Brexit bias and the BBC

The BBC has come under fire for an apparent bias in favour of Leave, not only in the run up to the referendum, but after it too.

An obvious example is seven time failed MP, no longer leader of UKIP, Naughty Nigel, having been on Question Time 32 times. He is still an MEP, but very few MEPs for other parties are invited on, the Greens who have similar levels of support have, in total, had 9 guests on in the same time. This makes what UKIP stands for seem more mainstream than it did. Nigel is asked his thoughts on most Brexit matters, yet his views are no more valid than anyone who voted Leave. Maybe if he offered solutions, not just soundbites it would be worth it.

As for bias, the BBC likes to show balance, so if one speaker says one thing, it likes to have another saying the opposite view. This is all very well in Party Politics, but in Brexit, where 90% of economists say that Brexit will be bad to catastrophic for UK, and 10% disagree, the BBC would have one speaker of the former, and one of the latter, making it sound a balanced argument, when the reality is everything but. Like the referendum itself, it appears to be a binary thing, and not mostly black.

Take JRM, who is now chairman of the ERG, but even before then, when the Government declined to put up a guest, and the BBC wanted a backbencher, they chose him, the hardest of Brexiteers, and an embodiment of class privilege. Only about 60 Conservative MPs want Brexit, so why not interview one of the 300 or so who want to remain, or who would put the opposite view?

In failing to properly analyse the impact of Brexit and inform the public, they have failed the country. Instead, the organisation wants to turn current affairs into talking head shows, where it is all about opinions rather than asking people who really know facts and the issues, can explain them.

Even when a reporter asks questions of a Brexiteer or the PM, the failure of the reporter to understand the nuances of terminology means the Brexiteers get off the hook. Any and every country can have access to the SM, even North Korea, what they mean is membership, which is different, very different. Frictionless trade means something, so the questions should have been on the detail as to what with the PM’s red lines, how could that be achieved.

Brexit fails on the detail, but thrives on general terms. But Brexit is now pretty much unstoppable, with no appetite in Parliament to withdraw or try to extend A50, UK will leave the EU on March 29th next year. But the referendum, and to so-called mandate, extends to just that. UK could leave the EU, but with no alternative be closely aligned with the EU it makes little difference. And that could last indefinably, as the question of the NI/Irish border goes on and on.

That brings us back to BINO, Brexit In Name Only, still a thing, and still possible. Britain could re-join the EU, it would mean using A49, but already be so closely linked it would make little difference.

There is a lot of time and shouting to be done.