Question Time bias - evidence

[atypical_boro]

You seriously think politics hasn't degenerated over the past 15 years?

UK politics is a a swamp, with the country being run like a banana republic - the worst (in my lifetime) it has ever been. Lies, scandals, cover ups, corruption have become the norm. People are becoming immune to it - which for a fair, functioning democracy is wrong.

You can blame the 2008 global economy crash for the seeds of a lot of issues, but as time has progressed the level of disdain our government treats it's people is off the scale.

The expenses scandal was 14 years ago, back then people said all the same stuff about how politics had deteriorated over the 15 years prior to that etc.

Nowadays there are just more cameras, more social media and more interactions. Politics itself has always been about corruption and lies, saying whatever will get you elected. It’s very easy to forget how people viewed the Blair/Brown government back in 2008, it was far from a bed of roses and we have it to thank for the last 12 years of Tory rule.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

I’m really not sure how you can blame QT for that, he was an elected MP and already had a platform well before Brexit. If QT doesn’t have “carefully selected” panellists (some of which are MPs) then who should it have? Agree some of the journalists are self-righteous knobheads but they do at least pay attention to politics.

That tackle Johnson did in that SoccerAid match raised his profile with the masses as much as anything before he became mayor. Should they be blamed for choosing him to play?

Maybe I wasn’t clear, but I didn’t blame QT alone for for the rise of Johnson.
I disagreed that giving right wing click baiting panelist’s disproportionate airtime does not show bias, because I believe that unfortunately, many fall for their abhorrent narrative rather than see through them.
More broadly, I believe giving opportunist leaches like JHB, Oakshott, Farage, Fox etc frequent platforms on mainstream supposedly impartial tv shows, has certainly emboldened the racists and those with more extreme views to raise their voices, and it’s dragged right wing views more into the limelight and gone some way to normalising the ignorant bile that is spouted.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

The idea that politics used to be better 15 years ago is laughable,

The idea that politics is not worse than it was 15 years ago is laughable. It’s absolutely toxic and I’m pretty sure old school MPs across all sides of the house are appalled by how far standards have dropped.

Edit -
That’s not to say it wasn’t terrible 15 years ago either.

 

[atypical_boro]

Maybe I wasn’t clear, but I didn’t blame QT alone for for the rise of Johnson.
I disagreed that giving right wing click baiting panelist’s disproportionate airtime does not show bias, because I believe that unfortunately, many fall for their abhorrent narrative rather than see through them.
More broadly, I believe giving opportunist leaches like JHB, Oakshott, Farage, Fox etc frequent platforms on mainstream supposedly impartial tv shows, has certainly emboldened the racists and those with more extreme views to raise their voices, and it’s dragged right wing views more into the limelight and gone some way to normalising the ignorant bile that is spouted.

Well which right wing commentators would you say are ok? Alongside a Tory MP etc.

Farage was of course an MEP though.

 

[atypical_boro]

The idea that politics is not worse than it was 15 years ago is laughable. It’s absolutely toxic and I’m pretty sure old school MPs across all sides of the house are appalled by how far standards have dropped.

Edit -
That’s not to say it wasn’t terrible 15 years ago either.

Wel fine, maybe with every 15 years it gets more and more terrible then. But let’s not romanticise the past. Hard to see how it could get more terrible but I bet in 15 years people say it is.

 

[festa5]

The expenses scandal was 14 years ago, back then people said all the same stuff about how politics had deteriorated over the 15 years prior to that etc.

Nowadays there are just more cameras, more social media and more interactions. Politics itself has always been about corruption and lies, saying whatever will get you elected. It’s very easy to forget how people viewed the Blair/Brown government back in 2008, it was far from a bed of roses and we have it to thank for the last 12 years of Tory rule.

A big difference though is that 14 years ago a scandal was exactly that. If a politician was caught out doing something wrong, they resigned or were sacked. Yes, corruption, lies etc all went on. But at least there were some consequences for them.

What this government has realised is there don't have to consequences if you don't really want there to be. They're constantly pushing the limits, doubling down on lies, getting caught out time and time again and in most cases absolutely nothing meaningful happens to them. An insincere "sorry I got caught/sorry people are upset/I've learnt my lesson but it wasn't really my fault" and they carry on as if nothing has happened.

