Impartiality is a core BBC value so everyone who works for the BBC in any capacity should always consider whether their actions, either professional or personal, might risk causing damage to perceptions of the BBC's impartiality.
In one sense defining impartiality is easy. It means reflecting all sides of arguments and not favouring any side.
But putting impartiality into practice is more difficult. The Editorial Guidelines set out the BBC's fundamental approach to impartiality. They are more demanding than the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, reflecting the audience and stakeholder expectations of the BBC. Both codes require due impartiality, which means that the demands of impartiality can vary: "The term 'due impartiality' means adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation, and any signposting that may influence that expectation." (Section 2 - Impartiality: 2.1)
The Guidelines say "News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due weight to events, opinion and main strands of argument". (Section 2 – Impartiality: 2.4.11) And the BBC Guidelines demand the highest level of impartiality in News and Current Affairs and factual journalism (including sport) and reflect the Ofcom Code's requirements in relation to controversial subjects[1] and major matters[2]. But the impartiality due will vary in other forms of output: it is not expected, for example, that the same requirement will apply to comedy or drama.
Impartiality should never be seen as a restriction, or as an inconvenience or anachronism. Accuracy, evidence, facts, transparency and informed judgements are constituent parts of an impartial approach. They define a professional discipline which helps journalists make difficult judgements and sets the BBC apart from polarised debate and conflicting opinions and comment. Impartiality properly understood can support those confronted with difficult editorial judgements, which can be particularly complex, for instance when dealing with causes which may seem to be driven towards moral judgements.
The Editorial Guidelines allow the BBC's most senior journalists to provide professional judgements, rooted in evidence, but they make clear that audiences "should not be able to tell from BBC output – or anywhere else – the personal opinions of its journalists or presenters in news and current affairs or factual journalism on matters of current public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on 'controversial subjects' in any other area." (Section 2 – Impartiality: 2.4.12).
The BBC does not allow the expression of personal views by its news and current affairs presenters, its reporters and journalists, other than in exceptional and defined circumstances (eg see below "Lived Experience"). But views or opinions expressed elsewhere, on social media or in articles or books, can also give the impression of bias or prejudice and must also be avoided. In general nothing should be said publicly by BBC journalists that could not be said on air or on BBC platforms (see guidance: Personal Use of Social Media).
Personal views are not the same as eyewitness accounts, evidence based assessments or professional judgements.
Democratic Values
The Editorial Guidelines make clear that the BBC's impartiality is not value-free and that it incorporates the principles of a democratic society. The Editorial Guidelines say that "Impartiality does not mean detachment from fundamental democratic values" (Section 2 – Impartiality: 2.1)
These include the right to vote, freedom of expression and the rule of law; they also encompass an assumption that societal discrimination based on race, colour or creed, gender or sexuality, or any other such form of discrimination, undermines these essential elements of democracy. So the approach of BBC output – and of its reporters and presenters - will always reflect that the democratic path is better than repression, corruption, discrimination and the restriction of these rights.
But the factual reporting of events and controversies, including those dealing with these democratic values, must remain accurate and objective. The Editorial Guidelines say "the BBC must still be impartial on the related debates or controversies, on any consequent policies or choices and on the actual implementation of these values" (Section 2 – Impartiality: 2.1)
Impartiality: racism and other forms of discrimination
Racism and other forms of discrimination are incompatible with democratic values. That does not mean, however, that instances of racial discrimination, for example, will be reported in an inaccurate or biased way. It does mean that the starting point for reporting on racism is that it is wrong and that discrimination, if tolerated, undermines democratic values.
Racist abuse and racist descriptors are often straightforwardly identifiable. But other terms may be more dependent on motive and context. It is important to understand that what constitutes racism (or other forms of discrimination) can itself be controversial and can depend on context and circumstances. A particular statement about immigration, for example, might be interpreted by some as racist whilst others might see it as a straightforward policy issue. But the debate itself can sometimes be couched in racist language: for instance, "go back to where you came from" directed at ethnic minorities or immigrants is generally recognised as a racist term and, if appropriate, could be described in those terms.
Reporting should aim to describe events, and the reaction to them, rather than imposing judgments that might make the BBC part of the story. In particular, care needs to be taken before using descriptions such as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc – or ascribing such motives to individuals.
Lived experience
Personal reporting may involve lived experience which is encountered as a consequence of one's own identity or individual experiences. The context of any such reporting is important. Longer-form programmes or individual items on a specific subject may be more appropriate: such reporting should generally be signposted to the audience in advance.
The lived experience of reporters and presenters can be a relevant and even telling part of the story. For example, Sean Dilley has reported on his experiences of being refused access to premises with his guide dog. And Frank Gardner has reported on his experience as a wheelchair user, trying to disembark from an aeroplane. But the BBC tries to reflect the lived experience of all communities as part of its output, so the most important contribution lived experience can make to output is normally through the identification of stories or content which reflect that experience, rather than through BBC journalists themselves.
