The BBC has never been impartial to internal concerns - domestic politics in particular. Leveson Inquiry recommendations not being implemented is the tip of the iceberg in relation to the extent of client-journalism it engages in with regard to the Conservative party.
The thing is, the BBC is incredibly partial, depending on which area of the BBC we're talking about.
BBC News on the web vs BBC News the programme, vs BBC worldwide (which is a seperate org inside the BBC), then there's regional BBC and the prime time talk shows (the hard hitting Andrew Neil and co).
So, when someone says "the BBC is biased against the left" or "the BBC is biased agains the right"; ironically they can both be right, and it's not an indicator of impartiality. It depends on which section of the BBC we're talking about.
And you're totally blind to the bits of the BBC you agree with; you will think those bits are the impartial ones.
It is a loyal state broadcaster. If it had been up to the BBC, then the Prince Andrew story would have been buried. They tried to bury it several times but the Americans don't take orders from Buckingham Palace.
Their coverage of the Scottish independence referendum was laughably biased and often clueless.
They do seem to have an odd attitude towards Nigel Farage (UKIP & Reform) though, and kept putting him on Questiontime and the radio. It seems unclear why they would promote him so much given much of their other content.
I used the BBC just an example. Starmer seems to have the same attitude. If both Farage and Corbyn, and Polanski and whoever is leading the Conservatives and LibDems are attacking me, then I must be super in the middle i.e. I must be so doing it all super right!
I don't think Starmer really knows what he is doing one way or another. The Island of Strangers speech out flaked Farage to the right.
Dominic Cummings had a bunch of interview appearances online. His experience in office when he was working with Johnson (and many Ministers in general) is that they don't actually understand what they can and can't do in the job. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar situation is present under Starmer.
I think we can fairly easily dismiss Cummings' views on anything. He was of the opinion that the best thing for the UK economy was Brexit, and that the the best team to carry out that out was to be headed by Boris Johnson.
He changed his mind on Johnson, but he seems to be of the view that nothing works and that there is nothing for it but to burn everything down and start again according to the Dominic Cummings vision.
> He was of the opinion that the best thing for the UK economy was Brexit, and that the the best team to carry out that out was to be headed by Boris Johnson.
Not exactly. I think you need to listen to the interviews.
Dominic Cummins has solid rationale for why he believes what he believes. I would need to listen to them again to remember what he said, but what you are describing was too simplistic.
Also his opinions on Brexit have nothing to do with some of the things he said about how COVID was handled.
> He changed his mind on Johnson, but he seems to be of the view that nothing works and that there is nothing for it but to burn everything down and start again according to the Dominic Cummings vision.
> That has never been his opinion. There are many interviews with him on YouTube and I suggest you listen to them.
I've viewed and read an interminable number of interviews with Cummings.
He decided that a) Brexit was a good idea (we can see how that turned out), b) he decided to help get a Johnson government elected, and c) joined his administration as de facto chief of staff and chief advisor. If that's not a tacit approval of Johnson and his government, then what is? Of course, he backtracked later when it was a disaster.
> I've viewed and read an interminable number of interviews with Cummings.
The statements you have made don't really line up with the interviews I've listened to.
The context around the events and what his involvement was and was not, is important.
You are leaving out key information that he mentioned in many interview appearances.
> He decided that a) Brexit was a good idea (we can see how that turned out)
Without re-litigating everything. It may have been different if the politicians and those that worked for them hadn't frustrated the process. I was genuinely disgusted by the attitudes that many of the politicians had after the Leave won. That was my interpretation of what happened. Your obviously differs.
It also says nothing about the validity of his other statements, which is what I was referring to.
> b) he decided to help get a Johnson government elected
Yes, but the way you are talking about it is omitting events both before and after the 2019 General Election.
Theresa May had been ousted by the Conservative Leadership. Earlier she ran an awful election campaign, squandered a huge lead in the polls and had to form a coalition Government with the DUP to maintain a majority.
Cummins said he was contacted by Johnson because Johnson had a minority government and couldn't call a re-election. His first job was to get Johnson out of that Quagmire, then prepare for re-election. He decided to help Johnson under certain guarantees / conditions. Which tells me that he didn't actually trust Johnson.
He claims to have been gradually forced out by Carrie Johnson and his team shortly after the election.
If you are being hampered by the Prime Minster's wife on the agenda that you are supposed to implement. It is likely to fail.
I've actually experienced something similar in my career where I was being blocked (for political reasons) by another team. It makes getting anything done impossible.
So there is no reason to believe he is lying, back tracking or retconning events.
This is because his statements about Carrie Johnson's involvement line up with other accounts from other people that I've heard during the time period shortly after his departure.
> c) joined his administration as de facto chief of staff and chief advisor. If that's not a tacit approval of Johnson and his government, then what is? Of course, he backtracked later when it was a disaster.
It not about it being an approval or disapproval of his government. Often you must work with people that you would rather not to, to achieve things.
His feelings about the Johnson government doesn't change his the validity of his statements about how Whitehall operate while he was present.
