British Press is the most Right wing in Europe

[buctootim]

Apparently

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/02/07/british-press-most-right-wing-europe/

 

 

Cant say Im too surprised. Notable that the Swedes find their press too left wing. The findings call into question the idea that the press reflects their readerships views. Given Denmarks very neutral split I wonder if they have any 'balance' laws, or its just a happy coincidence.

 

 

Edited 8 February, 2016 by buctootim

[Hamilton Saint]

Apparently

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/02/07/british-press-most-right-wing-europe/

 

 

Cant say Im too surprised. Notable that the Swedes find their press too left wing. The findings call into question the idea that the press reflects their readerships views. Given Denmarks very neutral split I wonder if they have any 'balance' laws, or its just a happy coincidence.

 

 

I would have thought that the press generally reflects the fundamental views of its owners—although certain papers may have developed historically a certain steady political orientation, which a new owner might decide to continue (because it is the paper's recognized "brand"). Readers usually gravitate towards the type of paper (broadsheet or tabloid; "easy to read" or "hard to read") whose political stance they generally agree with.

Edited 8 February, 2016 by Hamilton Saint

[Johnny Bognor]

The title states that the "British Press most right-wing in Europe"

 

Then when you look at their diagram, it shows that Finland is actually the most right-wing. So their headline is plain wrong, by their own evidence!!!

 

Then in the detail of their text, they then state that the "British press is the most right-wing out of seven European countries".

 

Well last time I checked, there were more than 7 European countries in Europe.

 

So, some questions...

1. Why are they ignoring Finland, for the sake of fabricating a headline????

2. Where's Spain, Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland, Austria. Why are they not in Europe?????

 

 

My conclusion....

Yougov are clearly a bunch of left-wing attention seeking nutjobs.

 

Move along, nothing to see here.

[Hamilton Saint]

The title states that the "British Press most right-wing in Europe"

 

Then when you look at their diagram, it shows that Finland is actually the most right-wing. So their headline is plain wrong, by their own evidence!!!

 

Then in the detail of their text, they then state that the "British press is the most right-wing out of seven European countries".

 

Well last time I checked, there were more than 7 European countries in Europe.

 

So, some questions...

1. Why are they ignoring Finland, for the sake of fabricating a headline????

2. Where's Spain, Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland, Austria. Why are they not in Europe?????

 

 

My conclusion....

Yougov are clearly a bunch of left-wing attention seeking nutjobs.

 

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

1) They have combined the total amount for each of the five categories. Finland is the largest amount (if you combine all 5 categories).

 

2) They surveyed just those 5 countries, as it states clearly in the second paragraph. Their conclusion is based on those representative countries, not the whole of Europe.

 

My conclusion: read carefully and think.

[buctootim]

I would have thought that the press generally reflects the fundamental views of its owners—although certain papers may have developed historically a certain steady political orientation

 

 

Yes - that comment was a nod towards those on the Corbyn thread who deny that the media have a role in shaping public opinion. I've always found that a very odd argument given the size of the advertising industry, the importance or corporate PR and the efforts dictatorships go to to control what the public hear.

Edited 8 February, 2016 by buctootim

[shurlock]

1) They have combined the total amount for each of the five categories. Finland is the largest amount (if you combine all 5 categories).

 

2) They surveyed just those 5 countries, as it states clearly in the second paragraph. Their conclusion is based on those representative countries, not the whole of Europe.

 

My conclusion: read carefully and think.

 

Not quite correct. The graph presents the net scores I.e. the difference between those who believe that the media is too right wing vs. those who believe it's too left wing.

 

However, if you look only in absolute terms at the number of people who believe the media is too right wing, then across the five categories (with the exception of the economy), the UK leaves the other countries trailing.

 

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/n2brop7n28/Eurotrack_January_MediaRepresentation_Website.pdf

 

As usual, Johnny is playing an absolute blinder.

[Hamilton Saint]

Yes - that comment was a nod towards those on the Corbyn thread who deny that the media have a role in shaping public opinion. I've always found that a very odd argument given the size of the advertising industry, the importance or corporate PR and the efforts dictatorships go to to control what the public hear.

 

How could any minimally-informed person deny that the media shapes public opinion? As Noam Chomsky points out, the shaping of public opinion began in earnest in the early 20th century with the rise of the PR industry. The PR industry works primarily on behalf of corporate interests (feeding the media) and political parties (teaching them how to distort information and misinform the public—what we now call "spin").

[buctootim]

For me the worst figure is that for all seven countries on nearly all issues between a quarter and a third answered 'don't know'. How can one third of people be so clueless that they don't have an opinion on whether the media is too left wing or right wing? Its not like explaining nuclear fusion.

