Are the right being silenced.

[Beso]

Are the media beginning to silence the right wing of politics?

[SherzyK]

No.

[Rob!]

Sadly no, you're louder than ever.

[The Slim Reaper]

The media is all run by billionaires with a natural self interest in advancing the policies of conservatives, so no.

[Ant.]

no

[arista]

Are the media beginning to silence the right wing of politics?



Yes The BBC is guilty of that.

[Vicky.]

I wouldn't say so, tbh in the past few years it almost seems the opposite if anything. Mind, the guardian and co have always done left wing slanting, mail and that right wing, there just seems to be more right leaning papers about, rather than anyone being silenced I think.

My go to read is the times these days. The guardian I cannot trust to actually report on stuff, mails too ott...and times seems about right for a mix of everything. Friends say this is proof I am now right wing! But...it doesnt seem right to me tbh? Seems to be about as close to middle ground as exists these days..

(edit. Mind I read the metro more than anything else, as its free and I do a lot of long buses!)

[Beso]

I read the metro but the times is to big for me to feel comfortable reading on public transport.

[arista]

"(edit. Mind I read the metro more than anything else, as its free and I do a lot of long buses!) "


Thats OK the Metro is
a mixture of storys
a easy read and free

[Tom4784]

No, but the right love to act like victims.

You can never claim that the right is silenced when such a large part of media is owned by the Murdoch Empire and they push their agenda loud and clear.

[Vicky.]

I read the metro but the times is to big for me to feel comfortable reading on public transport.


Ahh yeah, I don't buy it for public transport D: Just if I buy for at home ocasionally, and I have a subscription too so tend to use their site a lot.
"(edit. Mind I read the metro more than anything else, as its free and I do a lot of long buses!) "


Thats OK the Metro is
a mixture of storys
a easy read and free
Mero seems to be left slanted tbh, but not anywhere near as much as others, and tends to actually report quite fairly from what I have seen.

[Vicky.]

You can never claim that the right is silenced when such a large part of media is owned by the Murdoch Empire and they push their agenda loud and clear.

Times is apparently owned by Murxoch these days too? Never thought to check..thats quite surprising actually..as as I said, they tend to be very fair in reporting and seem the most..centre of news sources I haved found tbh. Some individual stories are heavily biased mind, both ways, but overall, its a good mix.

[Beso]

No, but the right love to act like victims.

You can never claim that the right is silenced when such a large part of media is owned by the Murdoch Empire and they push their agenda loud and clear.

They may act like victims because they are being victimised on tv, media and on the streets by being lumped as one.

[Tom4784]

They may act like victims because they are being victimised on tv, media and on the streets by being lumped as one.

The truth of the matter is that people of the right who feel like they are being 'silenced' ultimately don't like being questioned or being proven wrong. They don't respect or know what freedom of speech entails and they get upset when someone disagrees with them because they falsely believe that freedom of speech somehow protects them from other people's views.

British media in particular is heavily right wing leaning, to act like you are being silenced just isn't true, you're being catered to more often than not.

[joeysteele]

Er, no, not at all.
The opposite is possibly more the case.
In my opinion anyway.

[Mystic Mock]

Are the media beginning to silence the right wing of politics?

It's more the other way around.

Unless you have viewpoints similar to Nigel Farage, then you just get classed as not good enough by our Media.

[Oliver_W]

Thr media aren't, but social media platforms seem to like banning right wing public figures.

[Nicky91]

Thr media aren't, but social media platforms seem to like banning right wing public figures.

i can't blame them for doing so honestly

[Twosugars]

Thr media aren't, but social media platforms seem to like banning right wing public figures.

You're confusing right with far right

[MB.]

I mean, when the right bring it on themselves when they do sheer clownery like this

1168872665878335488

[Oliver_W]

You're confusing right with far right

I'd say let their views be heard, it casts light on what crappy people they are - it is well to know what tunes the devil is playing, amd all that.

[Kizzy]

I'd say let their views be heard, it casts light on what crappy people they are - it is well to know what tunes the devil is playing, amd all that.

But what if that doesn't happen, what if people believe the crap..like they did in the 30s, what then?

[Twosugars]

I mean, when the right bring it on themselves when they do sheer clownery like this

1168872665878335488

OMFG :facepalm:

[Oliver_W]

But what if that doesn't happen, what if people believe the crap..like they did in the 30s, what then?

People on both sides of the political spectrum believe crap. People believe crap which turns them into religious extremists. People believe crap which makes them buy things they don't need.

