A Decade of BBC Question Time Data Reveals Imbalance in Journalist Guests (sagepub.com) 93
A new study [PDF] from Cardiff University analyzing a decade of the popular topical debate programme BBC Question Time found that the broadcaster's flagship political debate show relies disproportionately on journalists and pundits from right-wing media outlets, particularly those connected to The Spectator magazine.
Researcher Matt Walsh examined 391 editions and 1,885 panellist appearances between 2014 and 2024. Journalists from right-leaning publications accounted for 59.59% of media guest slots, compared to just 16.86% for left-leaning outlets. The Spectator, a conservative magazine with a circulation of roughly 65,000, had an outsized presence among the most frequently booked guests. The study's list of top non-politician appearances reads like a roster of right-wing media figures. Isabel Oakeshott appeared 14 times, Julia Hartley-Brewer 13, Kate Andrews (formerly of the Institute for Economic Affairs and now at The Spectator) 13, and Tim Stanley of The Telegraph and Spectator also 13.
No equivalent frequency existed for left-wing journalists; Novara Media's Ash Sarkar and podcaster Alastair Campbell each appeared six times. Walsh said that the programme's need to be entertaining may explain some of these choices, as columnists unconstrained by party talking points tend to generate livelier debate. The BBC maintains that Question Time aims to present a "breadth of viewpoints," but the data suggests the programme's construction of impartiality tilts notably in one direction.
Researcher Matt Walsh examined 391 editions and 1,885 panellist appearances between 2014 and 2024. Journalists from right-leaning publications accounted for 59.59% of media guest slots, compared to just 16.86% for left-leaning outlets. The Spectator, a conservative magazine with a circulation of roughly 65,000, had an outsized presence among the most frequently booked guests. The study's list of top non-politician appearances reads like a roster of right-wing media figures. Isabel Oakeshott appeared 14 times, Julia Hartley-Brewer 13, Kate Andrews (formerly of the Institute for Economic Affairs and now at The Spectator) 13, and Tim Stanley of The Telegraph and Spectator also 13.
No equivalent frequency existed for left-wing journalists; Novara Media's Ash Sarkar and podcaster Alastair Campbell each appeared six times. Walsh said that the programme's need to be entertaining may explain some of these choices, as columnists unconstrained by party talking points tend to generate livelier debate. The BBC maintains that Question Time aims to present a "breadth of viewpoints," but the data suggests the programme's construction of impartiality tilts notably in one direction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Faux Noise is huge in the US, CBS now has an extreme right "monitor", the NYT tends to accept whatever lies billionaires and Caroline Leavitt spout, and we need *more*?
And calling the beeb "left wing" says that you, personally, are a frucking Nazi.
What's the matter, are you terrified of reporting of facts, which have a well-known liberal bias, might disrupt your echo chamber?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It will only be enough for them once all media is right-leaning.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Reminds me of an opinion piece from 20 years ago (Score:2)
The gist was that the Sunday morning political (USA) programs on the major networks would have a balanced set of participants including:
- The left-leaning host
- A pundit from the left
- A moderate (centrist) pundit who most often softly agreed with the pundit on the left
- A weak, soft-spoken person in the central-right
The premise was the host to ask a left favoring question, the pundit on the left and moderate (central left) to agree with the left's position and the central-right person to give a weak answer
Re: Good (Score:2)
The stupid left-right compass you guys always rely on and frame your harebrained partisan thinking around places Nazis as centrist authoritarians. I don't know why you guys rely on that shit. What is meant by "right" or "left" changes by the day and by the conversation.
Re: Good (Score:2)
No, not really. The thing is that there is more than one left-right axis. Here are the two main ones:
â Economic - Left means more state ownership. Right means a more free market approach.
â Social - Left means more personal freedom and equal rights. Right tends towards authoritarianism.
It's perfectly possible to be left on one and right on the other or vice versa. Extreme economic left plus extreme social right is something like the USSR under Stalin. Vice versa is something like a US libertarian,
Re: Good (Score:2)
You literally just affirmed exactly what I said, and you don't even know it. You're saying that economic authoritarians are left wing, where economic libertarians are right wing, and at the same time you're saying social libertarians are left wing where social authoritarians are right wing.
To use your example, Stalin was an authoritarian across the board, but somehow that makes him...left wing? And in your mind, there's nothing confusing about that.
I've got an idea: Instead of saying left or right, why don'
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really. The thing is that there is more than one left-right axis. Here are the two main ones: â Economic - Left means more state ownership. Right means a more free market approach.
