But the examples you link to are not all about impartiality and show me again why I tend to take what’s written aboout the BBC in the press with a pinch of salt.

For example – the story about buisness coverage. This wasn’t an “internal report” – it was research commissioned by the Governors/BBC Trust and made public for the world to see. It shows the BBC in a good light that it’s prepared to make these reviews public and hopefully for the BBC to learn from them.

Quite often the BBC is spun by the press as being more secretive than it actually is as this makes a better story.

Which is not to say that the BBC shouldn’t be more open. It should, and there’s a way to go on this.

I don’t understand what you mean by the BBC hiding behind transparency.

I totally agree with what Nick has said for the most part; educating the public about all these things (including ‘churnalism’) is the only way ahead – and the Internet has the potential to do that. I couldn’t agree with this more. But it won’t happen by itself. The internet is only as powerful as those who are prepared to use it and share its secrets.

But I also wanted to address this point you made, Nick:

“A belief in impartiality as a concept is similar to believing in a concept of truth, and that its worthwhile trying to search for it – which is the concept behind Wikipedia. The internet provides new tools with which to try to do this.”

*****

Again, I agree with you in principle but I think ‘impartiality’ is thesedays too often confused with a lack of conviction or a strong moral directive from writers and editors (all of which seems an inevitable consequence of 21st Century cultural liberalism – an amorphous, wishy-washy beast at the best of times). For me ‘impartiality’ is not about withholding or censuring ‘opinion’ it’s about disarming prejudice or political or cultural bias when presenting an opinion.

I’ve found that the most satisfying reports and articles are those in which the writer probes the subtext of the press release and those in which they challenge their own preconceptions – the ones where the writer confronts their own cultural make-up – their own biases, their own prejudices – all those things that inform our opinions but which we are often least aware of.

In my opinion, at least, true impartiality is about giving your report a ‘multi-angle’ feature. It’s not about withholding objection but illustrating it in a broad and sensitive fashion; it’s about multi-dimensions rather than zero dimensions.

And whilst I believe in impartiality, I cannot endorse the flimsy, diluted, directionless and often inconsistent brand of ‘impartiality’ peddled by the Beeb on occasion (especially when they have the nerve to hide behind ‘transparency’ in the same way a reprobate minister might hide behind his dog-collar). This isn’t a criticism of Nick personally – but of a visible trend at the beeb.

Here’s just a few reasons why I (and others no doubt) have become a little wary of the BBC in recent years:

BBC PANORAMA IN POOR PRACTICES AND MISREPRESENTAION ROW
May 13, 2007
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2078503,00.html

May 26, 2007
BBC ADMITS IT BREACHES BROADCASTING IN BUSINESS COVERAGE
The BBC’s coverage of business repeatedly breaches the Corporation’s own standards on impartiality, according to an internal report.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article1843020.ece

BBC PHONE-INS IN FAKE WINNERS SCANDAL
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/19/nbbc119.xml

BBC REFUSES TO NAME SHAMED LABOUR MP
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-did-bbc-not-name-shamed-labour-mp.html

BLUE PETER HIT WITH 50k FINE
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jul/09/broadcastingethics.ofcom

Don’t the public have a right to be made aware of all trangressions in the media? Not just those of the press? Shouldn’t this be a part of that ‘transparency’?