Balance - the cornerstone of journalism

Balance; a tricky thing in modern life. How can you spin all of those plates without letting them crash to the floor?

It should not, however, be a tricky thing for journalists. Balance is the foundation upon which our objectivity is based, and omitting it from our work undermines what we do and is a leading reason we are perceived as so untrustworthy in society.

Two stories have failed to demonstrate this today. They are very different and have diverse audiences, but fundamentally failed to provide contextual information to help readers and listeners make informed judgement.

The first came on Radio 4’s Today programme this morning when GQ editor Dylan Jones was brought in to discuss the cover photograph of Jeremy Corbyn. What he did was take the opportunity to lambast the Labour leader for being demanding, weak, and, in essence, a fraud.

That is entirely Jones’s right. However, what Today failed to do was contextualise his comments. Dylan Jones is a vocal supporter of the Conservative Party and his criticism of Corbyn must be placed within that context.

GQ’s coverage has been so Tory-focussed in the past decade that, when presenting an award at the magazines’ Men of the Year, Noel Gallagher quipped: “Welcome to the Tory Party conference”.

Jones denies this and claims that the awards just mirror public opinion.

The second came in a completely difference setting when the BBC Sport website reported that 1966 World Cup winner Gordon Banks was offering significant criticism of current ‘keeper Joe Hart.

No problem there. Banks is a legend, Hart has been having significant difficulties in the past three years, and people are entitled to their opinions.

The lack of balance came when Banks went on to sing the praises of Jack Butland. Again, he is entitled to do so but the reporter, when writing the story, needs to find time to point out that Banks is a Stoke legend – who actually wore a Stoke City tie to the World Cup draw today – and Butland is the current Stoke keeper.

It’s a small thing in the grand scheme of it but balance begins with providing contextual information. We’re not making readers’ minds up, we’re providing fair and objective reporting.

My colleagues and I plead for balance in our students' work but how will our pleas be heard if they are not seeing it in much of the industry?

It was The Sun wot won it...

..for Labour in 1997. Or at least so they claimed. If I remember rightly the famously Tory paper switched sides just as the election propaganda was drawing to a close and claimed to have been the deciding factor when Blair stormed to Downing Street.

Now they claim to be doing it again for Cameron. But of course, anyone with any brains were putting their money on Labour in '97 - the Tories were tired and on the ropes long before The Sun changed colours. It was a miracle that Major had managed to see off Kinnock four years earlier (apparantly The Sun won that one too) and after four bad years the '97 election was a formality.

The Sun isn't a political leader as it claims, it's a follower but is shameless in its self-promotion. Are the editor deluded or calculated? Difficult to say but I have little doubt that top dog Rebekah Wade is a sharp operator having learned the trade under Piers Morgan and learned from his mistakes.

All I can say is get stuffed Sun. Labour may well not win the next election but that will not be down to your shameless editorials.