If you pay attention to criticisms of TRIGGERnometry and its boarding-school-educated podcaster/comedian host, Konstantin Vadimovich Kisin, you will notice a pattern. Critics of the podcast will claim the podcast clearly has a right-wing bias, which is a product of the host’s own right-wing political bias. Whenever presented with this critique, host Kisin denies being right-wing or the podcast having a right-wing bend by appealing to left-wing guests who have been on.

This article is my attempt1 to classify and quantify the entire corpus of published TRIGGERnometry videos on YouTube to evaluate any bias better to either vindicate Kisin if he is being wrongly maligned, or to make it more transparent and harder to weasel out of the accusation if he is lying, or to point out how politically and intellectually inept Kisin is if there is overwhelming evidence that his own show has a right wing bias that he is somehow unaware of.

The argument in favour of Kisin’s political bias is like this.

1. If a media outlet is politically biased toward the right, then it is more expected that:

   1. The titles of their videos will promote right-wing ideas.

   2. The guests they interview will be affiliated with right-wing parties.

   3. If left-wing ideas are discussed, the sentiment toward those ideas will be negative.

   4. If left-wing guests are invited, it will be to criticise their ideas (not promote them).

   5. If neutral guests are invited, it will be to either use their expertise to justify right-wing positions OR to launder the reputations of the hosts AND the interview will not involve the endorsement of left-wing positions or the delegitimisation of the hosts’ expertise or points of view.

2. If it is established that a media outlet is politically biased, then that is best explained by the host’s deliberate cultivation of content to aid their political points of view, or incompetence.

3. There is overwhelming evidence for the features of right-wing political bias on TRIGGERnometry.

4. This is best explained by the host’s deliberate cultivation of that content to aid their political points of view, or incompetence.

This article focuses on the evidence around bias within TRIGGERnometry.

My prediction is that IF it were to become untenable for Kisin to defend his historic commitment that TRIGGERnometry does not meet criteria for being a right-wing show — (say) due to an overwhelming amount of evidence provided by an autistic person who despises him — which would make his strategy of gaslighting guests and appealing to the anecdote of having once talked to a left-wing person on his show untenable — that he would not admit to being a right-wing hack, but continue to resist the plausibility of his being a Temu Joseph Goebells by arguing that any OVERWHELMING evidence of right-wing political bias on his show was best explained not by his bias or incompetence, but instead by every left wing person refusing his gracious invitations to have their positions honestly endorsed and explored on his big beautiful show where they will be given a fair hearing ( guests would not be brow beaten or deceptively edited in any way), or to blame Francis, or anyone but himself, or the chancy swerving of atoms for causing various distributions of guests and topics on his show to have the unfortunate appearance expected if the channel were ran by an unintelligent far right propagandist, whilst in-fact being ran by a completely unbiased and neutral liberal democrat centrist who boldly explores his political ideas with rigor and neutrality.

Noting that for no particular reason.

The following is an analysis of all the data and metadata relating to every single video uploaded and publicly available by @triggerpod on YouTube up until 01/03/2026 over the YouTube api.

I did this in an afternoon on a Sunday, and I MIGHT come back to it to improve the methodology or make some revisions later.

1. Guest and Interview Composition

Conservative Party

TRIGGERnometry has interviewed six Conservative politicians across ten episodes. The most senior is Kemi Badenoch, the current party leader, who appeared once in February 2025 to discuss the Conservatives’ election defeat. Liz Truss appeared twice in 2024, covering her brief premiership and democratic accountability. Suella Braverman appeared once in February 2024 on border control. Other Conservative guests include Munira Mirza (2018, on multiculturalism and institutional racism), Steve Hilton (three appearances from 2023-2026, mostly on governance and California), and Tony Abbott, the former Australian PM, who appeared twice discussing immigration and Putin.

Reform UK / Brexit Party / UKIP

This is the most heavily represented party bloc, with three guests across twelve episodes. Nigel Farage alone accounts for five confirmed interviews spanning 2021-2024, covering topics from the far right to the political revolution he predicts, to immigration and his plan for Britain, totalling over 1.5 million views. Laila Cunningham, a Reform candidate for London Mayor, had four entries in January 2026 (though the deduplication analysis flags most as clips from one interview). Mahyar Tousi appeared three times from 2020 to 2026 on BLM, Iran, and regime politics. Claire Fox appeared once in 2018 on free speech. Robert Jenrick, who crossed from the Conservatives to Reform, had two entries in February 2026. Ben Habib is in the affiliation dictionary but wasn’t detected as a guest in the title data.

UK Labour

Kate Hoey is the only Labour-affiliated guest in the coded dictionary, but she doesn’t actually appear in any detected interview titles — she may have been mentioned or appeared in the dataset somewhere in a description or something. Notably, in the dataset, there are twelve videos with “Labour” in the title, but they’re almost all about Labour rather than featuring Labour politicians — titles like “How the Labour Party Betrayed the Working Class” and “Why Labour Keep Losing”. It is also worth noting that the Labour Party currently have the most MP’s in parliament and is the ruling party, but TRIGGERnometry have still not had any on.

UK Green

Peter Tatchell appeared once in May 2018, very early in the channel’s history, discussing human rights, free speech, and political reform. At just 4,290 views, it’s one of the lowest-viewed interviews in the dataset.

US Republican

Nick Freitas, a Republican state legislator and Green Beret, is TRIGGERnometry’s most prolific Republican guest with six entries (five under “Nick Freitas” and one as “Combat Veteran Nick Freitas”), primarily focused on Gaza and masculinity, accumulating over 5.2 million views. Vivek Ramaswamy appeared once in 2021 on corporate wokeness. Dan Crenshaw appeared once in 2023. Tulsi Gabbard, now classified as MAGA/Republican, appeared once in June 2024, criticising Democrat elites.

Israeli leaders

Two serving or former Israeli Prime Ministers have appeared: Benjamin Netanyahu once in August 2025, and Naftali Bennett once in September 2025, both discussing Gaza and Israel’s future.

Left-wing affiliated guests

The left is strikingly thin. Beyond Kate Hoey (not detected) and Peter Tatchell (one early episode), the broader affiliation dictionary includes several left-wing commentators who did appear: Hasan Piker had three interview entries in November 2025 discussing communism, immigration, and socialism. Aaron Bastani appeared in a livestream in August 2023 billed as “An Honest Conversation with a Marxist”. Ash Sarkar appeared once in October 2023 in a formal debate format against Konstantin Kisin. Kehinde Andrews appeared twice in September 2025 debating slavery and reparations. Destiny (Steven Bonnell) appeared twice — once in 2022 and once in a 2024 debate alongside Dr Sebastian Gorka. Charlamagne tha God had three entries in April 2025. Bassem Youssef had four entries from one interview in April 2024. Duncan Trussell appeared once in January 2025.

Contested / heterodox

Rory Stewart, a former Conservative who has since distanced himself from the party, appeared once in July 2024. Scott Galloway had two entries in February 2026. Bill Maher had five entries from 2023-2024, mostly featuring Konstantin Kisin on Maher’s show rather than the other way around. Stephen Fry is listed as contested but wasn’t detected in the interview title data.

The overall picture

Across formally affiliated politicians alone, the ratio is 18 right-wing guests generating 36 episodes versus 1 left-wing guest generating 1 episode (Peter Tatchell in 2018). When you expand to include ideological commentators, the imbalance narrows slightly but remains stark — left-wing voices tend to appear in debate formats or one-off conversations rather than the repeat long-form interviews given to right-aligned guests like Farage (5 interviews), Nick Freitas (6), or Steve Hilton (3).

I’m also really glad to see that Shadow MP for Gorton and Denton, Matthew Badloss, is so close to Kisin. It must’ve stung to see him completely rejected after the far-right machine ploughed millions into trying to win that seat!

When I saw these data, I was shocked to see things like for example, FIVE interviews with Nigel Farage. I suspected this might be an artefact of my analysis of the data being wrong in some way, so I had to check.

1. 2021-03-09 Nigel Farage: “I Did More to Stop the Far Right Than Anyone”

   

2. 2022-02-16 An Honest Conversation With Nigel Farage

   

3. 2023-02-08 livestream Nigel Farage: “We’re Heading for a Political Revolution”

   

4. 2024-06-18 Nigel Farage: Why Immigration Is So Taboo...

   

5. 2024-07-31videoMy Big Plan to Rescue Britain - Nigel Farage

Only THREE of those are long-form interviews, but there are genuinely FIVE unique interviews with this man. I was absolutely astonished. The leader of the Brexit campaign ( and Konstantin claims to have been a remainer, yet has NEVER challenged the architect of Brexit for it’s failure, weirdly I don’t know if we should even believe this doublespeaking gimp). There are a further 9 videos about Nigel Farage but he does not directly appear in them so they are not classed as interviews.

For these interviews, I ran a sentiment analysis on the titles to check for a left or right-coded signal in the title indicating a sympathetic, neutral or combative framing toward a guest.

I thought it would be interesting to look a little further into the makeup of the left wing interviews that exist.

There are so few videos that meet the sentiment analysis check for left coding, that in the top 25, most of the most left-wing videos available are still slightly right-coded….

Left-leaning videos

Roger HallamWho Are Extinction Rebellion and What Do They Want?

Bassem Youssef Fiery Israel-Palestine Debate with Bassem Youssef

Bassem Youssef Has Israel’s Response to October 7th Been Fair?

Bassem Youssef How The Israel-Palestine Conflict Progresses From Here...

Bassem YoussefWhy there wasn’t a ceasefire before October 7th

Duncan Trussell You Are Being Brainwashed

It is worth noting: entries 2-5 are all from one Bassem Youssef interview (the deduplication section would flag 3 of those as clips). But there’s one interesting edge case in the data. Aaron Bastani (a self-described Marxist) has a guest_signal of -1.0 (negative indicating left wing), but in the analysis, his interview title contains right-leaning lexicon terms (”Honest Conversation with a Marxist” implying Marxists are generally biased and right-coding the video), which pushed the combined_score to +2.5 and classified it as right-leaning. That’s a case where the framing of the title overpowers the guest signal.

Overwhelmingly, and in fact at an increasing rate, TRIGGERpod have been having on explicitly right-wing guests for their interviews. This is undeniable.

2. Video Topic, Title and Description

I ran a series of analyses on the text data for the videos, topic, title, description and any metadata, including tags that were added. Below is the frequency word cloud.

2.1 Lexical Analysis

A lexical analysis scores every video’s political framing by scanning the title, description, and tags for politically coded language. It doesn’t try to determine whether a video is “good” or “bad” — it measures whether the framing leans right or left based on vocabulary choices.

The implementation works in layers. Tier 1 terms are unambiguous — words and phrases that carry inherent political direction regardless of context. On the right side, this is a large dictionary of around 200+ terms: things like “woke”, “cancel culture”, “grooming gangs”, “illegal immigrant”, “deep state”, “gender ideology”, “puberty blockers”, “net zero must go”, and loaded verbs like “destroys” and “exposes”. On the left side, the list is deliberately tiny — just eight terms like “racial justice”, “decolonise”, “eat the rich”, and “allyship”. This asymmetry isn’t bias in the method; it reflects the channel’s actual vocabulary. Left-coded terms like “antifa”, “social justice”, “defund”, and “safe space” were originally in the left tier, but manual review found they were always used critically or mockingly on TRIGGERnometry, so they were moved to the right tier, where they function as right-wing attack terms.

Tier 2 terms are contested — phrases like “white privilege”, “systemic racism”, “far right”, “climate crisis”, and “trans rights” that could signal either direction depending on how they’re used. For these, the system extracts a window of 80 characters on either side of the term and looks for context markers. Critique markers (”myth”, “lie”, “debunks”, “so-called”, “truth about”, scare quotes) push the score right (+1), while endorsement markers (”acknowledge”, “fight for”, “real problem”) push it left (-1). If neither is found, the term scores zero and gets flagged as ambiguous.

On top of this, there are around 40 regex title patterns that catch common right-wing YouTube framing structures: “Why X is FAILING”, “The TRUTH about X”, “X DESTROYS Y”, “They RUINED X”, “Nobody voted for X”, “You’ve been lied to”, and so on. Each match adds +1.

The scoring works additively. Title and description terms are weighted at 1.0; tags (which are SEO metadata rather than editorial voice) are weighted at 0.5. The final framing_score is the sum of the right signals minus the left signals. A video titled “The UNCENSORED Truth About Grooming Gangs” might accumulate +1 for “grooming gangs”, +1 for the “truth about” pattern, and +1 for “uncensored”/”censorship” framing, giving it a framing score of +3.

TRIGGERnometry's content is overwhelmingly right-leaning in its framing and guest selection. Of the 946 videos that received a classification (the other 903 lacked sufficient signal), 937 were classified as right-leaning, 6 as left-leaning, and 3 as contested. That is a right-to-left ratio of 156:1. The mean combined bias score across all videos is +0.84, with scores ranging from -1.0 to +10.5. No video in the dataset received a negative framing score from lexical analysis alone — every single term-level match was either right-coded or neutral.

The framing lexicon detected right-coded vocabulary in 38.2% of all videos (706 of 1,849). The most frequently matched terms are "woke" (155 videos), "civil war" (69), "grooming gang/gangs" (100 combined), "communism/communist" (57 combined), "cancel culture" (36), and "identity politics" (31). The "Truth About" title pattern fired 25 times. Left-coded terms — the small set remaining after manual review moved contextually right-coded terms like "antifa", "social justice", and "defund" to the right tier — matched in zero videos as left-endorsing framing. This is the most striking methodological finding: the channel's vocabulary is so uniformly right-coded that even terms borrowed from left-wing discourse are used exclusively in critical or mocking contexts.

Of the 860 videos where a guest was detected, 437 featured guests with a positive (right-leaning) identity signal and just 7 featured guests with a negative (left-leaning) signal. The guest dictionary — which grew to over 170 entries through iterative review — includes formal politicians, media commentators, academics, and cultural figures. Among formally affiliated politicians, 18 right-wing guests appeared across 36 episodes versus 1 left-wing guest (Peter Tatchell, once, in 2018) across 1 episode. The most-platformed politicians are Nigel Farage (5 interviews), Nick Freitas (6 entries from multiple sessions), and Liz Truss, Kemi Badenoch, and Suella Braverman, with one or two each. Left-wing commentators like Hasan Piker, Aaron Bastani, Ash Sarkar, and Kehinde Andrews do appear, but typically in debate formats or single appearances rather than the repeat long-form interviews afforded to right-aligned guests.

