Student Life
‘There’s a difference between impartiality and neutrality’: Lewis Goodall on politics, podcasting, and the prime minister
Lewis Goodall is a very busy man. Between co-hosting the hit daily podcast The News Agents, starring in LBC’s flagship Sunday radioshow, and winning awards for exposing government cover-ups, the journalist and broadcaster has very little spare time. So I’m grateful when he squeezes in a half hour Zoom call with me in the middle of his work day. He may be on a break but he remains professional; his demeanour as we make small talk before the interview is the same as when he presents a podcast to millions of listeners. Energetic and conversational, you get the sense that he is always firing on all cylinders.
Goodall, aged just 36, has already had a distinguished career, being at the centre of what is often described as the ‘podcast revolution’ in British media. In 2022, Goodall left a prestigious job as policy editor of the BBC’s Newsnight in order to start The News Agents with veteran journalists Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel, a decision he says was regarded by many at the time as “a little fringe, a little eccentric”.
Nearly four years later, you can tell that he is happy with the gamble he made. In his view, not only have podcasts become “utterly central” to the way in which we consume news, but individual hosts “have become enormously influential, way more than a lot of legacy shows”. When you compare the dwindling viewership of Newsnight to the success of The News Agents, which boasts four million monthly listeners, it’s hard not to agree. Nonetheless, Goodall hasn’t entirely thrown his lot in with the ‘new media’ format. Regularly working with Sky and Channel 4, he keeps one foot firmly planted in the more traditional media world, giving him a unique vantage point from which to assess the shifting sands of British journalism.
Goodall, however, doesn’t view his career in terms of clear distinctions. “All these barriers between media are dissolving, integrating, coming to nothing”, he tells me. He points to the fact that podcasts are increasingly mimicking traditional news shows, with hosts shelling out enormous amounts to pay for cameras and professional studios. “Apple and Spotify, in the last three months, are moving to basically video-first platforms for podcasts”, he points out. “You’re watching TV news, it’s just taking a different form.”
To him, the key developments in the industry are less to do with the format, and more to do with the constant demand for news that social media has created. Instead of producing work for regularly scheduled deadlines, journalists now have to be constantly on it, ready with a special report or ‘emergency podcast’ whenever news breaks. “You are everything, everywhere, all at once”, he says. “That’s what modern media shows have to be. It means you have to have a visual offering, an audio offering, a social media offering in each and every direction, because it’s an utter competition for eyeballs in the attention economy in which we live.
“It’s exhausting, and it’s frustrating, and it’s relentless sometimes. But it’s also very exciting because we’re at a genuine moment of evolution in a media landscape which doesn’t come along very often.”
Goodall’s ability to be at ease with this rapid change is likely the product of having lived a life defined by seismic political and economic transformations. Goodall was raised by young parents on an estate in southwest Birmingham, experiencing a childhood shaped by de-industrialisation and the constant threatened closure of the Rover factory which employed his father. He was 7 when the Blair government came to power, ending 18 years of Tory dominance in British politics. For Goodall, this altered the direction of his life. Encouraged by Labour’s programme to increase the number of first-generation university students, he secured a place at Oxford University, studying History and Politics at St John’s College.
It’s clear that Goodall largely enjoyed his time at Oxford. “Look, as anyone who’s been there knows, it’s a deeply unusual place and a deeply unusual university experience”, he says. “There aren’t many times in your life where your job is to think about Thomas Hobbes, right? That’s a kind of really unique moment, which I realised about 18 months in, I think I enjoyed it a lot more when I did that.”
As was inevitable for a student from a working class background in the 2000s, Goodall encountered the prejudices of his more privileged peers. He recalls an instance where a “very charming guy” turned to him and declared “Oh Lewis, I love having you about. You’re the college’s bit of rough”. Goodall is remarkably relaxed about these run-ins, laughing the whole thing off: “That was the only time in my life, before or since, that I’ve ever been described as a bit of rough.”
If anything, Goodall’s background was a source of pride for him, rather than alienation. “I think what it gives you is just a license to be confident”, he reflects. “You’re gonna come across, both there and afterwards, some absolute chancers who, quite frankly, were it not for the circumstances of their birth, would probably not be where they were or are today.
“Sometimes they will realise where you’re from and try and intimidate you. I think, what Oxford does, it just gives you that iron clad confidence to be like: ‘No, I’m not going to be intimidated by you because I might not be where you’re from, but I’ve gotten where you’ve got to, at least on equal terms, if not actually with one hand behind my back’.”
