A Decade of BBC Question Time Data Reveals Imbalance in Journalist Guests (sagepub.com)
- Reference: 0180502421
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/01/02/1542232/a-decade-of-bbc-question-time-data-reveals-imbalance-in-journalist-guests
- Source link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/14648849251413467
Researcher Matt Walsh examined 391 editions and 1,885 panellist appearances between 2014 and 2024. Journalists from right-leaning publications accounted for 59.59% of media guest slots, compared to just 16.86% for left-leaning outlets. The Spectator, a conservative magazine with a circulation of roughly 65,000, had an outsized presence among the most frequently booked guests. The study's list of top non-politician appearances reads like a roster of right-wing media figures. Isabel Oakeshott appeared 14 times, Julia Hartley-Brewer 13, Kate Andrews (formerly of the Institute for Economic Affairs and now at The Spectator) 13, and Tim Stanley of The Telegraph and Spectator also 13.
No equivalent frequency existed for left-wing journalists; Novara Media's Ash Sarkar and podcaster Alastair Campbell each appeared six times. Walsh said that the programme's need to be entertaining may explain some of these choices, as columnists unconstrained by party talking points tend to generate livelier debate. The BBC maintains that Question Time aims to present a "breadth of viewpoints," but the data suggests the programme's construction of impartiality tilts notably in one direction.
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/14648849251413467
Re: Your own prejudice is showing (Score:5, Interesting)
They literally prove you wrong and instead of admitting it and apologizing, you pretend that your ridiculous claim to bias is still true and that the one case where the evidence proves you wrong is an anomaly and that the rest of the channel must be like you think it is..
Look, the reason so many people in the media disagree with you is that you are wrong. It is not bias, they simply here what you have to say and disagree. The majority of the world is more liberal than you - that is why there are so many liberals in the media. We outnumber you.
Re: Your own prejudice is showing (Score:5, Insightful)
Showing that there's a right-bias in guest selection only proves that there's a right-bias in guest selection. That can be offset by other sources of bias, such as story selection, story presentation, interviewer-guest interaction, etc.
Most of the interactions I've had with the BBC here in the US (mainly through the BBC News Hour on NPR in the morning and some occasional online stories) come across as pretty neutral anecdotally, and [1]MBFC [mediabiasfactcheck.com], my preferred watchdog for this sort of thing, seems to agree. So I think the original poster's conclusion that the BBC is left-biased is probably untrue and likely comes from his own place of bias. But it's important not to overstate the case here based on one metric. A news outlet disproportionately taking on right-leaning guests could very easily be offset by, for example, the host being disproportionately confrontational to those guests or conveying story information before or after in a manner intended to predispose the audience to the opposing viewpoint.
[1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/
Re: Your own prejudice is showing (Score:3)
> Showing that there's a right-bias in guest selection only proves that there's a right-bias in guest selection. That can be offset by other sources of bias, such as story selection, story presentation, interviewer-guest interaction, etc.
Question Time isn't a news programme. There are neither stories nor interviews, just a panel, a moderator and the audience. The panel is supposed to be selected to match the political landscape in the area the episode is filmed (it's in a different place every week), the moderator chooses which audience member gets to ask a question and tries to keep guests on-topic (the current host Fiona Bruce has herself had some accusations of bias levied* but there have been worse than her) and the audience are people
Re: (Score:3)
BBC isn’t really left-wing. They’re centrist and they try to apply filthy liberal ideas like “journalistic standards”, although not perfectly every time. What right-wingers think is “left wing” is usually “center-left” or straight-up “center”. Most right-wingers have no real ability to identify a true left-winger, and are clueless about the distinction between progressivism and leftist.
In the US, here are the true left-wingers: Sanders, Ocasio-
Re: (Score:3)
> Nowadays, conservatives are fighting moderate-centrism. They’re less likely to win that battle.
They're fighting liberalism, the small-L concept of liberalism that is. We hope they don't win that one.
"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy."
Re: (Score:2)
Aww man now I get my own troll? I'm kinda flattered.
