Bias in the media and should more be done about it?

[Falcon1200]

As regards Keir, I wonder if he were to be deposed and replaced by a more left-wing firebrand, who was not scared of the right-wing media, and tackled it head on, including measures to curb it, would labour do better?

mods note - This has been split off from the thread about Labour.

There are more posts that could have been moved, but this is probably enough for the start of what could be an interesting discussion I think.

Curb in what way? Only allowing newspapers, and other media, to be owned by those sympathetic to left wing causes, or Government censorship of what can be printed?

 

[generalnerd]

Curb in what way? Only allowing newspapers, and other media, to be owned by those sympathetic to left wing causes, or Government censorship of what can be printed?

I would say some form of regulator, like we have for television. Limiting what is classed as opinion to be distinct from the news and stopping them from outright lying.

How come broadcasting has to face such restrictions but the printing press doesn’t?

 

[JamesT]

I would say some form of regulator, like we have for television. Limiting what is classed as opinion to be distinct from the news and stopping them from outright lying.

How come broadcasting has to face such restrictions but the printing press doesn’t?

There are various factors. One was the scarcity of spectrum such that there are only a limited number of broadcasters so there’s no guarantee that you would naturally end up with a variety of views. Whereas anyone can set up a newspaper and distribute it.
Another is more intrinsic to the different natures. If you have the television or radio on, everyone in the household can see or hear it. So regulation to limit content that isn’t suitable for more vulnerable members of society is necessary.

 

[Gloster]

Curb in what way? Only allowing newspapers, and other media, to be owned by those sympathetic to left wing causes, or Government censorship of what can be printed?

I have no wish to see just one side of the story and, despite being well to the left of centre in most areas, would not want to see newspapers and other media just representing a left of centre opinion. But what we have is the majority of the media represents a (well to the) right of centre view and everybody says that that is free speech and our right, but any attempt to merely level the playing field is seen as a threat to freedom of speech unparalleled in history. This freedom of speech is abused and, because the majority of the media is to the right, the majority of this abuse is by the right and directed against the left.

Freedom of speech brings with it responsibilities, something that some parts of the media forget or ignore. What we need is something that will really hit the editors and proprietors of all persuasion who abuse their power, not a feeble telling off, a vague apology hidden below a gardening advert on page 47 and a small fine.

 

[LYradial]

Does anyone actually read newspapers anymore, the very few people I know who get one do the puzzles and the crosswords, then a quick look at the sport and keep the rest for their real use which is covering the kitchen floor when you want to fix your bike

 

[PGAT]

Does anyone actually read newspapers anymore, the very few people I know who get one do the puzzles and the crosswords, then a quick look at the sport and keep the rest for their real use which is covering the kitchen floor when you want to fix your bike

Digital ones, yes

 

[Trackman]

When it all kicked off in Ukraine I'd tune into RT (Russia Today) it was hilarious. TBF, they did do some good short documentary slots in the UK.

 

[Egg Centric]

When it all kicked off in Ukraine I'd tune into RT (Russia Today) it was hilarious. TBF, they did do some good short documentary slots in the UK.

I don't want to say they started out with good intentions because they clearly didn't, but they did start out with the recruitment of many talented people either naive enough to think they had good intentions or who were just happy to work on the "decent" bits. So yes they did produce some excellent stuff occasionally. Similarly Al Jazeera produces loads of great stuff despite being a mouthpiece for the Qatari regime (who aren't that bad tbh by global standards but you don't want to be on the wrong side of them).

 

[MotCO]

because the majority of the media is to the right,

I would disagree - I think most of the media is to the left. For example, the Mirror, Guardian, Independent, Times are on the left, not sure about the Sun, but the Telegraph and Mail are on the right. The BBC, ITV, Sky News and Channel 4 are on the left, GBNews is on the right.

But presumably it depends where you stand on the political spectrum. One tends to view media bias from where you stand, and because it is difficult to independently and objectively identify where the 'centre' is, people's views are different. If you stand on the left, any media to the right of you but to the left of the 'centre', you perceive to be on the right. Likewise, if you stand on the right, any media to the left of you but to the right of 'centre', you perceive to be on the left. But who is right? Where is the 'centre'?

 

[generalnerd]

I would disagree - I think most of the media is to the left. For example, the Mirror, Guardian, Independent, Times are on the left, not sure about the Sun, but the Telegraph and Mail are on the right. The BBC, ITV, Sky News and Channel 4 are on the left, GBNews is on the right.

But presumably it depends where you stand on the political spectrum. One tends to view media bias from where you stand, and because it is difficult to independently and objectively identify where the 'centre' is, people's views are different. If you stand on the left, any media to the right of you but to the left of the 'centre', you perceive to be on the right. Likewise, if you stand on the right, any media to the left of you but to the right of 'centre', you perceive to be on the left. But who is right? Where is the 'centre'?

