Browsing by Subject "http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p14904"

Journalistic objectivity sits at the heart of public service broadcasters’ - such as the BBC's - mission to keep the public informed, educated and entertained. Just as the Hippocratic Oath inspires the public’s trust towards doctors, journalistic objectivity is how journalists, and public service broadcasters in particular, can earn the public’s trust and consent to fulfil their remit. Drawing from theorisation of the media as the fourth estate, as well as Gramsci and Laclau and Mouffe’s theories of power, this thesis explores the relationship between objectivity and power, namely this relationship’s manifestation in the practices of the British Broadcasting Company (BBC). This thesis holds that, as a powerful institution, the BBC can maintain a dominant discourse through processes of ideologization and hegemonisation. Analysis on some of the BBC’s most recent guidelines focusing on impartiality and interviews with five experts, all former BBC journalists, suggests that the BBC systematically constructs a discourse in which the ethical ideal of journalistic objectivity is maintained and reinforced through the imperfect strategy of ‘due impartiality.’ The way this strategy is employed by BBC journalists can vary. On one hand it encourages multisidedness and fairness in reporting, on the other it discourages journalists from being open about their opinions and biases. This thesis’ findings suggest that while journalistic objectivity can help journalists maintain independence, it also can act as a containing strategy, by silencing their voices and capacity to operate as individuals outside of their work lives. The BBC’s condemnation of opinionated declarations made by its employees on social media and apparent reservedness towards their participation in activist marches operates to an extent as an anti-transparency discourse, which could also suggest a desire to keep the audience in a passive role. This thesis culminates with the recommendation that the BBC ought to address its inconsistent application of due impartiality and lack of transparency over how decisions relating to impartiality are made, which were made apparent in the findings of this research.