A few hardy souls braved the icy conditions to attend the Institute for Government’s Whitehall debate on impartiality in TV News.
But they were rewarded with what sounded like a significant switch in the BBC’s position when Mark Thompson said he could now see the case for new television channels, freed from the requirements for impartiality and able to openly advocate controversial views.
Britain might have it’s own equivalent of the Tea Party-backing Fox News if the proposals, floated by the Director-General were adopted. The Daily Mail-owning Associated Newspapers group could run a Europe-bashing News TV licence.
Thompson’s argument was based on a thesis that the old rules governing news impartiality are no longer relevant as the gap between TV and web sources of information collapses.
Due impartiality itself shouldn’t mean a soggy middle ground between left and right, argued the DG. In the era of the Coalition, it was increasingly hard for the BBC to pull together a “balanced” Question Time panel, he said.
“Extreme” or “radical” views should be aired on the BBC, which once had been nervous about discussing immigration. Some views once seen as extreme become part of the consensus, he said.
But if public service broadcasters have clearly-labelled polemical, point-of-view programmes – Channel 4′s Dispatches, the return of the left-wing John Pilger on ITV1 last week – why shouldn’t there be entire polemical channels?
Glenn Beck: Tea Party activist
Mr Thompson said: “There was a logic in allowing impartial broadcasters to have a monopoly of the broadcasting space. But in the future, maybe there should be a broad range of choices?
“Why shouldn’t the public be able to see and hear, as well as read, a range of opinionated journalism and then make up their own mind what they think about it?”
Having a broader range of channels would strengthen the tradition of impartial journalism across BBC, ITN and Channel 4. They would continue to be trusted. But Thompson could no longer justify the public service broadcasters having a monopoly over the airwaves.
Reaction to the DG’s idea from Guardian readers was mixed. Some accused Thompson of “sucking up” to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp empire, which owns Fox News.
But as Thompson pointed out, the public support for impartial journalism is so strong in the UK that Sky News has built its audience on upholding that ethos, even though Rupert Murdoch would like to nudge it Fox-wards.
The other strand of criticism was that a “free for all” of the airwaves would result in a wave of shrill, right wing voices dominating the new terrain. Fox News soon trounced CNN, seen as more “liberal”, in the ratings war.
Could a channel calling for action on climate change, more tolerance towards immigrants and a greater engagement with Europe make cash -is anyone out there watching Al Gore’s Current TV?
It’s unusual to find the DG on the same deregulatory ground as James Murdoch, his News Corp bete noire, who called the free market the best guarantor of public service broadcasting in his BBC-bashing MacTaggart lecture.
It didn’t sound like Thompson had secured the support of ITV and Channel 4 before delivering his remarks, let alone run them by Trust Chair Sir Michael Lyons.
Having secured the licence fee and quelled industrial disputes, the DG sounds increasingly confident in the BBC’s long-term position. Perhaps he’s now determined to ruffle some feathers and have some fun in his remaining time in the top job?
