Media Bias, Impartiality, and their Opposites | The Friday Update

Welcome to this week’s edition of the Friday Update, in which I give a little insight into what I’ve been up to for the past seven days.

Most of this week has been spent with Georgia (my editor) and I sat in my living room, trying to assemble the various strands of my upcoming video about the UK’s House of Lords and the weirdness of having unelected politicians in the 21st century.

Alongside the usual explainer sections, we also have a bunch of great interviews, and our goal—as with other videos which have included interviews—is to weave these two things together in a beautiful tapestry!

One question which has repeatedly come up as we’ve done so, however, has been balance.

Not only the balance between including interviews and retaining the “explainer” style sections which people expect in our videos, but also balance between the different contributors we’ve spoken to for the piece.

Some of the interviewees we spoke with were extremely keen and proud of the House of Lords. Some liked some aspects whilst disliking others. Another believes the whole thing should be scrapped.

I’ve written and spoken a lot about the myth of media objectivity in previous videos. The idea that any documentary or news segment can be perfectly balanced or impartial is silly. As we’ve been doing this week, a huge amount of time and thought goes into selecting what facts, events, and perspectives get included and which aren’t.

This is certainly the case in more “video essay” style pieces I’ve made. In pieces where I’m the only person speaking, it’s very easy to create something which, while hopefully inquisitive and thoughtful and not too self-assured, has a clear “angle” to it.

Including interviews always complicates that; but in a way which I hope makes for a much better video.

I don’t think anyone watching the video will come away with the idea that I, personally, am anything but a sceptic of the continued existence of the House of Lords. But, including the perspectives of those who think it has a positive influence on our politics hopefully makes the piece a richer watch; and provides some interesting and useful tests to some of my prior views!

This, however, creates a new challenge in editing such a piece.

Whatever their beliefs about the issue at hand, I do want to ensure that everyone who has been kind enough to share their time and thoughts with me is treated fairly within the piece, that their words are presented in the correct context, and given genuine space.

I think we’ve managed to do that in a way which makes for the most thorough and layered conversation about the House of Lords which we can reasonably create (without it being many hours long). But you can be the judge of that when it comes out!

Thanks as ever for your generous support and I’ll look forward to updating you more next week!!