“Suicide for democracy.” What is “bilateralism” – and how does it differ from journalistic objectivity?

Bipartisanship can also be used as an excuse to give bad guys a public relations platform. A few years ago, a Sydney newspaper gave an extensive interview to famous Sydney criminal George Freeman, during which he extolled his virtues, claiming that it gave him a chance to tell his side of the story. But only one side of Freeman’s story mattered to the public: he was a criminal.

Impartiality, or objectivity as some prefer to call it, has been central to the ethical and idealistic norms of journalism. By the mid-19th century, impartiality in reporting had become an established norm. This required, among other things, separating opinion from news reporting.

It received perhaps its most resounding endorsement from CP Scott, first editor and then owner and editor of the Manchester Guardian, when, in an essay celebrating the paper’s centenary, he wrote: “Comment is free, but facts are sacred.”

Just the facts

By the 1940s, however, journalism had become so corrupted by proprietary propaganda and commercial ambitions that leading American media figures became concerned about declining public confidence in the press as an institution. Their response was to establish and pay for the Press Freedom Commission.

Published in 1947, the book had a profound influence on journalistic practice in many Western countries, including Australia. The main principle of this new approach was not only the separation of opinion from news, but also that the news itself consisted exclusively of factual descriptions of events, statements and causes.

It was a noble goal, but it produced a sterile form of reporting, more like shorthand than journalism. News is devoid of explanations and evaluations of factual content, leaving viewers to connect the dots, understand the context and make sense of what they are being told.

Over time, a more analytical reporting style evolved that moved beyond strict factual reporting to include judgment.

However, many media platforms remain committed to the idea that if someone raises their head and wants to comment on an issue, it is covered if what that person has to say has news value, on the basis that they represent “another side of the story” .The evaluative element is missing.

Climate change deniers and tobacco

So for decades, the tobacco industry – in the face of strong medical evidence – has failed to conclusively prove a link between smoking and cancer.

By climate change deniers, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is real and caused by human activity.

In such cases, bipartisanship does enormous damage to democratic discourse: it creates a false equivalence between the two sides, where the burden of proof clearly lies with one side and not the other.