Whose Bias?
Unlike newspapers, whose editorial lines are frequently based on the political sympathies of their owners, many broadcast organisations are bound, morally or legally, to be impartial in their coverage of news, and to refrain from expressing opinions.
To those who suffer the excesses of the sillier side of the press (regrettably not confined to the tabloids) it comes as a relief to know that sanity is meant to prevail somewhere. But the difficulty you face as a television reporter is how to keep your audience fully informed about matters of a highly complex and political nature at the same time as maintaining a duty not to take sides.
A complication is the opinion of some in high places that a decision to cover an item is itself evidence of partiality. There is no comfort in knowing that bias is in the eye of the beholder, or that history has made a habit of blaming the messenger for the message. The question is how to square the circle.
Impartiality versus balance
It used to be believed that ‘impartiality’ was synonymous with ‘balance’. This is no longer the case because ‘balance’–implying equality–is not always strictly fair. Using a stopwatch to ensure that speech extracts from two opposing politicians are of the same duration may be doing both a disservice. One might be as effective in half the time. A perfect ‘balance’ which resulted in two sides cancelling each other out might be of no practical value and leave the audience none the wiser. As for ‘impartiality’, that is now seen as more of a doctrine than the definition of a single editorial principle.
Neutrality
Neutrality could be thought of as offering an alternative. But it is not possible to apply that stance to everything. There are moral absolutes about which it is impossible to remain neutral and civilised. Truth not lies; justice not injustice; freedom not slavery. Decent journalists are not neutral about racism or cruelty, but they are truthful about the facts of them.
Fairness
In the absence of anything else, the notion of fairness seems to be the most sensible. At least it has a positive ring to it. It also has the merit of flexibility. Fairness in one case may be to seek an interviewee’s contribution ‘live’ rather than recorded. Fairness in a second way may be to paraphrase an interviewee’s remarks. Fairness in a third may be to ask someone else.
Fairness guidelines
• Tell potential interviewees why you want them.
They have a right to know how you intend to use their contribution, and in what context. Be prepared to have your invitation declined.
• Protect your sources.
But be aware of the legal risks. In some circumstances refusal may lead to a fine or imprisonment.
• Stick to the facts.
Do not be tempted to speculate unless you possess information from which you can properly draw conclusions. If the opposition wants to ‘take a flyer with the truth’, let it.
• Choose adjectives with care.
They could be interpreted as ‘editorialising’. Better still, avoid adjectives altogether. Well-written reports, accompanied by good pictures, rarely need embellishment.
• Keep your opinions to yourself.
It’s unprofessional–and the audience is more interested in what your contributor has to say.
• Avoid partiality.
It’s as wrong to champion the weak because they are weak as to favour the important or powerful.
• Don’t overcompensate.
If you are not in personal sympathy with one argument, do not overcompensate with conscious bias towards the other.
• Do not take advantage.
People are not fair game because they are unfamiliar with the medium. Don’t play the tricks of the trade.
• Observe and report.
You are bound to witness injustice. It is your job to observe and report it dispassionately. Let the audience draw their own conclusions.
• Treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself.