3 ms·

I'll give you a clear-cut example: Whenever anyone calls on Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party to support a second referendum, they will publish it on the fron

I'll give you a clear-cut example: Whenever anyone calls on Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party to support a second referendum, they will publish it on the front page of their website. They are trying to amplify those voices which agree with their position - to reverse Brexit, or at least engineer a soft Brexit. They do not give those voices in and around the Labour Party which oppose a second referendum a hearing.

duxup 7y ago
Would not the call for a referendum maybe be a bigger deal than the status quo? Just for arguments sake here.
- Emma_Goldman 7y ago
  What's the status quo? Surely it's not the Labour Party. They are in opposition. They oppose May's deal. And if you hold The Guardian by that metric, they should be reporting the other extreme of the debate - advocates of 'no deal' in the 1922 committee. In terms of opinion, the left is split between those who want to reverse Brexit, and those who don't. The former is the dominant position among metropolitan areas, the professions, the better-off, and in London in particular. In that sense The Guardian is reinforcing the dominant outlook of liberal opinion-makers; the one that already finds most voice in public debate.
  - duxup 7y ago
    I wish I read it enough to discuss it deeper, but I really don't. I do often wonder if if folks describe the "right" way to cover things if that would be the least bit flexible / allow for anything they don't like beyond a % of coverage or whatever measurement they use.
  - m_t 7y ago
    > And if you hold The Guardian by that metric, they should be reporting the other extreme of the debate - advocates of 'no deal' in the 1922 committee. But don't they do that already? I've seen JRM quotes in every brexit live feed on The Guardian.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  It might be news, but then framing matters. Is it described the way a scandal is described? This is akin to losing an election and refusing to step down. If Trump loses in 2020 and starts making claims that voters didn't understand the consequences of their vote and demands another election be held, do you think the headline would be as tepid as the ones describing calls for a new referendum? I'm not from the UK, and didn't support Brexit, but democracy is literally at stake here. If Brexit doesn't happen, at least in my opinion, the mirage of democracy in Britain is lost.
  - NLips 7y ago
    I imagine if Trump demanded another presidential election, the electorate at large would say "Sure thing - we'll hold one in four years."
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      Exactly, that's how preposterous this is. You'd implement the results of the 2020 election and then have another one at a later date (2024). Seems the reasonable thing to do is implement the results of the last referendum, then you can hold another if you'd like.
rat87 7y ago
That's not partisan that's idealogical Partisanship means supporting one party, you're describing ideology supporting a decision

duxup 7y ago

Would not the call for a referendum maybe be a bigger deal than the status quo? Just for arguments sake here.

Emma_Goldman 7y ago
What's the status quo? Surely it's not the Labour Party. They are in opposition. They oppose May's deal. And if you hold The Guardian by that metric, they should be reporting the other extreme of the debate - advocates of 'no deal' in the 1922 committee. In terms of opinion, the left is split between those who want to reverse Brexit, and those who don't. The former is the dominant position among metropolitan areas, the professions, the better-off, and in London in particular. In that sense The Guardian is reinforcing the dominant outlook of liberal opinion-makers; the one that already finds most voice in public debate.
- duxup 7y ago
  I wish I read it enough to discuss it deeper, but I really don't. I do often wonder if if folks describe the "right" way to cover things if that would be the least bit flexible / allow for anything they don't like beyond a % of coverage or whatever measurement they use.
- m_t 7y ago
  > And if you hold The Guardian by that metric, they should be reporting the other extreme of the debate - advocates of 'no deal' in the 1922 committee. But don't they do that already? I've seen JRM quotes in every brexit live feed on The Guardian.
Consultant32452 7y ago
It might be news, but then framing matters. Is it described the way a scandal is described? This is akin to losing an election and refusing to step down. If Trump loses in 2020 and starts making claims that voters didn't understand the consequences of their vote and demands another election be held, do you think the headline would be as tepid as the ones describing calls for a new referendum? I'm not from the UK, and didn't support Brexit, but democracy is literally at stake here. If Brexit doesn't happen, at least in my opinion, the mirage of democracy in Britain is lost.
- NLips 7y ago
  I imagine if Trump demanded another presidential election, the electorate at large would say "Sure thing - we'll hold one in four years."
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    Exactly, that's how preposterous this is. You'd implement the results of the 2020 election and then have another one at a later date (2024). Seems the reasonable thing to do is implement the results of the last referendum, then you can hold another if you'd like.

rat87 7y ago

That's not partisan that's idealogical Partisanship means supporting one party, you're describing ideology supporting a decision