Bias in the BBC tends to come in the form of omission or the “both sides” fallacy.
In terms of omission, politically it would be constantly platforming Reform MPs compared to the LibDems who have 14 times as many MPs as them (although similar vote share at the last election). Traditionally, the BBC has tended to have a slight sitting government bias as they pick their interviewees proportionally to the current parliament. However, this seems to have altered dramatically in recent years. I think it may have started when the SNP became the third party in the mid 2010s.
The both sides fallacy is really just crap journalism. It has it’s place. If you are covering something contentious, such as a march in Northern Ireland, you will want to hear the perspective of both the marchers and those opposed to it. However, this approach is also used with conspiracy theorists and various denialists. The opposite of truth may be lies, but in no way should a public service broadcaster be platforming liars.
I don’t think it is confined to the BBC or UK either. Last year there was a documentary on German TV about racism in football. An AfD spokesman came out with a bare faced lie about racial quotas in football, and the reporter didn’t even question him on it, let alone inform the audience that this was untrue.
In terms of non-public service media, I don’t particularly expect them to not have bias in terms of opinion, but good media will separate news from opinion and clearly label them as such. The Guardian and Telegraph used to do this well, but unfortunately the Telegraph died a death as a serious publication several years ago.
On today’s programme we are are going to be talking about chairs. We’ll be exploring the impact chairs have made on our lives, where we’d be without them, and what the future holds for the humble chair. We’ll hear from our experts about some of the most important chairs throughout history, and don’t forget to text in with your humorous stories about chairs.
For balance we’ll also be joined by someone who doesn’t believe chairs exist.
Reminds me of a time when I was probably five or six and an auntie came to visit our home for a dinner party. She was sitting on a chair that had the seating surface made of bamboo woven wicker. The chair may have been a bit on the worn side and the auntie was definitely on the heavy side. And then the wicker gave away and her arse got stuck in the chair frame and I nearly died laughing seeing her having to get extracted from the chair frame.
Is a Labour government really about to stand by and allow innocent people to die because they refuse to admit the terrible mistake they made when they proscribed Palestine Action. Starmer is risking going down in history alongside Thatcher for this folly.
Open the tweet and look at the comments. See how he engages with Britons and Americans and how extremely low cost and effective this propaganda outreach is. They dance around him, licking his feet. Countless Britons and Americans https://x.com/kadmitriev/status/2001223754769219870
In case you some how not know this, he is Russia’s envoy and responsible for negotiations with the West on behalf of Putin.
His formal title is Special Presidential Envoy on Foreign Investment and Economic Cooperation of the Russian Federation
It’s the guy Putin sends to meet with Witkoff and Kushner and part of the Kremlin click.
What is the view here of the potential of British Nuclear power potential?
The UK really has been on a managed decline since WW2 and so I get Starmer’s desire to hitch his wagon to AI as an opportunity for growth, but our (your) electricity is so expensive that it seems like a no go unless we can significantly expand that capacity at far more affordable levels, and Nuclear is surely the only option.
I was surprised to see that we (you) already get about 20% of the power from nuclear, but my understanding from some engineers over here who have worked in the space is that was largely stood up by foreign contractors and we just dont have the expertise to scale any more
Green energy - wind and solar was meant to be another avenue for growth under this Labour government but has hit a couple of curve balls - competition for the assets needed to build out is high pushing up the cost of building the infrastructure at a time when government and consumers finances are stretched already. Second has been getting that infrastructure and the batteries connected to the power networks.
I think the government also see Nuclear as an option but more as a backstop to underpin the green energy and minimise risks from periods of inconsistent wind/ sun, not as a major source of producing it.
There is obviously a lobby concerned at what we do with radioactive waste produced, which also makes it harder to develop new facilities.
Lots of potential. BAE for example are keen to develop Micro reactors and have been talking with the government about funding for those.
Main issue across the board from what I’ve seen has been funding (we tried getting China to fund them across the last decade or so but current politics makes that difficult). There was also a deal with a French company I think which broke down a year or so ago.
I thought much of the nuclear capacity we have now is close to being retired, but i many be wrong on that. I thought there may be some already being in production and close to coming online but I may be wrong on that too.
