Thread by @D_Raval

70% of the electorate DIDN’T vote for the Tories in the 2017 General Election. How does the BBC represent their views in its Sunday morning paper reviews?
This Thread on how they did today (31st March)
(1/8)

Firstly the concept of “paper reviews” is deeply unrepresentative. Not only are their circulations at all time lows but the majority are owned by off shore non UK tax paying oligarchs who are deeply Conservative. Their papers reflect their views and interests.
(2/8)

This already deeply unrepresentative flaw is made worse by selecting “paper reviewers” who come from those same organisations OR who have the same polictical views and interests as the right wing pro-Tory press. Two examples to follow..
(3/8)

The “paper review” panel on Marr
Kunessberg - BBC employee and No.10 spokesperson
Asthana - Associate editor of centrist Corbyn hating The Guardian
Moore - columnist for Murdoch’s The S*n
(4/8)

The reviewers on “The Papers” on BBC News Channel c9:35am
Ashworth - Associate editor of Murdoch’s The Times
Millar - random centrist freelancer, 99% have never read
(5/8)

The papers reflect the heavily biased right wing / Conservative view of their owners. The “paper reviews” not only give them airtime but try to validate the view of these papers. There are no alternative views or voices to reflect the non Tory majority.
(6/8)

The reviews have to broaden out
(1) what they review, eg why is The Morning Star never reviewed or Left news sources like Swawkbox, Novara etc?
(2) who the reviewers are, we need to see non mainstream media, non Conservative / right wing voices.
#BrokenMedia
(7/8)

Last week’s (24th March) equivalent Thread for comparison (NB the bulk of the text is the same, the details of the “panels” are different)

https://twitter.com/d_raval/status/1109766438892589056?s=21

(8/8)