This is libertarian belief. It does not very well correspond to the western world today. No, modern liberals do not believe in state ownership. That was Marxist thinking of a century ago, and it simply isn't the way current liberals in developed societies work. More realistic:
â Economic - Left means more state spending on the poor and on improving the conditions for average humans. Right means a more state spending on the military and tax "incentives" for businesses. Left means more taxes on the righ
Re: (Score:2)
This is libertarian belief. It does not very well correspond to the western world today. No, modern liberals do not believe in state ownership
In America, both parties have settled on "less taxes and more benefits." Politicians who don't do that (ie, actually cut real benefits) get voted out of office. That is spending will keep going up, deficit spending will keep going up, until it hurts. That is what the American public wants.
The only real disagreement is who gets the benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
This is libertarian belief. It does not very well correspond to the western world today. No, modern liberals do not believe in state ownership
In America, both parties have settled on "less taxes and more benefits."
No. Check your data.
While the Democrats have worked for modest tax cuts on the middle class, the Republicans have been making massive tax cuts primarily benefiting the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's possible in theory, but pretty much all the data on actual opinions of people shows that for the most part, people who are left on one issue are left on others, and people who are right on one issue are right on others.
That is a result of tribalism. It's been studied pretty extensively:
https://www.pewresearch.org/po... [pewresearch.org]
https://carnegieendowment.org/... [carnegieendowment.org]
https://academic.oup.com/pnasn... [oup.com]
TL;DR: People will change their view on something if you convince them that the political party they "side" with holds that same view. It's more or less just a mental shortcut people use because, believe it or not, thinking as an individual actually consumes more time and energy than just going with whatever your party goes with.
The left/right
Re: (Score:2)
The stupid left-right compass you guys always rely on and frame your harebrained partisan thinking around places Nazis as centrist authoritarians. I don't know why you guys rely on that shit.
This is worth repeating. "Left/Right" isn't reality, it's politicians trying to manipulate you. "Gotta own the libs" etc
Re: (Score:2)
It's not somebody trying to manipulate, it's just something people do to themselves when they either can't or won't spend the time to carefully measure their own position on something, so they just go with whatever side they think they're on as a mental shortcut. Likewise, they like to do the same to other people, typically based on one or two opinions stated by that person, usually if they strongly favor or oppose one or more of those opinions.
In other words, it's just people being intellectually lazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There needs to be more right-leaning voices in the media.
Yes, the media definitely needs to replace the right-wing extremists with "right-leaning" voices.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: Your own prejudice is showing (Score:4, Interesting)
They literally prove you wrong and instead of admitting it and apologizing, you pretend that your ridiculous claim to bias is still true and that the one case where the evidence proves you wrong is an anomaly and that the rest of the channel must be like you think it is..
Look, the reason so many people in the media disagree with you is that you are wrong. It is not bias, they simply here what you have to say and disagree. The majority of the world is more liberal than you - that is why there are so many liberals in the media. We outnumber you.
Re: Your own prejudice is showing (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the interactions I've had with the BBC here in the US (mainly through the BBC News Hour on NPR in the morning and some occasional online stories) come across as pretty neutral anecdotally, and MBFC [mediabiasfactcheck.com], my preferred watchdog for this sort of thing, seems to agree. So I think the original poster's conclusion that the BBC is left-biased is probably untrue and likely comes from his own place of bias. But it's important not to overstate the case here based on one metric. A news outlet disproportionately taking on right-leaning guests could very easily be offset by, for example, the host being disproportionately confrontational to those guests or conveying story information before or after in a manner intended to predispose the audience to the opposing viewpoint.
Re: Your own prejudice is showing (Score:3)
Showing that there's a right-bias in guest selection only proves that there's a right-bias in guest selection. That can be offset by other sources of bias, such as story selection, story presentation, interviewer-guest interaction, etc.
Question Time isn't a news programme. There are neither stories nor interviews, just a panel, a moderator and the audience. The panel is supposed to be selected to match the political landscape in the area the episode is filmed (it's in a different place every week), the moderator chooses which audience member gets to ask a question and tries to keep guests on-topic (the current host Fiona Bruce has herself had some accusations of bias levied* but there have been worse than her) and the audience are people
Re: (Score:2)
It's not news, it's low quality political debate. They get a panel of guests in, usually a politician from the two main parties and one other, and a couple of journalists or businesspeople or charity workers.
