Proper Gander: Stepping on the platform (2026)

The Proper Gander column from the August 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

As anyone with a social media account knows, a price we pay for being able to share our thoughts with a global audience is being open to insults and abuse in reply. People with a prominent online presence, such as influencers and vloggers, attract attacks through making more of their lives available for comment. The messaging forum Tattle Life has threads about various influencers where opinions about them can be posted anonymously. One subject of a thread is GK Barry, who has branched out from running a sex-themed podcast into other media, now including presenting a documentary about Tattle Life for the BBC. GK Barry: Toxic Gossip starts with Barry reading some of the puerile slights written about her on the website, with other people having been victim to worse abuse. She speaks with loved ones of two people who had a presence on Instagram. Richard Davies ran the ‘bowelbro’ video diary of his struggle with cancer, which posters on Tattle Life accused of being faked, even after his death. Princess Dickson took her own life aged 16 after insulting comments about her appearance were repeatedly made on the forum. Her mother, Sophie, and Lisa, Richard Davies’ widow, tried to contact Tattle Life’s moderators about the messages and their impact, with no response.

Tattle Life was launched in 2018, and for many years its owner wasn’t known publicly. In 2023, entrepreneurs Donna and Neil Sands began legal proceedings against the website, claiming libel, harassment and breach of privacy, with the defendant’s identity not disclosed to the Sands. So, they hired a private investigator who discovered the person behind Tattle Life to be Sebastian Bond, later revealed in the press. Before Tattle Life, Bond ran a blog about veganism, whose demise, suggests Barry, made him jealous of other people’s success as influencers. Tattle Life now has nearly 375,000 registered users, with millions more people who just browse its threads. They aren’t only an audience for gossipy messages but also the adverts cluttering up the site. These have generated around £1 million in advertising revenue, according to the documentary. As Lisa says regarding the thread about her husband ‘the footfall to those pages was immense, and for them, that’s money’. So, it is in the site’s financial interest to have contentious threads.

Unfortunately, slurs grab the attention in a more immediate way than a reasoned critique does. It’s doubtful that those who post the most offensive messages on Tattle Life’s threads would repeat them face-to-face with their target. Communicating virtually and anonymously enables people to stir up trouble and cause upset without any personal comeback. Tattle Life’s defenders would say that it holds influencers to account and upholds free speech. In the abstract, this sounds reasonable, but in the real / virtual worlds the context shapes the matter. ‘Free speech’ in capitalism is defined by a legal framework which reflects the prerogatives of the status quo. As Tattle Life is a business, there is a separation between who owns the platform and who uses it, which complicates who owns and is responsible for the content posted there. Even when laws aim to prevent or protect victims, they are only attempts to patch up a system which encourages such problems as defamation and threats. The need to make money is, as always, a factor; here, represented by the site’s income from hosting adverts, which can increase if shocking content attracts more viewers. That a supposed platform for free speech has been mired in secrecy and is driven by money is one of the consequences of the market system.

Recruiting Barry to present a documentary about Tattle Life and the realm of influencers comes across as an attempt by the BBC to court the younger demographic more likely to be scrolling through social media than watching TV. According to Ofcom’s 2025 Media Nations report, only 45 percent of people aged between 16 and 24 switch on any broadcast television in an average week. GK Barry: Toxic Gossip comes across like a primer to introduce this cohort to the documentary format. It follows the usual template of interviews with victims and experts, text of quotes, facts and figures, and the presenter poring over screens between their segments of spiel. Each component is brief so everything fits into the show’s half-hour running time, and perhaps the audience’s expected attention span. Where the format requires a confrontation with the villain of the piece, it ends up as looking quite desperate. The narrative through the programme is Barry’s search for Bond, which includes tracing a location from details in a photo and speaking with his previous neighbours, and culminates with Barry sitting in a car outside his parents’ house and then delivering a letter to them. She doesn’t receive a response from Bond, although Tattle Life’s moderator says ‘for the BBC to include door-stepping harassment of pensioners in the documentary is abhorrent’ in a statement on the forum. They add ‘almost all articles on Tattle Life are misinformation and heavily biased by influencers and their PR who wish to shut down all opinions they dislike’ .

Tattle Life is just one website, which reflects wider issues with the culture of online communication. Social media platforms are run to make money for their owners, who are distanced from those who use or are affected by them. This is built into how they need to operate, which the legal framework tries to facilitate. Ideals of ‘free speech’ have to fit in with this context. The motivation to post ‘toxic gossip’ doesn’t come from social media itself, but from how people are socialised. Having the kind of mindset to want to do this is a result of living in an alienating, divisive environment: hurling insults is an attempt to express some power when someone has little else in their lives. The impact of online abuse on people already vulnerable can be devastating, as the documentary illustrates.

Mike Foster

New Blog Page: Proper Gander

Proper Gander At 15

While reviews of television programmes have occasionally appeared in The Socialist Standard since the 1950s (with possibly the earliest being in January 1955, about the BBC’s adaptation of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four), it wasn’t until 1985 that they became the subject of a regular column. This was Steve Coleman’s always-perceptive and engagingly-written Between The Lines, which ran until 1994. Dave Perrin then followed on with his sharp analysis of how TV reflects the world, continuing until 2001. A decade later, The Socialist Standard’s Editorial Committee decided to bring back the format, and suggested the name Proper Gander. I was happy to be asked about writing it, having recently produced a collection of reviews of dystopian fiction to accompany a Summer School talk. 

The first Proper Gander article appeared in January 2011, covering the sixth series of The Apprentice, which still continues unchanged in format in 2026. Much else has changed in the realm of television, though, in those 15 years. Most obviously, there is now much more ‘content’ competing for our attention, not just in the growth of channels available with or without a subscription, but also through social media and YouTube. While the traditional television channels are steadily on the decline, they can still produce ‘content’ which other outlets can’t manage. TV documentaries and video podcasts are both in the market of influencing viewers’ opinions, but the talking-head template of podcasts isn’t equivalent to the journalistic format of documentaries. The BBC’s Panorama and the exposés commissioned by Channel 4 have remained consistently reliable as sources for Proper Gander articles. Well, that’s reliable in the sense of always being there rather than reliable as interpretations of their subject matter. Usually in a polished, abridged way, they highlight problems generated by the capitalist system, but never identify the system as their cause, of course.