[Twosugars]

People on both sides of the political spectrum believe crap. People believe crap which turns them into religious extremists. People believe crap which makes them buy things they don't need.

Nobody is silencing anybody.
Social media platforms are private companies and have no obligation to host everybody.
Extremists can create their own platform and spout their nonsense there. They already have Fox btw.
I'm not going to wring my hands bc some fascists get kicked off Facebook

[Oliver_W]

Nobody is silencing anybody.
Social media platforms are private companies and have no obligation to host everybody.

Electric companies are private companies and have no obligation to provide for everybody. Should they get to deny people services?

[Marsh.]

They may act like victims because they are being victimised on tv, media and on the streets by being lumped as one.

Yet whenever any other group are victimised you seem to not give two shiny sh*ts.

[Marsh.]

Thr media aren't, but social media platforms seem to like banning right wing public figures.

....because a lot of right wing public figures broke very open and transparent rules of use for said social media platforms.

[Marsh.]

Electric companies are private companies and have no obligation to provide for everybody. Should they get to deny people services?

You're comparing an electric company refusing service due to... not liking someone to... someone being banned from a privately owned website for breaking the website's own rules?

Your comparison does not work.

It's like exclaiming that TiBB does not have the right to deny people the ability to post.

[thesheriff443]

It’s all yesterday’s news, all papers are the same, they just have bigger words.

[Twosugars]

Electric companies are private companies and have no obligation to provide for everybody. Should they get to deny people services?

Yes, if they break conditions of service, like fascists, racists and white supremacists do.

[Kizzy]

Are the media beginning to silence the right wing of politics?

No, in fact in the UK the media are the right wing of politics.
Look at any independent analysis of media bias and you'll see.

[James]

In the social media age we're in now, more and more people are looking for news that fits their own opinion, rather than neutral reporting or anything that challenges their views.

Most users on Twitter, for example, that post about politics - and if you look at the posts about a political topic it bears this out - are on the left or liberal side of politics.

So left-wing political users have greater numbers on Twitter and are more likely to get their way in complaints (through having a louder voice) about other users' behaviour, than the other side.

It's just better business for Twitter to favour the greater number of users.

[Tom4784]

Electric companies are private companies and have no obligation to provide for everybody. Should they get to deny people services?

You're trying to compare social media websites to power companies. Power companies don't give platforms to people to misuse, social media can. It's just... a really badly thought out comparison on your part that makes little sense and relies entirely on false equivalency to work.

Right wing people keep getting banned from social media because they break the ****ing rules. You aren't arguing that they are being treated unfairly, you're arguing that they should get special treatment and be exempt from the rules.

[Cherie]

In the social media age we're in now, more and more people are looking for news that fits their own opinion, rather than neutral reporting or anything that challenges their views.

Most users on Twitter, for example, that post about politics - and if you look at the posts about a political topic it bears this out - are on the left or liberal side of politics.

So left-wing political users have greater numbers on Twitter and are more likely to get their way in complaints (through having a louder voice) about other users' behaviour, than the other side.

It's just better business for Twitter to favour the greater number of users.

it's all about business yes

[Beso]

Yet whenever any other group are victimised you seem to not give two shiny sh*ts.

What's your point?

[Withano]

No, they’re talking as much as ever.... its just that nobodys listening anymore.

[The Slim Reaper]

It’s all yesterday’s news, all papers are the same, they just have bigger words.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/3o7btPCcdNniyf0ArS/giphy.gif

Me trying to decipher what the hell this means.

[Kizzy]

People on both sides of the political spectrum believe crap. People believe crap which turns them into religious extremists. People believe crap which makes them buy things they don't need.

And that's why those things are regulated so that extremism is acted on similarly with adverising standards, false claims and misinformation are overseen by independent regulators.

[Marsh.]

What's your point?

That you'd rather paint them as victims and ignore the actual victimisation occuring in the world. You consider that normal.

[Nicky91]

oh i wish all right wing were silenced but sadly that isn't the case (yet)

:idc:

[Beso]

That you'd rather paint them as victims and ignore the actual victimisation occuring in the world. You consider that normal.

I consider it apt for this thread...

And I don't ignore other stuff.

[Beso]

oh i wish all right wing were silenced but sadly that isn't the case (yet)

:idc:

What will mummy and daddy do when they want to talk to you?