The audience asks some questions related to current events, and each member of the panel gives an answer. The politicians just repeat the party talking points and focus group approved phrases. The journalists give ideological answers.
There is a strong right wing bias. The moderator is biased, the choice
Re: (Score:2)
Showing that there's a right-bias in guest selection only proves that there's a right-bias in guest selection. That can be offset by other sources of bias, such as story selection, story presentation, interviewer-guest interaction, etc.
Most of the interactions I've had with the BBC here in the US (mainly through the BBC News Hour on NPR in the morning and some occasional online stories) come across as pretty neutral anecdotally, and MBFC [mediabiasfactcheck.com], my preferred watchdog for this sort of thing, seems to agree. So I think the original poster's conclusion that the BBC is left-biased is probably untrue and likely comes from his own place of bias. But it's important not to overstate the case here based on one metric. A news outlet disproportionately taking on right-leaning guests could very easily be offset by, for example, the host being disproportionately confrontational to those guests or conveying story information before or after in a manner intended to predispose the audience to the opposing viewpoint.
The BBC, being publicly funded (via the TV license, not general taxation) is constantly monitored for any sign of bias. So much so that the last conservative government abused this to try to place people in their to ensure there is a right wing bias under the guise of "eliminating left wing bias". Recent events from Trump and the right wing press in the UK have actually let the BBC clean out a few of those people the Conservatives put into managerial positions, which was fortunately the opposite of what the
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, here are the true left-wingers: Sanders, Ocasio-
Re: (Score:3)
Nowadays, conservatives are fighting moderate-centrism. They’re less likely to win that battle.
They're fighting liberalism, the small-L concept of liberalism that is. We hope they don't win that one.
"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy."
Re: (Score:2)
Aww man now I get my own troll? I'm kinda flattered.
Class conservative though you have to make up a villain wholecloth to attack instead of dealing with the actual ideas.
Still waiting on that clip chief.
A little context (Score:3)
When the general public attitude shifts toward the Left, centrist opinions will be Left-leaning.
The only backstory I know on this one is that one study [telegraph.co.uk] found that more Left-leaning proposals were discussed, and anything farther Right than center-Right was treated like it was dangerous.
In the real world view, news organizations reflect whatever their backers and audience will pay for. "Objective" media is probably an oxymoron.
Re: (Score:3)
In the US, here are the true left-wingers: Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Mamdani, and not very many others. Not Biden, not Obama, or any of the others on the list that right-wingers love to hate.
To add to this, people like Sanders aren't crazy left-wing extremists, either. In most other developed countries, they would be mainstream left-wingers.
Re: Glad to hear it (Score:1)
Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Mamdani
No, that's the politburo.
Re: (Score:2)
The countries with the best quality of life are an social democracies, with left leaning politics. The left is doing fine, that's why the narrative that every socialist country is a failed shit hole has to be pushed so hard.
Alternate facts (Score:2)
That's a pretty amazing spin on actual proof that the BBC does not have a "left-wing" representation bias.
Re: (Score:1)
Try "One piece of research on the person who selects guests for one program on the BBC".
Shocker (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shocker (Score:4, Insightful)
Another place right wingers bitch and scream like toddlers is biased against them and silencing their views is actually tilted in their favor, but anything short of blatant extremist propaganda and hate speech entirely divorced from reality simply isn't "fair".
Might it be that the Beeb relies on groups like the Spectator for guests as an opposite to it's own party line, and thus drive the outrage demo to boost ratings? A' La the old CNN crossfire route? What else would they do? Bring on, say, the Guardian every night and basically just agree on everything?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The BBC has been run at the top by mainly conservative people, and their current politics head is a true conservative.
I firmly believe that the BBC and its constant pushing UKIP outrage nonsense caused brexit
For the 14 years that the tories were in power recently, the BBC reported everything the conservatives said as fact, and any news story about other parties was always negative.
QT has always been riddled with tories, not just the panel but also the audience members.
It boils down to
Re: (Score:2)
(It should be mentioned that by modern standards, the BBC does do excellent journalistic work)
Re: (Score:3)
The BBC isn't supposed to have a party line. This show has a moderator, but they typically do not express their own opinions. The one they have now is right leaning anyway.
The sister programme Any Questions on Radio 4 is much better. Better moderators, better guests, better questions and debate. Question Time should be better.
What's this got to do with technology? (Score:2)
Interconnection (Score:2)
What happens in politics influences what happens in technology, like the current Texas attempt to impose age limits [austinchronicle.com] on app stores.
