UK Corporate Media Is Not Left Biased: It Serves Elite Interests
Because journalists overwhelmingly rely on the voices of elites, elites have a disproportionate influence on the media agenda, acting as the ‘primary definers’ who set the framework of interpretation against which all subsequent voices are forced to insert themselves. It is corporations, not leftist academics which enforce politically correct limits on speech. By contrast, ordinary people who appear in the news are constructed primarily as passive consumers, reacting to the agendas set by these elites.
One objection may be of the left wing bias that people claim of the media, especially for example at the BBC. Let’s take a look at some examples in the UK media:
BBC may be biased against Jeremy Corbyn, says former BBC Trust chairman says one article,
Is the BBC biased against Jeremy Corbyn? Look at the evidence — the article says —
….extensive piece of research carried out by academics at the LSE’s Department of Media and Communications, published last month. That research affirmed those earlier findings and concluded that “most newspapers [had been] systematically vilifying the leader of the biggest opposition party, assassinating his character, ridiculing his personality and delegitimizing his ideas and politics.
The latest report, produced by the Media Reform Coalition jointly with the Department of Film, Media and Cultural Studies at Birkbeck, University of London, focuses on the coverage of the attempted “coup” against Corbyn which followed the Brexit vote. It reported similar findings on the press, but is particularly notable for being the first systematic examination of television coverage of Corbyn and his supporters.
Its most striking findings relate to the BBC. The researchers’ quantitative analysis of BBC News at Six shows that critics of Corbyn were given twice as much airtime as his supporters, and that the issues mobilised by his critics were given much greater prominence. The researchers also noted the pejorative language BBC reporters used to describe Jeremy Corbyn, his team and his supporters.
If the UK press had a left wing agenda, why would they not support Corbyn? After all he embodies many left wing ideologies like free university tuition fees and college maintenance, he also wants to bring utilities into public ownership.
Ask yourself, who loses in all of these proposals of Corbyn? Even the media moguls are not immune. If the media really did have a left bias they would surely promote left wing core ideology.
What about war, surely the left wing BBC can’t be pro war? Study deals a blow to claims of anti-war bias in BBC news The article says
Downing Street’s complaints about anti-war bias within the BBC appear to be disproved by an academic analysis that shows the corporation displayed the most “pro-war” agenda of any broadcaster.
A detailed study of peak-time television news bulletins during the course of the Iraq war shows that the BBC was more reliant than any of its rivals on government and military sources.
You might be thinking, who are these people and how do they control the media. They don’t all get together and have a board meeting and it’s not even that elite interests are always aligned. Where there is unified elite consensus, the media will serve elite interests uncompromisingly. This happens purely because of the economic model in which the system is based. There is no puppet master only the invisible hand of the market driving the media for example, the dependence on advertising and the pressure of news deadlines.
The journalists themselves are not censored and some do indeed try to change things, however those that try may end up being fired or just quit. That’s not to say that those journalists always fail, the system is not foolproof. However, a major filter to control the journalist’s viewpoints happens based on who is even hired.
‘It is entirely possible,’ ‘for politicians to rely on advisers to advise, civil servants to devise policy solutions and journalists to report on their actions having all studied the same courses at the same universities, having read the same books, heard the same lectures and even been taught by the same tutors.’
Even an entire news organisation may try and challenge state power but the economic capitalist model will correct them. As a former Guardian executive stated.
While Snowden put us on the map, it makes corporate clients very nervous about wanting to get big into the Guardian
In the long term, bias will be towards supporting elite interests, even if small blips of anti-elite press coverage may emerge for a brief while.
In addition, the state itself can correct news organisations through the use of flak as in the case of the Guardian.
A threat of legal action by the government that could have stopped reporting on the files leaked by Edward Snowden led to a symbolic act at the Guardian’s offices in London, in which they destroyed the Snowden’s files.
However, since the Snowden affair, it should be noted that the Guardian is now officially fully part of the Establishment via its collusion with the UK ministry of defence.
The document titled “THE DEFENCE & SECURITY MEDIA ADVISORY COMMITTEE” states
The Chairman thanked Paul Johnson for his service to the Committee. Paul had joined the Committee in the wake of the Snowden affair and had been instrumental in re-establishing links with the Guardian.
Paul Johnson is Guardian’s deputy editor. Maybe the Guardian always was an upholder of the appendages of power, now we have proof that it certainly is.