Class conservative though you have to make up a villain wholecloth to attack instead of dealing with the actual ideas.
Still waiting on that clip chief.
A little context (Score:3)
When the general public attitude shifts toward the Left, centrist opinions will be Left-leaning.
The only backstory I know on this one is that [1]one study [telegraph.co.uk] found that more Left-leaning proposals were discussed, and anything farther Right than center-Right was treated like it was dangerous.
In the real world view, news organizations reflect whatever their backers and audience will pay for. "Objective" media is probably an oxymoron.
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10235967/BBC-is-biased-toward-the-left-study-finds.html?msockid=0d7d18f734096b802e0f0e3b35bf6a70
Re: (Score:3)
> In the US, here are the true left-wingers: Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Mamdani, and not very many others. Not Biden, not Obama, or any of the others on the list that right-wingers love to hate.
To add to this, people like Sanders aren't crazy left-wing extremists, either. In most other developed countries, they would be mainstream left-wingers.
Re: Glad to hear it (Score:1)
> Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Mamdani
No, that's the politburo.
Alternate facts (Score:2)
That's a pretty amazing spin on actual proof that the BBC does not have a "left-wing" representation bias.
Re: (Score:1)
"proof that the BBC"
Try "One piece of research on the person who selects guests for one program on the BBC".
Shocker (Score:4, Insightful)
Another place right wingers bitch and scream like toddlers is biased against them and silencing their views is actually tilted in their favor, but anything short of blatant extremist propaganda and hate speech entirely divorced from reality simply isn't "fair".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Another place right wingers bitch and scream like toddlers is biased against them and silencing their views is actually tilted in their favor, but anything short of blatant extremist propaganda and hate speech entirely divorced from reality simply isn't "fair".
Might it be that the Beeb relies on groups like the Spectator for guests as an opposite to it's own party line, and thus drive the outrage demo to boost ratings? A' La the old CNN crossfire route? What else would they do? Bring on, say, the Guardian every night and basically just agree on everything?
Re: (Score:1)
Not even close..
The BBC has been run at the top by mainly conservative people, and their current politics head is a true conservative.
I firmly believe that the BBC and its constant pushing UKIP outrage nonsense caused brexit
For the 14 years that the tories were in power recently, the BBC reported everything the conservatives said as fact, and any news story about other parties was always negative.
QT has always been riddled with tories, not just the panel but also the audience members.
It boils down to
Re: (Score:1)
The BBC is very very obviously centre-left, run by posh lefties who keep dissenting voices - and working class white men - out of power.
What's this got to do with technology? (Score:2)
I thought Slashdot was supposed to be about news for nerds, to do with technology not politics.
Interconnection (Score:2)
What happens in politics influences what happens in technology, like the current Texas attempt to impose [1]age limits [austinchronicle.com] on app stores.
I think this is a terrible idea because it leads to the end of internet anonymity, and anonymity is a necessary "check and balance" on both strong power and groupthink, but until enough people speak out about it, it will become the norm.
Australia has taken the [2]age limit [pbs.org] even further, applying it to all social media, and the UK has a [3]similar regulation [thepinknews.com] but for pr0n sites only.
[1] https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/texas-app-store-age-verification-law-blocked-in-court/
[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/australia-to-enforce-social-media-age-limit-of-16-with-fines-up-to-33-million
[3] https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/07/24/uk-online-safety-act-what-to-know-age-verification/
who cares (Score:1)
why, why does shit like this have to plague this site? Its got to be one of the stupidest stories to put on here in a while, nothing to do with technology at all.
Re: (Score:1)
just as many anti-left and anti-sjw posters as well. any article about pop culture is absolutely inundated with comments about how woke and garbage it all is
don't act like one side has a monopoly on shitposting
Re: (Score:1)
> don't act like one side has a monopoly on shitposting
give your head a shake, all it ever is on here is usually Trump this and that, and its never anything good.
"8.3 billion people ... (Score:1)
... 8.3 billion opinions" isn't far from reality.
