Was the media’s performance during their Brexit coverage sufficient in ‘aiding citizens to become informed voters’. Were ethical obligations of balance, truth and scrutiny met and to what extent did it affect the referendum outcome?
The UK’s relationship with the European Union is not a ‘new’ media focus, nor is the emotional language filling the headlines and builitines. But with IPSOS Mori polls wrongly predicting the outcome, ‘foul play’ (data mining) by Cambridge Analytica and Aaron Banks quoted as wanting to find ‘personal stuff’ on editors as a means of intimidation- it can be argued the media was more necessary than ever. Brexit brought to light fault lines in the media where fact and emotion come head to head and media outlets faced internal splits down different editorial lines. In attempting to set target markers and analyse the successes of the media I reverted to what Hobert (2005) describes as “one of the most important and dominant questions in the study of political communication”. Which is “how the media aids citizens to become informed voters” and whether campaigners were sufficiently held to account, with the focus on policies not politicians. I will consider whether sufficient balance was given (based on Harcup and O’neil’s ‘news values’) and whether coverage was fair and in public interest and the media fulfilled its’ responsibility to not increase fear or pit individuals or groups against each other.
In 2018 Borchardt, Simon and Bironzo conducted a study of 2,378 articles for a report titled ‘ Interested but not Engaged: How Europe's Media Cover Brexit’. It found the UK’s coverage to be 41% pro-Leave and 27% were pro-Remain. Nearly half of all articles (48%) were pro-Leave and 6 of the 9 national newspapers consulted in the survey were found to be in favour of Brexit. Eleven major UK newspapers declared their support- six for remain and five for leave). Firmstone, J. (2018) “The sibling disagreement between the daily and Sunday editions of the traditionally Conservative supporting Times and Mail titles adds to evidence that editorial opinions are determined by a far more complex set of influences than loyalties to proprietors or parties.” Ponsford, D. (2018) pointed out further divisions asking “why have the Express titles campaigned doggedly for Leave while the Star titles have remained more or less neutral?” This partisanship, like the media’s fascination with Europe, is not a new phenomenon. Willecke (2016) compared coverage with that of 1975, in the lead up to referendum on membership of the European Economic Community. It was found that “partisanship already played a leading role” the first time suggesting any attempt to remedy this in 2016 would have been sisyphean given the pre-existing climate.
The BBC must also be regarded through a different lens due to its’ role as a state broadcaster but can still be tested on whether it fulfills its’ pledge to ‘impartiality’. Jackson, J. (2016) reported in Guardian “that only 7% of BBC coverage of the EU was positive and 45% negative.” It can also be considered that while Newsnight and News at 6 are watched the most and appear to have struck the most controversy. As each platform has a different target audience and may deliver news and interviews differently- radio 1 and BBC Radio Leeds will take different editorial stances on stories and trying to create on ‘official line’ may please consumers but decrease the ‘personality’ of each outlet. In Horsley’s (2017) blog ‘Are British media failing the test of reporting Brexit?’ he explores how “brexiters complained that the BBC and other broadcasters were too much in the pockets of the establishment, despite strict rules on ‘balanced coverage’ on TV channels.”
One role of the media can be to act as a mouthpiece for campaigners to share information with a wider audience. There must be a caveat to ensure this is not propaganda- that it is accompanied by fact checking, a role individuals (voters) may not have the time or resources to do especially with disinformation (or ‘fake news’) circulating on social media with suggestions of Kremlin ‘bots’ (robot) Twitter accounts intentionally confusing voters. The media has become a ‘fourth estate’ and the run up to a referendum is not a break from scrutinising politicians. The Leave campaign was rife with scandal- Arron Banks attempted to buy and silence information and Cambridge Analytica data mining brought about confusion and potential corruption. The media highlighted ‘money trails’ during the campaign while also giving a mouthpiece to individuals like Banks. While some fault around incorrect/ lack of information can be credited to politicians, the media’s coverage is not without fault. In Facts, a pro-Brexit fact-checking website, made 19 IPSO complaints against pro-Brexit stories in the national press.Cummings, D. (2016) claimed that “there was also a big disinformation campaign by Farage’s gang”. They reportedly “ who told the media ‘Vote Leave has no interest in the ground campaign’. This was the opposite of the truth.” If his allegations are true that it was not true, it is unclear why the media did not question this rhetoric.
