The New Government Report on Racism is a Threat to How We Report on Race

The new government report on racism in the UK is a threat to how we report on race, racism and diversity, and the idea of journalistic impartiality.

After 24 years of working at the BBC the principle of journalistic “due impartiality” is baked into my very core. It is how I try to approach all my journalism, even after I left the corporation, and it is how I believe you build trust between media organisations and the general public. 

The recent government backed report on racism in the UK by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities presents an existential threat to how journalists approach issues of race, diversity and racism and maintain principles of due impartiality. This is particularly important for British Public Service Broadcasters (PSBs) such as the BBC, Channel 4, Channel 5 and ITV who are regulated by Ofcom and are meant to abide by the principles of due impartiality in their output.

To understand why, it is first important to understand what “due impartiality” means.

According to the BBC’s editorial guidelines; “due impartiality usually involves more than a simple matter of ‘balance’ between opposing viewpoints… It does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles, such as the right to vote, freedom of expression and the rule of law.”

However due impartiality is only achievable and practical if there are certain shared values, beliefs and commonly accepted facts. 

For example the BBC accepts that climate change is an accepted fact and therefore you do not need to feature climate change deniers in your reports or programmes to achieve due impartiality. 

To give another example, it is the clear belief that women and men are equal that enables journalists to report on sexism and still achieve due impartiality. If this was not an accepted norm then reporting on sexism and achieving due impartiality would require journalists to present the viewpoint that women are possibly inferior.

It is this idea which means achieving due impartiality on an issue such as slavery 400 years ago in England where slavery was accepted as a norm by the majority of society would have been very different from achieving due impartiality on reporting on the issue now. In the 1800’s William Wilberforce would have been seen as a “campaigner” possibly in need of “balance”, whereas today his stance against slavery would be seen as normal and could be reported without an advocate for slavery needed to achieve due impartiality. 

So what does this mean for the new report and for journalists reporting on racism in the UK?

At the start of the week it was pretty much accepted that structural racism existed in the UK. Journalists could report on this without needing a counter view to achieve due impartiality. Where there were racial disparities the presumption was that they were due to structural racism unless another reason could be found.

Post the publication of the report this issue of how to achieve due impartiality when reporting racism and racial inequality has been thrown into doubt. We now have an influential government body effectively saying that denying structural racism in the UK is a valid position. If we accept this view then due impartiality would require any mention of structural racism to be balanced by racism deniers.

This obviously has serious and widespread consequences.

So what can journalists do?

I believe the BBC’s reporting on climate change can provide a model for all British journalists. Despite the fact that there are climate change deniers and sceptics the BBC has stood firm and recognised that the vast majority of serious work in this area recognises that climate change is a scientific fact. Therefore, while recognising that climate change sceptics exist, some of whom are incredibly influential, the corporation has taken the stance that they can achieve due impartiality without mentioning the sceptics position all the time.

British journalists now need to take the same principled stance when it comes to structural racism. While it is impossible to ignore the most recent report, journalists should recognise that since the Macpherson report over twenty years ago the idea of structural and institutional racism is an acknowledged fact by the vast majority of social scientists who study this subject. And therefore journalists should continue to report on structural racism and take a position on it.

Journalism and due impartiality is not about being “neutral” or "balanced". It is about reporting factually and objectively on the world around us.

We need to stand up and be counted.