Guidelines on Accuracy and Balance

Adopted 21 October 1999
Amended 29 October 2001 

Accuracy and balance are two of the main characteristics that distinguish good journalism from bad, and journalism from propaganda. 

• Accuracy requires the verification (to the fullest extent possible) and presentation of all facts that are necessary to understand a particular event or issue, even if some of the facts conflict with a journalist’s beliefs and feelings. 
• Balance, or impartiality, requires the presentation of all the main points of view or interpretations of an event or an issue, regardless of whether the reporter, editor or the audience agrees with these views.

Both ingredients – accuracy and balance – are necessary for citizens to gain a full and realistic picture of the world around them.  This is the fundamental purpose of journalism.  Democracy, which requires the active participation of informed citizens, depends on journalists to keep citizens informed about major issues.

Omitting relevant facts and points of view from the reporting of major issues of public interest inevitably distorts the view of reality a broadcaster presents and so misleads and misinforms the public. 

Propaganda – the inverse of journalism – is the deliberate distortion of reality so as to lead the public to a particular understanding of events and issues, without regard for reality.  Propaganda poisons the processes of democracy and can be seen as a misuse of a public resource – the frequency spectrum.

Section 1.4 of the IMC Broadcasting Code of Practice requires accuracy, fairness and impartiality or balance in all news and other programming:

1.4       Fair and Impartial Programming

Broadcasters shall ensure due accuracy, fairness and impartiality in all programming, including news. They must not broadcast programmes that by any reasonable judgement are intended to promote or, over the course of time systematically promote, the interests of one political party, or any group or individual to the exclusion of other parties, groups or individuals. Comment should be clearly distinguished from news. No one opinion or point of view must be allowed to prevail on controversial matters of public policy.

Section 1.6 of the Code specifically prohibits the broadcasting of material that is known to be false and misleading, or by routine journalistic work could be shown to be so:

1.6       False and Deceptive Material

Broadcasters may not broadcast any false or deceptive material, which they know to be false or by prudent and routine inquiry could determine was false, or otherwise have reasonable grounds for assuming that it is false, or which carries a clear and immediate risk of public harm. If broadcast material proves to be false, a correction must be broadcast as soon as possible.

Guidelines:

The IMC has adopted the following guidelines to help broadcasters better understand how the IMC interprets Article 1.4 and 1.6 of its Broadcasting Code and how the stations can ensure compliance with it. Failure to comply with this and other provisions of the Broadcasting Code may lead to severe consequences, including suspension or termination of a station’s licence.

A.     Article 1.4:

1.                  Article 1.4 addresses the problem of a consistent bias in programming that favors one political point of view on particular issues, or one group or other special interest. 

2.                  Bias can be displayed in the deliberate selection and omission of facts, so as to favor one point of view.  Or it can be displayed by giving disproportionate time to particular people, parties and points of view while excluding other people and other viewpoints.

3.                  Bias is also frequently displayed by mixing commentary with news, sometimes in the form of a polemic, sometimes only as a brief remark about what the audience has just seen or heard.  Both are intended to “instruct” the audience rather than inform it.  Good journalism requires separating all commentary from news.

4.                  Another common form of bias is to consistently treat favored people and groups in a positive context – seen in the “soft” questions reporters ask, or in a warm and deferential attitude of reporters or presenters – while treating others in a consistently negative context, marked by skeptical or ironic questions and facial expressions or tone of voice.

In displaying such attitudes selectively, reporters and presenters of news may often only reflect the attitudes of their friends, associates or the community.  But the open display of such positive and negative attitudes is unprofessional conduct. 

Impartiality—the absence of bias—requires a journalist to treat differing personalities and points of view fairly and consistently:  To be consistently polite and deferential or consistently tough (depending on the journalist’s personal style) but in any case consistent so as not to display signals that, in effect, seem to tell audience what to think and what to believe. 

5.                  Article 1.4 prohibits the withholding or suppression of important factual information or points of view, knowledge of which would substantially affect the audience’s understanding of events or issues. 

Balance (or impartiality) does not necessarily require giving equal time to all points of view on an issue.  But it does require giving at least an accurate and unemotional summary of facts or viewpoints that are central to the story, unpopular as they may be.  Reinforcing popular understanding of an issue is not the journalists’ job; if anything, a journalist should seek to challenge popular assumptions and stereotypes with new information and diverse viewpoints.

Impartiality does not necessarily require that all sides have a chance to speak in every program on every issue.  On any given day, a program may focus on a narrow point of view or one side of an argument.  But the spirit of balance requires that very soon thereafter—within the next few days—other points of view will be heard on the same issue.

When issues of great controversy, urgency or sensitivity are involved, however, all main points of view should be represented in each program that treats such issues.

Example:  During NATO action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999, some stations in BiH omitted – in effect, censored – most or all information about more than 700,000 refugees who fled from Kosovo in to Macedonia and Albania.  In doing so, these stations denied their audiences credible information about ethnic cleansing and war crimes in Kosovo and thus misled the public about the real situation in Kosovo.

Balanced journalism in this case did not require giving equal time to a NATO point of view.  But it did require giving at least a brief, accurate summary of daily information and allegations from NATO governments, however distasteful that may have been to some in the audience.

By contrast, Western broadcasters certainly displayed pro-NATO biases in their coverage of Kosovo, but their reporting was generally balanced.  What made it so was the presence of highly professional, generally unemotional reporters based in Belgrade, who reported accurately on the statements of Yugoslav officials (although some people among western audiences found that distasteful.)  These stations also presented almost daily direct interviews with Yugoslav officials.

In summary, presenting a balanced or impartial picture of reality, is not always an easy or popular thing to do.  But it is a professional requirement of journalism.  It springs from a sense of distance and fairness in the journalist that is much the same required of a judge before a court..

B.     Article 1.6:

6.                  Article 1.6 requires that journalists check their facts before broadcasting them, and quickly issue corrections as soon as they are aware of a mistake.

Maintaining credibility and respect of the audience requires no less, even when a factual mistake is a simple and seemingly harmless as a wrong name or date.  Correcting mistakes on air, even one or two days later, tells the public that you respect them and their right to accurate information.

7.                  The most serious problems arise when a station presents sensational claims or allegations that are not true. 

The more sensational the allegation, the more work the station and its journalists are expected to put into verifying the truth (or learning the falsity) of the claim.

It is a widely accepted rule of journalism that any controversial assertion of fact should be backed up by two independent sources, whether the sources are local officials or international news agencies.

8.                  Sometimes a sensational report by a news agency will contain enough supporting information that makes it seem credible.  The broadcaster must then exercise prudent judgment in deciding whether or not to use the report without a confirming source. Prudence often dictates that if the story is to be broadcast, the broadcaster clearly notes that it “has not been confirmed by independent sources.”

Sensational stories often collapse when a journalist makes a routine effort—a few telephone calls—to try to verify it.  The IMC Code expects broadcasters to make that effort.

Example: During the NATO action, one station broadcast a report by a news agency that a Spanish NATO pilot had said he was instructed by NATO to bomb civilian targets.  The news agency picked up the report from a Spanish newspaper, which named the pilot.  Despite the sensational nature of the claim, the broadcaster made no effort to check the accuracy of the news agency report.

Routine journalistic effort—one phone call to the Spanish embassy in Sarajevo—would have raised serious doubts about the accuracy of the story, and certainly would have produced additional facts that the station, as a matter of balance, would have been obliged to report.  The Spanish government could find no such pilot in its air force.  The newspaper had retracted the story and fired the reporter.

The broadcaster was ordered to air the view of the Spanish Government and report the full facts of the story.