No more biased than most other media outlets but at least they do some cracking other shows.

It's just getting worse. Interview w/ JC the other day, showed him in a dungeon, lit like Satan. Tory counterpart then asked same questions, but filmed in a school playing with children! It's disgusting.

APF 🙁

Whilst people at both ends of the political spectrum continue to loudly protest the the BBC are biased, I can’t help but think that they must be doing alright. Examples that ‘prove’ both positions are always available.

Yup definitely that V8.

Yeah if no one is happy then they've reached a decent compromise.

Talk to brexiters/Tories and all you get is that bbc is biased towards remainers (The Question Time audience being a big bone of contention for being claimed to be mostly remainers) & lib dems/labour, talk to remainers and its tory biased...BBC cant win. The comments under news articles on the bbc fluctuate wildly too...articles on negative economic uk data gets the whole Project Fear comments going. Personally I'm fine with the bbc and, like any news outlet, take it with a pinch of salt

My right wing friend who has visited the BBC on several occasions for political interviews is convinced that they're institutionally biased against the right. All my left wing friends are convinced of the opposite. They can't both be right, but they can both be wrong.

As for the BBC's output, personally I think it's a bit shit: there are no more than two programmes a week that I watch on any of its channels, and it's been that way for a long time. Occasionally it will produced something great, but these moments are fleeting.

JP

Political News are currently mouthpieces of Conservative Central Office/Dominic Cummings. Their reputation is shot and only the election rules are ensuring some semblance of balanced reporting.

There appears to be no curiosity about what they are fed, no fact checking at all. See the no news about Leave EU and electoral fraud and Fiona Bruce outright lying to an audience member on the same subject.

There appears to be no curiosity about what they are fed, no fact checking at all

Welcome to the cultural climate. I don’t even blame the internet, I blame the human condition. The internet (as of now) simply enables more falsity to travel faster, farther and with greater frequency*. I may be ‘on the spectrum’ because all disinformation riles me up like I have OCD. Even when the disinfo is about random subjects/issues for which I have no immediate (or even peripheral) personal investment/attachment. Like nails on a blackboard in my brain. Tabloidism is my kryptonite.

Interesting article in the Nat Geo. They’d better not be lying! 🤣

A recent study led by Briony Swire-Thompson, a doctoral candidate in cognitive psychology at the University of Western Australia, documents the ineffectiveness of evidence-based information in refuting incorrect beliefs

Scroll down to the last sub-heading, ie ‘The Fabulist’

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/06/lying-hoax-false-fibs-science/

*Edit - unintended intensity of alliterative comparative adjectives. Blame Black Coffee

totally biased, sometimes they seem to hold opposing viewpoints to me

Yeah if no one is happy then they’ve reached a decent compromise.

And

totally biased, sometimes they seem to hold opposing viewpoints to me

Both made me chuckle!

There appears to be no curiosity about what they are fed, no fact checking at all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/reality_check

Apart from the endless fact checking, obvs....

Yeah if no one is happy then they’ve reached a decent compromise.

Well I’m not buying this argument. They have been poor at holding people to account for decades, but now they appear totally incompetent. As Sandwich says there appears to be no fact checking, nor challenges about untruths, fake ‘facts’ or whataboutery. Whenever they question anyone, the person seldom answers the question but is allowed to make extremely contentious statements about other topics and because it’s not what is being discussed it is just let go.

Radio four presenters do a good job grilling politicians and asking questions most would avoid.

No bias; impartial by any objective measure.
For some people, if the Beeb doesn't reflect their views it's biased.
Anyone hear Johnson on 5live breakfast phone-in? Not allowed to get away with obfuscation or waffle by Rachel Burden.
Predictably the right wing press criticised her when they should have focussed on his piss poor performance.
Listen to Stephen Nolan, watch Andrew Neil - their only bias is against lies and dissembling.
Kuenssberg, Pienaar and rest of the political reporting team are demonstrably even-handed.

I hadn't realised that the BBC was biased but my father-in-law told me that he'd read in the Daily Mail that the BBC was biased toward Labour and so only ever reported positive things about Jeremy Corbyn.

For some reason this 2015 clip comes to mind.

So now we have even more hindsight. ‘It will be very interesting to see how the Tories deal with it’ (from 8 min mark)

Whatever the motive, I find this particular “mistake” staggering

Did make me think of their recent drama The Capture too

In the thousands of hours of coverage, people will always find one weak spot that supports their opinion of bias.

