This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman]

On: 25 May 2014, At: 22:37

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journalism Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjos20
THE OBJECTIVITY IDEAL AND ITS
LIMITATIONS IN 20TH-CENTURY BRITISH
JOURNALISM
Mark Hampton
Published online: 27 Jun 2008.
To cite this article: Mark Hampton (2008) THE OBJECTIVITY IDEAL AND ITS LIMITATIONS IN 20TH-
CENTURY BRITISH JOURNALISM, Journalism Studies, 9:4, 477-493, DOI: 10.1080/14616700802113060
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616700802113060
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
THE OBJECTIVITY IDEAL AND ITS
LIMITATIONS IN 20TH-CENTURY BRITISH
JOURNALISM
Mark Hampton
Scholars of British journalism often refer to an Anglo-American shared ideal of objectivity. While
well-demonstrated in the American context, however, this ideal is merely assumed in the British
context. In fact, a close examination of professional discourse among 20th-century British
journalists shows the limitations of this ideals appeal. Although it has appeared in particular
contexts, specifically as corporate norms at Reuters and the BBC, throughout the 20th century it
was never accepted as a generalized ideal among British journalists. Particularly among print
journalists, such ideals as independence, fair play, and non-intervention by the state were far
more compelling than objectivity.
KEYWORDS Anglo-American media traditions; British journalism; culture of journalism;
objectivity; professional ideals
Introduction
Among scholars of British media, the concept of objectivity in British journalism
history is often taken as part of the intellectual heritage of a transatlantic journalistic
tradition, emerging (as in the United States), in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
(Bromley, 2003, pp. 123, 131; Chalaby, 1998, pp. 13040; Conboy, 2004, p. 191; McNair,
1998, pp. 6477; Smith, 1978). Yet the ideals existence in Britain has generally been
assumed rather than demonstrated. This essay will argue that, particularly in the case of
print journalists, what stands out is the limited extent to which objectivity has been
embraced as an ideal by practicing journalists. There may be valid reasons to speak of an
Anglo-American media tradition (Hallin and Mancini, 2004; Tunstall and Machin, 1999), but
a shared acceptance of one of American journalisms central ideals is not one of them.
This argument is, by its nature, relative, and it also depends upon defining precisely
what we mean by objectivity. For present purposes, objectivity as a journalistic norm
constitutes both a claim to professional distinction and an ideal of even-handedness and
craftsmanship. Indeed, it is the achievement of the latter that gives grounds for the
rewards of the former. Since media scholars frequently import the concept from the
American context, it is worth reminding ourselves what objectivity looks like in its
American articulation. Perhaps the best historical examination of this norm remains that by
Michael Schudson, in which he describes the ideal of journalistic detachment, corrupted
into an obligation to quote contrary authorities without adjudicating between them. Such
objectivity has been criticized for reaffirming the existing power arrangements in society
(as not all perspectives are represented by an authority) and for bearing an uneasy
relationship to the truth, since in the real world both sides are not always equally
truthful. Skilled manipulators, such as Senator Joseph McCarthy, have used their
Journalism Studies, Vol. 9, No 4, 2008
ISSN 1461-670X print/1469-9699 online/08/040477-17
2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14616700802113060
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

knowledge of this point masterfully. According to Schudson, this ideal emerged following
World War I as part of a radical distrust of the self; objectivity reflected an increasing
awareness of the problematic nature of facts that resulted from their mediation by
subjective individuals (Schudson, 1978).
1
Objectivity thus entailed a set of ritual practices
that have taken the truth value of journalistic statements out of untrustworthy hands.
2
To the extent that something we might call objectivity prevailed as a British
journalistic norm, it need not conform, of course, to the American norm. Yet at the very
least, it is necessary to note the divergence in national understandings of this key
category, rather than presuming a transatlantic discourse. Especially among British print
journalists, not only did the word objective rarely appear in discussion, but journalistic
ideals very clearly departed from their American counterparts. Rather than objectivity,
notions of truth, independence and fair play held greater appeal to 20th-century British
journalists.
3
Unlike objectivity, moreover, these alternative concepts, while admirable
from a citizens perspective, do not constitute a professional ritual of the sort that can help
to distinguish the journalist from the non-journalist. Nor do they proscribe partisanship.
This is not to say that American-style objectivity did not make any headway into the
potpourri of 20th-century British journalistic ideals. Particularly in the settings of Reuters
and BBC News, an ideal of objectivity emerged and became ensconced. I will examine each
of these in turn, noting that in the case of Reuters this ideal resulted from both a semi-
official identification with the nation and the desire to provide raw news to partisan
newspapers of all leanings, while in the case of broadcasting, objectivity was legislated.
What is striking is that, whereas scholars of the American media agree that objectivity
emerged in the context of late 19th-century newspaper journalism, such an ideal never
emerged strongly in the case of British newspapers. This suggests that whereas American
journalistic objectivity was a product of a general commercial, political, and cultural
environment (Schudson, 2001), its British counterpart was never generalized; instead, it
remained relevant only in much more specific institutional contexts.
Reuters and the BBC: Objectivity as Market Niche and Legislative
Mandate
A Reuters internal Daily Briefing from 19 September 2001, shortly after the 9/11
terrorist attacks, contained a note from Devin Wenig explaining to his colleagues the
reason that Reuters US management team had decided unanimously to remove an
American flag initially displayed following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Besides citing
concerns for safety of Reuters overseas journalists and the fear that the display could
suggest bias in Reuters editorial coverage, Wenig underscored that it was precisely in
moments of passion that the companys defining principles were most challenged. While
many of us feel strongly about the events of last week and should not alter those personal
feelings in any respect, we should equally defend the position of the Company as a seeker
of fact, upon which those personal feelings can be based. Leaving aside the fact that this
particular statement was issued by a New Yorker and an American (Reuter, 2001), Wenig
was in fact articulating a long-standing separation of objective news and subjective views
that had developed throughout Reuters history as a British and then a global company. As
has been argued of the American journalistic norm that developed in early 20th-century
newspapers (Baldasty, 1992; Hamilton, 2004; Kaplan, 2002), Reuters adoption of
objectivity derived from commercial causes; however, Reuters documents frequently
478 MARK HAMPTON
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