Drama can have more of an emotional impact than a documentary can, whether or not it’s based on real events. An emerging trend during the 2020s is that politicised dramas are likely to have a high profile on the sporadic occasions one is produced. ITV’s Mr Bates Vs The Post Office and Netflix’s Don’t Look Up and Adolescence raised awareness and prompted discussion, for a while. The BBC has appeared less interested in this sub-genre for many years, especially compared with its often-impressive output in the 1960s and ‘70s. 

A trend which appears to have burnt itself out is trash television, such as exploitative gameshows, ‘poverty porn’ schlockumentaries and point-and-sneer talk shows such as The Jeremy Kyle Show. This type of programme, the modern counterpart of travelling ‘freakshows’, has been supplanted by social media content which even more bluntly insults those already downtrodden. Another TV genre which has dwindled is that of comedy, maybe because wider society finds less to laugh about these days. So, sitcoms, satire and sketch shows have rarely been the subject of a Proper Gander article, unfortunately. Looking into what has and hasn’t been covered in the column over the years has been made much easier with the listing below, with a handy description of each show discussed. Thanks go to Imposs1904 for taking the time to compile this for his splendid blog.

Mike Foster

July 2026

2011

• Jan:  Proper Gander (Alan Sugar's The Apprentice.)
• Feb: Know Your Onions (The Onion's satirical programme,  In The Know.)
• Mar: Brooker's Bile (Charlie Brooker's How TV Ruined Your Life.)
• Apr: Cabarets in the lunch hour (BBC2's The British At Work.)
• May: The Stepford Geezers (ITV2's docusoap, The Only Way is Essex.)
• Jun: Celebritherapy (ITV1's reality TV show, Home Is Where The Heart Is.)
• Jul: Choosing To Die (BBC Scotland documentary, Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die, on the subject of assisted suicide.)
• Aug: The pecking order (Channel 4’s Undercover Boss.)
• Sep: From WAGs to Riches (BBC3's celebrity culture documentary, Cherry’s Cash Dilemmas.)
• Oct: Cleopatra Coming At Ya (BBC’s children series, Horrible Histories.)
• Nov: Stripped Blair (Channel 4's The Hunt For Tony Blair. The Comic Strip crowd combine political satire with 1950s film noir.)
• Dec: Sugar Rush (Alan Sugar's new reality show, The Young Apprentice.)

2012

• Jan: Reflections on Black Mirror (Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror.)
• Feb: Fancy a Pint? (BBC4’s documentary, The Rules of Drinking.)
• Mar: Point and Sneer (Channel4’s docusoap Big Fat Gypsy Weddings.)
• Apr: Right whinger (BBC2’s Rights Gone Wrong? with Andrew Neil.)
• May: Camcordia (Channel4's The Sinking Of The Concordia – Caught On Camera.)
• Jun: A Masterclass in Manipulation (ITV1's documentary, Britain Beware, about Public Information Films.)
• Jul: A Load of Crystal Balls (Sky's series, Psychic Today.)
• Aug: Undercover Under the Covers (UKTV Really reality television show, Cheaters.)
• Sep: Tory Teenagers (BBC2's documentary, Young, Bright and On the Right.)
• Oct: Giggly Walking CCTV Cameras (Channel 4's reality television show, The Audience.)
• Nov: The Magic and History Tour (BBC3's documentary, Creationism: Conspiracy Road Trip. Mixing pre-history with 'intelligent design' and age-old debates between science and religion.)
• Dec: Bed Pan Humour (BBC4's satirical comedy about the NHS, Getting On.)

2013

• Jan: Pandering and Pampering (BBC2's Inside Claridge's.)
• Feb: Courting Mormons (BBC3's documentary, Young, Mormon and Single.)
• Mar: Night Of The Living Tweet (Charlie Brooker’s sci-fi anthology series Black Mirror.)
• Apr: Christianity’s Inanities (Religious television.)
• May: Monarchy’s Maladies (BBC2's documentary, Fit To Rule – How Royal Illness Changed History.)
• Jun: Hoard Today, Gone Tomorrow (BBC1’s Britain’s Biggest Hoarders.)
• Jul: Quizzing the Whizzkids (Channel 4's documentary, Child Genius.)
• Aug: Hidden Cameraderie (Channel 4's reality TV show, Eye Spy.)
• Sep: Smoking Woodbines In The Outside Lav (The working class in television, Paul O’Grady’s Working Britain.)
• Oct: Left In The Dark (Channel 4's The Blackout. A docu-drama about Britain's National Grid being at the receiving end of a cyber-attack, and the resultant breakdown of society.) 
• Nov: Fascist Pepperpots (Dr Who, the Daleks and storylines drawn from the real world.)
• Dec: Fish In The Net (MTV's reality TV show, Catfish.)

2014

• Jan: Screening The Working Class (Owen Jones giving Huw Weldon Memorial Lecture Totally Shameless: How TV Portrays The Working Class.)
• Feb: Who Benefits From 'Benefits Street'?  (Channel 4's docusoap, Benefits Street.)
• Mar: Channel Hopping The Shopping Channels (QVC and BidTV.)
• Apr: To EDL and Back (BBC3's documentary, EDL Girls – Don’t Call Me Racist.)
• May: Mythtaken Identity (BBC2's The Olden Days: The power of the past in Britain.)
• Jun: Ballads And Beards (BBC1's  Eurovision Song Contest.)
• Jul: Hunger For Anger (Channel 5’s Angry Britain: Mean Streets.)
• Aug: The Downside of Upgrading (Jacques Peretti's documentary series, The Men Who Made Us Spend.)
• Sep: Porn and Real Life (More 4 documentary, The Golden Rules of Porn.)
• Oct: Electronic Heroin (Channel 4's Web Junkie: China’s Addicted Teens.)
• Nov: A Barrage of Farage (Panorama’s The Farage Factor. The murky shenanigans and double dealings of Nigel Farage.)
• Dec: Fiscal Exercise (Channel 4’s documentary about social mobility, How Rich Are You?)