[Nicky91]

What will mummy and daddy do when they want to talk to you?

i won't even talk to them anymore about politics, all what comes out of their mouth is racist, xenophobic trash


it sucks to be only left wing in the family, while my mom, dad, nan are all towards right wing

:idc:

[Beso]

i won't even talk to them anymore about politics, all what comes out of their mouth is racist, xenophobic trash


it sucks to be only left wing in the family, while my mom, dad, nan are all towards right wing

:idc:



You should move out.

[Kizzy]

In the social media age we're in now, more and more people are looking for news that fits their own opinion, rather than neutral reporting or anything that challenges their views.

Most users on Twitter, for example, that post about politics - and if you look at the posts about a political topic it bears this out - are on the left or liberal side of politics.

So left-wing political users have greater numbers on Twitter and are more likely to get their way in complaints (through having a louder voice) about other users' behaviour, than the other side.

It's just better business for Twitter to favour the greater number of users.

Are there any neutral media?... nu media most certainly isn't it's an echo chamber at best.

[The Slim Reaper]

In the social media age we're in now, more and more people are looking for news that fits their own opinion, rather than neutral reporting or anything that challenges their views.

Most users on Twitter, for example, that post about politics - and if you look at the posts about a political topic it bears this out - are on the left or liberal side of politics.

So left-wing political users have greater numbers on Twitter and are more likely to get their way in complaints (through having a louder voice) about other users' behaviour, than the other side.

It's just better business for Twitter to favour the greater number of users.

This isn't actually supported by the facts though. Left wing users generally (but not completely) aren't promoting conspiracy theorists, misogyny, racism etc, which is why they are banned less.

Also, there was a recent report showing twitter actually gives leeway to far right users, because in order to blanket ban their bigotry, they'd also have to ban US conservative politicians for espousing the same views.

It is now, and always has been a content rather than the loudest voice issue


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-treat-white-supremacy-like-isis-because-it-would-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too

https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-white-supremacy-gop-politicians-report-2019-4?r=US&IR=T

[Twosugars]

This isn't actually supported by the facts though. Left wing users generally (but not completely) aren't promoting conspiracy theorists, misogyny, racism etc, which is why they are banned less.

Also, there was a recent report showing twitter actually gives leeway to far right users, because in order to blanket ban their bigotry, they'd also have to ban US conservative politicians for espousing the same views.

It is now, and always has been a content rather than the loudest voice issue


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-treat-white-supremacy-like-isis-because-it-would-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too

https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-white-supremacy-gop-politicians-report-2019-4?r=US&IR=T

Very true

They'd have to ban trump for starters, the orange bigot, racist and white supremacist

[Elliot]

i feel like the right is making a bit of a resurgence and is starting to get taken more seriously for whatever strange and bizarre reason

[James]

Are there any neutral media?... nu media most certainly isn't it's an echo chamber at best.

I find the BBC to be fairly neutral. They try to report both sides of an argument. I guess programmes and sites like Sky News and ITV News too.

In terms of freedom of speech we have probably never had more of it, and never more access for people to get their views out into the world. However that is causing some problems.

[Alf]

i feel like the right is making a bit of a resurgence and is starting to get taken more seriously for whatever strange and bizarre reasonNanny state, Political correctness, they're oppressive things, and human beings don't like being oppressed. I wouldn't even call them "the right" they're just normal people who mainly come from usual Labour heartlands.

[Beso]

Why is it taken more serious if the right gets more popular..as opposed to the left!


We are in a day and age that no way will another war be fought because of fascism...to think that, you might as well have a tin foiled hat over your head.

[Kizzy]

Nanny state, Political correctness, they're oppressive things, and human beings don't like being oppressed. I wouldn't even call them "the right" they're just normal people who mainly come from usual Labour heartlands.

How can you be oppressed by nonsense terms?....They don't mean anything, up to a few years ago those phrases didn't exist.
They were invented by right wing commentators to demean, ridicule and reduce the impact of what was being said in defence of any socioeconomic political progressive argument.
'Virtue signalling' can anybody tell me why being a good person and being seen to do good things or champion good things is wrong?..
'Political correctness'.. law and order, Justice.. what could be wrong with that? We brits love rules and regulations when did they become taboo? 'Snowflakes' ? What's that? It may have a definition now because the inventor managed to get the use of it global due to its viral appeal of being a generic insult to mostly young left leaning people who take an interest in social issues.

The traditional labour heartlands have been targeted by and bombarded with these negative labels. They mean nothing and I for one don't expect the use of these derogatory terms to survive one the conservatives have lost the next election.
It is on their best interest to keep the pressure on to subdue progressive groups and individuals by any means necessary.

