{"id":716,"date":"2007-11-23T14:46:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-23T20:46:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/adrianmonck.com\/?p=716"},"modified":"2007-11-23T14:46:00","modified_gmt":"2007-11-23T20:46:00","slug":"impartiality-ofcom-retreats-from-a-fox-news-future","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/adrianmonck.com\/about\/2007\/11\/impartiality-ofcom-retreats-from-a-fox-news-future\/","title":{"rendered":"Impartiality &#8211; Ofcom retreats from a Fox News future"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span class=\"dropcaps\">R<\/span>emember these headlines?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>TV news \u2018a turn-off for young and ethnic minorities\u2019: Ofcom says solution could be to axe impartiality rules: BBC fears lost generation as audiences dwindle &#8211; <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">The Guardian<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Ofcom may give all-clear for politically biased news &#8211; <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">The Times<\/span><\/p>\n<p>US-style TV news to pull in younger viewers &#8211; <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">The Evening Standard<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Yes. Even if you were the media village idiot, you might have thought that UK TV regulator <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Ofcom<\/span> was going to rid of impartiality.<\/p>\n<p>For a long time now, kites have been flown by Ofcom to the effect of loosening the ties of impartiality which bind television. Today those kites were shot to ribbons.<span id=\"fullpost\"><\/p>\n<p>The centre piece of the day was a debate in favour of dumping impartiality where former Ofcom content partner Tim Suter &#8211; appeared (in what he said was a personal capacity) speaking in favour. The motion was comprehensively defeated.<\/p>\n<p><\/span><span id=\"fullpost\">One of those Ofcom kites had fluttered on page 10 of the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ofcom.org.uk\/research\/tv\/reports\/newnews\/\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">New News, Future News<\/span><\/a> report in July, where the Ofcom authors had put these words in bold type: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>1.68 &#8230;it is possible that universal requirements for due impartiality may actually impede the expression of genuine diversity of views, and that a less rigid approach might &#8211; in future &#8211; encourage greater engagement among those not currently inspired by mainstream sources<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>That report generated the headlines above, and the first debate of the day (quite fallaciously, as Westminster\u2019s <a href=\"http:\/\/westminster.ac.uk\/mad\/page-304\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Steve Barnett<\/span><\/a> pointed out) tied disengagement to impartiality.<\/span><br \/><span id=\"fullpost\"><br \/>But it was a contribution from <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Channel 4<\/span> news and current affairs <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Dorothy Byrne<\/span> that really underlined the dramatic consequences of abandoning impartiality. Byrne outlined the possibility of an Islamist channel peddling conspiracy theories and biased news with no obligation to redress the balance.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s a vision <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ofcom.org.uk\/about\/csg\/ofcom_board\/biogs\/e_richards\/\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Ed Richards<\/span><\/a> and Ofcom appear to have only just woken up to. I think their judgement on <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">Undercover Mosque<\/span> marked a sea change in the way they look at regulation. Certainly the appointment of an industry figure as serious as <a style=\"font-weight: bold;\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Stewart_Purvis\" target=\"_blank\">Stewart Purvis<\/a> (<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">disclaimer<\/span>: my former boss, current colleague and one of the most respected figures in UK TV journalism) can only mean that they intend to step up to the plate in respect of the public service\/public interest aspect of their role.<\/p>\n<p>For Richards, the consultancy wonk, it means a retreat from the cosy reassurance of metrics measuring public service to looking at the political consequences of dismantling a broadcast regulatory framework that provides an important bastion against extremism.<\/p>\n<p>Looked at through that lens impartiality suddenly appears less anodyne than its detractors claim, and looks &#8211; let\u2019s say it &#8211; sensible.<\/p>\n<p>So we had an extraordinary day where the regulator &#8211; having attempted to lead us all to an unregulated nirvana, having commissioned research that led inexorably towards abandoning impartiality &#8211; stepped back.<\/p>\n<p>And all of us were party to a strange piece of theatre, transformed by the realization that one way to engage young people from minorities may be to produce television news that deliberately misrepresents the world around them and calls it journalism. And that engagement may come at a price no strategy consultant\u2019s metric would be fit to measure.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Remember these headlines? TV news \u2018a turn-off for young and ethnic minorities\u2019: Ofcom says solution could be to axe impartiality rules: BBC fears lost generation as audiences dwindle &#8211; The Guardian Ofcom may give all-clear for politically biased news &#8211; The Times US-style TV news to pull in younger viewers &#8211; The Evening Standard Yes. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[231,65],"class_list":["post-716","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-journalism","tag-channel-4","tag-fox-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/adrianmonck.com\/about\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/716","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/adrianmonck.com\/about\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/adrianmonck.com\/about\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adrianmonck.com\/about\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adrianmonck.com\/about\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=716"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/adrianmonck.com\/about\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/716\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/adrianmonck.com\/about\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=716"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adrianmonck.com\/about\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=716"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adrianmonck.com\/about\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=716"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}