Campaigns
Corporately the BBC is allowed to have policies, but the BBC is not a campaigning organisation. The Impartiality section of the Editorial Guidelines on Campaigns, and Initiatives and Social Action says:
"The BBC (and relevant staff individually) must remain independent and distanced from government initiatives, campaigners, charities and their agendas, no matter how apparently worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial." (Section 2 – Impartiality: 2.4.23)
Campaigns frequently advocate for legitimate social or policy change. To take just one example, the debate about what should be done with statues and street names honouring slave traders and others associated with racism. There are a range of views on such issues, many starting from a position of opposing racism. The BBC must retain its independence and impartiality in relation to those campaigns, but from the starting point that racism is wrong and opposition to it is a core element of the BBC's impartiality.
While the BBC does not join or endorse campaigns, it does have a responsibility to raise awareness of important issues. This is done both through its journalism, which has, for example, often highlighted injustice in the UK and around the world, and through wider content and programming.
Participating in marches or protests
The Editorial Guidelines sections on Impartiality (Section 2) and Conflicts of Interest (Section 4) make it clear that different considerations apply depending on what you do for the BBC, your visibility and your seniority. BBC staff may be able to participate in some parades, marches or gatherings, including events such as trade union rallies, under the banner of the BBC group to which they belong, but not representing the organisation as a whole.
People working in news and current affairs and factual journalism (across all Divisions), as well as those in senior leadership roles, should not participate in public demonstrations or gatherings about issues which are controversial, party political or relate to public policy. As with social media activity, judgement is required as to what issues are "controversial" with regard to marches or demonstrations, though it should be assumed that most marches are contentious to some degree or other. If in doubt, advice should be sought from line managers before attending. Members of staff outside news and current affairs and factual journalism (except senior leaders) may attend marches, demonstrations and protests as private individuals.
Charity walks, marathons and similar activities can be undertaken by BBC news and current affairs and factual journalism staff (in all Divisions) as fundraising activity for charitable purposes but not for campaigning or political action. BBC staff should not normally become the face of a charity, though small local charities should not cause issues; advice may be sought from Editorial Policy if in doubt.
Professional judgements, evidence-based assessment
Specialist correspondents and senior editors may have the licence to use their professional judgement and make evidence based assessments as part of BBC content. The Editorial Guidelines describe them as "professional judgements, rooted in evidence and professional experience". (Section 2 – Impartiality: 2.4.12) For example, the Political Editor may be able to suggest why a particular politician has acted in a certain way, or how they expect political developments to unfold; the North America Editor may be able to ascribe an inner motive to a presidential candidate, based on information or evidence they have gathered and using their professional experience to assess the situation. But this permission will not apply generally and depends on seniority and experience. These evidence-based judgements should not be confused with expressions of personal opinion or personal prejudices; they should be dispassionate assessments, not emotional reactions to opinions, behaviour, or circumstances. Presenters and reporters should avoid the dangers of imputing motive or taking sides in areas of contention,
Context
Formats should not be confused with genre: the style of a particular programme does not affect its responsibilities. All programmes in the News and Current Affairs genre are subject to the same impartiality requirements regardless of their format. The obligation for objectivity and impartiality applies, regardless of format or platform. The informality and conversational nature of some formats may lead to a greater risk of the presenters' personal opinions intruding on air, but that does not mean the expression of opinion is any more appropriate.
Public Expressions of Opinion
The BBC's impartiality requirements do not apply only to broadcast output and published BBC content. An array of social media outlets, for example, present opportunities for the public expression of viewpoints by presenters, reporters and other staff which could jeopardise the BBC's impartiality. But so too do many other walks of life; the Editorial Guidelines say:
"All individuals for whom impartiality in their role is paramount will need to assess risk and take personal responsibility in terms of what constitutes the 'public' expression of an opinion, for instance, within closed social media groups, private meetings (online or in person) or other circumstances they may consider, normally, to be confidential." (Section 2 – Impartiality: 2.4.14)
Whilst there may be greater freedom for BBC freelance employees who are not engaged in news or current affairs or factual journalism output and who are not primarily identified with the BBC, it is essential that those engaged in the production of news and current affairs and factual journalism, as well as those in senior leadership roles, say nothing publicly which could be interpreted as bias on politics or public policy issues, or controversial issues. Those who appear on screen or on the radio in particular may be identified with the BBC: it is easy to damage the perception of the BBC's impartiality through careless statements made off air.
(See guidance: Personal Use of Social Media).
The Editorial Guidelines say that "Presenters, reporters, correspondents and on-air editors are the public face and voice of the BBC; they can have a significant impact on perceptions of whether due impartiality has been achieved." (Section 2 – Impartiality: 2.4.12) Opinion can be revealed, however, in more ways than simply expressing a particular view; for instance, by lines of questioning over time, by tone of voice, facial or body language, by how an interviewer or presenter reacts when a particular opinion is expressed. These can be a manifestation of bias revealing – or appearing to reveal – a personal opinion or prejudice.
The Editorial Guidelines say: "The public expression by staff and presenters of their own personal reactions to a statement or issue – such as personal offence or indignation; or agreement or approval – may jeopardise perceptions of the BBC's impartiality and might give an impression of bias." (Section 2 – Impartiality: 2.4.16)
- Controversial subjects may be a matter of public policy or political or industrial controversy. It may also be a controversy within religion, science, finance, culture or ethics or any other matter. ↩
- Major matters are usually matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy that are of national or international importance, or of a similar significance in a smaller coverage area. ↩