Politics Today

Spoonz Red E

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
8,208
Location
On the table
Don't think they have an Ofcom/IBA in the US.
They used to have a 'Fariness Doctrine'
Cancelled by Reagan, finished off by Obama.


Newspapers and major media have always carried opinion as well as news.
Pure facts can be contextualised by opinion (or spun if you prefer).
Pure opinion doesn't need facts.

American media is poorer for the loss of the Fairness Doctrine.
Right leaning, centrist or left leaning - with almost every news report swamped by the thoughts of opinion panels, real depth in reporting is often lost.
Fox News is appalling.
It has no regard to facts and amplifies rumour and conjecture.
It presents as news but defends itself in court cases as 'entertainment'.
 

arthur

Active member
Joined
Aug 18, 2004
Messages
4,833
What really grates me in TV news is this obsession with vox pops, even on the most uncontroversial of subjects. They just have to ensure they get 2 random people in the street, one to agree about x and then other to argue about it - regardless of whether the actual public opinion as a whole is genuinely 50/50 or actually 95/5, but they need to represent the 5 in the interests of 'balance'.
Heartily agree. You'll always find someone to object to something, no matter how sensible the proposal and how small the vocal minority opposing it.

I am still awaiting examples of BBC left wing bias. To pass the time I'll mention a couple of things.

1. The night before the HoC debate on Johnson's deal, the BBC political correspondent highlighted the potential rebellion Starmer faced. Nothing wrong with that - it was true - but she didn't think it worth mentioning that a 1000 page document with huge ramifications for many years to come was receiving less than one day's debate. This despite the fact that she was falling over herself to explain the most basic of facts to her Sunday night audience - "a group of hardline Tory Brexiteers known as the ERG".

2. The use of the word Brexiteer, justifying this by saying that t has become part of normal language. Well, yes, it has, thanks in no small part to the actions of the BBC. This despite this victory being claimed by the Right back in 2016:

Long before June’s seismic result, the Out camp had comprehensively won the battle of collective nouns.

‘Brexiteer brings to mind buccaneer, pioneer, musketeer,’ says Michael Gove. ‘It lends a sense of panache and romance to the argument.’


I don't regard these two episodes as examples of bias, but of mediocrity. As I do the ceaseless reliance on vox pops RP mentioned, the lazy following of agendas set by the Daily Mail, and the appointment of Laura Kuenssberg as political editor. Still, I'd rather have a mediocre broadcast media than a rabid one
 

elginCity

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
10,773
Location
Swindon
..... the appointment of Laura Kuenssberg as political editor. ....
She rarely even bothered to disguise her political leaning. Once memorably on prime time News reporting on Labour's costed spending plans pre-2019 GE as "Labour's plan to spend taxpayers money".
 

RedPaul

Active member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
4,771
Location
Woking
She rarely even bothered to disguise her political leaning. Once memorably on prime time News reporting on Labour's costed spending plans pre-2019 GE as "Labour's plan to spend taxpayers money".
Bit like Jim Naughtie and "when we win the election" (when interviewing Ed Balls)
 

angelic upstart

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
22,536
The accusation I would make is that there is at times, and admittedly quite rarely I feel a bias toward a metropolitan liberal left/anti-Tory emphasis in the way stories are reported by the U.K. MSM
I think this is a fair assessment of the BBC, I would say it was anti Tory, but it's definitely metropolitan liberal in a way, that a more rural Englishman wouldn't necessarily appreciate.
My major gripe with the BBC is their absolute lack of investigative journalism, their regular cosying up to those in positions of power rather than asking the awkward questions. They miss the big hitters of old in that respect in a big way.
 

angelic upstart

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
22,536
No, but I have to live in a society with people who do and who are at risk of believing whatever rubbish these news channels put out. I'm looking forward to lots of people believing that Labour stole the election in 2025 and Johnson has every right to remain as Prime Minister

BTW can you give me a recent example of BBC left wing bias?
The red tops have done this since day dot on both sides of the coin. What's different? No one under 40 watches TV anymore so unless someone is giving money away the channel is doomed to failure.
 

