News media and impartiality:
How impartial news really is has been a controversial subject for quite some time, but still it seems most people do not assess the news presented for them. Neither do people seem aware of how exactly the news machinery works, and thinks that new objectivity simply is about how the news is presented with positively or negatively loaded words. Indeed, one can argue that objectivity is not possible seeing that the choice of words always will to some degree reflect the view of the journalists, but this is no reason to dismiss this issue as there are more aspects to this question then just wording.

News always wish to present itself as real, as the unblemished fact from real life events. This is also why news broadcasters value live coverage highly, if there seem to be any point to this or not. For example, a reporter speaking to us over a live video link from Baghdad will seem as more of an updated expert, then somebody in London whom have studied the situation down there thoroughly. This is of course not a logical conclusion, as the reporter might sit in Baghdad with less historical knowledge, thereby painting a less accurate picture then the expert in London. However, we almost automatically accept the reporter as more of an authority speaking about this issue due to the 'liveness' of his/hers coverage.

Apart from the objectivity of the spoken word, we can also asses how impartial images presented to us really are. Are we presented with an edited montages of video, there must necessarily be a selection process involved. This rises the question of the motivations for showing certain parts and remove others, and how good a reproduction of reality this really is. Again news broadcasters value as live or recent coverage as a possible, as this is seen by the audience as less tangled with. And also again, this is an unreasonable conclusion, as also live coverage involves a selection process of where what and when to film.

Still we are just brushing over the surface of this problematic issue, as the biggest selection process is the one of which news to cover or not. This is also where the biggest violations of the audience's trust is being done for reasons I will soon explain. Indeed, broadcasters can not possibly select from the massive pool of news around the globe at any time. The amount of news is simply and understandably too large, so broadcasters are only presented with news that might be interest for them. In other words there has been a selection process long before the broadcasters get their hands on the news. This is referred to as 'gatekeeping', and of course there are set rules to avoid this selection process being bios or opinion leading.

In 1965 Galtung and Ruge developed a system for selection for this very perpose. This was mainly divided into three factors that should affect the gatekeeper choice. The organisational 'filter' makes sure that the news events can be covered over a normal news production schedule which is 24hrs. Finance also play a role here as it is cheaper for the BBC to report from London than Tokyo. In other words the more localised the events are, the more interesting for the news broadcaster. As an example, more people will have to die in a traffic accident in Moscow for the BBC to be interested in covering this news then if it happened in Paris. Even more so if it happened in a less known Russian city. One could argue that this denotes people from far away is of less importance and value to us, and that this supports a less healthy world perception for the news audience.

The second 'filter' is genre related. The news has to fit what the audience expects, and it has to be an equal balance between types of news. By types of news it is meant for example health, entertainment, business, politics, sport etc. This is also often referred to as hard and soft new - hard news being politics and business, and soft being health and entertainment. In practice that would mean that there is only devoted a limited amount of time on each type of news, even though the audience might require more time for a full understanding of the conflict or event. For instance to fully understand the situation in Israel and what a certain news story would imply also in a historical context, a news bulletin would simply not offer enough time to inform its audience. As a result news broadcasters will necessarily find stories of Palestinian suicide bombing as eventful i.e. good news, but seen separately from an historical context thereby perhaps demonising the Palestinian people. The full impact of what Ariel Sharon is doing would also require more time as his actions against the Palestinians is not always eventful. Hence it is possible for Sharon to some degree avoid negative media attention, even though some of his more outrages offences has been covered. All in all, one could argue that a correct and non-bios picture of the situation in Israel is impossible to communicate via news, and it is therefore filtered out to a certain degree.

Not only in news media is this trend of American input visible. Barker refers to analysis done by Dorfman and Mattelart (1975) aiming to locate 'the values within the Disney universe and to demonstrate the ideological assumption which serve American imperialism by persuading people that the 'American way' is the 'best way''. Also when looking at post Vietnam war Hollywood films we can see a '... almost total absence of anything other then caricature representations of the Vietnamese themselves...' (Morely, D & Robins, K. Spaces of Identity, Routledge: 1995, p.93). This can be read as an attempt to trivialise the Vietnam war showing the Vietnamese population as non-civilised, making the war seem more acceptable for possible opponents of this view. Morley and Robins also refer to a quote in Herbert Schiller's work from the Director of the Pentagon's 'Information Processing and Techniques Office: "The nation that dominates this information processing filed will possess the key to world leadership in the twenty-first century". This is showing that American officials do not deny that they are attempting to do these things, and in fact this is a part of their strategy. USA is by far the largest exporter of television programs. In the case of news their strategy seem to be working, as 'these agencies clearly shape the international political agenda by the way in which they define values'. As well, 'transnational corporations are increasingly concerned (and increasingly able) to override national government policies, to the extent, perhaps, of posing a threat to the very sovereignty of individual nations'. (Morley, D & Robins, K: p.223) This is potentially giving media an even more increased power, and seemingly, perhaps, giving abilities to override governments. The critiques of the cultural imperialism thesis mainly point out that an audience will be influenced by their local circumstances giving ground for cultural resistance as Morley points out, but as he also highlights, this should not suggest to us that cultural power does not exist.

The last and most problematic 'filter' is the socio-cultural, which means in short the news has to relate to the culture of its audience. The issue of audience ideology and eurocentrism is involved here. To avoid being discharged by its audience as 'rubbish' the news will necessarily have to relate to a set of values and beliefs of their audience - ideology. In principle hypothetically, in a overwhelmingly racist country a news broadcaster will have to adopt the racist views to avoid its audience not to 'switch off'. News about coloured people being better at something the white people would not be well received in such a country, hence ignored by its news broadcasters. This is of course going to the extreme, but it illustrates the point.

News broadcasters are supposed to support their country and therefore also their countries decisions in international affairs, again to not be dismissed by its audience as 'rubbish', hence portraying their government as idiots would result in problems rating wise since the people chose the their government. Looking at the wider picture news broadcasters from 'the west' will also as a direct result of being from 'the west' necessarily have to support 'the west' to a higher degree. This results in what media theorists call eurocentrism, which basically is a view of 'the west' being the positive force in the world and 'the non-west' as the negative. It splits between 'us' and 'them' in a not very impartial way, and fails to see the link between the west and non-west. This is viewed by theorists as a common trend in western media, and indeed a problem journalists are informed about, but still have difficulties avoiding due to the nature of news selection.

In conclusion finding out about the world via news media and creating a impartial perception of the world, is a complicated affair seemingly impossible as news indeed is coloured but the factors pointed out in this article. News needs to 'sell' and not only the individual journalists views and beliefs can have an effect in the final news output, but also considering the audience ideology in terms of news selection and presentation will necessarily have an impact. Even though news broadcasters like to present themselves as communicators of the real unblemished facts, people should be aware that this aim is virtually impossible to reach due to the share nature of how the media machinery works.