After graduating in 2010, Goodall worked as a question writer for University Challenge, and then at the Institute for Public Policy Research, before landing a job at the BBC in 2012. He once again found himself at the centre of tumultuous change, as the BBC sought to get to grips with a news ecosystem being redefined by social media. “I remember when I started working in news because I was 24 and the editor was like: ‘So, I’ve done this thing called Facebook Live right? We thought maybe you could, like, be in charge of that.’”
So how exactly did these changes affect day to day reporting? “Without getting too History and Politics at Oxford about it, it’s just structure and agency”, he says. Social media, he recalls, enabled young reporters to build their own brand independent of their employers. “If I’d been a journalist 20 years before, and I wanted to do my story… I’d go through the processes. I’d pitch to my editor and then eventually the piece would appear on Newsnight. But of course, I was then coming through at a time where you were initially encouraged… to go directly to the viewers. So, by definition, you end up being more of a player and you yourself become part of discourse rather than the organisation you’re working for, who previously controlled all of that.”
After a while, he explains, the BBC sought to rein this in. Before long, Goodall found himself being called to meetings with higher-ups to discuss his social media presence. He tells a story of one instance in which he posted a run down about an election that had taken place in Norway and had to explain why he did so to his bosses. “I wasn’t being quizzed about the rights and wrongs of it, I doubt the BBC executive could even identify Norway on a map. It was more like, ‘why are you talking about that?’”
This is an issue which, to Goodall’s mind, the BBC still has not resolved. “Places like the BBC, they want to put the brand first, always. But people, intrinsically, for good or ill, when they’re going online now, look to individuals they identify with, and they like, and they respect. And the BBC, I think, in particular, has never been able to reconcile or find an accommodation between having those tall poppies, and letting them sit comfortably within the brand itself… My argument was always that organisations need to be able to harness that energy and harness that phenomenon, whether they like it or not.”
To Goodall, the BBC’s inability to get to grips with social media is an existential problem; one that reveals flaws in its model of impartiality. “I think these organisations have not thought enough about how to shift and change their journalism in this age in which everybody can have an opinion, in which everybody can complain to you absolutely instantly.” With the BBC, he says, “it became a question of ‘we need to manage perception’”, in which accusations of bias against reporters made on social media were automatically taken as valid, rather than investigated to see if they had any substance.
“There’s a difference between impartiality and neutrality. Anybody who is genuinely neutral is a block, you know, you’re brain dead. It would be bizarre if you went into journalism, particularly political journalism, to have no views, and no judgements about the political world around you. That makes you a worse journalist, a way worse journalist.”
As he speaks, Goodall becomes more and more animated, leaning into his laptop camera with his arms outstretched in front of him. It’s no wonder that his feelings are so strong on this matter, given the number of times he’s been at the centre of impartiality rows himself. Some of these were easily dismissed – he laughingly recalls when, while working at Sky News between 2016-2020, he was accused on social media of bias because he had served as a Youth Officer for the local Birmingham Labour Party when he was 15.
Others, however, were far more threatening to his career. In 2020, BBC board member and former conservative party communications chief Robbie Gibb publicly suggested that Goodall had a left-wing bias. Goodall clapped back, tweeting “thanks for this Robbie. Maybe one day, if I’m as impartial as you, I can get a knighthood too”. Goodall later stated that the failure of his editors to stand up for him, instead allegedly warning him to “be careful: Robbie is watching you”, motivated him to leave the BBC in 2022.
Our discussion comes only a few months after another impartiality controversy at the BBC, in which the BBC’s director general and as its head of news resigned after a memo by a former external advisor accusing the organisation of a left-wing bias was published in the press. I ask Goodall what he made of this episode, particularly in the light of his own experience at the organisation. To him, the BBC allows “impartiality to be a stick that is used to beat them, and they allow that because they basically subscribe to what I would describe as a completely hollow view of impartiality”.
He says that, during his time at the BBC, there was an obsession with the criticism coming from the right that “they were a bunch of liberal metropolitan elites or whatever. That was the bias of which they were most aware, and they were constantly guarding against. I can’t remember anybody being terribly worked up if we were being biased about the Green Party, or the Communist Party, or the Socialists, or whatever it happens to be”.
Goodall believes that the BBC continues to be far too deferential to criticisms levied at it in bad faith. “It got inside their heads far too successfully. They didn’t have a genuine theory of impartiality. Their theory of impartiality was defined by their worst enemies and continues to be. And guess what? They get no credit for that, none. Because their worst enemies continue to be their worst enemies. All day long.”