[buctootim]

How could any minimally-informed person deny that the media shapes public opinion? As Noam Chomsky points out, the shaping of public opinion began in earnest in the early 20th century with the rise of the PR industry. The PR industry works primarily on behalf of corporate interests (feeding the media) and political parties (teaching them how to distort information and misinform the public—what we now call "spin").

 

They would, and do, argue that the media reflects readers / viewers preferences, not shapes them. Its a very simplistic black and white view of a very clever and nuanced industry imo. The media manipulate public perception and views just as surely as advertising and marketing does.

Edited 8 February, 2016 by buctootim

[Jonnyboy]

And when the establishment is fundamentally right wing as in most countries the public are easily manipulated to that direction as it's what they've heard from birth.

[Hamilton Saint]

For me the worst figure is that for all seven countries on nearly all issues between a quarter and a third answered 'don't know'. How can one third of people be so clueless that they don't have an opinion on whether the media is too left wing or right wing? Its not like explaining nuclear fusion.

 

Many people have little grasp of the facts, or are lacking in self-knowledge about their own particular bias. The extreme right in the US and Canada, for example, believe pretty much all of the media has a liberal-left bias—regardless of what they know about corporate ownership and concentrated media ownership. The dominance of this right-wing view, over time, has made public broadcasters fearful of corporate and political criticism. They begin to self-censor and cave in to pressure, because right-wing governments are in control of their funding. The people who say, "Unions might have been necessary once upon a time, but we don't need them any more," are the same types who think public broadcasting no longer serves any useful function—that what they do is somehow no different than what the corporate media are up to.

[Hamilton Saint]

Parenthetically, I read Nick Davies book Hack Attack a couple of years ago, and was appalled at the level of criminality and corruption in the UK press. But I suppose much of that has been forgotten now?

[Johnny Bognor]

Not quite correct. The graph presents the net scores I.e. the difference between those who believe that the media is too right wing vs. those who believe it's too left wing.

 

However, if you look only in absolute terms at the number of people who believe the media is too right wing, then across the five categories (with the exception of the economy), the UK leaves the other countries trailing.

 

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/n2brop7n28/Eurotrack_January_MediaRepresentation_Website.pdf

 

As usual, Johnny is playing an absolute blinder.

 

lets just leave the economy (probably the most important issue for most people) out.

 

thats like saying, if you ignore Southampton, Pompey are the best club in Hampshire lol

[Johnny Bognor]

The perception of the two most left-wing countries, when it comes to crime and immigration, are Germany and Sweden.

 

Bearing in mind the mass cover ups over the period of the survey, with mass sexual assaults and a rise in crime as a result of the migrant crisis in both countries, it's no surprise that this perception is held.

 

To to ask people questions about crime and immigration and try to pretend that Sweden and Germany, who have had major issues in the last few months, are representative of European countries is a complete load of bollarks

 

As as I said. Move on, nothing to see here

Edited 8 February, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[sadoldgit]

There will never be equality in the Press regarding political alignment but no matter which way you vote, it should be a concern that the Left has so little Press support in this country. It is also a nonsense that Murdoch has so much media ownership. He has enormous editorial power and again, no matter which way you vote, the fact that one man holds so much sway should be a worry to us all.

[buctootim]

The perception of the two most left-wing countries, when it comes to crime and immigration, are Germany and Sweden.

 

Bearing in mind the mass cover ups over the period of the survey, with mass sexual assaults and a rise in crime as a result of the migrant crisis in both countries, it's no surprise that this perception is held.

 

To to ask people questions about crime and immigration and try to pretend that Sweden and Germany, who have had major issues in the last few months, are representative of European countries is a complete load of bollarks

 

As as I said. Move on, nothing to see here

 

You might be right about Germany and Sweden, who knows? You might be right about the British media not being the most right wing in Europe, but only in this sample - who can say without further research? What is undeniable is the British public think British media is biased to the right - not just on one issue like immigration, but across the board.

Edited 9 February, 2016 by buctootim

[shurlock]

lets just leave the economy (probably the most important issue for most people) out.

 

thats like saying, if you ignore Southampton, Pompey are the best club in Hampshire lol

 

Eh? Include it then, pal. It doesn't make you look any less silly. The point stands: the UK is fractionally behind Finland on the economy but ahead of every other country -never mind that ~2.3x as many Brits think the media is too right wing on the economy as too left wing. On the remaining issues, the UK media leads by some distance.

Edited 8 February, 2016 by shurlock

[Hamilton Saint]

The perception of the two most left-wing countries, when it comes to crime and immigration, are Germany and Sweden.

 

Bearing in mind the mass cover ups over the period of the survey, with mass sexual assaults and a rise in crime as a result of the migrant crisis in both countries, it's no surprise that this perception is held.

