There has been a long standing... well stand-off between conservatives and liberals on whether there is liberal bias in the media(US and world media).

Recently BBC executives and star presenters came forward and admitted their bias.

Link to story







Questions for debate:

1. Does the now revealed liberal leanings of the BBC in anyway translate to any of the US media outlets?

2. Also in a political environment, how can there be fair coverage between a socially conservative candidate and a socially liberal candidate if the major media outlet in the UK(BBC) is socially liberal?

1. What I noticed was how almost every "revelation" was either paraphrased, on deep background, and not direct quotations from a specific, identified individual. The article is written from a very biased anti-BBC perspective without even a semblance of balance or interviews with any present BBC employees. Many of the quotes come from ex-BBC employees who presumably may have a reason to cast the BBC in a negative light.

But to answer the question posed, the liberal leanings of the BBC does not translate to the U.S. media outlets. MSNBC might have more of a liberal slant than Fox News, but that doesn't make Fox's conservative slant any less impartial. Calling yourself "fair and balanced" without the certification of a impartial outside agency is like Rosie O' Donnell calling herself "skinny and cute."

2. That's the socially conservtive candidate's problem. Looks to me like they should find a receptive forum in The Daily Mail.

I think it does in someway translate to US media and all world media because BBC is arguably the largest media news broadcaster in the world. We receive BBC news on our own public news broadcasting stations.

I read BBC news and listen to it daily and I would agree that it likely has a more liberal slant to it.
Yet I don't feel it is politically liberal as in how that label translates to America, but instead socially liberal. And really in essence the UK is socially liberal in comparison to nation's around the world, as is America.

Altho. I do feel the BBC does have some issues to answer to. I feel the release of Balen Report has to happen as the BBC is a public entity and the British public have a right to know.

Nighttimer you said many of the quotes were from ex-BBC employees. I could only find one in the article from Jeff Randall, former BBC business editor. Could you point out the other ex-BBC employees I missed? You did say 'many' and I could only find one.

I never said anything about fox news claiming to be fair and balanced, they are obviously conservatively biased. Let's keep this thread on topic please.

1. Does the now revealed liberal leanings of the BBC in anyway translate to any of the US media outlets?

2. Also in a political environment, how can there be fair coverage between a socially conservative candidate and a socially liberal candidate if the major media outlet in the UK(BBC) is socially liberal?


I have to agree with bucket on this that the BBC is more socially liberal than anything else. In my personal experience, I find the BBC is quite fair when reporting actual news. It is their non-news commentary that appears to have a bit of a liberal bias.

For example, I listen to World Service every afternoon when I'm working. This is usually a roundtable of politically or socially diverse people who discuss a given topic. This week, one of the editions focused on British muslim women choosing to wear a veil. I got the impression that the host had a strong bias in favor of the social acceptance of the veil. The guest they chose who was 'anti-veil' was barely articulate and represented her side poorly. The host really leaned on this and made the anti-veil guest to appear intolerant of social diversity. The pro-veil guest was articulate and the host was very nice to her. It's this kind of subtle bias that makes the BBC seem liberal. But I think it's a bit lazy when people fail to distinguish between news and commentary. World Service is not news, it's merely a discussion forum.

In regards to fair coverage, the BBC has posted its policies on handling political campaigns and editorials. This can be found here. The laws in the UK are quite different (and imho quite restrictive) regarding how political campaigns may be covered. The UK simply does not embrace free speech the way we do in the States. The BBC is actually subject to legal penalties if they fail to report in a fair manner. Frankly, I wouldn't want this in the States. I don't care if a media outlet reports news in a biased manner. If people are stupid enough to fall for bias and not do their own research, that's their problem and their ignorance.

That's what I get for posting while listening to a football game.

Quoting a former BBC employee, political pundits and other non-BBC employees without almost no direct quote from present BBC staffers, but only paraphrasing their supposed remarks is indicative of a slanted story and nowhere is there a quote from an actual attendee of the summit. It's people who weren't present commenting on the summit and that headline and lead paragraph by the Daily Mail are as biased as the BBC supposedly is.