It may even be true on occasion.

But FFS that will be a couple of seconds from tens of thousands of hours of balanced, fair and challenging output.

If anyone needs reminding of holding politicians to account on a daily basis, listen to Nick Robinson interviewing Micky Gove on Today one morning this week. Superb!

Also, listen to 'More Or Less' each week, where stats and claims are scientifically ripped apart.

Or look at the Fact Check website on the BBC at your leisure.

It's really sad that people try and tar the BBC with the same brush as odious, biased output like the Daily Mail or The Canary.

It deserves our support as other organisations disappear down the fetid drain of depravity that amounts to 'news' nowadays.

Rant over.

It's still frankly amazing that folk view all media bias in terms of Left and Right. The BBC is no more than a branch of the Civil Service and so upholds the Establishment. Church, Royalty and the continuation of the "British way of life".

I think we are entitled to ask the odd question about the quality of journalism and programming at the BBC, but to accuse it of bias is a bit off IMO. Given that left, right, leave and remain all think it’s biased against them suggests they’re about right.
I’d also agree that every now and then they get things wrong, and that’s OK as it’s run by people who do make mistakes.

Good quote this week from Chris Packham to paraphrase: "One politician says it's raining, the other it's sunny - it is not the medias' job to just report both, but to look out the ****ing window!"

I'm not sure they are biased, but they are lazy.

I use the reality check web page quite a lot, but none of their interviewers seem to. No one is properly tested and made to account for even the most stupid lies and comments.

And today, the Prince Andrew scoop is more important than the student fire, or the election....

Whilst people at both ends of the political spectrum continue to loudly protest the the BBC are biased, I can’t help but think that they must be doing alright. Examples that ‘prove’ both positions are always available.

This.

Also, listen to ‘More Or Less’ each week, where stats and claims are scientifically ripped apart.

Or look at the Fact Check website on the BBC at your leisure.

This.

Listen to Stephen Nolan, watch Andrew Neil – their only bias is against lies and dissembling.
Kuenssberg, Pienaar and rest of the political reporting team are demonstrably even-handed.

This.

totally biased, sometimes they seem to hold opposing viewpoints to me

That.
I suspect confirmation bias is at play here. If one thinks they are biased then every example one sees supports this. Remember, it's not that every single item on every single program has to be unbiased, but that the output as a whole must be. If you hear a program about Borris Johnson but then miss next week's one about Jeremy Corbyn you'll be going round saying Boris is getting all the coverage.
As a centre-right leave voter from up north it appears to me to be full of southern/London leftie remainers. No doubt other people's views differ
I don't have a telly BTW, I just use the BBC for Radio4, R4Extra and the World Service. I get news from them, but I think it's also important to get it from a variety of sources, if any one is biased then hopefully you can get other viewpoints from elsewhere, NPR and ABC-News being the other two stations I use regulary, plus whatever newspapers I find laying about at work, Guardian to Daily Mail and all points inbetween.

It’s still frankly amazing that folk view all media bias in terms of Left and Right. The BBC is no more than a branch of the Civil Service and so upholds the Establishment. Church, Royalty and the continuation of the “British way of life”.

Correct.

The cenotaph claims are cobblers. Cock-up rather than conspiracy - someone gets the 2014 clip out of the archive for remembrance previews on Sunday, it gets used as the new one by some producer or other.

And people are upset because apparently Boris is more dishevelled in the 2019 clip. Hardly the killer punch to his election chances, everyone knows he's a scruffy get.

I drove to Great Yarmouth a couple of weeks ago. six hour drive and I spent most of it hopping between Radio 2 and Radio 4. Loads of political news / commentary and the vast, vast majority of it was soundbites from Boris and Frog-manbaby.

How anyone can accuse the BBC of being against the right is beyond me.

I do wonder about some of the questioners on Question Time, some have been exposed as right leaning stooges.

Emma Barnett takes no prisoners.

I do wonder about some of the questioners on Question Time, some have been exposed as right leaning stooges.

And if hosted in Scotland - outright plants in cohorts with the producers.

A mixed bag for me. The BBC can appear to be quite even-handed (for a state broadcaster) in some respects but in others is so biased it's ridiculous. The bias toward US news, including the unquestioning, follow my lead US foreign interests is disturbing.