[James]

This isn't actually supported by the facts though. Left wing users generally (but not completely) aren't promoting conspiracy theorists, misogyny, racism etc, which is why they are banned less.

Also, there was a recent report showing twitter actually gives leeway to far right users, because in order to blanket ban their bigotry, they'd also have to ban US conservative politicians for espousing the same views.

It is now, and always has been a content rather than the loudest voice issue


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-treat-white-supremacy-like-isis-because-it-would-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too

https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-white-supremacy-gop-politicians-report-2019-4?r=US&IR=TInteresting article, possibly accurate. Though the source is a single anonymous employee. There's no official statement from the company or much other factual evidence to support the claim.

Vice.com as a whole definitely has a left or centre-left point of view. Business Insider is mainly just an aggregator site that repeats the original article.

More about news organisations political leanings - https://www.google.com/search?q=vice+political+leaning&oq=vi&aqs=chrome.0.35i39j69i61l2j69i60j69i57j35i39.2115j 0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

[The Slim Reaper]

Interesting article, possibly accurate. Though the source is a single anonymous employee. There's no official statement from the company or much other factual evidence to support the claim.

Vice.com as a whole definitely has a left or centre-left point of view. Business Insider is mainly just an aggregator site that repeats the original article.

More about news organisations political leanings - https://www.google.com/search?q=vice+political+leaning&oq=vi&aqs=chrome.0.35i39j69i61l2j69i60j69i57j35i39.2115j 0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

That's fair, however there are a couple of glaringly obvious counter points that spring up from your post.

Considering that conservatives take turns in kicking places like twitter for banning their far right opinions, which they then feed into their grievance movement, how likely are right wing sites to then report on issues like this? I've seen this reported on MSNBC previously, which admittedly is a primarily centre left news org, but they are a news org nonetheless.

Again, I agree on your point concerning the lack of concrete facts, but then then your original post that I was replying to was also guilty of that same flaw. You made a speculative assertion that was lacking in anything to back it up other than the whines and cries of those banned. Are they likely to be the most level headed of complainants?

[Beso]

That's fair, however there are a couple of glaringly obvious counter points that spring up from your post.

Considering that conservatives take turns in kicking places like twitter for banning their far right opinions, which they then feed into their grievance movement, how likely are right wing sites to then report on issues like this? I've seen this reported on MSNBC previously, which admittedly is a primarily centre left news org, but they are a news org nonetheless.

Again, I agree on your point concerning the lack of concrete facts, but then then your original post that I was replying to was also guilty of that same flaw. You made a speculative assertion that was lacking in anything to back it up other than the whines and cries of those banned. Are they likely to be the most level headed of complainants?

Lol at you being ever so politely rude to the big man...nice to see all the same.:joker:

[The Slim Reaper]

Lol at you being ever so politely rude to the big man...nice to see all the same.:joker:

What does this mean?

[Toy Soldier]

What does this mean?Apparently Parm thinks a forum admin is akin to an authority figure of some sort ... :shrug:

[Vicky.]

'Virtue signalling' can anybody tell me why being a good person and being seen to do good things or champion good things is wrong?..


Because virtue signalling is not just being a good person. Its pretending to be that person because thats how you were told a good person should be/what they should think/etc.

Its the internet/modern day equvilant of..like..those people who would make a huge fuss about giving money to a beggar so that everyone knew they did it so everyone knew they were a good person. Like, IDK those who film themselves giving the homeless a hundred quid, and post it around, not actually caring about the homeless, caring about their public image more and hoping i will go viral or something. If you took issue with those ridiculous types of twats, would that be 'taking issue with those who give to the homeless'? Its more about pointing out they are clearly doing it for the wong reasons, for attention, rather than actually caring. Loads of people help the homeless each day without making a song and dance about it, because they do just want to help. Those who do it for attention, are technically doing a good thing I guess, but for self serving reasons which does..dim the goodness somewhat :laugh:

Thats how I see virtue signalling. Being a good person..is very different.

[Scarlett.]

Because virtue signalling is not just being a good person. Its pretending to be that person because thats how you were told a good person should be/what they should think/etc.

Its the internet/modern day equvilanant of..like..those people who would make a huge fuss about giving money to a beggar so that everyone knew they did it so everyone knew they were a good person. Like, IDK those who film themselves giving the homeless a hundred quid, and post it around, not actually caring about the homeless, caring about their public image more and hoping i will go viral or something. If you ook issue with those ridiculous types of twats, would that be 'taking issue with those who give to the homeless'? Its more about pointing out they are clearly doing it for the wong reasons, for attention, rather than actually caring. Loads of people help the homeless each day without making a song and dance about it, because they do just want to help. Those who do it for attention, are technically doing a good thing I guess, but for self serving reasons which does..dim the goodness somewhat :laugh:

Thats how I see virtue signalling. Being a good person..is very different.