2015

• Jan: Do Have Nightmares (BBC 1's Crimewatch.)
• Feb: Court On Camera (ITV's British version of Judge Judy, Judge Rinder.)
• Mar: Bitter Pill (Adam Curtis's documentary, Bitter Lake.)
• Apr: Putting Protest To The Test (BBC3’s documentary, Fighting The System.)
• May: Puppets and Politics (Puppet-based satirical sketch show, Newzoids.)
• Jun: ‘I Love The Smell Of Rubbish In The Morning’ (BBC2’s fly-on-the-wall documentary Wastemen.)
• Jul: Taken To Taskers (Channel 4’s reality TV show, Running The Shop.)
• Aug: Together In Electric Dreams (Channel 4’s drama series, Humans.)
• Sep: Under the Concrete Carpet (BBC4's Britain’s Nuclear Secrets: Inside Sellafield.)
• Oct: High-Tech Hide and Seek (Channel 4's Hunted. State surveillance as a game show.)
• Nov: Soldiering On (BBC1's reality TV show, DIY SOS – Homes For Veterans. A special makeover show focusing on creating a liveable environment for ex-armed forces personnel with physical and mental health conditions.)
• Dec: Cheapness At a Price (Channel 4's Dispatches programme goes undercover in Aldi’s Supermarket Secrets.) 

2016

• Jan: Prejudice and Pride (BBC 3's Reggie Yates’ Extreme UK: Gay And Under Attack.)
• Feb: Victim Porn (A review of voyeuristic schlockumentaries such as I Survived Evil and Fear Thy Neighbor.)
• Mar: The Golden Swill Bucket Awards (Television adverts.)
• Apr: Whatever Happened To Political Drama? (A look at Play For Today and Our Friends in the North.)
• May: Legal Highs And Lows (BBC3's documentary series, Drugs Map Of Britain.)
• Jun: Monarchy Malarkey (Channel 4’s soap opera sitcom, The Windsors.)
• Jul: Branded Comedy (BBC4's sitcom, Going Forward.)
• Aug: Belonging to Our Belongings (Channel 4's reality TV show, Life Stripped Bare.)
• Sep: Back To The Future (BBC2's In The 80s With Dominic Sandbrook.)
• Oct: Prison Break (CBS's Reality TV show, Troubled Teens: Jail Shock, A look at juvenile detention.)
• Nov: Soap Gets In Your Eyes (A look at the BBC's longstanding soap, EastEnders.)
• Dec: Living The Dream (Adam Curtis's documentary, ‘Hypernormalisation’.)

2017

• Jan: The Benefits Trap (Ken Loach's 'I, Daniel Blake'.)
• Feb: Views On The News (BBC2’s reality TV show, Common Sense.)
• Mar: The Extremes of Exploitation (Channel 4’s documentary, The Modern British Slave Trade.)
• Apr: Peering At The Peers (BBC2’s documentary series Meet The Lords.)
• May: The Vegan Revolution ( BBC iPlayer's mockumentary, Carnage.)
• Jun: Slave to the Algorithm (Panorama's What Facebook Knows About You.)
• Jul: Maid In America (The TV adaptation of Margaret Attwood's The Handmaid’s Tale.)
• Aug: Home Truths (BBC1's reality TV show, The Week The Landlords Moved In.)
• Sep: From The UN To Anarchism (BBC4’s Storyville, Accidental Anarchist: Life Without Government.)
• Oct: The Jihadis’ Tale ( Peter Kosminsky's political drama, The State, about the experiences of four young British Muslims who fly to Syria to join Islamic State.)
• Nov: Music For The Masses (BBC4's documentary series, Tunes For Tyrants: Music and Power. Authoritarian regimes and their use and abuse of music for propaganda purposes.)
• Dec: Nutters and Putters (Gary Younge's Channel 4 documentary about disquiet in the American heartland,  Angry, White and American.)

2018

• Jan: Out Of The Blue (David Attenborough's Blue Planet II.)
• Feb: On The House (David Olusoga social history documentary, A House Through Time.)
• Mar: Delicious Chips For Their Tea (Product placement and Coronation Street.)
• Apr: At The Movies: Red Carpet Campaigning (A look at the Oscars.)
• May: A Tale Of Two Cities (China Mieville's dystopia drama,The City And The City.)
• Jun: Image And Identity (BBC3's documentaries on obesity and body image.)
• Jul: ‘One Does’ (Television coverage of the Royal Wedding.)
• Aug: Counter Culture (BBC’s Shopgirls: The True Story of Life Behind The Counter.)
• Sep: Revenue Streams (New media and streaming platforms.)
• Oct: Guarded Bodies (BBC1’s political drama, Bodyguard.)
• Nov: The Great Russian Fake Off (An overview of the Russian State's ongoing disinformation campaigns on social media.)
• Dec: Pulling The Trigger (Derren Brown's Netflix special, Sacrifice.)

2019

• Jan: Sold A Pup? (BBC 1's consumer programme, Watchdog.)
• Feb: Making A Drama Out Of A Crisis (Channel 4’s docudrama, Brexit: The Uncivil War.)
• Mar: The Hand-Made Tale (BBC2’s The Victorian House Of Arts And Crafts.)
• Apr: Alice Through The Looking Glass (Channel 4’s documentary, Sleeping With The Far Right.)
• May: Investigating The Yorkshire Ripper Investigation (BBC4’s three-part series, The Yorkshire Ripper Files: A Very British Crime Story.)
• Jun: With Kid Gloves (ITV documentary series, Planet Child.)
• Jul: ‘An Urgent Referral Still Takes Quite a Long Time’ (Channel 5’s fly-on-the-consulting-room-wall documentary, GPs Behind Closed Doors.)
• Aug: Mistaken Identity (BBC3's political drama, The Left Behind.)
• Sep: Can’t A Cleaner Like Avocados? (BBC2’s How The Middle Class Ruined Britain.)
• Oct: Palmed Off (BBC3's Unmasked: Make-Up’s Big Secret. A look at the environmental impact of palm oil production.)
• Nov: Cash And The Castaways (Channel 4's reality TV show, Treasure Island With Bear Grylls. A variation on Lord of the Flies - but with adults - for your evening's entertainment. Not so much a 'survival of the fittest' but a 'survival of the slickest'.)
• Dec: ‘You’ve Had It, Ain’t Ya?’ (BBC4’s Arena documentary, A British Guide To The End Of The World.)