And it's having the effect that people are starting not to care. Most of the press don't. It's becoming normalised.

That's the big difference and is why the likes of Johnson and Truss think can just swan back in as if nothing has happened, like turds that just won't flush.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

Wel fine, maybe with every 15 years it gets more and more terrible then. But let’s not romanticise the past. Hard to see how it could get more terrible but I bet in 15 years people say it is.

Complaining about the state of politics today should not be confused with romanticising the politics of the past.

 

[atypical_boro]

A big difference though is that 14 years ago a scandal was exactly that. If a politician was caught out doing something wrong, they resigned or were sacked. Yes, corruption, lies etc all went on. But at least there were some consequences for them.

What this government has realised is there don't have to consequences if you don't really want there to be. They're constantly pushing the limits, doubling down on lies, getting caught out time and time again and in most cases absolutely nothing meaningful happens to them. An insincere "sorry I got caught/sorry people are upset/I've learnt my lesson but it wasn't really my fault" and they carry on as if nothing has happened.

And it's having the effect that people are starting not to care. Most of the press don't. It's becoming normalised.

That's the big difference and is why the likes of Johnson and Truss think can just swan back in as if nothing has happened, like turds that just won't flush.

Don’t disagree with any of that but I don’t really understand how it’s related to QT bias. This government are a moronic bunch of charlatans but they still have to be represented on the panel.

And beyond that, you have to have some Right wing commentators who may be perceived by the Left as racist, homophobic gammons etc but it wouldn’t be much of a show either if it was just a bunch of people attacking the lone Tory MP.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

Don’t disagree with any of that but I don’t really
understand how it’s related to QT bias. This government are a moronic bunch of charlatans but they still have to be represented on the panel.

And beyond that, you have to have some Right wing commentators who may be perceived by the Left as racist, homophobic gammons etc but it wouldn’t be much of a show either if it was just a bunch of people attacking the lone Tory MP.

Did you even read the attachment in the opening post?
The whole point of the post was the disproportionate level of exposure the right wing commentators get, as evidenced in the letter.

 

[atypical_boro]

Did you even read the attachment in the opening post?
The whole point of the post was the disproportionate level of exposure the right wing commentators get, as evidenced in the letter.

Yeah I read it. There's an article (or in that case an open letter) in one of the papers like that about QT about once every two years. They used to make them about the Labour party and then about Brexit, and now someone has made one about the Tories/Right receiving too much air time. It it possible that QT has to keep altering the amount of time it gives to try and redress the balance in response, and of course, its never going to be perfect anyway.

BBC bias: Question Time's most frequent panellists are ALL Remainers

THE BBC was slammed for inflicting "Remainergeddon" on its viewers after it was revealed the broadcaster's most frequent Question Time panellists overwhelmingly voted for Remain, as the broadcasters faces new accusations of a pro-Brexit bias.

www.express.co.uk

Labour 'plant' - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10403755/bbc-question-time-coronation-street-bias/

Going back a bit further. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/30/bbc-question-time-audience-leaders-special

 

[h_m_boro]

There are plenty of RW journalists - Telegraph, Mail etc - or columnists - who are fair and can put together a coherent argument. May not agree with them, but respect their opinions.

But having guests from the ERG, IEA, Hately-Bewer, Oaksh*tt etc ....all they offer is a very, very narrow blinkered view which the Tory controlled BBC know will resonate with the gammons, racists, little Englanders. It's not done for impartiality or to provide good debate - they are more often there to spread their own poisonous agenda's......which invariably are linked back to Tory policies.

 

[Redwurzel]

The programe has deteriorated into a series of audience statements at times from audience members who appear to have strong allegencies.

It would be more interesting if the audience was composed only of people who are floating voters i.e people who have voted for several different parties.

SNP seem to get over representation for me on the panel. Sometimes the show is from somewhere like Exeter and there is a SNP representative on the show.

 

[atypical_boro]

There are plenty of RW journalists - Telegraph, Mail etc - or columnists - who are fair and can put together a coherent argument. May not agree with them, but respect their opinions.

But having guests from the ERG, IEA, Hately-Bewer, Oaksh*tt etc ....all they offer is a very, very narrow blinkered view which the Tory controlled BBC know will resonate with the gammons, racists, little Englanders. It's not done for impartiality or to provide good debate - they are more often there to spread their own poisonous agenda's......which invariably are linked back to Tory policies.

