Whenever the BBC tries to define and then enforce its impartiality rules, there’s always a sense of that it views the general public as incapable of making these sorts of distinctions – IE between a human being with personal views and their ability to do a job professionally and fairly. In the last week, a lot of people have cited Andrew Neil’s chairmanship of the Spectator as rendering him unsuitable for the Beeb to use as a political interviewer/ presenter. 2/4

But his interviews have always seemed to me to be robust, forensic and largely fair no matter who his interviewee is – and, in many ways, knowing explicitly what Neil’s own political convictions are helps contextualise his questioning. 3/4

I think more problematic is the mindset that many broadcasters have that impartiality means having two diametrically opposed views – as though the truth is always somewhere in the middle. If someone says it’s raining, and someone else says it’s not raining, it’s the journalist’s job to go outside & check. Unfortunately, it’s this sort of mindset that results in the likes of Nadine Dorries being given 10 minutes of uninterrupted airtime to spout nonsense on behalf of Boris Johnson. 4/4