In the newspaper sector there is no requirement or expectation of impartiality and internal democracy within newsrooms. As elsewhere among liberal capitalist democracies, proprietors and their chief editors determine the philosophical, political, social and cultural perspective of the publications. In his seminal work on Britain’s national press, Tunstall (1996)4 hardly paints a picture of vibrant democracy within newspapers, finding instead that newspaper editors have always wielded ‘commanding powers’. Journalists have had little professional defence against editorial power except perhaps during the high tide of trade unionism in the period 1960-80. In the case of the popular tabloid newspapers, the editor would be ubiquitous in the daily operation of the paper. In the case of the quality press, some editors were less hands-on; nonetheless, chief editors typically chose the ‘editorial high command’.
An indicator of the degree to which a more limited democracy might flourish within the company is whether or not the paper’s journalists have any say in the choice of editors. Thus, the Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger had to stand for ‘election’ for the first stage of the process of his selection. According to his evidence to a parliamentary committee’s report on The Ownership of the News:
‘We did hustings, we set out a manifesto and there was an indicative vote conducted by the Electoral Reform Society, which went to the Scott Trust {the owner of the paper]. I then went through the same process with the Scott Trust along with the other candidates. They saw the vote from the journalists but said they would not consider themselves bound by that and I was appointed by the Scott Trust (House of Lords 2008b: 39).
However, The Guardian was exceptional. Normally, chief editors have been chosen in the traditional way by the newspapers’ owners. In the case of the Times and Sunday Times in 1981 the government insisted that there should be safeguards against proprietorial dominance as a condition for their takeover by Rupert Murdoch’s News International. This included provision for a board of independent directors to approve the appointment of Editors. Nonetheless Robert Thomson, Editor of The Times, informed the parliamentary committee inquiry that, when appointed, he had been on ‘a short list of one’ that the newspaper’s proprietor Rupert Murdoch had put to its independent directors (House of Lords 2008b: 48). Not even in the case of the BBC is there any formal democracy within the newsroom. However, it is normal practice for there to be editorial meetings and processes that generally encourage participation. There exist clear guidelines on impartiality and there prevails a view that the impartiality of public service broadcasting:
‘is best defended through a combination of editorial cultures [in different production teams], public accountability, rules and regulation, and complaints handling, rather than “newsroom democracy”…In addition there is an open culture that means that management attempts to impose a single line – for the wrong reasons – would tend to backfire in adverse public comment’ (survey questionnaire response from former BBC executive, July 2010).