 

To to ask people questions about crime and immigration and try to pretend that Sweden and Germany, who have had major issues in the last few months, are representative of European countries is a complete load of bollarks

 

As as I said. Move on, nothing to see here

 

You sound like a policeman who has been told to nudge the public away from a crime scene!

[BlakeySFC]

Not in the least bit surprised

[Johnny Bognor]

Eh? Include it then, pal. It doesn't make you look any less silly. The point stands: the UK is fractionally behind Finland on the economy but ahead of every other country -never mind that ~2.3x as many Brits think the media is too right wing on the economy as too left wing. On the remaining issues, the UK media leads by some distance.

 

In the chart on the original post on this thread, the chart clearly shows that Britain is behind Finland on the economy, housing and health. The UK only leads on crime and immigration. On three of the five issues and overall, Finland is perceived as more right wing than Britain.

 

Either that or they can't draw charts

 

I may not be playing a blinder, but at least I am not Ali Dia LOL

Edited 9 February, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[trousers]

Glad to see we can trust the likes of YouGov again after last year's election debacle. I thought it would take longer to repair their reputation but fair play that they've managed it in such a short timeframe. Bravo.

 

What next? People believing pig stories in the Daily 'Fail' ?

 

[Johnny Bognor]

You might be right about Germany and Sweden, who knows? You might be right about the British media not being the most right wing in Europe, but only in this sample - who can say without further research? What is undeniable is the British public think British media is biased to the right - not just on one issue like immigration, but across the board.

 

i agree that the media is biased towards the right in Britain especially when it comes to the press. You don't need to do a lot of research to work that out. Just look at the circulation of the daily mail, tory graph and the times. Their readership far outweighs those of the mirror and Groaniad. More people read right leaning publications.

 

We can deduce therefore, that either lefties don't read newspapers (either that or their socialist principles lead them to share their papers with everyone) or more people are in the centre / centre right ground. The fact that the Right have governed more over the last 70 years, would suggest it is the latter, which you could argue means that the press accurately reflects the views of the people.

 

With regards to crime and immigration, Germany and Sweden are not representative. Germany has taken over 1 million refugees in the last year. The recent and ongoing issues regarding mass sexual assaults in Germany have been blatantly covered up by the German media, to suit a left wing agenda. Do you honestly think that if there were 500+ sexual assaults at Waterloo station on NYE, that the British media wouldn't even mention it for FIVE days??? As for Sweden, mass sexual assaults at their summer festival only came out in January. Again, would you see that happening here??.?

Edited 9 February, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Johnny Bognor]

You sound like a policeman who has been told to nudge the public away from a crime scene!

 

Spot on Hamilton. That article is a crime against analytics...

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Do we elect right of centre governments so often because of our predominately right of centre press, or is that to put the ''cart in front of the horse'' and our press merely reflects a somewhat right of centre British electorate?

 

In any case I doubt it matters very much anymore as increasingly we obtain our opinions from all kinds of sources. For me that is mainly the BBC which - in accordance with its charter - thankfully makes at least some effort to present the news be as objectively as humanly possible most of the time.

[norwaysaint]

I've been discussing the meaning of left and right wing with my students lately as we look at politics in the US. It's quite surprising how little people actually really understand what it means and are too easily influenced by stereotypes caused by pejorative phrases like "leftie" or by right wing bigot stereotypes. I found the graphic below was one of the most comprehensive and clear explanations I've seen don't mind admitting it helped me in viewing perspectives too.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/

 

On the actual subject at hand. Looking back at the UK from abroad, I find it incredible how unbalanced newspapers are. I suppose it adds interest to read something with a strong viewpoint, but when opinions are presented as news, it can be a problem. The news reporting here is a bit more bland, but I have a little more trust in what I read. Obviously there is always somebody deciding what is important news and what isn't though and there's always going to be a level of interpretation in the reporting.

[Johnny Bognor]

I've been discussing the meaning of left and right wing with my students lately as we look at politics in the US. It's quite surprising how little people actually really understand what it means and are too easily influenced by stereotypes caused by pejorative phrases like "leftie" or by right wing bigot stereotypes. I found the graphic below was one of the most comprehensive and clear explanations I've seen don't mind admitting it helped me in viewing perspectives too.

 

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/

 

On the actual subject at hand. Looking back at the UK from abroad, I find it incredible how unbalanced newspapers are. I suppose it adds interest to read something with a strong viewpoint, but when opinions are presented as news, it can be a problem. The news reporting here is a bit more bland, but I have a little more trust in what I read. Obviously there is always somebody deciding what is important news and what isn't though and there's always going to be a level of interpretation in the reporting.

