1 00:00:10,250 --> 00:00:16,820 Welcome to The Future of Journalism, a podcast from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. 2 00:00:16,820 --> 00:00:28,820 I'm Fredricka Cherubini. This is a special series, our podcast, and it's dedicated to digital news report Twenty Twenty. 3 00:00:28,820 --> 00:00:37,900 Over six hour visit, we've dived into the findings of the report, the most comprehensive piece of research on news consumption around the world. 4 00:00:37,900 --> 00:00:45,060 And the head of leadership development at the institute and for this podcast, I'm joined by the authors of the report. 5 00:00:45,060 --> 00:00:52,200 For our last episode of the series, we're joined by Craig Robinson, research fellow at the Institute. 6 00:00:52,200 --> 00:00:57,810 Craig will help us unpack what audiences think about the ideal of impartiality. 7 00:00:57,810 --> 00:01:05,670 We'll talk about what people want from the news, whether it is impartial coverage or news, which takes more of a point of view. 8 00:01:05,670 --> 00:01:13,470 Craig, welcome and thank you for being with us today. Thank you for having me. According to the BBC, defining partiality is easy. 9 00:01:13,470 --> 00:01:18,750 It means reflecting all sides of arguments and not favouring any sides. 10 00:01:18,750 --> 00:01:24,750 But we know that in practise that is much more difficult to implement and in some situation more than on this. 11 00:01:24,750 --> 00:01:30,960 We've seen, for example, many newsrooms discussing internally what approach to take ahead of the 2020 U.S. 12 00:01:30,960 --> 00:01:36,390 presidential election in case claims of a stolen election were made and lacked evidence. 13 00:01:36,390 --> 00:01:41,880 And whether it was appropriate to argue, to argue against is for the next news report. 14 00:01:41,880 --> 00:01:50,910 Craig, you look at this issue with a specific focus on four countries, Brazil, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. What did you find out? 15 00:01:50,910 --> 00:01:55,980 Well, put simply, there is strong evidence that people want news to be impartial. 16 00:01:55,980 --> 00:02:02,730 That's the ideal people hold to. So we looked at this topic and both our survey in 46 markets. 17 00:02:02,730 --> 00:02:11,520 And we also dive deeper into the topic with focus groups and interviews in four countries, Brazil, Germany, the UK and the US. 18 00:02:11,520 --> 00:02:17,880 We picked those four markets because of their different media laws and regulations, audience profiles, journalism histories, 19 00:02:17,880 --> 00:02:24,870 etc. And we found that across these countries that people hold strongly onto the ideal of impartial journalism. 20 00:02:24,870 --> 00:02:29,220 So three quarters of people, for instance, say that when you're reporting on social and political issues, 21 00:02:29,220 --> 00:02:35,100 that news outlets should reflect a range of different views and leave it up to people to decide for themselves. 22 00:02:35,100 --> 00:02:39,900 So in general, few people want journalists to argue for particular points of view. 23 00:02:39,900 --> 00:02:48,120 And the same goes for the idea of neutrality. The majority of people want news outlets to remain very neutral on every issue. 24 00:02:48,120 --> 00:02:55,860 You've also asked people whether news outlets should give equal time to all sides when reporting on social and political issues, 25 00:02:55,860 --> 00:03:00,480 even when reporting on issues where one side has a clearly weaker argument. 26 00:03:00,480 --> 00:03:06,540 What do people say? So there's a there's quite an interesting story here in our survey that the 27 00:03:06,540 --> 00:03:10,440 vast majority of people said news outlets should give equal time to all sides. 28 00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:16,890 So few people said news outlets should give less time to sides with weaker arguments. 29 00:03:16,890 --> 00:03:21,120 But there is more of a sense amongst younger people and those on the political left in particular, 30 00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:26,400 that sometimes it might not be appropriate, it might be appropriate to limit the time given. 31 00:03:26,400 --> 00:03:32,460 So our interviews get more into the nuances of this. Of course, it always depends what topic we're talking about. 32 00:03:32,460 --> 00:03:40,350 So in general, people think equal time is a good idea. But for instance, amongst younger, younger people and those on the left in particular, 33 00:03:40,350 --> 00:03:46,590 they say it's sometimes not a good idea to give equal time to antibacterials or climate change deniers, for example. 34 00:03:46,590 --> 00:03:52,200 And that's especially if the weight of evidence, particularly the scientific evidence, is on one side. 35 00:03:52,200 --> 00:03:56,130 If that's the case, then we can limit some alternative views. 36 00:03:56,130 --> 00:04:03,510 But what's interesting to note is that people strongly express a discomfort with the idea of excluding these views entirely, 37 00:04:03,510 --> 00:04:08,640 especially on political topics. So there's quite a hesitancy about that. 38 00:04:08,640 --> 00:04:15,270 So people say that maybe you can give these views less time, but you shouldn't entirely shun these views. 