The Cost of Brexit

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2020-01-15 10:29 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-01-14 6:43 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-01-14 5:09 PM

This is the correct link https://tinyurl.com/sgv32ux

Very interesting read Brian though having ''European" on a blue strapline, i suspect few will bother to read it. :-|

Shame really, but I guess you're right. It's a think tank funded by corporate donations from an impressive number of private firms.

 

Now, I wanna tell you a storeee, as someone used to say. :-D

 

While I was punting around trying to find out why the two main parties executed such a volte face, I came across a reference to information in the Leveson Report. Eh?

 

The report is - literally - voluminous. 5 volumes, in fact, each running to several hundred pages, but all downloadable here https://tinyurl.com/o5prwn2 in .pdf format from the government website. Volume 2 is the relevant volume. If you do a search thorough that for "Europe", the fourth hit should take you to page 684, where you will find reference (para 9.41) to Full Fact having monitored press accuracy since April 2010. If you carry on, at para 9.53, you will find this: "Articles relating to the European Union, and Britain’s role within it, accounted for a further category of story where parts of the press appeared to prioritise the title’s agenda over factual accuracy."

 

I was a bit puzzled by this at first, as Leveson was the Phone Hacking Enquiry, was it not? So I then re-read the title of the report, which is :"AN INQUIRY INTO THE CULTURE, PRACTICES AND ETHICS OF THE PRESS", so 'phone hacking plus - though I don't recall seeing anyone refer to it by its full title. As the title implies, it was far wider than just phone hacking.

 

Intrigued, I decided to see what Full Fact had actually said, and discovered that although the report is on the government website, the witness statements and evidence submitted to the enquiry have now been sent to the National Archive at Kew. The relevant bits can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/qvp7zq9 The interesting submission is the second. You can also find an interesting witness statement by Alistair Campbell here: https://tinyurl.com/w9w2r62 (you need to click on "C") and another by Tony Blair here: https://tinyurl.com/tjwn3me

 

The Full Fact submission is long and quite detailed, and instances a large number of cases in which the press distorts the facts, or the meaning, of various reports and events, giving the headlines used, summarising the thrust of the articles, and deconstructs the distortions by showing the original texts or reports from which they were derived.

 

The shorthand for what they demonstrate is consistent lying and distortion of issues to fit the papers' political agendas. I can only say it was an eye-opener and, the further I read, the more I came to understand how people are generally being misled and influenced.

 

I then started on the Campbell and Blair statements, and was surprised how open both were about the extent to which politicians are in fear of the press, and yet are dependent upon the press to communicate with the public.

 

Some may regard all this as boring and uninteresting (and hopelessly tainted by the inclusion of Blair and Campbell - 'though there are plenty of others to choose from!), but the message I get is that what we think of as democracy, is in fact being subverted by powerful, influential, newspaper owners with political agendas, who are manipulating their readers to their own ends, and are answerable to no-one.

 

I'd be interested to see if anyone else has sufficient inclination to follow this up, and whether they then get the same sense of unease that I do about the state of our democracy. It is all from 2011/12, so well before the Brexit referendum, but I think I'm now beginning to glimpse, for the first time, just why the UK voted for Brexit - and it has little to do with politicians. Mind, I'm no clearer what it does have to do with. Paranoia? :-D

 

Doesn't it just confirm what we know already - and it doesn't matter if they admit it because the masses are never going to read it.

The ruling classes don't want anyone else telling them what they can do - especially when they are considered socialists like the EU. The same sort of outrage they show when we try to tell them they can't hunt foxes. They can only tolerate it when it comes from a right wing extremist like Trump.

[Bulletguy]

malc d - 2020-01-16 10:00 AM

 

jumpstart - 2020-01-16 9:28 AM

 

Granted but what did you base your information on? Even the BBC was biased in format. If all media has an agenda to suit their political aims , how would you form a balanced opinion.

 

 

To get a balanced view these days I think you need to read / watch a range of regulated media, i.e. a number of different TV channels and more than one newspaper.

These may be biased - but if you refer to several, the bias will ' balance out '.

 

...and, unlike social media, regulated media is not allowed to tell blatant lies.

 

Social media should be taken as seriously as what you hear down the pub ( i.e. ignored )

 

:-|

Depends on the source Malc. All msm and established news sources have Twitter accounts. Just opened mine and the first lot that appear are Channel 4 news, Sky news, BBC news and ITV news.

 

I gather you meant individuals posting opinion pieces on Twitter rather than reliable established sources?

[Bulletguy]

John52 - 2020-01-16 10:17 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-01-15 10:29 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2020-01-14 6:43 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-01-14 5:09 PM

This is the correct link https://tinyurl.com/sgv32ux

Very interesting read Brian though having ''European" on a blue strapline, i suspect few will bother to read it. :-|

Shame really, but I guess you're right. It's a think tank funded by corporate donations from an impressive number of private firms.

 

Now, I wanna tell you a storeee, as someone used to say. :-D

 

While I was punting around trying to find out why the two main parties executed such a volte face, I came across a reference to information in the Leveson Report. Eh?

 

The report is - literally - voluminous. 5 volumes, in fact, each running to several hundred pages, but all downloadable here https://tinyurl.com/o5prwn2 in .pdf format from the government website. Volume 2 is the relevant volume. If you do a search thorough that for "Europe", the fourth hit should take you to page 684, where you will find reference (para 9.41) to Full Fact having monitored press accuracy since April 2010. If you carry on, at para 9.53, you will find this: "Articles relating to the European Union, and Britain’s role within it, accounted for a further category of story where parts of the press appeared to prioritise the title’s agenda over factual accuracy."

 

I was a bit puzzled by this at first, as Leveson was the Phone Hacking Enquiry, was it not? So I then re-read the title of the report, which is :"AN INQUIRY INTO THE CULTURE, PRACTICES AND ETHICS OF THE PRESS", so 'phone hacking plus - though I don't recall seeing anyone refer to it by its full title. As the title implies, it was far wider than just phone hacking.

 

Intrigued, I decided to see what Full Fact had actually said, and discovered that although the report is on the government website, the witness statements and evidence submitted to the enquiry have now been sent to the National Archive at Kew. The relevant bits can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/qvp7zq9 The interesting submission is the second. You can also find an interesting witness statement by Alistair Campbell here: https://tinyurl.com/w9w2r62 (you need to click on "C") and another by Tony Blair here: https://tinyurl.com/tjwn3me

 

The Full Fact submission is long and quite detailed, and instances a large number of cases in which the press distorts the facts, or the meaning, of various reports and events, giving the headlines used, summarising the thrust of the articles, and deconstructs the distortions by showing the original texts or reports from which they were derived.

 

The shorthand for what they demonstrate is consistent lying and distortion of issues to fit the papers' political agendas. I can only say it was an eye-opener and, the further I read, the more I came to understand how people are generally being misled and influenced.

 

I then started on the Campbell and Blair statements, and was surprised how open both were about the extent to which politicians are in fear of the press, and yet are dependent upon the press to communicate with the public.

 

Some may regard all this as boring and uninteresting (and hopelessly tainted by the inclusion of Blair and Campbell - 'though there are plenty of others to choose from!), but the message I get is that what we think of as democracy, is in fact being subverted by powerful, influential, newspaper owners with political agendas, who are manipulating their readers to their own ends, and are answerable to no-one.

 

I'd be interested to see if anyone else has sufficient inclination to follow this up, and whether they then get the same sense of unease that I do about the state of our democracy. It is all from 2011/12, so well before the Brexit referendum, but I think I'm now beginning to glimpse, for the first time, just why the UK voted for Brexit - and it has little to do with politicians. Mind, I'm no clearer what it does have to do with. Paranoia? :-D

 

Doesn't it just confirm what we know already - and it doesn't matter if they admit it because the masses are never going to read it.