 

I personally don't think there is a simple left and right. The good old political compass does a better job with the left-right and authoritarian-liberal angles which accomodate different dynamics. For example an extreme communist shares many traits with a fascist, where one is left and the other is right and both are authoritarian.

[buctootim]

either lefties don't read newspapers or more people are in the centre / centre right ground. The fact that the Right have governed more over the last 70 years, would suggest it is the latter, which you could argue means that the press accurately reflects the views of the people.

 

Most people feel the media is right wing. I'd interpret that to mean the media is to the right of where they are personally - which is the opposite of the media reflecting their views.

 

The Tories have been in government more since 1945 but the number of 'left' votes is higher (if you combine Labour and Liberals/ LDs/SDP). If you add in the fact that older people vote more than young people and older people tend to be more conservative then the UK is more left leaning than the records of elections would suggest.

 

Im centre ground politics and I find the Mirror and Guardian too hard going to read on a regular basis. The Mirror is as unbalanced as the Sun. The Guardian too worthy and slightly sanctimonious. Id say people mostly choose their papers based on the gossip, crossword, celebrity coverage and sport and put up with the politics.

[sadoldgit]

Do we elect right of centre governments so often because of our predominately right of centre press, or is that to put the ''cart in front of the horse'' and our press merely reflects a somewhat right of centre British electorate?

 

In any case I doubt it matters very much anymore as increasingly we obtain our opinions from all kinds of sources. For me that is mainly the BBC which - in accordance with its charter - thankfully makes at least some effort to present the news be as objectively as humanly possible most of the time.

 

Advertising is a multi million pound industry because advertising works. There is an element of the population that is swayed by what it reads or what it hears. I don't know what percentage of the population are floating voters but imagine that the figure is fairly high. The Sun put a lot of editorial space into portraying Ed Milliband as a complete idiot. They wouldn't have done that if they were not trying to influence people to vote certain way. In 1992 The Sun produced their famous (or infamous) headline "It Was The Sun Wot Won It." Their election day headline was "If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights." Newspapers were originally owned by Press Barons who, by nature, were Tory supporters. The only true Labour newspaper is The Mirror. The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust and is not aligned to any political party although liberal in nature and does attract a Left readership. The Independent gets its money from the City but doesn't seem to be aligned to any party. Interestingly they took 100k readers from The Guardian upon launch. The Mail, Express, Telegraph, Times and Sun are all firmly Tory although The Times and Sun came out for Blair in 2005. Do people read papers according to their political allegiance? Many clearly do although many people say they read The Sun just for its sport coverage for example. Some buy a particular paper for its crossword. Some buy a paper out of habit. By law of averages there will be an element who read papers that do not reflect their political allegiance. In an ideal world the media would present things in a balanced and fair way but we do not live in an ideal world and most of the media works to an agenda, especially the media owned by Murdoch who displays a unstinting desire to mould the world his way.

[norwaysaint]

I personally don't think there is a simple left and right. The good old political compass does a better job with the left-right and authoritarian-liberal angles which accomodate different dynamics. For example an extreme communist shares many traits with a fascist, where one is left and the other is right and both are authoritarian.

 

I'd say there is a left wing ideology and a right wing ideology. The sort of person who follows one exclusively is the sort of person who should be avoided. Most people can see the benefits of both. For example, using the graphic above, left wing parents aren't going to say that they absolutely don't want their child to be self reliant and right wing parents aren't going to say they don't want their child to feel fulfilled, that would be insanity. People generally have a mixture of both ideologies, because they both have a place. Choosing a side is a matter of prioritising at a given time and in given circumstances. Right wing voters who sneer at "lefties" and vice versa are just showing a lack of perspective and judgement. If you don't understand the left or right wing viewpoint and have a degree of sympathy with it, it's a poor reflection on you only. Disapproving of a political party is one thing, but deciding you don't agree with any right wing or left wing ideals makes no sense at all.

[Verbal]

Most people feel the media is right wing. I'd interpret that to mean the media is to the right of where they are personally - which is the opposite of the media reflecting their views.

 

The Tories have been in government more since 1945 but the number of 'left' votes is higher (if you combine Labour and Liberals/ LDs/SDP). If you add in the fact that older people vote more than young people and older people tend to be more conservative then the UK is more left leaning than the records of elections would suggest.

 

Im centre ground politics and I find the Mirror and Guardian too hard going to read on a regular basis. The Mirror is as unbalanced as the Sun. The Guardian too worthy and slightly sanctimonious. Id say people mostly choose their papers based on the gossip, crossword, celebrity coverage and sport and put up with the politics.

 

"Most people" are not saying they "feel the media is too right wing." The respondents are being asked about British newspapers, not the media generally - and the results are hardly surprising. There's also some countervailing research saying that people feel the BBC is too left-wing.

