Brexit

You and Brenda from Bristol.

It was interesting to see news organisations on Twitter talking about things have 'come to a stand still' after the excitement of yesterday. They obv. haven't come to a standstill, it's just a reflection of the media's own addiction to it's hair-on-fire 24-hour cycle. The last Twitter feed I looked at was the BBC's Newsnight - they reckon things have come to "yet another" stand still. Well,  apart from a possible election in Dec which appears to not count anymore.

How dare the political class not feed the frenzy on demand. No wonder half the country is three quarters bonkers.

Whilst I’m here, and on the subject of media being manipulated, here’s Peter Oborne on Channel 4 news from earlier today on the way that Cummings and other ‘advisers’ are pumping out lies (and how the reporters on politics are falling for it).

He was also on radio 2 show earlier. It’s very funny when he actually names names (Laura K and Peston worst offenders) and the person interviewing him, in both shows goes “oh, I’m not sure we can say that” in a horrified way! It is exactly what we have been saying on here...basically allows Johnson to get out propaganda headlines that fill the newspapers with effectively Fake News. And allows him to “face two ways”, says one thing as “reasonable Johnson” and then briefs out another. For example the “photocopy” he sent of the letter to EU was not ACTUALLY a photocopy....same words, reformatted into different type face and spacing. Small detail perhaps, but Johnson wanted you to think all he had done was more slapdash, with no thought, dashed off in a second, insulting etc etc

I think even the likes of Kuenssberg are starting to get miffed at the amount of lying going on - I heard her yesterday describing a couple of things Johnson had said in PMQs as "not entirely true."

The difference, if it's the BBC - and whichever side on whichever issue - we are paying to be propagandised; once the presence (of impartiality) is revealed, you have to ask what is the point.

It’s a shame that potentially the BBC is the loser in all this.

Once impartiality is questioned the core value on which the BBC is founded is undermined why should it be considered differently from all other media companies with its unique funding structure.

Ironically political correspondents will likely achieve what Murdoch and the Barclay brothers couldn’t achieve.

Personally I find the BBC news coverage to be, on the whole, rather excellent. I think any organisation that claims to be impartial will always be scrutinised and accused of impartiality, and whilst I’m sure there’s the odd slip up (considering how many employees they have) largely I find they provide an excellent service (I particularly like how it’s ad free - it winds me up when Sky News cuts to commercials).

I find their coverage on Brexit attempts to be inclusive of a wider audience: yes, some might think it’s ‘dumbed down’ but broadcast news shouldn’t exclude those without a greater political knowledge - including young adults that seem heavily invested in Brexit (rightly so).

Let’s not forget that Brexit seems to have captured an audience that normal politics doesn’t: a lot of people are following every step of Brexit that don’t usually follow politics outside of general elections. Brexit remains the biggest political issue we’ll ever see in our lives (unless we decide to abolish the monarchy) and it is right that the BBC presents news in a way that informs, educates and entertains all ages.

All that said - I’ve been watching some of the US news channels as I follow this impeachment stuff and frankly, I wish they could mimic that here. Although I grow bored of every US Senator referring to almost any man as an American Hero’.

I think the key point to make here is that the issues you're referring to are not actually news stories, but facts and figures that once published and broadcast, have very little reason to tread over there on a weekly basis. They may be important pieces of information (I understand what you're implying) but that doesn't make them newsworthy. An ongoing story is always going to garner more screen time - particularly on the BBC - because a news story will always have more information released.

Brexit is the perfect example of that, in that it is the gift that keeps on giving - it may appears that nothing is happening but a lot has happened to ensure that very little has happened (and that in itself is what makes it newsworthy). 

News isn't human interest stories and whilst I agree that a 4-fold increase in foodbanks is shocking, it isn't something a news station needs to report on more than once. Journalistic investigation is still largely an advantage of traditional print media and that is perhaps where the points you make should be reported on - where someone can be gifted the time and money to investigate whether there is actually a story behind the facts being reported. We all know the country has more than one issue but that isn't the BBC's responsibility to increase the social awareness of it's viewers (though their regional news helps with that). 

When it comes to reporting on Brexit, state events and national emergencies, the BBC I feel is still very much where the majority of people look to for a clear report on the facts. I do believe it remains impartial and that will always be it's advantage. But BBC News has always had it's detractors and has done from the very start - the BBC, for example, was only ever originally allowed to broadcast news after 7pm because the newspapers thought it would make them irrelevant (an argument they're still having, I might add, 100 years later). 

But that is my point entirely - BBC News shouldn’t be working for the story. That isn’t the type of news it provides. I BBC still has investigative journalism (Panarama, various individual documentaries etc) but by and large it is print media and print journalists that have the time, luxury and resources to go and source a story, investigate it and bring it to the world stage. TV News is a totally different medium and reports the news of the day - it doesn’t make it.

Reporting on Brexit in my opinion is in the national interest. When it comes to politics the BBC has always been the UK lead on reporting and I see nothing wrong with it doing what it does best. Frankly, it just sounds like you’re over it and are calling the BBC out for not being over it too.

This is why the lack of advertising standards for political messages on places like Facebook is so incendiary. The way that lies are spread via social media is a real danger to democracy; that politicians themselves are now taking part in that free for all, is potentially changing the nature of such discourse completely. Sadly, most people seem to just fret about it when, for the sake of our political systems, we should be criminalising it and punishing any platform that does not police it.

On Brexit, there has been too much faux balance from the BBC and not just that 90% of vox pops are seemingly held in the poorer leave areas at a time - midweek daytime - when they are inevitably going to find the retired in great numbers in a patronising attempt to paint the poorest as being the catalyst rather than the dupes that they have been made into.

People should know that the phrase ‘Get Brexit Done’ is a lie, that there is still a transition period, the hardest part of any trade negotiations, haggling and making concessions on matters from immigration to food standards to who provides and benefits from healthcare and beyond. To the shame of all media, it has not been called out for the lie that it is. The media have been correct in reflecting that Brexit is all encompassing but they have been far too afraid to place it into an ongoing context, preferring to look no further than the next artificial deadline.