Britain is an interesting counterpoint. Our television news is regulated by a strict code of impartiality, because of the historically limited number of broadca

Britain is an interesting counterpoint. Our television news is regulated by a strict code of impartiality, because of the historically limited number of broadcasters (originally just the BBC, then a single commercial broadcaster, then a proliferation of commercial channels with the dawn of satellite broadcasting). Our cultural equivalent of Fox News is the Daily Mail newspaper, because the levels of partiality shown on Fox News would be contrary to our broadcasting regulations. The BBC has faced substantial criticism for interpreting the impartiality clause too literally - rather than representing the facts, they have a tendency to represent "both sides" of every debate, regardless of whether "both sides" are based in fact, have widespread support or are even sincerely held viewpoints. This has been particularly evident in coverage of science, where often the broad consensus of the scientific community and the views of a tiny handful of dissenters are given equal prominence. Such reports can be wholly impartial but extremely misleading. Even if you make the hard choice between an unregulated media and "censorship", you're still faced with a fractal structure of other, more granular hard choices. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-five-due-impartiality-accuracy https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-co... https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/science_impartiality/science_impartiality.pdf https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_wo...