Sure, that's what its supposed to mean, but it seems used at every opportunity, and never for its intended purpose.

[Vicky.]

Sure, that's what its supposed to mean, but it seems used at every opportunity, and never for its intended purpose.

Well yeah I get that, massively overused, like most words/phrases these days :laugh: I had an argument the other day with a friend about them using 'mansplain' for..well pretty much just whenever a bloke disagreed with her. She didn't seem to get that its a very specific thing..and assumed it was just a way of putting blokes down. Like, some may see it that way, but its a very real (and specific) phenmenom.

I have never really understood what 'snowflake' was meant to be about though tbh. And these days, its just used for anyone (left or right, or centre) who gets pissed off about anything at all.

[Toy Soldier]

I had an argument the other day with a friend about them using 'mansplain' for..well pretty much just whenever a bloke disagreed with her.

I didn't know that you and Kizzy were friends...

[Mystic Mock]

I find the BBC to be fairly neutral. They try to report both sides of an argument. I guess programmes and sites like Sky News and ITV News too.

In terms of freedom of speech we have probably never had more of it, and never more access for people to get their views out into the world. However that is causing some problems.

Sky News blatantly favours the right wing of Politics imo.

[Beso]

What does this mean?

It means you are very selective regarding who you insult when you disagree with them.

[arista]

Sky News blatantly favours the right wing of Politics imo.




You are well out of Date
SkyNewsHD is now owned by NBC/Comcast USA

[The Slim Reaper]

It means you are very selective regarding who you insult when you disagree with them.

I don't insult anyone.

[Twosugars]

I don't insult anyone.

The trouble is some people think that when you disagree with them it is insulting :laugh:
My way or no way basically

[Beso]

The trouble is some people think that when you disagree with them it is insulting :laugh:
My way or no way basically

Some probably do...not me though.

[Oliver_W]

I had an argument the other day with a friend about them using 'mansplain' for..well pretty much just whenever a bloke disagreed with her. She didn't seem to get that its a very specific thing..and assumed it was just a way of putting blokes down. Like, some may see it that way, but its a very real (and specific) phenmenom.

"Mansplain" is like a dumb version of "patronise".

[Niamh.]

"Mansplain" is like a dumb version of "patronise".

Are you mansplaining to Vicky :oh:

[Twosugars]

"Mansplain" is like a dumb version of "patronise".

Well men have been patronising women for centuries so

[Oliver_W]

Are you mansplaining to Vicky :oh:
Would I do such a thing?

Well men have been patronising women for centuries so

Then use the word "patronising" :)

[Niamh.]

Would I do such a thing?



Then use the word "patronising" :)

Mansplaining is more than just general patronising though, it's a whole sentence rolled into one handy word :)

[Oliver_W]

Mansplaining is more than just general patronising though, it's a whole sentence rolled into one handy word :)
tbh it just makes the user sound like a dismissive twat, thanks to its overuse, as you alluded to.

Plus, the origin of the word patronise clearly means the same thing ;)

[Niamh.]

tbh it just makes the user sound like a dismissive twat, thanks to its overuse, as you alluded to.

Plus, the origin of the word patronise clearly means the same thing ;)

Sure but that's not what patronise means today, is it? It's a general term and can apply to male/female/child/dog

[Marsh.]

Sure but that's not what patronise means today, is it? It's a general term and can apply to male/female/child/dog

So what's the words for when it's specifically a woman, child or dog doing the patronising? :think:

[Niamh.]

So what's the words for when it's specifically a woman, child or dog doing the patronising? :think:

Well presumably it doesn't happen enough for a word to exist for it :idc:

[Oliver_W]

Well presumably it doesn't happen enough for a word to exist for it :idc:

Get out more!

[Niamh.]

Get out more!

You get out more :oh:

[Marsh.]

Well presumably it doesn't happen enough for a word to exist for it :idc:

My dog is pretty patronising.

[Niamh.]

My dog is pretty patronising.

That must be ruff on you

[Marsh.]

That must be ruff for you

I'm scared to bite back. :worry:

[Kizzy]

Because virtue signalling is not just being a good person. Its pretending to be that person because thats how you were told a good person should be/what they should think/etc.

