Anyone?  Well, let’s start with the dictionary definition of impartial: according to Collins someone who is impartial “is not directly involved in a particular situation, and is therefore able to give a fair opinion or decision about it. ”  When it comes to discussing issues such as the management of a country or decisions taken about a society of which one is part… it seems reasonable (on the face of it) to conclude therefore that impartiality is not possible in any true sense… Under such circumstances then, it would seem improbable that any journalist or other commentator could be expected to remain impartial on political issues… the best one could hope for perhaps is minimal bias.

The BBC it would seem recognises the impossibility of complete impartiality – aiming only for ‘due impartiality’; with the BBC Editorial Guidelines (Section 4) indicating that “Due impartiality usually involves more than a simple matter of ‘balance’ between opposing viewpoints. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. It does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles, such as the right to vote, freedom of expression and the rule of law. We are committed to reflecting a wide range of subject matter and perspectives across our output as a whole and over an appropriate timeframe so that no significant strand of thought is under-represented or omitted.  ”  It then goes on to say that the BBC “…must always scrutinise arguments, question consensus and hold power to account with consistency and due impartiality.”

Cut then to a Committee Hearing with the Director General of the BBC this week in which the MP Steve Brine attempted to portray the BBC as deficient in this: citing some examples:

• a line in the television drama Eastenders which portrayed Brexit as a negative
• a tweet from the football presenter Gary Lineker commenting on the impact of government decisions concerning sewage in the UK
• the decision to book the comedian Joe Lycett on the Laura Kuenssberg Sunday politics show

The argument that BBC presenters should not make statements which criticise the government on social media seems to me to be both nothing to do with the BBC and a breach of the presenter’s freedom of speech.  The proposition that drama programmes should contain only characters who espouse views which agree with the official government line is odd, especially since it directly contravenes the BBC guideline to reflect a variety of views.  Nevertheless, it is the last of these examples which I believe is of real concern to MP Steve Brine here, as this serves to highlight the idiocy of modern political commentary and indeed, modern political interviews and the answers given by politicians.

During a televised interview, Laura Kuenssberg asked Liz Truss exactly how she would help people with the cost of living crisis, the response to which was the vacuous “within one week there will be an announcement on how we are going to deal with the issue”.  Later in the show, Laura asked her guests for their reaction to this, and Joe Lycett’s response was a satirical applauding of Liz Truss saying that he “…thought she was very clear, she gave great clear answers”.  He went on to say “I know exactly what she’s up to… I’m reassured…”.  He said that as someone who was very right-wing he agreed with Liz Truss when she said that “it would be wrong to predict the future even though loads of people have predicted that we’re going to have real issues with paying our energy bills, but I think that she is right.”

He then satirised the television format itself when he went on to say that “The haters will say that we have had 12 years of the Tories and that we are sort of at the dregs of what they’ve got available and that Liz Truss is sort of like the backwash of the available MPs.  I wouldn’t say that because I am incredibly right-wing…”

Not only did the MP Steve Brine misrepresent what Joe said when he stated that Joe said that Liz Truss was the dregs and backwash (Joe did not say that, he said that some might), Mr Brine then went on to say that “many would take those examples… and say, ‘you’ve got a lot of work to do”.  How can Mr Brine have the temerity to criticise a comedian passing commentary through the veil of ‘some might say’ and then use that same argument himself for his own criticism of the BBC?

We appear to have arrived at a place in which politicians (certainly those in power) seem to believe that it is acceptable to require and request that all political commentary; be it journalistic or dramatic in nature, align with the government line.  (The BBC has previously indicated that the audiences of some political shows were ‘carefully selected‘ to be pro-Brexit.)  Mr Brine continued his point into the session by seeking to understand the level of due diligence that applies to the selection of guests.  It is not the same however to require that due diligence be undertaken, to claiming that is hasn’t been done when the views that are presented on a television programme do not conform with your own.

The issue with trying to present such a balance in a party political environment is one which was brilliantly satirised by Joe Lycett on the show…  analysis today consists of people on the left agreeing with statements from those on the left, and people on the right agreeing with statements made by those on the right.  Political analysis has become dogmatic, debate has been cut-off and stifled through our very effort to create balance.  And this was started by the politicians… by refusing to provide clear answers, they require that any supporter must support vague, poorly explained ideas.

We might as well not have it at all…