EU Referendum: Media Bias

During the 1975 referendum all the newspapers bar one – the communist Morning Star – supported EEC membership. Such positive support in the media for staying in the EU would be almost identical today, liberally sprinkled with FUD, as illustrated above, with possibly the dubious exception of the Daily Express. Even the likes of the supposedly eurosceptic Daily Mail has made it clear, in editorials, that it supports EU membership:

Let the Mail lay all its cards on the table. This paper has no desire for Britain to pull out of Europe — and particularly not at a time like this, when withdrawal would add immeasurably to the uncertainties threatening our recovery and rocking the confidence of the markets.

The economic FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) has already started in earnest. Courtesy of the BBC across it's broadcasting outlets we have this from Bank of England governor Mark Carney:

[He] has said that the UK should hold its EU referendum "as soon as necessary".

"We talk to a lot of bosses and there has been uncertainty whether it's for the election or the referendum," said Mr Carney on the BBC's Today programme.

Analysts fear businesses may delay making investments while there is uncertainty over Britain's future in the EU.

"FUD, FUD glorious FUD" means that if we are to win a referendum, it is essential to negate it by making it clear that the UK will remain in the Single Market post exit for the time being as to make it economically neutral. It remains our only hope of clearing the first hurdle required to ultimately win.

But it’s certainly obvious that it will be a significant challenge in trying to overturn the message of the establishment, media and FUD, all of which will be heavily funded. Not least because the eurosceptic movement is so divided with no coherent message.

Certainly this was the experience of the early 1970's with our entry into the then EEC where pro-market lobby groups were co-ordinated under the umbrella of the European Movement part funded by the EU Commission to act as an integral part of the government campaign.

Efforts were made, by the Heath government, to bring the media on board particularly the BBC where eurosceptic presenters were dismissed in favour of more sympathetic ones. Less competent or more divisive spokesmen were chosen by the media, and the BBC, to represent the "out" campaign for negative effect.

We are, therefore, in danger of being greatly damaged by FUD, and currently we are losing the FUD war - it's being created faster than can be responded to by various media outlets including blogs. Richard North notes:

Talking yesterday to a senior politician, he observed that the "out" campaign should already have a rapid rebuttal unit up and running, to deal with this sort of thing. To my mind, it is an indictment of Ukip, which should already be equipped to handle false claims.

Thus the "out" campaign is going to have to establish its own permanent rebuttal units to monitor and counter media FUD. This was a tactic very successfully adopted by New Labour in the lead up to their landslide victory in 1997. Peter Oborne's book on Alastair Campbell observes (page 134):

[Campbell] put into effect the new electoral technology which New Labour had imported from the United States: the giant media war-room, the 24 hour monitoring of television, radio and press outlets, a rapid rebutal serivce, a savage clampdown on MPS and Shadow ministers who spoke out of turn...Labour's ferocious internal discipline was the key to its success.

In stark contrast to the [Tories]...Labour MPS were prevailed upon to limit their public utterances to the bland platitudes imposed upon them by the party machine.

...what gave Labour complaints the edge was that they were inevitably well-researched and sensibly focused. The vigilance was extraordinary. Roger Mosey, then the editor of the Today programme, recalls: 'If you had a line that Labour didn't like on the 6.30am bulletin you got called instantly. Often Labour complaints had some substance...if there was a glimmer of an inaccuracy they were onto you.'

This gives an indication of the ruthlessless required to win a referendum, particularly if the odds are stacked against us. The internet and social media becomes the key.

In addition with newspapers we have a complaints procedure, which obviously anyone can use. Post-Leveson what was the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has now become the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and we will address the significance of this with a subsequent piece.

Here we will concentrate on television broadcasters. The 1975 referendum, being the first nationwide poll of its kind in the UK, presented broadcasters with hitherto unknown dilemmas of balance and responsibility. Up to that point, in general elections, broadcasters used the existing strength of parties in MPs, or in votes, at the last election as a guide in establishing the priorities of the coverage.

The White Paper of February 1975 offered no particular formula or solution, instead its 'advice' was one of hope rather than one born out of regulatory oversight (page 19):

4.9 The Government are confident that the IBA and BBC will exercise editorial discretion designed to ensure that there is a fair balance between the opposing views in news and feature programmes. The broadcasting authorities may also decide to run a series of short "referendum broadcasts" analogous to party political broadcasts. In this way an equal number of short periods of television time would-be"made available to the main campaigning organisations in the two or three weeks before polling day.

The Government would welcome such an initiative.

Whereas in 1975, the government was "confident", hardly an endorsement of rigorous oversight, now we have regulatory authorities in place regarding the impartiality of broadcasters.

With the establishment of the Ofcom under the Communications Act 2003 and the establishment of the Electoral Commission under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 the broadcasting oversight is more structured which means that crucially it is an avenue where we can complain. Ofcom provided examples of this oversight during the Scottish referendum.

With regard to Ofcom, broadcasters should ensure that they comply with Section Five: (Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions):

To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. To ensure that the special impartiality requirements of the Act are complied with.

And broadcasters also have to comply with Section Six (Elections and Referendums) of the Code:

To ensure that the special impartiality requirements in the Communications Act 2003 and other legislation relating to broadcasting on elections and referendums, are applied at the time of elections and referendums. 

In addition, there is the prohibition of political advertising in Section 321 of the Communications Act 2003:

(2) For the purposes of section 319(2)(g) an advertisement contravenes the prohibition on political advertising if it is:

(a) an advertisement which is inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature;

(b) an advertisement which is directed towards a political end; or

(c) an advertisement which has a connection with an industrial dispute.

(3) For the purposes of this section objects of a political nature and political ends include each of the following:

(a) influencing the outcome of elections or referendums, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere;

This applies to the multitude of local television and radio outlets with the exception of the BBC which is overseen by the BBC Trust.

In the 1960's JFK embraced the relatively new medium of television to great effect, this in contrast Barack Obama who embraced the new medium of the internet in 2008. His internet campaign was crucial to winning the Presidency.

We can therefore learn the lessons of using a new medium to try to keep the old medium of broadcasters "honest", or by simply by-passing them. Thus in the UK we can embrace the internet in the same effective way and with regulatory bodies in place over the traditional legacy media  the internet allows us as individuals to facilitate a campaign to ensure some resemblance of impartiality. The simple use of Twitter has worked before

Thus unlike 1975 we now have the internet and everything that comes with it; smartphones, Twitter, Facebook and forums. The establishment no longer has a monopoly on information. Scotland revealed the significance of this development. The independence campaign was a dry run of how an EU referendum would be conducted and it showed comprehensively that unofficial campaigns centered on social media was very powerful.

By using the internet to lobby regulatory bodies, each one of us can make a small but significant difference.

Losing The EU Referendum

Let's not beat around the bush, without a fully worked-out policy and strategy on how to leave the EU any referendum on EU exit will be lost for those who wish out. It's as simple as that. And should the "outers" lose it's game over for at least a generation, probably more. We won't have another chance - it won't be a "best of three".

We don't actually need to have a referendum - there was no referendum to enter the EEC (EU) - and there needs to be no referendum to leave. Yet we must acknowledge that the reality of current political momentum which suggests strongly that our exit will hinge very decisively on one being called.

So should a referendum be called, we face an extremely unfair fight against a pro-EU and ignorant media (including the Express and the state broadcaster), an unfair fight against all of the main political parties, an unfair and dishonest fight against FUD and the need to overcome the "status quo" effect which has an inbuilt advantage of around 20%.

It's imperative therefore that there should be a reassuring policy on EU exit which attempts to alleviate any concerns. This involves invoking Article 50, parking the economic issue temporarily via EFTA/EEA membership, and campaigning on the political (democracy) issue alone giving us a fighting chance.

On Article 50 at least we thought that the UKIP's position was settled when Farage confirmed at least twice that the Article would have to be invoked. But despite being a one man party he clearly isn't in total command when UKIP literature is being distributed contradicting him in the run up to the Euro elections.

Such confusion and a lack of available policy on UKIP's website means the "Life on Mars" option is still alive and kicking as Witterings from Witney notes:

Yesterday evening The Boiling Frog and I spent some time on twitter trying to convince three Ukip supporters that that which they were tweeting was pure fantasy. We were presented with statements such as the old canard that repeal of ECA 1972 meant the UK was free of EU membership; that abrogation of ECHR would mean the EU would promptly rescind the UK’s membership of the EU; and that a new trade agreement could be placed on the table within 24 hours for signature. In our attempted ‘debate’ matters are not helped when it is suggested that I should Go and smoke another spliff – leave it for the rest of us to sort out the mess; neither when I am called a supercilious tit in the comments to this post. Such ignorance is indeed a tad terrifying. 

That somehow 40 years of integration and hugely complex international agreements can just be undone in 24 hours really does defy belief.

More crucially failure to confront the nature of our exit by UKIP inevitably leads to split messages. And split messages don't win referendum campaigns, in the same way split parties don't win elections as per the 1906 General Election when the Conservatives lost by a landslide which was largely attributed to a party split over free trade.

The lack of a policy by UKIP leads this rather incoherent interview with UKIP councillor - who defected to UKIP from the Tories - Suzanne Evans. She was asked by Andrew Neil on the BBC's Sunday Politics if UKIP had published a "roadmap" if the vote was a yes to leave.

Suzanne Evans response was; "wouldn't that be great?" Well yes it would actually, which begs the question why has it not been done?

Some argue that UKIP is an "amateur party" with limited funds in contrast to others, but that of course is no excuse. Seventeen shortlisted entrants to the Brexit prize produced papers on precisely that issue within four months including one from a 15 year old boy. A damning indictment on UKIP's failure to produce one in twenty years with well-paid MEPs.

As Christopher Booker observes in the Sunday Telegraph:

It is equally disturbing that a party founded on a desire to extricate us from the EU should have no properly worked-out policy for how this could be done. Ask Ukip what are the practical steps whereby we could achieve a successful exit from the EU, and the answer is little more than a blank stare and empty platitudes. 

Andrew Neil pressed Suzanne Evans further on whether UKIP had a "roadmap". Her answers remained very unconvincing stating that she's "not a legal expert on this" and that "we could come out quickly or there's a longer route as well". Then the question put to Suzanne was "but have [UKIP] published any of that detail". The response being;

"well...not, not that I have read but there are ways to do it..."

Then Suzanne continues that UKIP want to revert back to 1975 to "what people voted for". This despite the EEC was never an economic project nor a common market. The Treaty of Rome makes this perfectly clear:

"Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"

With Suzanne's statement to effectively revert back to a "golden age" that never existed she then gets caught out...Andrew Neil rightly asks her that the vote in 1975 involved the "free movement of people" which goes against a party which is now chasing the BNP vote on immigration. What a mess...

No doubt some will see this as another gratuitous anti-UKIP piece. My philosophy though was always been clear right from the outset when I joined the party - "my loyalty is to the cause not to any party". In its present guise UKIP are damaging the cause and for that reason I can no longer support them.

UKIP's current stance will lose us the referendum, the choice is increasingly becoming clear; it's either the party or EU exit. The two are no longer compatible.

"A Powerful Reputation For Accuracy"

So says Lord Leveson, regarding journalists:

During a speech at the University of Melbourne, he insisted there was an important difference between mainstream journalists with "a powerful reputation for accuracy" and bloggers and tweeters who were "no more than electronic versions of pub gossip".

Yet in the last 24 hours has been extensive coverage across the media - using cut 'n paste' - highlighting a video purporting to show a Golden Eagle trying to snatch a young child. The Daily Mail went as follows:

Kidnapper from the skies. The terrifying moment a golden eagle 'swooped down and snatched up a toddler' as he played in the park.

That same link now has headlines that have changed depicting a different story thus pretending it was right all along - because the footage is a fake. So much for accuracy, as this blog in the Guardian points out:

Shame on you, Guardian, for sharing fraudulent video with an unsuspecting public, thereby promoting misunderstanding of birds and fear of nature.