emphasized the non-general nature of its company norms, and often explained its
different mission from newspapers. For example, a 1921 article in the Reuters Bulletin*an
occasional newsletter circulated within the company*reminded its journalists that
REUTER occupies a totally different position from that of a newspaper. A newspaper has
far greater licence and it can always defend itself from attacks by rejoinders in its own
columns. REUTER, on the other hand, is, to a great extent, defenceless and is particularly
open to disagreeable onslaughts from persons or governments which may regard
themselves as offended. Moreover, REUTER is understood to exercise far greater caution
in the publication of news than a journal is, and to confine his service of news, as far as
possible, to indubitable facts. (Bulletin, 1921a, pp. 34)
It is worth noting that this comparison is not particularly critical of newspapers;
newspapers simply have a different mission from the news agency. The article continued,
explaining that It is a tradition with us that we have no sentiments of our own, that we
have no policy and no likes and dislikes. We are the impartial recorders of facts and events.
These circumstances narrow the scope of our correspondents, but the restrictions which
we here indicate must be rigorously observed (Bulletin, 1921a, pp. 34). Four months
later, an article in the subsequent Bulletin outlined the distinction between newspapers
and the news agencies, insisting that the agency system posed no threat to the
newspaper correspondent, who was, in fact, in a stronger position to-day, than ever he
was. The Bulletin argued that correspondents, subject to the policy of the proprietor and
to the editorial control, give character to the newspapers for which they work, who make
each newspaper different from its competitors down the street. By contrast, the agency
correspondents mission was to furnish the news, the general news, which has to be
common to all newspapers, and which would be cost-prohibitive for each newspaper to
supply for itself. Nothing could be more proper, in the opinion of the Bulletin, than
opinionated newspapers; objectivity was not a journalistic norm, but a corporate one:
The agency correspondent must be mainly objective in his treatment of news. His
business is to give the facts intelligently, clearly, dispassionately. It is not his business to
express opinions, to intrude his own ideas or prejudices, or to champion one side more
than another. His attitude must be very much the attitude of the judge summing up for
the jury. (Bulletin, 1921b, p. 12)
By contrast, the newspaper correspondent was comparable to a K.C., and was
therefore free to provide either a running commentary or his own annotated version. He
can plead and advocate and denounce, where the agency correspondent must judicially
recite basic facts and leave the newspapers and the public to draw their own conclusions
(Bulletin, 1921b, p. 12).
The limitations of this concept of objectivity*deriving from the market in which
Reuters sold its news*are clear if we consider that just a few years earlier, in World War I,
Reuters had been openly pro-British and deliberately propagandistic in its news, a role in
keeping with Donald Reads point that Reuters attained an identity as a semi-official
imperial news agency (Read, 1999). During the War, Reuters developed the Agence Reuter
Service, whose purpose was to secure that a certain class of news, of propaganda value, is
cabled at greater length than would be possible in the normal REUTER service. Director
Roderick Jones told Edward Carson that this service does not pretend to be anything else
but propaganda. To be sure, this propaganda was carefully constructed in such a way as
THE OBJECTIVITY IDEAL 479
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

to inspire confidence, so that Allied setbacks were not ignored, while Allied successes were
recorded in measured language, neither detracting from their value nor exaggerating
their extent (Jones, 1917). Not only was this thought to be an effective method of
persuasion, but it had the advantage of not compromising Reuters reputation for
accuracy and impartiality. Not only did Reuter willingly serve the British cause, but its
Director, Roderick Jones, also served for a time as Director of Neutral Propaganda, a fact
that was proudly displayed in the Reuters Bulletin No. 7 (Bulletin, 1919, pp. 12). In this
regard, the biggest difference of context between this embracing of the national cause
and the post-9/11 rejection of the American flag is surely not a difference between Britain
and the United States, but the fact that by 2001 Reuters was no longer a British
company, but firmly a global one.
These examples are merely illustrations of the role of objectivity (within a national
context) in filling what might be called Reuters market niche in the journalistic field. If
objectivity distinguished it from newspapers, though, other journalistic norms were shared
between Reuters and the newspapers. A 1955 Editorial Department document entitled
Instructions Issued to Journalists began by endorsing a similar document from 1883, the
era in which what would come to be called the New Journalism was emerging. According
to that earlier document, stories should emphasize action, and other than accuracy, speed
was the most important journalistic virtue. Indeed, if details were not yet available, the
bare fact should be telegraphed as early as possible, with details to be filled in later.
Considering that Reuters market was primarily newspapers, it is not surprising that the
company in 1883 emphasized the same type of story as many of that eras newspapers:
fires, explosions, floods, inundations, railway accidents, destructive storms, earthquakes,
shipwrecks attended with loss of life, accidents to war vessels and to mail steamers, street
riots of a grave character, disturbances arising from strikes, duels between, and suicides of
persons of note, social or political, and murders of a sensational or atrocious character.
After pronouncing these instructions just as valid in 1955 as they had been in 1883,
the Instructions articulated Reuters commitment to accuracy, pointing out that It is the
responsibility of every Reuter man, whatever his capacity, to cherish the agencys century-
old reputation in this respect (Reuter, 1955). The pamphlet continued, articulating an
American-style norm of objectivity. Not only must [a]ll sides of a controversy be fairly
covered, but sourcing was crucial: Reuters does not take responsibility for factual
statements it cannot verify. Even a highly placed informant may be wrong. Officials can
make an honest mistake or they may intend to mislead. Anything that is not a matter of
personal observation or incontrovertible fact must therefore be attributed to the source
from which it comes (Reuter, 1955). The pamphlet instructed Reuters journalists to
identify the provenance of any personal statement quoted within the story, and reminded
the correspondents that Reuter has no axe to grind and is concerned solely with
presenting the news in objective and understandable form as quickly as possible (Reuter,
1955). Later handbooks elaborated carefully on how the careless use of terms could
inadvertently color a story. The 1992 Reuters handbook, just to take one example of many,
cautioned journalists to use with care the word admit: If you say someone admitted
something you imply that it had previously been concealed or that there is an element of
guilt. Said is better (Reuter, 1992, p. 3). Allege was equally problematic, and so on
through an alphabetical list of words.
Reuters, throughout the 20th century, was an important British site for an ideal of
objectivity strongly resembling that of American newspapers, and like the latter, Reuters
480 MARK HAMPTON
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