You are trying to make a correlation between the supposed bias of the BBC and if it bleeds into the American
news outlets. As you phrased the question you said any U.S.media outlets. Fox News is part of the U.S. media outlets and that makes their own political slant/bias relevant to the topic.

Or are we supposed to only confine ourselves to denouncing bias when it's left-leaning?

Actually bias is wrong, but because it has been left leaning for the last 40 years, conservatives are getting fed up. Most conservatives I know believe left leaning ideology cannot survive a purely unbiased media.

I agree with nighttimer that discussing Fox news here in this debate is not off topic as you did ask us how BBC's bias translates into American media. BBC's biggest competitor in the UK is Sky News and Fox is Sky's sister channel in the US. I am just not so sure what nighttimer's position is on this as he first claimed the translation does not occur, but now claims they are related.

Obviously our media is very much connected these days and does influence one another. If BBC is seen as a competitor and Sky is in direct competition with them Sky news could (and does) use more conservative views from Fox as an offering of an alternative view.

What exactly does "liberal" mean here? I mean, did they define the term before using it?

Seriously- how do you make a statement like that without defining it? If it is pro-big spending- well, that would be conservatives today- correct?

Or, would it be pro-big goverment? Once again, that would be conservatives now, wouldn't it? I mean, you can't name a bigger spending goverment than the "conservatives" we have today?

So, is it anti- Iraq war- so, are our generals that have led the "revolt" against rumsfeld "liberal"? What about the "polite revolution" of the republicans against GW? Are THEY liberal?

The term is really meaningless today- also, there are hawkish old school liberals (Lieberman) and Dovish conservatives (Buchanan)- so, which are we applying to the BBC?

Personally- there are three things I would LOVE to see the American Media get here from English broadcast:

1) More boobies and less violence- I mean, maybe that is why they are more civilized than the US?

2) The same campaign laws- obviously

3) The same ease of sueing for libel.

As far as bias- I would say the BBC is British-centric and US media is American-centric. As it probably should be. - but the media in america is rabidly right wing compared to any other developed nation in the world- so defining it as "liberal" is kind of a spin and bias in and of itself.

So basically you are saying the source is lying and completely inaccurate?

They didn't want this information out there, of course there isn't going to be a direct quote.



Yes I want to know if there could be a relation to that of the US media but not for you to try and redirect this onto Fox news.



Funny, I have not once seen you denounce bias when it was left-leaning, does this mean you are going to start now?

Possibly Sleeper- because the terms have become truly meaningless? Seriously- when you say "left leaning" what are you talking about? Anti-GW or anti-neo-con, because I don't think I have heard BBC or the "left wing media" complain about the GW budget not being big enough?

1. Does the now revealed liberal leanings of the BBC in anyway translate to any of the US media outlets?

I would guess that most things are somehow interrelated, but I do not have any idea how one would go about quantifying the alleged influence.



Whether or not you want to admit it Sleeper, FAUX, oops I mean FOX News, is a large part of the American media equation and must be considered.

2. Also in a political environment, how can there be fair coverage between a socially conservative candidate and a socially liberal candidate if the major media outlet in the UK(BBC) is socially liberal?

Fair? When in the last few years have Fox News, Karl Rove or the Bush Administration been fair to "social liberals"? If the media is unfair, and that’s a big if, it is just a case of “what goes ‘round comes ‘round.” In other words, at this point I'm more concerned with other questions than fairness for "social conservatives."

Once again though BOF- no one wants to answer the 10,000 dollar question- do we even know what "left leaning" even means? I mean- you put "liberal" on your own political leaning- but does that mean BBC broadcasts something you personaly agree with? Are you getting what I am saying here? I think since Ron Reagan came to power- those old monikers have been rendered meaningless, as they have been twisted into new meanings, by many different groups.

So Bof- if BBC is left leaning- I really want to know- what does that mean?

