the selection of events and stories that are reported and how they are covered.” [The issue of bias on Wikipedia is discussed on a separate page.]
The term "implies a pervasive or widespread bias contravening the standards of journalism, rather than the perspective of an individual journalist or article.” It notes that “the direction and degree of media bias in various countries is widely disputed.”

It notes also that practical limitations to media neutrality include “the inability of journalists to report all available stories and facts, and the requirement that selected facts be linked into a coherent narrative. Government influence, including overt and covert censorship, biases the media in some countries, for example North Korea and Myanmar.” [2]
2   Forum vs Tribune
In theory mass media are grouped along two major concepts: Media as a Forum or Media as a Tribune. This is clearly explained in a short article on 'Propaganda and Disempowerment'. Here's an extract:
"The concept of the Forum is based on a horizontal exchange of ideas and views. In general, the media lends itself to a function as a space for a public discourse. The forum is not a place where decisions are being made; it is a place for debate, questioning, scrutiny, criticism. A successful forum can be loud, rough and even vulgar. It can be moderated, but never controlled. The concept of the Tribune is first and foremost a platform for dissemination of the ideas and values of whoever is controlling the platform. It is a top-down process, where the audience is expected to passively accept the notions; to receive instructions from the rulers on how to act and what to think. The concept is based on unconditional loyalty from the audience’s part."
Attitudes to 'Fake'

"The Forum and the Tribune have different views on the concept of 'fake'. For the Forum, fake is information lacking a factual base. The participants in the discourse demand sources, they have a critical approach to statements. Attempts to doctor pictures, forge documents, hide details or just lie will sooner or later be brought to public attention. For the Tribune, 'fake' is anything that challenges the authority of the broadcaster. Whether or not a statement is based on fact is less important; the truth is anything that benefits the broadcaster. It is true, because the rulers say it is."
3   State-Owned Media
Some countries have laws or regulations enforcing balance in state-owned media. The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires the BBC to do all it can to “ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in its news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.”[3] How far it achieves this is an open question [see below]. In Canada the CBC and Radio Canada (its French language counterpart) are governed by the Broadcasting Act. This act states, among other things that the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be:
"varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for men, women and children of all ages, interests and tastes," and "provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern."

[The video clip is from the first press conference of president elect Donald Trump  (11 Jan 2017) when Trump told reporters that it was a disgrace that intelligence agencies allowed any false and fake information out and called CNN "fake news" for distributing such info".]
4   Big Business & Local Interests
In many countries ownership of the mainstream media is concentration in very few hands, and this, and market forces (including pressure from advertisers), inevitably results in accusations of bias, and on occasion, claims that the media has undue influence on public opinion and the political process.[4] Moreover, it can be argued that many (most?) readers and viewers like to see their views or beliefs confirmed by their news providers, and there is pressure for media outlets to pander to this.
It is perhaps inevitable that a local story (a school shooting, a major fire in an appartment block, or a celebrity wedding) will often be given priority over some catastrophic event taking place far away (an earthquake, hurricane or famine) that may have cost hundreds or thousands of lives.
With the internet and 24-hour news media, it appears that many people have become less responsive to human suffering in far-away places.
Taking liberties with the Truth?

How do readers feel about this Express headline from 11 May 2017 — “Gina Miller jailed after conning clients out of £800,000 to fund lavish life”? You could be forgiven for thinking that the paper was referring to  the Gina Miller who successfully challenged the UK Government in court over Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty [which allows EU Member State to withdraw from the Union]. In fact it's referring to a Gina B. Miller, a psychic from Ohio who was jailed for 8 years for defrauding people of  large sums of their cash. [The Express appears to be the only UK news outlet to have reported her case.]
See also 'Reporting Momentous Events' below, where (the real) Gina Miller also had a hand. The table below indicates the political leanings of a selection of media sources in the UK. There are literally hundreds of newspapers, if you include national, regional and local papers.

Note: In the UK the left is represented by red, the right by blue. The reverse is the case in the US.
At a global level, you can find on the internet a 'Media Bias Chart' which has been developed by a US lawyer using quantitative and qualitative indicators to plot most of the mainstream news sources. This is available on her (aptly-named) AllgeneralizationsAreFalse.com blog (where she also explains the methodology that she uses to categorise each entry).
Other Forms of Bias:  Of course bias is not always political; it can also apply to the reporting of race, ethnicity, religion,[5] gender, sexual orientation or age, although some of these issues are closely linked to people’s political views.

