3 ms·
> they were clearly pro-Remain I would say they were a lot less pro-Remain than the facts were, such that they were effectively heavily biased towards Leave.
by gmac 11mo ago
> they were clearly pro-Remain
I would say they were a lot less pro-Remain than the facts were, such that they were effectively heavily biased towards Leave.
Typically they'd interview someone to factually explain how Brexit would be bad, and then 'balance' it up by giving equal airtime to some liar/fantastist telling us how it would be wonderful.
- gadders 11mo ago[flagged]
- gmac 11mo agoHaha. But no, not only that. 90% of economists thought Brexit would be net bad [1]. But at least 50% of economists the BBC put on air thought it would be net good [2]. Edit: here's a longer-form version of this argument: https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/04/brexit-and-corbyn-how-our-media-fails.html https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/04/brexit-and-corbyn-h... [1] https://ifs.org.uk/articles/paul-johnson-leavers-may-not-economists-we-are-right-about-brexit https://ifs.org.uk/articles/paul-johnson-leavers-may-not-eco... [2] Waking up to the Today programme for years (yes, a better source here would be nice)
- gadders 11mo agoAll that shows is that 90% of economists were wrong. I mean I don't think it was massively good (government fumbles saw to that) but the UK isn't doing significantly worse than the rest of Europe, or worse than it was pre-Brexit. Economics isn't a proper science, but even so it's not a democracy - more people saying x rather than y doesn't guarantee they're correct.