How in the world can you compare Fox news and the BBC... The BBC is the single largest media entity in the UK. Fox news is simply a cable news network. Not even on the level of CBS, NBC, or ABC media nightly and weekend news.

I can see how it is trying to turn this against Fox(big surprise there), but it just doesn't work.

Also I said socially liberal bias. Not politically liberal. Although many share similarities I did define what type of liberalism in my opening post.

Sorry CR all you do is throw bombs in and I chose not to respond to you..

Check the subtleties of my post, CR. My use of the words “alleged” and “if” questions whether the media, especially the American media, is biased at all.

So sleeper and Bof- I get kind of where you are both coming from- I am not trying to be obtuse- but I am pointing out that those labels are quite meaningless- okay- you say BBC is "socially liberal bias"- you mean, in thier own cultures context? Britain is much more "liberal leaning" or "left leaning" when it comes to most norms- do you mean sexually liberal? I mean- they show boobies on BBC TV, and that creates quite an uproar in the US (ask Janet Jackson ) - but they are not allowed, from what I have seen, too much of the gratuitous violence in the US- so which is the liberal one? I watch some BBC news, quite a bit actually- of the actual news- but what I see as a "conservative value" in say, the Christian coalition definition, is not even an issue in England (say TV evangelicals? )- so really sleeper and Bof, you really have to be more specific as to which SPECIFIC "left leaning" issues you are talking about? Is opposition to the Iraq a "liberal" social issue?

I am not trying to be difficult- but to define a debate- you must define the terms, or even debate the terms, if you want to have some kind of commonality to even debate this issue.

When we throw labels like "conservative" or "liberal" around- you must couch it in your PERSONAL definitions- because the rhetoric labeling of the other side is pointless- because you may or may not feel the issue is YOUR "liberal" value.

So when I say "left leaning"- what are you talking about, which issues, on the BBC, appear to be slanted to the left? Okay- I have heard nothing on the BBC news that specifically called for gay marriage to be allowed in the US- in fact, I haven't even heard this news issue when I tune in- but, also, I don't pay huge attention to non-world event issues on the BBC, like a local crime or anything-

So sleeper and Bof- more sleeper though, since this is your subject- what specific issues you have heard on the BBC makes you believe they are "left leaning"?

Fox News must be factored in as part of the American media equation. In February, you started the thread below.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...c=12076&hl=

You seemed to think it had some important at that time.

Edited to respond to CR.



CR, I pretty much agree with you. I haven't said anything like that unless it was qualified by an "alleged" or "if."

1. To answer this question one must first consider the source material. The Daily Mail is itself far removed from any liberal bias being famed as reactionary, NIMBY and very conservative in it's own bias. It has also long had an anti BBC stance, complaining historically about the licence fee, through which the bbc is funded. I think the "now revealed liberal leanings of the BBC" is therefore in itself incorrect; the report from the Daily Mail is almost entirely heresay and rumour and no cold hard facts at this point. Plus the BBC's policy on such things are very clear - hell if this conference did take place then it is clearly an attempt to maintain it's own impartiality as per it's policies

2. While the BBC is the major media outlet it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, control the UK media. The news press are still a massively important opinion former to the public at large and none of those are in fact BBC controlled - in reality it has long been the case that Rupert Murdoch has much more control of such things, including Sky News, and has a very right of centre stance on most political issues.

Thanks for providing some context there, Delvy. It appears the relationship between the BBC and The Daily Mail is as harmonious as the one between CNN and Fox News.



Basically, I am saying the story is misleading, pandering to anti-BBC sentiments, and probably exaggerated. If the reporter couldn't get a direct quote from any of the attendees and not even an official response from the BBC, his fact-checking sucks. There isn't much of a genuine story here. There is a lot of innuendo.



There's nothing to "try" and redirect here, Sleeper. It is definitely germane. You can pose the question. You don't get to frame the answers.



I'm not trying to put Bernard Goldberg out of a job, but sure, I'm willing to denounce left-leaning bias.

Right after you denounce right-leaning bias.

Would it be too much trouble to read the debate topic, and perhaps the article in question?


