UK government does not find Russian intereference in British politics. But...

[Agema]

Russia report: UK 'badly underestimated' threat, says committee

Russian influence in the UK is now "the new normal", according to a parliamentary committee.

www.bbc.co.uk

The backstory here is that a report was compiled about possible Russian interference in UK politics that was finished last year. The report was buried by the government in the lead up to the elections in 2019. Many months later, today, the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee finally managed to get it out there. The assumption was that it would detail undermining of elections and politics by Russia, but the findings were a large surprise.

A large surprise in the sense that the reason it didn't find anything was that nobody even looked. Potentially, that's even worse: no wonder the government buried it as long as possible. The government evidently didn't want to know, and without specific direction, various intelligence agencies (MI5, SIS, GCHQ) it is assumed decided this was a political minefield and left well alone. In short:



As a side note, one-time members of the Russian government (or their spouses) have stuffed millions of pounds into the pockets of the Conservative party in the last few years. Hmm.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

At this point I shouldn't be surprised that BoJo and his clique of upper crust muppets are corrupt and yet I still find myself so disappointed each time something like this comes up. I just don't get how anyone could keep voting for such a band of liars

 

[Gordon_4]

They were probably worried they’d have another Cambridge Five situation on their hands if they actually looked.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Could it possibly have been as much interference as that promulgated by Israel? Or a few particular media moguls? Or even just the apparent pro-governing party bias of the BBC? Was it as significant as the sabotage done internally by Labour centrists?

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

As if anything else were to be expected. Still, doesn't matter now, does it? Election already happened, it's all in the past, all forgotten. Nothing we can do now it's passed, is there? More years of Tory control. More disintegration of public services, more hopelessness, more vacuous shitheels ready to vote again for the next corrupt election so we can find out once again when it's all too late dodgy dealings went down because that's what the money do, it protects itself no matter what the human cost.

 

[Agema]

Could it possibly have been as much interference as that promulgated by Israel? Or a few particular media moguls? Or even just the apparent pro-governing party bias of the BBC? Was it as significant as the sabotage done internally by Labour centrists?

There's plenty of opinion that Russia had no particular objectives, and the end effect was probably minor: it interfered only in the sense of disseminating disinformation and confusion, as part of a wider campaign of encouraging disorder in Western countries. It's argued (re. Brexit) it may even have preferred the UK with the EU, because with the UK outside the EU it would probably turn more to the USA, with Russia viewing the USA as a more significant and intransigent geopolitical opponents.

 

[Gordon_4]

Could it possibly have been as much interference as that promulgated by Israel? Or a few particular media moguls? Or even just the apparent pro-governing party bias of the BBC? Was it as significant as the sabotage done internally by Labour centrists?

I’ve heard the BBC be accused of a lot of things, but pro-Tory bias is not one of them.

 

[09philj]

A large surprise in the sense that the reason it didn't find anything was that nobody even looked. Potentially, that's even worse: no wonder the government buried it as long as possible. The government evidently didn't want to know, and without specific direction, various intelligence agencies (MI5, SIS, GCHQ) it is assumed decided this was a political minefield and left well alone.

In fairness, MI5 were very busy with their main job of identifying and then failing to arrest terrorist suspects.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I’ve heard the BBC be accused of a lot of things, but pro-Tory bias is not one of them.

That's odd.

In its election coverage, the BBC has let down the people who believe in it | Peter Oborne

The corporation, admired around the world, has been behaving in a way that favours the Tories, says journalist and author Peter Oborne

www.theguardian.com

 

[09philj]

I’ve heard the BBC be accused of a lot of things, but pro-Tory bias is not one of them.

The BBC's mangled idea of balance means it's often difficult to tell what the hell it thinks it is doing, but in general I'd say it leans fairly conservative, in the sense that it is not particularly willing to entertain ideas lying outside of the mainstream metropolitan neoliberal consensus (unless they belong to Nigel Farage). How much this translates into being pro Tory depends on how socialist the leader of the opposition is.

 

[Gordon_4]

The BBC's mangled idea of balance means it's often difficult to tell what the hell it thinks it is doing, but in general I'd say it leans fairly conservative, in the sense that it is not particularly willing to entertain ideas lying outside of the mainstream metropolitan neoliberal consensus (unless they belong to Nigel Farage). How much this translates into being pro Tory depends on how socialist the leader of the opposition is.

Alright, that’s fair. It’s just funny to me because it’s Australian cousin, the ABC, has basically been attacked for the past decade at least for being a bastion of lefty bias at the expense of the Australian taxpayer and the successive Liberal (conservative) governments have been slashing its funding and the AFP have been raiding its offices. Perhaps it’s just old knowledge of the BBC and it’s changed and I didn’t keep up.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

I’ve heard the BBC be accused of a lot of things, but pro-Tory bias is not one of them.

Its funny, you get a lot of people on the left calling the BBC pro-Tory and a lot of people on the right saying the BBC has a pro-left bias. I've always assumed its a bit of an eye of the beholder type thing but 09philj's explanation is probably more accurate

 

[Trunkage]

Alright, that’s fair. It’s just funny to me because it’s Australian cousin, the ABC, has basically been attacked for the past decade at least for being a bastion of lefty bias at the expense of the Australian taxpayer and the successive Liberal (conservative) governments have been slashing its funding and the AFP have been raiding its offices. Perhaps it’s just old knowledge of the BBC and it’s changed and I didn’t keep up.