Re: (Score:2)
When observable reality collides with an attempt to manufacture reality, absent convincing evidence, it is reasonable to go with observable reality. The methodological flaw is likely comes from two places - selecting an outlier programming, mis-categorizing participants, or mis-categorizing subjects that are being discussed. For example, if I invite a panel of conservatives to discuss cheese production, do I really "platform" conservative views?
Re: Does not pass the laugh test (Score:2)
That's because from a UK perspective the US right wing appears to be absolutely batshit mental.
Re: Does not pass the laugh test (Score:3)
No they haven't. The only person who thinks that is Nigel Farage. If anything he should get down on his knees and kiss Aunty Beeb's feet for all the free publicity they've given him. Read TFA and you'll see that he has been given far more guest spots on QT and other BBC programmes than the size of his party should warrant.
Old Frog Face is practically the archetype for right wing voices who constantly whinge about being 'cancelled', despite the fact that they're doing it on broadcast television. The man is a
Re: Does not pass the laugh test (Score:4, Informative)
> More so, Nigel Farage complaining about lack of free-speech seems to be spot-on, in light of 30 arrests a day for online posts.
Farage complains about anything, because he has no solutions to any of the problems our nation faces. It used to be the EU, until he and his conned us into voting Leave. Then he moved on to immigrants, blaming them for the state of the UK. Now, bereft of any original thought as he is, he's latched on to cancel culture and freeze peach. Deep down he doesn't really want to be PM because that would involve him actually turning up and doing something. As the saying here goes: he's all mouth and no trousers. He went into politics for what he could get out of it, not for any measurable desire to help others.
> This is absolutely un-American (I know, UK is not US) and I personally find shocking. Why are Brits not on the barricades over this?
Because we place society as a whole over the individual's right to spout whatever hateful racist screed that comes into their head. We have laws against calls to violence, like the kind that Lucy Letby plead guilty to. Shortly after the Southport killings but before the rioting started Farage was out there peddling disinformation in the guise of "just asking questions". The cunt knew what he was doing - he's not stupid - he just cared more about his own public profile than the people who would be hurt and terrorised by rioters who were targeting Muslims and immigrants when the actual perpetrator was neither.
We're talking about a man who while at college (age seventeen) would creep up behind Jewish students at his school, whisper "Hitler was right" and make a hissing sound suggestive of a gas chamber. I'm not suggesting he be punished for this, only that it reflects the sort of man he is. He's always been a hateful xenophobe.
Anyway, re: the thirty arrests business, note that it says arrests, not convictions. These cases usually just end up with the police visiting the poster, telling them it could potentially be unlawful, asking them to take it down and suggesting that they think more carefully about what they put out there before they click 'post'. If you look at the cases that were actually successfully prosecuted you may change your mind. In the Letby case she was literally calling for a building housing asylum seekers to be burned down while they were in it, and like I said we have laws about that sort of thing. We have laws against hate speech because we know what happens when people start listening to it.
The next time you encounter someone who complains that they can't speak their mind any more, try asking them what it is they want to say. You won't be surprised at the answer.
Re: Does not pass the laugh test (Score:2)
As regards freedom of speech generally of course we have that. We had it long before we felt any need to legislate for it, e.g. in the European Convention for Human Rights. (The one that Farage says we should withdraw from, calling it an imposition from Brussels despite the fact the the UK played quite a large part in drafting the fucking thing in the first place. )
If the King happened to be driving down the street I could shout at him "Your brother is a nonce!" with no legal consequences. Try doing that wit
Re: (Score:1)
> As regards freedom of speech generally of course we have that.
No you don't, not for as long as your government is arresting anyone for online posts.
Re: (Score:1)
> I could stand outside Scotland Yard shouting "The Met(ropolitan Police) are wankers!" and no-one would bat an eye.
Try something remotely controversial. Go shout "Islam is not a religion of peace" or "Rape gangs are part of immigrant culture" and have someone film you getting arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
> That's because from a UK perspective the US right wing appears to be absolutely batshit mental.