It goes onto detail the reasons why it's clearly a fraud - it obviously isn't a Golden Eagle and the baby looks suspiciously like a doll - before concluding the piece as follows:

All this evidence, taken together, means that this video is a golden teaching moment. It also means that the Guardian blew it by posting this video without including any analysis from a video expert as to whether it's real or ... artificially manufactured. Further, the Guardian blew it by not including comments from either an ornithologist or a birder as to whether this video portrayal is even plausible.

This is irresponsible journalism. By posting this video, the Guardian is actively promoting and reinforcing the public's misinformation and fear of birds of prey, and further alienating the public from nature. Publicly sharing this fraudulent video without any expert commentary serves to undermine the education and conservation efforts of many excellent organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the British Trust for Ornithology.

Ouch. Good to see Leveson was such a master of his brief.

Misleading

Following on from the Leveson Report, Newsflash from the UK has nicely spotted this from the European Commission political officer Marie-Madeleine Kanellopoulou, based in the EU's office in Westminster (ex Tory HQ) reported as saying,:

"We are following the Leveson inquiry to see the outcome. In the UK we have to deal with a very euro-sceptical British public and that's not helped by the hostile audience in the British press.

We want to engage with the media, with stakeholders and non governmental organisations.... but repeated mis-representation in the media was making communication of the true facts about EU policy difficult...

We are trying to rebut EU myths in the press but it is not easy because the Press Complaints Commission has a limited remit".

Apparently it's all the newspaper's fault we're Eurosceptic, if only they could make the media more compliant, we'll all be happy Europeans. Funny thing also about so-called Euro myths is the EU's rebuttal of them are ironically myths, we've been here before.

But then this has never been about establishing the truth.

A Bun Fight

Today some report by a Lord, a member of the establishment, will recommend legislation by other members of the establishment, to regulate the press - also members of the establishment - who will then moan that fellow members of the establishment shouldn't tell them what to say.

Despite that, members of the establishment known as the press who have for years self-regulated themselves on behalf of other members of the establishment, known as the government, preventing the consequences of many polices entering the public domain, or at least limiting the damage, in publicity terms, will complain that their right to 'bias by admission' should not be regulated by other members of the establishment.

Other members of the establishment, aka Cameron, will defend members of the establishment known as the press because it is in his interest to do so on behalf of the establishment known as the Government.

Further members of the establishment, will gloat in the demise of another membership of the establishment even though they employed a rampant peadophile, and were defended by other members of the establishment. Phone hacking, being a complaint brought about by members of the establishment, will complain that the establishment infringes on their privacy but also uses the said same establishment to further their careers.

But at least the comforting factor is that all members of the establishment agree with membership of another establishment.

Meanwhile the rest of us are fucked....

Getting It Wrong (2)

For God's sake it's not difficult is it. Why do the media consistently fail to spell Paolo Di Canio's name right.

This from Sky:

And from the Mirror:

How hard can spelling a bloke's name correctly be?

The EU Bank Tax Is No Robin Hood

I had to check more than once that I was reading the right newspaper:

...anyone who thinks that the EU financial transactions tax is a good idea for this country is stark raving bonkers.

As the Eurozone moans and groans under a Himalayan-size debt mountain, Brussels has come up with a wheeze to avert disaster – a tax on all financial transactions across the EU.

Where would the tax hit hardest? In Europe’s leading ­financial centre – the capital of our country

The EU in its present form is on its last legs. Greece is just the start. History will record that the euro was like everyone on the same street sharing a bank account. One day very soon the poor old Germans will get sick of bailing out their free-spending neighbours.

...the idea that we can have real economic growth in this country without a buoyant ­financial sector is simply bananas.

Without economic growth, this country is stuffed. Cuts to our public services will never get us out of this mess. There has to be real economic growth or the million young people currently on the dole will spend their entire working lives on benefits.

I understand and share the general antipathy towards the banking industry. But driving ­business to Hong Kong or New York is cutting off our nose, ears and lips to spite our face.

An EU financial transactions tax would cripple this country’s economy. It would kill growth stone dead. It is an idea cooked up by the unelected, increasingly desperate fat cats of Brussels. It would do untold damage to our country for generations.

We must ask ourselves – do we really hate bankers so much that we want that to happen?