had sound commercial reasons for championing this ideal. Again, though, Reuters never
attempted to assert the universal applicability of the norm: it was a company norm, not a
strictly professional one. The BBC emerged in the 1920s as another site for objectivity in
British journalism. As an internal report noted in 1955, in the context of the emergence of
television and competition with the new ITN, News is concerned with fact, not with
opinion*except where a report of opinion is itself a significant fact.
4
As with Reuters, a
strong measure of corporate brand image undergirded the concern for evenhanded-
ness, but a second constraint informed the BBCs adoption of objectivity, as well as ITNs:
legislative mandate. Indeed, when the BBC was initially chartered in 1927, it was enjoined
from commenting on controversial affairs at all, under threat of having its license removed
(Briggs, 1995a [1961], pp. 1558, 2449). Director John Reith accepted the legislative
mandate for balance as an alternative to this prohibition, and in 1928 the regime of
impartiality took effect. Even so, editorializing was still prohibited, and throughout the
1930s political pressure imposed limits on the BBCs ability to take positions on
controversial matters (Briggs, 1995b [1965], pp. 1201, 1223). The BBC Written Archives
contain numerous letters of complaint from prominent political figures of all sides, during
the formative first two decades, regarding political content in broadcasting.
5
The 1949 staff handbook, Policy Notes for Programme Staff (British Broadcasting
Corporation, 1949) demonstrates the extent to which impartiality had become
internalized as a BBC norm by mid-century. Writing under General Policy, the handbook
characterized impartiality as an obligation on the BBC:
In its general application this means an objective outlook on our work, selection of
programmes on merit, and the avoidance of injury to the public interest and to listeners
reasonable susceptibilities. In its special application the obligation is to present
controversial issues in a balanced and unbiased form. In practice this means representing
every reasonable point of view, obtaining the best available advocates, and keeping
some balance in the discussion. This should not mean emasculating it (British Broad-
casting Corporation, 1949, p. 5).
It is striking that political impartiality is presented within the wider context of
objectivity on matters that are not directly political (selection of programmes on merit),
and within listeners expectations. A few pages later, under the heading Editorial
Opinion, the handbook noted that The BBC is forbidden to broadcast statements
expressing the opinion of the Corporation on matters of public policy. It noted, however,
that non-BBC speakers faced of course, no ban on expression of opinion: it is only limited
by the BBCs general obligation of balance. BBC staff, by contrast, must keep to objective
reporting of facts and to the analysis and assessment of other peoples opinions. Again,
this was placed within a wider context of public sensibilities and non-political fairness; the
immediately following section explained the BBCs need to avoid references which are
too horrifying or which can reasonably be considered too offensive or painful to listeners.
These included surgical operations and serious diseases; the BBC did not make fun of
physical disabilities, e.g. stammering, deafness. Ghost stories have to be handled with
discretion (British Broadcasting Corporation, 1949, p. 6).
On the matter of Party Politics, the handbook noted that This is the supreme test
of our impartiality, and the reward is usually simultaneous complaints from both sides.
Among other concerns, balance of the Parties has to be maintained in the use of M.P.s
and well-known politicians out of Parliament, as over-use of the opposite side is the most
THE OBJECTIVITY IDEAL 481
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

frequent complaint (British Broadcasting Corporation, 1949, p. 12). At the same time,
offensive expressions were to be avoided: use Chinese instead of Chinamen, avoid
England and English where Britain or British is meant. But we should not be afraid to
say English if we mean English. (Note: The Scots are sensitive about this, but not normally
the Welsh); care should be taken about anything disparaging, e.g. Chinks, Wops, Dagos,
Flat-heads, Blacks, Yellow-bellies, Dutchmen; Americanisms and slang: inappropriate use
to be avoided (British Broadcasting Corporation, 1949, p. 22).
As this handbook illustrates, impartiality fit into a wider context of public service
broadcasting, which as several scholars have noted was based in large part on spectrum
scarcity. As such, we should understand the BBCs commitment to political balance not
simply as a legislatively-mandated objectivity, but also within an emerging commitment
to programme balance more broadly, e.g., regional balance and the balance between
high-brow and popular programming (Scannell and Cardiff, 1991). Moreover, the BBCs
denationalization of objectivity showed a similar trajectory as that of Reuters, moving
from an identification with the British Empire and state during World War II to a willingness
by the 1980s to weigh the claims of the Thatcher government alongside those of the
Argentinian generals (Nicholas, 1996; OMalley, 1994, p. 47). This contextualization does
not in any way debunk the BBCs contribution to a discourse of objectivity in Britain, but
it does suggest a reason that such objectivity would not be seen as a model for journalism
in general. As with Reuters, with the BBC impartiality or objectivity emerged as a
Corporate norm.
Newspaper Journalism: Truth, Fair Play, and Independence
While Reuters and the BBC have served as locations for the emergence of ideals and
discourse strongly resembling American-style objectivity, it is striking that this ideal did
not become widely accepted in newspaper journalism. In the second half of the 19th
century, British newspaper journalism developed several ideals that were similar to those
of its American counterpart. Like American journalists, British journalists began to
emphasize the presentation of facts rather than views, an emphasis that reflected
not only the culture of the newsroom and the desire for scoops, but also changes in
readers demands and in the available technologies of newsgathering. Even journalists
committed to the strong presentation of opinion as an educational tool felt constrained
to present facts, and a strong critical tradition emerged that insisted on the primacy of
telling the truth. In the famous words of Manchester Guardian proprietor and editor, C.P.
Scott, neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of
presentation must the unclouded force of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free but facts
are sacred (Scott, 1921, p. 35).
In the interwar period, such leftist writers as George Orwell, Harold Laski, Norman
Angell, and Kingsley Martin criticized the popular press for its untruthfulness. According to
these critics, the papers owned by such press barons as Lord Northcliffe, Lord Rothermere,
and Lord Beaverbrook were to be faulted both because they provided entertainment
instead of instruction and because they used heavily manipulative language for
propagandist purposes. The experience of World War I propaganda and censorship
helped to attune a generation of journalistic critics to a point made by George Binney
Dibblee in 1913: the press could distort the truth by suppression and by misleading
language. While readers were increasingly wary of views argued in editorial columns, they
482 MARK HAMPTON
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

