Perils of enforcing neutrality in war reporting

July 31, 2014 01:58 am | Updated 01:58 am IST

On his return from Gaza last week, Jon Snow — the face of Britain’s Channel 4 News — recorded a >three-and-a-half-minute video entitled The children of Gaza . It was an appeal straight to the hearts and minds of viewers. “I can’t get those images out of my mind,” he told them, talking about his visit to a medical centre treating children wounded in the conflict. “In a very densely packed urban area, if you decide to throw missiles, shells and the rest, then you will undoubtedly kill children.”

Mr. Snow’s video went viral. Supporters applauded its frankness. Opponents registered their disquiet that an anchor should intervene so directly in a story he had been covering. At the time of writing, it has received over one million views across the channel’s social media platforms. But it was never broadcast on Channel 4 News itself.

The most likely reasons for the video’s non-appearance on television are the rules that bind all TV broadcasters in the U.K., set down in law and enforced by the regulator Ofcom. A core requirement for all TV news — but not newspapers or internet outlets — is that events are presented with “due accuracy” and “due impartiality”. The regulator tries to be reasonable in defining these terms to avoid every issue being presented as a false he-said-she-said narrative — the worst cases are often climate change coverage misrepresenting a global scientific consensus as an evenly split debate.

But the code is still inflexible in parts, and foremost among those is a section requiring broadcasters to “exclude all expressions of the views and opinions of the person providing the service”.

So TV channels can hire the world’s most experienced and expert journalists, send them to hellish environments to act as people’s eyes, but heaven forbid they give a verdict on what they see.

In practice, this rule is broken daily in small ways: any time a current affairs programme turns to a correspondent for analysis, the boundary is being skirted, while the BBC’s Daily Politics show using the right wing commentator, Katie Hopkins, to report a segment on welfare benefits, claimants would seem to hop, skip and jump right through the centre of it.

The broader question is what purpose the rule is meant to serve. If anyone ever believed that presenters and reporters popped into existence aged 35 and free of all political opinions, there are plenty of examples to the contrary.The latest is Jeremy Paxman, who admitted just days after retiring from the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme Newsnight that he’s a “one-nation Tory [Conservative]”. What then is gained by making people who have opinions withhold them?

Journalists’ views shape the questions they ask, the people they interview, the images they choose to show and more. The current system requires those judgments, and the reasons behind them, to be hidden from the audience in a pretence of impartiality.

A more authentic setup might allow broadcasters, within reasonable limits, to give a degree of their own take on things and allow what must be the most media-savvy public in history to make their own judgment. This is how British newspapers (which are bound to be accurate and fair but not impartial) operate — or should — while their online-only counterparts adhere to no codes but their own. If they were able to speak more directly, broadcasters might be able to reconnect with the younger audience that they have lost. The age profiles of those who watch TV news is telling: just 24 per cent of Channel 4’s news audience is aged 35 or under; low, but well ahead of 11 per cent for BBC1, 15 per cent for BBC2, 14 per cent for ITV and 15 per cent for Channel 5.

Younger audiences see immediate, powerful and often opinionated video online daily. Often this isn’t from traditional broadcasters — it’s from networks such as Vice, from newspapers or new media startups, or from one-man or one-woman operations.

As TV merges with the internet, the ageing language and restrictions of the former will seem like an ever-more ridiculous straitjacket on the U.K.’s talented TV news reporters. When Jon Snow wants to give his take on Gaza, he shouldn’t have to go on YouTube to do it. — © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2014

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.