You may totally disagree with the slant on events given by outlets like Daily Express, Daily Mail or Guido Fawkes, as is your perfect right.

However the factual content has to be correct otherwise they would be pilloried pillar to post. When does this happen? You may dislike intensely the political slant of a source but the factual content may often be the only place you will easily find it. Too many on this forum are too ready to condemn the messenger outright and are blind and oblivious to the message. Is this not short sighted? Even the guardian has something to say although it would give a met. forecast with a lean to the left despite the coriolis force.

As a very minor example Tommy Robinson. In his early days he was far more of a thug than an angel, there is no dispute on this. On the mainstream media he is still portrayed as a thug. However study the youtube talk he gave to the Oxford Union in 2015.(I believe) Then form your own opinion. At the moment the online petition for his release stands at 573,000 signatures.
Ask yourself the following.
Did people sign because they believe his mainstream depiction as a thug is accurate?
Or did they sign because they feel he has a valid statement to make and is being stifled?
Do you think his arrest was legitimate, or was he stitched up?

As I have said before bias exists in all reporting. If you refuse to acknowledge that the opposition may on occasions be more factually correct and therefore modify your previous convictions, then you are the one that is disadvantaged in the long run.


The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant. Maximilien Robespierre