I think this is a terrible idea because it leads to the end of internet anonymity, and anonymity is a necessary "check and balance" on both strong power and groupthink, but until enough people speak out about it, it will become the norm.
Australia has taken the age limit [pbs.org] even further, applying it to all social media, and the UK has a similar regulation [thepinknews.com] but for pr0n sites only.
who cares (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
just as many anti-left and anti-sjw posters as well. any article about pop culture is absolutely inundated with comments about how woke and garbage it all is
don't act like one side has a monopoly on shitposting
Re: (Score:1)
don't act like one side has a monopoly on shitposting
give your head a shake, all it ever is on here is usually Trump this and that, and its never anything good.
"8.3 billion people ... (Score:1)
... 8.3 billion opinions" isn't far from reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Does not pass the laugh test (Score:2)
Re: Does not pass the laugh test (Score:3)
No they haven't. The only person who thinks that is Nigel Farage. If anything he should get down on his knees and kiss Aunty Beeb's feet for all the free publicity they've given him. Read TFA and you'll see that he has been given far more guest spots on QT and other BBC programmes than the size of his party should warrant.
Old Frog Face is practically the archetype for right wing voices who constantly whinge about being 'cancelled', despite the fact that they're doing it on broadcast television. The man is a
Re: Does not pass the laugh test (Score:3, Informative)
More so, Nigel Farage complaining about lack of free-speech seems to be spot-on, in light of 30 arrests a day for online posts.
Farage complains about anything, because he has no solutions to any of the problems our nation faces. It used to be the EU, until he and his conned us into voting Leave. Then he moved on to immigrants, blaming them for the state of the UK. Now, bereft of any original thought as he is, he's latched on to cancel culture and freeze peach. Deep down he doesn't really want to be PM because that would involve him actually turning up and doing something. As the saying here goes: he's all mouth and no trousers. He
Re: Does not pass the laugh test (Score:2)
If the King happened to be driving down the street I could shout at him "Your brother is a nonce!" with no legal consequences. Try doing that wit
Re: (Score:1)
As regards freedom of speech generally of course we have that.
No you don't, not for as long as your government is arresting anyone for online posts.
Re: (Score:1)
I could stand outside Scotland Yard shouting "The Met(ropolitan Police) are wankers!" and no-one would bat an eye.
Try something remotely controversial. Go shout "Islam is not a religion of peace" or "Rape gangs are part of immigrant culture" and have someone film you getting arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, re: the thirty arrests business, note that it says arrests, not convictions.
It's worse than this (I mean the lie about is is worse). The 30 arrests are just arrests related to a specific 2003 law. They are actually mostly arrests for domestic abuse which that law also covers. I.e. most are about abusing partners via messaging directly and nothing to do with posting comments online. You can breach this law using an analogue phone if you want.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
More so, Nigel Farage complaining about lack of free-speech seems to be spot-on, in light of 30 arrests a day for online posts [nypost.com].
You should stop reading online bullshit. No there's no 30 arrests a day for online posts. There's 12000 arrests on average as a results of a breach of Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. See these laws cover all sorts of communication, including breaching of restraining orders, i.e. most of those arrests are for offline domestic abuse
Also that number is dropping, the 30/ day comes from 2023 where the 12000 arrests are actually on a steady declin
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, most of those messages were the result of harassment over the phone, nothing to do with online. Stop reading rubbish news and get some real facts into you. They are mostly domestic abuse cases and they ARE ON THE DECLINE HAVING PEAKED IN 2012.
Re: (Score:1)
They are mostly domestic abuse cases ...
Citations?
Re: (Score:2)
That's because from a UK perspective the US right wing appears to be absolutely batshit mental.
From a US-close-to-center perspective, thee US far-right and far-left wings both appear to be absolutely batshit mental.
With apologies to bat guano.
Controversy is their bias, not Right/Left (Score:5, Insightful)
When a Democrat is in office? The news is 24/7 about Clinton's blowjob...or Biden's senility...or Obama's struggles getting anything passed. When a Bush was in office, it was about the war not going as expected or the failing economy. They're equally merciless to either party.
Mainstream news outlets have only had 2 biases in my lifetime: reporting the truth (AKA doing their job) and controversy, which pays the bills. Yeah, negativity and fear and sex get you to pay attention. Otherwise, you'll do the 1 billion more interesting things you can do in your day than watch the nightly news.
By dictionary definition and from a logical standpoint, a conservative will be wrong more than they're right. If your idea was good, it would probably be mainstream and thus not conservative. A conservative thinks the majority has lost their way and wants to return to the ways of the past. Just from a logical standpoint, most will be wrong. Why do I say this?
