Readers' Ombudsman: Great debates of our time mean balancing opinions, not bias

Published on Sunday 19 April 2009 22:01

NEWSPAPERS have a duty to give balanced news reports, but where should balance lie in other parts of the paper?

All news reports should be "fair, accurate and balanced" and we do try very hard to make this happen, although in some cases we simply do not have the wealth of information to be balanced or even fair. All we can do in these circumstances is make as much effort as we can and publish as much as we can to achieve those aims.

But there is not a similar obligation for our writers to be balanced when it comes to giving opinion; in fact in some cases balance is to be avoided. We would want comment and discussion to be intelligent, but life is not always logical and measured. People should stand up and be counted for what they believe.

However, it is good practice for quality newspapers to strive for balance overall; newspapers are a broad church and they should give a fair reflection of opinion.

As I have said before, newspapers are constantly evolving, particularly in this digital age, and there are areas of the paper emerging that are new ground. It is one of those new areas that has provoked the complaint over balance.

Dr George Lindsay writes: "I have just read on page 29 of today's Scotsman the summary of the web comments from yesterday's article by Jenny Haworth relating to the proposal by the director of WWF Scotland and have to register a complaint about further bias.

"Having contributed to and followed the comments on the web blog relating to this article the comments were overwhelmingly against Dixon's proposal of the use of compulsion on homeowners to use less energy – yet the summary in today's paper is exactly the opposite! 25 per cent criticise the proposal and 75 cent are in favour.

"This bias by The Scotsman towards the eco brigade is becoming tiresome and downright boring."

Are we biased towards the eco-brigade and was the editing of the comments column evidence of this?

We are interested in the environment, and there are good reasons why we should be. It is one of the great debates of our time and all reasonable people should be concerned with that debate, journalists especially. Enough evidence has been led that it is right and proper that those concerns should be aired and examined.

We also know that our readers are broadly concerned and interested in environmental issues. We want to give them information that they want. We do carry comments from "the eco-brigade" as Dr Lindsay calls them, but we also carry comments from sceptics. And we publish many such letters and also articles from writers of that opinion. We want to be a broad church and on the environment I think we achieve that.

But we probably are biased towards concern over the environment, and that is because there are broad and fundamental questions over the sustainability of the Earth's resources and how society uses them.

However, the charge of balance complained about by Dr Lindsay was wrong. I think that the balance of that column should broadly reflect the balance of all the postings, but I do not believe that the shift was done deliberately but probably more down to the quality of posting. It was certainly not part of a deliberate agenda on behalf of The Scotsman. However we will keep an eye on it.

• If you have a complaint about editorial in The Scotsman contact Ian Stewart at 108 Holyrood, Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AS or [e-mail] or on 0131 620 8633.