This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/oct/01/activist-journalists-fairness-balance-muddle
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Fairness, balance and a muddle in the middle | Fairness, balance and a muddle in the middle |
| (4 months later) | |
| Peter Preston | |
| Sun 1 Oct 2017 07.00 BST | |
| Last modified on Sat 2 Dec 2017 02.39 GMT | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| Political activists and political journalists used to inhabit different worlds. There were walls of tradition within newsrooms that separated writers of opinion pieces from reporters who, in theory at least, told the news straight. Big American papers even went to lengths of creating two distinct editorial lines of command with two effective editors: one for the news columns, another for the leader pages. Ah! happy, simpler days. | Political activists and political journalists used to inhabit different worlds. There were walls of tradition within newsrooms that separated writers of opinion pieces from reporters who, in theory at least, told the news straight. Big American papers even went to lengths of creating two distinct editorial lines of command with two effective editors: one for the news columns, another for the leader pages. Ah! happy, simpler days. |
| Serious-minded British newspapers of that distant time recognised basic distinctions. The Guardian, for instance, ran weekly columns from Tony Benn and other career politicians. They were clearly platforms for advocacy, though, not an expression of the paper’s own views. | Serious-minded British newspapers of that distant time recognised basic distinctions. The Guardian, for instance, ran weekly columns from Tony Benn and other career politicians. They were clearly platforms for advocacy, though, not an expression of the paper’s own views. |
| The staff burden of analysing political change was shouldered by leader writers but, more evidently, by columnists whose job it was to chat, lunch, and brood with politicians, to discover what was going on. The Guardian, in my time there, had Peter Jenkins and then Hugo Young performing that role. | The staff burden of analysing political change was shouldered by leader writers but, more evidently, by columnists whose job it was to chat, lunch, and brood with politicians, to discover what was going on. The Guardian, in my time there, had Peter Jenkins and then Hugo Young performing that role. |
| It’s a vital one still. Andrew Rawnsley performs it here. Rachel Sylvester keeps her ear close to the ground for the Times, like Janan Ganesh for the Financial Times. This breed of commentators may have their own political views but propagating them isn’t their job. They’re employed to try to make sense of politics. See, however, many new kids on this block doing something different. Not reporting in any strict sense, but championing party A or cause B, seeking to become architects of change rather than its chroniclers. Perhaps Owen Jones on the Guardian is the most high-profile example here. “Socialism is back. And that will be cheered far beyond the applauding activists by the beach in Brighton.” | It’s a vital one still. Andrew Rawnsley performs it here. Rachel Sylvester keeps her ear close to the ground for the Times, like Janan Ganesh for the Financial Times. This breed of commentators may have their own political views but propagating them isn’t their job. They’re employed to try to make sense of politics. See, however, many new kids on this block doing something different. Not reporting in any strict sense, but championing party A or cause B, seeking to become architects of change rather than its chroniclers. Perhaps Owen Jones on the Guardian is the most high-profile example here. “Socialism is back. And that will be cheered far beyond the applauding activists by the beach in Brighton.” |
| Jones hides no lights under bushels. He is a participant in the political struggle. He makes platform speeches, fights his own corner, stands with Podemos or Syriza, as well as Jeremy Corbyn, tweets “solidarity” with Catalan nationalists. He is neither a reporter nor a conventional politician. He flies under different colours. | Jones hides no lights under bushels. He is a participant in the political struggle. He makes platform speeches, fights his own corner, stands with Podemos or Syriza, as well as Jeremy Corbyn, tweets “solidarity” with Catalan nationalists. He is neither a reporter nor a conventional politician. He flies under different colours. |
| Politics and journalism have always coalesced naturally into a great grey hinterland. Go back a century and you find Lord Northcliffe tugging politicians this way or that long before Rupert Murdoch existed. The Telegraph was, and would like to remain, your window on the Conservative world – and I haven’t even got around to the tabloids yet. | Politics and journalism have always coalesced naturally into a great grey hinterland. Go back a century and you find Lord Northcliffe tugging politicians this way or that long before Rupert Murdoch existed. The Telegraph was, and would like to remain, your window on the Conservative world – and I haven’t even got around to the tabloids yet. |
| But register too,what’s changing here. That American divide between news and opinion seems frail to non-existent under Trump. The Washington Post and the New York Times lead a charge you feel on any page. Wall Street Journal reporters chafe because the opinion pages seem to be telling them what to write. (Go easy on Donald, guys). | But register too,what’s changing here. That American divide between news and opinion seems frail to non-existent under Trump. The Washington Post and the New York Times lead a charge you feel on any page. Wall Street Journal reporters chafe because the opinion pages seem to be telling them what to write. (Go easy on Donald, guys). |
| And in Britain, this conference season, there’s a melee tinged with vitriol and violence. Laura Kuenssberg gets a conference bodyguard because of trolling threats after the Canary website mistakenly reported she’d be speaking at a Tory fringe meeting this week. No: she isn’t doing that because it doesn’t fit with BBC impartiality. | And in Britain, this conference season, there’s a melee tinged with vitriol and violence. Laura Kuenssberg gets a conference bodyguard because of trolling threats after the Canary website mistakenly reported she’d be speaking at a Tory fringe meeting this week. No: she isn’t doing that because it doesn’t fit with BBC impartiality. |
| Yet it’s quite normal for other commentators to bang their party’s drum on party stages, or via Newsnight and a Daily Politics last week. They’re good invitees because they have simple messages to transmit. They are activists with added articulacy. No one – least of all today’s citizens of the web – expects fairness, balance or any such traits. | Yet it’s quite normal for other commentators to bang their party’s drum on party stages, or via Newsnight and a Daily Politics last week. They’re good invitees because they have simple messages to transmit. They are activists with added articulacy. No one – least of all today’s citizens of the web – expects fairness, balance or any such traits. |
| Does this matter? Not if readers understand what’s happening. A case made with passion can also be jolting, compelling. It stretches boundaries and beliefs. Yet sometimes, in the thickets of the web jungle, you encounter the feeling that all analysis and opinion writing rests on such foundations, that all journalism is really peddling ideological nostrums under cover of darkness, that no one who doesn’t agree with you can truly be trusted. The enemy. | Does this matter? Not if readers understand what’s happening. A case made with passion can also be jolting, compelling. It stretches boundaries and beliefs. Yet sometimes, in the thickets of the web jungle, you encounter the feeling that all analysis and opinion writing rests on such foundations, that all journalism is really peddling ideological nostrums under cover of darkness, that no one who doesn’t agree with you can truly be trusted. The enemy. |
| No: they’re just part – an important part – of the opinion mix. And if you wish to clamber higher, they’re part of our new fractious and furious stab at a democratic dialogue. | No: they’re just part – an important part – of the opinion mix. And if you wish to clamber higher, they’re part of our new fractious and furious stab at a democratic dialogue. |
| Newspapers | |
| Peter Preston on press and broadcasting | |
| Newspapers & magazines | |
| comment | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |