Brexit & Broadcasting

surfsister

Cornucopia wrote: »

You may be right about the overall lack of bias in BBC News & Current Affairs output. However, these three statements indicate misunderstandings of how this all works.

- The newspapers have complete latitude to adopt whatever political position they wish (short of overt racism). There is a range of positions across the main titles, as well as a range of weekly political magazines (that are perhaps more diverse).

- Broadcasting bias is not a criminal offence. It is a regulatory issue. Since OFCOM currently has a review into BBC online impartiality on-going, I think we can conclude that there is at least some smoke, if not actual fire. FWIW, I am much more concerned about Channel 4 News bias than about the BBC. I watch C4 News daily, and I think that they have now got to the stage of open defiance of their duty of impartiality.

- Personally, I think that much of the BBC's output away from News & Current Affairs does display its cultural identity of left-liberalism. Where that starts to be a problem is in areas like political comedy, where although the programming is not formally news, it does have the ability to influence the Public.

OTOH, given the average age of BBC audiences (60+) I'm doubtful of the overall effect other than antagonising people and making them resentful. I'm also open to the idea that left-liberal positions on BBC & C4 balance out the predominantly right-wing views in UK Newspapers.

every time I watch BBC news it is anti-brexit, waited panels on news night pre-selected questions and not letting brexiteers speak. Hate the bbc hate the bias. so Netflix for me.

Doc_N

surfsister wrote: »

every time I watch BBC news it is anti-brexit, waited panels on news night pre-selected questions and not letting brexiteers speak. Hate the bbc hate the bias. so Netflix for me.

You do have a strange view of genuine impartiality. But then that seems to be a common trait amongst those supporting Brexit.

And since you're all so sure that it's the 'will of the people' why is that there's such reluctance to put whatever deal is struck (if any) to a public vote by way of a further confirmatory referendum?

More democracy can never amount to less democracy, which is the claim. Maybe once a General Election's taken place that should also be the will of the people, never ever to be altered?

Doc_N

Cornucopia wrote: »

Let's not turn this into yet another Brexit thread.

Thanks.

Unavoidable. It taints everything.

pphillips

Doc_N wrote: »

You do have a strange view of genuine impartiality. But then that seems to be a common trait amongst those supporting Brexit.

And since you're all so sure that it's the 'will of the people' why is that there's such reluctance to put whatever deal is struck (if any) to a public vote by way of a further confirmatory referendum?

More democracy can never amount to less democracy, which is the claim. Maybe once a General Election's taken place that should also be the will of the people, never ever to be altered?

The reluctance to support a further referendum is because there is no consensus over what the question would be.

[Deleted User]

Doc_N wrote: »

why is that there's such reluctance to put whatever deal is struck (if any) to a public vote by way of a further confirmatory referendum?

Because it won't include the WTO option.

It'll be a choice between May's new treaty or staying in, neither of which is really Brexit.

[Deleted User]

pphillips wrote: »

The reluctance to support a further referendum is because there is no consensus over what the question would be.

In Parliament, there's a determined effort to make us vote to either stay in or stay in.

Doc_N

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

In Parliament, there's a determined effort to make us vote to either stay in or stay in.

And that’s because the intelligence and education of the average MP is considerably higher than the average voter. You may not like it, but it’s certainly true, and it’s to be hoped they can still stop the outcome of trusting the electorate with a key decision they were plainly unable to grasp, fed by lies from Johnson, Gove et al.

pphillips

Doc_N wrote: »

And that’s because the intelligence and education of the average MP is considerably higher than the average voter. You may not like it, but it’s certainly true, and it’s to be hoped they can still stop the outcome of trusting the electorate with a key decision they were plainly unable to grasp, fed by lies from Johnson, Gove et al.

First you argued in favour of another referendum and now you argue against it, which is it?

Doc_N

pphillips wrote: »

First you argued in favour of another referendum and now you argue against it, which is it?

If a referendum could be avoided by simply revoking Article 50 that would be the best option - but I doubt that could be achieved.

So putting it back for another referendum in the hope that people wouldn't be so stupid a second time round is probably the only option.

pphillips

Doc_N wrote: »

If a referendum could be avoided by simply revoking Article 50 that would be the best option - but I doubt that could be achieved.

So putting it back for another referendum in the hope that people wouldn't be so stupid a second time round is probably the only option.

That would be a mistake, referendums aren't binding so another referendum would only legitimise the 2016 referendum. I can't see how this would solve anything

Doc_N

pphillips wrote: »

That would be a mistake, referendums aren't binding so another referendum would only legitimise the 2016 referendum. I can't see how this would solve anything

With a sensible result it would solve the horrendous mess that is Brexit.

Even if there is no referendum, or the vote went the same way, it's certain that in a few years time (probably sooner) there'll have to be another referendum, and with all the old jingoistic codgers replaced by younger people with fewer hangups about the past and the empire the vote will go the other way.

And imagine the terms we'd have to accept to get back in again!