One gets the sense that Goodall could talk about this topic for hours, but with my allotted time fast running out, I steer the conversation towards another British institution which seems unable to adapt to a changing media landscape: the government. How well does he think the Labour Party has spread its message in the age of podcasts, reels, and social media? “I don’t think Labour have been very good at it partly because they’ve been worried about pissing off the newspapers too much”, he says. “I think it’s ridiculous, by the way, the power of the lobby and some of the established newspapers continues to be very strong, despite the fact that their readership has never been less.”
“For Labour, this current media environment actually should be a real opportunity for them”, he says. “Because one of Labour’s big structural problems historically has obviously been the dominance of the right wing press in British political media.” This, he argues, left them with two options: either reject it (à la Corbyn) or pander to it as Blair did, both of which have proved problematic in the past. “Now they’ve got a third option, which is that they can help create a new news ecosystem which is, if not more intrinsically favourable to them, at least less hostile to them… I have been surprised by how little those at the top of the Labour party, over the last couple of years, have been interested in developing that new media space to their benefit.”
This brings us to the topic of Goodall’s latest project; a Channel 4 documentary exploring why Keir Starmer’s government, less than two years after a historic landslide, is so unpopular. So, what exactly is it that interests Goodall so much about Starmer, a man that many describe as profoundly uninteresting? “I think there’s a sort of personal paradox… This is a man who’s reached the apex of our politics, who is clearly driven by a deep sense of personal ambition. And yet, he’s also a man who, in so many ways, I know this from personal conversations with him, loathes politics, abhors politics, is, in some ways, very anti-political.”
He points to the fact that even Morgan McSweeney, the former Downing Street Chief of Staff, supposedly could never reliably predict what Starmer’s thoughts on an issue would be, as a result of the prime minister’s lack of instinctual political beliefs. “That fascinates me. You have a man willing to make profound personal and familial sacrifices, because being Prime Minister is basically horrible, for all the glory of it, it’s basically vile, like day to day. So what sustains it? He’s a deeply unusual political figure, sphinx-like in that way.”
It is certainly an interesting time for this documentary to come out. Many had assumed that, in the absence of Starmer’s own political beliefs, that McSweeney was setting much of the policy direction of the government. But with Starmer’s right hand man booted out of No. 10 earlier this year, no-one is quite sure who is now setting the agenda. “There’s a horrible cliche in politics”, Goodall says, “which like most cliches in modern politics, basically comes from West Wing: ‘Now you can let Starmer be Starmer’.
“But that’s the question, is there a Starmer to be Starmer? Without getting too Shakespearean about it, is there an authentic, real Starmer? I think it remains to be seen, the extent to which he’s just going to be moulded again, or whether he’ll try and finally do the moulding.”
It’s hard to know how all the ongoing transformations that we have discussed will play out. Will the government take a new direction? How will the media landscape continue to evolve? Will broadcasters like the BBC adapt, or end up on the scrap heap? One thing, however, is clear: Lewis Goodall is no stranger to rapid change and, as ever, he plans to make the most of it.
‘Keir Starmer: where did it all go wrong?’ is available to watch now on Channel 4.
Student Life
St Edmund Hall unveils new eco-friendly accommodation
St Edmund Hall has opened new, sustainability-focused accommodation in Norham Gardens, one of Oxford’s most affluent neighbourhoods.
The College describes the buildings, which took three years to construct, as an “exemplar” of sustainability. Designed by architects Wright & Wright LLP, they are certified with a Passivhaus standard, widely regarded as the industry benchmark for energy efficiency, and were built using “sustainably sourced and low-embodied carbon materials”. According to a press release on the Teddy Hall website, the buildings will use 70% less energy than the typical modern building.
It contains 127 en-suite study rooms, split across three new buildings: Willis House, Ashton House, and Elliott House, on the nearly 50-year-old Norham St Edmund site. The buildings, which back onto University Parks, are powered at least in part by solar panels and are heated by air-source heat pumps.
The rooms include heated towel racks, big double beds, and dimmable lights. Despite the luxury, the College kept the nightly rate in line with the rest of its Norham housing. The College told Cherwell that it “recognises the need to keep rents as low as possible” and that its accommodation costs are “below the median of all Oxford colleges”. By that standard, tenants are expected to pay around £30 a night.
Rooms on the site will be reserved for Teddy Hall returning undergraduates. They will not be available to postgraduates and, by extension, not be offered through the Oxford University Collegiate Accommodation System, now in its second year of opening college rooms to students from other colleges. The accommodation will allow Teddy Hall to accommodate all undergraduates for their whole degree.
The development’s outdoor spaces are boasted as climate-resilient and biodiverse, with landscaped gardens and lawns. For budding geographers and biologists, the most intriguing feature may be an ecology pond.