The ruling classes don't want anyone else telling them what they can do - especially when they are considered socialists like the EU. The same sort of outrage they show when we try to tell them they can't hunt foxes. They can only tolerate it when it comes from a right wing extremist like Trump.

Yes.....remember this? And this is just ONE example!

 

 

https://www.thejournal.ie/brexit-party-mep-alexandra-phillips-cambridge-analytica-4727934-Jul2019/

[Brian Kirby]

malc d - 2020-01-16 10:00 AM...……………….To get a balanced view these days I think you need to read / watch a range of regulated media, i.e. a number of different TV channels and more than one newspaper.

These may be biased - but if you refer to several, the bias will ' balance out '.

...and, unlike social media, regulated media is not allowed to tell blatant lies.

Social media should be taken as seriously as what you hear down the pub ( i.e. ignored ) :-|

I had a friend in the 1970's who always bought the Guardian and the Telegraph. He reckoned even then that the Telegraph would omit from its reports anything that didn't suit its editorial slant, and that the Guardian would almost invariably highlight those items the Telegraph omitted. So, by reading both, he'd get a balanced view, and could also identify what each paper was down-playing, and what it wanted to emphasise. It could be quite funny comparing the two reported versions of the same item! But, from Full Fact's evidence to Leveson, it seems skewed reportage has plumbed new depths in the past few years. So, who now to believe?

[jumpstart]

Brian Kirby - 2020-01-18 5:26 PM

 

malc d - 2020-01-16 10:00 AM...……………….To get a balanced view these days I think you need to read / watch a range of regulated media, i.e. a number of different TV channels and more than one newspaper.

These may be biased - but if you refer to several, the bias will ' balance out '.

...and, unlike social media, regulated media is not allowed to tell blatant lies.

Social media should be taken as seriously as what you hear down the pub ( i.e. ignored ) :-|

I had a friend in the 1970's who always bought the Guardian and the Telegraph. He reckoned even then that the Telegraph would omit from its reports anything that didn't suit its editorial slant, and that the Guardian would almost invariably highlight those items the Telegraph omitted. So, by reading both, he'd get a balanced view, and could also identify what each paper was down-playing, and what it wanted to emphasise. It could be quite funny comparing the two reported versions of the same item! But, from Full Fact's evidence to Leveson, it seems skewed reportage has plumbed new depths in the past few years. So, who now to believe?

 

I don’t actually buy any papers but read most the usual suspects on line along with Huffpost, Reuter’s, ABC news. It’s the only way I could get a varied view but it is concerning what is detailed in the report. Who follows this up?

[Brian Kirby]

It seems the answer is no-one, I guess for the reason expounded by Blair and Campbell. Politicians rely on the press to get their messages out, and the press relies on the politicians to give them stories. It creates a double edged sword where, if the politicians adopt or support policies that do not suit the agenda's of the press "barons" they are attacked personally. Events since Brexit demonstrate that amply.

 

For example Corbyn, in particular, had a very rough time at the hands of the right wing elements of the press in and around the two recent elections. I found him deeply unimpressive myself, but at the same time I was uneasy at the barrage against him.

 

If people want to vote for a particular party, on the strength of its offer, they should be informed of its policies (pros and cons), and it is for the party leaders to answer those criticisms. When a hail of invective attaches to a particular party leader it is tantamount to interference with the democratic process, and that should worry us all.

 

That is the reason I find Leveson troubling. It made clear that the press was seeking to influence elections by colouring the opinions of its readers in ways that were dishonest, because distorted. If democracy is to work properly, people should be given the untarnished facts and left to make up their own minds who they want to govern. If elements of the press want to question this or that parties policies that is fine, but they should do so openly and fairly and not by presenting the arguments in a biased way.

 

I think the politicians are now afraid to move on the press, to legislate for a right to instruct that corrections be published with the same prominence as the offending articles. That can't be left to the politicians to decide, but the Press Complaints Commission needs to be given proper powers, and should comprise in independent panel of adjudicators to monitor the press, the broadcasters, and to some extent, the electronic media as well. To me, it just seems to have gone too far.