2.2 VADER Analysis

VADER (Valence Aware Dictionary and sEntiment Reasoner) is a completely separate, off-the-shelf sentiment tool from NLTK. It was originally calibrated for social media text and returns a compound score from -1.0 (most negative) to +1.0 (most positive). It knows nothing about politics — it just measures emotional valence.

The notebook runs VADER on both the title and the cleaned description independently. The composite score is a weighted blend: 70% title, 30% description. If the description is very short (under 20 characters, as with many shorts), only the title score is used.

3. Limitations and Unknowns

I applied many different techniques to these data to evaluate a political bias or framing, but still many videos were too ambiguous to be placed and remained in the unknown category. If I have more time to improve my methods and come back to this I will update it as I just did this in an afternoon.

One potential issue with the analysis is duplication. The interview analysis in notebook 04 revealed that 17.9% of interview entries (154 of 860) are likely duplicates — shorts clipped from full interviews, topic segments cut from a single recording session, or promotional clips uploaded alongside the main video. After clustering by guest and date proximity (14-day window), the true count of unique interview sessions drops from 860 to 706. The worst offenders for duplicate uploads are Andrew Doyle (12 duplicates), Jimmy Carr (4), Freya India (4), and Jordan Peterson (4). This matters because raw episode counts overstate how many times a guest has actually sat down with the hosts. However, these analyses are still valid for evaluating pure video output.

There is another potential issue of “Unknown” videos. Nearly half the dataset (903 videos) remains unclassified. These are videos where no framing terms were matched, no known guest was detected, and no tag signal fired. Many of these are shorts with minimal metadata, non-interview content (commentary, "Our Thoughts" episodes, news reactions), or interviews with guests not yet in the dictionary. The unknown pool is the biggest methodological limitation — the true right-to-left ratio may differ if these videos were fully classified, though spot-checking suggests the unknowns are a mix of genuinely neutral content and right-leaning videos that simply lack the specific vocabulary the lexicon looks for.

For example, if you look at the data of all videos, evaluating them purely by their lexical framing in the title, many titles are too ambiguous to categorise.

You might be thinking, maybe that vindicates Kisin, if we look at that list, we’ll find loads of videos that show Kisin honestly framing things, exploring topics neutrally, and so on. Unfortunately not. Below is a sample from the unknown list, and almost all of them, to the human, non-computational method are CLEARLY right-wing trash. The truth it’s probably just a pile of more weird right-wing shite.

4. Conclusion

TRIGGERnometry presents itself as a free-speech and open-inquiry platform, but the data tells a clear story. Its vocabulary, guest selection, topic choices, and title framing are consistently and heavily right-leaning across every year of its existence and across every analytical method applied. The 6 left-leaning classifications come from just 3 guests (Bassem Youssef, Roger Hallam, Duncan Trussell), 4 of which are clips from a single Bassem Youssef interview. The channel does occasionally feature left-wing voices, but overwhelmingly in adversarial, debate, or "honest conversation" formats where the framing of the title itself often codes right ("An Honest Conversation with a Marxist"). This is not a channel that platforms left and right equally and lets the audience decide — it is a channel that systematically amplifies right-wing perspectives, guests, and framing while occasionally featuring left-wing interlocutors as foils.

It should have been obvious in the first place, but TRIGGERnometry is undoubtedly a right-wing slop mill, targeting the divorced, desperate and sub-100IQ. It’s literally named TRIGGERnometry. Just think of the kind of person over 25, maybe even 30, where the most joy they have in life comes from “triggering” the libs. It’s absolutely pathetic, and the overwhelming and unrelenting tide of low-brow, clickbait right-wing slop that these two gimps have produced is a testament to that.

As for my take on Konstantin lying about this over the years, I have no idea if he is so dumb that he has convinced himself he actually is a neutral commentator putting forward good ideas, or if he is so dishonest that he’s just had no qualms gaslighting everyone and never stopping to question “are we the baddies”. Either way, I expect nothing less from someone who went to public school ( costing hundreds of thousands in the UK ) and came out with no skills, contributed absolutely nothing to his community or country. Scum like Kisin are educated by money into believing the world owes them something, that they’re special little boys, and they really take it to heart and think it’s a good idea to sit in a room sniffing their own farts because it’s so important that we all hear them discussing the “big ideas”. So from me, the author, fuck you, Konstantin, if you ever read this, you privileged, useless shit. Stop trying to destroy my country with your lazy, far-right drivel.