Chancellor William Hague said in a press release: “Norham St Edmund is a world-leading blueprint for future student accommodation projects and sustainable building design, both in Oxford and beyond. I look forward to seeing it serve a thriving college community for generations to come.
Student Life
Summit calls for human rights safeguards on AI
Human rights experts called for stronger legal protections against the risks posed by artificial intelligence (AI) at an Oxford AI and Human Rights Summit, with speakers arguing that human rights standards must be embedded into AI governance and technology.
The summit was hosted at the newly redeveloped Rhodes House in Oxford and organised by the Institute for Ethics in AI. It built upon Professor Yuval Shany’s consultation on a white paper, published in 2025, on the need for and feasibility of an international AI Bill of Human Rights, which proposes ways to adapt existing human rights standards so as to better address some of the unique challenges posed by AI systems and their uses.
An opening video address from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk outlined how AI policy can keep pace with a fast-developing technology. He said that “great power demands responsibility on the same scale, and when the two don’t match, we have a problem”. Corporate control, he explained, means that AI policy stretches beyond existing national borders. He continued to praise this summit for bringing together leaders and representatives at the forefront of the discussion.
Speakers called on the UK government to establish legislation, recalling Labour’s manifesto commitment to an AI Bill of Human Rights. The panellists broadly agreed on the importance of human rights, but appeared less aligned on what enforcement should look like in practice.
In an exclusive interview, Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, told Cherwell that political short-termism Continued on pg. 2 risks undermining efforts to address the long-term consequences of AI. “We are infected across our societies with shorttermist responses to the great issue of our societies and politics,” he said, adding that electoral cycles make it difficult for politicians “to think beyond the next election”.
O’Flaherty also noted that younger generations no longer take the international human rights system for granted. “There is no longer an assumption that the human rights system is safe, that it will survive,” he told Cherwell. He argued that political leaders increasingly treat human rights selectively, saying: “Increasingly, leaders are treating human rights, if they are respected at all, as an a la carte buffet. We take those rights because they serve our goal. We’ll ignore others because they get in the way.
The summit also heard concerns about the effects of AI-generated misinformation on communities that may have limited access to, or awareness of, the technology itself. An audience question asked human rights experts to consider the impacts of AI on populations, such as those in India, who might be unaware of its existence. The focus on the impact of AI on populations in developing countries more vulnerable to the power of big tech was a key theme of the summit.
Eileen Carter from the South African Human Rights Commission warned that underrepresentation of African languages in large language models could exacerbate existing inequalities. She also raised concerns about the effects of misinformation and deepfakes on elections, referring to more than 360 deaths associated with unrest and the amplification of narratives.
The third panel, which offered a civil society perspective on promoting human rights in AI systems, offered some hope. Across all speakers, the potential for AI to transform the beliefs that underpin human rights, including the rights to water, education, and an interpreter, was debated. When asked about AI’s potential to unravel and alter the definition of human rights, such as what is included in the ‘right to education’ O’Flaherty told Cherwell: “The damage that can be done by AI has hit more dramatically and more visibly than perhaps any other sector within education through the phenomenon of cognitive loss, of cognitive transfer. We’re only beginning to realise the extent to which we have allowed education to be fundamentally undermined for an entire generation.
“It’s time to seize that now and engage it. I’m not sure that the classic understanding of the human right to education is particularly well-framed for this extraordinary development.”
In a discussion on different countries’ regulatory approach to AI, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, professor at Brown University and former AI advisor to US President Joe Biden, argued that AI systems should not be treated as inevitable developments beyond human control. “We continue, I think, to talk about AI as a thing that emerged out of nowhere that we just have to deal with,” he said. “We forget that these aren’t coming from an alien planet and they were built by entities that choose to build them in a certain way.” He called for pressure on technology companies to make different choices about how AI systems are developed.
Questions of accountability also emerged during discussions about AI’s potential to improve access to justice. Research presented by Philippa Webb said that only 10% of people who have access to a lawyer can get one while there are thousands of bookings for an interpreter in a court covering 150 languages. However, this progress is not cemented as “general-purpose chatbots hallucinate 58% of the time on a legal task”. The use of AI in moderating legal proceedings raised fundamental questions about humanity and authority. Thompson Chengeta from Liverpool John Moores University said that “human rights is the last line of defence so when we say we want a human rights based governance… human rights is not an idea, it is an obligation. There is a gap that can only be recovered by a legally binding instrument”.
The event culminated in a panel offering an industry perspective. Co-host Dr Caroline Emmer De Albuquerque Green questioned representatives from Meta, Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI. Michael Karimian, who works in digital diplomacy at Microsoft, discussed the role of private sectors in engaging with AI, defining corporate responsibility as something which “provides transparency and identified risks”.