2020

• Jan: ‘All I Can Think About Is The Housing’ (Channel 4's Dispatches programme, Born Homeless.)
• Feb: YouTube And You (A look at the social media behemoth, YouTube.)
• Mar: All’s Whale That Ends Well? (BBC 3's documentary, Stacey Dooley Investigates: The Whale Hunters.)
• Apr: ‘The Detail Which Moves You Is The Same Detail That Lets You Know It’s True’ (BBC2's Confronting Holocaust Denial With David Baddiel.)
• May: TV and the Virus (Television coverage of the lockdown.)
• Jun: At The Movies (Jeff Gibbs environmental documentary, Planet of the Humans.)
• Jul: Luxury Legoland (BBC2's documentary series, Inside Monaco: Playground Of The Rich.)
• Aug: Turning The Page (Channel 4's documentary, Page Three: The Naked Truth.)
• Sep: ‘I’ve Got Nothing. I Ain’t Got No-one. But I’ve Got The Shops’ (Channel 5’s fly-on-the-wall documentary, Shoplifters: At War With The Law.)
• Oct: Radio Ga-Ga (TalkRADIO and right-wing talking points.)
• Nov: Rubber Reboot (Britbox revives 1980s favourite, Spitting Image, but misses the satirical mark.)
• Dec: Control And Coercion (BBC3's documentary on domestic violence, Is This Coercive Control?)

2021

• Jan: Cutting-Edge Drama (Steve McQueen's Small Axe films.)
• Feb: Fame And Fortune (BBC 2’s documentary series Celebrity: A 21st Century Story.)
• Mar: An Emotional History (Adam Curtis’s documentary, Can’t Get You Out Of My Head.)
• Apr: Keep Calm And Carry On With The Clichés (BBC1’s documentary, Blitz Spirit With Lucy Worsley.)
• May: ‘She’s Part Of Those Statistics Now’ (Dispatches' The Black Maternity Scandal.)
• Jun: Track And Trace (BBC3’s Tagged series: Women on Tag.)
• Jul: Another Problematic ‘Class System’ (Panorama's Paralympics: The Unfair Games?)
• Aug: Brexit And Exports (Panorama's Brexit: Six Months On.)
• Sep: Between The Lines (BBC3’s documentary series, High: Confessions Of An Ibiza Drug Mule.)
• Oct: Remoulding The Activist (CBS’s reality TV show, The Activist. The politics of charity and 'activism' as a game show.)
• Nov: Police And Abuse (Channel 4's Dispatches programme, Cops On Trial. When the police are the criminals.)
• Dec: Capturing The Christmas Spirit (Christmas, consumerism and woke culture.)

2022

• Jan: Charged Up (Channel 4's Dispatches programme, The Truth About Electric Cars, and BBC 1's Panorama's, The Electric Car Revolution: Winners And Losers.)
• Feb: The Shape Of Things To Comet (Adam McKay's political satire, Don't Look Up.)
• Mar: Where the wealth went (BBC 2’s documentary, The Decade The Rich Won.)
• Apr: The Media as Intermediary (Media bias and state propaganda.)
• May: Four Sale (The privatisation of Channel 4.)
• Jun: Getting over the horizon (Panorama's The Post Office Scandal.)
• Jul: A Bite From The Apple (Apple TV's dystopian drama, Severance.)
• Aug: Hack To The Future (Channel 4's political drama, The Undeclared War.)
• Sep: A Problem Not Registering (BBC News documentary, Disappearing Dentists.)
• Oct: Profits and power ( Panorama's The Energy Crisis: Who’s Cashing In? The energy companies and their super profits.)
• Nov: Hard Labour (Al Jazeera’s four-part documentary series, The Labour Files. The Labour Right's undermining of Jeremy Corbyn and the smearing of the Labour Left.)
• Dec: Mindsets And Misinterpretations (Panorama's Disaster Deniers: Hunting The Trolls. Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists pouring scorn on disasters and tragedies.)

2023

• Jan:  The richest and poorest (Channel 5's two-part documentary, How The Other Half Live.)
• Feb: Dukes And Rebukes (Channel 4's Prince Andrew: The Musical.)
• Mar: Exploring Englishness (Channel 4's Grayson Perry’s Full English.)
• Apr: Exploitation at work (Panorama's Sex For Work: The True Cost Of Our Tea.)
• May: Flat broke (Panorama's What’s Gone Wrong With Our Housing?.)
• Jun: Send in the crowns (The King's coronation.)
• Jul: Splashing out on drip (Channel 4’s Untold series. Addicted to Drip, which looks at addiction and conspicuous consumption.)
• Aug: The state of North Korea (BBC2 documentary, North Korea: The Insiders.)
• Sep: Super marketing (Channel 4’s documentary, Secrets Of The Supermarket Own-Brands.)
• Oct: SSRIs and side effects (BBC iPlayer's documentary series, Are My Antidepressants Worth It?. Mental health and medication amongst young people in Scotland.)
• Nov: Gathering storm (Channel 4’s docudrama, Partygate. The Conservative Party at play, misbehaving during Covid and lockdown.)
• Dec: Fashion Victims (Panorama's Boohoo’s Broken Promises. A look at the business model of fast fashion.)

2024

• Jan: An appetite for profit (BBC 3's The Skinny Jab Uncovered.)
• Feb: Lights . . . Camera . . . Political Action? (ITV's political docudrama, Mr Bates vs The Post Office.)
• Mar: Crossing the line (Channel 4's documentary series, Miners’ Strike 1984: The Battle For Britain.) 
• Apr: Presenting the past (Historical dramas and multiculturalism.)
• May: Going public about going private (Panorama’s NHS Patients Going Private: What Are The Risks?)
• Jun: United by music, non-politically? (BBC1's  Eurovision Song Contest.)
• Jul: Temu’s temerity (Channel 4’s Dispatches documentary, The Truth About Temu.)
• Aug: Anti-social media (ITVX’s drama serial, Douglas Is Cancelled.)
• Sep: Hacked off (ITV’s phone-hacking documentary, Tabloids On Trial.)
• Oct: Flipped Off (Channel 4's reality TV show, The Great House Giveaway. The popular British past times of house renovations and Keeping up with the Joneses.)
• Nov: Not-so special offers (Panorama's Supermarket Deals: How Good Are They? The reality of big business supermarkets. If it looks too good to be true . . . )
• Dec: Far into the far right (Channel 4’s documentary, Undercover: Exposing The Far Right. A look at the growth of the far right across Europe.)

2025

• Jan: The latest celebrity to be accused (The scandal surrounding MasterChef presenter, Gregg Wallace.)
• Feb: All over the shop (Netflix's Buy Now! The Shopping Conspiracy.)
• Mar: The maxim of maximising (Radio 4's documentary series, The Prophets of Profit.)
• Apr: Realistically altruistically (Radio 4's series, The Infinite Monkey Cage.)
• May: Lessons from Adolescence (Netflix’s crime drama Adolescence.)
• Jun: Looking into Black Mirror (Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror.)
• Jul: Being informed about informers (BBC documentary, Informers: Hunting The Enemy Within, on state surveillance in Putin's Russia.)
• Aug: Tell A Vision In Turkmenistan (YouTube documentary,  TV in Turkmenistan is Insane.)
• Sep: Heading down stream (The growth in streaming services.)
• Oct: Crafty cover-ups (BBC4’s documentary, What Are UFOs? Are they out there, and why don't they want to talk to us?)
• Nov: Anti-social media (BBC3’s documentary Blackmailed: The Sextortion Killers. The devastating impact of cyber-crimes.)
• Dec: Manipulated by the Monoform (A look back at the life and career of the radical filmmaker, Peter Watkins, who had recently died.)

