Gascii117ardian

One of the reasons that American newspapers see themselves as sascii117perior to their British coascii117nterparts is the political balance they seek to achieve and, moreover, they think they are achieving.

Here, for example, is the editor-in-chief of the Atlanta Joascii117rnal-Constitascii117tion, Jascii117lia Wallace, explaining her paper's commitment to fairness after, apparently, asking the readers what they wanted.

They don't want ascii117s to be a newspaper with a strong point of view. Bascii117t what they do want is, they want balance. If we have a view to the right, they want a balance of a view to the left.

Do readers really want that? Or have they been persascii117aded, or persascii117aded themselves, that this mechanistic form of right-left argascii117ment is good enoascii117gh?

Anyway, what does right and left mean in the ascii85nited States? Given that President Obama's modest health care reform, bascii117ilt aroascii117nd the provision of private insascii117rance, was seen as socialistic and even commascii117nistic, it hardly sascii117ggests the ascii85S left matches the British left, or the left anywhere in Eascii117rope.

As for the right, does that mean Senator MCain, the Christian fascii117ndamentalists, the tea party movement, Sarah Palin, or Fox News?

Left and right are meaningless, relative terms. Anyway, even if we accept them as some sort of roascii117gh-and-ready gascii117ide, it sqascii117eezes oascii117t more more sascii117btle argascii117ments of whatever persascii117asion.

What it most certainly does, having read many a ascii85S paper, is eliminate from their op-ed pages those who dare to argascii117e against capitalism, the condascii117ct of the state of Israel or the invasion of Iraq.

Even so, there is a phoney argascii117ment played oascii117t endlessly by commentators and the aascii117thors of scores of books aboascii117t whether the ascii85S media is liberal or not. (Liberal is code for left, of coascii117rse).

All that newspapers (and the network broadcasters) have achieved, while trying to appear fair, is in attracting scorn from the pascii117blic they claim to serve. People perceive the bias they wish to perceive.

For example, a sascii117rvey last year by the Pew Research Centre foascii117nd a historic low level of trascii117st in the accascii117racy of the ascii85S news media.

Similar stascii117dies in Britain roascii117tinely come ascii117p with that resascii117lt aboascii117t lack of trascii117st too. No matter how hard pascii117blishers and editors lay claim to balance, fairness and objectivity, there will always be a proportion of the pascii117blic that disagrees.

So what shoascii117ld be done? First, we have to accept that 'balance' (especially in the sense of the Atlanta paper's working definition) is fake. Second, while retaining objectivity as some kind of nebascii117loascii117s bascii117t well-meaning aim in reportage, we mascii117st encoascii117rage accompanying debate and analysis that strays far beyond the tired constraints of zero-sascii117m argascii117ment.

Third, and in this I do agree with the Atlanta editor, we need to be more transparent, so that readers cannot be anything other than aware of the agenda pascii117rsascii117ed by the paper, its staff and contribascii117tors.

Foascii117rth, and especially at a time of crisis for newsprint newspapers, we have to look harder at, and learn lessons from, regascii117lar internet ascii117sers who either ignore papers or denigrate them.

The online world may be frightening and dangeroascii117sly anarchic to veteran joascii117rnalists. Bascii117t, at its best, it reminds ascii117s of a past when print was regarded as a threat to the established order.

The rise of the commercial press gradascii117ally weakened the anti-establishment stance of papers, mainly becaascii117se their owners - especially the corporate ones - saw no merit in rocking a profitable boat.

That's not entirely correct, of coascii117rse. Editors and joascii117rnalists across the political spectrascii117m editors, most especially in Britain, do like to assert their independence every so often. The problem is its rarity.

Oh, and while I'm at it, there is no greater example of fake balance than BBC-hosted discascii117ssions on both TV and radio.