BBC's coverage (and that of other media) of Corbyn has been overwhelmingly negative ever since he announced he is running for Labour leadership.

Having said that, I think what's more interesting is the BBC's accidental editing of his main opponent in the recent election. That is, the first time they "accidentally" aired 2016 footage, and the second time they "accidentally" edited out the audience laughing at Boris Johnson after he was asked a question.

On both occasions the BBC apologised but I'm not sure it mattered. Obviously this does highlight that since the BBC is willing to do this, how many other times have they done this that hasn't been noticed?

Mostly allowing themselves to be led around by unnamed "sources".

Laura Kuenssberg's Twitter feed was particularly bad. Reporting on advance postal votes: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/11/bbc-denies-pol...

Misreporting a punch, contradicted almost immediately by video: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/10/photo-...

The official BBC line is that these are "mistakes", although they all seem to err in one direction and there is no investigation or plan to reduce the mistakes in the future.

Subjecting everyone except Johnson to interview by Andrew Neil (who is also chairman of Conservative magazine The Spectator) https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/01/boris-johnson-...

> Subjecting everyone except Johnson to interview by Andrew Neil

The BBC doesn’t have the power to subject people to interview by force. If he declines an interview which he is not obligated to give what should they have done?

Either:

(a) not announce "interviewing all the leaders" until all the leaders were confirmed. This could be a competence rather than a bias issue; wasn't it Fyre Festival who were announcing acts who they hadn't booked to perform?

(b) empty-chair him

(c) given that Gove and Stanley Johnson (who has no formal position in the party, he's just Johnson's father and now a minor celebrity) turned up to protest outside, they should have been challenged instead

(also, "someone who already edits a partisan political magazine" should be disqualified from senior BBC positions if you're pretending to be impartial)

I am not in the UK Conservative Party but I actually know a few people who are and I hear enough of what going on in the party. I don't particularly like the conservative party however I signed up for account because of egregiously wrong you are.

a) Various leaders agreed to go on a show. Boris Johnson doesn't have to go on the BBC and the BBC can interview who they wish. Andrew Neil likes to make fools of people on his show. He has done it to many politicians of all colours. It is really just a higher brow version of "Ben Shapiro defeats Liberals with facts and logic". Jeremy Corbyn was stupid enough to go on there and get himself shafted by Neil.

b and c) Gove and Stanley Johnson was sent by their party to the debate. Channel 4 (which is mostly publicly funded which most people don't know) did the whole ice sculpture as a stunt. They already bought the sculpture. The

As for the BBC having a "right wing bias". Nothing can be further from the truth. You can go on the website yourself and there are thousands of stories talking about typically left wing talking points.

I am actually building daily news site analysis tool by cobbling together some sources. I am using some fairly simple word analysis techniques (most of the effort is scraping the data from these sites and deciding what constitutes a real news story) and most of the language on the BBC and the Guardian are similar. I suspect that most of them just copy and paste stories tbh.

> I am using some fairly simple word analysis techniques (most of the effort is scraping the data from these sites and deciding what constitutes a real news story) and most of the language on the BBC and the Guardian are similar. I suspect that most of them just copy and paste stories tbh.

There is a more serious underlying problem you've spotted, which is "jounalism as stenography". Lots of people can put out press releases, which then really do get copy-pasted into articles. Same with "wire copy" sourced from AP or Reuters. This can be abused by bad actors to get obvious or difficult-to-refute falsehoods into the public memetic consciousness by repeating them.

> This can be abused by bad actors to get obvious or difficult-to-refute falsehoods into the public memetic consciousness by repeating them.

This is exactly why I started the project also I know there are hit pieces that are coordinated between the news-sites. I wonder how much other news that is reported is also coordinated reporting. However I have no direct proof of this and I cannot start from trying to prove something that I suspect. First I need to collect and analyse data fairly.

So far I've just used newspaper to do the hard work of scraping for me (https://github.com/codelucas/newspaper) some basic filtering techniques e.g. I discard everything that has a question mark at the end of it (Betteridge's law of headlines and an MySQL to store articles etc. Then I run the second script to do some basic string analysis. I am going to be building a small web app to display the results.

So far it is early days (It about 4 or 5 python files and a config file) and I have got two other projects I am working on that probably need completing first.

Perhaps it was more the lack of scrutiny offered to his opponents.