Its the internet/modern day equvilant of..like..those people who would make a huge fuss about giving money to a beggar so that everyone knew they did it so everyone knew they were a good person. Like, IDK those who film themselves giving the homeless a hundred quid, and post it around, not actually caring about the homeless, caring about their public image more and hoping i will go viral or something. If you took issue with those ridiculous types of twats, would that be 'taking issue with those who give to the homeless'? Its more about pointing out they are clearly doing it for the wong reasons, for attention, rather than actually caring. Loads of people help the homeless each day without making a song and dance about it, because they do just want to help. Those who do it for attention, are technically doing a good thing I guess, but for self serving reasons which does..dim the goodness somewhat :laugh:

Thats how I see virtue signalling. Being a good person..is very different.
Well that's one take on it and yes I see why this people are annoying but are they the only ones who get tarred with this brush?
Even voicing that you would like to say have a small increase in income tax for social care and that's virtue signalling, basically anything where the outcome is for the greater good, agreeing with rights, social justice or championing causes for marginalised groups.
Not everyone cares for selfish reasons, speaking about helping is not a crime either to be fair, it spreads the word and highlights how cuts have affected communities or deregulation has created a lack of accountability...
Anyone that asks questions that relate to those less fortunate than themselves are accused of virtue signalling as a way to shame them from caring... That's how I see it.

Why? Because the social construct preferred by conservatives is laissez-faire, sink or swim.. I'm alright jack.
Theres no such thing as society, individualism.
We're not meant to care about anyone else, so caring about others is derided and mocked to create a backlash against anyone who dare suggest anything that might be considered progressive.

[Kizzy]

I find the BBC to be fairly neutral. They try to report both sides of an argument. I guess programmes and sites like Sky News and ITV News too.

In terms of freedom of speech we have probably never had more of it, and never more access for people to get their views out into the world. However that is causing some problems.

Have you seen the reaction to news night? You might want to rethink your view of the BBC....
I've just been reading about siri filtering the word 'feminism' from responses, so sorry no I don't agree that we are able to freely get our views into the world.
The freedom you suggest we have us an illusion, it's a post truth era remember where there is a yougov poll of a handful of middle Englanders that represent the UK on any given topic.
Where we've 'had enough' of experts, and AI makes your voting choices for you.

[Oliver_W]

I've heard both left and right wing people claim that the BBC is biased in favour of the other, which makes me think it's fairly balanced.

[Kizzy]

I've heard both left and right wing people claim that the BBC is biased in favour of the other, which makes me think it's fairly balanced.

And where is the evidence of left wing bias? I haven't heard any. Not recently.
The accusations of left wing bias was back in 2013.. since then there has been a restructuring of the BBC and as of 2018 the bias has effectively shifted right.

[Twosugars]

Kunsberg is pro tory all the time

[James]

It's one of the features of this online political-debate we have now (not saying this forum, more Twitter etc.) that people get a persecution complex about the media being unfair to their own politics.

It's what happens when people get dogmatic about their views. They think their own opinion is the obvious right opinion so anything that doesn't back that up completely must be biased to the other side.

[Kizzy]

It's one of the features of this online political-debate we have now (not saying this forum, more Twitter etc.) that people get a persecution complex about the media being unfair to their own politics.

It's what happens when people get dogmatic about their views. They think their own opinion is the obvious right opinion so anything that doesn't back that up completely must be biased to the other side.
I don't have a persecution complex if that's what you are inferring here, its been well documented in many studies over say the last 3/4 years thst media bias is an issue in the UK, our standards are falling when it comes to openness and transparency. I'll find you some examples.
People have always been dogmatic, whether with a soapbox in 1919 or via Twitter in 2019, it's the nature of politics and opinion but when you have evidence of bias to back up your suspicions then thst changes the landscape doesn't it?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-labour-mainstream-press-lse-study-misrepresentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-a7144381.html%3famp
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reasons-why-we-don-t-have-free-and-independent-press-in-uk-and-what-we-can-do-about/
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-among-worst-western-europe-freedom-press-reporters-without-borders-index-a8320691.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/11/bbc.huttoninquiry

[Vicky.]

I've heard both left and right wing people claim that the BBC is biased in favour of the other, which makes me think it's fairly balanced.

Yeah I would agree with this actually. If both sides have an issue with it, then its about as centre ground as possible really :laugh:

[Kizzy]

Again in say the last 3yrs what has the BBC reported that could be said to have a left leaning bias?..
Where is the evidence? I heard sombody say once is not proof of anything.