were perhaps more susceptible to opinions smuggled into the news columns themselves.
It became customary to blame Lord Northcliffe for creating the intellectual climate that
made war with Germany thinkable. Indeed, Dibblee and the other critics named above
articulated many of the themes studied by todays media scholars.
6
These critics were,
moreover, practicing journalists, speaking from their professions perspective and not as
detached critics.
Yet this early 20th-century critical perspective, despite its clear insistence on
truthfulness, differed considerably from American-style objectivity. None of the journa-
lists named above saw a contradiction between truthfulness and commitment to specific
political principles, and many wrote without embarrassment for overtly partisan journals.
Indeed, although it is an obvious point, it bears mentioning that the British press
continued to consist of papers that were closely identified with one party or the other.
Beyond this, when attacking the manipulative quality of the popular press, these
sophisticated critics did not engage in important ways with the problem of subjectivity
as an impediment to getting the facts. Rather, while recognizing the possibility of
legitimate differences of opinion and interest, such critics implied that between
themselves and the Press Barons the main difference was intention: the quality press
limited propaganda to the leading articles, while the commercially-owned popular press
did not. For his part, Lord Beaverbrook told the 1947 Royal Commission on the Press that
he ran his papers for propagandist purposes, though James Thomas appropriately reminds
us that Beaverbrook insisted that newspaper propaganda should be all in the leader
column but never, never, never in the news (Thomas, 2005, p. 33). Even the Press Council,
noting the centenary of the 1855 abolition of taxes on knowledge in its annual report,
celebrated the crusading and campaigning mission of the popular press: to expose
injustices, to right wrongs, to give advice, to befriend the friendless and to help the
helpless*these are among the services which [popular] newspapers are constantly
rendering to people who would not otherwise obtain them (Press Council, 1955, p. 9). It is
difficult to see in any of these perspectives anything closely resembling American-style
objectivity.
To be sure, while objectivity did not become a British journalistic norm in the
period before World War II, editorial independence certainly was. It was one thing for a
journalist to identify closely with a distinct political perspective, quite another to be
beholden to one of the parties. This distinction is well captured by the Expresss 1923 self-
description as an independent organ tied neither to the Conservatives nor to the Liberal
party but opposed to socialism (quoted in Thomas, 2005, p. 9). For this reason, moreover,
while ostensibly independent Press Barons accepted honors from the state, explicitly
partisan editors such as C.P. Scott and Kingsley Martin rejected offers of knighthood
(Martin, 1965; Scott, 1924). Indeed, independence was the centerpiece of the fourth
estate ideal of the press as a check on the untrammeled power of the state. George Boyce
has pointed out the irony that Lord Northcliffe was widely condemned by proponents of
an independent press, even though he was in fact the proprietor who came closest to
embodying the ideal, as he leveraged his papers enormous circulations into influence
over politicians (Boyce, 1978). Yet while this point is well taken, what alarmed
contemporaries was not that a journalist would exert power over governments, but
that Northcliffe threatened to transcend his journalistic role to become an unchecked
power in his own right. In other words, from beginning as an independent check to
government, Northcliffe threatened (according to the critics) to take over the government,
THE OBJECTIVITY IDEAL 483
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

thus subverting democracy itself (e.g., The Spectator, 1918, pp. 767). Moreover, the
commercial presss very focus on attaining high circulations meant that, for some
concerned observers, its independence was open to question. With a logic reminiscent of
the 18th- and 19th-century Whig/liberal argument that only a property holder could be
truly independent (and thus deserving of the vote), recently displaced editor Wickham
Steed told a correspondent in 1923 that he wanted to see The Times free from the
Northcliffe empire:
Immediately after Lord Northcliffes death I did my best to form a group of the big
Englishmen belonging to both parties and wealthy enough not to care whether they
received one or two per cent more or less upon their money, to take over the paper from
the Northcliffe estate and to guarantee its independence. (Steed, 1923)
Although Steed valued independence*in this case from commercial influence*
there is no hint in his words of criticizing Northcliffe for violating any norm of objectivity.
Nor would we expect such an ideals articulation from Steed, who, upon his replacement
as editor of The Times in 1922 was described glowingly as the great journalist is he who
fights for opinions and ideals, and who was allegedly credited in the new states created
from formerly Habsburg lands as their spiritual father (F.F.L., 1922, p. 908).
The other objection to the Press Barons power was that it was illegitimately earned
through manipulative news. This point, which has already been alluded to, underscores
that, while few British commentators on journalism in the early 20th century would object
to a papers having an overtly political line, the concept of fair play was widespread. Yet
not only is the norm of objectivity absent from most of the discussion of British
newspaper journalism in the 20th century, but we can identify contexts in which such a
norm, if widely held, might be expected to appear. The remainder of this article will
consider the norms articulated by the Press Council and the National Union of Journalists
in the second half of the century.
In 1953 the Press Council, forerunner of todays more narrowly-defined Press
Complaints Commission, was founded in order to promote voluntary self-regulation of the
British press. Recommended by the 19479 Royal Commission on the Press, and
representing most of the major newspapers, its mandate was to maintain professional
standards so that the public would not demand statutory regulation, which the Press
Council portrayed as a threat to Britains well-established yet increasingly fragile liberty of
the press (OMalley, 2000). Given this provenance, it is not surprising that the Press Council
would address those issues that concerned the public, yet an examination of the language
used to assert its authority and explain its mission offer a valuable window into the
predominant norms by which journalists judged their profession.
Not only was promoting objectivity not among the self-identified missions of the
Press Council, but this organization charged with promoting the industrys ethical
standards frequently disavowed any such mission, even equating it with threatening
the freedom of the press. Writing in the Foreword to the Press Councils first Annual Report
in 1954, Chairman J.J. Astor articulated the Councils mission and its limitations:
The aim of the Press Council is to safeguard the Freedom of the Press*and combat
abuse of this freedom.
484 MARK HAMPTON
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

