Opinion vs. Analysis

"Just the facts, Ma'am".

If only journalism were that simple. (More to the point, ifonly those words were actually said on the TV show 'Dragnet'. They weren't. Youcan look it up, as any good journalist would do.)

Truth be told, journalism would be pretty dull, andultimately meaningless, if there were no context. And CBC's programmingwouldn't be nearly as interesting if it didn't contain analysis. We wouldn'tproduce programs like The Current or Power and Politics if all we did wasreport the facts as they are presented to us.

Reporting is not just about reciting facts. Knowing thatsomething happened is only part of the story. Knowing why it happened and whatfactors contributed to its happening is really what adds meaning to reporting.

I don't think that many of you would be satisfied if ourpolitical reporters simply listed the contents of a government news release, orone from an opposition party, for that matter. You'd expect us to provide somecontext and analysis. Why are they announcing (or denouncing) this initiativenow? What have they done or said about this issue in the past? How credible arethe claims being made? Depending on your own views of the politicians andparties in question, you may not like it when we ask questions like those. Butit's our job as journalists to hold decision-makers to account, and to explainto our audience, as best we can, the significance of the story.

The challenge for all of us at CBC News is defining the linebetween analysis and opinion, and who gets to express those views.

Our hosts and reporters don't have free rein to say whatthey want about the issues of the day. Our Journalistic Policy Guide makes itclear that we're guided by the principle of impartiality, and that CBCjournalists don't express their own personal opinion because it affects theperception of impartiality and could affect an open and honest exploration ofan issue.

The key word here is "personal". An observationbased on the facts of the issue, and years of experience covering a beat, whichI would describe as analysis, isn't the same as a view that comes out of leftfield without supporting arguments, or in other words, opinion.

Our senior reporters bring that experience to what they do.The backgrounder pieces they produce for The National, The World at Six, andonline is where we showcase that experience.

Thoughts on the topic from Margaret Evans, Susan Ormiston, Marivel Taruc, Amanda Lang, Cameron MacIntosh, Dave Seglins, Duncan McCue and Nahlah Ayed

It is an informed judgment call every time we decide to provide analysis. The decision is based on the journalist's grasp of the facts and ability to add perspective. Most times that comes with years of experience and a certain stature in the industry. But not always. And like everything else, it is an active conversation between the reporter, the producer and the people responsible for vetting the content. Sometimes it is a vigorous debate. In the end, we like to think that the result is adding value to the discussion.

There aresome who cling to the belief that journalists are, or should be, neutral at alltimes. This notion of complete impartiality, sometimes called "The View fromNowhere", forbids any analysis, let alone opinion, by journalists. Perhaps itsmost forceful critic is the American journalism professor and blogger, JayRosen, who writes:

If in doingthe serious work of journalism-digging, reporting, verification, mastering abeat-you develop a view, expressing that view does not diminish your authority.It may even add to it. The View from Nowhere doesn't know from this. It alsoencourages journalists to develop bad habits. Like: criticism from both sidesis a sign that you're doing something right, when you could be doing everythingwrong.

I don'tthink Rosen or any other credible media critic is making a case for morepolarized and opinionated scream fests, the likes of which we have seen foryears in the States and more recently in Canada. And neither am I. Instead Ithink there is lots of room in the media landscape for reasoned, intelligent,informed and educated debate about current events. The opinions expressed needto be backed up with a body of experience built on research and facts.Otherwise they are rarely worth the time taken to express them.

I say thateven though I know full well that some people will never be convinced of CBC'simpartiality. Ironically, it's often commentators from news organizations thatmake little effort to hide their political views who accuse us of taking sides.

Once again,the growth of social media adds even more complexity to this issue. Everyonewho has an opinion, including CBC staff, is now able to capture an audience andexpress that opinion. Just because it is a personal status update or contains ahash-tag, doesn't give you a pass. If you are a journalist and make a living asone, you are still obligated to draw a line between opinion and analysis. Evenin 140 characters.