Code of Ethics:  Professional journalists and news presenters,  like everyone else, have their biases and opinions; and sometimes they get things wrong. But objective reporting rests firmly on the ground of facts, and if a mistake is made, admitting to it. There is a code of ethics for journalist and this has four guiding principles:
  •     seek truth;
  •     minimize harm;
  •     act independently; and
  •     be accountable and transparent.
Bias is not inherently a bad thing, at least in an open, pluralistic society. Indeed it may be beneficial in helping craft an informed public as it enables facts to be seen through different ‘lenses’, and opinions to be openly expressed and compared — and bad ideas, identified and dismissed or ridiculed. The important thing is that there is choice, and that opinion is factually based; and it is the latter that differentiates media bias from fake news.

Institutional Bias:  The following paragraph and table are taken from a leaked internal memo, written by someone at Google who tried to open up a discussion on bias in the organisation (and was summarily sacked for his efforts). “At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices. Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company.

A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.”

We suspect that there is a lot more to this story — one well-connected individual has described the Google engineer's work as "thinly veiled racist nonsense".  Be that as it may, this is still a useful table...
Reporting Momentous Events
“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”  AJ Liebling
Here are some of the main UK tabloids on 25th September 2019, the day after the momentous Supreme Court decision to overturn the Government's decision to prorogue Parliament. Interesting to see how each chose to present this extraordinary development to their readership.
  • Daily Mirror [Left] — 'There's a special place in history waiting for you, Prime Minister'*
  • The i [Centre] — 'Humiliated PM refuses to resign'
  • The Times [Centre-Right] — 'PM back to chaos'
  • The Sun [Right] — 'Ooh, you are lawful... but we don't like you!'**
  • Daily Mail [Right] — 'Boris Blasts: Who runs Britain?'
*     Beneath the photos of previous PMs who served relatively short periods in office it writes: 'Shamed Boris set for shortest term amid calls to quit.' Above the photos its headline reads: 'Court ruling damns Johnson'.
**   The picture is of Baroness Hale, President of the Supreme Court who pronounced the Court's judgement.
5   Polarised Debate
"I have been very concerned about media bias and the total dishonesty of the press. I think new media is a great way to get out the truth." Donald Trump (quoted in The New Yorker)
There is a disturbing tendency in our increasingly polarised world to dismiss concerns or arguments simply because of the political position of the person making them. We have seen this in the UK's acrimonious Brexit debate, where arguments that prominent Brexiteers find uncomfortable are often dismissed as 'Project Fear' rather than recongised as legitimate concerns and actually addressed. The same happens the other way around, with arguments Remainers — or 'Remoaners' as some newspapers like to call them — find difficult. And names matter as they influence public opinion... (The use of loaded language is discussed below.) Indeed, no one can avoid accusations of bias, even the most conscientious objective or journalists.

In one notable case, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Buckingham Palace concerning a headline in The Sun which read “Queen Backs Brexit”. It ruled that the headline was “significantly misleading and represented a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.”

IPSO found that “there was nothing in the headline, or the manner in which it was presented on the newspaper’s front page (on 9 Mar 2016), to suggest that this was the newspaper’s conjecture, hyperbole, or not to be read literally. Rather, the headline contained a serious and unsupported allegation that the Queen had fundamentally breached her constitutional obligations in the context of a vitally important national debate.” [6]
6   Language & Spin
"I was sixteen years old when the first World War broke out, and I lived at that time in Hungary. From reading the newspapers in Hungary, it would have appeared that, whatever Austria and Germany did was right and whatever England, France, Russia, or America did was wrong. A good case could be made out for this general thesis, in almost every single instance. It would have been difficult for me to prove, in any single instance, that the newspapers were wrong, but somehow, it seemed to me unlikely that the two nations located in the center of Europe should be invariably right, and that all the other nations should be invariably wrong. History, I reasoned, would hardly operate in such a peculiar fashion, and it didn't take long until I began to hold views which were diametrically opposed to those held by the majority of my schoolmates... Even in times of war, you can see current events in their historical perspective, provided that your passion for the truth prevails over your bias in favor of your own nation."    Leo Szilard

In relation to media bias / political influence, a broader concern is that the world's principal suppliers of news are Anglophone corporations and this undoubtedly gives a western bias to the selection and depiction of political, economic and cultural issues. How far this penetrates into dictatorships like China,[7] Russia and North Korea, or theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia, depends on the availability of translation, the level of censorship that is in force, and people’s access to IT. [Of course, where material is translated, there is also room for the translator or his/her line manager to choose weighed words to soften the impact or change the emphasis / inject bias.]

