UPDATED, SATURDAY 15 JUNE 2007: Emily Bell has posted a response. See ‘comments’
The BBC’s Kevin Marsh delivers a firm rebuttal on the BBC’s Editor’s blog to a comment piece by Emily Bell in today’s Media Guardian.
Bell had a go at the BBC for not living up to its fabled duty to be impartial. She gives as an example John Humphrys’ recent interview with Channel 4’s chief executive Andy Duncan. Marsh demolishes Bell’s argument with ease.
Bell started today’s column by acknowledging the difficulties a media organisation faces reporting on itself and rivals. Yet she herself enjoys a privileged opportunity through her column and Media Guardian’s weekly podcast platform to sound off about rivals. (Especially the Daily Telegraph‘s electronic efforts.) Good clean fun, but hardly impartial.
Ertblog 
But she doesn’t have a duty to be impartial, in fact as an opinion writer her duty is just the oposite! Yet the BBC do have such a duty, and seem to be failing miserably. A simple example, from a BBC insider:
“People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago”, Jeremy Paxman, Media Guardian, Jan 31st, 2007.
JG – I don’t agree that an opinion writer has a duty to be partial. S/he has a duty to be interesting! True, many comment writers are both interesting and polemical but I can’t help thinking that a polemicist is the last person with a right to complain that someone else has failed to be impartial.
It’s also important to recognise that impartiality is not a black and white concept. Emily Bell gave the example of John Humphrys’ interview with Channel 4’s Andy Duncan. It sounds as if this wasn’t Humphrys’ finest hour, but that does not in itself mean that the BBC failed the impartiality test.
Finally, I should point out that I’m a fan of Emily Bell: she’s a freath of fresh air. But I take what she says with a pinch of salt!
hi Rob,
I don’t know if Kevin’s moderators have posted my response yet (they hadn’t after 12 hours) but, as you might expect I disgree with you and him! (Vigorous debate always a good thing)… Kevin is being disingenuous, and my point (not that hard to follow) is that the BBC has a greater duty than the rest of us to inject impartiality into its news bulletins. If it ramps its own stories (eg Bob Woolmer was murdered twice! says Panorama) then the bulletins lose our trust . Twill be interesting to see where this one goes
cheers
Emily
“It sounds as if this wasn’t Humphrys’ finest hour, but that does not in itself mean that the BBC failed the impartiality test.”
No, on its own it does not. But when we see time after time those with Guardian/left leaning views, or those whose views that go against BBC group-think being given an easy time, whilst those on the right get the full Humphrys treatment, we should be getting worried.
And the promotion of BBC programmes via ‘news’ stories is getting ridiculous. Many times I start reading a story on the web site just to find the ‘news’ is something that happened 6 months ago, I scroll to the bottom of the page and, surprise surprise, find “this will be covered in the BBC programme XXX tonight at 8”. Its exactly the same with TV news. Any story beginning “The BBC has learned..” means watch out for a Panorama tonight, usually on event that happened months ago so are not now news.
“a polemicist is the last person with a right to complain that someone else has failed to be impartial.” Why? I do not understand your position on this. Just because someone has strong views on a variety of subjects, why should that prevent them from holding the BBC to account?
Emily
I was delighted to see you had posted a response here. (And that your response to Kevin March had appeared on the BBC Editors’ Blog.)
I happen to agree with you – and JG – about the BBC’s over-eagerness to cover Panorama stories on its news bulletins. But in my view it’s simply the age-old media organisation vice of regarding its own output as more valuable than that of rival organisations. An irritant, which should be addresssed, but not in itself a failure of impartiality.