The mirror? The Times? I’ll give you the guardian and channel 4 (although Barely) and maybe the independent but the BBC, ITV and Sky are all politically neutral and aren’t left right or centre (anymore)

It is perception based, I’m centre left but I know when something is primarily centrist or unbiased, because even if a media outlet is centrist it’s still biased in some way

 

[AlterEgo]

The mirror? The Times? I’ll give you the guardian and channel 4 (although Barely) and maybe the independent but the BBC, ITV and Sky are all politically neutral and aren’t left right or centre (anymore)

It is perception based, I’m centre left but I know when something is primarily centrist or unbiased, because even if a media outlet is centrist it’s still biased in some way

The Mirror is a left leaning paper. However seeing the Times also listed as left wing made me laugh too.

 

[generalnerd]

The Mirror is a left leaning paper. However seeing the Times also listed as left wing made me laugh too.

Oh yeah sorry I’m getting it confused with another paper, I did know it was left wing, I was thinking of the daily mail

 

[deltic]

I would disagree - I think most of the media is to the left. For example, the Mirror, Guardian, Independent, Times are on the left, not sure about the Sun, but the Telegraph and Mail are on the right. The BBC, ITV, Sky News and Channel 4 are on the left, GBNews is on the right.

At the 2017 and 2019 elections the Times, Sun, Telegraph, Mail and Express endorsed Tories, Guardian and Mirror Labour and the Independent and The i noone.

Murdoch papers don't like backing losers so in 2024, Sun switched to Labour and the Times went neutral. independent also switched to Labour.

Times and Sun are on the right, the Sun especially.

 

[JamesT]

At the 2017 and 2019 elections the Times, Sun, Telegraph, Mail and Express endorsed Tories, Guardian and Mirror Labour and the Independent and The i noone.

Murdoch papers don't like backing losers so in 2024, Sun switched to Labour and the Times went neutral. independent also switched to Labour.

Times and Sun are on the right, the Sun especially.

I think this leads to the age-old question, are the media leading the public, or following? Unfortunately many papers have stopped reporting their circulation figures, but the numbers for the right-leaning papers were always much higher than the left. Given there's nothing forcing you to buy a particular paper, doesn't this indicate something about the public's preferences?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think this leads to the age-old question, are the media leading the public, or following? Unfortunately many papers have stopped reporting their circulation figures, but the numbers for the right-leaning papers were always much higher than the left. Given there's nothing forcing you to buy a particular paper, doesn't this indicate something about the public's preferences?

It certainly indicates the political bias of the majority of people who buy mainstream printed newspapers. You can't infer anything else from it, though (e.g. the political bias of anyone who doesn't buy a mainstream printed newspaper), as correlation doesn't indicate causation.

 

[signed]

It certainly indicates the political bias of the majority of people who buy mainstream printed newspapers. You can't infer anything else from it, though (e.g. the political bias of anyone who doesn't buy a mainstream printed newspaper), as correlation doesn't indicate causation.

It also shows how right leaning most people with money are.

In France, most traditional medias are owned by 3 families of billionaires, Arnault (Les Échos, Le Parisien), Dassault (Le Figaro) and Bolloré (Canal+, CNEWS, JDD...), which are right to (especially Bolloré) extreme right leaning. And of course, the editorial line is as right leaning as their owners

 

[martin butler]

Is it right though, that say, GB news leads with an article, they claim, as being indicative of a perceived problem, but turns out to be a total made up story, once it gets fact checked, My issue is that what is clearly an untruth, is reported as an truth, and is spread half way round the world, before the truth catches up,

Are you happy to be lied to? and more important, it has led to a few instances, where people hear the report, or view it, think its truth, and then set out to extract mob justice, a bit like the false reporting of a crime recently, where the person was thought to be a asylum seeker, incorrectly, but it didn't stop some idiots from trying to set light to where they were staying,

My view is that where a far-right politician, or media celebratory knowingly fans the flames, they should also be held accountable, as well as media owners who use their publications to stir up unrest.

 

[brad465]

It is perception based, I’m centre left but I know when something is primarily centrist or unbiased, because even if a media outlet is centrist it’s still biased in some way

The Overton Window is so wide among the general public that someone on one particular extreme thinks the centre ground is far left/right.

 

[MotCO]

Is it right though, that say, GB news leads with an article, they claim, as being indicative of a perceived problem, but turns out to be a total made up story, once it gets fact checked, My issue is that what is clearly an untruth, is reported as an truth, and is spread half way round the world, before the truth catches up,

Are you happy to be lied to? and more important, it has led to a few instances, where people hear the report, or view it, think its truth, and then set out to extract mob justice, a bit like the false reporting of a crime recently, where the person was thought to be a asylum seeker, incorrectly, but it didn't stop some idiots from trying to set light to where they were staying,

My view is that where a far-right politician, or media celebratory knowingly fans the flames, they should also be held accountable, as well as media owners who use their publications to stir up unrest.

But surely the current situation is where the BBC deliberately edited a video to portray Trump as inciting violence when he was advocating peaceful protests. You can't get much lower than deliberately falsifying news.

I remember when the BBC was a respected, non-opinionated, unbiased reporter of the news. Those days are long-since gone, but they should return to their neutral position, when they would be respected.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But surely the current situation is where the BBC deliberately edited a video to portray Trump as inciting violence when he was advocating peaceful protests. You can't get much lower than deliberately falsifying news.