2026

• Jan: The luxury gap (Channel 4's documentary series, Inside The World’s Most Luxurious…)
• Feb: Processing progress (Matthew Sweet's documentary, What Happened To Progress?)
• Mar: Reporting on reporting (Panorama's Our Man In Moscow.)
• Apr: Automation and occupations (Panorama's Will Robots Take My Job?)
• May: Theroux the keyhole (Louis Theroux's Netflix documentary, Inside The Manosphere.)
• Jun: Regulations, nations and alienation (As part of the BBC News Scams & Scandals documentary series,The Immigration Fraudsters looks at the prevalence of 'bogus' asylum seekers.) 
• Jul: Grander designs (Kevin McCloud's Channel 4 series, Listed Britain, which details the history of Britain's listed building and British grand architecture.)

Proper Gander: Regulations, nations and alienation (2026)

The Proper Gander column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

BBC News  made sure to emphasise that a Home Office investigation which led to a couple of arrests was prompted by the findings of an episode of its Scams & Scandals documentary series. As its title indicates, The Immigration Fraudsters revealed misconduct among ‘legal advisers’ preparing applications for their clients to remain in the UK. Presenter Billy Kenber tells us ‘we’ve gone undercover to expose this hidden world of illegality’, which means that much of the programme consists of blurry, shaky footage from a concealed camera worn by his colleague. Posing as a foreign national, he visits law firms and advisers who can arrange the necessary paperwork for a claim to the Home Office as an asylum seeker. The covert footage reveals that some advisers gather fabricated evidence to meet the criteria, and Kenber suggests that possibly thousands of people have been granted leave to remain on fraudulent grounds.

Those who make claims for asylum include people who have newly arrived in the UK and others who originally entered under a temporary student or work visa or as the spouse of someone with leave to remain. A successful application confers refugee status, which doesn’t automatically mean permanent entitlement to live in the UK, but permits official employment and being able to claim benefits, apply for ‘social housing’ and use all NHS services. People without official approval to be in the country have ‘no recourse to public funds’, meaning they don’t have access to these aspects of the state. Those in this position without the funds to buy their way out have to rely on cash-in-hand work for an income and are more likely to be trapped into slave labour or homelessness.

For a claim for asylum to be granted by the Home Office, a fear of persecution in the applicant’s country of origin is required. As Ejel Khan of the Muslim LGBT Network explains, homosexuality is illegal in many countries, so fleeing one could be grounds for a gay person applying for asylum in the UK. The undercover reporter meets an immigration adviser who says that for a four-figure fee she can arrange a claim on this basis. He says that he isn’t gay, which doesn’t prevent her from offering to provide a letter declaring that he has had sex with a man, and also membership of the ‘Worcester LGBT Asylum Seekers Group’. The reporter goes to one of its meetings in London which has over 200 attendees, some of whom say next-to-none of them are gay.

The Immigration Fraudsters also covers another route for making asylum claims, on the grounds of being a victim of domestic abuse. This applies in situations where someone has come into the country on a family visa, so their entitlement to remain relies on being in a relationship with their partner who already has official status. If the relationship were to end, the partner under the visa would ordinarily lose their right to remain in the UK, unless they were a victim of domestic abuse. The undercover reporter records an adviser offering to arrange a fake claim (under the 2013 Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Concession) of being a victim of psychological cruelty from his wife.

The documentary’s producers contacted the dodgy advisers about their activities and received replies bluntly denying any wrongdoing. This wasn’t enough to satisfy the Home Office, hence their announcement of an investigation following the programme’s broadcast, which led to raids by its Immigration Enforcement team and arrests. One way of looking at this is that the BBC, as one branch of the state, was carrying out the ‘due diligence’ which fell within the remit of another branch of the state, the Home Office.

Kenber meets with above-board legal experts who say that people who apply fraudulently make it harder for those with genuine claims, a sentiment echoed by immigration minister Mike Tapp after the raids. The Immigration Fraudsters doesn’t include discussion about the wider context of the issue, beyond quoting some statistics about the number of asylum applications. Having a situation where people lie about being persecuted in order to stay in the UK comes from a combination of factors, each illustrating how society’s capitalist framework alienates us. Fundamentally, the division of the world into countries, as territories of different states, reduces people to being subjects of those states. This accords us differing status in relation to other countries, according to our wealth, nationality, immigration rights and even our family role. Alongside this bureaucratic alienation, there’s also that caused in those states and cultures which are particularly oppressive, including towards anyone who isn’t heterosexual. Understandably, people will want to leave those countries for another where their prospects may be better. Domestic abuse, and especially being trapped in a violent relationship, is another effect of living in a divisive, alienating society. Fleeing these situations means being processed and accorded the status of asylum seeker and, maybe, refugee. While many staff work hard trying to help people navigate the system, the framework they work within is complicated by its legal and financial constraints. This doesn’t prevent some people wanting to manipulate it, leading to fake claims for asylum. While there’s nothing admirable about pretending to be a victim of abuse, those who do would have to be in a dire enough situation to push them towards this. The suspect advisers are exploiting their clients’ grim position, but they’re also products of their circumstances. Presumably, this career pays better than their other options. A capitalist economy encourages people to try to make money out of anything, including desperation. The arrests which followed the programme’s broadcast may lead to some disruption of the network of ‘legal advisers’, and the Home Office is likely to tighten up its legislation. Such measures can’t change the conditions which have created the issue, nor resolve the plight of people seeking asylum, with or without fabricated paperwork.

Mike Foster

Proper Gander: Grander designs (2026)

The Proper Gander column from the July 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Kevin McCloud’s Listed Britain (Channel 4) is a tour round the country’s architectural heritage, particularly buildings which have been awarded ‘listed’ status. These are those which, because of their history, rarity or style, are deemed worth protecting. A listed building may not be demolished or altered without permission from its local planning authority, and renovations are expected to be carried out using sympathetic materials and techniques. Classifications differ across the UK: In England and Wales, ‘Grade 1’ confers the most protection, with ‘Grade A’ as the equivalent in Northern Ireland and ‘Category A’ in Scotland. The organisations which oversee this are various extensions of the state; in England and Scotland they are ‘executive non-departmental public bodies’.

