 We've often complained on this show that the BBC and other mainstream outlets have a pro-tory bias. However, there is another bias that's more all-pervasive and more costly to criticise in our mainstream press. That's the bias that assumes the West is virtuous and a force for good and that countries outside the West should be treated with suspicion. However, this week, after a report on Newsnight, which listed China's human rights abuses and asked whether that should stop Biden engaging with the country on climate change, the world-renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs challenged the framing of the programme and in the process punctured the illusion of Western superiority. Let's take a look. Jeffrey, if I can begin with you, the Biden administration has been strongly critical of China's actions on human rights, but engaging on climate change. Do you see that as a strategy that can actually work? I'm not sure why BBC started with listing only China's human rights abuses. What about America's human rights abuses? The Iraq war together with the UK, completely illegal and under false pretenses. The war in Syria, the war in Libya, the continued sanctions against civilian populations in Venezuela and Iran, walking away from the Paris climate agreement for the last four years, unilateral trade actions that have been deemed illegal by WTO. One can make anything one wants, but we have really serious human rights violations by the United States abroad, not to mention an insurrection on January 6th in our own country, not to mention the continued massive racism, white supremacism, and abuse of incarceration of hundreds of thousands of people in the US, African American people of colour. So I think that the whole premise of this story is a little bit odd. I found the framing of it, not what I expected. I thought we were going to talk about climate change, which we should, but I think that the idea that there is one party that is so guilty, how can we talk to them, is just a strange way to address this issue. Now, I thought that was a really impressive intervention from Jeffrey Sext, eminent economist. I think if you were known as a left winger and you said that on TV, you'd probably never get invited again, but he's off the stature where he can call out the BBC for that kind of thing, and essentially get away with it because he's earned his place amongst the establishment. Interestingly, he actually used to be one of the pushers of neoliberalism in post-communist Eastern Europe, so he's had a bit of a transformation. But what he's saying there, I think, is super important. He's not denying that there are human rights abuses in China, not at all. I've seen some people suggest that on social media. That's not what's happening. What he's saying is it's ridiculous to approach this particular issue, which is should two countries engage with each other on dealing with climate change and only thinking this is problematic for one side? Are China worthy of America's attention or are they beyond the pale because their record on human rights is so, so poor? Has New Zealand ever asked that question about a country dealing with America? I can't remember a time. And as Jeffrey Sext says, if you're looking at the various records of both countries, you're looking about the amount of lives they've ruined, the amount of regions they've destroyed. America doesn't come out very well at all. And I think he called it out brilliantly. Aaron, I want to get your thoughts on that particular clip. Yes, patently ridiculous. And the idea that, oh, he's saying this, he's an apologist for China. Come on. Anybody who says that isn't serious about climate change. Saudi Arabia is responsible for abhorrent human rights abuses. Nobody's saying obviously a conversation about decarbonizing. Saudi Arabia has to be in the room. Iran has to be in the room. I think Saudi Arabia, I think it's maybe the sixth biggest consumer domestically of fossil fuels in terms of its CO2 emissions. Not a huge population, but of course it produces a great deal of them. And so the price is so low of domestic subsidies. People just burn them for fun in Saudi Arabia. We can't have a proper conversation about going beyond fossil fuels if Saudi Arabia is not included or Iran, or Russia. If you're only going to talk to the countries, you all agree with the Western liberal democracies, the parliamentary system, who you politically agree with and happen to have leaders who aren't at odds with your agenda. You're going to have about 10, 15 people in the room grow up. And so again, I think it really speaks to the tenor of political debate, particularly on the BBC. Come on. This is just not serious politics. We're talking about climate change here, right? Climate change is going to define climate change is not about this or that border, this or that flag, this or that language. This is about what happens to the environmental systems of our entire planet over the next several centuries slash millennia. And actually, incidentally, it turns out if we don't get things right over the next couple of decades, we may go past the point where actually what we do there after doesn't really matter. And I think people will look back at these kinds of conversations as ridiculous. They'll think what on earth was going on? What was going through their heads? The seas were acidifying, temperatures were rising, there was biodiversity loss, forests were being swept away with wildfires and development in Southeast Asia and Brazil. And the BBC was talking about, well, you know, are we really going to reduce our moral standing by talking with the Chinese? Again, do you know how many countries have Chinese military bases in them beyond China? Two. Meanwhile, America has 800 military bases beyond its own borders. Nobody's, well, I'm not going to talk to America about climate change because they've got 800 military bases. That would be an absurd thing to say. It's the world's largest economy. So, you know, time for a serious conversation in politics, first and foremost, about climate change. And the BBC needs to grow up. This is the Asian century, right? China is going to be the world's largest economy, probably by 2030. By price purchasing parity, it'll be twice the size of the United States at some point in the 2030s. So, this kind of perspective