Concerns about the dominance of the English Language (and perceived pro-Western bias) have been addressed to some extent by the introduction of news channels like Al Jazeera (which reaches out to the large, geographically dispersed Arabic-speakers),  Russia 24 (Russian-speakers), etc. although inevitably, these channels have also been accused of bias...

All governments 'spin' stories, and the distinction between spin and fake news may on occasion get lost, as appears to be the case with the 2003 'Dodgy Dossier' (concerned with Iraq and supposed weapons of mass destruction); and more recently, the shooting down of Malaysian Airline Flight 17 over Ukraine (in 2014) and the Skripal poisoning affair(in Mar 2018). [8] And, of course, heavy 'spin' is to be expected in times of political unrest of war. [9]
7   False Equivalence
“The media are desperately afraid of being accused of bias. And that's partly because there's a whole machine out there, an organized attempt to accuse them of bias whenever they say anything that the Right doesn't like. So rather than really try to report things objectively, they settle for being even-handed, which is not the same thing.”        Paul Krugman
 
Where things get tricky is when journalists are reporting highly controversial or polarised issues, where it can be difficult to differentiate between balance, objectivity, neutrality and truth.

Bruce Mutsvairo argues that “truth is a matter of perspective,” and that journalists should “aim to report impartially and in a balanced manner.” But then even truth-seeking journalists “could easily be pressured into inadvertently or even intentionally covering stories in order to satisfy a false or imaginary sense of balance… and give equal weight to both sides of the argument.” He quotes three examples, the 2016 US Presidential Election — where journalists “used to covering candidates who were like ‘apples and oranges’ were presented with a candidate, Trump, who was like ‘rancid meat’” (Jacob Weisberg’s expression);  our own ill-tempered BREXIT debate; and climate change, where “simply challenging it, or presenting dubious assertions for the sake of balance can skew the debate”. [10] False balance, Mutsvairo argues, fails journalism and the public.

In Oct 2017 the BBC apologised for not challenging sufficiently robustly the views of climate sceptic Lord Lawson in an interview in August, the Complaints Unit for the corporation has ruled. The ex-chancellor claimed in an interview with the Today Programme that "official figures" showed average world temperatures had "slightly declined". This view — shown to be false by the Met Office — was not challenged on air. The BBC admitted it had breached its "guidelines on accuracy and impartiality".
8   Media Bias in the US & UK
The United States
Most media in the USA are operated for profit and funded by advertising (commercial & political). Stories critical of advertisers or their interests may be underplayed, while stories favourable to advertisers may be given more coverage.[11] Moreover, the broadcast media is not required by law to provide accurate and impartial information as are national broadcasters like the BBC or CBC/Radio Canada in Canada. Accordingly, a variety of watchdog groups monitor output and challenge biased reporting and unfounded claims.[12]   World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
Before the rise of professional journalism in the early 1900s and the conception of media ethics, newspapers reflected the opinions of the publisher. Indeed, many American newspapers made no pretence to impartiality, openly advocating one political party or other. To some extent this was mitigated by a separation between news and editorial.
“News reporting was expected to be relatively neutral (or at least factual), whereas editorial sections openly relayed the opinion of the publisher. Editorials might also have been accompanied by editorial cartoons, which would frequently lampoon the publisher's opponents.”
Two important aspects of media bias are framing and oversimplification. A frame is the arrangement of a news story, with the objective of influencing its audience to favour one side or the other. This can greatly undermine the standards of reporting, including fairness and balance. Some media outlets, such as Fox News, are known for their conservative views; while others such as MSNBC, support a liberal agenda. And in respect of oversimplification, one media guru (Kathleen Jamieson) has claimed that broadcast news stories are made to fit into one of five categories: ‘appearance vs reality’, ‘little guys vs big guys’, ‘good vs evil’, ‘efficiency vs inefficiency’, and ‘unique & bizarre events vs ordinary events’.
Stories in the News
It is suggested that broadcast news stories are made to fit into one of five categories:
•     ‘appearance vs reality’
•      ‘little guys vs big guys’
•      ‘good vs evil’
•     ‘efficiency vs inefficiency’
•  ‘unique & bizarre events vs ordinary events’

