Partially Impartial Liner Notes

This being a blog rather than a broadcast I’m not technically bound by the provisions of the Broadcasting Act to be impartial. I could, if the mood grabbed me, use the forum to embrace a particular political party (so many to choose from, what’s a guy to do?), or champion a political philosophy, either the one that says there’s too much government interference in the economy, or the other one. I could become a single issue blogger; a university for the South East, the reintroduction of public hanging, the legalization of drugs (provisional wing), tax exemptions for pleated pants.  However for the purposes of this blog, I think it wise to stick to the spirit of the legislation governing people in the broadcast industry, which made me think I’d better take a second look at it.

I was always under the impression that editorialising was handled differently in Europe and the US.  European broadcasters are restrained from offering opinions, as the sector had a history of regulation in the continent that got an early and brutal lesson in the effects of broadcast propaganda.  In the US, the honourable First Amendment tradition dictates that the government has no business regulating the airwaves any more than an individual’s speech. A happy result of which was the proliferation of radio stations in the twenties and thirties which helped to bring country, blues and jazz music to huge audiences paving the way for civilisation’s greatest achievement, the glory of Rock’n’Roll (is that an opinion?).  It also allowed for editorialising on news broadcasts, although my understanding is that journalistic tradition meant this was generally considered and used sparingly. Inevitably perhaps, what started as this, went to become this and we now have the entity that is Fox News and its companions such as Keith Olberman latterly of MSNBC.  There are those who think this trend is a legitimate addition to the broadcast milieu and certainly there’s an honesty to a broadcaster telling us what they think instead smuggling in an agenda under the cover of impartiality – although the famous liberal bias of the media gives it more credit for deceit that it is truly capable of.  If the media has biases the first must be in favour of the sensational. But most broadcast journalists – myself included – would I think hate to undermine themselves by the profession of a particular, controversial belief.

And this word controversial is a recurring theme in the Broadcasting guidelines in the English speaking world.  The Irish Broadcasting Act forbids any expression of the opinion of the broadcaster, which presumably goes from hot political debate, to preferences in sport and sock fabric.  Strict neutrality.  Not so in Britain, where fairness is required but opinions can be expressed in non-controversial areas, otherwise one might be expected to treat a racist or paedophile even-handedly.  In New Zealand again fairness is required but there is no bar on the expression of an opinion by the broadcaster.  The Irish blanket ban isn’t generally applied to non-controversial topics, although I have seen it referenced to a talent show where a listener took exception to WLR expressing support for a Waterford contestant.  In reality broadcasters here have for some time been comfortable crossing over to commentary, with many current affairs presenters making their name with trenchant opinion.  Of course I just read the news which is, or should be, a pretty straight presentation of facts.  Applying the Broadcast Act to this blog might reduce it to a pointless exercise of stating the obvious, where I cast the readers as the interviewer to my inscrutable Kenny Dalglish. So there must be some value added here, but not editorializing opinion which I feel unable to share publicly and to be honest have great difficulty arriving at privately.  So this will be…what? Observation? Too pretentious. Comment? Too contentious.  Explanation? Too ambitious. For the moment I think the best description is Liner Notes. I might come back to that.