Read our cookies policy.
jackieblack wrote: »
Headlines are supposed to be attention grabbing, yes, but they should also be accurate and honest.
If the headlines you saw about French Air Traffic Control had said "French Air Traffic Controllers strike again - disruption possible" it would have informed people who were travelling and prompted most independent thinking adults to check whether they might be affected equally as effectively as a more dramatic, but untrue/over exaggerated headline.
But I appear to be in the minority these days as I'm not one of those people who needs unnecessary drama in my life. I prefer facts. It's one of the reasons I don't buy newspapers.
zagfles wrote: »
Maybe you shouldn't read online news either if attention grabbing headlines without lots of caveats cause you such stress. Do you complain about all such headlines or just ones about Brexit?
Nick_C wrote: »
The sensationalism is in the headline.
And at a time when Remainers are conspiring to frustrate the democratic decision of the UK Electorate, this sort of reporting annoys people.
You could have factually stated "The Government has published the latest in a series of papers on what might happen if we leave the EU without an agreement. These latest papers cover transportation and broadcasting.
You might even have provided a link to the papers.
But that would not have been sensational.
Or you could have said the Government has published its latest impact assessments on Brexit, but remain confident that a deal will be reached.https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal#history
callum9999 wrote: »
While I share your thoughts about this article (particularly Netflix/Spotify - OBVIOUSLY they will continue to work in the EU, there's absolutely nothing whatsoever that could possibly stop it), your argument is also absurd.
It is in fact those trying to leave the EU that are frustrating democracy. You know full well that if a referendum was held now, we would without a doubt vote to stay - which is precisely why your buddies are so determined to deny one. Leaving the EU is costing billions and billions of pounds so fake concern over the cost of running another is ridiculous. Not to mention I personally don't recognise the democratic validity of a vote that can only get 51% (and yes, I'd say the exact same thing if in ten years time 51% of us vote to rejoin).
waamo wrote: »
People also seem to conveniently forget the 1975 referendum when they call for a "second" vote. We've had a second vote, it would be a third vote.
In the 1975 vote a share over 67% voted to remain.
callum9999 wrote: »
That's an incredibly weird argument to make given it supports having a third vote (by arguing there's already been two and we should accept the second not the first, you're saying it's ok for people to change their minds - I e. the right thing to do would be to have a third).
And if you want to be so ridiculously pedantic, that referendum was not for the EU...
Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support