Its main function has been to show up and condemn any practices which could only
bring the Press into disrepute, investigate complaints, and, where these are justified, to
seek redress and to answer criticisms which are unfair or ill-founded. (Astor, 1954, p. 3)
Perhaps fittingly for a media professionals self-regulating body, its avowed aims
were explicitly exercises in public relations, and its methods more geared towards
publicizing wrongdoing than legislating against it. In this regard, the Press Council
directed the Fourth Estate ideal of a watchdog press onto its own industry. This
methodology was reiterated in Sir Zelman Cowens 1984 Chairmans Foreword:
. . . the Council relies on newspapers to give prominence to its decisions on complaints.
The candour and courage thus displayed cannot but enhance public regard for freedom
of the press. Then there is a broader point which goes to the very heart of the Press
Councils authority. It is that its only authority is the moral persuasion which it hopes that
its pronouncements will carry by their intrinsic merits and by reason of the Councils
widely representative character. Its only resource is its appeal to the whole press so to co-
operate with it that the freedom of the press will remain highly prized as the safeguard it
is of democracy. (Cowen, 1984, p. 10)
Similarly, in 1958 it rejected the idea that the Council should be expected to declare
what are the exact facts or the soundest opinions in any local controversy: All it can hope
to do is to decide whether or not a newspaper has spoken its mind fairly and honestly.
A Conservative paper may express one opinion and a Socialist paper the precise opposite,
and it may be said that both cannot be correct. Nevertheless, both have the right to say
what they believe (Press Council, 1958, p. 9).
For present purposes, it is important to note the type of ill behavior that the Press
Council proposed to redress through these means. Continuing in his 1954 foreword, Astor
contextualized the Councils founding: Much ill feeling against the Press has undoubtedly
been caused by the very natural resentment against intrusion into the private life of the
individual*it may be at a time of grief or misfortune*in cases where mere curiosity
unrelated to public interest has led to callous methods of enquiry. The Councils charge,
then, was to address the concern that had been growing since the late 19th century that
the commercialized popular press was blurring the distinctions between the public and
private spheres. Finally, Astor reiterated the Councils confidence in its goals and methods.
The Council is very conscious of the responsibility it has been asked to undertake on
behalf of the Press. It has no power of sanction, but its less spectacular methods will
probably be the most effective, and our appeal to conscience and fair play has rarely been
in vain (Astor, 1954, p. 3).
Following the Chairmans Foreword, the first Annual Report contained eight pages
explaining THE PRESS COUNCIL. What it is and What it does (Press Council, 1954b,
pp. 411). If Astors emphasis on privacy did not preclude a concern for objectivity*and
one might imagine that his concern for the presss reputation might even imply it*then
the lengthier explanation positively disavowed that maintaining anything akin to
objectivity fell under the Councils remit. Beginning with self-justification, the article
defended its role in passing professional judgment upon the conduct of newspapers and
journalists in familiar if hyperbolic terms. But in presenting their first Annual Report the
Council wishes to emphasise that it considers its prime duty to be that of preserving in full
the existing liberty of the Press. A free and trusted Press is the only ultimate safeguard of
our democracy. Thus far the Councils rhetoric fits comfortably into 19th-century Fourth
THE OBJECTIVITY IDEAL 485
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

Estate rhetoric and its equation of liberty with non-intervention by the state. With
slightly more originality, the author continued, arguing that The rights of the individual to
express himself are precisely those of his newspaper. If those of the newspapers are
whittled away those of the individual as surely diminish. In context, it is worth noting, this
claim does not imply either that a specific paper needs to present balance or
objectivity or that the entire range of newspapers needs to reflect the spectrum of
opinion in the nation. Rather, the definition of press rights remains firmly embedded in
the ideal of non-intervention by the state, which, to repeat, was precisely the threat that
the Press Council was devised to forestall. Continuing its self-justifying introduction, the
article concluded that
The Council therefore holds the view that such disciplinary authority as it wields should
be exercised against those practices which, by bringing the Press into disrepute, threaten
that priceless liberty, and weaken the confidence which should exist between the citizen
and the professional journalist. (1954b, p. 4)
Having already noted the Chairmans emphasis on violations of privacy, we might
ask whether other poor behavior by circulation-hungry newspapers might bring the press
into disrepute and thereby threaten its independence from state legislation. Lest there
be any confusion, the explanatory article disavowed any concern for either matters of taste
or opinion on questions of the day. On the matter of good taste, the article cautioned
that
This is difficult and disputable ground. Classical literature is full of reminders that we have
as many thousands of tastes as there are persons living and that what is right and joyous
to some is poisonous to others . . . It [the Press Council] is much more concerned with fair
play than with the nicety of expression or conformity with a fashion set by the best
newspapers. (1954b, p. 5)
Moreover, this insistence on remaining distant from questions of good taste tied
directly to a refusal to adjudicate controversial public issues. Bad taste is often alleged
where a point has been made strongly. It is no business of the Press Council to moderate
the force of controversial argument, but where the general sense of decency is offended it
will be ready to say so (1954b, p. 5).
Reading between the lines, the Press Council appears to be saying that it stood
ready publicly to condemn any behavior that virtually every articulate layperson already
condemned, but would remain neutral on matters on which opinion was divided. In other
words, the Council refrained from holding the press accountable on any number of
standards: objectivity, political balance (either individually or collectively), civility, or
accuracy. Its primary aim was reinforcing perceptions of fair play that centered most
heavily on questions of privacy. Two years later, Linton Andrews reaffirmed this mission in
his own Chairmans Foreword, arguing not merely for the necessity of journalists fair
play but claiming that mantle for the Press Council itself:
There are still*and perhaps always will be*those who complain that the Council takes
on itself too much or too little. Some ardent social reformers want it to pluck at and
destroy the kind of information and comment that distress their sensitive minds but not
those of the mass of readers. Others grumble that the Council is drawn into questions of
taste which the newspaper reader should be free to decide for himself. Midway between
486 MARK HAMPTON
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

