I am neither leftish nor the least bit confused.

Nothing whatsover that you write has any connection to the point I made. Nothing!

So it seems that you are the one who is confused.

To repeat for the umpteenth time I have no idea if the media "suppressed information" or were "oppressed" or any other epithet you wish to use. Nor have I expressed any opinion on it's desirability, or not, if they were in these exchanges because it's NOT the issue. The issue is only whether, should that have happened, press freedom would have been impinged and NOTHING else.

Why it takes so many posts for such a simple point to be understood beats me, but that's not my fault. I could hardly have been clearer.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

OK then yes, the press have complete freedom to suppress information.

Unless you want state control over the press then yes.

That's what freedom means. To publish, or not publish being their decision alone.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

That used to work when the press themselves were more representative of the people they are supposed to represent (and when the country was more homogeneous). Now the BBC, Sky, Channel 4, ITV news (all the major broadcasters) follow the same political ideals (otherwise you couldn't get a job in the first place) and follow the same script (even in fictional shows).

i.e.

Orange man bad (and racist, sexist, etc)
All Migration good (and saying otherwise is racist)
Minorities cannot be criticized (that's racist)
Do not promote traditional family values (that's homophobic, transphobic, sexist etc)
Call the working class "right wing" to shut them up (they are all racists anyway)
Ignore actual crime figures (because if you look too close you might find conclusions you don't like)
Ignore terrorism (it's our fault anyway and you also might find conclusions you don't like)

[all the above in short form soundbite format]

Now they are moving on to sexualizing children and promoting racism against white people (even on the BBC, so we are paying for it). What's next I wonder?

In short the mainstream media operates for the left wing middle classes and minorities in the population. People who are still young enough are finding better alternatives online (typically long form and far more intelligent and diverse debate) and the mainstream media is in it's death throws.

All you have done there is demonstrate your own political outlook and bias. If you read a really left wing site then you would find just as many criticisms which make the polar opposite points.

Any commercial broadcaster is going to be mindful of their audience and generally not promote opinions that alienate them, so neither far right nor far left are going to feature too much. Except in the case of Murdoch owned outlets where a non to subtle lean to the right is obvious. That's especially true in newspapers. You could hardly describe the Sun as left leaning. Nor the Mail, the Express or the Telegraph.

The BBC are different but still come in from as much fire from the left as the right. I think myself they have the balance about right.

Your list of alleged "sins" gave me a laugh. Every one is just a distortion of reality as seen from a right wing viewpoint. Every one can be easily countered. For instance:- " Minorities cannot be criticised (that's racist)

Of course minorities can be criticised. It all depends how, and what for. Any individual can be criticised. Any group of individuals can be criticised, if they promote policies together deserving of criticism. What must not be done is to criticise individuals just because they happen to be part of a minority group. Whether it is racist depends on the criticism. It's the attempt to associate all the innocent people with the guilty which is not acceptable.

I agree that people are finding their "news" and information in different ways these days. This brings with it new challenges which have not yet been fully exposed and certainly not sufficiently scrutinised and regulated.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You can't be real.

Buy Litecoin.

I read those reports! Did you?

What both say is neither surprising nor any kind of indication that actual bias exists. What they confirm is that the perception of bias has increased which is obviously true but not the same at all.

From the Express piece "The British broadcaster is still believed to be performing well “in many respects”."

From the Guardian "The impartiality of the corporation’s news output has come under attack from all sides in recent years, especially following the Brexit referendum. It has been at the focus of discussions over whether the national broadcaster should be giving airtime to individuals who represent extreme views in the name of balance.

Hall said that perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality had ‘“weakened in recent years”, adding: “We need to see what we can do to strengthen them.”

That Ofcom should investigate complaints of bias is quite right and is only doing it's duty. That doesn't mean that bias actually exists, especially if the source of the complaints is itself biased in one direction or the other.

Your own attitude is confirmation of a biased viewpoint. The BBC have a tricky path to find and then follow. I think they do pretty well.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Keep taking the meds.

If you don't see bias from all the major networks then you are the Stevie Wonder of the HOL.

Most Tory MPs are not as hard to the right as some are on here, but there are enough. The Monday Club members fit the bill. Iain Duncan Smith, Peter Bone, Edward Leigh and Bill Cash come to mind as well known names but there are lots of others whose politics I don't much like.

That these folk are popular with rank and file Tories is true. Those rank and file Tories are not though typical of the average voter and that's why choosing a PM from the right would be a disastrous long term mistake. No party can succeed with policies on either margin. They must hold the middle and lean slightly one way. You might think it's boring but it's a fact.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

It's quaint that you trust 'experienced journalists'.