BBC World Service was covering the US elections and gave a brief blurb to inform non-US listeners on the basic differences between republicans and democrats. They essentially said something like:
Democrats prefer a big government with a tax-and-spend culture while republicans favor minimal governance with running on a lean budget, less spending¹
That’s technically accurate enough but it seemed to reflect a right-wing bias that seems inconsistent with BBC World Service. I wouldn’t be listening to BBC if they were anything like Fox News (read: faux news). The BBC could have just as well phrased it this way:
“Democrats prefer a government that is financed well enough to ensure protection of human rights…”
It’s the same narrative but expressed with dignity. When they are speaking on behalf of a political party it’s an attack on their dignity and character to fixate on a side-effect rather than the goal and intent. A big tax-and-spend gov is not a goal of dems, it’s a means to achieve protection of human rights. It’s a means that has no effective alternative.
① Paraphrasing from what I heard over the air – it’s not an exact quote
The BBC has been fully captured and the stuff that comes out of it is as biased as any of the right wing media outlets (which is pretty all major outlets now), but done in a plummy(1) way that seems to get past a lot of peoples bullshit detention
It’s not just phrased poorly, it’s not a true statement. It’s a conservative talking point that does not bear out when you look at the federal budget. Republican Presidents and Congresses increase spending at least as much as Democratic Presidents and Congresses. Both parties are big spenders. Despite this and related talking points, Republicans are the less fiscally responsible party because while increasing spending they tend to enact policies that reduce growth in revenue.
I’m British and not a big fan of the BBC but OP has mentioned that isn’t an exact quote so I don’t think it’s fair to judge them on it.
Also the alternative they suggested gives the impression that the Republicans don’t care about human rights and the BBC goes to great lengths to be impartial.
It’s not accurate, technically or otherwise. It’s how Republicans, and only Republicans, describe the difference between the parties, and as usual it’s a lie. I’d like to know why BBC is airing Republican propaganda as if it’s a factual description of anything.
What’s extra stupid is that this is expressing what those voters want, but the Democrats in office consistently balance the budget, while Republicans in office try to have their cake and eat it too: reducing taxes for the rich, and increasing spending.
The parties are NOT the ideals of their voters, and I doubt the US is much of an exception in this.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Internally in the UK, the BBC brought in quota to hire more right wing comedians after it was found they aren’t funny
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/01/rightwing-comedians-not-funny-enough-for-bbc-shows-says-insider
This was by Tim Davie the director general, a very generous Tory donor
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18990557.boris-johnson-appoints-tory-donor-chairman-bbc/
The BBC has been fully captured and the stuff that comes out of it is as biased as any of the right wing media outlets (which is pretty all major outlets now), but done in a plummy(1) way that seems to get past a lot of peoples bullshit detention
Does that leave us with only the Guardian?
Guardian isn’t great either imo, I’d say centre right, some discussion below
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-reason-that-many-people-think-The-Guardian-is-a-left-wing-newspaper-Did-it-always-have-this-reputation-or-has-it-changed-over-time
It’s not just phrased poorly, it’s not a true statement. It’s a conservative talking point that does not bear out when you look at the federal budget. Republican Presidents and Congresses increase spending at least as much as Democratic Presidents and Congresses. Both parties are big spenders. Despite this and related talking points, Republicans are the less fiscally responsible party because while increasing spending they tend to enact policies that reduce growth in revenue.
I’m British and not a big fan of the BBC but OP has mentioned that isn’t an exact quote so I don’t think it’s fair to judge them on it.
Also the alternative they suggested gives the impression that the Republicans don’t care about human rights and the BBC goes to great lengths to be impartial.
It’s not accurate, technically or otherwise. It’s how Republicans, and only Republicans, describe the difference between the parties, and as usual it’s a lie. I’d like to know why BBC is airing Republican propaganda as if it’s a factual description of anything.
What’s extra stupid is that this is expressing what those voters want, but the Democrats in office consistently balance the budget, while Republicans in office try to have their cake and eat it too: reducing taxes for the rich, and increasing spending.
The parties are NOT the ideals of their voters, and I doubt the US is much of an exception in this.