The BBC’s John Simpson just proved why media regulation is bad

But Simpson just proved he’s unknowingly biased.

It happened last Friday, when Oxford University’s debating society published a video interview with Simpson. In the course of that interview, Simpson inadvertently proved why state regulation of news broadcasting is highly problematic.

First, Simpson lamented the Federal Communications Commission’s 1987 decision to repeal the “Fairness Doctrine” regulation of U.S. news broadcast media. That doctrine required news broadcasters to provide politically balanced reporting, and empowered the state to restrict commentary on news matters. When President Reagan’s FCC appointees repealed the doctrine, they allowed for a major expansion in the number and style of news broadcasters.

It was a victory for free speech.

Simpson, however, describes the repeal as a “really bad thing to do.” He continued, “I think that it’s essential that there be laws which prevent broadcasters in particular from taking political sides.” Here Simpson is endorsing the British approach to regulation of broadcasters; which requires political balance in news coverage.

Yet while the idea of enforced political balance might seem like a good thing, it isn’t.

Because no one is unbiased.

Simpson proved as much.

Asked by a student whether he ever wishes he could offer more opinions, Simpson responded, “I feel sometimes as though I’ve had … some sort of quite important part of my brain surgically removed and a kind of impartiality sort-of-cone put into it.” According to Simpson, his objectivity isn’t just above reproach, it’s almost biologically imprinted!

Think again.

After all, Simpson then described how, when it comes to Fox News, “I only watch to make myself annoyed. It seems to me to be lacking in any kind; in the faintest scintilla of journalistic rigor.” Seeking rigor, Simpson asserted “I read in particular The Guardian and The Independent every day.”

Contemplate that hypocrisy.

How can Simpson can sustain his claims of being an unbiased reporter if he specifically condemns a conservative-leaning news outlet like Fox News, and simultaneously endorses left-leaning outlet likes The Guardian and The Independent?

And let’s be clear, while The Guardian is open about its political slant, The Independent’s claims of political impartiality aren’t terribly credible. Following Britain’s general election earlier this summer, the pollster, YouGov, researched voting patterns in relation to newspaper choices.

Those results suggest that 81 percent of Independent readers voted for a liberal party, and that the average Independent reader was over 5 times more likely to vote for a left-wing party that way than for the Conservatives.

Don’t get me wrong, my point here is not that John Simpson is a flawed reporter, simply that he proves bias affects us all. For society, then, the key question becomes “how best should we deal with media bias?” There seem to be two possible approaches. One is Simpson’s British model of restricting broadcast licenses to those who conform to a perceived impartiality. The alternative is to allow maximum broadcast flexibility and empower the viewers to chose the reporting they most prefer.

It’s true, many viewers only focus on one news source that they trust to reaffirm their viewpoints. That’s a problem that serves to divide us rather than unite us, and to limit introspection. Still, banning opinion-leaning news broadcasters does not solve the central problem here. After all, whether it’s regulators or reporters, everyone has a bias. And the most damaging bias is the most subliminal; that which afflicts its purveyors without them even realizing it.

Ultimately, I believe the most beneficial approach to news broadcasting is that which empowers maximum reporting from the most sources. Where a society grants great latitude to its reporters, we all benefit from the varied coverage they produce.

John Simpson is a great reporter, but he’s wrong to think he’s impartial and deserving of a news broadcasting monopoly.