“Reducing news to these five categories, and tending towards an unrealistic black/white mentality, simplifies the world into easily understood opposites” which are more easily commercialized. [13]
The United Kingdom
According to Reporters without Borders the “UK remains one of the worst-ranked Western European countries in the World Press Freedom Index, largely due to a heavy-handed approach towards the press, often in the name of national security.” World Press Freedom Rank: UK 33/180 (2019)

Here is Media Bias/Fact Check's analysis of the UK Media:
"Government Influence on Media: The media in the UK is divided into two types. First, is the commercial media that is privately owned and generally funded through advertising. A majority of these sources tend to lean right. The second media type is public service broadcasters such as the BBC, which tends to have a more neutral tone and is fact based. According to Media Landscapes “Statutory regulation requires all news produced by broadcasters, television and radio, to remain impartial and to provide balanced coverage. These obligations are overseen by the regulatory body Ofcom.” In general, the United Kingdom’s media is mildly influenced, especially public broadcasters who are funded by the Government and adhere to regulations."
9   Assessing Bias
"Our job is to put the best obtainable version of the truth out there, period." Carl Bernstein
When it comes to assessing bias, no formula is 100% objective, but being clear about the process is critical. Bias may be by:
•   omission (leaving out one side out of an argument or ignoring facts that tend to disprove or support liberal or conservative claims)
•     labelling (tagging politicians or groups with extreme labels whilst applying only mild labels or no label at all to those of another persuasion)
•     placement (how prominent the item appears on the page)
•     source selection (to favour one position over another)
•     spin (including subjective comments);
•     story selection (to favour one perspective over another)
•     selecting material or interpreting issues in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or views, while giving less consideration to alternative possibilities (confirmation bias).

Other considerations include: the use of loaded language (is s/he a ‘freedom fighter’ or a ‘terrorist’?); whether headlines exaggerate or titillate, and whether they match the story; and whether an alternative point of view is considered.
Media Bias/Fact Check provides a very clear description of the methodology it uses to evaluate and rate different media. It uses a two-headed arrow and puts a yellow dot on the arrow for each page to indicate the degree of bias. It also provides details of any sources used and an explanation of their bias. And it includes a voting poll for readers to vote on the bias of the source; and routinely compares its assessments to the feedback received. If there is a large discrepancy it may re-examine that source and adjust its rating accordingly.
Is This Website Biased?
Do you think there is arbitrary or unreasonable bias on this website, for example, in
●     the selection (or omission) of material,
●     the weight given to specific issues,
●     the style of writing, and or
●     the choice of illustrations?

If you do, I would welcome your feedback (and your reasoning). 

I’d also appreciate comments on the accompanying  Facebook page (livestreaming here) — this could be on the choice and range of material posted and the frequency of posting.

Please use the Comment Form. Thank you!
10  Criticism of the BBC
The BBC is regularly attacked by politicians and journalists for bias and its “lack of impartiality and objectivity”, with criticism focused on issues such as uneven coverage of political parties — difficult, bearing in mind that traditionally incumbents have received more coverage than opposition politicians; political correctness,[14] racism, multiculturalism, homophobia, and balance in religious broadcasting [15]. The allegations have come from all sides of the political spectrum, including serious criticism from a number of senior former employees (such as Antony Jay, Justin Webb, Rod Liddle, Robin Aitken and Peter Sissons). The allegation have been investigated on a number of occasions. Wikipedia provides a useful compilation; it also chronicals the many and varied scandals involving the BBC. [16][17]

A study in 2007 by the Centre for Policy Studies stated that, "since at least the mid-1980s, the Corporation has often been criticised for a perceived bias against those on the centre-right of politics." There was also an external review (by Imperial College in 2010) into the accuracy and impartiality of BBC science coverage (which highlighted the false balance problem). Another study (by Cardiff University in 2013) examined the BBC's coverage of a broad range of issues and one of its findings was a “dominance of party political sources”. Much has been written on the topic of alleged BBC bias: here’s a typical example: How biased is the BBC?