From a US-close-to-center perspective, thee US far-right and far-left wings both appear to be absolutely batshit mental.
With apologies to bat guano.
Controversy is their bias, not Right/Left (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole "Liberal Media" stuff is a bullshit power play and always has been. It's been a way of saying "only trust what I say, not anyone else" and is classic cult bullshit. Don't listen to the naysayers and your friends and family when they tell you you're wrong or lack your enthusiasm...it's all a giant conspiracy!!!!
When a Democrat is in office? The news is 24/7 about Clinton's blowjob...or Biden's senility...or Obama's struggles getting anything passed. When a Bush was in office, it was about the war not going as expected or the failing economy. They're equally merciless to either party.
Mainstream news outlets have only had 2 biases in my lifetime: reporting the truth (AKA doing their job) and controversy, which pays the bills. Yeah, negativity and fear and sex get you to pay attention. Otherwise, you'll do the 1 billion more interesting things you can do in your day than watch the nightly news.
By dictionary definition and from a logical standpoint, a conservative will be wrong more than they're right. If your idea was good, it would probably be mainstream and thus not conservative. A conservative thinks the majority has lost their way and wants to return to the ways of the past. Just from a logical standpoint, most will be wrong. Why do I say this?
Well, it makes sense that conservatives will dominate the airwaves. They're advocating for change and their message is usually very easy to understand. It tends to be favored by the retired....AKA...those who have time and little better to do than watch TV. Not many 35yos with small children can watch the nightly news regularly.
Put simply, it's a boring story to say, "Everything is fine." "You're good." "The country is on the right track." So calls for change are what are interesting....and liberals often propose ideas that are less familiar than conservative ones. Conflict is interesting...and there's never been a shortage of people who are upset about perceived changes.
To put an American perspective on things, our conservatives are a fucking mess. They always say one thing and do another and get us into economic turmoil EVERYTIME they're in office. They've mastered complaining to win elections, but have no clue what to do when they're elected...and thus a familiar cycle emerges: a conservative gets in office with ridiculous childish promises that are very destructive and ALMOST ALL of their proposals are mere tax cuts for the wealthy without a means of paying for them....that somehow cutting taxes on the rich will make you prosperous...debt isn't an issue???...OK, the voters fall for it...the economy goes into the shitter, like it did after Bush 1, Bush 2, Trump 1, (too early to tell for Trump 2)....a Democrat gets elected to fix the mess and they do...Clinton left with a record surplus. Obama completely turned around the financial crisis. Biden objectively left the economy in a better state than he inherited and IMO, left it in a much better long-term position than anyone in recent memory with renewed emphasis on domestic manufacturing....but regardless of your opinions....the Republicans complain, enough people forget the past mistakes...that tax cuts are not governing and only benefit the wealthy...that if you want to reduce revenue, you need to reduce spending, like an actual conservative and no one wants to do that!!!....and they fall for the Republican song and dance once again.
The point? Which is more interesting? A discussion on the details of running a government responsibly?...or complaining about the guy in office and giving you childish promises that you can pay less taxes and not suffer.
A successful government requires a lot of attention to detail and nuance and understanding short-term sacrifice in the name of long-term benefit. Being the "adult party" is boring and not fun.
Being the childish party and promising you everything you want without a means of paying for it and racking up debt for your children to pay off after you die? That's a fucking party!!!!....and it certainly makes for entertaining TV.
[1]Read the rest of this comment...
[1] https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23882617&cid=65897375
Re: (Score:1)
> When a Democrat is in office? The news is 24/7 about Clinton's blowjob...or Biden's senility...or Obama's struggles getting anything passed. When a Bush was in office, it was about the war not going as expected or the failing economy. They're equally merciless to either party.
> Mainstream news outlets have only had 2 biases in my lifetime: reporting the truth (AKA doing their job) and controversy, which pays the bills. Yeah, negativity and fear and sex get you to pay attention. Otherwise, you'll do the 1 billion more interesting things you can do in your day than watch the nightly news.
Agree on the biases about courting controversy -- and what they are *supposed* to do.
