Journalistic principles

Contributors:

Some features or news items traditionally require additional analysis provided by external contributors from a wide variety of - often self proclaimed - experts on the subject. In our analysis we evaluate whether such contributors have been appropriately used by the journalist in question, specifically:

• Lack of rigorous testing of contributors
• Non-corroboration of claims made by contributors
• Lack of clarity to audience about a contributor’s partisan viewpoint
• Imbalance in time/opportunity given to opposing views expressed by contributors

• Lack of rigorous testing of contributors
  Claims made by contributors should not necessarily be taken at face value and should be rigorously scrutinised by the journalist or interviewer. For example, an interviewer should challenge a contentious argument such as the assertion that British foreign policy is the main cause of terrorism in the UK.
  

• Non-corroboration of claims made by contributors
  This is exemplified by contentious or inaccurate statements that are not challenged by the interviewer. For example, an interviewer not challenging a Hamas spokesman who claims that rockets do not kill people.

• Lack of clarity to audience about a contributor’s partisan viewpoint
  Contributors should be identified clearly, so that the audience is aware of their association with a particular viewpoint. For example,  a journalist should not refer to someone as a “Middle East expert”, when they are in fact identified with Hamas.

• Imbalance in time/opportunity given to opposing views expressed by contributors
  The amount of time and opportunity given to each viewpoint to express their position should be similar, if not within an article or programme then at least over a reasonable time. For example, if an interviewer challenges one side several times while failing to present a single question to the opposing side - this leads to an imbalance of opportunity in the representation of the two parties.
  
  
  

Key quotes:

“We must rigorously test contributors expressing contentious views during an interview whilst giving them a fair chance to set out their full response to our questions.”
BBC Editorial Guidelines

“We should not automatically assume that academics and journalists from other organisations are impartial and make it clear to our audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint.”
BBC Editorial Guidelines

“No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified. In that case, the political allegiance of that person must be made clear to the audience.”
OFCOM Broadcasting Code, Section 5.3

“We should normally identify on air and online sources of information and significant contributors, as well as providing their credentials, so that our audiences can judge their status.”
BBC Editorial Guidelines

“Broadcasters should not give undue prominence to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy.”
OFCOM Broadcasting Code, Section 5.13

“When covering controversial subjects dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy we should... ensure that a sufficiently broad range of views and perspectives is included in output of a similar type and weight and in an appropriate time frame.”
BBC Editorial Guidelines