I tend to agree with John Lloyd’s view that the media has been central in debasing public political discourse. (I have written something lengthy about all this with some attempts to provide evidence for these assertions)

have you got a link to this? I’d love to read it…

There is more than ample public media space for the venting of ‘opinion’ and aggressive confrontation. The BBC does not need to offer this: it needs to stand out from the crowd.

Impartiality should allow different interpretations, emphases, etc to be aired; it does not require providing a platform for unsubstantiated opinion. Being a responsible public service should entail questioning evidence and the bases of argument for these interpretations. Unless one is an utter relativist, one weighs the logic and evidence that support arguments. Inevitably, ideological difference means a selectivity about ‘evidence’ — but that should be made manifest (not by sneering ‘you would say that wouldn’t you); it also affects the way issues are ‘framed’ and journalists should be aware/sensitive to when/how that is done and how to challenge such framing. (I had a long exchange with BBC about a complaint I made about racist and communalist framing in discussion programmes)

This carelessness with issues of valid argumentation and evidence is very corrosive and is incredibly widespread. I operate in a number of social and political worlds. Here in the UK – even amongst academics and journalists in a social setting – it is almost considered ‘rude’ to ask for evidence for assertions and even ruder to ask for the source (I have perfected an ‘interested/fascinated’ mode to deflect that sort of response). You rarely find citations in the UK print media; on programmes like Question Time, etc. anecdote almost always trumps statistical research, basic recurring factual inaccuracies are never challenged, etc. (I can give specific examples).

I would like to know that I am ‘well-informed’ by the BBC because of the scope, diversity and quality of the material offered. I would like to feel that there are standards for evidence, for quality of argument that are – yes – imposed on those who engage in public political discourse. I would like to be able to ‘rely’ on the BBC. That doesn’t mean that it has to be boring or bland or lacking in humour; it doesn’t mean that there can’t be real drama–just not confected drama/opposition framed in the tabloid sytle.

Thanks to Sunny at Pickled Politics for this quote from Peter Horrocks, the head of BBC News at the BBC:
So, the days of middle-of-the-road, balancing left and right, impartiality are dead. Instead I believe we need to consider adopting what I like to…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=436794&in_page_id=1770

to say nothing of this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article1522471.ece

although i am in many ways one of the “liberal”, “progressive” “élite” and practically make up a chattering class on my own, i have to say that it annoys me intensely that the bbc seems to have its own foreign policy – although it would be even more grounds for suspicion if it just reflected government policy (especially after the interview i heard this morning about dentists – sheesh). i suppose that’s the difficulty.

b’shalom

bananabrain

If the BBC became a genuine subscription service, rather than a TV tax, then it could be led by what its consumers wanted; if that meant excluding certain groups from having a voice, then so be it.

But of course. I get most of my inspiration from my readers, didn’t I say this before? Surely that is the best form of interaction?

Does Peter Horrocks really think the British public are stupid? Does he believe that the BBC has been broadcasting “middle-of-the-road, balancing left and right” news and opinion? Of course not. He has at last admitted, although in a somewhat coded style, what many others have being saying for sometime. The BBC has been broadcasting the biased agenda of a privileged liberal elite.

Radical impartiality! Bullshit terminology. Impartiality is sufficient. Difficult to achieve in practice but nevertheless a worthwhile pursuit.

Oh yeah, and Sunny, whilst you’re there – tell them:
More Family Man and American Dad

for shoooar!

Hell yeah!

(he says even though he has all five seasons of FG and season one of AD on dvd…)

All those views need to be treated with the same level of sceptical inquiry and respect

So a meek and mild lady who represents some church organisation and takes an eminently moderate and sensible and respectful considerate position on an subject, for example, deserves to be treated with the same level of sceptical inquiry and respect as some skanky ideologue who justifies suicide bombing, or some redneck racist from the BNP? Yeah right.

for shoooar!

that’s as much radical impartiality they can probably stomach for now.