Ash sarkar’s point is key. The starting point should be a recognition that ALL journalism is partisan (even the centrist ones which are most committed to pretending that their approach is impartial) but not all journalistic outlets are committed to objectivity and factual accuracy. Holding onto an up front recognition of one’s political values and perspective and yet still maintaining a commitment to journalistic integrity and objectivity in reporting is crucial to navigating the news media landscape.
Absolutely right - there is in fact no "neutral" way to describe anything. We always choose what to describe, what to emphasise, what to present first, etc. This isn't to say that specific political biases shouldn't be reined in, and I think Sarkar is right that making sure all your facts are accurate is still worth doing. Still, I think the most important thing a news consumer can understand is that no news source is better than two (or more) news sources.
That was a great conversation. I have a lot of time for Ash, she seems to have a great understanding of the 'game' but is also very honest with herself. A good combo for her readers and listeners...
I think the point around 15:00 is the heart of it. When there's a revoloving door between the party machines and the press, and they all turn up to each other's weddings, it really undermines the press as an institution holding government to account!
The core problem is not "the messengers" it's the political system. We basically have a dual dictatorship in the UK through the first past the post system. The Tories and Labour are both complicit in ensuring that either one will be running the country and making it as hard as possible for smaller parties to gain a foothold.
I think - not that my opinion is any more valid than yours - that this is overly simplistic and fails to touch the real root of the actual problem. Whatever shape an answer might take, I don't believe it lies in the proliferation of political parties; I'm quite glad that some of those smaller parties can't gain a foothold, because they don't deserve one. FPTP is seriously flawed as a voting system, not least because the boundaries of constituencies make absolutely no sense - unless those responsible for drawing them up seek to manipulate the results of elections: I'm not at all sure that they do, but the rationale of their method doesn't work even to make FPTP representative. BUT - PR; I could make the now largely irrelevant point that Hitler was elected under PR - and actually I shall; because he was. There is no panacea - and if there were, PR wouldn't be it. Changing voting systems in itself will not change politics or those who engage in politics.
An excellent discussion. There was much that chimed with my own experience as a media spokesperson for Friends of the Earth in the 1990s and 2000s. At the end of the day, all media outlets have agendas and values that colour their output. It pays to read multiple sources - and some of the best , like Novara, are in the "new media".
As a politically engaged voter with no one party loyalty, I now watch, LBC, Novara, Politics Joe, The new Statesman, and times Radio, the mix is important.
I agree but if I'm interested in something I feel it's much better to look myself rather being told what's happening. Some people are quite happy to hear "The BBC. Making sense of the news so you don't have to"
Good discussion. I'm a monthly supporter of Novara, so already a big fan of Ash Sarkar and Novara's style. I have a friend who told me a few weeks ago that she'd never listen to them because they're biased, but I personally prefer to listen to intelligent people who openly acknowledge their own biases, but then strive to report factually correctly on a wide range of subjects, rather than sources where their biases (not necessarily the journalists, but the organizations') are obvious but never stated (SKY, BBC) and you spend the whole time analysing their biases, and noticing what they're avoiding talking about.
Being old, my biggest concern with bbc/itv/channel 4 news is an apparent reduction in scrutiny. I hope the impending extension of the 6 o’clock slot on the BBC, will mean more time is given to interrogating stories with more depth.
Armando Ianucci and Ash Sarkar are two of my very favourite Brits at the moment. This is a great discussion, but still hamstrung by the problem of professional courtesy. Most journalists don't produce good work because they're stupid and lazy. When three people who are demonstrably not stupid and lazy get together to discuss the problems of journalism, out of professional courtesy they avoid making that point. Instead they talk about problems of funding, and problems of incentives... all of which are real! But quite often when you look at a particular piece of bad journalism and ask, why is this bad? The answer isn't so complex. It's just laziness. And laziness is even harder to fix than the structural problems of funding and incentives.
The news literacy discussed at about 41 minutes is key. I find that so many people apply absolutely no critical thinking to what they're reading or seeing. Maybe it was always the case and I'm just getting frustrated with it as I hit old age! However, just look at the state we're in due to media and politicians who just claim to be providing the public with what they want. Listening to you three gives me hope that there are really good thoughtful political journalists out there. Look how much better Andrew Marr and Emily Maitlis are after escaping their shackles. The Internet and social media have their problems but do give an opportunity to these thoughtful voices. Let's not get too down in the dumps about the way people's minds are being warped by the wall of propaganda. The disconnect between that wall and public attitudes on the Middle East and nationalisation were highlighted but let's also consider how the Labour opinion poll lead is holding up so far despite the onslaught as the press bombards its readers and the Tories panic.
