Balance in the media

The issue is not that networks are forced to report any one particular angle, but merely that they should present multiple perspectives when events are contested, for example by interviewing representatives from more than one political party. Many of those working within the media take a great pride in providing this balance, and those who don’t are not prevented from expressing their opinions in other manners outside of their work. If opinions were being suppressed then it may be a case of unfreedom, but the requirement for balance is for more perspectives to be put forward. This is very different from limiting expression.

There is a difference between the reporting of events, which is the primary aim of TV news, and commentary on these events, which is more important to newspapers and blogs etc. Individuals can only make a meaningful choice regarding their preferred commentary on events when they are clear about the situations under discussion. If the news itself is biased then the individual is not choosing between the political discussions regarding the events, but the very version of events itself. Subjectivity regarding opinions should be welcome, but subjectivity regarding the facts of an event impedes rather than supports a healthy deliberative democracy.

There may be an inherent right to trade, but there is no right at all to trade free from regulation. It has long since been recognised that the airwaves of a nation are public property, and thus governments have good reason to licence and regulate those who trade in them. In fact every industry must prove a public good before being allowed access to public property. The arguments for deregulation of such industries thus hinge on their offering this benefit to society and not on any innate right to do business. Therefore if governments believe the public good is best served by a balanced media, they are more than justified in legislating for this.

It is very questionable as to whether a really broad range of perspectives would be available. Whilst networks do differ in their output this is rarely representative of the entire spectrum of opinion. Also, given the cost of news provision, media markets frequently become concentrated in the hands of a few major players, such as Rupert Murdoch, or Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. This not only reduces the breadth of perspectives, but also means that they are those of commercial bodies, with particular and similar interests. Why for example would major media providers report impartially on questions of media ownership? Would there really be the same appetite to criticise a media friendly government? Impartial reporting is better served through regulation, than creating a market of similarly self-interested ‘competitors’.

If we are treating citizens as rational decision making agents then it would be best to provide them with full information rather than slanted coverage. Research also shows that anything up to a quarter of newspaper readers are unable to identify any bias they may have. If people are seeking news from a source which they do not realise is biased, then how are they expected to make mature decisions based upon this information? It is better to start with news that is balanced, rather than risk this confusion.

The very fact that groups on both sides of disputes frequently claim that ‘balanced’ news reporting is biased against them proves that this is not true. It firstly shows that a middle ground is being found, and secondly that there are systems in place by which the claims of regulated media can be challenged if any bias were to creep in. Broadcasters are under an even greater pressure to respond to such complaints when they are required to be impartial than if they were allowed to present unbalanced coverage.