 

You keep talking about "balance" as if there's some magic formula for arriving at something that's perfectly weighted and objective. How do you define that? I suspect it's something that accords exactly with your own political views, such as they are.

 

Some of the very best journalism is decidedly "unbalanced", such as Harold Evans' famous Thalidomide campaign, in which he hit the drug company week after week until they reached something like a just settlement with the victims. Or anything researched and written by the investigative journalist par excellence Seymour Hersch - no one's ever accused him of being "balanced", thank goodness. Nor Woodward and Bernstein, or the excellent and persistent (running against the "balanced" and PC grain) Andrew Norfolk of the Times. "Balance" would rule most of these journalists' work out of court - or at least neuter it. Imagine the Watergate scandal in which Nixon apologists are given equal time (as they would now in the media white noise), or the Abu Ghraib scandal, in which the US military is given equal time to whitewash the famous torture photos.

 

And if it's not "equal time" for opposing views, what is it? Do we just run an ownership ready-reckoner on any journalism, so that Norfolk's tireless expose of Asian abuse gangs is written off as right-wing "media" bias?

[buctootim]

"Most people" are not saying they "feel the media is too right wing." The respondents are being asked about British newspapers, not the media generally - and the results are hardly surprising.

 

You seem to have lost the ability to understand fairly straight forward research in your race to be right and uniquely insightful. The YouGov questions ask respondents about 'the media, not 'the press'. Im more interested in the press because that is where the most obvious lack of balance is.

[buctootim]

I'd say there is a left wing ideology and a right wing ideology. The sort of person who follows one exclusively is the sort of person who should be avoided. Most people can see the benefits of both. For example, using the graphic above, left wing parents aren't going to say that they absolutely don't want their child to be self reliant and right wing parents aren't going to say they don't want their child to feel fulfilled, that would be insanity. People generally have a mixture of both ideologies, because they both have a place. Choosing a side is a matter of prioritising at a given time and in given circumstances. Right wing voters who sneer at "lefties" and vice versa are just showing a lack of perspective and judgement. If you don't understand the left or right wing viewpoint and have a degree of sympathy with it, it's a poor reflection on you only. Disapproving of a political party is one thing, but deciding you don't agree with any right wing or left wing ideals makes no sense at all.

 

Good post. A pick and mix approach to policies, issues and parties is also important for democracy. Floating voters are a bulwark against extremism.

[norwaysaint]

Could it be that a fairly interesting discussion on a relevant political subject has just descended into personal sniping comments? Surely that's almost unheard of on saintsweb (or internet forums in general)? I'll be off then.

[sadoldgit]

You seem to have lost the ability to understand fairly straight forward research in your race to be right and uniquely insightful. The YouGov questions ask respondents about 'the media, not 'the press'. Im more interested in the press because that is where the most obvious lack of balance is.

 

I would agree with this. The press is very biased in the main whereas I think the reporting on TV and the radio is more balanced. The BBC gets stick for being run by a load of lefties but I think it is fairly balanced in its news reporting.

[buctootim]

Could it be that a fairly interesting discussion on a relevant political subject has just descended into personal sniping comments? Surely that's almost unheard of on saintsweb (or internet forums in general)? I'll be off then.

 

Apologies. Verbal likes to snipe and condescend. It isnt helpful to rise to it.

[Verbal]

Apologies. Verbal likes to snipe and condescend. It isnt helpful to rise to it.

 

Rise to what? I asked you a question about balance. How does balance not have relevance in a discussion about bias?

 

On the question of "media" vs "press", aside from your own thread title, YouGov themselves seem to have got themselves into an awful tangle. Their headline specifies "press" and they illustrate it exclusively with a pack shot of newspapers. When you dig into the actual questions asked, you're right, they do ask about "media". I suspect respondents were thinking "press" when asked about "media" because people receive information from a media that's today more diverse than at any point in history. But who knows...the research seems a bit unfocused when it could have been more useful and informative.

 

So YouGov's own reporting hardly inspires confidence. But what of YouGov's "balance"? Not only has it been found putting a left-wing spin on its election polling, which it has admitted to; it's run at least partly by Kellner, the former editor of the "unbalanced" New Statesman.

[buctootim]

Rise to what? I asked you a question about balance. How does balance not have relevance in a discussion about bias?

 

On the question of "media" vs "press", aside from your own thread title, YouGov themselves seem to have got themselves into an awful tangle. Their headline specifies "press" and they illustrate it exclusively with a pack shot of newspapers. When you dig into the actual questions asked, you're right, they do ask about "media". I suspect respondents were thinking "press" when asked about "media" because people receive information from a media that's today more diverse than at any point in history. But who knows...the research seems a bit unfocused when it could have been more useful and informative.