these two extremes of opinion stands a far more general recognition of the Councils fair
play. (Press Council, 1956, p. 1)
He continued, noting that the 1956 Report focused on the Press Councils action in
several cases especially those of needless intrusion into grief . . . Any exposure of
unscrupulous methods may well be a warning to more than the offender (Press Council,
1956, p. 1).
Again, the largest purpose of the Press Council was to stave off statutory regulation
by demonstrating that the newspaper industry was capable of regulating itself. One side
of the Councils work was thus to demonstrate that perceived abuses were being
addressed. The other side was constantly to make the case that any statutory regulation
would constitute an encroachment upon Britains longstanding commitment to liberty of
the press. Thus in 1954 the council noted that it was often alleged that advertisers
influence constrained newspaper coverage, but claimed that the fallacy of this argument
was seen during the previous year as British newspapers had given the widest publicity
to reports associating smoking with lung cancer, even though tobacco was one of the
largest sources of advertising revenue (Press Council, 1954a, p. 10). In the 1956 Report, it
framed its stance against intrusion into the Royal Familys private life as part of an effort
to defend not only that aspect of free speech which is the historic hard-won freedom of
the Press but also to ensure that that freedom is not abused (Press Council, 1956, p. 3).
In 1962, Mirror proprietor Cecil King argued that press freedom had already been
compromised by existing regulation, a move which could only have reinforced the need
for Press Council members vigilance in staving off further regulation:
Harmless debates between rival commentators give the impression of free speech. Try to
get behind the facade, however, and write about the errors and hesitations of the inner
councils of government and the mistakes of the civil service and you will find that the
State has weapons to prevent publication quite as effective as the censorship imposed
by totalitarian regimes. (King, 1962, pp. 112)
He went on to cite libel, contempt of court, and the Official Secrets act as among
these weapons of the state (King, 1962).
Nowhere, though, was the disavowal of objectivity more pronounced than in a
1979 editorial by Patrick Neill, which ridiculed a South African draft Bill that would seem to
directly promote an American-style program of ritualized objectivity. Although its status as
a signed opinion piece labeled A personal view indicated that this was not an official
Press Council position, it should be noted that the opinion occupied the first four pages
of that years Annual Report, thus giving it a deliberate prominence. Asking whether or not
the Press Council could have teeth of the sort that would require legislation, Neill argued
that legislation itself would be undesirable but also that the content of any additional
Press Council powers (teeth) would compromise press freedom. It was in this context
that he examined South Africas Steyn Commission of Inquiry, a draft Bill entitled Act to
Professionalise the Mass Media. His wider purpose was to discredit the very idea of
legislation, but in focusing on the content of the proposed legislation he criticized the
ideal of objectivity along lines similar to Schudsons, asking for example how is an
incident such as a massacre to be presented in a correct context. And how can a
conspiracy to defraud the public be exposed in a balanced manner? He further objected
to objectivitys tendency to impose a requirement that comment should always be
written in the double-handed style (on the one hand . . . though on the other hand . . .),
THE OBJECTIVITY IDEAL 487
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

and asked How could campaigning journalism survive in such a climate? And what would
happen to satire and the art of the cartoonist? (Neil, 1979, pp. 23).
The National Union of Journalists (NUJ), which participated in the Press Council as a
constituent body for most of the latters history, displayed a similar reticence toward any
sort of ideal of objectivity. Frequently at odds with the Press Council, it often accused
the Council of inadequately addressing what it saw as the degradation of journalistic
standards in pursuit of tabloid values.
7
Like the Press Council, the NUJ championed press
freedom; unlike the Press Council, however, the NUJ did not equate press freedom with
non-intervention by the state. Not only was the NUJ instrumental in bringing about the
1947 Royal Commission on the Press which investigated the threat to freedom entailed by
increased concentration in newspaper ownership, but it continued to emphasize this
theme periodically throughout the 20th century. Quoting President A. Kenyons 1944 NUJ
Presidential address, President Rosaline Kelly agreed that 33 years later it was still true that
press concentration was more likely than restraint on freedom of access to limit the
freedom of the press (National Union of Journalists, 1977, p. 5).
The NUJ thus was willing on occasion to appeal beyond the profession to the wider
public. As late as 1995, the NUJs annual report stated that the Annual Delegate Meeting
rejected the notion of self-regulation as practiced by the Press Council or its successor,
the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), specifically rejecting the equation of non-
intervention with freedom of the press. The ADM regards as the real reason for the
governments abject failure to tackle the appalling behavior of many British newspapers is
not a desire to defend press and broadcasting freedom, but rather, the need to retain the
political support of proprietors and editors. It expressed skepticism regarding the PCCs
ability to exercise any serious restraint on the excesses of the popular press and, in the
absence of effective regulation, called upon members to adhere to the NUJs Code of
Conduct (National Union of Journalists, 1995).
The NUJs Code of Conduct has altered over time, but throughout the 20th century
and to the present has followed the pattern emphasized elsewhere in this essay. While
much of the Code has emphasized duties to the profession and other journalists more
broadly, those parts that have focused specifically on journalistic content strikingly have
avoided the term objectivity and, rather than advocating any sort of professional ritual
have instead called upon members individually to practice independence, fair play, and a
commitment to truth; in other words, as in other discussions of British journalism ideals,
the NUJs Code of Conduct demands far less formulaic standards than American
objectivity. For example, the 1950 and 1970 versions state that the journalist should
not falsify information or documents, or distort or misrepresent facts, refer to taking
bribes as one of the gravest professional offences, and insist on the rule of fair play to
all parties when reporting law court proceedings. Moreover, with some repetition, the
1970 version of the Code prohibits the distortion or suppression of the truth because of
advertising considerations, while both champion freedom to gather and publish news
and fair criticism (National Union of Journalists, 1950, pp. 423; 1970, pp. 378).
8
As a trade union, the NUJ not surprisingly devoted much of its attention to
promoting its members working conditions and wages, and compared to the Institute of
Journalists or the Newspaper Publishers Association, was more willing to countenance
restrictive definitions of journalist. A recurring theme in the NUJ archives following
World War II was that newspapers should not use copy from non-journalists in their
coverage of sports. In 1952, for example, the National Executive Council lamented that the
488 MARK HAMPTON
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

NPA was adhering to its present attitude on the right of a sports editor to choose whom
he wished to cover a sports event, while the Administrative Committee noted that the
News of the World chapel was seeking guidance in cases where a journalists story was
carried in one edition and a non-journalist sports reporters story in a later edition from
which the journalists story was excluded (National Union of Journalists, 1952a, p. 19 57,
item 4086; 1952b, p. 19 78, item 4099). Although this recurring conflict could be portrayed
in terms of journalistic standards and competence, this angle was usually assumed, and the
issue appears most significantly to concern the protection of union members employ-
ment, while significantly, the NPA line quoted above belongs within an editorial freedom
discourse. Two decades later, this conflict remaining unresolved, the National Executive
Council instructed members working on national newspapers to refuse to allow non-
journalists to report sporting events, and to black comment articles by sportsmen (other
than occasional one-off contributions) (National Union of Journalists, 19745, pp. 145).
9
While the NUJ campaigned to restrict access to newspapers, at least for the most part, to
full-time journalists, it was equally mindful of the need for access to journalistic sources.
In 1952, therefore, its NEC corresponded with the Home Office on the question of access
to prisons.
While disagreeing on the meanings of terms, the Press Council and NUJ agreed,
then, that independence, fair play, truth and accuracy were the proper aims of journalists,
and they similarly displayed a reticence toward championing anything resembling the
American professional ritual of objectivity.
Conclusion
British and American media have a long history of mutual borrowing, and it is not
too much to say, with Hallin and Mancini, that they belong to a common transatlantic
ideal type whose commonalities outweigh various nuances (Hallin and Mancini, 2004,
pp. 198248).
10
Yet the tendency among scholars of British media to treat the objectivity
norm as part of the shared Anglo-American heritage, or simply to assume that it has
prevailed in Britain, is problematic. Leaving aside the very different question of journalistic
practice, as an ideal objectivity did not become predominant within 20th-century British
journalism. This is not to say that British journalists have lacked professionalism. Michael
Schudson has written that Partisan journalists, like objective journalists, typically reject
inaccuracy, lying, and misinformation, but partisan journalists do not hesitate to present
information from the perspective of a particular party or faction (2001, p. 165). Taken in
this way, partisanship was compatible with predominant norms within 20th-century British
journalism. Outside of such particular institutional contexts as Reuters and the BBC, British
journalists throughout the 20th century were less influenced by American-style objectivity
than by such concepts as accuracy and truth, fair play, and independence.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Earlier drafts of this paper were presented to audiences at Hong Kong Universitys History
Department, the Social History Society Conference, and the European Social Science
History Conference. I am grateful to the audiences for their comments. In addition, I am
grateful to the American Philosophical Society for funding the research upon which this
THE OBJECTIVITY IDEAL 489
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

