and finally...


Why bother with being impartial?


Do people prefer news from biased papers and social media to reliable journalism? asks Chris Proctor


I


’m greatly in favour of impartial journalism and think we should all strive to achieve it. Te trouble is that no


one seems to want it. Why, for example, would you choose


to buy the Telegraph or the Mirror? Is it to read objective, unbiased views of the world? I think not. You shell out because you think the views therein will match your own, thus avoiding indigestion over your breakfast boiled egg. When the South London Press closed


a year ago, it was mourned by the public in general and the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust in particular. Te footy fans praised its coverage of football ‘this side of the river’ and insisted ‘local, impartial journalism is crucial to supporters’. I didn’t believe them. I don’t think football fans want unbiased comments. Usually they want solace. I learned this at an early age when I


discovered a Liverpool Football Echo report on a match Everton had played at White Hart Lane. Te sad news was that our local team had lost. Worse, we had lost by 10 goals to four. No Everton football supporter wants


to read an impartial view of such a calamity. It would say how inept we were or, worse, how good the other team were. No. What we needed was a rousing piece under the heading ‘Everton hit four at Tottenham’ with details of the subtle build-up play leading to our goals; a note in the final par could be forgiven for mentioning the minutes in which the other team scored. Tis is the point of local papers. Tey


are on our side. It’s how a literate Reform supporter would feel with the


24 | theJournalist


Telegraph – although they wouldn’t like to discover it’s owned by a German called Springer. Tey come over here stealing our spaniels’ names Ofcom reported that seven out of 10


users of TV, print and radio think they are accurate and trustworthy, while four in 10 trust social media. Te same report said more than half of UK adults use social media to get their news. So they decide these platforms are not reliable, then choose to use them. So what’s the point of being reliable? Something equally bizarre happens


when there is a major event, like the 2022 death of Queen Elizabeth. Te day after the monarch’s demise, newspaper sales skyrocketed. Sales of Te Times increased by 113 per cent. What’s that about? Yes, some saw an


investment opportunity – a newspaper to be sold on eBay for a fortune in time to pay for Christmas. Others wanted a copy for sentimental reasons, fetched it home, gave it a cursory glance and shoved it into the back of a drawer where it remains, yellowing and forgotten. But others were tempted to the


newsagent because of a communal belief: that the news is more true if it’s in the paper. Official. It has the stamp of authority. We can be sure it happened. But don’t we want this for all our


news? Apparently not. Tat Ofcom finding that 51 per cent


of UK adults get their news from social media haunts me. Last week this source assured me that Elvis remains hale and hearty and is now the oldest living inhabitant of Leiper’s Fork, Tennessee, that HS2 is a bargain and that Trump deserves a Nobel peace prize. I’m not sure about the first one, but the others are palpably incorrect. Even more worrying: why did I read them? It is because I couldn’t avoid them. Tey appeared in front of my eyes,


unsought, like Proust’s madeleine or a mobile home in the front garden. We don’t choose our news outlets. Tey choose us. We are putty in the hands of the


algorithm. It points us where it likes. But it’s not infallible. Since I foolishly placed my annual £3 bet on the Grand National online rather than walking to the bookies, the algorithm spies have determined I am a covert gambler; a maverick with high-roller aspirations. Accordingly, I am bombarded by messages, offers and invitations from Big Bass Bonanza, Magic Win and the unlikely-named Lucky Casino. Tis is especially irritating because I never win. I’m penalised for giving them three quid. I also worry that the betting people


will pass on my details to the news section, and I will be hounded by all the wrong outlets. Tey’ll have me down as a red-faced, horsey punter, resplendent in tweed and pork-pie hat. I’d be put on the register of Mail readers. I don’t want to be on that list because


“


The news is more true if it’s in the paper. Official. It has the stamp of authority. But don’t we want this for all our news? Apparently not


I know DMG media is biased; it leans to the right at an angle of something like 89 degrees. Tis is a fact, not a criticism: it’s what the Mail group offers and what its users choose. Tey want to be anti-EU, pro-Israel and popular with Tories. Tat’s their job and their readers’ choice. But I don’t want to be bothered by


their editorial line when, for example, Labour have been thrashed in an election. It’s bad enough losing without inviting people in to crow about it. Equally, I don’t want to be foisted with a Guardian if I‘m not worried about ID cards. And I don’t want a copy of the Sun if I’ve been invited to tea at the vicar’s. We all like to cuddle up to our


prejudices, and we know the media to choose to keep us cocooned. But if we know the outlets are all biased – what’s the point of journalists being impartial?


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25