In Sept 2018 Snopes published an overview of the issue of 'balance' at the BBC, including details of an internal four-page ‘crib sheet’ reportedly sent to BBC journalists from the BBC’s director of news and current affairs. In the brief, the BBC laid out its official positions on the topic of climate change, allowing that it “has been a difficult subject for the BBC, and we get coverage of it wrong too often.”

See alson Media Bias/Fact Check's analysis of BBC bias.
11  RT(formerly Russia Today)
RT launched its first international news channel in 2005, and today describes itself as “a global, round-the-clock news network of eight TV channels, broadcasting news, current affairs and documentaries, with digital platforms in six languages and RUPTLY, the video news agency.” RT broadcasts in English, Spanish, French and Arabic, and makes a point of using native speakers; it also has web presences in Russian and German, and is available in more than 100 countries spanning five continents.

RT is a difficult broadcaster to describe and characterise; it is full of surprises — see for example, the campaign it ran in the UK in Oct 2017, when it responded to suggestions that it was complicit in a state disinformation campaign by embracing the claims with an extraordinary series of adverts, and the infamous Skripal interview (below).

For an overview of RT and the role it plays in Russia’s ongoing ‘War on Truth’ see Stephen Hutchings's April 2018 blog. [18] In it, Hutchings observes that RT’s “real success is on YouTube, Instagram and Twitter where it has grasped how to work with the grain of the decentred and elusive meanings that characterise much of the online world.” To address the challenge posed by RT, Hutchings argues that UK security policymakers need to: recognise that RT’s ‘War on Truth’ belongs to a dynamic, reflexive process and avoid knee-jerk ‘counter-measures’ (like encouraging broadcasting bans); deploy the UK’s own public diplomacy tools (like the BBC World Service) to engage with RT in more dialogic, less dismissive, ways; identify and properly understand RT’s audiences rather than assuming them all to be naive dolts; and "address those flaws in the architecture of the vast digital realm which enable RT to thrive alongside other neo-authoritarian tools of influence."

The well-covered RT broadcast by Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov (the two Russian nationals accused of poisoning former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury in March 2018) appears to have back-fired spectacularly, at least according to research from the Reframing Russia. This Project (which looks at the state broadcaster’s efforts to reshape Russia’s external image) reports that, from being highly sceptical about British Government accounts of the poisoning, many Russian viewers found the interview  “ridiculous" and the suspects’ stories "implausible.”
This isn’t the first apparent mis-calculation by RT – at least two of its American employees have criticised Russian Government actions live on air, one tendering her resignation in the process. [19]
12  Impartial Journalism in a Polarised World
“Newspapers are now activists in the culture wars.” Robert Peston
Make the time to listen to this fascinating [42 min.] discussion between leading UK journalists broadcast by the BBC in Sept 2019. Here's the blurb: “Polarised politics, cacophanous culture wars and the advent of unchecked, unchallenged news at the click of a button. Can impartial journalism win out in a world of alternative facts and the re-tweet echo chamber of Twitter? If it doesn't, what becomes of democracy?
When radio arrived, it gave politicians the means of mass propaganda. Television brought us the politics of the soundbite and the twenty-four hour news cycle. But the digital age — unmediated opinion, unchecked sources — has put old-fashioned, impartial news itself under the spotlight. Are we — the BBC and others — any longer believed? Are we trusted? And what happens when we aren't? Do democracy and digital sit comfortably together or is one currently winning at the expense of the other?”
In this "noisy discussion," James Harding [20] is joined by Robert Peston [political editor of ITN], Helen Lewis [staff writer on The Atlantic], Mark Mardell [presenter of BBC Radio 4's The World this Weekend], Julia Hartley-Brewer [Talk Radio host] and Gavin Haynes [editor-at-large of Vice UK] who "grapple with these difficult matters" and "attempt to navigate a digital future without losing our democratic past."
13  Reader Amnesia
"You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray [Gell-Mann]'s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward — reversing cause and effect. I call these the 'wet streets cause rain' stories. Paper's are full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."         Michael Crichton
Crichton calls this 'the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect' and points out that the effect does not operate in other arenas of life. "In ordinary life," he says, "if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say.
In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.” [21]
14  Fighting Back
A recently uploaded paper on 'Confronting Bad Information' contains some notes on the efforts being made by the mainstream media and journalist organisations to create a process where the provenance and technical integrity of content can be confirmed, establishing a chain of trust from the publisher to the consumer.
Is there anything wrong with this page? If you would like to comment on the content, style, or the choice or use of material on this page, please use the contact form. Thank you!
Notes
1     For the record, here are my current top five trusted sources of information: the BBC, The Guardian, The Conversation, The Register and Wired. These together account for about 50% of my source material on fighting fake and artificial intelligence. Another 10 sources make up the next 10%.
2     “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.”