I also agree with:

The BBC is no more than a branch of the Civil Service and so upholds the Establishment. Church, Royalty and the continuation of the “British way of life”.

To me when you look at mainstream media, particularly published media, partially reliant on advertising revenue and circulation numbers. There appears to be significantly more representation of right wing ideals. Walk into any local newsagent and take a sample for yourself!

It's market driven by nature and for the dailies in particular, there has to be constant churn and eye catching content to keep people buying. There's more money available from and for individuals, enterprises and organisations who exist by and promote these ideals. Not to mention people love scandal, a bit of escapism, celebrity title-tattle and perpetually changing sports news. Combine these ingredients and you can see why the best selling dailies are what they are.

Of course, any newspaper/headline review piece on the BBC naturally features mostly right-wing titles (reflected in their ownership/editorials). It's one way in which the BBC fails to provide balance.

Always been biased IMO, biased towards whoever is in government at the time. It lost its anonymity when the fees started to be brought up in PMQ back in the 90’s and since then the BBC has always supported whoever has the power to push legislation through to protect it.

Sadly for it, it’s meant it panders to the aged and wealthy of this land who don’t really want to see the gritty reality of people who earn a living buy buying a TV licence and it’s therefore stuck between streaming and old folks who pay the fee “because they think they have too”

I’m happy to pay the fee, because I’m old and consider I get more out of BBC4 and the radios station than I do out of all the other channels they produce.. can’t honestly remember the last time I put BBC1 on.. that just seems full of shite programmes about “Cops chasing people who can’t drive” or that gawd awful East-****ing-enders pile of horsecrap.

Odd that they decided to chuck BBC3 online only, then repeat their brilliant programmes on BBC4/2 when the accolades come rolling in. I reckon BBC1 and 2 ought to go online only... free up some space for art/environment/educational programmes...

IMO

If I have to fault them it’s they seem very keen to be ‘fair’ which had lead to giving UKIP and Brex Party a lot of air time, rationale unknown.

Also they seem pretty easy to BS, doesn’t matter which side of the fence someone is, they do something stupid / bad and as long as they come up with some half-credible excuse and the BBC will give them equal column space.

Basically as above, they’re too busy reporting it’s raining and it’s sunny to look out the window.

I’ve sacked off the BBC news app in favour of Sky news, it seems almost crazy to say it, but they do a better job.

The BBC bases/gauges it's even handedness on print media. It tries to strike a balance based on that. Given the ownership of British print media, the resulting position should not be unexpected.

Every single news outlet is biased towards its own agenda - it's just worse when it's an outlet you've been forced to pay for.

all disinformation riles me up

This is how it should be.

And today, the Prince Andrew scoop is more important than the student fire, or the election….

Correct news decision.

Nobody dead in Bolton fire AFAIK, election just rumbling on, Handy Andy interview is a genuinely big and unexpected development in a major story. The royals just never do interviews like that normally.

The BBC has a host of issues but I don't think it has an overt institutional bias. Perhaps it has a collective centrist-left leaning, and it's running scared of recent Tory Govts, but it's basically a collection of individuals doing their jobs with varying levels of success.

A fact check website! After the misinformation has been broadcast on a flagship programme. A fig leaf of balance similar to a page 15 correction of a front page paper headline. If either media branch were balanced the correction would be given similar prominence to the erroneous information. Not many of the populace will burrow for an obscured correction.

I do wonder about some of the questioners on Question Time

As Jaqui Smith said on the "For the Many Not the Few" Podcast, by definition if you turn up on that show you have an interest in politics and are highly likely to be an activist for some party or another. I don't think the BBC would deny that, I doubt there are any rules against it and I really don't see how you could avoid it.

I do wonder why people watch Question Time, personally.

It's like Jeremy Kyle or an LBC phone-in with a veneer of respectability IMO, and as above - largely comes across as staged point-scoring.

I do wonder why people watch Question Time, personally.

So they can get REALLY ANGRY ABOUT HOW BIASED IT IS! ANGER! RAGE!

A recent study led by Briony Swire-Thompson, a doctoral candidate in cognitive psychology at the University of Western Australia, documents the ineffectiveness of evidence-based information in refuting incorrect beliefs

Dunning Kruger effect.... Look it up. Great piece by Stephen Fry on YouTube about it (bear in mind it came out before Brexit and Trump).

