Tax and spend

Tim Davie (and Sir Nick Serota) have set a lot of store by thematic reviews of BBC output to 'prove' impartiality. 

There will be critics who say he's starting in the wrong place by hiring Sir Andrew Dilnot and former BBC producer/broadcaster Michael Blastland to conduct the first of these reviews, into reporting of taxation and public spending. 

It's apparently already started, with a view to reporting in the summer. 

Extracts from the terms of reference: 

It will specifically assess News and Factual output that refers to overall taxation and public spending and some specific areas of public spending but will not be limited to News and Current Affairs. The review will include taxation and spending in the devolved Nations of the UK. It will not be possible, without devoting excessive resources and time to the project in the time available, to assess every piece of coverage of every aspect of public spending across the UK.

It will attempt to include major areas of public spending in particular where it is itself controversial and/or relates to public policy and political controversy. The period over which content is assessed will be timed to take in major announcements about taxation and spending, borrowing and debt, such as Budgets or Spending Reviews [haven't we missed both of those ? Ed].

The Review will be tasked to concentrate on evaluating impartiality and bias in output and not on simply reviewing output and news coverage. However the absence of some sorts of output or coverage may give rise to findings of bias by omission.

In addition the assessment of impartiality should consider the following:

Accuracy: inaccuracy, especially when repeated or persistent, can give rise to perceptions of bias.

Interviews: the tone and approach to interviews can often draw accusations of bias. The Review needs to examine whether this criticism is ever justified.

Labelling of interviewees: giving additional information about them when it is relevant to their stance.

The accurate and comprehensible presentation of data and statistics.

The casting of discussions.

The use of language and tone: does it suggest a one-sided approach?

Ideology: Are there systemic approaches to the subject from one side of a debate, e.g. a statist or a liberal market perspective?

Underlying assumptions: could these entail bias?

The use of social media: Does it reveal preferences e.g. through tweeting or re-tweeting?