British Media. Let’s have a change please!

Actually I didn't say there was no comparison. I think comparison is very relevant. Strangely the BBC has been criticised for being both biased to the right and to the left, whereas GBNews is thought by some to be almost a fictional account of the news. Perception of bias seems to vary according to where someone's personal preference sits on the political spectrum.

Vintagewhine

I wonder how many people who think the BBC is biased also watch GBNews and read the Daily Mail or the Telegraph.

As you say no comparison Telegraph etc are biased to the right, BBC is biased to the left and dramatize the news a great deal.

No comparison

NotSpaghetti

Shinamae and Primrose53 you are talking about a one- off "special" programme.

Because the special was explicitly about immigration, the BBC said it was "fair and right" to include a local audience with a wide range of perspectives, including people who had direct experience with the asylum system.
Personally I think that's fair enough.

The people you are talking about were not refugees at that point but had both had already been granted legal refugee status. This, obviously means they were no longer undocumented or "illegal".

One of the refugees did read a technical question regarding human rights and asylum laws directly from a phone. You say this is proof of a "coached" intervention, but using a phone to accurately read out legally accurate pre-prepared question in a non-native language is not unreasonable, surely.
Would you have objected if it had been written on a piece of paper?

Would you object if this had been a (say) technical question on waste management, water pollution, healthcare, workers rights?

Over the years, complex issues like Universal Credit cuts or industrial disputes have frequently had read-out questions - legalistic or data-heavy ones in particular.
In many of these cases, local trade unions or poverty charities, or political bodies had provided the data sheets or helped draft the specific wording so that the person could accurately challenge a politician who might use jargon to deflect.

I have just read this:
If your question is chosen, a producer will explicitly tell you before the cameras roll: "We are going to call on you for your question about X. Please read it exactly as you wrote it down." Because of this, standard audience members frequently read directly from their phones or prompt cards simply because the BBC production staff has instructed them not to deviate from their pre-approved text.

Hope this makes more sense.

Thank you for trying to explain but there is no way that man could possibly have written what he was reading. Someone wrote that for him.

NotSpaghetti, I didn't watch the programme. Thank you for your detailed and fair explanation.

I wonder how many people who think the BBC is biased also watch GBNews and read the Daily Mail or the Telegraph.

When it comes to voting it's self interest that counts for most, certainly not the national interest, asylum seekers would vote for whoever lets them stay.
All parties commit to the triple lock because they would loose a large part of the pensioner vote of they axed it.

NotSpaghetti

Shinamae and Primrose53 you are talking about a one- off "special" programme.

Because the special was explicitly about immigration, the BBC said it was "fair and right" to include a local audience with a wide range of perspectives, including people who had direct experience with the asylum system.
Personally I think that's fair enough.

The people you are talking about were not refugees at that point but had both had already been granted legal refugee status. This, obviously means they were no longer undocumented or "illegal".

One of the refugees did read a technical question regarding human rights and asylum laws directly from a phone. You say this is proof of a "coached" intervention, but using a phone to accurately read out legally accurate pre-prepared question in a non-native language is not unreasonable, surely.
Would you have objected if it had been written on a piece of paper?

Would you object if this had been a (say) technical question on waste management, water pollution, healthcare, workers rights?

Over the years, complex issues like Universal Credit cuts or industrial disputes have frequently had read-out questions - legalistic or data-heavy ones in particular.
In many of these cases, local trade unions or poverty charities, or political bodies had provided the data sheets or helped draft the specific wording so that the person could accurately challenge a politician who might use jargon to deflect.

I have just read this:
If your question is chosen, a producer will explicitly tell you before the cameras roll: "We are going to call on you for your question about X. Please read it exactly as you wrote it down." Because of this, standard audience members frequently read directly from their phones or prompt cards simply because the BBC production staff has instructed them not to deviate from their pre-approved text.

Hope this makes more sense.

It does and thank you for your explanation…

Not saying there wasn't help with the question drafting by the charity - there was.

Shinamae and Primrose53 you are talking about a one- off "special" programme.

Because the special was explicitly about immigration, the BBC said it was "fair and right" to include a local audience with a wide range of perspectives, including people who had direct experience with the asylum system.
Personally I think that's fair enough.

The people you are talking about were not refugees at that point but had both had already been granted legal refugee status. This, obviously means they were no longer undocumented or "illegal".

One of the refugees did read a technical question regarding human rights and asylum laws directly from a phone. You say this is proof of a "coached" intervention, but using a phone to accurately read out legally accurate pre-prepared question in a non-native language is not unreasonable, surely.
Would you have objected if it had been written on a piece of paper?