Without safeguarding our most significant buildings, the country would become ‘a retail park with aspirations’, according to presenter Kevin McCloud. Old structures ‘speak through the generations’, being physical reminders of the past. When we see their brickwork, carvings or fixtures and fittings, we can imagine the people who made them and the circumstances in which they lived. However, buildings get built because of the prerogatives of landowners and business owners rather than in the interests of those who construct them. The series’ second episode covers structures which were intended to express the elite’s position in society: ‘the status symbols built to impress, dazzle and dominate’, as McCloud puts it. Chatsworth House and gardens in Derbyshire were intentionally designed ‘to communicate power’. Inside the main house, the most ostentatious display of wealth is the Painted Hall, which boasts an overwhelming range of murals above a cantilevered staircase, summed up by McCloud as ‘gargantuan’. The estate was and is owned by the aristocratic Cavendish family, whose successive Dukes of Devonshire prompted expansions during the 18th century, including demolishing part of a nearby village which apparently spoilt the view.

The building which most obviously embodies political power is the Palace of Westminster in London, completed in 1876 in the ‘Gothic Revival’ style. So, fittingly, Parliament is housed in an imposing, regimented relic of an outdated era. Also appropriate is that the structure has long been deteriorating and attempts to patch it up are too costly to be viable. McCloud wonders if the £35-40 billion needed to renovate the palace is worth it, as the same amount would fund the salaries of every NHS nurse for over two years. He asks ‘do you want to see democracy crumble? Do you want to see all vestiges of it disappear, turn to a pile of dust, or do you want to repair it, keep it going?’ ‘We as a nation have to collectively decide’ he adds, although the crumbling parliamentary democracy he describes doesn’t really enable us to ‘collectively decide’ how the state functions.

As illustrated by the Palace of Westminster, listed status doesn’t prevent a building from sliding into decline, and less prominent or unused sites are more vulnerable. The money system holds back buildings of historical and aesthetic importance being adequately maintained because the required skilled workers, specialist techniques and specific materials tend to be prohibitively expensive. Places attract income from visitors if there’s a lot to see, but there isn’t in 14th century Baguley Hall in Manchester, for example. ‘Financial viability and money is always the problem’ says heritage expert Catherine Dewar about the struggles with its upkeep.

Listed status isn’t only granted to buildings well over a hundred years old. Cathedrals in Coventry and Liverpool from the mid-20th century have Grade 1 classification, as does another place of worship. Being a hub for the insurance market, the Lloyds building in London is like a cathedral to commerce, where its congregation of underwriters and brokers put their faith in the economy. Completed at the height of yuppiedom in 1986, with its pipes, lifts and facilities on the outside to leave more space in the middle for business, the Lloyds building looks like it’s ‘made by machines’, and made for the machinery of capitalism.

Not all listed buildings reflect the power of the elite: a hidden grotto lined with seashells and London Zoo’s Modernist penguin enclosure were more personal passion-projects. The programme is also keen to emphasise the ‘positive energy’ of community groups, campaigners and craftspeople working to preserve heritage architecture.

A framework for listing buildings could exist in a socialist society, although the context would be different to that of today. The notion of a cherished building under threat of destruction sits more in capitalism than socialism, as the impetus for destruction is invariably money-driven. Any scheme for listing buildings in a socialist society would be shaped by how they are ‘owned’. The understanding and application of who owns buildings would be unlike that in capitalism, where possession is held by individuals or organisations, and ‘legitimised’ by legislation and money.

The situation with Mavisbank House in Midlothian, Scotland, highlights some of the quirks of ownership in our current society. Constructed in the 1720s as the first villa in the Palladian style in Scotland, by the late 20th century the building was a ruin. The Lothian Preservation Trust’s aims of restoration were complicated by Mavisbank’s ownership not being clear. Its last documented owner claimed he sold it to three probably fictitious people, and he also sold off its access roads so its actual owner may not legally be able to get to it.

In a socialist society, buildings and their environment would be the responsibility of the community as a whole. So, there would be no separation between ownership and who uses buildings, avoiding one of the restrictions of the capitalist system. As a socialist society wouldn’t ration its resources with money, another barrier to maintaining buildings wouldn’t apply. Any rules about protecting significant buildings would be decided democratically and managed by whatever method is most accountable and fair. There would still be disputes over whether or not a particular construction should be retained, but their resolution would be more straightforward and transparent, compared with the financial constraints, hierarchies and bureaucracy of capitalism.

Mike Foster

Proper Gander: Theroux the keyhole (2026)

The Proper Gander column from the May 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Louis Theroux has built up his career as a documentary-maker since the 1990s, with his trademark approach being to patiently spend time among society’s stranger subcultures to learn about what motivates the people within. The subjects of his latest film are prominent figures in the ‘manosphere’, a loose online network which upholds hard-line versions of masculinity. Netflix’s Inside The Manosphere follows Theroux as he meets influencers who have amassed millions of young male fans through their social media platforms, livestreams and podcasts. Their content extols their values of conspicuous wealth, sexism and conspiracy theories, with the influencers all living extravagant lifestyles and exuding confidence, giving their views plausibility among their impressionable followers.

In Marbella, Theroux visits Harrison Sullivan (aka HSTikkyTokky) and Ed Matthews, whose online content includes videos of macho fitness tips and ‘predator stings’ confronting alleged paedophiles. Sullivan becomes suspicious that Theroux is trying to catch him out and cuts short the time he agreed to spend being interviewed, although he later backtracks after his videos about their first meeting attract more clicks. While Sullivan and Matthews represent the ‘laddish’ style of influencer, Justin Waller from Louisiana is more measured, wearing tailored suits as he drives Theroux around in his Lamborghini. Waller’s material combines business advice with a disdain for feminism, saying women tend to prefer traditional family roles. He and his wife are in a ‘one-sided monogamous’ relationship, and it’s not him who’s monogamous. This arrangement is also a preference of the Miami-based influencer known as Myron Gaines, who claims women ‘want a guy that can lead them and dominate them’. Theroux sits in during Gaines’ Fresh & Fit podcast in which his female guests get objectified, belittled and embarrassed. As Theroux later comments, many of the influencers ‘advocate for traditional values while at the same time wanting to be seen with scantily-clad models’.