From the article, reminds me of the 'flag pins' here in the USA.



Here is the expanded quote regarding the exercise conducted by Borat (ali G) and the show Room 101.




I'd second what Jaime said regarding the round table discussions, with the exception that the language used by the BBC is sometimes so politically correct as to actually constitute a bias. Much of their political reporting is actually quite even-handed, even though you can kind of tell by the announcer's voice that he's just playing with a conservative party representative. BUT, they come at politicians much harder than do their US counterparts. Guys like Rummy or Cheney or Clinton would have an impossible time practicing spin on the BBC Today program, they would just get killed by the hosts. That said, there is no doubt that most of the presenters are liberal -- Justin Webb or Sara Montague come to mind.

Examples
- After September 12, 2001 or so, they would no longer say "terrorists" for all intents and purposes. Suicide bombers in Bali or Israel or Madrid were militants. Rioting muslims in France or Gotheborg or Bristol are "youths" or "disaffected youths" or "immigrant youths." Anything but muslims.
- They refer to husbands and wives as "partners" so as to be even-handed with gay and unmarried couples. Drives me nuts, and this affectation has moved into popular culture in Britain.
- Just like the US media, there are just no conservatives, outside of business reporting. Robert Aitken estimated that one in twenty BBC employees was conservative. This in a country where conservatives governed for what, 16 or 18 consecutive years before moderate "New Labour" Tony Blair, and the conservatives still garner 30-40% of the vote, albeit they sound just like Labour lately.
- The BBC seem to treat George Galloway and the Respect party as if it's a legitimate entity, yet dismiss the BNP (those wacky nazi xenophobes) who got 3 times the vote as Respect last time.

Etc.

Sure I can denounce Fox news.

They were wrong when they(most likely intentionally) put a (D) behind Mark Foley's name when they story was first breaking.

They were wrong when they were showing stories about republicans and democrats who said things rather unbecoming. Such as George Allen and Joe Biden but they only showed George Allen apologizing and explaining what he meant and not Biden.

Those are just a couple and there are more. Fox News Channel is conservative, and I said it earlier in this thread but the left will never say other sources are liberal. They will only say they are left of Fox which to them means neutral.

I don't have a problem doing this nighttimer, but I know for a fact you won't do the same with other media outlets when it comes to liberal bias. Probably because you will say you don't have to because it isn't there(yeah right), or it's not on topic.

There is a distinct difference between American Liberalism and British Liberalism which clash on a portion of their idealogy. I have noticed a portion of the media outlets now taking more non-partisan approach to their reporting with still a slight bend towards liberalism. The news agencies that show a huge bend towards partisan affiliates are still CNN, Fox, Wall Street Journal and the emphasis of liberal reporting, the New York Times

1. I have some difficulties in answering this question, because I do not exactly understand what you are trying to ask. Do you mean if the supposed liberal leanings of BBC has any influence on the US media outlets? Or, do you mean that the supposed liberal leanings of the BBC exemplifies the view that the media in the U.S. also leans to the liberal (left) side?

2. Why would fair coverage not be possible? Even if the BBC is socially liberal (the story in the Daily Mail is, as Delvy and Nighttimer point out, not supported by official statements and is for the most part based on rumours and hearsay) that doesn't autmatically mean that they are unable to make objective newsreports. If my understanding of BBC news is correct, they give social-liberal and social-conservative the same opportunities to explain and/or defend their policies. As far as I know, they are not actively supporting any social liberal political agenda, and they are not actively attacking conservative ideas or denying conservative politicans any airtime.

Right the story is exaggerated because the BBC does not seem to wish to admit to anything. I already linked to this story but the Balen report is not a made up conservative fairy tale, it is genuine and the BBC's complete refusal to release it's findings is also genuine. They use licensing money to fight the Freedom of Information Act in order to keep information a public broadcasting company has from going public. I agree if anything the idea the BBC takes a position of admitting and sharing any positions of bias is ridiculous.