Grecian2K

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
26,040
Location
We are the grandchildren of apes, not angels
My major gripe with the BBC is their absolute lack of investigative journalism, their regular cosying up to those in positions of power rather than asking the awkward questions. They miss the big hitters of old in that respect in a big way.
Yes, but obedient well-trained dogs learn not to bite the political hand that feeds them!

One thing that would amuse me, were it not for the rampant hypocrisy, is the way that so (on here as well as generally) get into such a flap about the "dreaded MSM". They conveniently forget that the vast majority of the printed press is vigorously pro tory and, specifically, anti Labour. Witness the inevitable vilification of ANY Labour leader or prominent figure (save perhaps Tory Blair) that invariably rises to a crescendo as election time nears. In more recent times, whether it be the "Foot Duffel Coat", "Welsh Windbag", the "Miliband Bacon Sandwich" - and also particularly the vile and untrue vilification of his father - or the organised demonisation of Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbot etc. Our rightward leaning correspondents always conveniently forget all this i9n their lust for confirmation bias!
 

Mr Jinx

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
8,241
Witness the inevitable vilification of ANY Labour leader or prominent figure (save perhaps Tory Blair) that invariably rises to a crescendo as election time nears. In more recent times, whether it be the "Foot Duffel Coat", "Welsh Windbag", the "Miliband Bacon Sandwich" - and also particularly the vile and untrue vilification of his father - or the organised demonisation of Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbot etc. Our rightward leaning correspondents always conveniently forget all this i9n their lust for confirmation bias!
But let's face it, none of those you list did themselves any favours really did they. The only one where nothing stuck, like you say, was Blair and that's why basically why he became PM and for so long. That's also why Labour have a habit of choosing the wrong horse. Ed instead of his brother, Corbyn instead of pretty much anyone else. The same goes for Gordon Brown. At least with Starmer you'd think he'd be less of a target, especially now as he's basically trying to be like Boris.
 

Grecian2K

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
26,040
Location
We are the grandchildren of apes, not angels
But let's face it, none of those you list did themselves any favours really did they. The only one where nothing stuck, like you say, was Blair and that's why basically why he became PM and for so long. That's also why Labour have a habit of choosing the wrong horse. Ed instead of his brother, Corbyn instead of pretty much anyone else. The same goes for Gordon Brown. At least with Starmer you'd think he'd be less of a target, especially now as he's basically trying to be like Boris.
None ever got the chance of power to prove themselves, did they?
But Kinnock made huge strides in "modernising" the Labour party, preparing the way for Blairism.
Milliband didn't really put his feet too wrong (but was perhaps a bit too much of a "nice guy" for the cut and thrust of politics)
And as for Corbyn...is that a different Corbyn that even you (claim to have*) voted for in 2017?
*Thanks to the merciful sanctity of the ballot box our actual voting can never be conclusively proved or disproved
 

Mr Jinx

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
8,241
None ever got the chance of power to prove themselves, did they?
But Kinnock made huge strides in "modernising" the Labour party, preparing the way for Blairism.
Milliband didn't really put his feet too wrong (but was perhaps a bit too much of a "nice guy" for the cut and thrust of politics)
And as for Corbyn...is that a different Corbyn that even you (claim to have*) voted for in 2017?
*Thanks to the merciful sanctity of the ballot box our actual voting can never be conclusively proved or disproved
To pick up on few points there:

With Ed Milliband - I must've dreamt the Edstone.

Given what you know about me, me voting for Corbyn's Labour in 2017 probably says more about how I feel (felt) about Theresa May doesn't it?

I guess with hindsight it's all fairly evident now, but I knew at the time that the Tories had backed the wrong horse back in 2016 and was probably still a bit píssed that they'd overlooked a Brexiteer come the GE in 2017. I might not have voted Labour had UKIP or TBP been on my ballot paper. But they weren't.
 
Top