Well, it makes sense that conservatives will dominate the airwaves. They're advocating for change and their message is usually very easy to understand. It tends to be favored by the retired....AKA...those who have time and little better to do than watch TV. Not many 35yos with small children can watch the nightly news regularly.
Put simply, it's a boring story to say, "Everything is fine." "You're good." "The country is on the right track." So calls for change are what are interesting....and liberals often propose ideas that are less familiar than conservative ones. Conflict is interesting...and there's never been a shortage of people who are upset about perceived changes.
To put an American perspective on things, our conservatives are a fucking mess. They always say one thing and do another and get us into economic turmoil EVERYTIME they're in office. They've mastered complaining to win elections, but have no clue what to do when they're elected...and thus a familiar cycle emerges: a conservative gets in office with ridiculous childish promises that are very destructive and ALMOST ALL of their proposals are mere tax cuts for the wealthy without a means of paying for them....that somehow cutting taxes on the rich will make you prosperous...debt isn't an issue???...OK, the voters fall for it...the economy goes into the shitter, like it did after Bush 1, Bush 2, Trump 1, (too early to tell for Trump 2)....a Democrat gets elected to fix the mess and they do...Clinton left with a record surplus. Obama completely turned around the financial crisis. Biden objectively left the economy in a better state than he inherited and IMO, left it in a much better long-term position than anyone in recent memory with renewed emphasis on domestic manufacturing....but regardless of your opinions....the Republicans complain, enough people forget the past mistakes...that tax cuts are not governing and only benefit the wealthy...that if you want to reduce revenue, you need to reduce spending, like an actual conservative and no one wants to do that!!!....and they fall for the Republican song and dance once again.
The point? Which is more interesting? A discussion on the details of running a government responsibly?...or complaining about the guy in office and giving you childish promises that you can pay less taxes and not suffer.
A successful government requires a lot of attention to detail and nuance and understanding short-term sacrifice in the name of long-term benefit. Being the "adult party" is boring and not fun.
Being the childish party and promising you everything you want without a means of paying for it and racking up debt for your children to pay off after you die? That's a fucking party!!!!....and it certainly makes for entertaining TV.
Re: (Score:1)
When a Democrat is in office? The news is 24/7 about Clinton's blowjob...or Biden's senility...or Obama's struggles getting anything passed. When a Bush was in office, it was about the war not going as expected or the failing economy. They're equally merciless to either party.
Mainstream news outlets have only had 2 biases in my lifetime: reporting the truth (AKA doing their job) and controversy, which pays the bills. Yeah, negativity and fear and sex get you to pay attention. Otherwise, you'll do the 1 billion more interesting things you can do in your day than watch the nightly news.
Agree on the biases about courting controversy -- and what they are *supposed* to do.
However, I don't believe you're correct about media being unbiased... (i mean both mainstream and non mainstream media -- in my opinion, all media is biased these days).
Because in your world, the Hunter Biden story wasn't buried (pre-election) by the so called "mainstream" media and the media all investigated & reported frequently on President Biden's mental ability or challenges thereof (after the election before his
Adulting isn't fun (Score:2)
Because in your world, the Hunter Biden story wasn't buried (pre-election) by the so called "mainstream" media and the media all investigated & reported frequently on President Biden's mental ability or challenges thereof (after the election before his debate with Trump), and there was no mis-reporting of COVID at all (or burying/mocking of people who didn't go along with the official position)...
That response about COVID is quite childish. COVID was a special circumstance, similar to war. FUCKING IDIOTS (like my cousin) were telling you to take horse meds, inject bleach, ignore mask laws, etc. LITERAL lives were at stake. I do believe that the administration was doing their best the best way they could. It's fair to criticize mistakes when they happen. However, it's fucking childish to expect perfection in an uncharted situation. It's easy to sit back now that you're vaccinated and alive and
Re: (Score:1)
That response about COVID is quite childish. COVID was a special circumstance, similar to war. FUCKING IDIOTS (like my cousin) were telling you to take horse meds, inject bleach, ignore mask laws, etc.
No, the initial hysteria was childish. Ivermectin is used on horses. But it's also been used in humans for decades. By your logic people who take nitroglycerin for heart conditions are fools because it was used as an explosive.
