"News may be true but it is not the truth, and reporter and officials seldom see it the same way" (James Reston, journalist).

        With different newspapers appealing to people of particular age, class, gender and ethnic groups it isn’t really surprising that advertisers utilise this and try to manipulate the media. Advertisers are a strong influence, even on a paper’s content, because without advertising revenue the newspapers could not print. This verges on the extent that the news becomes a commodity to meet the demands of different market players.

           It has been claimed, “the media grew out of gossip and propaganda.” It is true that in the British media, politics largely affect the stance each national newspaper takes on certain issues.

         For example: In the morning papers on Wednesday November 6 one of the leading stories was that of the Tory split on the adoption vote, where MPs had voted against a three-line whip.  The Times was clearly supporting the stance that Iain Duncan Smith took in his “unite or die” speech. It used words to describe Duncan Smith such as “the embattled Tory leader” and talked of his “sombre warning”, giving the impression of a dignified and noble man performing courageously under grave circumstances. Kenneth Clarke and Michael Portillo were described as “heavyweight politicians” and talked of them being at the head of a “plot”:

        “The two had been seen whispering together on the Commons back benches shortly before Monday’s rebellion over the adoption Bill and the plot theory developed yesterday.”

        In fact, this was the only story shown above the fold and it was covered on pages one, two, six, seven and eight. The Mirror, on the other hand, ran an 11 page “world exclusive” on Paul Burrell and only mentioned the Tory split on page 12, although this is as much due to readership as political agenda.

        I feel that the Mirror gave a much more balanced account of the events. It takes a less sympathetic viewpoint towards Iain Duncan Smith, telling of his tough speech appearing to backfire. Facts which were not mentioned in the Times’ version of the same events came to light. The Mirror commented on 35 MPs abstaining as well as the eight who voted against the party line.

        Both papers failed to mention the divided vote by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. This would have been a good comparison in how the parties are led, as the other party leaders allowed a free vote on this issue.

        The Mirror did, however, also include the Ladbrokes odds on Iain Duncan Smith quitting as leader of the Conservatives, reflecting the interests of their particular audience.

Walter Gieber sums up the problem of these factors leading to imbalanced reporting by stating that:

“Until we understand better the social forces which bear on the reporting of the news, we will never understand what news is.”

        

        The third of Simmons’ objectivity violations is that of opinion being disguised as news.

        According to the Society of Professional Journalists, both editors and reporters should:

"Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labelled and not misrepresent fact or context."

Simmons states that:

        “An objective reporter should not use adjectives or adverbs, unless they are part of a quotation. Also, the source for any facts and opinions should be clear from the report, or alternatively it should be stated that source is intentionally undisclosed.”

        However, quoting and attributing is not always objective. Selection of quotes is down to the journalist, and there is the risk or even temptation of only including the opinions of witnesses who share the reporters’ own views. Gaye Tuchman tells of the reality of this occurrence:

“Adding more names and quotations, the reporter may remove his opinions from the story by getting others to say what he himself thinks.”

This can be a real problem for journalists to overcome, as it is not easy to remain entirely objective about important social and economic issues affecting the world around them. Sticking to material facts and providing a balanced and unclouded view of happenings is not always possible.

Lack of context is another element that can affect the way news is perceived. By failing to include adequate background information and provide a full context, facts can be misconstrued.

This is a particular problem in broadcast journalism. The backdrop to a TV news report can distort the meaning of the story being portrayed. By overlaying images that are misleading or even unrelated to the story, a different message than conveyed in the commentary can be communicated.

On Friday October 11, the BBC published a piece on the decreased Palestinian olive harvest. The caption reads "Olive groves have been bulldozed by the Israeli army." This accusation does not appear in the article itself; it is only in the caption without any source cited. Though factually accurate, this BBC caption gives no context behind the image.

There is incentive nevertheless to be particularly vigilant when connecting a caption and picture to avoid possible libel suits.

In a libel case in December 1986 before the High court in London, Dr Abdel Yassine won undisclosed damages after a picture that suggested a link between him and a notorious terrorist organisation was published in The Times and The Guardian. Both newspapers and the Press Association, who distributed the picture, had to pay substantial damages and costs.

        Coming back to the Tory party split on November 4: On November 5 this year Five News concentrated on the split in the Tory vote on adoption when covering the events surrounding Iain Duncan Smith’s “unite or die” speech. I think that the focus should have been on the fact a three-line whip was disobeyed, showing a general break in the structure of the party.

        The facts came across very differently presented this way than if the existence of splits in other parties with regards to the adoption Bill had been drawn in to give context. It was not mentioned in the news coverage that Iain Duncan Smith had even imposed a three-line whip on the vote; this only emerged in discussion after the main news account.

        Selective reporting is a problem closely connected to imbalanced reporting. By choosing prioritise certain events over others can be seen as a way as controlling what information the public has access to. In this way, news media can manipulate public opinions to a certain extent.

        The Guardian reported on the Bali atrocity declaring:

        “This was a crime against all humanity. Its victims were Muslims, Hindus and Christians.”

        There is a major omission here in that a large number of those killed in the bombing were actually Jewish.

No story is fair if it fails to mention facts that complete the full picture of the issue being covered. Partial truths cannot be considered an accurate portrayal of news.

        Selective reporting is also closely connected to scheduling in broadcast and positioning in print journalism. By giving a particular story or event a “prime slot” the public is influenced by the media. It is news reporters and editors that decide on the newsworthiness of an event rather than the public that receive the information. This is mainly the responsibility of the newsmen and women, although there are a number of models for news analysis, including the best-known list of news values by Johan Galtung and Marie Ruge, which was published in 1973.

        Media reports often use facts that are true to draw untrue conclusions.

        Many articles reporting on the conflict in Israel take a non-objective approach. It is reported that:

"Hundreds of people have been killed, the vast majority Palestinians."

This fact is true, yet without qualifying these statistics, the reader is led to the false conclusion that Israeli soldiers always use excessive force, existing continually as the aggressors. However, if Israeli forces were actually so uncompromising, many thousands more Palestinians would be dead. In reality, the ratio of deaths is less than one per riot.

William Faulkner assumed that:

“Facts and truth really don't have much to do with each other.”

        With the competitive nature of modern mass media, reporters do not always have time to verify all information before submitting a story for publication.

Reporters are under great pressure from their news desks to present copy within a tight deadline. Journalists rarely have time to investigate every aspect of a story before it goes to print, so must follow the most substantial evidence, sometimes leading to imbalanced reporting or distortion of the facts.

Since the development of broadcasting however, elaborate rules and procedures have been in place to regulate media content. These have been employed to promote access to content, whilst restricting distribution of certain improper information.

The means of regulation include direct statutory requirements, compulsory powers given to a Regulator, franchise or licensing requirements and statutory or discretionary codes of practice.

In these regulatory forms, there are instances of self-regulation, which is voluntarily assumed by providers as a source of competitive advantage.

Although it is true that people are very capable of forming their own opinions of events through what they read or hear in the media, “recognising the role of interpretation does not invalidate the concept of influence.”

The media has a responsibility to present fair and accurate coverage of local and world events. I have found that there are many inadequacies within the mass media and that it is not nearly as objective as it should be.

---