@@shaun906 True... In the early 1980's the Sun ran a campaign trying to convince its readers that AIDS was a hoax. Nobody ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the general public.
I think when Ash says partisans are often written off for not having objectivity she makes a great point. The wobbly wobbly comfortable middle is all very well if you have the privilege to pretend that benefits society, but truth has sharp edges. Translating that into policy, I prefer kind words, but the anaemic centrism of I don’t have an informed opinion so I’ll just take the middle ground and pretend that makes me wise (nope, makes you an I’ll informed coward or a grifter) is, in the final analysis, negligent reality denial. I have a position here’s why is legitimate. I don’t know is legitimate. I’ll just go along with the herd and not really think about it is useless and lazy. And yes, that is a criticism of bland liberalism in the uk.
The discussion about the laser focus on the NOW from political reporters is so important. And so frustrating - I’ve seen major political reporters write beautifully about how disastrous that focus is, and how everyone including themselves need to change….and then they just go right back to it again.
I run a business and I can recognise that Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism is extremely important. What we do in response is up to you, but on capitalism, Marx was right.
invariably, people are "not convinced" by those accounts that come from other people's definitions, rather from an actual reading of his/their works. when the opinion comes from an actual reading, it's either agreement or denial based on justification of personal privilege
@@peteradaniel hmm, I don't think PPE-ists at Oxford are reading Das Kapital. I know a few and they don't have the first clue about Marx AFAIK. Mores the pity of course. They tend to spend much more time with Adam Smith, Keynes, Hayek and Friedman from what I can tell. There's a good channel called Unlearning Economics that talks about how bad the standard syllabus for economics is at most universities. Extremely narrow and obsessed with neoclassical economics that has been long debunked and superseded.
Great debate, I think we judge people nowadays as not having critical thinking, but in the 70's people blindly believed their paper and disbelieved the other papers. We like to blame the readers whereas the editorial process needs to be so strong nowadays. I think I grew up trusting the news and now I have to really check every opinion or story as having no facts in it!!
News has morphed into opinion. There’s so much speculation and reaction to help pad out a news show. Just the Reuters-style facts with no spin, framing, opinion etc would be refreshing.
@@abody499 How is it meant to teach critical thinking when history lessons are twice a fortnight for younger students and no longer a mandatory subject at GCSE? They simply aren't exposed to the expertise of critical thinkers.
@dreamcrusher112 by not treating knowledge as something beheld by experts to be transferred into empty waiting receptacles at the whim of the expert, but rather something generated by capable beings in the action of reflecting on reality.
A note to the cameraman: when deciding on exposure settings for a group of people with different pigment shades, don’t go for the automatic setting. The woman in the middle is hardly visible because the camera chooses to take its white reading from the cups on the table and less pigmented skin tones. I don’t mind if the cups are overexposed, I would take my exposure from her skin tone. I’m being a bit picky but as a photographer I know how difficult this situation is as ISO is a European standard and not universally applicable, especially in Africa where I live
@@adrianwhyatt1425 the rating is based on northern conditions, it’s been so ever since ASA standards for film. Exposure in the southern hemisphere is always challenging and needs manual adjustments or reflective bounce for better exposure because the light is a tad harder
@@dub604government f..k everything up..their solutions create tomorrow’s problems..we need small government with no power..regulations are never the answer.
I imagine that in the past there was very little in the way of 'alternative news'. There MAY have been more accountability for publishing misleading or false stories...but they still happened. The opportunities for fact-checking and legislation like the Freedom of Information Act have helped, but corporate media monopoly has also increased, as well as the insatiable greed of those at the top. Rose-tinted glasses don't change the fact that shady political and economic crimes have always happened, and have often been covered up, and journalists bribed or silenced.
@curmudgeon1933 spot on 👌🏻👍🏻. The ONLY way to solve it is to have complete transparency in parliament and in those investigating/reporting on it. Wage caps, full disclosure of earnings and finances, a ban on 2nd jobs/moving in to work for corperate entities post government employment... You'd soon sort those that actually want to make a difference from those just interested in a power grab and have accurate reporting on it for once.
The critical thinking thing is key. I know lots of intelligent people who are unbelievably gullible, and fill their heads with rubbish, from sources they trust, whilst also pointing at how rubbish the untrusted sources are (and calling everyone else "sheeple" of course). The quality of the discourse in the UK is appalling. Example, I point out the term "Woke" seems arrogant, just the word, it seems counter-productive, I take no issue with what it describes, only the one four letter word describing it all that could easily be changed, the response "Why do you think racism is good"? This kind of thing happens often, people scan, latch on to what they are offended by, and respond to that. Very poor indeed.