The quality of the BBC's news output has dropped significantly over the last few years. Morning news is unwatchable-inane nonsense from Charlie Stayt and Naga Munchetty. More broadly, the fact that that Sky have chosen to put Kay Burley centre stage also suggests intent to support the Conservatives. I think it's difficult to suggest, overall, that the BBC displays bias, but I do think you can detect the political perspective of individual corespondents. Justin Webb on Radio 4 does seem somewhat biased towards the Conservatives. Since the election was called, Simon Jack also seems to lean towards the 'right'. In terms of the paper press, the Conservative Party has a clear advantage. I do think we need more regulation/monitoring, and reporting of lies and misrepresentation.

The quality of 'news' per se has deteriorated noticeably since The Day Today's news farts.

It is worth noting that people who say that nobody buys papers anymore, when they are trying to downplay the influence of print media, seem to ironically downplay the influence that the print media has on the agenda of the likes of the BBC - Auntie seems to play the 'What The Papers Say' game more than any other, what?

The BBC has still to come to terms with the consequences of the death of Dr. Kelly, and it often shows.

The BBC is obviously pro establishment bias. Its been researched and proven. Try living in Scotland - then the bias shows even more obviously

During the scots independence referendum those on the YES side were asked twice as many negative questions compared to the NO side.

Over Brexit it gives equal weight to nonsense from leavers as truth from remainers

The BBC is obviously pro establishment bias. Its [sic] been researched and proven.

One of the first stories I remember actually paying attention to was the that the Thatcher govt were hugely anti-BBC, I can clearly recall Tebbit complaining about it's "unpatriotic" coverage of the Falklands conflict, and Tory minister's hyperbole about it being the home of terrorist sympathisers when it broadcast a  programme that interviewed Martin Mcguinness. I think every Govt since then has complained about the BBC's coverage of them. I think claims of it being intentionally biased towards The Establishment are wide of the mark.

I think it (the BBC) gets stuff wrong all the time, it's also pretty open and reports criticism and adverse findings of itself in a way I don't think the likes of Ch4, ITV or Sky would ever dream of doing. and largely (given the amount of news broadcasting output there is) gets its coverage about right.

Nickc - that pressure plus the fact the BBC takes its median for balance from the press has resylted in what we see, I agree its not intentionally biased - its not fox news but by virtue of the way it works it is biased,

BBC news and  current affairs output with it's institutional bias regarding Scottish news and particularly Scottish politics is what drove me to give up the licence. It does not seem to have improved in the last 5 years. If anything it's gotten worse

Or do they still offer a valuable, unique public service?

Just go somewhere where they don't have a state broadcaster held to high standards of quality. You'll see the difference.

The BBC is a brilliant asset to the country. Their mandate is to 'entertain and inform' and they take it seriously. For example, East Enders is generally trash, but they deliberately include progressive storylines that deal with current issues. US soaps by comparison are just prurient garbage with no content whatsoever.

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1196466474019364865/photo/1

And the BBC takes its midpoint for bias from the mid point of the press

Peter Oborne article in the Guardian is very timely.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/18/boris-johnson-lying-media

"I have talked to senior BBC executives, and they tell me they personally think it’s wrong to expose lies told by a British prime minister because it undermines trust in British politics."

I'm sure this has been said already but if both sides are claiming bias (as they usually do) then I reckon they must have it about right.

Anyway, most people bleating about bias don't actually want unbiased news, they want news that conforms to their biases.

James Landale on Radio4 Today currently doing a blatant hatchet job on Corbyn and Labour… nothing subtle about it. I’ve been one of the “everyone says the BBC is biased, so it must be getting it right”… but this election campaign period has me accepting that I was wrong. Some teams are worse than others, but all are letting Johnson get away with it, while hammering Corbyn hard.

I’m sure this has been said already but if both sides are claiming bias

It has been said. And I've already said that thinking bias can only be between what we traditionally call "left" and "right" is missing what the BBC is.

The BBC is a brilliant asset to the country.

Maybe once upon a time. Now it is the place that invites Nigel Lawson to comment on climate change. If I want to be exposed to brainless propaganda I'll buy the Mail - I don't see why I should be forced to pay a licence fee so that others can get their fix.

