4 ms·

> You aren't reading much press in the UK then. Neither are you. Researchers at Loughborough University analysed Brexit coverage on TV and in the press in the

> You aren't reading much press in the UK then. Neither are you. Researchers at Loughborough University analysed Brexit coverage on TV and in the press in the lead up to the referendum. They found that coverage, when weighted by circulation, was 80% in favour of Brexit and 20% against. Source: https://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/uk-news-coverage-2016-eu-referendum-report-5-6-may-22-june-2016/ https://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/uk-news-coverage...

repolfx 8y ago
I wasn't making any claims about weighting by circulation, only refuting the point that the media is very pro Brexit. In reality it's split about 50/50. But again, trying to go from "what the media supports" to "what people voted for" is a correlation/causation fallacy. There are plenty of anti-Brexit papers to read. If people largely choose not to, that probably implies they don't think those papers are very good.
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  > If people largely choose not to, that probably implies they don't think those papers are very good Another way to interpret that is that people read the Sun and the Mail for reasons entirely unrelated to Brexit, such as celebrity gossip (The Economist and FT are pretty lacking in those areas). However, perhaps the constant drip feed of anti-EU/Anti-immigration stories in there have given them a certain impression of the EU, alongside their daily non-political entertainment. Perhaps people would care to Google why the current UK foreign secretary was sacked by The Times, or the 'Bendy Bannanas' debacle?
  - repolfx 8y ago
    But that cuts both ways. The pro-EU press gives a misleading impression as well, usually by refusing to report on any story that makes the EU look bad, or by putting a spin on events that blames member states instead of the institutions. After all, by your argument influential people go read the Financial Times because they think it suits their station in life, or because they want financial news, and end up being exposed to a constant litany of pro-EU stories, resulting in them voting that way in the referendum (and not only voting but being quoted by other campaigners and news outlets as 'experts', a perk accorded to the sorts of people who read the Economist but not the Daily Mail). After all, the FT literally flies the EU flag above its headquarters. Not exactly a neutral source, is it.

repolfx 8y ago

I wasn't making any claims about weighting by circulation, only refuting the point that the media is very pro Brexit. In reality it's split about 50/50. But again, trying to go from "what the media supports" to "what people voted for" is a correlation/causation fallacy. There are plenty of anti-Brexit papers to read. If people largely choose not to, that probably implies they don't think those papers are very good.

jimnotgym 8y ago
> If people largely choose not to, that probably implies they don't think those papers are very good Another way to interpret that is that people read the Sun and the Mail for reasons entirely unrelated to Brexit, such as celebrity gossip (The Economist and FT are pretty lacking in those areas). However, perhaps the constant drip feed of anti-EU/Anti-immigration stories in there have given them a certain impression of the EU, alongside their daily non-political entertainment. Perhaps people would care to Google why the current UK foreign secretary was sacked by The Times, or the 'Bendy Bannanas' debacle?
- repolfx 8y ago
  But that cuts both ways. The pro-EU press gives a misleading impression as well, usually by refusing to report on any story that makes the EU look bad, or by putting a spin on events that blames member states instead of the institutions. After all, by your argument influential people go read the Financial Times because they think it suits their station in life, or because they want financial news, and end up being exposed to a constant litany of pro-EU stories, resulting in them voting that way in the referendum (and not only voting but being quoted by other campaigners and news outlets as 'experts', a perk accorded to the sorts of people who read the Economist but not the Daily Mail). After all, the FT literally flies the EU flag above its headquarters. Not exactly a neutral source, is it.