Agreed, but there's a lack of critical, and independent thought on both sides of the political fence. People just get into their tribes and follow them, no matter what. As soon as something happens in the news there's a default setting many people just go to, even if they don't know much about the subject. It's true of the left and right.
My only experience of GB News or talk TV is clips on novara or Owen Jones Et Al. But I have only ever seen a group of people screaming at one another even though they agree with each other. Compare and contrast with these three having a sensible and civilised discussion. This gives me a chance to breath and be informed and learn from what I'm watching. No wonder the right are so completely misinformed.
Absolutely excellent episode. Very insightful - I've long been looking for an unbiased, factual news source. Maybe it just doesn't exist and maybe oure accepting that is helpful.
Yeah I think Ash’s point about neutrality being impossible is bang on. How could an outlet be unbiased? Selecting what to report on, or giving airtime to particular actors is inevitable yet must be informed by the outlet’s stance. So often ‘unbiased’ is just coded language for arrogantly centrist.
@@Agnelum1 go on then, educate me why I’m wrong? I’ve seen ash sarkar cut through to a right wing audience purely on what a great convincing communicator she can be and her use of facts and and being properly prepared is utterly professional. What standards do you feel that she fails to make?
@@BigAL0074 all journalists have their own views and reasons for wanting to come at a story from a particular angle, there is no such thing as neutrality. When even the BBC is cowed by what might happen if they upset the ruling party, it is necessary to have counterbalance to that and the corrupt right wing media, what’s important is facts, integrity and genuine talent
She wants her work to improve the country for all but the ultra rich especially those most marginalised and the poorest, and she is pretty transparent about all that. I think it’s a pretty noble type of journalism, she has the talents to earn more doing less good so what’s the problem?
Thank you! Really enlightened me. Think that these are insights for other parts of the world as well! First time on your channel and I don’t know how I got here- but feel rewarded!
You talk about the ME, Israel/Palestine and group think. No mention of Lord Gibb, who sits on the BBC Board as a NED. He is also the registered owner of the Jewish Chronicle. No investigation into BBC impartiality there, but Gary Lineker co-owner of a small production company and commenting on govt immigration policy was front page news.
Biggest problem in news globally, and history really. Anyone that records things will inherently decide what is and isn't important to report and what should be emphasised, whether through intentional bias or subconscious bias, it's really impossible to expect any one source to give a totally impartial and complete picture, however ideally they'd give more of one than they generally do currently.
As someone who has voted for various parties and values fact being separated from dogma (re the question at 26 mins), there never can be a single place to get what I need from news feeds. One has to gather news from various (valued) sources, think about what is said, and reach a decision that can be explained when asked. I am less influenced by what is considered 'left' or 'right' and more by the substance of what is proposed and its potential to bring about that which is promised. Politicians seem unable to understand ' the floating voter' and find it incomprehensible that someone can be attracted to policies from various parties. Discussions such as this are worth far more than the daily blathering.
I think you would find me a bit of a lefty but what you say rings so true. I can't claim to be a big activist but have done some canvassing on behalf of the Labour Party. We seldom got much beyond the 'who are you voting for' thing but I always tried to get at least a bit of a conversation going despite the time pressures. The best conversations were always with floating voters who often came up with fascinating reasoning for their opinions. OK, some were crazy but most were interesting and showed that things can look very different from different view points. We need more of that.
Ash is always a breath of fresh air. Imagine journalism with Ash in charge. Combine her with Mehdi, and we would have journalism that holds the executive to account properly. We’re a long way from that.
The less I hear from Navara the better for my sanity. These people scream: „I have never had a proper job or serious responsibilities to juggle, but I read a book about this topic so you should listen to me.“ Ghastly product of bad parenting, self obsessed social media consumption and a society that is consuming itself by their fear of a quiet moment.
@@ruinerblodsinn6648 Good job not engaging with any of her arguments and going straight to the insults. Was making yourself look threatened part of your plan?
@@belindathorne9784 can you read? I said my two cents and commented on Navara as an organization - which is valid. I don't have the time or energy to go through her monologues. There is also no point. If you enjoy that drivel, more power to you mate.
The New Statesman talking about group think in U.K. churnalism. I remember a whole issue dedicated to being anti Corbyn and following the line of all mainstream journalists too scared of global politics and context, who now appear to not notice the Genocide in Gaza. 'Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult', indeed Armando.