 

So YouGov's own reporting hardly inspires confidence. But what of YouGov's "balance"? Not only has it been found putting a left-wing spin on its election polling, which it has admitted to; it's run at least partly by Kellner, the former editor of the "unbalanced" New Statesman.

 

I agree the YouGov narrative summarising the findings is slack and a little misleading. That doesn't necessarily affect the findings of the research though, which I think most knew instinctively anyway.

 

By balance I mean party political balance. That should have no impact on constraining investigative journalism into issues such as Wikileaks, child abuse, MPs expenses or WMD. Nor do I think you need balance in every piece. Thought provoking writing or broadcasting, exposing the reader to new ideas or angles is what good journalism is all about. For me competing views expressed in the same paper / programme / site - as long as they are backed by fact - is the ideal. Thats something I think the Times achieved for a while, up till a few years ago. PJ O'Rouke is one of my favourites - an excellent, funny thumbnail portrait of the US election is on the BBC site right here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35521558

 

Intuitively you'd expect the internet to have delivered a much better informed electorate given the much greater plurality of information sources sources available. It doesn't seem to have happened though. There has been an explosion of opinion but a reduction in carefully researched and cross referenced journalism as budgets have fallen. Control of information flow and public opinion seems as secure in countries like Russia as it was 30 years ago.

Edited 9 February, 2016 by buctootim

[hutch]

The BBC gets stick for being run by a load of lefties but I think it is fairly balanced in its news reporting.

Not really. An example I noticed from last month when I was actually paying attention was their news headline that China's economic growth for 2015 was the worst for 25 years. That's hardly fairly balanced is it?

[Lord Duckhunter]

I would agree with this. The press is very biased in the main whereas I think the reporting on TV and the radio is more balanced. The BBC gets stick for being run by a load of lefties but I think it is fairly balanced in its news reporting.

 

Bias can only be measured against your own personal politics, therefore balance can not really be measured in any meaningful way .

 

Of course the press is biased , because if it wasn't it would be boring and sterile . Just because the most popular papers are The Mail & The Sun lefties get their knickers in a twist over it . People like Toynbee & Little Owen Jones are the most biased opinion writers around , often disguising opinion as fact . I just laugh at some of their articles , whereas lefties seem to foam at the mouth when it's Littlejohn or Hitchens .

 

The bbc is also biased, because individual reporters ( particularly political ones ) analysis shows that bias . They don't just report the facts they get asked by the anchor " what does this mean for Corbyn , or for the government " ect . Once they start to give their opinion it naturally contains a level of bias . One persons balance is another persons bias . The bbc are particularly poor at picking political guests for programmes such as QT. It's always the same old faces , why they think people like Janet Street Porter or David Starkey have anything to offer is beyond me . If I was a leftie I'd be particularly upset if I was represented by people like Abbott all the time .Although her patronising causal racialism is great for right wing votes .

[Verbal]

I agree the YouGov narrative summarising the findings is slack and a little misleading. That doesn't necessarily affect the findings of the research though, which I think most knew instinctively anyway.

 

By balance I mean party political balance. That should have no impact on constraining investigative journalism into issues such as Wikileaks, child abuse, MPs expenses or WMD. Nor do I think you need balance in every piece. Thought provoking writing or broadcasting, exposing the reader to new ideas or angles is what good journalism is all about. For me competing views expressed in the same paper / programme / site - as long as they are backed by fact - is the ideal. Thats something I think the Times achieved for a while, up till a few years ago. PJ O'Rouke is one of my favourites - an excellent, funny thumbnail portrait of the US election is on the BBC site right here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35521558

 

Intuitively you'd expect the internet to have delivered a much better informed electorate given the much greater plurality of information sources sources available. It doesn't seem to have happened though. There has been an explosion of opinion but a reduction in carefully researched and cross referenced journalism as budgets have fallen. Control of information flow and public opinion seems as secure in countries like Russia as it was 30 years ago.

 

Party political balance is much harder to achieve than you might imagine. Given that the preponderance of (largely false, it seems) sex abuse allegations aimed at MPs have involved Tories, does it mean the "media" has to find an equal number of sex abuse allegations against Labour MPs? On the flip side, the most explicit attempt I know of to produce consistent party balance, the audience selection on BBC's Question Time, often invokes acres of rage and accusations of bias among BTL "commentators". That's because political issues polarise in often unpredictable ways. You're as likely to find a skin-deep UKIP supporter among traditional Labour voters as you are to find opponents of the Snooper's Charter among Tory voters.

