Modi should have funded an Indian documentary on the financing of Rishi Sunak and his wife as a way of silencing criticism -- Tories would pull BBC in to line pretty quick then. Seems those with dirty hands are quick to point the finger.
A) Sunak can't just "pull the BBC into line" as it's independent of the government.
B) The BBC regularly criticises the UK government and even the Royal family. If it could get a scoop on some new corruption it would air it as soon as it could.
C) We also have people like Led By Donkeys here who air as much dirt as they can on the government. (We are not short of scandals right now, although few involve genocide).
I don't think it's true though, as evidenced by the Tory media minister Nadine Dorries doing everything she could to de-fund the BBC for criticism of the Johnson government.
She wouldn't do that if the BBC was a Tory mouthpiece under her control.
Just saying that "a growing number of Britons are coming to realise" something doesn't really tell you much. That could be 3 people yesterday and 4 people today.
The BBC criticises both sides of the political fence and both groups complain about it being biased against them.
If it was truly biased to the Tories, people like Frankie Boyle wouldn't get BBC shows and Ian Blackford wouldn't regularly be quoted on the Today Programme or PMQs.
Bias is not binary. The establishment bias of the BBC (which I think does exist) doesn't carry over to coverage of a pogrom in Gujarat, because there's no establishment skin in that particular game.
I consider myself on the left and have spent a bit of time in the UK (Usually vote Labour/Green in Australia). Labour does seem fairly inept in the UK, not certain I could vote for them if given the right.
Certainly Corbyn running around suggesting not arming Ukraine did nothing for my opinion on that front[0].
I agree though, that the BBC and the ABC in Australia both lean left as a rule, though still do their job of holding both to account.
BBC Employees tend to be younger than average (as there are very few over 65s at the BBC), tend to be more educated that average (most jobs will require a college level degree), tend to be more metropolitan (most staff are employed major cities)
Of course there are very few tory or leave voters amongst BBC Staff, probably between 1-in-4 and 1-in-3 if they are demographically representative [1]
The question is how those views come across in the reporting, and generally it seems fairly balanced to me (I usually vote Lib Dem fwiw)
Big difference in that Sunak & his wife's wealth is regularly mentioned in the UK, including on BBC programs, and media daily publishes criticism of Sunak and the government he leads, whereas criticism of Modi is suppressed or drowned out by supporters.
Huh? The "other people" are "suppressed" by "drowning out" because it is a democracy and they are not in power? Because most people support a government doesn't mean the "other people" are being drowned out by suppression?
What a ridiculous and dishonest line of argument you have presented here. Just because you are not a supporter of a democratically elected government doesn't mean you are being drowned out and suppressed. If that were the case you would have disappeared like they do in China. What a hyperbole.
"Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday hailed Infosys and Sudha Murthy, chairperson of Infosys Foundation, as he expressed gratitude to them for their service to humanity."
I think you did not clarify the connection sufficiently. Sudha Murthy is the mother-in-law of Rishi Sunak, the British Prime Minister. She is quite an accomplished engineer, and also the wife of Infosys co-founder Narayana Murthy.