However, I don't believe you're correct about media being unbiased... (i mean both mainstream and non mainstream media -- in my opinion, all media is biased these days).
Because in your world, the Hunter Biden story wasn't buried (pre-election) by the so called "mainstream" media and the media all investigated & reported frequently on President Biden's mental ability or challenges thereof (after the election before his
Adulting isn't fun (Score:2)
> Because in your world, the Hunter Biden story wasn't buried (pre-election) by the so called "mainstream" media and the media all investigated & reported frequently on President Biden's mental ability or challenges thereof (after the election before his debate with Trump), and there was no mis-reporting of COVID at all (or burying/mocking of people who didn't go along with the official position)...
That response about COVID is quite childish. COVID was a special circumstance, similar to war. FUCKING IDIOTS (like my cousin) were telling you to take horse meds, inject bleach, ignore mask laws, etc. LITERAL lives were at stake. I do believe that the administration was doing their best the best way they could. It's fair to criticize mistakes when they happen. However, it's fucking childish to expect perfection in an uncharted situation. It's easy to sit back now that you're vaccinated and alive and
TV "programming" (Score:2)
Its almost like theres an agenda created bt manufacturing consent. I read about that somewhere Winston. Thanks Chomsky
The same thing is happening in Australia... (Score:2)
Here in Australia the ABC (state broadcaster similar to the BBC) has a political.program called Insiders and there is a very clear bias towards conservative media outlets and the conservative side of politics (which in Australia means the Liberal and National party).
Who decided "right leaning" from "left leaning"? (Score:1)
Who decided which publications were "right leaning" vs "left leaning"? In my experience all the left-leaning outlets deny they are left leaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, you have no experience. The Guardian, for example, is at least Labour-oriented (that's a UK political party, the one currently in power). Or then there's Mother Jones (the magazine). Or Jacobin. (look it up.) And that's off the top of my head.
what is a walsh? (Score:1)
is this some different matt walsh? shouldnt the hateful maga one be thrilled to see righties take over media?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? Faux Noise is huge in the US, CBS now has an extreme right "monitor", the NYT tends to accept whatever lies billionaires and Caroline Leavitt spout, and we need *more*?
And calling the beeb "left wing" says that you, personally, are a frucking Nazi.
What's the matter, are you terrified of reporting of facts, which have a well-known liberal bias, might disrupt your echo chamber?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It will only be enough for them once all media is right-leaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, that goalpost is movable.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Re: Good (Score:2)
The stupid left-right compass you guys always rely on and frame your harebrained partisan thinking around places Nazis as centrist authoritarians. I don't know why you guys rely on that shit. What is meant by "right" or "left" changes by the day and by the conversation.
Re: Good (Score:2)
No, not really. The thing is that there is more than one left-right axis. Here are the two main ones:
â Economic - Left means more state ownership. Right means a more free market approach.
â Social - Left means more personal freedom and equal rights. Right tends towards authoritarianism.
It's perfectly possible to be left on one and right on the other or vice versa. Extreme economic left plus extreme social right is something like the USSR under Stalin. Vice versa is something like a US libertarian,
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious if this is the correct metric to use to judge bias. I would love to see every question pulled from the transcript and checked for bias to see if this is simply a function of a left leaning crowd wanting to question right leaning journalists. It seems to me that the behavior of the moderator and the audience is a more sure gauge of bias than that of the guests, but perhaps I'm mistaken.
Re: Good (Score:2)
The audience in QT is chosen to represent the politics of the area in which an episode is filmed. I can't be bothered to find out the exact selection process but I expect it's something like this: people who apply for tickets are asked how they voted in the last election, the producers take the percentage of votes cast in that election then allocate the tickets accordingly. Actually there was an instance some months ago when a guest - either Reform or Tory - complained that the audience was packed full of l
Re: (Score:2)
> There needs to be more right-leaning voices in the media.
Yes, the media definitely needs to replace the right-wing extremists with "right-leaning" voices.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Hell yes. And as soon as possible.