As Jaqui Smith said anagallis_arvensis was the best a level economics pupil I ever taught

Maybe

Maybe once upon a time. Now it is the place that invites Nigel Lawson to comment on climate change.

Because Nigel Lawson was the chairman (at the time) of the climate change denying organisation Global Warming Policy Foundation, so was seen as a voice for "the other side" largely as there was no-one else to do that role. In 2017 the BBc apologized and said that Lawson should've been challenged over statements on the Today programme. Later Ofcom found that Lawson's statement was neither correct or suffciently challenged. The BBC reported on the decision, here's the report.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41744344

So, the BBC go it wrong two years ago, has been held to account, and reported on that fact. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

They need to do a better job of actually holding politicians of all stripes to account, rather than just reporting on what they say.

If one side in particular is constantly lying then this begins to look like bias.

I get that instant fact checking isn't that easy but if you know a certain politician's stump speech is going to contain stuff that has already been checked and shown to be false say "40 new hospitals and 20,000 police officers on the street" then they should be challenged on it.

Allowing politicians to appear on TV and just lie undermines our democracy and plays into the "Well they all lie anyway" narrative, which is one of the most dangerous views there is.

Whilst people at both ends of the political spectrum continue to loudly protest the the BBC are biased, I can’t help but think that they must be doing alright. Examples that ‘prove’ both positions are always available.

^^This Really^^

If those on the Left/Right with their own obvious bias' both cry foul then auntie beeb are doing their job...
For what it's worth I don't believe total impartiality is possible, it's more something the organisation should strive for.

More often than not if politicians and their parties of whatever persuasion seem to be cast in a bad light on the BBC, it's a reflection of their conduct and/or policies. They can only work with what is presented.

I think there's often more obvious bias shown on other (more commercially funded) broadcast news channels (both TV and radio), but again that may be my own lefty bias at work, Channel 5 news is awful (produced by sky?) I'm not a fan of Sky (too Murdochey) and While I admire ITN to some extent for managing to exist as an independent commercial news production company for almost as long as the BBC have been at it, some of their output seems to be a little more right leaning to me...

It's worth noting that those other mainstream sources don't seem to come under the same fire for bias

The quality of ‘news’ per se has deteriorated noticeably since The Day Today’s news farts.

indeed, I can't help noticing how on the nose The Day Today and Brasseye still seem, best of all every time R4 news references their "Reality Check" fella Chris Morris I am just imagining this chap:

Which would be so much better.

I’m sure this has been said already but if both sides are claiming bias (as they usually do) then I reckon they must have it about right.

This. (again.)

Also weird how only Lab/Tory claim bias. The smaller parties get way less covereage on Today. (Which is as it should be IMHO, but it's clearer evidence of bias than the two main partys can put forward.)

Maybe

Hmmm, checks out:

Working as a school teacher, Smith taught Economics at Arrow Vale High School in Redditch from 1986 to 1988[7] and at Worcester Sixth Form College, before becoming Head of Economics and GNVQ Co-ordinator at Haybridge High School, Hagley, in 1990.

" " -- This is me not saying "So she got at least on two jobs on merit rather than because of an all women shortlist." 😀

Hmmm, checks out:

Thats cos its true! ( well maybe not the best ever pupil bit, although I did get an A. Went to Haybridge for sixth form as North Bromsgrove High said I wasnt studious enough for A levels)

I’m sure this has been said already but if both sides are claiming bias (as they usually do) then I reckon they must have it about right.

So if some boring old scientist says the climate is changing, and Nigel Lawson says it's not, the truth is in the middle somewhere.

And if someone in the QT audience says that Vote.Leave has been referred to the CPS, and Fiona Bruce says it hasn't...

The truth is not democratic - some things are objectively right.

It’s worth noting that those other mainstream sources don’t seem to come under the same fire for bias

Cos we're not forced to pay for them via a licence fee. If the Beeb wants to be right wing propaganda, then fine - but let it nail its colours to the mast and do so without my money.

Bias? Dunno, it's hard to call. Up here, the SNP definitely seem to get it tougher than the others, but maybe that's just bbc Scot folks protecting their jobs?.

One thing I will say, BBC Scotland is incredibly negative these days, the whole morning shoes are thouroughly depressing, dumbed down US style shite.

So if some boring old scientist says the climate is changing, and Nigel Lawson says it’s not, the truth is in the middle somewhere.