It appears that they have neutralized thier language to take out bias- using the word "terrorist" makes a value judgement- militant is not as biased.

What it appears to me, is you don't like thier nuetrality- NOT thier bias. - I heard on the news that both in the US and Europe, getting married in the church, or getting married at all, is now in the minority- saying "husbands and wives" would be biased AGAINST the majority. I prefer "partners" because it is more accurate, and LESS biased.

And the rest of the quotes, as pointed out by NT and Delvy- are unsupported heearsay again, and probably outright lies by a biased source LOL

I don't have a problem pointing out liberal bias, Sleeper.

"For on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering: A government more dangerous to our liberty than is the enemy it claims to protect us from."

"We have been here before, and we have been here before led here by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.”

(Keith Olbermann/MSNBC)

The Military Commissions Act is more dangerous than the terrorists and the nut that unleashed them against America five years ago? I don't like the Military Commissions Act or the Patriot Act, but I don't think the solution is worse than the problem. That is "melodramatic fear-mongering" taken to the illogical extreme.

Bill O' Reilly has the number one book in America on the New York Times best-seller list. But the New York Times won't review the book. Huh?

Another example of liberal bias can be found in how the mainstream media's feeding frenzy over Rush Limbaugh's drug drama but has paid almost no attention to Air America falling into bankruptcy, failing to pay staffers and its "star," Al Franken.

Since Air America's inception two years ago, the company, which had billed itself as a "progressive," unabashedly liberal oasis on the dial, has been plagued by management and financial problems. As recently as last month, the network's star commentator, Al Franken, complained publicly that his paychecks had stopped.

"By running such a poor business they did a disservice to liberal talk radio by making it seem like the problem was that they were liberal," said Michael Harrison, the publisher of Talkers Magazine, a talk-radio industry trade magazine. "Before you change the world, make sure you pay your bills."

Ouch!

One of my biggest complaints about "liberal" talk radio is how distressingly and overwhelmingly White most of the hosts are. There are Black progressives such as Michael Eric Dyson, Julianne Malvauex and Earl Ofari Hutchinson that have their own radio programs, but you'd never know liberals come in any other race than Caucasian from listening to Air America.

A particular failing I've recognized is CBS and "60 Minutes." Every time some author puts out a book critical of the war in Iraq or the Bush White House, IF they are published by the CBS owned imprint, they end up with a big plug on "60 Minutes." That's not just bias, that's almost incestuous.

Howzat for a couple of examples of mainstream media left-ward bias?

There was a time and place when those who kill women and children in the name of achieving their political goals were terrorists. It was in Britian in the 1970s and 1980s, and the terrorists were the IRA. The BBC have now reached a point where, after they initially blamed "terrorists" for the tube bombings in London, they went in and removed all instances of the word "terrorist" from their coverage. They went in, in a sickening Orwellian language exercise, and replaced "terrorist" with "bomber," "atrocity" with "peacetime attack," and of course they immediately reported the statement by Iranian cleric Mohammad Emami-Kashani that "Israel" and / or "the Mossad" were behind the attacks. How is that "neutral?" Not to mention their unbiased, neutral colleagues at the Associated Press ran the "Israel had advance warning" blood libel on the same day. Those sinister Jews.


You are saying that, even if someone is married, referring to their spouse as a 'partner' is more accurate, because some people are not married. That's great. Why not refer to everyone as a 'person' and not a man or woman? Here's a wild one for the US media - why not stop referring to the type of vehicle involved in a crash ONLY when that vehicle is an "SUV."

And as bucket noted, If the BBC isn't biased, why are they suppressing a report that criticizes their middle east coverage? They are a public company, funded by British license fees! If you don't think that the BBC are anti-israel, you're just not listening.

nighttimer, I'm glad you noticed the Simon & Scheuster / 60 minutes tie-in. It's not exactly "news" is it? I'd say the same about Fox (local) news covering the local "American Idol" contestant, but sadly, that probably is more newsworthy, based on ratings. Even with wild success and CBS wall-to-wall promo, those anti-Bush books only move tens of thousands of copies, not anywhere near the tens of millions that watch Idol.