Regarding the economic model in which the media operate, take the following research.
“The role of PR influence is huge in the UK press. A study carried out by Cardiff University found that 49% of the articles sampled in the UK quality press, for example the Guardian, The Times, Independent, Daily Telegraph and the mid-market Daily Mail were from PR companies, where 30% of those were copied verbatim and 19% were largely copied from the PR release.
Moreover, direct replication is rarely attributed. Many stories apparently written by a newspaper’s reporter originated in other sources and seem to have been largely cut and pasted.
Only 5 % of articles in newspapers were found which did not make use of any agency copy. In these instances, the story is often solely or principally based around personal perspectives or case studies that have been researched by individual journalists.
The study verified that at least 41 per cent of press articles and 52 per cent of broadcast news items contain PR materials which play an agenda-setting role or where PR material makes up the bulk of the story. This does not mean that the rest of the print stories or broadcast stories in the sample are “PR-free”, simply that no verifiable evidence of PR activity could be identified.”
So, when we think of the UK media as being diverse we should remember that they’re mostly getting their stories from the same press releases. Where the PR material is largely from PA agency services or news agency copy . This isn’t because of any conspiracy but because it is cheaper to do so. The UK media doesn’t exist to provide meaningful information to people, it exists purely to make a profit. That is the economic model in which they operate. The BBC doesn’t exist to make a profit but as research shows it promotes the view of the government,as we might expect, which is part of the elite.
“The most striking finding was the dominance of political sources: they accounted for almost half of all source appearances in 2007 and more than half in 2012.”
Trade unions, for example, made up 0.8% of the sources at the BBC.
the tendency towards an elite and relatively narrow range of debate only intensified between the 2 years. This is perhaps not surprising in the light of the literature on journalistic sourcing discussed above. Nor is it unique to the BBC: In a second study carried out as part of the same review, where we examined national programming across the BBC, Channel 4 and ITV, there was a general pattern of dominance of party-political sources
It’s also worth noting that just three companies dominate 71% of the national UK newspaper market — a market that may be shrinking but is still crucial when it comes to setting the agenda for the rest of the news media. When online readers are included, just five companies dominate some 80% of market share.
The elite don’t always have a strong unified front. However the elite consensus is likely to be strong when fundamental class interests are at stake. For example, it is unified in its attack against Socialist Corbyn. But as the elite can differ from CEOs of large multinationals, aristocracy and owners of medium sized business, in some cases their internal interests will clash and you won’t get a strong consensus, but the mainstream media will still be biased in framing the elite’s own interests.
As a recent example, let’s take Brexit. The data suggests that the UK media as a whole had a pro-remain bias or at best it was equal but the UK print press clearly had a pro-Brexit bias. Because in the case of Brexit, the common elite consensus did not exist, both the EU and UK are neo-liberal, so their common interest, state capitalism, is maintained either way. In the case of Brexit, the elites were split as interests were in the eye of the beholder. Murdoch clearly benefited from Brexit and he summed it up with his quote
Rupert Murdoch was asked why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied.
“When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”
As for the Daily Express and Daily Star owner “Dirty” Desmond at the time of the referendum, the Guardian gives some insight.
“Unlike other newspaper owners, Desmond did not have a fixed politics. But politicians were occasionally useful. The Express was a Labour title when he bought it, and he donated £100,000 to the Labour party at about the time when the initial takeover was cleared by the then industry secretary Stephen Byers. But it had historically supported the Conservatives, so when it switched back Desmond was able to say “it was always a Tory paper”.”
A decade later, as Nigel Farage was close to hitting his political peak, Desmond changed again. The proprietor handed Ukip £300,000 in 2014 and £1m in the runup to the 2015 election. “I am fed up with complacency and cronyism, and I’m fed up with the floppy-haired Eton club. I am also fed up with champagne socialists who just tell people what they want to hear,” Desmond said at the time. The Express’s political editor, Patrick O’Flynn, became a Ukip MEP in 2014 but as the party became a joke in the post-Farage era, Desmond’s support dissipated.
Here we see that the owner had no strong interest in either pro or remain as either way he keeps his privilege as the UK is just as neo liberal as the EU. What he too cares about is personal benefit.
he was furious when, after a decade of greasing palms in Labour and the Tories, both decided not to grant him either a knighthood or a peerage. The fallout from that colossal sulk was partly why he ended up giving a million pounds to UKIP just before the 2015 General Election.
