|Editorial Commentary; Even-handed headlines please!|
While the papers has often been biased in favouring either Socialist (Guardian) or Tory (Telegraph) viewpoints historically, that has not been a major issue as readers have usually been able to find one ‘to their taste’.
When it comes to Brexit however, the main electronic media seems (including & especially the BBC who should by charter be impartial) seem to (consciously or unconsciously) have decided to favour putting over mainly the ‘Remainer’ points of view by giving more ‘exposure’ to those of that opinion. Be honest, when did you see the BBC give much in-depth analysis of the potential benefits of Brexit?
One simple way to give some balance in their reporting would to change some of their terminology. They could to start by referring to a ‘No Deal’ Brexit (NDB) as the ‘UK Backstop’ position, if the EU/EC refuses to agree a mutually beneficial agreement. After all, just as with the ‘Irish Backstop’, the UK doesn’t want to implement a NDB, but it is our ‘insurance’ against the EU refusing to negotiate sensibly on an Exit Deal / FTA, rather than just ‘demand & threaten’.
Perhaps the BBC could also start using the phrase ‘moving to trade under WTO terms (like the USA, India, etc.)’ rather than; ‘crashing out’, ‘cliff edge’, and ‘leaping into the unknown’!
Once one changes the language of reporting it does make the UK’s negotiating position seem more reasonable and if one also replaces scare stories with more factual reporting, we can then start working towards an agreement that benefits all EU countries (even if that upsets the EC and its drive to a United States of Europe)!
One last point to demonstrate the ‘power of language’. What do you think would be the opinion of UK voters (& MPs) if the Irish Backstop had continually been referred to in the UK media as the ‘Irish Bear trap’ ?Editorial Commentary; Lies, Damned Lies. Statistics & Treasury Brexit Forecasts