The BBC must be impartial and present what it knows without bias. When a contributor gives his/her point of view, someone with an opposing opinion should be given equal airtime. News presenters should be ruthless and clinical with both sides. It's then up to the viewer to make his or her mind up.
I love newspapers as much as the next person although I am aware that they are trying to spoon-feed me their point of view.
The BBC and other broadcast media should just give me what is known and what is proveable so that I can come to my own conclusion. Emily's monologue at the start failed that test badly.
.
Sorry but completely disagree with the bit in bold. As much as I am not a fan of the man, Owen Jones has it spot on when he says "For journalists if one person says it's raining outside and another says it isn't, it's not your job to report both sides, it's to find out what's true'.
The natural endpoint for your argument though it's extreme is if that if you're discussing something like racism or LGBT rights if you have somebody on who's anti-racism or supports LGBT rights you then have to follow up with somebody who's pro-racism or homophobic which would be a ridiculous situation. Or the situation the BBC has with climate change where you have climate change deniers being given airtime and their arguments treated as if they're as credible as scientists. There doesn't need to be 'two sides' to every story.
And I do wonder what the point is of political coverage and political journalists if all they were to do was just to quote any old rubbish the political parties say without any analysis or context. A huge part of the role of a political journalist is to explain the context and to explain to the viewer what the stories means politically.
My politics are right of centre financially and left of centre socially - that's why I find it so hard to find a party to support. There are ideas from all parties which appeal to me but others one I loathe. Owen Jones is a columnist whose view I completely agree with one day but have fundamental objections to when his next column appears.
Society has travelled a long way over the last 30-40 years. Not far enough in many cases, I agree, but the general views of the population now on sexism, racism, homophobia, etc are much more tolerant than in the past.
Part of that has been the exposure of people to what are now (in my opinion) considered extreme points of view. We've seen both sides of an argument in popular drama, in documentaries, and so on. As the lack of reason is some people's views are exposed, people's opinions shift.
If you get someone on claiming that homosexuality, for example, is the work of the devil or that all non-white people should be deported, they make themselves look ridiculous. Like the odious Nick Griffin on QT 10 years ago. The public voted with their feet and abandoned them at the ballot box.
They don't need a presenter to tell them otherwise. People can make up their own mind.
You'll always get some people who can't be reached but, as society has proven time and time again in recent decades, most of us are reasonable, fair, hate discrimination, and want equality of opportunity.
On your well-made point about political journalists quoting any old rubbish without analysis or context, I agree. Put a spokesperson up for HMG, put an opposing spokesperson up, and let people decide for themselves.
Anyway, ramble over. The points you are making are valid and we are both going in the same direction of travel here. We want the same outcome and we disagree on the way to get there.