“Regular” readers of this column may fancy that the byline photo in today's paper is a little larger than yesterday’s, but you'd be wrong.
Staff at the new we are not about to commit collective career suicide and allow the executive editor’s picture to be larger than the editor-in-chief’s, now, are they? Sorry, Ma, I tried.
Jokes aside, those of us privileged enough to create this paper every day have amazing power and control over what we present you with, and great responsibility therein. At least that’s what we believe at i.
It’s why we set out to be as unbiased as possible in our presentation of the news, whilst recognising that the choice of a story itself is a subjective act, and simultaneously standing squarely behind our broad church of opinionated columnists.
Sometimes it is easier to walk this tightrope than others. Clearly there are two sides to stories such as Government cuts, AV, privacy, student fees, and Helena Bonham Carter’s success. But, what about when the general discourse is one-sided: The treatment of the elderly, “Booze Britain”, oil prices, Silvio Berlusconi, Arab tyrants and Sepp Blatter?
i’s mission is to present the news as matter-of-factly as possible whilst employing unparalled analysis from the likes of Robert Fisk on Libya - analysis with which you may well disagree. Sometimes we don’t get that balance right. But we believe as long as you know that we try to achieve it you can have faith in our young brand and also our pledge that we will publish your criticisms when you believe we have failed.Reuse content