 

Aside from all that, I always think the complaints of "bias" come from the source of bias itself. In a liberal democracy it's incumbent on us all, as a civic duty, to take on board opposing views, even if the effect of doing so is to reinforce one's own position (you can for example argue more strongly for your own POV having absorbed your opponent's views). It's one of the reasons I think Corbynists are self-obsessed whiners, because they resort to such pathetic bleating about the "bias" (especially on the Guardian, of all papers), rather than understanding the opposite POV and coming back stronger. But this can be applied to other political streams as well.

 

We'd all be more "balanced" if we looked a little harder at the issues, rather than grandstanding our virtues. In that way, we'd probably be better at separating out the professional and ethical standards that drive journalists to uncover and report on issues that may run counter to the newspaper owner's political interests, from those political interests themselves. It's the lazy equation of those interests and the actual reporting that is so muddle-headed.

 

So yes, of course, newspapers are owned by a bunch of right-wing tyrants (for the most part). Does that mean that the Telegraph isn't worth reading - or the Guardian isn't worn reading for a Corbynist (as they endlessly tell us)? Of course not. Does any of this mean we'd be better off with a more "balanced" ownership structure? I'm really not so sure. We live in a vibrant political culture - all the more so when you hear condemnations of how enfeebled that political culture is. It's the mark of its relative security that you get these complaints. Part of that culture is a noisy national press, and part of it is the new world of Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, Vice, etc., etc. If we tend to think of our press as right-wing, it's down to that vibrant political culture. It would actually be a bad thing if the politics of a public culture accorded with the political views of media ownership - it would feel like some version of totalitarianism.

[shurlock]

Rise to what? I asked you a question about balance. How does balance not have relevance in a discussion about bias?

 

On the question of "media" vs "press", aside from your own thread title, YouGov themselves seem to have got themselves into an awful tangle. Their headline specifies "press" and they illustrate it exclusively with a pack shot of newspapers. When you dig into the actual questions asked, you're right, they do ask about "media". I suspect respondents were thinking "press" when asked about "media" because people receive information from a media that's today more diverse than at any point in history. But who knows...the research seems a bit unfocused when it could have been more useful and informative.

 

So YouGov's own reporting hardly inspires confidence. But what of YouGov's "balance"? Not only has it been found putting a left-wing spin on its election polling, which it has admitted to; it's run at least partly by Kellner, the former editor of the "unbalanced" New Statesman.

 

I see you're now disingenuously and petulantly eliding 'being wrong' with 'unbalanced'.

 

Let's be clear: YouGov, like virtually every other pollster, overstated Labour's share of the vote. Indeed nearly 60% of polls suggested Labour leads going into the 2015 election.

 

This has nothing to do with breathless conspiratorial undertones that YouGov "spun things". The most authoritative postmortem to date -rather than the clapped out soundings of a bitterite- attributes failures to a lack of imagination and proactiveness by pollsters to reach out to -and where this was infeasible- give additional weight to the types of respondents (the over-70s, busy voters etc.) that likely voted Conservative but pollsters failed to survey in adequate numbers. Hardly tinfoil hat stuff.

 

If one wants to go down the rabbit hole and look for real or perceived conspiracies, there are many things wrong with the polling industry -not least herd effects, reflecting the mantra it's better to fail conventionally than succeed unconventionally. That is, pollsters sometimes adjust samples in order to ensure that estimates do not go out on a limb and break away from peers.

 

That said, there are stronger financial and reputational incentives for pollsters to be accurate -hence the soul-searching and bloodletting in the wake of the general election. Their job is not to analyse, though they increasingly do that, informed by the data -let alone entertain, preach to the choir or aspire to set the agenda, as is the case in varying degrees with the media. In this respect, your reference to Kellner is shoddy and jejune.

 

The one finding that does come with a high confidence level and is free from bias, though, is that you don't like hearing things that directly contradict you. You can bank on that, Herbal.

Edited 9 February, 2016 by shurlock

[Lord Duckhunter]

Bit ironic that people use a YouGov survey when talking about right wing bias and right wing newspaper barons influencing politics , when the polls influence election campaigns and Peter Kellner is a right pinko married into the labour establishment.

[sadoldgit]

Not really. An example I noticed from last month when I was actually paying attention was their news headline that China's economic growth for 2015 was the worst for 25 years. That's hardly fairly balanced is it?

 

To be fair to the Beeb, other news organisations also reported that including Reuters.

[shurlock]

Bit ironic that people use a YouGov survey when talking about right wing bias and right wing newspaper barons influencing politics , when the polls influence election campaigns and Peter Kellner is a right pinko married into the labour establishment.

