The Relevance of Impartial News in a Polarised World

"The mushrooming of perspectives and the range of new digital formats are putting new pressures on impartiality in news."

This research report investigates how news consumers in different countries feel about impartiality, including how their views are affected by the subject matter and by the different sources and formats of news. It also looks at the link between impartiality and trust and draws lessons for journalists and the news industry. Conducted in Brazil, Germany, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), the report provides further detailed evidence that impartiality - along with accuracy - remains a bedrock of trust in the news media.

As explained in the report, "...defenders of impartiality point to a continuing need for unbiased news that fairly represents different viewpoints in a world where extreme opinions, bias and misinformation is more available than ever. They worry that the trend towards opinion-driven partisan news outlets and popularity-driven algorithms in social media is encouraging echo chambers and pushing communities apart."

To investigate how audiences think about these issues, this research was conducted with the specific objectives to:

• Explore whether impartiality is still a relevant concept for different audiences in different countries.
• Understand whether audiences want journalists to be impartial, or whether they would prefer them to be more open about their biases and take a clear point of view.
• Explore whether people perceive a difference between newspapers and broadcasters these days, and between news and opinion.
• Examine how impartiality relates to trust, and what publishers should do as a result.

The research, which involved a mix of diaries, discussion groups, and in-depth interviews, was conducted in the four countries among a sample of about a dozen engaged digital news consumers in each market, aged 20-60 (split into ages 20-34 and 35-60), including both men and women. They all regularly consumed news about politics and current affairs and, between them, used a mix of sources, formats, and brands. They were recruited across the political spectrum and to reflect the ethnic/racial/migrant composition of each country, as well as representing a geographic spread.

The findings discussed in the report look at engaged news consumers' perceptions of impartiality through the prism of sources and formats (television and radio, newspapers and their websites, social media, news aggregators, and podcasts and YouTube videos), journalistic practice (such as the use of language and headlines, formality and informality, display of emotions, opinion and comment, and explainers and fact-checkers) and subject matter (science, politics, and social justice). The report explains audiences' understanding of impartiality and how it relates to news and opinion, before exploring perceptions of the effect each source has on news. It then examines various journalistic and editorial approaches that can compromise impartiality, where perceived motivations and intentions colour audiences' views, and it shows how this varies by subject matter. The report identifies four different audience mindsets (confident, cautious, concerned, and contented) that point to different requirements of impartiality and then suggests how to build trust by balancing risks to impartiality.

The research findings, as highlighted in the report, show that:

• Audiences really value what impartiality stands for, despite the complexity of the concept. Most people want to be exposed to a range of views, especially around politics and other serious and important topics. They recognise the risk of giving exposure to extreme views or one side in the name of balance. However, evidence from this group of engaged users is that they are even more concerned about the suppression and silencing of viewpoints.
• There are some differences across countries, especially in expectations of traditional sources between countries like the US on the one hand and the UK and Germany on the other. And younger people, who have grown up using more informal and digital sources, also tend to have different expectations, although their underlying attitudes and desires are remarkably similar to older people's.
• News, where balance and fairness within a story are particularly important, and analysis, which people also value but recognise carries greater risk, is distinguished from opinion, which people also want as part of the mix but that is partial by definition. Audiences have very different expectations of these layers of news.
• In the analogue world, differences between news, analysis, and opinion were much clearer, with special labelling and clear sections, but, in the digital realm, the divisions are blurred. For journalists, dilemmas around impartiality have also been tested by more informal formats such as social media, especially where news has become more emotive or controversial. Many fear that opinion and advocacy have become increasingly entwined with the news itself in a way that is often not transparent.

The report notes that there is no easy answer to how media companies should respond to the need to address impartiality, given different traditions and regulatory environments. "Some public service media companies like the BBC have concluded that they need to restate their commitment to impartiality - because of the link with trust - and are rethinking staff guidelines to take account of changing expectations. Other news organisations are looking to align more closely with the views and values of their audiences and this may push them towards a more partial approach." However, even here, news media should take note of audience desires for a range of views to be represented and to see clearer labelling of news and opinion. In particular, the report highlights the following recommendations:

• There needs to be more recognition of the new challenges to impartiality highlighted in this report and how trust with specific audiences can be affected.
• There needs to be better training of journalists about the dangers of undermining impartiality in specific areas - for example, where journalism is more informal or accessed in distributed environments such as social media.
• News organisations should be more transparent about their policies around difficult issues like inclusion and exclusion, as well as false equivalence.
• There needs to be clearer and consistent labelling and signposting of different content types (news, analysis, opinion) to overcome consumer confusion in digital contexts.

The report makes the point that these recommendations are not just for media companies, but that, given the importance of social media, search, and other access points, technology platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Apple will also need to bear these points in mind. Their own trust will depend on better separating news and opinion and being transparent about difficult issues like inclusion and exclusion, whether by algorithm or human intervention.