It was a silly thing to do, done no doubt by specific individuals rather than the Beeb having an institutional bias. However Trump is also clever with words, and while he didn't say he wanted a violent insurrection I reckon there was pretty strong implication of it in that speech (i.e. he said what he did knowing how certain people would interpret it) and thus it wasn't entirely false either.

My general take on the Beeb is that everyone thinks it's biased against them so it probably isn't that biased (the nature of investigative journalism is that it's best if it's biased against anyone it investigates unless said investigation finds that party to be entirely innocent), though it will naturally be biased against those who want to abolish or severely curtail it (i.e. the far right e.g. Reform).

 

[JamesT]

It was a silly thing to do, done no doubt by specific individuals rather than the Beeb having an institutional bias. However Trump is also clever with words, and while he didn't say he wanted a violent insurrection I reckon there was pretty strong implication of it in that speech (i.e. he said what he did knowing how certain people would interpret it) and thus it wasn't entirely false either.

The other bit of the misrepresentation is the timeline. Panorama showed Trump's speech and immediately after people marching on the Capitol, implying a causal relationship. However, the rioters had already started going before Trump's speech had started.

 

[MotCO]

It was a silly thing to do, done no doubt by specific individuals rather than the Beeb having an institutional bias. However Trump is also clever with words, and while he didn't say he wanted a violent insurrection I reckon there was pretty strong implication of it in that speech (i.e. he said what he did knowing how certain people would interpret it) and thus it wasn't entirely false either.

My general take on the Beeb is that everyone thinks it's biased against them so it probably isn't that biased (the nature of investigative journalism is that it's best if it's biased against anyone it investigates unless said investigation finds that party to be entirely innocent), though it will naturally be biased against those who want to abolish or severely curtail it (i.e. the far right e.g. Reform).

It used to be said (I cannot confirm its voracity) that the BBC only advertised for posts in the Guardian. If it was true, would this not lead to a bias?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It used to be said (I cannot confirm its voracity) that the BBC only advertised for posts in the Guardian. If it was true, would this not lead to a bias?

It would were it true, but I strongly suspect it isn't.

 

[generalnerd]

It would were it true, but I strongly suspect it isn't.

It was considered a high place for advertising, but that was primarily in the media guardian (a supplement) which people in the media would primarily read. They had a careers section the bbc would use, but this isn’t the case anymore because so few people use the papers to look for job advertisements.

 

[brad465]

We are overdue the implementation of Leveson and the Leveson 2-style inquiry. Chances are the BBC would have been sanctioned under the recommendations (which could have made this incident less likely), while every other outlet would have to be more careful how it obtains information and reports it. This wouldn't stop bias, but would at least make journalists behave better.

 

[martin butler]

The BBC, Is perceived by some to hold a left-wing bias, but I disagree, the news anchors, I would argue are clearly heavily biased towards the right, and some, don't even try to hide it,

I think the present self-righteous outrage about the Trump footage misses the main facts, based on his actions, as well as words.
but of course, its a handy weapon to silence critics of the new world order.

 

[Yew]

We are overdue the implementation of Leveson and the Leveson 2-style inquiry. Chances are the BBC would have been sanctioned under the recommendations (which could have made this incident less likely), while every other outlet would have to be more careful how it obtains information and reports it. This wouldn't stop bias, but would at least make journalists behave better.

Indeed, I feel that these things would have stopped a lot of the issues we see today.

 

[DarloRich]

We are overdue the implementation of Leveson and the Leveson 2-style inquiry. Chances are the BBC would have been sanctioned under the recommendations (which could have made this incident less likely), while every other outlet would have to be more careful how it obtains information and reports it. This wouldn't stop bias, but would at least make journalists behave better.

this would be a good starting point.

There is and has been for some time a concerted effort by bad actors to discredit, defund and destroy the BBC because it offers an unbiased ( generally) view on news and current affairs.

I remember when the BBC was a respected, non-opinionated, unbiased reporter of the news. Those days are long-since gone, but they should return to their neutral position, when they would be respected.

Is this neutral position one that simply agrees with your view of the world? Is this neutral position simply uncritically regurgitating whatever your favourite politician has told them to say?

There is a reason Trump and his mate Farage like GB News.

 

[MotCO]

Is this neutral position one that simply agrees with your view of the world? Is this neutral position simply uncritically regurgitating whatever your favourite politician has told them to say?

There is a reason Trump and his mate Farage like GB News.

Neutral as in the should report the facts, and if opinions are to be given, present both sides of the argument with equal numbers of views and times of interviews.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2025 ==

I think the present self-righteous outrage about the Trump footage misses the main facts, based on his actions, as well as words.

But if Trump had actually said those words, there would be no need to fake it. They should report what he actually said, not want they wanted him to say.

 

[generalnerd]

Neutral as in the should report the facts, and if opinions are to be given, present both sides of the argument with equal numbers of views and times of interviews.

What about on things which 98 percent of the country agrees with one side and 2 percent disagree, would you have it proportional or would it be the same time?