article is based, and to the BBC Written Archives Centre, the National Union of Journalists,
and The Reuters Archive for permission to publish material from their archives.
NOTES
1. See also Schudson (2001), Schiller (1981) and Kaplan (2002). For a critique of the
philosophical underpinnings of journalistic objectivity, see Edgar (1992).
2. For objectivity as a professional ritual, see Tuchman (1972).
3. For two of the few scholarly accounts to note the lesser attraction to objectivity on the
part of British journalists, see Ward (2004) and Schudson (2001, p. 182). On the other
hand, perhaps paradoxically, while the common transatlantic ideal of objectivity is often
assumed, commentators more frequently remark upon the reality of a more partisan
British press. See, e.g., Geary (2006) and Getler and Doyle (2004).
4. Multiple drafts appear in the archive: British Broadcasting Corporation (1955a, 1955b).
5. For example, many such letters are scattered throughout BBC WAC R34/ 523 and BBC
WAC R/34/ 534/2. See also CAB 124/ 32 and CAB 124/ 33, both in The National Archive
(London), for numerous complaints from such diverse sources as the British Government,
the South African Government, and Marie Stopes.
6. This paragraph and the preceding one are taken from Hampton (2004, Chapters 35,
especially Chapter 5).
7. Unlike most of the Press Council members, the NUJ argued from the beginning for the
inclusion of lay representatives on the Council (National Union of Journalists, 1953, p. 19
271, item 4409). In 1979, the NUJs National Executive Committee voted to withdraw
from membership in the Press Council (National Union of Journalists, 1979, pp. 556).
8. The version extant in 2007 more forcibly calls upon journalists to avoid the expression of
comment and conjecture as established fact and falsication by distortion, selection or
misrepresentation. In addition, both distortion and fair play have received technological
or political updates, so that a journalist shall only mention a persons race, colour, creed,
illegitimacy, marital status (or lack of it), gender or sexual orientation if this information is
strictly relevant and manipulated photographs now have entered the denition of
distortion (see National Union of Journalists, 2007).
9. For a contemporary critique of such restrictive practices, see Aims of Industry (1974).
10. See also Tunstall and Machin (1999) and Wiener and Hampton (2007).
REFERENCES
AIMS OF INDUSTRY (1974) Aims of Industry: evidence for the Royal Commission on the Press, London:
Aims of Industry.
ASTOR, J.J. (1954) The Chairmans Foreword, in: The Press and the People. The First Annual
Report of the General Council of the Press. Press Council, November.
BALDASTY, GERALD (1992) The Commercialization of News in the Nineteenth Century, Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
BOYCE, GEORGE (1978) The Fourth Estate: the reappraisal of a concept, in: George Boyce, James
Curran and Pauline Wingate (Eds), Newspaper History from the Seventeenth Century to the
Present Day, London: Constable, pp. 1940.
BRIGGS, ASA (1995a [1961]) History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Vol. I: The Birth of
Broadcasting, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
490 MARK HAMPTON
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

