No but they have diversity programmes and programmes on diversity which are done because of a more left wing/liberal belief about representation and understanding representation.
And as such have an agenda along these lines. Both the BBC and C4 run campaigns for various 'weeks' or 'months'. Such as Black History month for example.
Not only this but Trevor Phillips did a documentary for the BBC exploring whether these sort of diversity drives to improve representation within staff and were effective or whether they were flawed within their own right.
His point was that whilst they were positive to a degree, they tended to be biased along socio-economic lines and what was under represented was voices from working class communities, particularly white ones. Ethnic communities were better represented but again they tended to come from wealthier backgrounds.
When the Brexit vote happened there was a fracture in British politics. It had been happening for a while but it's an important one to understand.
Labour historically had been the party of the working class blue collar worker whilst the Conservatives had been the party of the white collar traditional middle class. But what happened is there is a feeling that Labour came detached from it's grass roots and became the party of the educated and more middle class and began to ignore issues at a more localised level. Social issues centred on poverty and disenfranchisement on a more basic level have gone on. Much of the Labour voting North became disenchanted at poor local governance (and frankly outright corruption) at the same time. Economics changed and the North began to struggle. None of this is helped by the fact that the most economically deprived don't vote at all, so there's less point in chasing those votes in elections, so there's no incentive for Labour to continue to prioritise some of these issues. In the face of this, anti-european right wingers saw an opportunity. It was Farage who capitalised on it and took votes.
This destabilised British politics.
And the Tories have been trying to make a grab back for those votes ever since as they lost so many of their more educated middle class pro-Eu voters. They succeeded in 2019. But those voters are still dissatisfied because the issues they were concerned about haven't been resolved by Brexit (they won't, because they aren't actually rooted in European issues). And the more regionalised issues tied up with economics and infrastructure aren't being listened to.
Labour now has captured that educated middle class vote which includes a much poorer young generation. It's more internationally focused and travel is an important part of the culture. But it's failing to engage with the domestic grass roots socio-economic issues of this country. It'd rather talk about identity rather than proper funding for well ... Just about anything. Because there is an awareness there's no money even if they win an election. This kinda suits the Tories too.
But my point here is that the BBC and C4 markets remain much more middle class and 'trendy' and both have an issue with broadening their appeal beyond that. In fairness to C4 this is actually written into it's remit, but this effectively makes it naturally biased even if it's not entirely obvious.
The BBC has made a lot of effort to try and reach a more working class audience. Quite frankly without a huge amount of success.
If the BBC was so unbiased, why would this be an issue?
GB news is reaching an audience that arguably weren't being served previously. Is that because it's biased or because other channels were biased and weren't fully serving their audiences?
I think the BBC does a good job and generally is good at impartiality. But it still has huge issues too - a good example is the headlines it's run about the conflict between women's rights and trans rights have been undeniably biased at times. The BBC has had to run apologies over comments going unchallenged about JKRowling.
Where the BBC does badly is on this more 'invisible' biased - where it doesn't receive a pile of complaints and people just switch off. And that needs to be on your radar. And that does fall along socio-economic lines.
If you work from that perspective, it also puts a new angle on representation on GB news. It is different, and certainly less professional and it could do a lot better on fact checking. I do think it's biased, but I think it's a respond to a lot of bias on other channels which falls under this 'invisible' issue.
GB news ISN'T my bag. It ISN'T my political views. It ISN'T unbiased. It ISN'T always responsible, professional or accurate. Quite frankly I don't like it.
BUT
I do think there IS an inherent problem in British broadcasting in terms of bias (which is difficult to the newspaper market and is regulated differently) and GB News has come to exist because of this bias within the traditional broadcasters and issues arising from it.
There is a cohort of voters who do not believe they are being listened to by ANY of the traditional political parties - INCLUDING the Conservatives.
If anything Sunak has been chasing that vote, which is more to the right of the conservatives - which is where the Reform Party sit.
This is about the Reform Party vote in many respects.
The fact that there's a whole pile of comments about GB News being the mouth piece of the Conservatives is indicative of falling to understand this dynamic. It's not.
Sunak appearing on the channel isn't trying to push an agenda for the conservatives overall. It's about chasing votes on the right wing who may not vote conservative. These voters do not engage with the likes of the BBC anymore because they feel disenfranchised and alienated from it.
Meanwhile we have a liberal/left wing group which hates GB because of its very existence. They think it should be taken off air and banned.
What we have in effect is almost two Britains that have arisen where there is very little overlap or shared view of the world.
Neither group is more important than the other. Both should be served. Both are biased in their own way. But both are serving the public in a way that is arguably also unbiased. This seems like a nuts concept and paradoxical to simultaneously believe that you can have more left wing/centre broadcasters who essentially serve a left/centre and centre right audience and have a more right wing broadcaster who essentially serve a right/more right audience but both are not beholden to a singular view either and are representing a range of views within their box. If anything I'd argue that the more traditional broadcasters have been failing in their bias obligations for a long time and this situation has arisen as a natural consequence of that. Precisely because the politicians that have appeared on them for years and years have failed to be fully representative of the public and it's social issues.
I've been a huge advocate on here for reminding people to try and spot the unseen and invisible issues going on that are hidden by various agendas or poor data collection which forgets the principle of those who are not vocal in complaining. It's a really useful life lesson to look out for groups or individuals who are disenfranchised in various ways. What goes under the radar and what has been able to fester due to neglect?