What about small business, why do they want Brexit? Wetherspoon chief says staying in EU bad for small businesses, he claims
Brussels hinders smaller businesses, particularly those firms who can’t afford to lobby Brussels to curry favour. Jobs, wages and our economy will thrive when we take back control and Vote Leave.
Here we see that some part of the elite want a Brexit. What they want is to curry favour in downing street as that will be easier than in Brussels just like Murdoch found out, aka State Capitalism.
It’s quite obvious why multinationals are against Brexit, as the CEO of bentley said “Brexit as a “killer” threatening his firm’s profitability. “ or as P&O state “cross-Channel ferries will be re-registered from the UK registry in Cyprus to keep EU tax benefits.” Again they’re maintaining their own interests and the so called left Guardian does not even question how these may impact the average person. The real left arguments are not even framed, all discussion is what’s best for the elites.
Let’s look more at the so called left biased pro-remain? The Guardian is traditionally seen as the mainstream left wing paper of the UK and very much pro-remain. The Guardian emphasised the economic consequences of a leave result, but, more often than not, by neoliberal principles that had alienated big parts of the population. As an example:
“The Guardian view on the EU referendum: keep connected and inclusive, not angry and isolated”
Let’s leave the bias of the suggestion that leaving the EU means you’re angry and have no interest in connections aside. Let’s look at why, it says
Impose controls on a multinational corporation and it will move to a softer jurisdiction. Crack down on tax evasion and the evaders will vanish offshore. Cap your own carbon emissions in isolation and some other country will burn with abandon. In so far as any of these problems can be effectively addressed, it is through cooperation. A better world means working across borders, not sheltering behind them. Cutting yourself off solves nothing. That, fundamentally, is why Britain should vote to remain in the club that represents the most advanced form of cross-border cooperation that the world has ever seen.
The obvious flaw here is the suggestion that leaving the EU means no co-operation, that is just a false dichotomy. You can still cooperate in a decentralised way. But that option is not mentioned. But they’re pretty much using the EU as a tool to be used to protect workers in the UK. e.g. multinationals will move to the EU, then we need to ask why wouldn’t they move to Turkey,Russia,China etc? If this was really left leaning, they would have least mentioned that what protects workers in Britain — and in other countries — is not the size of the neoliberal EU but the people’s collective strength. If the trade union’s would have been interviewed and quoted, that would have been more of a left leaning article. They are not even mentioned.
No where does the Guardian mention that the EU promotes the multinational corporations. For example it did not mention that the EU member states that have been ‘bailed out’ by the troika have suffered the biggest fall in collective bargaining rights in the world. According to the International Labour Organisation, collective bargaining rights have fallen by an average of 21% across the ten EU countries hardest hit by the economic crisis, and have fallen by a massive 63% in Romania and 45% in Greece.
It goes on to say that
“It is a fantasy to suppose that, if Britain votes to leave, these victors would want to maintain or extend protections for pensioners or workers.”
I agree, it is a fantasy because the UK is just as neo-liberal as the EU. But can UK workers influence Downing street more than Brussels? If Murdoch and Weatherspoons are to be believed, then the answer is yes.
And just to finish off, it says:
Do you want to live in a Britain in the image of Nigel Farage? Yes or no? For that’s the choice on offer. If the answer is no, then vote remain.
First and maybe obvious, why is that the only choice on offer? If this really was a left biased paper, they would have mentioned Lexit and the choice on offer that they provide? At no point in the whole article does the Guardian promote one left idea, it promotes the neo-liberal EU elites as better than the UK neo-liberal elites, it even explicitly says it:
Those who vote to leave as a protest against the elite will, in truth, be handing the keys to the very worst of that very elite
Again, the UK elite may be worse but they’re basically asking us to choose which neo-liberal system to be under, hardly a left wing idea at all. Either way the elites maintain their class interests and the so called left leaning Guardian defends that position.
Let’s look at social media, it is not mainstream media as Youtube, Facebook, Twitter etc.. hire no reporters or send out foreign correspondents into the field. Social media does not set any agendas it only reacts to them, for example many of the articles and videos on social media are people’s reactions to the set agendas or the mainstream media themselves uploading their own content, which accounts for 95% of news on Youtube Trending.