All pre-covid publications showed that masks weren't terribly effective and no proper instruction were given outside of "wear a mask or you're a murderer". The reality is that any mask must be changed hourly. N95 masks require proper training and are uncomfortable to wear if sealed p
Re: (Score:1)
I see your response was to call a reasoned argument childish. And also you help make my point (without realizing it-- oh the irony!)
There were plenty of mistakes and misstatements about COVID. I admit it was an unusual time and situation. And yes there are bound to be mistakes.
But that doesn't excuse or counter my point... It actually strengthens it.
Was the administration doing their best-- I believe they likely were. They (and more relevantly towards this thread), the MEDIA just weren't very nice
You also complain about locked items at CVS? (Score:2)
As you said, navigating COVID was hard. It is however incredibly unwise to go down an unchartered road and then declare (as the government and media tended to do together) that yes we have and are the science, and anyone else with different ideas is wrong.
If it's hard and unchartered, you should be very careful about sharing what you know *as scientific certainty* -- which was the mistake made by the government, and the media (the theoretical 4th wall to check the government) went right along with it. So much of what the government said (and was amply repeated by the media) turned out to be wrong over and over again. Thus the media failed at its job -- you said '"reporting the truth (AKA doing their job) and controversy, "
When something has a high degree of uncertainty-- if you're honest in your science and math you dont' supress it, you admit the possibility of uncertainty (see all those polticial polls), and you also admit that there are other possible explanations of the facts (and why you believe yours to be correct, but admit that it's not conclusively proven). The Media didn't really fact check or allow other positions ** importantly that turned out that many of the alternate view points ** were correct. And yes you can say I'm agreeing with the idiots (as opposed to the scientists and doctors who voiced concerns).
See: https://journalofindependentme... [journalofi...dicine.org] Or (before Trump won the election): https://reason.com/2023/04/12/... [reason.com]
You make my case for me -- by showing that media & government should have been more cautious. Adults in the room listen to both sides and try to make as informed a decision as one can. And those of us who listen to both sides and do our best not to live in the echo-chamber (which is the unfortunate side of having a biased media is to get positions and counter positions you have to listen & read & importantly THINK about both sets of arguments) can then make a reasoned decision.
I suppose since you call my reasoned arguments childish because they don't agree with your worldview, I'm not talking to someone who actually knows how to reason and instead relies on name calling to try to win arguments. Best of luck to you with that.
When the fate of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable are at stake, you can't carefully hear out both sides. That's an uncomfortable adult reality. The view of Joe Rogan and other pieces of shit would have cost lives. OK, you're 21 and don't want to get vaccinated...that's not really your choice...you can easily kill 100 by carrying COVID and not wearing a mask. The typical criticism is that the administration and local governments were too cautious. Maybe they could have been less cautious, but adults
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News is famous for ignoring stories that make Trump look bad.
TV "programming" (Score:2)
The same thing is happening in Australia... (Score:2)
Here in Australia the ABC (state broadcaster similar to the BBC) has a political.program called Insiders and there is a very clear bias towards conservative media outlets and the conservative side of politics (which in Australia means the Liberal and National party).
Who decided "right leaning" from "left leaning"? (Score:1)
Who decided which publications were "right leaning" vs "left leaning"? In my experience all the left-leaning outlets deny they are left leaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, you have no experience. The Guardian, for example, is at least Labour-oriented (that's a UK political party, the one currently in power). Or then there's Mother Jones (the magazine). Or Jacobin. (look it up.) And that's off the top of my head.
what is a walsh? (Score:1)
Maybe they wanted an interesting programme (Score:2)
The Speccie often has interesting writers, Germaine Greer and Auberon Waugh for example .I'd imagine they make for a better panel than the brainwashed graduates who write for the leftie mainstream press Grauniad et al.
The BBC has an LGBT vetting panel. (Score:1)
"the BBC has an “LGBT desk” which shuts down any story that breaks from the woke leftist narrative.
This clip reveals exactly how the woke mind virus infected the media and turned it into a propaganda machine:
“The legacy media is so ideologically captured.”
“There are excellent journalists at the BBC… but for a number of years now, there has been an LGBT desk at the BBC.”
“All stories
Seriously? (Score:2)
the programme's need to be entertaining
Maybe it should be reclassified as comedy. Before it descends into being a joke. Like most BBC current affairs has already become
Same for NPR (Score:2)
I stopped regularly listening to NPR news on Morning Edition & All Things Considered because they kept bringing on right wing jerks from Think Tanks, which is hardly representative of the conversations we need to be having on political issues in America. And Tavis Smiley? Please, he's the last guy I'd go to for advice on how to fix things.