The famous line of C.P.Scott, editor and the proprietor of the Guardian – “comment is free, but facts are sacred” – is immortalised not just in the Guardian‘s op-ed, but also in SacredFacts, Richard Sambrook‘s blog.
Scott was in his seventies when he wrote the essay from which the line is taken, back in 1921. But the division between fact and opinion wasn’t accepted by everyone at the Guardian.
George Dibblee was for many years the business manager of the Guardian, whilst Scott edited it. In 1905, on the death of its then proprietor Edward Taylor, Dibblee was appointed one of the paper’s trustees. Taylor had recommended the Guardian be sold to Scott for £10,000. Dibblee and his fellow trustees shifted that price to £242,000. Perhaps not surprisingly, Dibblee left the Guardian when Scott bought it. Perhaps more surprisingly, he took a fellowship at All Souls.
Dibblee used his time as an academic to write a book on the press called simply The Newspaper (1913). He argued that news and opinion were all but inseparable, because opinion shaped a newspaper’s editorial agenda and priorities:
As far as the public is concerned, there is very little distinction made between the function of newspapers as newsgatherers and their duties as purveyors of opinion. This arises from a very simple case. While news is nominally an impersonal thing, as a matter of practice it is far from being so. In obtaining it the faculty of selection is required in the highest degree by the newsgatherer or ‘story writer.’ Selection again is strenuously required in determining the competition between one item of news and another. Finally the presentation of news in words and paragraphs leaves a wide opening for individual preferences and inclinations. Thus it comes about, naturally enough, that the same series of habits, which govern the conduct of avowed opinion in a newspaper, habits summed up briefly in the term, the policy of a newspaper, express themselves, not so consciously but even more effectively, in its news columns.
13 responses to “Facts and opinion”
Provocative stuff – especially for a BBC reader.
I think there must be a (theoretical) distinction between opinion pieces and the act of editorialisng which news stories should be reported. In the latter case, it’s the job of the news team to then produce objective reporting of that story.
Granted it’s not as simple as all that… Where do you sit on this Adrian?
I can only answer with a riddle. As David Halberstam wrote of Bill Paley – even a failure to lead is a kind of leadership.
I believe Dibblee’s comment was brilliant, and sets-up the ultimate dilemma for the concept of objectivity — how can one “objectively” select which stories to cover? Once the selection is made, no amount of fairness, balance, or impartial voice can “undo the damage.” Also, I would take issue with Scott. In free, self-governing societies, I’d say that comment is precious. (Steve Boriss, The Future of News)
Well…where to start? (other than urging you off the fence Adrian!)Firstly, there is a difference between objectivity (based on evidence)and impartiality (absence of bias). We can argue about impartiality, but I am firmly of the view that objectivity – facts and evidence – is vital for news.
Secondly, my personal view is it’s vital to be clear about the difference between fact and opinion. There are many examples of what goes wrong when the two are mixed – not just the Tonkin Gulf incident or Iraq’s WMD capability. Finally, I’ve just discovered and adopted Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s quote: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts.” Quite.
But Richard – what about Dibblee’s contention that the editorial act of story selection amounts to ‘opinion’? The BBC and others then run the risk of bias in their story selection and the prominence they gives stories.
I know we can partly seek to balance that across our broad range of output. But the question remains, who chooses which facts are more important than others?
The editor’s values and bias (conscious or otherwise) surely have an impact on what may then go on to be the most scrupulously reported stories.
100 years on the decision as to what to cover is largely determined by an attempt to predict what the reader wants. Make the wrong decision too many times and your editorial prejudices wont count for much.
The reality of the (lack of) separation between news and opinion is a contiuum with the Daily Mail on one end and the WSJ on the other.
@Peter – Dibblee also argued that the British press was overwhelmingly conservative precisely because it attempted to give readers what they wanted rather than – in his view – what they needed. So, ironically, he was a proto-Reithian.
@Richard – popping off my comfortable fence, I actually think ‘facts vs. opinion’ is pretty much played out. We actually want the content of journalism to be accountable to rules. Those rules are both customary and regulatory.
To borrow from Isaiah Berlin, we can choose to observe them negatively (i.e. absence of complaint, absence of legal action), or positively through rules/standards we adopt, measuring our observance of them, and holding ourselves accountable for breaching them. Facts and opinions are then incidental to the way we deliver what we say we’ll deliver.
Now there’s a horrible answer.
sadly Adrian it’s not played out where I work. And the complaints keep coming…
Cheers, KP
Fact v Opinion may be played out among the fashionable commentariat, but not among the audience I think.
On selection, or editing as we used to call it, of course it’s a matter of judgement. (Art, not a science.) But that doesnt mean the same as bias. Just as with a correspondent there is a difference between professional judgement and personal opinion (the former best supported by evidence) so with editing. A bad or weak editor may simply follow their personal bias. A good editor works to a framework of values, or a remit, and makes choices which have an intellectual framework and some robustness when set against that remit or values. Many people assume editors work entirely by personal choice and instinct and therefore are open to the accusation of bias. The best editors (and I know many across many organisations) have significantly more rigour behind the selections they make. We may need to take more steps to reveal how those judgements are made – greater transparency. An Editors Blog is really a rudimentary first step…
PS SO yes, I think I agree with you Adrian, at heart it’s a question of accountability…..
It is about accountability. And accountability is also a massive pain in the arse…often with big resource costs. Nothing comes for free…
…except comment?!
Opportunity cost…