I just find that one side of politics accepts criticism far better than the other. I remember ABC raked Gilliard and Rudd just as much as Abbot but guess who complained a lot. Turn all they were a bit lenient on

 

[Hawki]

If the left is accusing a media organization of being too right, and the right is accusing it of being too left, it's probably doing its job.

That said, the too left accusation is more common in my experience, for both the ABC and BBC.

 

[Agema]

I’ve heard the BBC be accused of a lot of things, but pro-Tory bias is not one of them.

Back in the 80s it was pretty much forced to admit it was anti-Tory. This has then led to it receiving a lot of pressure from the right. Most of the staff, it is widely reported, still lean left-liberal, and there's some suggestion this means it feels vulnerable and may tend to overcompensate sometimes.

However, the contention often arises because the BBC has to have its charter renewed by the government, and so when the government effectively threatens it (as the Tories have been doing the last ten years), the suspicion is that it then becomes more overtly friendly. Lots of indicators may suggest the BBC has given the Tories a lot of slack over the last few years, but on the other hand, Corbyn's media handlign was abysmal so it may reflect Labour's weakness at presenting itself.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Russia report: UK 'badly underestimated' threat, says committee

Russian influence in the UK is now "the new normal", according to a parliamentary committee.

www.bbc.co.uk

The backstory here is that a report was compiled about possible Russian interference in UK politics that was finished last year. The report was buried by the government in the lead up to the elections in 2019. Many months later, today, the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee finally managed to get it out there. The assumption was that it would detail undermining of elections and politics by Russia, but the findings were a large surprise.

A large surprise in the sense that the reason it didn't find anything was that nobody even looked. Potentially, that's even worse: no wonder the government buried it as long as possible. The government evidently didn't want to know, and without specific direction, various intelligence agencies (MI5, SIS, GCHQ) it is assumed decided this was a political minefield and left well alone. In short:



As a side note, one-time members of the Russian government (or their spouses) have stuffed millions of pounds into the pockets of the Conservative party in the last few years. Hmm.

Worth noting it does suggest a link between the document Corbyn managed to produce that was "Leaked to him" and Russian intelligence operatives.

 

[Baffle]

I’ve heard the BBC be accused of a lot of things, but pro-Tory bias is not one of them.

I would say the BBC is left-leaning within the social sphere (e.g. pro-BLM, pro-LGBT, anti-poverty), but right-leaning in terms of actual 'who you vote for' politics. Something like a Tory with a conscience, were there such a mythical beast. The current head of the BBC previously stood as a Conservative councillor, and the political pundits (O'Neill, Knuessberg, Marr) are all considered to be Tories (rightly so, IMO -- they may be on record as such, but I CBA to dig it out).

 

[Agema]

I would say the BBC is left-leaning within the social sphere (e.g. pro-BLM, pro-LGBT, anti-poverty), but right-leaning in terms of actual 'who you vote for' politics. Something like a Tory with a conscience, were there such a mythical beast. The current head of the BBC previously stood as a Conservative councillor, and the political pundits (O'Neill, Knuessberg, Marr) are all considered to be Tories (rightly so, IMO -- they may be on record as such, but I CBA to dig it out).

I'd be surprised if Andrew Marr is a Conservative supporter - his early background is leftist, he's on record describing himself as liberal, and his wife has strong Labour Party connections. Kuenssberg is generally an unknown and guards that sort of thing very carefully. Neil certainly is about as deep in Tory supporter territory as it's possible to be. By and large, however, whatever their personal affiliation they mostly do a good job of keeping it out of their work.

What the BBC certainly is, is pro-establishment. I doubt it has much issue with the maintream Labour or Conservative parties, but I think Corbyn would have had a significant credibility gap in the minds of BBC personnel.

 

[Silvanus]

Kuenssberg is generally an unknown and guards that sort of thing very carefully.

I cannot believe this about Kuennsberg anymore; there are simply too many instances of apparent hostility towards the Labour party for it to be a coincidence. One or two might be unintentional, but not the overwhelming pattern.

Manipulating footage on Corbyn's response to police anti-terrorism measures, so that the broadcast showed a question followed by his response to a different, unaired question (determined by Panorana to breach impartiality);

Retweeting Domimic Cummings' blog uncritically, and presenting unevidenced claims in his defence about his Barnard Castle trip as "details" and "confirmations" (in her words);

Responding directly to the Daily Mirror Twitter account on the same topic, simply repeating the No. 10 line in Cummings' defence;

Reporting as truth, without verification, the false claim that a Labour staffer assaulted a Conservative Party member (since disproven by CCTV);

Live broadcasting that postal votes were looking bad for Labour a day before the election, in contravention of regulation...

 

[Agema]

I cannot believe this about Kuennsberg anymore; there are simply too many instances of apparent hostility towards the Labour party for it to be a coincidence. One or two might be unintentional, but not the overwhelming pattern.

I'm open-minded on it. I think there can be a risk of confirmation bias: once someone's already in the crosshairs for bias, they'll receive particular scrutinty and every instance of that apparent bias will focussed on.