Neutral broadcasters translate all political conflict into the language of compromise

Evidence

(2) Impartiality as a practice gives the broadcaster/presenter a built-in interest in compromise, in conflict-resolution. It commits him to the pragmatic view of politics. His only way of intervening actively in a controversy is to act, in the studio, the shadow-role of the compromiser, the middleman. His only legitimate interventions can be to salvage some “lowest common denominator” of a “package” or bargain from the deeply held, but opposing positions before him. All conflicts thus become translated into the language of “compromise”: all failures to compromise are signs either of “intransigence,” “extremism,” or “failures in communication.” The other way of neutralizing conflict is to assert some “overriding” interest which subordinates the conflicting parties. Thus all broadcasters are safe in asserting that Britain’s perilous economic position overrides all industrial conflict, even if the strikers have “a good case.” — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 867

Categorization

• XREF: Foreshadows contemporary accusations that institutional journalism legitimizes power by framing dissent as extremism or intransigence.