Ya, I don't like that they are hiding the report- sure makes it look like they are hiding something, doesn't it- I sure don't like it when our prez does the same thing- like with the energy commision, ken lay and Cheney etc- so no, I don't think that is right, and I would say "if they don't want the report out, then CW must be right". To me, that is more of an admission of guilt than actually saying "hey, we are liberal"- when you spend lots and lots of money to keep a report away, chances are, they are exactly what they are being accused of in my experiance-

But, as far as what "liberal" is in the US and what is "liberal" in the UK- there is not much correlation at all- America is so screwed up and can't define it for itself, much less accuse someone else of it LOL

1. Does the now revealed liberal leanings of the BBC in anyway translate to any of the US media outlets?

2. Also in a political environment, how can there be fair coverage between a socially conservative candidate and a socially liberal candidate if the major media outlet in the UK(BBC) is socially liberal?

The first question is beyond my experience to answer, but makes me laugh in its composition nonetheless. 'Revealed' eh?

Answering the second question though, I would say that under such circumstances as exist in the United Kingdom today, and as can also be found in Sweden, there is no way for a socially conservative candidate to find impartial media reporting, quite the contrary.

Regarding the BBC in general, I would add that the corporation is a veritable hot bed of political activism whose bias is so obvious that one has to be of the same persuason to not notice it and where as the BBC's news services try, with varying success, to retain an impartial neutrality, the BBC's entertainment divisions do not. One only has to listen to BBC radio's comedy shows or watch BBC prime to understand this. The concept of 'multi culture' is promoted ruthlessly whilst the raw bone grating reality of British multi cultural society is utterly disregarded save as a plot device for awful soap opera's.

So you are saying that the entertainment is biased but the news is attempting pretty hard to find neutrality?

It is the tradition of entertainment to entertain first, and to make fun of the stupidity of whomever is in charge. I do wish that they would make more fun of muslims, and I do believe that is kowtowing to a religious ideology- and I don't like when it is done to any religion, and if it is a violent relgion, well, then they need to hammer it even harder where it hurts.

I'm shocked and humbled at the same time Nighttimer.

You actually pointed out something I had missed. I never knew that about Bill O's book and the NYT. Pretty funny stuff there.
I was also going to start a topic on the whole Air America Bankruptsy thing, but figured all the liberals here would tell me is was a non-story and that I was just trying to incite something. Thanks for brining it up.

Edit to add:

More sources since some like to say the initial source was a lie

http://www.market-day.net/article_34532/20...its-to-bias.php

http://www.andnetwork.com/index?service=di...y&sp=l54164

I never said it was a lie; merely attempted to make clear the bais that may have been involved in the reporting. Both those sources you have added though are direct replications of the story from the Daily Mail that has clearly been syndicated by United Press International. Not what I would consider sources myself.

First off, I'd like to echo the sentiments of my compatriot - the Daily Mail is not an unbiased source, and is well-practised in OVERT political and journalistic bias.


1. Does the now revealed liberal leanings of the BBC in anyway translate to any of the US media outlets?

Unlike the USA, the laws in the UK require ALL broadcast news to attempt balanced reporting in news & current affairs output. Often, this translates to getting extremists of both sides, in an adversarial debate, rather than ust exposing the facts, but then adversarial confrontation makes for more envigorating television and radio than a (potentially) dusty investigative report. However, this complies with the law. Even Murdoch's Sky News channel is subject to the same laws, although the BBC's special position as a publicly-funded broadcaster makes it particularly in the spotlight on this score.

Also, while they have been relaxed recently, commercial television and radio are only granted broadcasting licences on condition that they provide a certain amount of news, regional news, children's TV, etc.

The law does not translate into entertainment or factual programming - so some of the unspoken assumptions and prejudices that moif mentioned are indeed widespread and largely un-commented upon.

