You do have to wonder. Going after pensioners, a key tory demographic. And weird things that are really non issues like bringing back fox hunting and reversing the ban on ivory trading.
University of Northumbria have been keeping track and it doesn't seem to be particularly balanced.
Their findings are backed up by hard data that can be peer reviewed. Your (admittedly terrible) experiences are subjective.
Here's what I found with a quack google. Haven't read it all as I'm at work but it seems to convey broadly the same message
Probably because that stopped publication last March.
I think it's looking at print media. The Independent moved to online only last year. If you are going to include online then you could be getting things from all manor of crazy sources.
Some people would still argue that they're right.
Independent ranks 8th in online news sources in the UK. Problem is number 1 is the BBC with a 35% of all page views from the entire top 100 combined. The drop off after the top 5 is huge:
And he'd still lose!
It wouldn't be consistent to include it, and would be shockingly bad research practice.
Not necessarily.
Nope.
Nope.
If your research was what online response was, then you'd do that.
You can't arbitrarily add in one online publication.
There are also very good reasons to do with fixity and the like why you may wish to separate them.
I'mn afraid the only one showing bias here is you, looking for a conspiracy. In itself this is interesting, and would make for a worthwhile qualitative analysis