In the interest of balance, readers might like to reflect on a savage critique of Wikipedia that appeared in Natural Blaze in August 2018 and entitled: 'Wikipedia: Friend or Foe?'

3    The Agreement says the BBC must be “inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.” The impartiality must be “adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation. Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of 'balance' between opposing viewpoints.  Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles. The BBC Agreement forbids our output from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.”
4   Some will recall the front page headline that appeared in The Sun on 11 April 1992 which has since become a political catch phrase in the UK. It is regularly cited in debates on the influence of the press over politicians and election results. The headline referred to the newspaper's contribution to the unexpected Conservative victory in the 1992 general election. The Sun, which is owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, had been relentless in its drive to turn voters against the Labour leader, Neil Kinnock. At the time it had the widest circulation of any tabloid in Britain. On Election Day it ran the headline, "If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights."
5    In respect of bias for or against religion, many countries only allow favourable reporting of state-approved religions and consider derogatory statements about there particular belief system as hate crimes (in some Muslim countries, punishable by death). Even where the press is more open, for example in the USA, the evangelical Christian right have for years promulgated the (false) idea that secularism and atheism are synonymous (atheists and non-believers how low credit-rating generally, although attitudes are changing ).
6   IPSO was established in the UK in 2014 following the windup of the Press Complaints Commission. It exists “to promote and uphold the highest professional standards of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the public in seeking redress where they believe that the Editors' Code of Practice has been breached.” It has the power to require the publication of prominent corrections and critical adjudications, and can fine publications “where failings are particularly serious and systemic.”
The Editors' Code deals with issues such as accuracy, invasion of privacy, intrusion into grief or shock and harassment. It aims to "balance both the rights of the individual and the public's right to know,” and states that “to achieve that balance, the Code “should be interpreted neither so narrowly as to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor so broadly that it infringes the fundamental right to freedom of expression — such as to inform, to be partisan, to challenge, shock, be satirical and to entertain — or prevents publication in the public interest.” Under the Code: “The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text... A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published.”  IPSO's full decision on the case of the Sun's headline about the queen is available online. IPSO has recently launched a newspaper ad campaign to say ‘fake news is not welcome’ in its members' publications.
7   China’s Golden Shield Project (‘Great Firewall of China’) prevents Chinese netizens from accessing websites which the government deems problematic. Among China’s Internet rules and regulations are unique bans on ‘damaging state honour,’ ‘propagating heretical or superstitious ideas,’ and ‘spreading rumours’. These 'catch all' terms are lumped together under ‘internet security’ and equated to hacking and other forms of cyber-crime. Harsh punishments meted out to offenders are also very effective in encouraging self-censorship. [See also our page on internet regulation.]