And if someone in the QT audience says that Vote.Leave has been referred to the CPS, and Fiona Bruce says it hasn’t…

The truth is not democratic – some things are objectively right.

Boom.

The BBC is obviously pro establishment bias. Its been researched and proven. Try living in Scotland – then the bias shows even more obviously

Remember the majority in Scotland voted no.

Also, could be argued they didn't give Remain such a hard time in the EU referendum (from a remain POV that's just because there were less lies to pick up on).

During the scots independence referendum those on the YES side were asked twice as many negative questions compared to the NO side.

Yea, but it really should be for the side postulating a change to explain how that change will be achieved and what it's impact will be. The "no" side can just tell you to look out the window and say are you happy with the status quo, there's fewer questions to answer.

Over Brexit it gives equal weight to nonsense from leavers as truth from remainers

As plenty of people say, if everyone thinks it's biased against them, then it's probably not that biased at all. Being neutral doesn't mean they have to only report people with middle ground opinions, it means they have to report that X said X and Y said Y.

The “no” side can just tell you to look out the window and say are you happy with the status quo, there’s fewer questions to answer.

Aye, except the No campaign made plenty promises of change itself.

BBC is a relative non-problem as compared to the bulk of the news media in UK.

Being neutral doesn’t mean they have to only report people with middle ground opinions, it means they have to report that X said X and Y said Y.

True, but if X is a lie they should also point that out.

Says it all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News#Political_and_commercial_independence

Sounds like if you have an allegation of Bias you can make some kind of complaint since the BBC is legally required to be unbiased. If people choose to complain on a forum rather than raising it 'properly' it probably means they can't back up their claim, IMHO.

If people choose to complain on a forum rather than raising it ‘properly’ it probably means they can’t back up their claim, IMHO.

Or they save themselves the hassle and just stop paying the licence fee.

If people choose to complain on a forum rather than raising it ‘properly’ it probably means they can’t back up their claim, IMHO.

Maybe - but those actions aren't mutually exclusive.

Or they save themselves the hassle and just stop paying the licence fee.

But they need that to watch Al Jazeera, or VICE or whatever.

BBC is a relative non-problem as compared to the bulk of the news media in UK

I would agree on that point alone.

However...

The BBC is a brilliant asset to the country.

Maybe once upon a time. Now it is the place that invites Nigel Lawson to comment on climate change. If I want to be exposed to brainless propaganda I’ll buy the Mail – I don’t see why I should be forced to pay a licence fee so that others can get their fix.

Some of the content has become dire in recent years.

In the context of the bigger picture, the BBC was a fantastic voice of reason and pragmatism. That's the way I saw it anyway.

Now they just pander to the sensationalist bollocks that exists elsewhere, turning serious political shows like Question Time into deliberate theatre.

I don't see the BBC as being biased to the right or left.

I think it's more that they have been so caught up in providing balance that they have failed to stand up against bullshit.

I think it’s more that they have been so caught up in providing balance that they have failed to stand up against bullshit.

I think it depends what you watch.

To me the problem is they have BBC Breakfast and the Andrew Marr show or This Week. The former just lacks any teeth and lets politicians off when either they don't answer the question or lie. Where the latter is far batter but get's lost somewhat in the noise. If they had Marr and Neil doing the early morning interviews then it could do more to hold politicians to account because their quotes would become the news for the day. At the moment unless it's spectacular then a gaffe on Thursday night or Saturday morning is seen by only a few and forgotten about before the next news cycle.

Also don't forget the non-news factual output. I'm massively biased as I worked on them, but shows like Ambulance put the stark reality of and problems with social and mental health care right in the middle of prime time.

If people choose to complain on a forum rather than raising it ‘properly’ it probably means they can’t back up their claim, this probably shows that people as ever prefer to whine and gossip to all and sundry/regular channels rather than take the time and effort required to go out of their way and make an official complaint, IMHO. And the ease by which ‘social’-media has facilitated the former means that this is what we see today - ie a tsunami of generalised whining and blaming

FTFY

BBC Scotland panel discussing the GE last night. One each from Lab,  CON, LD.

What's missing from this picture?

So, when the integrity of the PM is a laughing matter with a TV audience, should the BBC edit out the laughter?

The use of the word integrity in relation to the current PM is unforgivable.