5 ms·

I think it would be more apt to call it plenty of "evidence"...

• Veen 3y ago
  Yes, but it's an argument that just goes round and round forever. Conservatives think the BBC is run by a left-wing cabal. Leftists think it's an establishment mouthpiece run by the Tories. We've been having exactly the same argument since the 1960s.
  • bannedbybros 3y ago
    [dead]
  • pjc50 3y ago
    https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/378/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/186148/bbc-chair-made-significant-errors-of-judgement-over-pm-loan-involvement-mps-say/ https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/378/digital-cultu... The chair is a Tory. We can then quibble over "run by", but you can't ignore the significant connections at high level.
    • Veen 3y ago
      The Chair, DG, and other higher-ups will almost always have either Labour or Tory connections, because those are the two main political parties. You'd be hard pushed to find a suitable candidate that wasn't connected at a high level. I suppose the tell is whether people who are up in arms about Tory Richard Sharp were similarly upset when Labour-supporting Michael Lyons or Gavyn Davies were chairman, or when Labour-supporting Mark Thompson, etc were DG.
• vixen99 3y ago
  No doubt you've dispassionately gone out of your way to assesss that evidence and after detailed examination decided it's invalid. Which would be a perfectl reasonable step to make - if that's what you did. Did you?