and, you know, wholly-than-now kind of thing that comes from British journalists, get over yourselves, right? Because if we keep this attitude, we're going nowhere as a species in terms of solving our problems. Ridiculous. Contemptible, Michael. I agree it's contemptible. Obviously, Emma Barnett, you could probably hear from that first clip, wasn't too pleased at the framing of Newsnight's show being questioned by a guest. Let's now take a look at how she pushes back against Sacks. We're also using the framing of the Biden administration. We're also talking from the perspective of how Joe Biden himself and those around him have talked about the human rights abuses in China. So, you know, sorry. The US always, excuse me for one moment, the US always attacks other countries. It holds itself sacrosanct. It's really outrageous, because I know what goes on in American foreign policy, and I know how abusive it is, and I know what it's like to live in a racist society, which I happen to do, where a significant part of this country is racist, followed a racist president who led an insurrection on the Capitol. And so the framing of this issue is strange. That's what I'm saying. But by your own country as well as the rest of the world? I believe by the government, not by my own country, by the government of my country. So I believe that the two leading polluters absolutely need to clean up their act. This is crucial for the sake of the world. And so, of course, we need to clean up our act, because the United States is emitting 15 tons of CO2 per person in this country, twice what China is emitting per capita. And the two countries together are about 40% of the CO2 emissions in the world, and we are wrecking the climate. That was the most obvious example of the ideology of the BBC and so much of the Western press absolutely on show. Jeffrey Sachs is saying, why have you come up with this biased framing? She says, oh, it's not our framing. It's Joe Biden's framing. Well, when BBC, when Emma Barnett, when whoever produces Newsnight, have you done an episode of that show where you've just taken Xi Jinping's framing or you've just taken Fidel Castro's framing? It doesn't happen. So what they are doing is they are saying, we're taking the perspective, the framing of one particular politician who has their own political interests, and we are presenting that as a neutral question. That's what they did. It's the definition of ideology. You take one person's perspective, and then you say, that's reality. We are looking at the world through the eyes of Joe Biden. That's also not what journalists are supposed to do. You aren't supposed to look at all the big different issues in the world, climate change, human rights abuses in China even, whatever you're looking at and say, the important question here is what should Joe Biden do? Why? And especially, what should Joe Biden do given we're accepting all of the reasoning he says he is taking into account publicly? What if the guy isn't being particularly honest? You're journalist. You're supposed to take that kind of thing into account and critically assess the merits and downsides of what both parties are saying. Not take on the perspective of Joe Biden. When someone calls you out on bias, say, oh, if the bias is anyone's, it's Joe Biden's bias. The whole point of bias is you're taking on Joe Biden's perspective. Aaron, I want your perspective on Emma Barnett's defense, because I just thought it was really, really pathetic, actually. It's not journalism, is it? So journalism, you've got two ways of looking at journalism. The first is, let's get to an objective truth. Not easy. Of course, we'll bring our biases to it. Or here are two competing views and let's get them to play out their antagonisms. And she's not doing either. She's just, she's saying, here's a point of view. And I'm going to sort of, you know, uncritically repeat it. And that's definitely not in the rulebook. And there is an increasingly the BBC, because it's meant to be this gold standard, increasingly does stuff like this. Now, I was listening to the world at one yesterday, and they were talking about Greensill. I thought, great, Greensill is a huge, it's a huge story. You know, we've done three shows on it in the last four days. Huge story. And then they were going interviewing people doing Vox Pop saying, is it cutting through? Is it cutting through? Isn't the story? There's loads of important stories that haven't, imagine if Watergate broke today, right? And oh, a president, he needs to resign, you know, he's, we, it looks like there's, you know, questions of legality and so on. Well, we don't think it's cutting through. So it's not a story. You're the journalists, make it cut through, right? It's literally your job to make it cut through. And Emma Barnett, like you say, it's literally your job to not ventriloquise one side of a debate. That's literally your job. Otherwise, we just listen to Joe Biden, we just listen to Gigi Ping and we make our own mind up. We don't need you to do that. You're not a press officer. So it is, it is worrying. I just think standards are really slipping at the BBC. The BBC has never been perfect, but I don't think you had that. Maybe you did before the Iraq war, but I just don't think it was so overt. I just don't think it was so overt. Like you said, it's ideology. And then she's like, yeah, I'm making an ideological claim. Really strange to watch. She's like, if you've got a problem with it, the problem is America's problem. She's almost blaming Jeffrey Sachs. You think I'm biased. It's the American people who are biased. Yeah, but the problem is you're uncritically repeating what is the dominant ideology of the United States right now. And apparently knowingly do that, you know, there was no disclaimer at the start of the show. By the way, everything we say on this show is from the perspective of Joe Biden. We don't claim that it's in any way an objective analysis of the situation. We're going inside his head. So don't take it very seriously what we say. They didn't say that. They just said, you know, this is a completely natural way of looking at the scenario and we're looking at it according to Joe Biden's stated vision of the world and pretending that's normal and natural. Unbelievable and well done to Jeffrey Sachs for calling it out.