 

Jesus wept. Its safe to say you have zero idea how the polling and market research industry works. But since you want to play that little game, I'll remind you that of the two founders of YouGov, one (Nadhim Zahawi) is now a Tory MP and the other and the current CEO of YouGov (Stephan Shakespeare) i.e. the person who calls the shots, has been associated with the Conservative Party for decades (former owner of ConservativeHome, Conservative candidate for Colchester, Jeffrey Archer's Campaign Manager for London Mayor etc).

Edited 9 February, 2016 by shurlock

[sadoldgit]

Bias can only be measured against your own personal politics, therefore balance can not really be measured in any meaningful way .

 

Of course the press is biased , because if it wasn't it would be boring and sterile . Just because the most popular papers are The Mail & The Sun lefties get their knickers in a twist over it . People like Toynbee & Little Owen Jones are the most biased opinion writers around , often disguising opinion as fact . I just laugh at some of their articles , whereas lefties seem to foam at the mouth when it's Littlejohn or Hitchens .

 

The bbc is also biased, because individual reporters ( particularly political ones ) analysis shows that bias . They don't just report the facts they get asked by the anchor " what does this mean for Corbyn , or for the government " ect . Once they start to give their opinion it naturally contains a level of bias . One persons balance is another persons bias . The bbc are particularly poor at picking political guests for programmes such as QT. It's always the same old faces , why they think people like Janet Street Porter or David Starkey have anything to offer is beyond me . If I was a leftie I'd be particularly upset if I was represented by people like Abbott all the time .Although her patronising causal racialism is great for right wing votes .

 

If news is reported in a factual way I don't think that bias applies. Of course, as soon as someone ventures an opinion then you can say that opinion is open to bias. Columnists are paid to be biased in the most part are they not?

[Johnny Bognor]

When you start to go into more detail on the survey, it is perceived that reporting in Sweden and Germany is more inaccurate than accurate, when compared to Britain on immigration issues.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/n2brop7n28/Eurotrack_January_MediaRepresentation_Website.pdf

 

So whilst Britain may seem more right wing on immigration, it is perceived as being more accurate.

 

I guess when you consider the mass cover up of events in Germany and Sweden over the last month or so, it's no surprise.

 

So this makes for an interesting question....

 

Would you prefer a more left-wing bias in the media or would you prefer more accurate reporting in the media?

[buctootim]

So this makes for an interesting question....

 

Would you prefer a more left-wing bias in the media or would you prefer more accurate reporting in the media?

 

Because the far ends of the spectrum are the only possible choices?

[Johnny Bognor]

Because the far ends of the spectrum are the only possible choices?

 

I would prefer the truth, with a left or right spin on it, as opposed to a complete blackout to suit a political agenda.

 

The non reporting of mass sex attacks in Sweden and Germany is scandalous. In Germany it took days for the truth to come.

Thank God for social media, as it was only the outrage on there that forced the media to come clean.

[ashnats]

I've been discussing the meaning of left and right wing with my students lately as we look at politics in the US. It's quite surprising how little people actually really understand what it means and are too easily influenced by stereotypes caused by pejorative phrases like "leftie" or by right wing bigot stereotypes. I found the graphic below was one of the most comprehensive and clear explanations I've seen don't mind admitting it helped me in viewing perspectives too.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/

 

On the actual subject at hand. Looking back at the UK from abroad, I find it incredible how unbalanced newspapers are. I suppose it adds interest to read something with a strong viewpoint, but when opinions are presented as news, it can be a problem. The news reporting here is a bit more bland, but I have a little more trust in what I read. Obviously there is always somebody deciding what is important news and what isn't though and there's always going to be a level of interpretation in the reporting.

 

right, so I'm a bit of a leftie, the left hand graphic describes me quite well. I look at it and think I am comfortable being that way. I look at the right graphic, and see lots of things i don't like, and negative connotations.

 

So my question is - is the above graphic biased towards the left, filling it with positive vibes, and biased against the right, filling it with negativity, or is it well balanced, and is it me who is biased? Is there anyone here who would read the right hand graphic and feel positive about being described by it?

[Lord Duckhunter]

If news is reported in a factual way I don't think that bias applies. Of course, as soon as someone ventures an opinion then you can say that opinion is open to bias. Columnists are paid to be biased in the most part are they not?

 

Columnists are , but should bbc journos express opinions . Nick Robinson used to and now that fit Laura bird does now . Every single time there's a major issue bbc reporters give their analysis of the situation rather than the basic facts . There's also running orders & which story to cover . By putting Cameron's pathetic " re-negotiation" at the top of the news someone thinks that it's an important development . Personally I'd have made it the last item as its not worth a JArther . Rightly or wrongly , that's bias , just as not majoring on the cologne incident is . If a load of birds were groped and sexually assaulted at a UKIP conference , I'm pretty sure the BBC would have made more of it than they did.

 

You'll never get unbiased reporting as there's too much human opinion involved