Well I respect your opinion but I don't think we'll ever have a QT that has audience members of both Left and Right nodding along and giving light-hearted applause to the opposing views.

If you're Left you'll disagree with whoever is representing the Right. Don't forget that what's in print may not come across as as well thought out in a live discussion.

 

[Jonny Ingbar]

I'm not sure its necessarily a move specifically to the right.

I think it is more to do with people wanting instant gratification like when they buy things. They look for simple answers to complex issues.

I'm still convinced that if we had been in Schengen pre 2016 the vote to stay would've easily won. Vote out and you'll have to queue when you get to Spain on holiday would've swung it.

The other thing is that this simplification makes complicated answers a turnoff. Governing a country domestically can't be separated from doing so internationally. Its far easier for someone like Johnson to peddle a soundbite lie when he knows that the rebuttal of why that's just not true is so dry it puts people off.

It's a fact that the BJ government, and Cummins I'm particular, saw the BBC as being damaging to their popularity - that's a fact and it led to a deliberate and strategised effort to take control from within. The letter in the OP refers to a number of senior and executive appointments that are not only right leaning, but active supporters of the Conservative party.

So any suggestion of bias is justifiably well placed, even if it is only a perception.

With regards to QT specifically, I agree that there has been a dumning down, as there has generally in society.

The average voter has little desire to understand complex issues, I absolute agree with that, and the right has seized on this, both here and abroad, with simple misinformation - we're in a post truth political era.

QT I think is a symptom of where our democracy currently is, rather than being in any way a cause.

 

[atypical_boro]

The average voter has little desire to understand complex issues, I absolute agree with that, and the right has seized on this.

QT I think is a symptom of where our democracy currently is, rather than being in any way a cause.

I 100% agree with this, but why has the Left not tried to counter in any way?

Or is it finally starting to?

 

[h_m_boro]

I 100% agree with this, but why has the Left not tried to counter in any way?

Or is it finally starting to?

I think the RWM is too powerful in this country, so opposition voices are quickly shot down, rubbished, drowned with whataboutery. Diversionary tactics are a favourite. Tried and tested.

 

[atypical_boro]

I think the RWM is too powerful in this country, so opposition voices are quickly shot down, rubbished, drowned with whataboutery. Diversionary tactics are a favourite. Tried and tested.

Maybe, but you could also argue that the Murdoch and Harmsworth publications, Telegraph, Express and Sky etc are not as influential as they were especially not with younger people.

I actually don't find Sky as Right as it used to be.

We have the hugely powerful Twitter, YouTube which are far more popular with youth, surely the tables will turn?

 

[h_m_boro]

Maybe, but you could also argue that the Murdoch and Harmsworth publications, Telegraph, Express and Sky etc are not as influential as they were especially not with younger people.

I actually don't find Sky as Right as it used to be.

We have the hugely powerful Twitter, YouTube which are far more popular with youth, surely the tables will turn?

Media barons aren't as powerful, but still have a loyal (older) audience buying their rags and lapping up whatever they print.

Sky - definitely. I watch this rather than BBC.

And yes, social media has a massive role to play.....but sadly misinformation can spread like wildfire and I think unscrupulous "agents" know this only too well. Much, much more dangerous than newspapers

 

[Lefty]

Media barons aren't as powerful, but still have a loyal (older) audience buying their rags and lapping up whatever they print.

Sky - definitely. I watch this rather than BBC.

And yes, social media has a massive role to play.....but sadly misinformation can spread like wildfire and I think unscrupulous "agents" know this only too well. Much, much more dangerous than newspapers

The print media is still setting the agenda and narrative that the TV and Radio follow, so their influence, though waning, is still massive.

 

[jam69]

Maybe, but you could also argue that the Murdoch and Harmsworth publications, Telegraph, Express and Sky etc are not as influential as they were especially not with younger people.

I actually don't find Sky as Right as it used to be.

We have the hugely powerful Twitter, YouTube which are far more popular with youth, surely the tables will turn?

The right wing press still have plenty of influence, people might not buy newspapers like they used to but look at the political stories on social media, they nearly always originate from the press.
They still set the agenda.