10:40 I desprately tried to make Armando Iannucci to a family member the other day where most mainstream news just falls over in trying to make smart analysis. Which is why I end up in Politics Joe and The News Agents, because I feel at least there's an attempt to work through the new of the day and understand it.
@@GodsCosmicBollock”I am literally a communist” but I love all the trappings of a free market society. She would definitely be on the top table if she was in animal farm.
I've been lucky and have spent time in my career working in all sorts of industries, and spent a few years in the broadsheet press, nothing close to the court reporting that goes on but close enough to the huge teams that are selling advertisements to finance getting the paper out each day.
Armando kinda misrepresents Ash in the sum-up at the end. She didn’t concede that being partisan means you can’t have factual authentication - she said precisely the opposite that Novara are regulated by a regulator with the strongest journalistic standards. Yes, people may lose a sense of objective confidence but that’s purely because of the brazen confidence outlets like GB News have in calling themselves factual. Pretending that those two things are the same and are inevitable issues of partisan outlets entirely misses her point and is downright disrespectful to left wing outlets with incredibly high standards. It also reinforces the use of ‘objective’ as coded language for an arrogantly centrist outlet.
@@shaneheff5244it might seem that way to you, but if you think the media you consume is unbiased, you're just kidding yourself. Centrist media isn't unbiased. "The centre" is itself a construction that shifts and changes with discourse among elites and the media itself. Centrism doesn't represent a lack of bias. It merely falls in line with elite consensus.
One of the biggest problems is immaturity. Politicians are younger than ever before and it shows. Their silly attitudes are reflected in the way journalists respond to them.
Problem is it’s all so boring to most people, they’d rather watch videos on their telephones about cage fighting or finger nail painting or some other ghastly thing.
O.K. So now we accept that the legacy media and government interface is dysfunctional and obsolete. How do we alter the system to expand the civil service and use it to the detriment of ordinary tax payers?
Your discussion was fine, but, PLEASE - I don’t like being inaccurately pigeonholed. I must point out that I am a male of 75 years who neither watches any BBC News nor reads the Daily Mail. However, I do follow the likes of Novara and The New Statesman among others. Me? - nowhere near your legacy media. I really don’t think I am alone.
Are you basing your feeling on any statistically measurable factor, or do you feel like you're not alone because your strength of feeling hasn't been processed yet? It's not about you, anymore than it's about me, in my mid-twenties, buying newspapers on the regular. We may not slot easily into our demographics, but that makes us the exception, not the rule.
It is a very interesting conversation, but by the end of it, I feel like they are people who like smelling their own farts. Ash Sarkar fights against her own feeling that she is not impartial, defending a particular political stance and yet wants to distance herself from the other media outlets that are biased in their own views. At the end of the day, the "public" or "consumers" want to be entertained by media that will align with their views - nobody will change the way they think about things, whatever they may be. In the internet age Homo Digitalis (my copyright) is unable or unwilling to do the research, so the lobby system is satisfactory for them, although for media outlets who are not invited might not be.
This is all good. However to really get a true picture of the media landscape is to ask informed viewers. Professional journalists tend towards an egotistical and ideological self delusion view of the job.
At 41: 55 Ash points out the raging thirst of the public to have important news events explained with a breakdown of how various outlets and "news" channels (both right and left biased) are reporting on the event. Opening up the spin they are putting on it and in many cases the distortions, trickery, omissions, missing context and flat out lies that some (looking at you Fox "news") habitually use. People crave this media literacy.
lobbyists are definitely not my idea of a journalist, they’re reporters and 10% of the time reporting on something the government has not wanted to be reported. The journalist in the room is the government spokesperson. Sure the reporter can put their bias on the article they’re writing but when the topic and content in the topic is issued it’s an extremely limited space to put their bias into the report.
How about the answer is “Nothing”. People have always sought out confirmation bias … hell we even have an expression for it “birds of a feather” The answer is also not to take the elitism stance of “people reading are too dumb”; that’s arrogant and puerile. The answer is Twitter, Tim Tok, RU-vid and create content (journalism) that is engaging and clearly stipulate your truth. Is it hard. Yes! But that’s why you have multiple degrees to hone the message so it has emotional connection. Even frogs jump out of the water when it gets too hot.
You’ve made me realise how much I’ve changed regarding the news. I used to listen to Radio 4 every day. Now I listen to Campbell and Stewart at the weekend instead. We crave quality but had few options in the past. Now, build it and they come.
Is that really a change though? The Today Programme shares pretty much all the basic assumptions on economics, foreign policy and fiscal policy with Stewart and Campbell.