The confidence which influencers have in their derisory beliefs about women’s roles comes from their ‘red pill’ ideology. This is a reference to the 1999 film The Matrix, which we’re told in this context means seeing through the mainstream media’s discrimination against men, although ‘redpilling’ is usually shorthand for adopting a far-right viewpoint. New Yorker Sneako is among the more politicised of the influencers Theroux meets. Alongside being a Muslim Trump-supporter, he claims satanists run the world, leaving clues in pictures of celebrities using ‘one eye’ symbolism and telling people such as singer Sam Smith to become transgender. Predictably, he adds that the aim of this satanic cabal is to establish a single global government. While Sneako denies this is Jewish, other influencers share the conviction that a small group of Jews are behind a plan to promote degeneracy through manipulating culture, especially gender politics.

The outlook spun by the influencers is really a convoluted way of enticing people to buy the financial products they have a stake in. Theroux tests one of Sullivan’s investment opportunities and loses most of the £500 he paid in. Sullivan is at least honest in admitting that what drives his material is what makes money for him rather than what is considered right or wrong. An example is when he says he was ‘clip-farming’ by including antisemitic content while not believing it, as he knew this would generate attention. Getting exposure in order to gain more supporters and therefore customers is the priority. The notion that ‘there’s no such thing as bad publicity’ would apparently be confirmed after Inside The Manosphere was released, with Sullivan accruing more followers because of the coverage it has given him, according to an article in the Metro (7 April), which itself represents more promotion.

As the focus of the show is Theroux meeting people, not much time is spent analysing the manosphere’s place in society. This approach either admirably allows the viewer to reach their own conclusions or disappointingly makes the programme feel shallow. Theroux posits how the upbringing of the influencers may have contributed to their mindset in that many of them lacked a supportive father figure, perhaps affecting their attitudes to relationships, such as ‘one-sided monogamy’. More widely, he says they are ‘products of a culture – growing up online in a world that’s changing at dizzying speed’ with long-established male roles challenged. He adds that they now project their trauma by ‘spewing hate’ to an audience of young men looking for something to feel they belong to, preferably with money to buy financial products. The fans of the influencers we see in the documentary clearly feel empowered by what their heroes advocate. Theroux recognises that while the influencers offer hope to troubled men, it comes with a belief that they are living in ‘a matrix purposely designed to make men fail’. He suggests ‘the matrix they rail against more accurately describes the algorithmic prison they’ve created for their followers, an illusion of endless wealth and power that actually only enriches a few at the top’.

The personal traumas which shaped the mindsets of each influencer and follower happened in a world which is ‘designed to make men fail’ (and women too, often in different ways). This is the divisive world of capitalism, driven by aspirations of wealth amid poverty and power amid powerlessness. They have misinterpreted this, though, and don’t identify the economic system itself as structurally creating (nearly all) people’s disadvantaged position, but instead blame the ‘matrix’ of feminism and a supposed Jewish cabal. This poisonous stance has proved lucrative for the influencers because it attracts attention online among vulnerable men, reinforcing a worrying association between wealth and bigotry. The confidence with which this mentality is promoted disguises its errors and contradictions, such as its ridiculous ‘evidence’ for a Jewish / satanic conspiracy and the hypocrisy of its attitudes to women. For an ideology apparently based on dogged independence it relies heavily on fan worship of the influencers. The ‘manosphere’ is both an expression of the alienation which comes with living in capitalist society and a dangerously misguided attempt at compensating for that alienation.

Mike Foster

Proper Gander: Automation and occupations (2026)

The Proper Gander column from the April 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reporter Richard Bilton is waiting on a sidewalk in Los Angeles as a couple of boxes on wheels trundle up towards him and then carry on past, with another one stopping by his feet. Lifting its lid, he finds the cheeseburger he ordered online, delivered by a robot rather than a human, and while he’s explaining this, a driverless taxi cab glides along the road, identical to one he tried out in San Francisco. Thousands of automated servants like these are already operating in several cities across America, with robotaxis scheduled to arrive in London before the end of 2026. In his edition of Panorama (BBC One), Bilton asked the question Will Robots Take My Job? and looked for an answer among academics and tech companies leading in robotics.

More complex types of robots than those on wheels are still in development, some of which promise to be particularly useful for otherwise difficult tasks, such as one designed to enter burning buildings. The humanoid robots featured in the documentary don’t attempt to look like people beyond their basic shape, with varying designs of cold, blank-faced heads reminiscent of something from Doctor Who. While prototypes can do backflips and dance, their immediate descendants are likely to end up with less vivacious careers as warehouse operatives. So far, these robots aren’t autonomous, but are controlled by a technician twiddling a joystick, and can only perform within a set of limited pre-programmed movements. Teddy Haggerty, CEO of Robostore, talks about turning this apparent restriction into a business model, emphasising the ‘remote’ in remote control. He suggests that these robots could be used in a warehouse in one country, directed by workers based in another country. The important point is that these workers are employed for lower wages than the going rate wherever the warehouse is located. Even with outlay for the upkeep of the robots, this would reduce costs to the company, maximising profits. This tactic is nothing new, akin to placing a call centre in a country where labour is cheaper than the places where the calls are going to. The robotics companies’ representatives Bilton meets excitedly describe how their humanoid robots will do the dull jobs and chores so we don’t have to. Their enthusiasm is understandable, given the ever-expanding applications of this technology, especially now Artificial Intelligence is being integrated. As James Bessen of Boston University explains, this enthusiasm gets channelled into hype. Sleek promotional videos and flashy choreographed demonstrations are intended to attract investment. Building a profitable business model is the priority, rather than providing what’s really needed and wanted by people, including the employees involved.

The only workers featured in the programme whose jobs are being directly threatened by AI robots are the taxi drivers Bilton speaks with, who aren’t impressed by the supposed merits of driverless cabs. Fast-food delivery robots have started to replace costlier people on motorbikes, and if Haggerty’s idea gains traction, more human warehouse workers will be made redundant. AI-enabled robots are also learning specialist roles such as welding, and many office duties can already be carried out quicker and cheaper by AI analysing data and drafting strategies. According to a 2024 report from the International Monetary Fund, an estimated 70 per cent of UK workers are in occupations with tasks which could be performed or enhanced by AI.

