Impartiality is at the core of public service broadcasting. The controversy over Gary Lineker’s social media message criticising the UK government’s proposals to deal with the arrival of immigrants by small boats on the shores of Kent, and the response of BBC management to its star sports presenter, highlight the issue.
The BBC trumpets its role as the source of objective and impartial news and current affairs. For 100 years it has informed, educated and entertained the British people. In that period the landscape of broadcasting, and the wider media, has changed radically. Today, public service broadcasting in its role as provider of news is in competition not just with other broadcasters and newspapers, but also with a myriad of other sources of news, most particularly online.
Many of the BBC’s competitors are not legally obliged to provide impartial news, and are free to editorialise and promote particular interests, both political and commercial. In such a competitive environment, to maintain its leading position in the provision of objective news the BBC has to be, and be perceived to be, the source of balanced and fair information, analysis, context and debate.
Achieving and maintaining impartiality is not an easy task. Public service broadcasting is constantly accused of being soft or hard on those in power. It is accused of being pro-establishment or anti-establishment. It is accused of promoting a consensus that restricts the opportunities of reform. It is accused of being too liberal or too conservative. It is accused of promoting the interests of the elite at the expense of the interests of the marginalised. It is accused of being pro-business or pro-unions. Faced with such widespread and diverse criticism, public service broadcasters take comfort in saying: “Well, we must be getting something right if everyone is criticising us.”
Under the UK model, which is similar to out own, public service broadcasting is established by government and its level of funding is determined by government. Its board of directors are appointed by government. Its ability to maintain its independence of government is central to any evaluation of its usefulness to the public.
In the current controversy over Gary Lineker’s online criticism of the UK government’s immigration policy, much attention has centred on the chair of the BBC governors, Richard Sharp. It had been revealed that Sharp had facilitated the former British prime minister, Boris Johnson, in getting a loan of £800,000. The impartiality of BBC management in its relationship to the UK government has been called into question.
Closer to home many of the criticisms of the BBC apply equally to RTÉ. All broadcasters in Ireland, public service and commercial, are obliged by law to be impartial. This obligation does not apply to newspapers or online sources of news and commentary. So, for example, The Irish Times is free to editorialise and to express opinions on any matters of public controversy. RTÉ, TG4, Virgin Media and all the other national and local radio broadcasters must by law maintain impartiality.
Faced with widespread and diverse criticism, public service broadcasters take comfort in saying: ‘Well, we must be getting something right if everyone is criticising us’
The application of this obligation to be impartial is very difficult to introduce and maintain. In practical terms it means that the presenters and reporters on news and current affairs must avoid taking political positions and should not express their personal political views. But personal views can emerge in the choice and degree of questioning of guests, in the choice of contributors to programmes, on which issues are reported on and which are ignored.
Editorial structures are put in place to monitor output to ensure impartiality. For example, in the run-up to elections and referendums RTÉ establishes an election steering group to monitor output and ensure that all parties are treated in a manner which reflects levels of support as found in recent elections and developments since previous elections. This is a well-intentioned and useful exercise, but it has its limitations.
[ BBC management ‘weakened’ as deal struck to put Gary Lineker back on airOpens in new window ]
The process is accused of hiding behind a “stopwatch” definition of impartiality that ignores tone and context. It is accused of favouring established parties over smaller parties in the struggle to gain attention. It is also accused of being self-serving, as it is an internal body without independent scrutiny. There has been sporadic discussion of establishing an independent statutory body to oversee campaign and election output on radio and television. Given the very tight timeframes of campaigning it is hard to see how this body could be effective.
When social media arrived and became part of political communication, mainstream journalism was encouraged to engage and promote its output through Twitter, Facebook, etc. Having a social media presence was seen as a valuable marketing tool for established journalism and a means of communicating with a section of the people that no longer accessed mainstream news outlets. Today, all the dangers of the unregulated social media landscape are evident and a much more cautious approach to engaging in social media is required.
Coming up with practical and effective measures and avoiding unintentional consequences is not an easy task
All journalists whose work is published on public service broadcasting are required to take account of the need to be seen to be impartial, and should avoid expressing political views on their social media accounts. This brings us back to Gary Lineker.
His role with the BBC is that of a presenter of sports programming. He has no broadcast role in the presentation of news and current affairs. BBC management’s decision to take him off air was based on a view that the expression of political opinion by him damaged the overall perception of BBC impartiality, rather than any specific programming.
Will Lineker vs The BBC go to extra time?
The issue has become confused because the BBC’s relationship with the UK Government has been called into account. In terms of RTÉ's relationship with government the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and the processes of recruitment to public jobs are in place to ensure accountability and transparency for public service broadcasting.
Many would argue that these measures are not sufficient. But coming up with practical and effective measures and avoiding unintentional consequences is not an easy task. The establishment of a new Media Authority to regulate broadcasting, social media and advertising will face this task.
It is interesting to note that the new Media Authority will have no remit over newspapers. This omission is presumably in recognition of the independence of newspapers from government control and the effectiveness of the offices of the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council of Ireland.
Peter Feeney is a former Press Ombudsman. He was previously Head of Broadcast Compliance at RTÉ