What he fails to mention is that the BBC is also the only broadcasting outlet for some controversial right-leaning journalists and commentators; Jeremy Clarkson, who's probably best described as a US-style libertarian, and Clarissa Dickson-Wright, who is pretty much the embodiment of landed-gentry High-Toryism in British TV both work exclusively for the BBC in broadcasting. Hell, the Mail's own Quentin Letts appears far more often on the Beeb than any other tv channel or radio station, but that's just another illustration of a fundamental difference between liberal and conservative views on broadcasting, at least in the UK.

In essence, the idea that any one broadcaster should even attempt impartial political coverage is a liberal one. The UK newspaper market is already much the same in this regard as the American TV networks - they are free to take up any position they like, and the majority, incuding the best-selling papers, are distinctly right-leaning. One would assume from this that the British are essentially a right-leaning people, but only if the political bias of a newspaper is the dominant factor in choosing to buy or read it.

The conservative view of broadcasting would be - no public funding (conservatives are more oftne than not anti-tax, or at least anti-taxes-that-I-have-to-pay-which-go-to-things-I-disapprove-of, and this is a big part of the Mail's anti-BBC stance); a "free" market; complete freedom of speech so that channels can lean in a particular direction; that the channels which succeed will be those which most people choose to listen to; that anyone who feels their views are not represented can easily start up their own channel or station; and that if those people fail, it is because their biases do not reflect the audiences as well as the successful ones do.

This is simply not the case.

For one thing, people choose newspapers, and choose TV channels for many many reasons, and political leanings (or not) are only one reason.

And, just as with American TV, "free access" to the market is not remotely free. I could get together with some fellow liberals tomorrow and try to set up a new national newspaper. But the barriers to entry are simply massive, and are even greater in broadcasting. Existing players have a huge advantage in simple economic terms, which is why broadcasting (and UK newspapers) are massively dominated by a few big players.

Thinking just about US talk radio for a moment, lots of liberals listen to conservative talk-show hosts simply because it's more fun to shout and get angry with Rush Limbaugh (or whomever) than it is to silently nod in agreement with a liberal.

:::aside:::: OK - I'm biased. As a liberal, I think that liberals only enjoy debates where they might lose, and conservatives where they might win. A HUGE generalisation that's waaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic here

To summarise, I think UK broadcasting and US broadcasting are almost mirror images of one another. The mindset is almost entirely different, and we don't start form the same central assumptions about what broadcasting is and what it is for.

UK broadcasting is changing, as the BBC attempts to keep it's place in an increasingly fragmented, multi-channel environment, which has been the norm in the USA for a couple of decades longer than it has here. Taken as a whole, the British media probably do more or less reflect majority opinion in the UK. The leftie BBC is balanced by the righty Daily Mail and Sun, and the overall effect is probably something approaching the centre-right of the centre-left. But they are all distinctively British. They don't do much flag-waving, for example, simply because the British don't go in for a lot of that on a daily basis. This has good and bad points in itself. (Here I am trying to be balanced and not cause offence myself - maybe it's all just a Brit thing and my whole 'balance is a liberal concept' is bunkum. Well, I did try )

I think, and this is from what I've seen from abroad and from when I've visited, that the same happens in the USA. Fox News on the right is balanced by Hollywood which is (broadly) left-leaning. The overall effect is probably broadly to the right of the centre-right, which is about where the America is as a whole.

In some respects, the changes in things like digital and HD-TV will make the industry more like that in the USA, not least because many of the organisations fighting for share of the screens are from the USA. But I don't really think that we will end up in the same place, because (despite appearances to the contrary sometimes) Britain and America are chalk and cheese - we are not the same and never will be. As they say in France vive la différence

2. Also in a political environment, how can there be fair coverage between a socially conservative candidate and a socially liberal candidate if the major media outlet in the UK(BBC) is socially liberal?

Because, as I've said above, I think that only liberal broadcasters think that both sides should be given a fair hearing on the same network. The traditional conservative view would be to keep it all in the private sector and let stations set their own editorial standards, and that if liberals want to get an ariing on a conservative channel, they are whistling in the wind and should go and set up their own channel instead.