The truth about media and journalism

Now every now and then I'm asked to do a talk about a topical aspect concerning the media. And irrespective of who the audience are or their backgrounds, I'm often presented with the conspiratorial premise that publications, journals and broadcasting companies can't be trusted.

It's as if together they're a collective entity - a benign being with a life and conscience of its own.

And invariably within this there's an implication - or an insinuation of some kind - that the media has a political agenda separate from the audience.

Although a healthy scepticism is always a good thing in a democracy - and I certainly wouldn't condemn that as a trait - I do think that political bias in the media, though not totally unfounded, is, on the whole, an exaggeration.

Today, for instance, the media is blamed for everything from infesting the English language to encouraging lawlessness; from being partisan to politics, to being prejudicial to a particular culture and/or religion.

And yet, what people sometimes forget is that there are so many independent regulatory bodies scrutinising the work broadcasters and journalists do - even (despite today's apology) the Police, quite rightly, is on the look out to ensure organisation like the BBC and ITV are properly prosecuted if they step out of line by producing a false documentary or cheating viewers through premium call competitions.

And moreover, every publication and broadcasting company has strict guidelines and codes of conduct - they're so many checks and balances in operation - that you can't just start writing whatever thought comes into your head. Facts, statements, quotations have to be checked and double checked.

Writing is a damn serious business. By its very nature it's subjective and the writer, like everybody else - is a victim of social, cultural and political partiality.

And so journalism has to tread a very fine line especially critics who give opinions. Their views have to measured, balanced and unbiased.

And yet, at the same time, they have to remain true to themselves and the world in which they live. They can't - or shouldn't - allow dogma or a political ideology to dictate their perspective.

So columnists and bloggers working for broadcasting companies and newspapers are checked thoroughly to ensure they don't incriminate themselves or their organisation. Their perspective - their point of view and language - are combed minutely. That's why in every newspaper or production office there's a hierarchical line of people - the editorial board - checking facts and who will ultimately take the flak if an error hits the fan. Newsrooms in particular are littered with editors of all kinds with varying degrees of responsibilities to safe guard accuracy and truth.

And all these people are very alert to libel laws - they have to be - because a lazy error can cost the publication thousands of pounds. This would certainly have been the case for Channel 4 had the judgement not gone in their favour.

But more importantly, newspapers have to represent the reader - embrace an ever-changing demographic landscape of Britain and/or a particular region. Essentially they can't afford to alienate their readership especially in today's competitive and burgeoning world of mass media. It'd be professional suicide.

That's why I would argue that - politically - more and more newspapers are going for the centre ground by involving and engaging with the community they serve whether it's through market research, employing 'community correspondents', community critics or experts/key figures from the readership.

Even the BBC's flagship current affairs programme Newsnight is asking viewers to send in their stories or give their comments by emailing or texting the production office. In other words tell us what news stories you'd like - and we will try and cover them. Producers and editors want to get into the mind of the readers/viewers.

It's called the democratisation of journalism.

So to say that the media has an agenda of is own whether it's political, social or cultural - is rather, quite frankly, lame and out-dated. It's not in the interest of newspapers to be seen as partial or too political.

But a note of caution.

Journalists do have a duty to report the news and facts as they find them. Curtailing that in favour of developing a populist, egalitarian approach might not be good for serious journalism or indeed democracy at large. People need to know facts as they are - bare and stark - not covered with overt cultural sensitivity and political correctness.

So today's high court victory for Channel 4's Dispatches is a victory for us all, for truth, common sense and investigative reporting.

It's what real journalism should be all about.