What does 'balance' mean in a two-party coalition? That was the question the Director of POLIS at the LSE, Charlie Beckett, asked the other day.
Good question.
We're all in flux - even with this week's detailed account of the coalition agreement. E.g. the government voice on a question might be Conservative or Liberal Democrat ... so does that mean all Lib Dem voices automatically count as 'government'? Balanced by an 'opposition' voice?
And if so, which?
What about nuclear power, where Lib Dem MPs have, under the coalition agreement, the right to abstain in parliament and argue against outside? Or Alternative Voting, where Conservatives will be able to campaign for a 'No' vote in a referendum that it is government policy to hold?
Thing is, though, if the question is about 'balance' ... it's the wrong question. The aspiration isn't 'balance' - it's impartiality: and they're not the same.
'Balance' can be part of impartiality, a tool to demonstrate some kind of equitable treatment. But it's a pretty rough-and-ready tool. You can balance column inches or seconds on air easily enough - but what about tone? Or what's actually said in those column inches or seconds?
There's more misunderstanding around impartiality than there is around any of the other values of journalism - five in number, soon (on dit que) to be increased to 11 by the BBC Trust.
Not only is impartiality not the same as balance; it's not the same as objectivity or neutrality or fairness ... though again, it contains elements of each of these.
The former BBC producer John Bridcut grappled with the meaning of impartiality in the 21st century in his report for the BBC Governors back in 2007 - From See Saw to Wagon Wheel. And though an excellent, thoughtful and useful report, it would be fair to say it failed to gain a huge amount of traction - partly, one suspects, because it refuses to deal simplistically with a complex question.
Impartiality requires a journalist to use his/her judgment at a number of stages. It's not a passive value or state of mind; it's not enough to let the world come to you and look upon it with a 'neutral' or 'objective' (whatever they can mean in practice) eye, being fair and balanced all round.
Impartiality is an active value. It means first understanding the axis of any debate - or more likely the multiple axes: it's always been true but is now true in politics more than ever before that any question will have several intersecting arguments, each one of which needs to be thought about separately ... and then together.
It means making a judgment about which are the significant axes and which are the significant views along that axis; it means seeking out those views; it means weighing them - a view doesn't become significant simply because it's articulated and lies at an opposite point to another view. Remember MMR?
Want to see it in action? OK, try this.
Nuclear power in Scotland. There's a debate - there is, actually. Two of the UK's existing nuclear power stations happen to be in Scotland (and there are two more research facilities there too).
Now, the UK coalition government is committed to building new nuclear power stations ... except that Liberal Democrat MPs, the coalition agreement accepts, will be able to argue against and opt out or abstain on any vote. Including, for example, the new Scottish Secretary Danny Alexander.
'Course, the SNP Scottish Government is opposed to new nuclear power stations in Scotland. And in Scotland, the Lib Dems back that stance. Labour, though, was in favour when it was in government in the UK and of course the Conservatives in both Scotland and Westminster are likely to back new nuclear stations.
Fancy casting a discussion or bidding for a package on this one?
What's the govt/opposition axis? And who do you populate it with? Is it the same as the pro/anti new nuclear power stations axis? And how do you reflect the probable Westminster MPs' majority in favour v the known majority of MSPs (according to a vote in 2008) against?
The Scottish Government's voice is simple enough to determine - the First Minister or Energy Minister. But who speaks for the UK Government? The Scottish Secretary (Lib Dem - anti) or even the Energy Secretary (Lib Dem - anti)? So ... if you use a UK (or Scottish) Conservative voice, do you have to include a Lib Dem to complete the inter-party axis?
Answers on a postcard.