39 00:04:15,270 --> 00:04:18,600 These are views we need to talk about out in the open and deal with. 40 00:04:18,600 --> 00:04:25,230 So when interviewing in Germany, for example, said these anti vaccination opinions exist, so we have to see them. 41 00:04:25,230 --> 00:04:31,230 We shouldn't just sweep these things under the table and then suddenly be surprised the Antibalas is everywhere. 42 00:04:31,230 --> 00:04:37,500 So let's talk about them, lay the evidence out and let people see actually what's going on. 43 00:04:37,500 --> 00:04:42,810 They say it's a bad idea to hide these views away and let them fester underneath the surface. 44 00:04:42,810 --> 00:04:47,220 And in the UK and US, there's a marketplace of ideas approach that people take. 45 00:04:47,220 --> 00:04:51,240 People say bad arguments will be shown to be weaker against stronger ones. 46 00:04:51,240 --> 00:04:55,650 So they say let those bad arguments condemn themselves out in the public sphere. 47 00:04:55,650 --> 00:05:02,890 I mean, it's particularly older people that seem to more strongly hold on to these kinds of impartial views. 48 00:05:02,890 --> 00:05:10,210 I think one of the most interesting insights in your chapter is related to the journalistic debate about false equivalence, 49 00:05:10,210 --> 00:05:14,950 other any issues where it makes no sense for news outlets to be neutral. 50 00:05:14,950 --> 00:05:21,880 Some people would mention topics like climate change or covid vaccines or racial injustice or domestic violence. 51 00:05:21,880 --> 00:05:29,950 What do people think about this? Yeah, so this gets into those topical nuances that we don't quite capture with the survey questions. 52 00:05:29,950 --> 00:05:32,710 People's views shift with the topic at hand. 53 00:05:32,710 --> 00:05:38,650 So most people when I say, yeah, it doesn't make sense to be neutral about topics like racism or domestic violence. 54 00:05:38,650 --> 00:05:44,330 These topics don't have another side to present or argue. So racism is bad, domestic violence is bad. 55 00:05:44,330 --> 00:05:53,200 So let's say that journalists can say these things. These are moral and legal issues that people recognise that there's a line to draw on. 56 00:05:53,200 --> 00:05:59,710 But when it gets into partisan politics, that's particularly when people want journalists to maintain their neutrality. 57 00:05:59,710 --> 00:06:03,250 So it always comes back to politics at the end of the day. 58 00:06:03,250 --> 00:06:08,290 So some people even said since climate change and cold vaccines have become political in a way, 59 00:06:08,290 --> 00:06:15,820 especially in the United States, journalists need to present the evidence and stay neutral to stay objective. 60 00:06:15,820 --> 00:06:20,830 If the evidence is on one side, that'll be shown. But journalists need to maintain an impartial approach. 61 00:06:20,830 --> 00:06:29,540 Their. You mentioned that your analysis relies on survey data, but also on focus groups and in-depth interview with audience members, 62 00:06:29,540 --> 00:06:36,730 and you quoted a couple of things, but generally, what have you learnt from those more nuanced conversations? 63 00:06:36,730 --> 00:06:43,990 Yeah, so as I say, the nuanced conversations really get into the of different differences that we don't really get into with the survey. 64 00:06:43,990 --> 00:06:47,680 So people's opinions obviously shift with what we're talking about. 65 00:06:47,680 --> 00:06:53,080 People said, well, obviously, if a dam breaks and floods a valley, there is a single view of that. 66 00:06:53,080 --> 00:06:56,950 That's what happened to the dam broke, the valley flooded. 67 00:06:56,950 --> 00:07:06,580 But if we start to get into the hows and whys of things about value judgements, for example, then journalists need to take an impartial approach. 68 00:07:06,580 --> 00:07:10,130 That's essentially about whether there are differences in views on a topic. 69 00:07:10,130 --> 00:07:16,420 So when there are differences in points of view, people want journalists to remain as objective as possible. 70 00:07:16,420 --> 00:07:22,780 There's a shift between these like very obvious, definitive things, like a car crash happened or a house burned down. 71 00:07:22,780 --> 00:07:25,360 These are very obvious things that you can be straightforward about. 72 00:07:25,360 --> 00:07:29,290 But then as we move into more value judgement, sides of things, how did that happen? 73 00:07:29,290 --> 00:07:42,670 Why did that happen? That's when people want more of an impartial take on things when you need to present both sides or different sides of arguments. 74 00:07:42,670 --> 00:07:47,440 So did it suggest people still care about the ideal of impartiality? 75 00:07:47,440 --> 00:07:51,160 And yet we live in an increasingly polarised society, 76 00:07:51,160 --> 00:07:58,990 polarised society where partisan voices make themselves heard in the public square and quite loudly in some cases. 