However, seeing that we have heard recently of the left wing bias at tech companies regarding demonetisation, it is worth looking at. In their own words on their “How to earn money on YouTube” page, under the header “Minimum eligibility requirements to turn on monetization features“ it clearly states “Create content that meets our advertiser-friendly content guidelines“ all of the other requirements are for subscribers, age, country location etc.. Youtube doesn’t even try to hide that it wants ad friendly content.
Let’s look at the advertiser guidelines: Two fall clearly in the realm of politics, “hurtful” and “sensitive events”, Hurtful content is allowed in the context of comedy and current tragedies are not even allowed. There is no left wing bias when demonetising right wing commentators, there is only the economic need to ensure advertising revenue is not lost. E.g., it is the economic system which pushes for censorship, aka corporate censorship. A few years ago, all of this content was allowed, it has only been the increase pressure of advertisers that has seen Youtube take action. The so called left mainstream media face the same economic pressures: For example, Guardian ‘changed Iraq article to avoid offending Apple’ except you don’t hear about it as much as media owners/editors keep it quiet.
It is claimed that more right wing than left wing Youtube channels get demonetised, I couldn’t find any university research to back up this claim, mainly because Youtube keeps its algorithms and statistics a secret. However some research made by the Guardian related to the US 2016 election in which states
How an ex-YouTube insider investigated its secret algorithm
It Claims:
The Guardian’s research included a broad study of all 8,052 videos as well as a more focused content analysis, which assessed 1,000 of the top recommended videos in the database.
When all 1,000 videos were tallied — including the missing videos with very slanted titles — we counted 643 videos had an obvious bias. Of those, 551 videos (86%) favoured the Republican nominee, while only 92 videos (14%) were beneficial to Clinton.
So, in order to know if Youtube does have left wing bias we would first need to find out how many right wing commentators are there in respect to the left wing ones and do a meta analysis to see if indeed proportionally are the right more likely to be demonetised. Also, are right wing commentators more likely to fall foul of the advertisers guidelines.
Many people ignore that the left are being banned, for example. Many left wing Twitter accounts related to the occupy movement were deleted with no explanation. “Twitter has purged left-wing accounts with no explanation”, “Dozens of activists linked to the Occupy movement are up in arms after their accounts were suspended by Twitter”. On Wikipedia, many left wing British journalists and activists who challenged the state media narrative had their bios edited to make them look untrustworthy.
You can even do a quick test yourself by signing out of Youtube, clear the history cache and type Hiliary Clintion into Youtube and see what results you get. You will get both pro and against. But even here, this should be expected, as neither Hiliary or Trump are a major threat to the elite class interests anyhow. They both operate within the allowed spectrum of debate.
This banning is not just limited to social media. It’s just more noticeable as more people are affected and they’re more vocal.
Any large media outlet which falls foul of the allowed spectrum of debate from the stance of the government gets banned or punished. As mentioned with the Guardian and Edward Snowden earlier. One other example which shows hypocrisy:
There have been calls for the Russian broadcaster RT to be banned in the UK because of bias. It can very well be that RT is biased but the BBC too has been proven in research studies to be biased, especially in times of war, the Iraq war especially being well researched.
Russia Today has been threatened with statutory sanctions by media regulator Ofcom after the Kremlin-backed news channel breached broadcasting regulations on impartiality with its coverage of the Ukraine crisis.
Ofcom said all news must be presented with “due impartiality … in particular, when reporting on matters of major political controversy”.
This despite the fact that The BBC was accused of a cover-up after spending almost £350,000 on a legal battle to suppress an internal report about bias in its Middle East coverage.
“A seven-year campaign to gain access to the 2004 document, which examined the corporation’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ended in defeat after the Supreme Court ruled it could remain secret.”
According to the research, there is a dominance of elite, party-political voices in the UK mainstream media, they’re biased to align with elite interests and satisfy advertisers needs. Even just looking at who owns the media should give a clear indication that they’re not going to be pro worker rights and pro public ownership of common utilities. Although the word left is quite far reaching, was Tony Blair on the left? Many would argue not but many considered him to be. A bigger threat either way however is corporate censorship and corporate bias, but we hear little of that.
Check out my videos discussing similar ideas here:
https://www.youtube.com/c/MrTweedyDocumentaries