BRIGGS, ASA (1995b [1965]) History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Vol. II: The Golden Age
of Wireless. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (1949) Policy Notes for Programme Staff, BBC Written Archives
Centre A/ 3065.
BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (1955a) News Broadcasting: preamble, 14 April, BBC Written
Archives Centre T16/119/5 TV Policy/ News in Vision, File 3a 1955May 1957.
BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (1955b) Notes on News, 5 April, BBC Written Archives
Centre T16/119/5 TV Policy/ News in Vision, File 3a 1955May 1957.
BROMLEY, MICHAEL (2003) Objectivity and the Other Orwell, Media History 9, pp. 12335.
BULLETIN (1919) No. 7 (April). Reuters Archive LN431, Archive No. 1/ 865315.
BULLETIN (1921a) Advice from the Chief Editor, No. 11 (Feb.), pp. 34. Reuters Archive LN431,
Archive No. 1/ 865315.
BULLETIN (1921b) No. 12 (June). Reuters Archive LN431, Archive No. 1/ 865315.
CHALABY, JEAN (1998) The Invention of Journalism, London: Macmillan.
CONBOY, MARTIN (2004) Journalism: a critical history, London: Sage.
COWEN, SIR ZELMAN (1984) Guiding Fairness: guarding freedom, in: The Press and the People. The
Thirty-First Annual Report of the General Council of the Press. Press Council.
EDGAR, ANDREW (1992) Objectivity, Bias and Truth, in: Andrew Belsey and Ruth Chadwick (Eds),
Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 11229.
GEARY, JAMES (2006) In Praise of the Tabs (Sort Of), British Journalism Review 17, pp. 414.
GETLER, MICHAEL and DOYLE, LEONARD (2004) Brits vs. Yanks: who does journalism right?,
Columbia Journalism Review 43, pp. 449.
HALLIN, DANIEL C. and MANCINI, PAOLO (2004) Comparing Media Systems: three models of media and
politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HAMILTON, JAMES T. (2004) All the News Thats Fit to Sell: how the market transforms information
into news, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
HAMPTON, MARK (2004) Visions of the Press in Britain, 18501950, Urbana and Chicago: University
of Illinois Press.
JONES, RODERICK (1917) Letter (copy) to the Right Honorable Sir Edward Carson, MP (condential),
10 November. Reuters Archive LN948, Archive 1/013268.
KAPLAN, RICHARD (2002) Politics and the American Press: the rise of objectivity, 18651920,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KING, CECIL (1962) Subtle Censorship Is Shackling Britains Press, in: Press and the People: The
Ninth Annual Report of the General Council of the Press. Press Council, December.
L., F.F. (1922) The Question of Guarantees, The Graphic, 16 December, p. 908.
MARTIN, KINGSLEY (1965) Letter to Harold Wilson, 8 May, Kingsley Martin Papers 14/ 5, University
of Sussex.
MCNAIR, BRIAN (1998) The Sociology of Journalism, London: Arnold.
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (1950) Rules of the National Union of Journalists, Supplement I,
Code of Professional Conduct, NUJ Archive, MSS.086/4 Modern Records Centre,
University of Warwick.
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (1952a) NEC Minutes, 2324 May, p. 19 57. National Union of
Journalists National Executive Council, Minutes XIX, April 1952April 1953, NUJ Archive,
MSS.86/1/NEC/26-27, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick.
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (1952b) Administrative Committee, 27 June, p. 19 78, item 4099.
National Union of Journalists National Executive Council, Minutes XIX, April 1952April
1953, NUJ Archive, MSS.86/1/NEC/26-27, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick.
THE OBJECTIVITY IDEAL 491
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (1953) NEC Minutes, 2728 February, p. 19 271, item 4409, NUJ
Archive MSS.86/1/NEC/26-27, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick.
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (1995) Ethics, in: Your Union at Work: report and accounts for
1995 plus the Unions whos who, National Union of Journalists Archive MSS.86/4/2,
Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick.
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (1970) NUJ Rule Book, Appendix A, Code of Professional Conduct.
NUJ Archive MSS.86/4/4/1, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick.
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (19745) National Union of Journalists Annual Report, 197475,
NUJ Archive, MSS.86/4/2, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick.
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (1977) ADM: report of the 70th Annual Delegate Meeting of the
National Union of Journalists at The Kings Hall, Ilkley, April 19th22nd. NUJ Archive,
MSS.86/4/3, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick.
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (1979) ADM: Report of the 72nd Annual Delegate Meeting of the
National Union of Journalists at Dam Park Hall, Ayr, April 24th27th. NUJ Archive, MSS.86/
4/3, Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick.
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS (2007) Code of Conduct, http://media.gn.apc.org/nujcode.html,
accessed 2 November 2007.
NEILL, PATRICK (1979) Pains and Penalties? . . . or Persuasion, in: Press and the People: The
Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the General Council of the Press. Press Council.
NICHOLAS, SIA

N (1996) The Echo of War: home front propaganda and the wartime BBC, 19391945,
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
OMALLEY, TOM (1994) Closedown? The BBC and Government broadcasting policy, 197992, London:
Pluto.
OMALLEY, TOM (2000) The History of Self-regulation, in: Tom OMalley and Clive Soley,
Regulating the Press, London: Pluto.
PRESS COUNCIL (1954a) The Press and the People. The First Annual Report of the General Council of
the Press. Press Council, October.
PRESS COUNCIL (1954b) The Press Council. What It Is and What It Does, in: The Press and the
People. The First Annual Report of the General Council of the Press. Press Council, October.
PRESS COUNCIL (1955) The Press and the People. The Second Annual Report of the General Council of
the Press. Press Council, December.
PRESS COUNCIL (1956) The Press and the People: The Third Annual Report of the General Council of
the Press. Press Council, November.
PRESS COUNCIL (1958) The Press and the People: The Fifth Annual Report of the General Council of
the Press. Press Council, November.
READ, DONALD (1999) The Power of News: the history of reuters, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
REUTER (1955) Instructions Issued to Journalists. Reuters Archive LN73, Archive No. 1/8811101.
REUTER (1992) Reuters Handbook for Journalists, compiled by Ian Macdowall, Oxford: Butter-
worth-Heinemann. Reuters Archive LN 552, Archive 1/940105.
REUTER (2001) Daily Brieng. Reuters Archive LN 1026, Archive 1/014606.
SCANNELL, PADDY and CARDIFF, DAVID (1991) A Social History of British Broadcasting, Vol. One, 1922
1939: serving the nation, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
SCHILLER, DAN (1981) Objectivity and the News: the public and the rise of commercial journalism,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
SCHUDSON, MICHAEL (1978) Discovering the News: a social history of American newspapers, New
York: Basic Books.
492 MARK HAMPTON
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4

SCHUDSON, MICHAEL (2001) The Emergence of the Objectivity Norm in American Journalism, in:
Michael Hechter and Karl-Dieter Opp (Eds), Social Norms, New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, pp. 16585.
SCOTT, C.P. (1921) A Hundred Years, Manchester Guardian, 5 May.
SCOTT, C.P. (1924) Letter to Ramsay McDonald, 27 May, Manchester Guardian Archives 336/ 121,
John Rylands Library, University of Manchester.
SMITH, ANTHONY (1978) The Long Road to Objectivity and Back Again: the kinds of truth we get
in journalism, in: George Boyce, James Curran and Pauline Wingate (Eds), Newspaper
History from the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day, London: Constable, pp. 15371.
STEED, WICKHAM (1923) Letter to [illegible], British Library Add. Mss. 74120.ff/ 14751.
THE SPECTATOR (1918) A Northcliffe Ministry, 120, pp. 767.
THOMAS, JAMES (2005) Popular Newspapers, the Labour Party and British Politics, London and New
York: Routledge.
TUCHMAN, GAYE (1972) Objectivity as Strategic Ritual: an examination of newsmens notions of
objectivity, The American Journal of Sociology 77, pp. 66079.
TUNSTALL, JEREMY and MACHIN, DAVID (1999) The Anglo-American Media Connection, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
WARD, STEPHEN J.A. (2004) Invention of Journalism Ethics, Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens
University Press.
WIENER, JOEL H. and HAMPTON, MARK (2007) Anglo-American Media Interactions, 18502000,
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Mark Hampton, Lingnan University, Department of History, Tuen Mun, New Territories
(N.T.), Hong Kong. E-mail: markhampt@gmail.com
THE OBJECTIVITY IDEAL 493
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n
k
u

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
h
m
a
n
]

a
t

2
2
:
3
7

2
5

M
a
y

2
0
1
4