The same old deluded dross about newspapers. The readership for printed news is tiny compared to what it used to be. I don't read them.

The overwhelming influence on people's perceptions is television and Internet media, the vast majority of which is Leftist.

If we are on a slippery slope, it can be summed up simply by saying the words over population and the collapse of Western culture via mass immigration.

Have another pasty.

I don't have the figures to hand, but whilst the sale of printed media is nothing like it once was, the use of their online sites is booming.

The Mail has by far the biggest online readership in the UK and is the 4th biggest in the world. Hardly a left leaning news outlet!

If you think any of the major TV news outlets are "leftish" all you are doing is confirming how far to the right you are. It's untrue. Except for GB News, which is markedly rightish.

No you don't! You just think you know. Perception is always coloured by the lights you shine from your vantage point.

I found this in the New Statesman, which I doubt you read:-

"While the BBC dominates the UK media by every possible metric, it is governed by strict impartiality guidelines. That the BBC is regularly accused of either being a platform for left-wingers or a Tory stooge suggests it is generally doing its job. Other broadcasters are similarly constrained by the Ofcom code.

For media proprietors keen to put forward a particular world-view, newspapers are still an effective way to exercise that power. It’s true that this is a power that’s been diminished in recent decades. Total average daily circulations of UK national newspapers, plus weekly Sunday sales, totalled 21 million in 2000. Today that figure is less than seven million."

GB News makes no pretence to aspire to be a balanced platform. Its whole ethos is to appeal to people like you. Which it is fully entitled to do. The real question is not that, but whether such an approach is commercially viable. According to you, it ought to be, as you believe the majority of people think like you.

I disagree. Time will tell who is correct.

Total rubbish.

You are claiming no bias from the established media on the one hand and then state that their output is designed to make money.

How stupid are you?

You are contradicting yourself.

You seriously believe that, for example, The BBC, SKY or ITN coverage of the Trump Presidency was unbiased?

Go and eat a cream tea.

You are demonstrating more signs of dementia! This time it's confusion. I have never suggested the "established media" isn't biased! Indeed, you will recall frequent remarks about the way the likes of the Mail, Express and Sun twist their stories to suit an agenda determined by their proprietors. It's primarily the unwarranted attacks on the BBC that I deny, along with some on other broadcasters. All are subject to much more stringent oversight than the print media.

The TV coverage of the Trump Presidency was markedly restrained, given his nonsensical and often offensive behaviour. They showed considerable respect to the office whilst, at times, giving coverage to the many critics of its holder. It was most certainly unbiased, being both objective and factual.

There was much more outspoken criticism in print, online and in the pub than was heard on TV.