@@michaelrch the loss of audience numbers are saying something different. For me, I like the depth and experience others bring. Maitliss and Sopel quote the same, and quote the freedom from editorial control. I can’t forgive the BBC for its deference to this corrupt and incompetent government. I’ll now seek my news elsewhere.
@@IslandlifeIoW I am not saying they are not different at all, but the differences are minor in the grand scheme. They all pretty much adhere to the same beliefs about the important things about which "serious people" should agree. Even when someone like John Sopel leaves the BBC l, it doesn't mean he suddenly revises his understanding of central planks of political and economic theory. I mentioned Manufacturing Consent. Are you familiar with this book? It was extremely valuable to me in understanding what the media is up to, and why it is so broadly homogeneous on so many issues.
Ash is the actual most impressive journalist in the country. Novara needs to be watched by millions. Are there no very rich leftists to invest in growing the channel at all? If i won the euromillions I'd donate a couple of million for huge promotion, more broadcast and print staff and even more promotion. Big ad campaigns. Whatever they needed. They're too neessary to discourse to have a relatively small audience. Its,about getting discovered on a,wide scale since in a fair game, theyd have a massive viewership. Millions would chime with their output. It's intelligent, insightful, rigourous work presented in a genuinely witty and irreverent, insoucient manner. It helps the presenters are a bunch of hotties too.
Isn't it nice and engaging when 3 people with different political views but that can behave like adults sit down and have a deep discussion? Just a thought.
Interesting but I wish Navarro rep would allow the discussion to have more time in the expanded views within the first 35 mins she keeps going to lobby focus whereas the others are trying to broaden the narrative
The public are also at fault for allowing themselves to be too distracted by entertainment and trivia and not interested enough in what the ruling class are doing to the country. Bread and circuses rule, ok ?
Likely just too expensive and niche, I enjoyed it too. Sci Fi and comedy always struggles to get big audiences, Red Dwarf and The Orville did quite well, but it's tough to get a following before those in charge decide it's not a big enough hit.
@@keithpanton Man... it was an excellent show... I stumbled upon it and liked every minute. It could be a great hit with a little marketing. It is unbelivable to see this show is cancelled while a tons of expensive but totally unwatchable shows are still on air.
Feels like this summed up the problem perfectly by completely missing the problem and focusing on the media/political bubble. I did have a good laugh when Ash said Novara care about facts, that was a good joke. For me journalism should be about reporting the facts and letting people make up their own mind, not telling people how they should think.
Sorry to say, but I think it is you that has missed the point. They are exploring the ingrained assumptions and circumstances that influence and inhibit the manufacture and representation of facts. This kind of analysis makes your idea of journalism a bit redundant. Ironic really
Most of these legacy media journalist's are a part of the political elite, these individuals are also donors to political party's. Of course they have an agenda and this is a part of the problem. So who do these party's serve in the end? There is a lot of distrust right now, because all major parties have a conflict of interest, whilst on the face of it they are supposed to serve the state they are also there to serve the donor's who pay the most money. You can see in the conservative party right now that they have fallen out of favor with their major donor's such as the times and telegraph and so on. Once you lose the support of these journalists you lose the support of the people. Aka there is a rule in political journalism; what you may be telling the people may not be true, but if you tell people the same things over and over again eventually they will believe you... ; If the major political party has control of the media, they have control of the people. And this is why there is a-lot of distrust with the legacy media right now.
Everything that is wrong with journalists in one video - pompous, all about how smug they are. It’s so easy to question the answers, tougher to answer the questions. That is why they choose that profession.
This was an excellent program. I hope the New Statesman will continue to have Armando hosting these type of discussions. I have an objection to Ash Sarkar and her explanation of Novara Media. Ms. Sarkar and Novara will criticize the Conservative media for bias. Daily Mail, Sun, Daily Express. Novara will perpetually smear Keir Starmer. If Keir ordered an ice cream, Novara would explain how his choice of flavour was a betrayal of Labour. Please do a review on Novara's videos in 2023 for reference. Looking forward to new videos by this channel in 2024.😊
Starmer is ripe for criticism. You choose to consider it smearing. But Starmer lied about working with the left wing of the party, he lied about standing by the manifesto. He stands with the tories on so many policies. He wouldn’t even call for a ceasefire as Netanyahu war crimed and genocided his way into Gaza. Novara is left wing but Starmer isn’t; he’s a tory.
@AtheistEve Criticize all you want. My point is if Keir Starmer made a charitable donation, Novara Media would simply criticize for some arbitrary basis. No Different than the Daily Mail and associates.