8    Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was short down on 17 July 2014  over Eastern Ukraine by what is believed to have been a Russian ground-to-air missile.  The flight was on route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur and all 283 passengers and 15 crew on board were killed. Russian government sources initially claimed that the aircraft was being followed by a Ukrainian military jet at the time of the shooting down, and later that Ukraine was responsible since the crash had happened in Ukrainian airspace. Several theories about the crash have since appeared in Russian media, and the Russian Government continues to deny responsibility. In June 2019 an international investigative team said that three Russians and a Ukrainian will face murder charges for the deaths of 298 people aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 (see eg here).
9     The famous Hungarian scientist, Leo Szilard, wrote about his childhood experiences: "I was sixteen years old when the first World War broke out, and I lived at that time in Hungary. From reading the newspapers in Hungary, it would have appeared that, whatever Austria and Germany did was right and whatever England, France, Russia, or America did was wrong. A good case could be made out for this general thesis, in almost every single instance. It would have been difficult for me to prove, in any single instance, that the newspapers were wrong, but somehow, it seemed to me unlikely that the two nations located in the center of Europe should be invariably right, and that all the other nations should be invariably wrong. History, I reasoned, would hardly operate in such a peculiar fashion, and it didn't take long until I began to hold views which were diametrically opposed to those held by the majority of my schoolmates. ... Even in times of war, you can see current events in their historical perspective, provided that your passion for the truth prevails over your bias in favor of your own nation."
10   "97% of climate scientists and virtually all of the world's climate science literature endorse the idea that humans are causing climate change." [The Uncertainty Handbook: A Practical Guide for Climate Change Communicators]

11  Six powerful conglomerates (Disney, CBS Corporation, 21st Century Fox, Viacom, Time Warner & Comcast) own the majority of mass media outlets in the States, and one consequence of this is that stories which are critical of these corporations are often underplayed. Some have argued that this is a kind of ‘inverted totalitarianism’, where these conglomerates have control "of nearly everything we read, watch or hear."

12   These watchdog groups include (on the liberal side): Reporters Without Borders, FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting), Media Matters for America; and (on the conservative side) Accuracy In Media, and Media Research Center. And groups such as FactCheck argue that the media frequently gets the facts wrong because they rely on biased sources of information (not least political parties); whilst After the Press is a news blog that follows stories of national interest across America and shows sides of the story that mainstream media does not cover.

13     Information in this section derived from Wikipedia (where additional references can be found).

14    In Sept 2004 the BBC's Board of Governors held what was described as ‘an impartiality seminar’ which was streamed live on the Internet. This included a hypothetical discussion involving senior BBC executives about what they would allow controversial Jewish comedian Sacha Baron Cohen to throw into a dustbin on the satirical television show Room 101. It was imagined that Baron Cohen would wish to discard kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Quran, and the Bible. Most at the seminar agreed that all of these items would be permissible, except for the Quran. There was also a hypothetical discussion about whether a Muslim BBC newsreader should be allowed to wear a veil. [see e.g. this piece. ]

15     Editors on the Today programme have refused for decades to allow atheists to contribute to Thought for the Day, see for example this piece from 2002.

16   Here are some notable examples: a) dropping screening of Peter Watkin’s 'War Game' (in 1965) on the grounds that it was too horrifying to be shown (it wasn’t broadcast until 1985); b) the ban on a range of Irish political organisations, most notably, Sinn Fein, following notification from the Home Office — the BBC used actors to speak Gerry Adams' words; the net effect of the ban (1988-94) was to increase publicity for Adams and his colleagues; c) the decision to invite Nick Griffin of British National Party to appear on Question Time following the BNP’s improved performance in the 2009 European elections; d) the shelving of a Newsnight investigation into allegations of sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile shortly before broadcast (in 2012) — BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson described it as the BBC's "biggest crisis for over 50 years";  e) the blanket coverage of South Yorkshire Police’s search of one of Cliff Richard's properties (in 2014) in relation to an alleged historical sexual assault on a boy aged under 16; and most  recently f) (2017-2018), the gender pay gap controversy (see Wikipedia).

17   Another key area of criticism is the mandatory licence fee: commercial competitors argue that this gives the Corporation an unfair financial advantage and limits competition.

18    Hutchings is Professor of Russian Studies at the University of Manchester.
19   In March 2014 RT America's Abby Martin's (a former 9/11 Truth Movement Supporter) made a statement on air criticising Russia’s invasion of Crimea; shortly afterwards, her colleague Liz Wahl, actually resigned live on air (see adjacent video). (Martin left RT in early 2015.)

20  James Harding is a former editor of The Times and BBC News. "After 2016, the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump, he started to think that a different approach was needed, focused on slow news and opening up journalism. He set up Tortoise.
21    Murray Gell-Mann won the 1969 Nobel Prize for his theory of elementary particles. Michael Crichton was a well-known science fiction writer and author of Jurassic Park.
Share by: