UK based funds - brexit and onwards

BananaRepublic

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

I missed that, looked several times too. They regularly have headline Brexit horror stories high up on on the main page, such as recently one person paying more for a coat, positive comments from Nissan should have been on the main page too. The pre Brexit warnings from Nissan were. 

I'd argue neither story should have made the front page. It basically boils down to "Nissan windbag issues scary warning then changes his mind".

There were very real concerns that a hard deal would have devastated the UK car industry which is a significant part of the UK economy. Reporting that was right. 

The actual comment was: "You know we are the number one carmaker in the UK and we want to continue. We are committed. Having said that, if we are not getting the current tariffs, it's not our intention but the business will not be sustainable. That's what everybody has to understand."

It was made in June last year. It's right that those comments should have been reported. It is likely that if there was no deal and a reversion to WTO rules, it would have been pretty bad for the car industry.

But there was a follow-up story in mid-November with further comments from the Nissan COO saying effectively if a deal was not reached next week (end of November), then it would be too late to save the industry. That simply was not true and should not have been given such credibility.

Seems reasonable to report it to me, even if the exact date was wrong. They were saying it had  to be agreed then. They and other news sites reported countless warnings from business leaders, car making was especially vulnerable due to moving so many parts to and from other EU countries.

If you spin it like that, i.e. that the exact date was wrong, but the thing the warning was contingent on didn't happen, then the news that something didn't happen, therefore something dependent on that thing also didn't happen, is considerably less newsworthy. In the end though, I think all of that is irrelevant, because what keeps things on the front page is engagement from visitors.

Then we disagree. Regarding the last remark, they don’t get on the front page by engagement but by editorial decisions. Alastair Campbell understood well how the media works, and how to use them to manipulate public opinion. It isn’t just ‘report the news’. 

It seems like people of all political persuasions accuse the BBC of bias against their political viewpoint, so perhaps it is striking a better balance than people give it credit for. The main bone I've had to pick with its reporting is its poor handling of statistics, for example making headlines with large-looking relative numbers, while ignoring absolute numbers, which may be infinitesimal (fictitious example: odds of being hit by extinction level asteroid in 2021 up 25% on year 2020, absolute risk <0.000001%).

I don’t buy that first part although it is often said by the BBC. They do attack any government, but it’s the general reporting and content that is slanted. It is well established that BBC executives are as a group on the left with regards to their voting tendencies. The newspapers delivered to executives are dominated by the Guardian. I have never heard people compain that the agenda and tone is right wing. 

They are overweight in white middle class well meaning privately educated people. Martha Kearney reported that after Blair’s first win, the corridors of Broadcasting House were lined with empty champagne bottles. John Humphrys after retirement stated that they were to the left, and full of well meaning people with a narrow outlook. He is old style moderate left. Rod Liddle, a Leftie so to speak, has stated the same and that the bias is shown by the choice of stories eg an obsession with Israel whilst ignoring atrocities elsewhere (though the wall has quelled the reporting). BBC comedy on R4 is appalling, for example I don’t recall one single anti remain joke, shedload of anti Brexit ones. Black Lives Matters was reported on R4 in an admiring manner, with no critical analysis whatsoever. I’ve seen interviews by Kathy Newman of Rod Liddle and Jordan Peterson which were a farce, repeatedly misrepresenting what they had said in the interview due to her inability to see outside of a left agenda. 

Moe_The_Bartender

theothersaver said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

I missed that, looked several times too. They regularly have headline Brexit horror stories high up on on the main page, such as recently one person paying more for a coat, positive comments from Nissan should have been on the main page too. The pre Brexit warnings from Nissan were. 

I'd argue neither story should have made the front page. It basically boils down to "Nissan windbag issues scary warning then changes his mind".

There were very real concerns that a hard deal would have devastated the UK car industry which is a significant part of the UK economy. Reporting that was right. 

The actual comment was: "You know we are the number one carmaker in the UK and we want to continue. We are committed. Having said that, if we are not getting the current tariffs, it's not our intention but the business will not be sustainable. That's what everybody has to understand."

It was made in June last year. It's right that those comments should have been reported. It is likely that if there was no deal and a reversion to WTO rules, it would have been pretty bad for the car industry.

But there was a follow-up story in mid-November with further comments from the Nissan COO saying effectively if a deal was not reached next week (end of November), then it would be too late to save the industry. That simply was not true and should not have been given such credibility.

Seems reasonable to report it to me, even if the exact date was wrong. They were saying it had  to be agreed then. They and other news sites reported countless warnings from business leaders, car making was especially vulnerable due to moving so many parts to and from other EU countries.

If you spin it like that, i.e. that the exact date was wrong, but the thing the warning was contingent on didn't happen, then the news that something didn't happen, therefore something dependent on that thing also didn't happen, is considerably less newsworthy. In the end though, I think all of that is irrelevant, because what keeps things on the front page is engagement from visitors.

Then we disagree. Regarding the last remark, they don’t get on the front page by engagement but by editorial decisions. Alastair Campbell understood well how the media works, and how to use them to manipulate public opinion. It isn’t just ‘report the news’. 

It seems like people of all political persuasions accuse the BBC of bias against their political viewpoint, so perhaps it is striking a better balance than people give it credit for. The main bone I've had to pick with its reporting is its poor handling of statistics, for example making headlines with large-looking relative numbers, while ignoring absolute numbers, which may be infinitesimal (fictitious example: odds of being hit by extinction level asteroid in 2021 up 25% on year 2020, absolute risk <0.000001%).

I don’t buy that first part although it is often said by the BBC. They do attack any government, but it’s the general reporting and content that is slanted. It is well established that BBC executives are as a group on the left with regards to their voting tendencies. The newspapers delivered to executives are dominated by the Guardian. I have never heard people compain that the agenda and tone is right wing. 

They are overweight in white middle class well meaning privately educated people. Martha Kearney reported that after Blair’s first win, the corridors of Broadcasting House were lined with empty champagne bottles. John Humphrys after retirement stated that they were to the left, and full of well meaning people with a narrow outlook. He is old style moderate left. Rod Liddle, a Leftie so to speak, has stated the same and that the bias is shown by the choice of stories eg an obsession with Israel whilst ignoring atrocities elsewhere (though the wall has quelled the reporting). BBC comedy on R4 is appalling, for example I don’t recall one single anti remain joke, shedload of anti Brexit ones. Black Lives Matters was reported on R4 in an admiring manner, with no critical analysis whatsoever. I’ve seen interviews by Kathy Newman of Rod Liddle and Jordan Peterson which were a farce, repeatedly misrepresenting what they had said in the interview due to her inability to see outside of a left agenda. 

You've fallen for the logical fallacy of assuming that in any argument, there are two sides who deserve an equal hearing. By that logic, a flat earther's ignorance is considered equivalent to a lot of science. A creationist is considered equivalent to Richard Dawkins. In some matters there is one side, in some there are 5 or an unlimited number. This is why the referendum was such a stupid idea in the first place, they never solve anything.

Holy mother of God! What you are saying here is that anyone who disagrees with the BBC is a flat earther. You didn’t even address any of the points made.

NottinghamKnight

I think Tesla will have had some pretty significant inducements from the German government to site in Berlin.
My point was more that car manufacturers are in the business of making money (or minimising losses) and sweet deals with government as are part of that, and where a government steps out of line even where it is ethical then it can adversely impact business. 

Thrugelmir

Moe_The_Bartender said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

I missed that, looked several times too. They regularly have headline Brexit horror stories high up on on the main page, such as recently one person paying more for a coat, positive comments from Nissan should have been on the main page too. The pre Brexit warnings from Nissan were. 

I'd argue neither story should have made the front page. It basically boils down to "Nissan windbag issues scary warning then changes his mind".

There were very real concerns that a hard deal would have devastated the UK car industry which is a significant part of the UK economy. Reporting that was right. 

The actual comment was: "You know we are the number one carmaker in the UK and we want to continue. We are committed. Having said that, if we are not getting the current tariffs, it's not our intention but the business will not be sustainable. That's what everybody has to understand."

It was made in June last year. It's right that those comments should have been reported. It is likely that if there was no deal and a reversion to WTO rules, it would have been pretty bad for the car industry.

But there was a follow-up story in mid-November with further comments from the Nissan COO saying effectively if a deal was not reached next week (end of November), then it would be too late to save the industry. That simply was not true and should not have been given such credibility.

The likely reason the November story made the front page is because it was basically scaremongering, and scaremongering is effective at driving clicks.

There’s nothing to stop Nissan closing Sunderland and moving production to Japan now that we have a trade deal. 

Is there a factory built ready and waiting?  Honda's decision to close the Swindon part. Was in part to the fact that they decided to reengineer their whole manufacturing process from scratch. 

masonic

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

I missed that, looked several times too. They regularly have headline Brexit horror stories high up on on the main page, such as recently one person paying more for a coat, positive comments from Nissan should have been on the main page too. The pre Brexit warnings from Nissan were. 

I'd argue neither story should have made the front page. It basically boils down to "Nissan windbag issues scary warning then changes his mind".

There were very real concerns that a hard deal would have devastated the UK car industry which is a significant part of the UK economy. Reporting that was right. 

The actual comment was: "You know we are the number one carmaker in the UK and we want to continue. We are committed. Having said that, if we are not getting the current tariffs, it's not our intention but the business will not be sustainable. That's what everybody has to understand."

It was made in June last year. It's right that those comments should have been reported. It is likely that if there was no deal and a reversion to WTO rules, it would have been pretty bad for the car industry.

But there was a follow-up story in mid-November with further comments from the Nissan COO saying effectively if a deal was not reached next week (end of November), then it would be too late to save the industry. That simply was not true and should not have been given such credibility.

Seems reasonable to report it to me, even if the exact date was wrong. They were saying it had  to be agreed then. They and other news sites reported countless warnings from business leaders, car making was especially vulnerable due to moving so many parts to and from other EU countries.

If you spin it like that, i.e. that the exact date was wrong, but the thing the warning was contingent on didn't happen, then the news that something didn't happen, therefore something dependent on that thing also didn't happen, is considerably less newsworthy. In the end though, I think all of that is irrelevant, because what keeps things on the front page is engagement from visitors.

Then we disagree. Regarding the last remark, they don’t get on the front page by engagement but by editorial decisions. Alastair Campbell understood well how the media works, and how to use them to manipulate public opinion. It isn’t just ‘report the news’. 

It seems like people of all political persuasions accuse the BBC of bias against their political viewpoint, so perhaps it is striking a better balance than people give it credit for. The main bone I've had to pick with its reporting is its poor handling of statistics, for example making headlines with large-looking relative numbers, while ignoring absolute numbers, which may be infinitesimal (fictitious example: odds of being hit by extinction level asteroid in 2021 up 25% on year 2020, absolute risk <0.000001%).

I don’t buy that first part although it is often said by the BBC. They do attack any government, but it’s the general reporting and content that is slanted. It is well established that BBC executives are as a group on the left with regards to their voting tendencies. The newspapers delivered to executives are dominated by the Guardian. I have never heard people compain that the agenda and tone is right wing.

The left would point at Laura Kuenssberg, who they paint as the Government's propagandist in chief. If you've ever watched Channel 4 news, you'd see how weak the BBC is when holding the Government to account. I do see the slanted reporting that you mention, but different articles are slanted in different ways. If you gather your news from a range of different sources as anyone should, then you get to see the whole spectrum of slants placed on a single piece of news, and the BBC's slant tends to sit near the middle in my experience.

BananaRepublic

NottinghamKnight said:

I think Tesla will have had some pretty significant inducements from the German government to site in Berlin.
My point was more that car manufacturers are in the business of making money (or minimising losses) and sweet deals with government as are part of that, and where a government steps out of line even where it is ethical then it can adversely impact business. 

Absolutely, and the UK government didn’t even bid for the Tesla factory. Brexit uncertainty would probably have screwed their chances had they tried. One advantage Thatcher had was Michael Heseltine who understood about industry, supporting business and rejuvenation. 

BananaRepublic

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

I missed that, looked several times too. They regularly have headline Brexit horror stories high up on on the main page, such as recently one person paying more for a coat, positive comments from Nissan should have been on the main page too. The pre Brexit warnings from Nissan were. 

I'd argue neither story should have made the front page. It basically boils down to "Nissan windbag issues scary warning then changes his mind".

There were very real concerns that a hard deal would have devastated the UK car industry which is a significant part of the UK economy. Reporting that was right. 

The actual comment was: "You know we are the number one carmaker in the UK and we want to continue. We are committed. Having said that, if we are not getting the current tariffs, it's not our intention but the business will not be sustainable. That's what everybody has to understand."

It was made in June last year. It's right that those comments should have been reported. It is likely that if there was no deal and a reversion to WTO rules, it would have been pretty bad for the car industry.

But there was a follow-up story in mid-November with further comments from the Nissan COO saying effectively if a deal was not reached next week (end of November), then it would be too late to save the industry. That simply was not true and should not have been given such credibility.

Seems reasonable to report it to me, even if the exact date was wrong. They were saying it had  to be agreed then. They and other news sites reported countless warnings from business leaders, car making was especially vulnerable due to moving so many parts to and from other EU countries.

If you spin it like that, i.e. that the exact date was wrong, but the thing the warning was contingent on didn't happen, then the news that something didn't happen, therefore something dependent on that thing also didn't happen, is considerably less newsworthy. In the end though, I think all of that is irrelevant, because what keeps things on the front page is engagement from visitors.

Then we disagree. Regarding the last remark, they don’t get on the front page by engagement but by editorial decisions. Alastair Campbell understood well how the media works, and how to use them to manipulate public opinion. It isn’t just ‘report the news’. 

It seems like people of all political persuasions accuse the BBC of bias against their political viewpoint, so perhaps it is striking a better balance than people give it credit for. The main bone I've had to pick with its reporting is its poor handling of statistics, for example making headlines with large-looking relative numbers, while ignoring absolute numbers, which may be infinitesimal (fictitious example: odds of being hit by extinction level asteroid in 2021 up 25% on year 2020, absolute risk <0.000001%).

I don’t buy that first part although it is often said by the BBC. They do attack any government, but it’s the general reporting and content that is slanted. It is well established that BBC executives are as a group on the left with regards to their voting tendencies. The newspapers delivered to executives are dominated by the Guardian. I have never heard people compain that the agenda and tone is right wing.

The left would point at Laura Kuenssberg, who they paint as the Government's propagandist in chief. If you've ever watched Channel 4 news, you'd see how weak the BBC is when holding the Government to account. I do see the slanted reporting that you mention, but different articles are slanted in different ways. If you gather your news from a range of different sources as anyone should, then you get to see the whole spectrum of slants placed on a single piece of news, and the BBC's slant tends to sit near the middle in my experience.

Not in my view. The reporting of Brexit and Black Lives Matters was hugely unbalanced, for example. I don’t watch TV, but there has been a lot of criticism of C4 claiming it is biased to the left, I’ve seen none saying it is biased to the right. This article claims that some C4 journalists formally complained about the bias:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1214627/channel-four-left-wing-bias-against-tories-boris-johnson-bbc-labour-jeremy-corbyn

They also claim that a senior BBC journalist said the C4 news has been taken over by a ‘sanctimonious” left wing cabal. 

masonic

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

I missed that, looked several times too. They regularly have headline Brexit horror stories high up on on the main page, such as recently one person paying more for a coat, positive comments from Nissan should have been on the main page too. The pre Brexit warnings from Nissan were. 

I'd argue neither story should have made the front page. It basically boils down to "Nissan windbag issues scary warning then changes his mind".

There were very real concerns that a hard deal would have devastated the UK car industry which is a significant part of the UK economy. Reporting that was right. 

The actual comment was: "You know we are the number one carmaker in the UK and we want to continue. We are committed. Having said that, if we are not getting the current tariffs, it's not our intention but the business will not be sustainable. That's what everybody has to understand."

It was made in June last year. It's right that those comments should have been reported. It is likely that if there was no deal and a reversion to WTO rules, it would have been pretty bad for the car industry.

But there was a follow-up story in mid-November with further comments from the Nissan COO saying effectively if a deal was not reached next week (end of November), then it would be too late to save the industry. That simply was not true and should not have been given such credibility.

Seems reasonable to report it to me, even if the exact date was wrong. They were saying it had  to be agreed then. They and other news sites reported countless warnings from business leaders, car making was especially vulnerable due to moving so many parts to and from other EU countries.

If you spin it like that, i.e. that the exact date was wrong, but the thing the warning was contingent on didn't happen, then the news that something didn't happen, therefore something dependent on that thing also didn't happen, is considerably less newsworthy. In the end though, I think all of that is irrelevant, because what keeps things on the front page is engagement from visitors.

Then we disagree. Regarding the last remark, they don’t get on the front page by engagement but by editorial decisions. Alastair Campbell understood well how the media works, and how to use them to manipulate public opinion. It isn’t just ‘report the news’. 

It seems like people of all political persuasions accuse the BBC of bias against their political viewpoint, so perhaps it is striking a better balance than people give it credit for. The main bone I've had to pick with its reporting is its poor handling of statistics, for example making headlines with large-looking relative numbers, while ignoring absolute numbers, which may be infinitesimal (fictitious example: odds of being hit by extinction level asteroid in 2021 up 25% on year 2020, absolute risk <0.000001%).

I don’t buy that first part although it is often said by the BBC. They do attack any government, but it’s the general reporting and content that is slanted. It is well established that BBC executives are as a group on the left with regards to their voting tendencies. The newspapers delivered to executives are dominated by the Guardian. I have never heard people compain that the agenda and tone is right wing.

The left would point at Laura Kuenssberg, who they paint as the Government's propagandist in chief. If you've ever watched Channel 4 news, you'd see how weak the BBC is when holding the Government to account. I do see the slanted reporting that you mention, but different articles are slanted in different ways. If you gather your news from a range of different sources as anyone should, then you get to see the whole spectrum of slants placed on a single piece of news, and the BBC's slant tends to sit near the middle in my experience.

Not in my view. The reporting of Brexit and Black Lives Matters was hugely unbalanced, for example. I don’t watch TV, but there has been a lot of criticism of C4 claiming it is biased to the left, I’ve seen none saying it is biased to the right. This article claims that some C4 journalists formally complained about the bias:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1214627/channel-four-left-wing-bias-against-tories-boris-johnson-bbc-labour-jeremy-corbyn

They also claim that a senior BBC journalist said the C4 news has been taken over by a ‘sanctimonious” left wing cabal. 

I don't watch TV either, but if you believe what you read in the Daily Express then I can understand why we might disagree on things. There's biased news, and then there's news that's so detached from reality you might as well be living in a parallel universe.

BananaRepublic

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

I missed that, looked several times too. They regularly have headline Brexit horror stories high up on on the main page, such as recently one person paying more for a coat, positive comments from Nissan should have been on the main page too. The pre Brexit warnings from Nissan were. 

I'd argue neither story should have made the front page. It basically boils down to "Nissan windbag issues scary warning then changes his mind".

There were very real concerns that a hard deal would have devastated the UK car industry which is a significant part of the UK economy. Reporting that was right. 

The actual comment was: "You know we are the number one carmaker in the UK and we want to continue. We are committed. Having said that, if we are not getting the current tariffs, it's not our intention but the business will not be sustainable. That's what everybody has to understand."

It was made in June last year. It's right that those comments should have been reported. It is likely that if there was no deal and a reversion to WTO rules, it would have been pretty bad for the car industry.

But there was a follow-up story in mid-November with further comments from the Nissan COO saying effectively if a deal was not reached next week (end of November), then it would be too late to save the industry. That simply was not true and should not have been given such credibility.

Seems reasonable to report it to me, even if the exact date was wrong. They were saying it had  to be agreed then. They and other news sites reported countless warnings from business leaders, car making was especially vulnerable due to moving so many parts to and from other EU countries.

If you spin it like that, i.e. that the exact date was wrong, but the thing the warning was contingent on didn't happen, then the news that something didn't happen, therefore something dependent on that thing also didn't happen, is considerably less newsworthy. In the end though, I think all of that is irrelevant, because what keeps things on the front page is engagement from visitors.

Then we disagree. Regarding the last remark, they don’t get on the front page by engagement but by editorial decisions. Alastair Campbell understood well how the media works, and how to use them to manipulate public opinion. It isn’t just ‘report the news’. 

It seems like people of all political persuasions accuse the BBC of bias against their political viewpoint, so perhaps it is striking a better balance than people give it credit for. The main bone I've had to pick with its reporting is its poor handling of statistics, for example making headlines with large-looking relative numbers, while ignoring absolute numbers, which may be infinitesimal (fictitious example: odds of being hit by extinction level asteroid in 2021 up 25% on year 2020, absolute risk <0.000001%).

I don’t buy that first part although it is often said by the BBC. They do attack any government, but it’s the general reporting and content that is slanted. It is well established that BBC executives are as a group on the left with regards to their voting tendencies. The newspapers delivered to executives are dominated by the Guardian. I have never heard people compain that the agenda and tone is right wing.

The left would point at Laura Kuenssberg, who they paint as the Government's propagandist in chief. If you've ever watched Channel 4 news, you'd see how weak the BBC is when holding the Government to account. I do see the slanted reporting that you mention, but different articles are slanted in different ways. If you gather your news from a range of different sources as anyone should, then you get to see the whole spectrum of slants placed on a single piece of news, and the BBC's slant tends to sit near the middle in my experience.

Not in my view. The reporting of Brexit and Black Lives Matters was hugely unbalanced, for example. I don’t watch TV, but there has been a lot of criticism of C4 claiming it is biased to the left, I’ve seen none saying it is biased to the right. This article claims that some C4 journalists formally complained about the bias:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1214627/channel-four-left-wing-bias-against-tories-boris-johnson-bbc-labour-jeremy-corbyn

They also claim that a senior BBC journalist said the C4 news has been taken over by a ‘sanctimonious” left wing cabal. 

I don't watch TV either, but if you believe what you read in the Daily Express then I can understand why we might disagree on things. There's biased news, and then there's news that's so detached from reality you might as well be living in a parallel universe.

There’s plenty of sources saying that C4 news is quite left wing, none saying otherwise. Now of course you might think the Express is making up the story, but I suppose anyone on the right says the same about the Guardian, because it doesn’t fit their agenda. The story says that representations were made by C4 journalists to senior ITN staff, so if it was untrue, they could complain to various bodies and force a retraction. It doesn’t look like they did. 

masonic

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

masonic said:

BananaRepublic said:

I missed that, looked several times too. They regularly have headline Brexit horror stories high up on on the main page, such as recently one person paying more for a coat, positive comments from Nissan should have been on the main page too. The pre Brexit warnings from Nissan were. 

I'd argue neither story should have made the front page. It basically boils down to "Nissan windbag issues scary warning then changes his mind".

There were very real concerns that a hard deal would have devastated the UK car industry which is a significant part of the UK economy. Reporting that was right. 

The actual comment was: "You know we are the number one carmaker in the UK and we want to continue. We are committed. Having said that, if we are not getting the current tariffs, it's not our intention but the business will not be sustainable. That's what everybody has to understand."

It was made in June last year. It's right that those comments should have been reported. It is likely that if there was no deal and a reversion to WTO rules, it would have been pretty bad for the car industry.

But there was a follow-up story in mid-November with further comments from the Nissan COO saying effectively if a deal was not reached next week (end of November), then it would be too late to save the industry. That simply was not true and should not have been given such credibility.

Seems reasonable to report it to me, even if the exact date was wrong. They were saying it had  to be agreed then. They and other news sites reported countless warnings from business leaders, car making was especially vulnerable due to moving so many parts to and from other EU countries.

If you spin it like that, i.e. that the exact date was wrong, but the thing the warning was contingent on didn't happen, then the news that something didn't happen, therefore something dependent on that thing also didn't happen, is considerably less newsworthy. In the end though, I think all of that is irrelevant, because what keeps things on the front page is engagement from visitors.

Then we disagree. Regarding the last remark, they don’t get on the front page by engagement but by editorial decisions. Alastair Campbell understood well how the media works, and how to use them to manipulate public opinion. It isn’t just ‘report the news’. 

It seems like people of all political persuasions accuse the BBC of bias against their political viewpoint, so perhaps it is striking a better balance than people give it credit for. The main bone I've had to pick with its reporting is its poor handling of statistics, for example making headlines with large-looking relative numbers, while ignoring absolute numbers, which may be infinitesimal (fictitious example: odds of being hit by extinction level asteroid in 2021 up 25% on year 2020, absolute risk <0.000001%).

I don’t buy that first part although it is often said by the BBC. They do attack any government, but it’s the general reporting and content that is slanted. It is well established that BBC executives are as a group on the left with regards to their voting tendencies. The newspapers delivered to executives are dominated by the Guardian. I have never heard people compain that the agenda and tone is right wing.

The left would point at Laura Kuenssberg, who they paint as the Government's propagandist in chief. If you've ever watched Channel 4 news, you'd see how weak the BBC is when holding the Government to account. I do see the slanted reporting that you mention, but different articles are slanted in different ways. If you gather your news from a range of different sources as anyone should, then you get to see the whole spectrum of slants placed on a single piece of news, and the BBC's slant tends to sit near the middle in my experience.

Not in my view. The reporting of Brexit and Black Lives Matters was hugely unbalanced, for example. I don’t watch TV, but there has been a lot of criticism of C4 claiming it is biased to the left, I’ve seen none saying it is biased to the right. This article claims that some C4 journalists formally complained about the bias:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1214627/channel-four-left-wing-bias-against-tories-boris-johnson-bbc-labour-jeremy-corbyn

They also claim that a senior BBC journalist said the C4 news has been taken over by a ‘sanctimonious” left wing cabal. 

I don't watch TV either, but if you believe what you read in the Daily Express then I can understand why we might disagree on things. There's biased news, and then there's news that's so detached from reality you might as well be living in a parallel universe.

There’s plenty of sources saying that C4 news is quite left wing, none saying otherwise. Now of course you might think the Express is making up the story, but I suppose anyone on the right says the same about the Guardian, because it doesn’t fit their agenda. The story says that representations were made by C4 journalists to senior ITN staff, so if it was untrue, they could complain to various bodies and force a retraction. It doesn’t look like they did. 

Yes, other right wing news sources regard C4 news as biased because they attack the Government, when that Government is Conservative. What they forget is C4 news also attacked the Labour Government when it was in power. I think it is reasonable to suggest that they are broadly liberal, which of course goes back to the 'slants' discussion, but they do have a tendency to hold the Government of the day to account whatever party is in power, unlike the BBC.