His comments about ossified organisations lines up with my past experience of working in both ossified Public and Private orgs.
His account of the events around COVID match up with the timeline of events, and I re-watched old interviews of him and he hasn't backtracked at all or changed his story around what happened. He has mentioned things he couldn't mention at the time e.g. his residence was broken into and he was advised not to mention this at the time.
I have no reason to not believe him, since his statements match up with both what I have experienced and a known timeline of events.
I think your dislike of Cummins and his involvement with Vote Leave. As a result is clouding your judgement on the validity of his statements about how Boris Johnson behaved and how Whitehall operates.
Generally there is a lot of stuff in his interviews that I've seen that quite honestly changed my opinion of him (which was somewhat negative). I believe he is telling the truth.
Any answer I give would be found unsatisfactory so there is little point in bothering.
I've already stated my impression of what happened in Parliament leading during that time period, it was obvious that people were being obstructionist and that alone doomed any hope of a positive outcome.
OK dude. You’re bothering to respond so you could just properly respond. It’s entirely possible that I have gaps in my knowledge and can hear a new argument and find it reasonable, since I’ve spent almost no time debating Brexit. Obviously I’m now just going to assume you don’t have a decent argument, which you will point at and say “see!”. It’s an easy cop out for you. What’s the point in expressing opinions if you’re going to refuse to put any weight behind them whatsoever?
> What’s the point in expressing opinions if you’re going to refuse to put any weight behind them whatsoever?
I did a long detailed response in this thread where I spent a lot of time detailing why I believed somebody's assessment of about about Dominic Cummings was incorrect (I actually listened to what he had to say). So I've already have put weight behind my opinions.
Your reply on this topic is essentially leading to a re-litigation of Brexit which happened a decade ago now, which isn't anything to do with Dominic Cumming's observations on how Whitehall worked while he was present during COVID.
Brexit isn't something I wanted to get into, but both you and the other person I was replying to seemed to be focused on Brexit when it isn't the topic of discussion. I made that abundantly clear in my long reply to them.
TBH. You can do a web search or ask an AI the various exit strategies that were present at the time. Many scenarios were proposed before and after the vote. This was discussed to death at the time. Loads has been written about it. Why do I have to summarise something that is easily found via a search engine for you?
You don’t have to, but it would have taken less effort than your responses so far. If you’re not interested in someone’s question then you should probably just ignore it rather than write paragraphs about why you’re not interested in it, but you do you!
> You don’t have to, but it would have taken less effort than your responses so far.
Actually it wouldn't. There are many arguments from fringe figures to more mainstream with various rationales. Much has been written about it.
> If you’re not interested in someone’s question then you should probably just ignore it rather than write paragraphs about why you’re not interested in it, but you do you!
I answered your question. The way I answered while a bit sardonic is supposed to make you think a bit. Obviously you don't appreciate it, but it isn't in bad faith.
Not everything has to be some sort of logical back and forth debate to get the point across.
> He was of the opinion that the best thing for the UK economy was Brexit
I don't want to start another Brexit debate or even take position on it. However I'd like to point out that the key with Brexit is the plan on what to do afterwards and that is what has been completely lacking.
Whatever one's opinion of Cummings, he did put forward a plan and that plan was never attempted (probably too bold, shall we say, for politicians to touch it). I am not commenting on whether that would have worked or not, but at least he put forward a plan and strategy. On the other hand, Bojo's "plan" for Brexit seemed to have been limited to becoming PM...
> It’s very rare these people have any idea how to actually execute their plans.
Regarding Cummins, Why exactly? Dominic Cummins is articulate, seems to be quite intelligent and seems to be very fact/data orientated. I've also heard him describe how he would action particular policy.
Therefore I find it hard to believe he had didn't have any idea on how to execute his plans.
I think one issue we are having is that more and more things are said to be impossible to implement to the point that nothing happens... There is a lack of ambition, boldness, and leadership.
Yes there are simplistic solutions but, on the other hand, more often that not I think that claiming that issues are extremely complex is a way of avoiding doing anything for whatever reasons. So, it depends.
I think that the UK won't solve its issues until it gets a PM with a bold plan and great leadership, whatever side they may come from.
I mean where is Sir Humphrey Appleby when you need him!
Johnson's incredibly colourful reaction to Starmers trade deal, in that he was 'acting like an orange-ball chewing manical gimp', speaks volumes about the discourse around Starmer.
Hislop is particularly scathing, albeit cynically pragmatic, since Starmers appointment - "“Keir Starmer is the man who likes to sit on the fence unless you don’t like fences and then maybe he can find a hedge, or if you don’t like hedges he’ll find a wall."
“People have suggested Keir Starmer is very boring, but I think that’s partly his superpower, in that being interesting in the way his predecessor was manages to lose you elections.
“You have to be careful when you dismiss people as boring. Everyone thought John Major was boring, but then you had him for two elections.”
