There are *two* sides to an argument. There is *one* side to a fact.
But the BBC treats both the same, and brings on two guests to debate each other even when objective reality means there's no counter position possible (not without lying).
That's "BBC balance", aka bias.
But the BBC treats both the same, and brings on two guests to debate each other even when objective reality means there's no counter position possible (not without lying).
That's "BBC balance", aka bias.
Example of this on the morning news show. Andrew Bridgen & Dominic Grieve were discussing the effects of Boris Johnson's deal on Northern Ireland. Only one correct position (that of DG) ie that it would cut off NI economically from the rest of the UK because of different regimes.
In other words, NI *will* be treated differently. It's in the terms of the deal, in black and white.
But AB is still allowed to say "no, that's not the case" and then spout some nonsense. He is wrong. DG is right. The deal text says so.
But AB is still allowed to say "no, that's not the case" and then spout some nonsense. He is wrong. DG is right. The deal text says so.
