Fascinating little exchange on BBC TV Newsnight last night, which offered a glimpse of the BBC's notion of objectivity. A discussion about why abortion had suddenly resurfaced as an issue, with calls in Britain to reduce the upper time limit for terminations, featured two guests: the LibDem politician Sir David Steel who was the architect of the current Abortion Act, and the feminist writer Suzie Orbach. It was Orbach who pointed out that both she and Steel were broadly on the same side, and that five years ago it would have been unthinkable to have a studio discussion about abortion without a representative of the pro-life lobby. Orbach made this point to back up her view that there was now a cultural consensus on the issue. But while it is true that abortion is not a running controversy in Britain, as it is in the US, there is certainly a very different point of view from the Steel/Orbach position. Yet the Newsnight editors clearly didn't think it was necessary to represent it. The presenter Jeremy Paxman reacted with some sensitivity to Orbach's innocent observation, protesting testily that they had chosen not to have 'that sort of conversation' about the pro and anti-choice argument. Fair enough; it was indeed a different discussion. But even so, the anti-abortion voice should have been heard in that discussion. The fact that it was not is yet another small example of where the Beeb's journalistic centre of gravity now lies.