When Ivor Caplin, the former Labour MP that, among other things, attacked Musk for talking about Pakistani rape gangs, was arrested for pedophilia [1], this is the article they published - no photo, no name, no party affiliation, and no followup article - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg45y4r0yngo
BBC omits identity of Nigerian murderer from article about how he killed his wife [2,3], making it entirely about "gendered violence" instead. Readers can't make the incorrect inference if you simply withhold information from them.
BBC omits all criticism of Starmer from their reporting on his meeting with Trump [4].
When Farage's private bank account was closed due to his politics, the BBC first simply took the bank's word that this was entirely due to financial considerations. When Farage obtained internal documents of that bank, explicitly saying he met financial criteria for an account, but it was closed despite this due to his politics, the BBC issued a correction article trying to imply his politics were merely "also" considered [5].
BBC uses all-white stock photos to warn about obnoxiously loud phone use on trains [6].
But makes sure to use a racially-diverse cast for the 1066 Battle of Hastings [7].
This is not the only such instance, nor a coincidence, by their own admission: Moffat even talks about the idea he mentions above — the excuse of “historical accuracy” that some people often give to justify an all-white cast — “[W]e’ve kind of got to tell a lie: we’ll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn’t have been, and we won’t dwell on that. We’ll say, ‘To hell with it, this is the imaginary, better version of the world. By believing in it, we’ll summon it forth.’” [8,9]
[5] "On 4 July, the BBC reported Mr Farage no longer met the financial requirements for Coutts, citing a source familiar with the matter. The former UKIP leader later obtained a Coutts report which indicated his political views were also considered." - https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66288464
I've no idea what Dr. Who, murder-reporting, period dramas or stock photography choices have to do with the Labour party, but I'll pretend you're arguing in good faith and address what I believe to be the point in your copypasta.
The most empirical and robust study regarding bias was performed by Cardiff University in 2013. Its major finding regarded the dominance of Conservative party political sources in BBC coverage; in coverage of immigration, the EU and religion, they accounted for 49.4% of all source appearances in 2007 and 54.8% in 2012.
The data also showed that the Conservative Party received significantly more airtime than the Labour Party. In 2012, Conservative leader and then Prime Minister David Cameron outnumbered Labour leader Ed Miliband in appearances by a factor of nearly four to one (53 to 15), and governing Conservative cabinet members and ministers outnumbered their Labour counterparts by more than four to one (67 to 15).
In reporting of the EU the dominance was even more pronounced with party political sources accounting for 65% of source appearances in 2007 and 79.2% in 2012.
In strand two (reporting of all topics) Conservative politicians were featured more than 50% more often than Labour ones (24 vs 15) across the two time periods on the BBC News at Six
This is evident right up to the 2019 election - BBC Question Time editing out audience laughter at Prime Minister Boris Johnson's fumbling responses, and soft-shoeing his ascendancy by excusing him from the tender mercies of Andrew Neil - unlike his opposition.
Wait a news channel gave more air time to the current prime minister and his cabinet, the guy and team with the power, than someone else. Consider me shocked!
Have you considered that by choosing different time periods you get different results.
Maybe the BBC bends the knee to whoever is calling the shots, that's what it looks like to me.
Cardiff University is extremely unlikely to be neutral, and a study done more than a decade ago tells us little about the state of the BBC today.
The OP gave many examples but you only need to know one: the BBC broadcast fake footage of Trump created by splicing together different parts of a speech he gave. The parts were separated by more than 50 minutes and they hid the splice by cutting to the crowd. This manipulation of the public only came to light because an internal whistleblower tried to report what happened, then discovered the BBC institutionally supported this kind of video manipulation so blowing the whistle internally was useless. He reported it to the Telegraph instead.
In other words:
• The BBC broadcasts fake news clips.
• It does so deliberately, with the full approval of its board.
• They refused to apologize or clean house.
• They probably do it a lot and get away with it.
That's it. That's the only thing you need to know about the BBC's political bias.
And it's not just them. Channel 4 News broadcast an entirely fake video of Farage during the last election. It framed him by using an actor who was collaborating with an undercover film crew (and the actor was acting at the time). This was proven beyond all doubt and C4 refused to do anything about it. Once again, institutional fraud in service of election manipulation.
There's no real gap between using actors or mid-sentence splices and using AI, special effects or other standard Hollywood tactics. So the idea that British TV news is biased in favour of the right is farcical on its face. Let us know when they're regularly faking videos of Starmer! I grew up in Britain and the state of Britain's institutions is just shameful. It's tin pot third world stuff. British people need to understand that their state owned TV channels are completely unreliable sources to learn about the world from.
I literally cited the BBC Question Time editing out audience laughter at Prime Minister Boris Johnson's fumbling responses, and the incredible partisanship to protect him from Andrew Neill while then setting up the most controversial UK political interview of the 21st Century with Marr
I have to also laugh at Channel 4 (decidedly not the BBC in the first instance) putting some small thumb on the scales of justice re: Nigel Farage and the Reform party generally - the biggest political and institutional frauds outside of the Reese-Moggs clan.
My favourite prominent example: footage originally taken from GB News was used by a local Reform Party to falsely claim a rival MP was abusive to Nigel Farage in Parliament
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/bbc-under-sc...