77 00:07:58,990 --> 00:08:02,740 How do you interpret the data in light of this? 78 00:08:02,740 --> 00:08:12,340 What people say there's there's a place for both these partisan voices have their role and the public discussion, and so do impartial news providers. 79 00:08:12,340 --> 00:08:16,420 These things have different functions, as people say when we talk to them. 80 00:08:16,420 --> 00:08:24,250 So they admit that they're often drawn to these partisan voices, particularly divisive television personality is like Piers Morgan. 81 00:08:24,250 --> 00:08:28,330 They say they're fun, they're interesting. They tell it like it is. It's entertainment. 82 00:08:28,330 --> 00:08:35,050 It's insightful sometimes. But what people really want is a clear dividing line between that and the news. 83 00:08:35,050 --> 00:08:39,670 People want that baseline of impartial, straightforward reporting, the just the facts. 84 00:08:39,670 --> 00:08:44,590 And then if they want it, they can go off to see these opinions elsewhere where they expect to find them. 85 00:08:44,590 --> 00:08:49,090 Like on these TV shows or podcasts, for example, 86 00:08:49,090 --> 00:08:57,040 the dividing line is important and people sometimes feel like the line between reporting and partial reporting and opinion gets too blurred. 87 00:08:57,040 --> 00:09:02,660 And they really do want that dividing line so they know what they're getting when they're getting it. 88 00:09:02,660 --> 00:09:08,990 Finally, public service broadcaster, often at the centre of these debates about impartiality, 89 00:09:08,990 --> 00:09:15,440 they are sometimes accused of being biased and sometimes accused of amplifying baseless of bigoted arguments. 90 00:09:15,440 --> 00:09:21,530 How should they navigate these issues in light of what audiences say they want? 91 00:09:21,530 --> 00:09:26,030 Well, I like one of our interviewees in the UK said she said, you know, 92 00:09:26,030 --> 00:09:31,550 the BBC is renowned for being the steady source of the advice for them is to carry on what you're doing. 93 00:09:31,550 --> 00:09:37,550 Don't go to the left and go to the right, said there in the middle and report on what is happening in the world. 94 00:09:37,550 --> 00:09:44,060 Broadcasters in the UK obviously have this requirement for due impartiality and people want them to stick to that. 95 00:09:44,060 --> 00:09:49,580 People want the BBC to strongly stick to this impartiality ideal because that's their role. 96 00:09:49,580 --> 00:09:56,480 So don't sensationalise or add opinions, lay out the story and that the opinion stuff can be left to others. 97 00:09:56,480 --> 00:09:59,780 As I said, there's plenty of that out there. 98 00:09:59,780 --> 00:10:08,180 But the BBC's role, for example, with people say in the market is to be this reliable source of factual and impartial reporting. 99 00:10:08,180 --> 00:10:15,320 They'll always attract criticism from both sides. Of course, that's kind of what happens when you're trying to play things straight down the middle. 100 00:10:15,320 --> 00:10:19,820 But our data really shows how people really rely on a source like the BBC. 101 00:10:19,820 --> 00:10:28,250 So it's important to stick to that impartial line in terms of amplifying the baseless or bigoted arguments out there. 102 00:10:28,250 --> 00:10:33,740 That's a difficult tightrope to walk. That's where the Jew part of due impartiality comes in. 103 00:10:33,740 --> 00:10:37,820 It doesn't mean giving full licence for certain views to be aired. 104 00:10:37,820 --> 00:10:45,860 If all the facts point in one direction, for example, that's what can be said if it's science or something like that. 105 00:10:45,860 --> 00:10:52,820 But there's a responsibility for them to lay out the facts, contextualise the views and show people what the story is, 106 00:10:52,820 --> 00:11:01,370 at the end of the day, people really just want the right to decide for themselves, but they need all those facts in that context. 107 00:11:01,370 --> 00:11:02,810 Craig, thank you very much for joining us, 108 00:11:02,810 --> 00:11:11,600 this was really interesting and thank you to you for listening to the sixth and last episode of Digital News Report Twenty one podcast series. 109 00:11:11,600 --> 00:11:18,200 Our guest today was Craig Robinson, research fellow at the Institute and one of the authors of the report. 110 00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:23,300 You can catch up on previous episodes on our podcast channel, on Spotify or Apple podcast. 111 00:11:23,300 --> 00:11:26,090 And if you don't want to miss any news from the institute, 112 00:11:26,090 --> 00:11:32,360 subscribe to our weekly newsletter by clicking the link on our Twitter page or on our home page. 113 00:11:32,360 --> 00:11:38,600 You can find a full report online and digital news reports. Dot org slash twenty twenty one. 114 00:11:38,600 --> 00:11:42,770 This was Fugitive Journalism, a podcast by the Reuters Institute of Roubini. 115 00:11:42,770 --> 00:11:57,000 And we'll be back soon.