However, robots aren’t yet sophisticated enough to be swapped for large numbers of staff. Professor Aaron Ames of the California Institute of Technology points out that even the action of opening a door is currently beyond their grasp. Another reason why the growth of AI robots may not lead to mass unemployment, quoted by Ali Kashani, CEO of Serve Robotics, is that new technology expands the economy and creates more new jobs than those it supplants. Bessen agrees: ‘it’s just a mistake to think that this technology comes in and replaces the humans and everything else stays the same’, citing how next-to no occupations were made obsolete by the growth of automation in the mid-20th century. Although they don’t say it themselves, this stance reflects how capitalist production adapts according to what is likely to be profitable. For example, driverless taxis have reached the stage where the expense of manufacturing and running them is falling below current costs for traditional cabs, such as drivers’ wages, which means they are more likely to turn a profit for the companies behind them. As also shown by Robostore’s cynical idea to outsource warehouse staff, financial prerogatives override the interests of workers in how the technology is applied. Whether this leads to unemployment or creates new jobs elsewhere, it’s still in the alienating context of capitalism’s labour market.

In a socialist society, the use of AI and robotics would be guided by practicalities, as financial considerations would no longer exist. Without the framework of employment, people and robots wouldn’t be in competition, so it wouldn’t be that a robot would ‘take someone’s job’. For the same reason, people wouldn’t risk hardship if a robot or AI did tasks instead of them. It’s possible that many aspects of how society functions would be automated, reducing the amount of labour people would have to do, freeing up more time for what they want to do. AI (or whatever it becomes in the future) could monitor what needs to be produced and trigger this to happen, with robots doing the practical work. Communities and the organisations they run would be able to decide how technology is incorporated into industries and services based on people’s requirements and the circumstances at the time. The robots shown on Panorama have this potential, but as this technology is developing in capitalism, it will instead be shaped according to what benefits companies’ shareholders.

Mike Foster

Proper Gander: Reporting on reporting (2026)

The Proper Gander column from the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Journalist Steve Rosenberg hasn’t chosen the easiest of careers. His appearances on BBC News as their correspondent in Russia raise questions about how free he is to investigate and report on what’s happening there, especially since the war in Ukraine reignited in 2022. The Panorama episode Our Man In Moscow (BBC One) offers an answer by showing what Rosenberg, his producer and camera operator do between the times we see him on air. Their trip to the city of Tver to interview people on the street is interrupted by both the police and state media asking what they’re doing, with the producer saying this could have turned out to be ‘much worse’ than an identity check. The forums and summits which they and other journalists attend are as slickly presented as those anywhere else. Although Rosenberg says that some of the attendees are now reluctant to speak to the BBC, he has put in questions to Putin on a couple of occasions. At an annual press conference, Rosenberg lists some of Russia’s problems then asks Putin ‘do you think you have taken care of your country?’, to which he predictably replies in the affirmative. The following year, Rosenberg asks what future Putin plans for Russia, including militarily, and is told ‘there will be no operations if you treat us with respect’. Rosenberg’s analysis is that the Kremlin’s confidence is fuelled by Europe being weakened because it is distanced from Trump’s America.

Steve Rosenberg became interested in Russian culture and language during his teenage years in Chingford. His first visit to Russia was in 1987, when the Soviet Union was starting to open up more to global markets, and he was there a few years later when it broke up. Having lived and worked as a reporter in Moscow since the mid-1990s, Rosenberg is now the BBC’s Russia Editor. He’s nostalgic for the country he saw when he was younger, which he tells us had more optimism. He describes the time when Putin came to power by saying ‘it felt as if this huge black cloud had come over’. Being a journalist there now is compared to walking on a tightrope: ‘You can’t relax, really, for a second. You want to report accurately and honestly about what’s happening, but you don’t want to fall off the tightrope onto the minefield below, and hit a mine’.

According to Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index, Russia ranks 171st out of 180 countries, making it among the most restricted places for what news is reported, how and by whom. Virtually all media produced there comes from state-owned or affiliated organisations, with controls on its content increased further due to the war. Military personnel are banned from speaking to journalists, and the dissemination of ‘unreliable information’ about the armed forces is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Dozens of critics of the authorities and the war are currently jailed, some for spying charges, and most foreign reporters have left the country. Rosenberg explains that he’s one of the few western journalists remaining in Moscow, as he walks through an empty office which used to be bustling with colleagues.

Rosenberg and his crew have got used to being monitored by the state, learning that it’s safest to calmly present the required documents when approached by the police while out reporting. They are also followed by plain-clothes agents, one of whom denies this when Rosenberg challenges him. These agents wouldn’t be too concerned that they have been rumbled, for the reason that Rosenberg is likely to be more unsettled and restrained being aware that they’re watching him. The authorities will probably watch the Panorama documentary too, which Rosenberg, his colleagues and BBC executives would realise, and so they wouldn’t have included anything too incriminating.

Rosenberg isn’t popular with the nation’s state-owned media either, which depicts him as an anti-Russian propagandist by selectively editing quotes from his reports. We see some Russian journalists questioning him on his reporting, albeit in their role as state lackeys. Television is more prominent as a source of information in Russia than in western countries: nearly two-thirds of its citizens mainly get their news in this way, according to Reporters Without Borders. We see a clip of an angry TV show host calling Rosenberg a ‘conscious enemy of our country’ and (oddly) a ‘defecating squirrel, constantly surprised by things’. Admirably, Rosenberg perseveres with his job despite the tense position it places him in, walking his tightrope. He comes across as professional and sincere, having developed a personal understanding of Russian culture and politics.

While the context Rosenberg works in is different to that of most reporters, it illustrates how journalism isn’t as simple as a dogged pursuit of the truth. In Russia more than elsewhere, the restrictions and threats hanging over journalists will shape their approaches and the words they use. Many have been silenced completely, further limiting awareness and viewpoints. Alongside this, the Russian state’s media has become even more empowered, dominating the market. Legislating speech is an obvious admission by the state that it wants to control the narrative, skewed to promote both the ruling elite and the system which enables it.

Journalism is moulded not only by regulation, but also by what’s acceptable to the organisations which produce it. Being an employee of the BBC, Rosenberg has to work within the corporation’s frame of reference. This isn’t just its editorial guidelines, but its overall ethos as part of the establishment, creating both conscious and subconscious bias in its news output. So, the war between Russia and Ukraine is analysed only on the surface level of capitalist politics, between rival governments. Mainstream journalism, whether in Britain, Russia or anywhere else wouldn’t examine more fundamentally how the war is between factions of the capitalist class for their economic interests, not those of the working class.

Mike Foster