Impartiality: Attainable and Assessable

Abstract

This chapter tackles this controversial topic from the position that the “eye-of-the-beholder” approach to the question of bias is lazy and inexcusable when applied to journalism. It is explained that the term “impartiality” is preferred over “objectivity” for two reasons. First, its etymology conveys its meaning in plain sight: not partial; not favouring one party over another. This is among the fundamental promises that journalism makes to society in respect of news coverage. Second, it is argued, objectivity has a different meaning. It is used to denote detachment or the view of something taken by someone other than a person directly affected. Detachment is certainly reflected in impartial reporting as a result of the quality of professional open-mindedness brought to the reporting task by an impartial journalist. Since this is just one of six elements that constitute impartiality, each of which is defined and discussed in the chapter, detachment on its own does not capture the full meaning of what journalism promises by impartiality. Whatever it is called, this ideal is a cornerstone of journalism ethics. It consists of six elements: accuracy, fairness, balance, disinterestedness, open-mindedness and fidelity to news values. Breaking the concept of impartiality down into these constituent elements makes it possible to assess coverage for impartiality. A system for doing so was devised for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 2009 and was successfully tested experimentally. This experiment and its outcome are described. The exploration of its ideal is further developed by reference to the concept of “pragmatic objectivity” developed by Stephen Ward, as associate professor of journalism ethics at British Columbia University. This is grounded in a fallibilistic theory of truth as discussed in Chap. 6, and leads to accepting that any impartial journalistic account conveys contingent truth: if the facts change, the truth changes.