BBC often prides itself of having "both sides" of an argument in a debate (as if there are only 2 sides). Not all subjects need to a counter point of view. For example, if the BBC produce a document about black holes I don't to hear from a flat earther who denies gravity exists.
I don't want them to be adjusting their position one way or another politically - I want them to be reporting and investigating facts as far as possible without using loaded language.
However, I do have an axe to grind against the BBC as they are institutionally anti-cyclist and I've made many complaints to them over their cycling/active transport coverage. Usually they sit on the complaint for weeks/months and then adjust the original article which no-one will ever see as it's then too old.
New Labour was a centre-right party, just like Labour today.
The ex-director general of the BBC Mark Thompson joined that hotbed of right wing activism, the New York Times. You also have ex-Labour minister James Purnell who had a senior role in the BBC.
Frankly if you think the BBC is anything other than the broadcast media wing of the Guardian you are severely deluded.
The extensive airtime given to Nigel Farage on BBC Question Time (> 30 appearances) contradicts this statement.
Just this year, it has featured the following left-wing politicians and journalists: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Bridget Phillipson, Ash Sarkar (a libertarian communist), Wes Streeting, Tracy Brabin, Jenny Gilruth, Ian Murray, India Willoughby, Lisa Nandy, Stephen Kinnock, Thangam Debbonaire, and Sarah Jones.
I think perhaps your issue is with right-wing people getting any airtime at all.
particularly: "there is a clear and well-evidenced bias toward panellists from right-leaning media organisations"
Citation needed. Is the BBC run by ex-Guardian people?
No: "the controversial appointment of Rishi Sunak’s ex-boss and Conservative Party donor Richard Sharp to the influential role of BBC chair. ... There are also concerns about the appointment of BBC director general Tim Davie, who stood as a councillor for the Conservative Party in 1993 and 1994 and was deputy chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Party in the 1990s."
https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/an-open-letter-to-th...
So, what part of your opinion is grounded in fact?
However, my point wasn't that there is a sharing of employees between the Guardian and the BBC, more that they both reflect the same bien pensant North London left wing orthodoxy - Brexit bad, immigration good, climate change an apocalypse etc etc.
That's factual. The rest "not a great article", "North London left wing orthodoxy", and "BBC is insufficiently pro-Brexit" is vague, feelings not fact-based.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavyn_Davies
So this ended 19 years ago. I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance of this historical anecdote to what's currently true?
And for all the good both these charities do, the BBC should not be broadcasting programs made by what are, in effect, political lobbying organizations (and I say that as someone who agrees with their aims).
Look at the last paragraph in the article, where they've put the real reason it isn't being broadcast.
Lineker compared the Home Secretary to the Nazis. He's entitled to his personal opinions, but he's a very prominent and massively over-paid BBC employee, so he should know better than to air his views on Twitter.
Apart from the statement by the BBC spokesman do you have any evidence of that?
Gary Lineker, who presents on the BBC, responded with hysterical comment "This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the ’30s'".
Tim Davie, a director at the BBC, said "If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC."
If this is the BBC "moving right", it's hard to imagine that such a change is a bad thing.
[0] https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1633022905628884992
Honestly, the asylum issue is a right-wing dog whistle and it's not actually a big problem with the UK.
> If people are crossing the channel to apply for asylum, then I don't see how it can be determined that they are illegal.
Intentionally circumventing legal entry points when entering a given country is generally illegal.
> It's not possible to apply for asylum from outside of the UK, so they can only apply once they hit our shores and yet Braverman is branding them all as "illegal"?
The UK doesn't grant asylum to people who travel to the UK through a 'safe third country'[0]. Why would sneaking across the channel be made any less illegal by making an invalid asylum claim?
> The immigration services have been completely stripped back by the Tories, so a lot of the statements are a result of their toxic-environment policy on immigration.
Tories were elected to implement immigration reform. What makes it toxic?
> Honestly, the asylum issue is a right-wing dog whistle and it's not actually a big problem with the UK.
The Tories are in power and this issue matters to their constituents. Waving it off as a "dog whistle" assumes bad faith which is, in my experience, a poor substitute for understanding the other side's arguments.
Also, "It's not that big of a problem" is an odd formulation. You acknowledge that there's a problem, but don't want it solved? Help me understand this mindset.
The asylum "issue" is being exaggerated by right-wing media to distract from the many bigger problems that have either been caused by or exacerbated by the Tories mis-management of the UK.
This is a distinction without a difference, as you well know.
> a comparison which is justified.
And yet you're unable to actually make such an argument. The argument, of course, isn't the point. The point is associating your political opponents with Nazis.
> The asylum "issue" is being exaggerated by right-wing media to distract from the many bigger problems that have either been caused by or exacerbated by the Tories mis-management of the UK.
The Tories were elected in large part to address immigration issues, remember? Who convinced you that enacting their platform is somehow nefarious?
> Personally, I think that refugees need to be shown some empathy and kindness.
The ones who are safe and sound in France or Germany, who're affected by this new law? Why do they need your empathy when they're in a safe third country? Is this refusal of empathy sufficient to brand someone a Nazi?