Political bias in the British media
Posted by
Martin Stabe
on 21 April 2006 at 13:06
Tags: Journalism, New Statesman, Newspapers
“Media bias” is one of America’s favourite political footballs, but it’s a game that is played only occasionally here in Britain.
As John Lloyd argued just a year ago, anger about perceived bias in the “MSM”, is major factor behind the mercurial rise of a blogosphere subculture that takes opposition to mainstream journalism as one of its touchstones. At the time, Lloyd said it would be better for British bloggers not to follow this particular American obsession.
That was never a serious risk. Here in Britain, only broadcast journalists are troubled by their American counterparts’ professional ideology of neutral non-partisanship. With no expectation of objectivity to start from, screaming about bias is not a very effective political tactic — revealing a political agenda at the Telegraph or Independent is just stating the obvious.
Of course, that has never stopped individuals or political groups from periodically claiming they can’t get a word in.
The latest group to fret that their views are “significantly under-represented in the mainstream media” are the signers of the “Euston Manifesto”, a call to arms for those who identify with the Left but favour a pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-America foreign policy. Named for the station near the pub where it was drafted, the document was published in blog form by the New Statesman and is currently being debated ad nauseam in the blogosphere. Ironically, most of the signatories are well-known journalists with access to columns in national publications — like, um, the aforementioned Mr Lloyd.
Of course, those passionatly against the war have a rather different view of who is marginalised in British journalism. John Pilger recently gave a speech at Columbia University in New York, arguing that journalism, not truth, is the first casualty of war.
Rather than worrying about the particular political views found in newspapers, Pilger’s main concern is that journalists have a “servility to state power” that “is hotly denied, yet routine”. Pilger shared the Columbia stage with three journalists who are unlikely to have demurred: Seymour Hersh, Robert Fisk and Charles Glass.
Peter Wilby addresses the competing complaints in his New Statesman column:
The claim of unfair media treatment is a comfort blanket. The American right argues that the media in the US are dominated by “liberals”; the American left that they are full of White House lackeys. No British government I can remember thought the BBC gave it a fair hearing. New Labour insists it has no true supporters in the national press. James Delingpole, of the Telegraph/Spectator stable, has made a cottage industry out of claiming he hardly dare reveal his “unfashionable” right-wing views. My fellow NS columnist John Pilger swears the media suppress news of western atrocities and marginalise views like his; I have written in his support.
I still think Pilger has the better case. But we are all a bit like footballers griping about biased referees. Shouldn’t we drop it, and just get on with the arguments?
Wilby is unlikely to get his wish, and it’s a good thing. This sort of debate will arise from time to time and it’s important that we’re reminded occassionally that the view of society that journalism provides is closer to a prism than a mirror.