Would you object if this had been a (say) technical question on waste management, water pollution, healthcare, workers rights?

Over the years, complex issues like Universal Credit cuts or industrial disputes have frequently had read-out questions - legalistic or data-heavy ones in particular.
In many of these cases, local trade unions or poverty charities, or political bodies had provided the data sheets or helped draft the specific wording so that the person could accurately challenge a politician who might use jargon to deflect.

I have just read this:
If your question is chosen, a producer will explicitly tell you before the cameras roll: "We are going to call on you for your question about X. Please read it exactly as you wrote it down." Because of this, standard audience members frequently read directly from their phones or prompt cards simply because the BBC production staff has instructed them not to deviate from their pre-approved text.

Hope this makes more sense.

I wonder how on earth an asylum seeker would know or be interested in which party to vote for. They are stressed and under pressure and I am sure the last thing on their minds is which stupid politician to vote for !

No, they are asked for basic information (age, occupation, voting intention, membership of political parties) when they apply. There are no interviews or auditions like the ones for reality shows. The producers are very careful to get a representative audience for QT.

Doodledog

Question Time studio audiences aren’t ‘planted’. They are chosen to be representative of the population, as far as that is possible.

Just like the contestants on the reality shows, they are selected to make the show dramatic, exactly the same in political presentations

CatsWhiskas

sundowngirl

The Telegraph has revealed that the two asylum seekers were placed and coached by Imix, a charity that seeks to “build support for migration”.

What is your objection to asylum seekers' having a voice on public TV?

That they have been planted and coached…..🤔

sundowngirl

The Telegraph has revealed that the two asylum seekers were placed and coached by Imix, a charity that seeks to “build support for migration”.

What is your objection to asylum seekers' having a voice on public TV?

nanna8

A shame about the BBC. It used to be absolutely the best. Same thing has happened here to our ABC. No one listens to it much now because it is so very obviously biased. I suppose if they are ‘balanced’ and go against the government of the day they risk losing their funding. All about money now. We have a paper called ,’TheAge’, which I was so proud of back in the day. I wouldn’t read it if you paid me now ,so very biased and such low standards of journalism. I’d guess most are just fresh out of uni , very little experience of the world.

Strangely enough, there are accusations that the BBC is biased from both ends of the political spectrum, so it's possibly doing something right.

IMO it's still my "go to" for the main news, although I only access the online version. One advantage of the BBC is that it usually provides links to its sources, so I can follow up on anything which interests me or sound s a bit doubtful.

I sometimes watch current affairs programmes and documentaries on iplayer.

The Telegraph has revealed that the two asylum seekers were placed and coached by Imix, a charity that seeks to “build support for migration”.

Doodledog

Question Time studio audiences aren’t ‘planted’. They are chosen to be representative of the population, as far as that is possible.

If you believe that you’ll believe anything! The evidence is obvious if you watch it Doodledog.

Maremia

Do GB News fans dispute the AI findings on viewers' demograph, as quoted upthread?

I’ve already given my opinion on that….

Doodledog

Question Time studio audiences aren’t ‘planted’. They are chosen to be representative of the population, as far as that is possible.

If you say so 😂

I still find the BBC radio 4 is still my go to and I use the website. I like The rest is politics and The Story ( from The Times) for more in depth.

A shame about the BBC. It used to be absolutely the best. Same thing has happened here to our ABC. No one listens to it much now because it is so very obviously biased. I suppose if they are ‘balanced’ and go against the government of the day they risk losing their funding. All about money now. We have a paper called ,’TheAge’, which I was so proud of back in the day. I wouldn’t read it if you paid me now ,so very biased and such low standards of journalism. I’d guess most are just fresh out of uni , very little experience of the world.

Do GB News fans dispute the AI findings on viewers' demograph, as quoted upthread?

Question Time studio audiences aren’t ‘planted’. They are chosen to be representative of the population, as far as that is possible.

Primrose53

Just been watching footage of BBC Question Time where they had planted people in the audience. Talk about biased!

There was a migrant who could barely speak English and suddenly he was talking like a legal expert as he was reading it off his phone! These people who were planted had also been coached by a migrant charity.

And “They”say GB news is bad…😉😂
It will be a cold day in hell before I watch BBC News

Just been watching footage of BBC Question Time where they had planted people in the audience. Talk about biased!

There was a migrant who could barely speak English and suddenly he was talking like a legal expert as he was reading it off his phone! These people who were planted had also been coached by a migrant charity.