My genX ass was trying skibidi on its own cause most of the rest of the text is usually auto-suggested while typing in the search terms.

Potty mouth.

In your own article…

“As president of Mind, Stephen Fry has done a huge amount to raise awareness and understanding about bipolar disorder and other mental health problems. He has supported Mind in our campaigning activities over the last decade and has helped enormously to change public attitudes in the UK about mental health for the better.”

Does that sound like sound like someone that needs to be ‘fucked’, or is it someone you can appreciate for their efforts relative to the society they grew up in but hasn’t quite followed the leading edge in understanding in their later years. This whole judging people by today’s standards can get a bit out of hand especially if you don’t know their context. They are people that pushed things in the right direction in their zenith, they aren’t perfect, no one is, but in their time, when they had a platform and used it more responsibly than most. Now they’re just a bit out of date.

You should be able to respect people’s background conditions (especially if you are purportedly standing up for a fairer understanding of various mental health conditions), you don’t have to agree with or respect everything they say now but you should respect them as humans beings especially given the positive pressure they exerted in their prime against way worse attitudes than we experience now.

Fry’s point isn’t terrible, it just lacks some qualifications. Cleese, on the otherhand, is a bit older and has much more dated notions. They shouldn’t be amped, but that’s what GB News is all about. Platforming regressive shite. GB news and all it’s founders should be ‘fucked’. They are darkly cynical cunts.

The pair of them’s blether should be judiciously ignored. Pat them on the back, put a blanket on their knees. But don’t fuck them.

Pray you can make a positive influence now as they did back in their prime.

If you haven’t seen any clear bias then you probably have a close enough outlook to them to not notice. And that’s fine, I don’t require everyone to have the same opinion as me for their comments to have value.

My impression of bias is probably born out of the leading polls that rightwing media and thinktanks in the UK commission them to do. You can fairly argue that these polls are externally commissioned so their tenor is a product of their issuer not yougov. But the overall impression I got was that they could be readily depended on to produce misleading propaganda against labour when it wasn’t being run by corporate technocrats.

It’s a serious issue when there’s a clear political bias in the founders. They put more effort into steering the narrative than objectively reporting it.

Fivethirtyeight only grades them on their ability to predict american election results. I don’t think that’s the same as advocating for their efficacy in producing leading public opinion polls.

Maybe the horse seems too ‘real’ in context. A touch of uncanny valley.

He was also recognized as a god by the Roman state after his death as a stern lesson to all those aspiring dictators out there.

I don’t think you can get an objectively truly bias free news source nor bias checker. If you find one you agree with and people you trust agree with then that’s good for you. You can’t expect everyone else to conform to the same outlook as you. Regardless of which authority figures lauds it.

What we need is a website that checks the bias of media-bias-fact-check-websites.

Political forums often have this cynical undercurrent of concern trolling where the aim is to limit the breadth of sources discussed. No easier way to ‘win’ an argument than illegitimately limiting the facts in play in your favour.

Concerning censorship: you’d hope that the mods would at least make their own judgment of the substance of the article in question before crumbling to establishment Overton window policing.