All companies supported having formal programmes to ensure that they have an AI policy in place. Within their own companies, they suggested protective measures such as specialised training to ensure that policies, such as whistleblowing, are understood. Alexandria Walden from Google described how consultations with stakeholders could be used to identify when the product breached users’ boundaries. These assessments, according to OpenAI’s spokesperson, “feedback into tangible technical input” and “benchmark it”.
Fundamentally, understanding the rationale behind human rights is imperative, though lacking. Alexandria Walden from Google said: “Whether or not they understand human rights, they care enough to infuse it in their company… we might not always get it right, but it is something we care about.”
Where former panels discussed controls to ensure human rights are considered in the development and implementation of AI products, this panel focused on mitigation. A spokesperson from Google pointed out that technology is inevitably going to move faster, so multiple tools are needed. Companies, OpenAI’s representative noted, still encounter issues such as discrimination and free speech. Consequently, they regard this as an additional policy which companies have a structured model to deal with, but newer companies, and newer industries, haven’t learnt it yet.
In her concluding remarks, Green called for policy makers to “make the abstract actionable” at both governmental and corporate levels. She argued that, by framing the issues posed by AI as human rights issues, we gain a “foundation” for recognising AI’s many societal impacts.
Student Life
Oxford University launches Ebola vaccine trial in Uganda
Ugandan participants in a clinical safety study received an Oxford developed Ebola vaccine this week.
Researchers vaccinated the first participants on 6th October in Masaka, Uganda. The phase follows the launch of a first-in-human Phase I trial in the UK evaluating the same vaccine candidate.
They received the vaccine as part of an evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a ChAdOx-based Bundibugyo Ebola vaccine candidate developed by the Oxford Vaccine Group (OVG) and the Pandemic Sciences Institute at the University of Oxford.
Development for this vaccine began in May this year in response to the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The research, led by OVG’s Professor Teresa Lambe and Professor Simon Drysdale, is funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). No licenced vaccine for the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola virus currently exists.
In a statement to Cherwell, OVG said its involvement includes collaborating with the Ugandan research team to support “the study’s scientific design, clinical trial coordination, safety oversight, and evaluation of vaccine safety and immunogenicity”. The Phase I clinical trial addresses a rare strain of Ebola virus affecting communities in the DRC since May. The phase is a collaboration between the Medical Research Council/ Uganda Virus Research Institute and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).
Dr Nicole Lurie, CEPI’s Executive Director for Emergency Preparedness and Response, told Cherwell: “It [the Bundibugyo outbreak] remains the fastest-growing and second-largest Ebola outbreak ever recorded – and we currently remain without a licensed vaccine or treatment.” The Bundibugyo Ebola epidemic in the DRC has surpassed 8,600 cases, with almost half of infections proving fatal.
The outbreak was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in May.
OVG told Cherwell: “For more than a decade, the University of Oxford has performed many clinical trials of candidate viral-vectored vaccines. Some of the most promising vaccines used a modified chimpanzee adenovirus, a harmless version of a common cold virus. The Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) COVID-19 vaccine was approved for emergency use in the UK in December 2020 and was estimated to have saved six million lives during 2021 alone, and over 3 billion doses were used worldwide.” The adenovirus vector vaccine technology trialled in this study was successfully used worldwide as part of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
More funding is necessary to ensure the development and approval of the Ebola vaccine. Lurie told Cherwell: “Without sufficient additional funding, we are at risk of not being able to develop these promising vaccine candidates… CEPI urgently needs US$128M now to keep our Bundibugyo emergency R&D response moving. Without it, we are putting the DRC, and the world, at tremendous risk.”
-
Oxford united FC4 weeks agoChris Gunter steps away Wales role to focus on Oxford United
-
Oxford University3 weeks agoNew to the Oxford English Dictionary this September
-
Oxford united FC1 week agoLIVE: Exeter City vs Oxford United – Jersey Mike's Trophy group stage
-
Traffic & Transport2 weeks agoHow poor public transport policy is putting the brake on cities | Road transport
-
Student Life3 weeks agoOxford partnership allows OpenAI to use rare Bodleian texts to train ChatGPT
-
Traffic & Transport2 weeks agoWhy should I have to pay more for buses if I don’t use a smartphone? | Bus fares
-
Oxford united FC2 weeks agoNorthern Ireland fans laud Oxford United defender Ciaron Brown
-
Oxford Events4 weeks agoFour days of equestrian spectacle at 2026 Blenheim Palace International Horse Trials