A particular source of misinformation may have been tabloids due to the highly emotive language they use for clickbait articles. Horsley (2017) reported that “Remainers complained about a triumph of sentiment and prejudice in the tabloid press, which they saw as shrill flag-wavers for Brexit with scant respect for the facts or the legitimate arguments of opponents.” This is not aided by the Daily mail taking a swift u-turn under new editor ‘Geordie Greig’. This quick-changing swap of framing (as a result of ideology swap) makes the media appear unreliable and a source of emotion not fact. Splashes changed from calling the judiciary “Enemies of the People” (4th November 2016 front page) to statements with more nuance and calm such as “while the Mail sympathises with some of their reservations about the Chequers blueprint, it remains the only coherent proposal on the table for an orderly EU withdrawal”(12th September 2018). This concept of ‘reverse ferret’ shows how much public opinion is reliant on the editorial decisions of few which feels dangerous and futile when a media outlet stance can swivel so quickly.
Aswell as a lack of consistency, scaremongering and emotional language over riding fact undermine the authority and effectiveness of the media. ‘Project Fear’ was referenced 739 times during the campaign, according to Moore and Ramsay’s research (2017). A YouGov poll two weeks before voters were asked found that 46% of Leave supporters, and 11% of Remain supporters, believed that the referendum would be rigged. This suggests that a climate of fear and scare mongering was created during the campaign. They also noted in their research that this was reflected in “and enhanced by” media coverage and that “voices urging calm or seeking to find some consensus between the sides were rare, except in the aftermath of the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox.” They highlight an ‘us-versus-them’ mentality with individuals divided mainly on ‘the establishment, immigration and nationalists vs internationalists’. Both sides accused the other of acting incorrectly with allegations of lying in 552 articles, of being misleading in 464 articles and of dishonesty in 234 articles.
Balance is sometimes considered to be ‘equal space for each argument’ however it can be argued with media coverage it should be more nuanced than that. (Moore and Ramsay, 2017) “The economy was the most covered campaign issue (7,028 articles),followed by immigration (4,383 articles), with health a distant third (1,638 articles).”Sovereignty was referred to frequently (in almost 2,000 articles), but almost always in the context of other issues – most notably the economy and immigration. Martison (2016) found “sovereignty and migration skewed heavily to pro-Leave articles.” This falls in line with a fear of lack of control/ the ‘other’ tapping in to readers insecurities. Martison also found that “Pro-Leave articles adopted a more positive tone, on the economy but more strongly around the issues of migration and sovereignty.” This may have been done to reflect the nationalism and patriotism that other Pro-Leave material did. The media therefore failed to scrutinise and fed in to campaigners wants to create a sense of identity making the referendum more personal and emotion driven than other political coverage. Moore (2017) found that “only 6% of articles containing issues of sovereignty also mentioned law-making powers.” suggesting a decontextualisation accompanying the emotional focus. The focus on these topics by the media was considered excessive with some claiming this neglection mirrored the priorities of the journalists/ outlets not the everyday persons. Professor Deacon’s (2018) research found that “the marginalisation of many other major issues including the environment, taxation, employment, agricultural policy and social welfare was striking. Devolution attracted less than 1% of news coverage.” This minute focus on devolution taps in to the media’s centralisation around London/ England sending a message to both Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Aswell as insufficient balance, a small range of issues focused on by the media creates echo chambers meaning voters are insufficiently educated and creates polarisation. Dr David Levy, director of the Reuters Institute and one of the report’s authors, told The Guardian (2016): “In that sense, in spite of some notable exceptions, the press was generally better at reinforcing the views of decided voters than in giving undecided voters, seeking broad facts and high-quality information, the evidence to make up their own minds.” Ponsford, D. (2018) “ I suspect the editors of these titles know their readerships well and sought to reflect their views and concerns.”- echo chambers may be good for ratings but fulfil duty to educate .
However it is perhaps harsh to expect anything different. The media still needs to operate, creating a loyal following and generating both sales and advertising. ‘The DUP took out a wraparound ad in the Metro asking voters to 'Take Back Control'’ Kath Viner (Guardian editor) took a different approach (“Producing in-depth, thoughtful, well-reported journalism is difficult and expensive. But supporting us isn’t.” 2016) (Moore and Ramsay, 2017) “Guardian was the most liable to report or comment on campaign strategy and tactics”
If trying to inform the voter is the marker of the media succeeding, they have failed in this regard due to the small pool of individuals the analysis of possible outcomes was focus on. In Identity, Belonging and the Role of the Media in Brexit Britain the media is critisised for the “little attention paid ethnographically to everyday experiences of post-Brexit UK.” As with the pre-existing public stances of publication is part of a systemic issue of disregard for the those that aren’t the ‘elite’. A range of locations and differing ethnic, migration, age, national, religious and class backgrounds were given a lack of representation due to the lack of differing voices. Aswell as a lack of range of ‘real’ contributors the range of ‘talking head’ experts was also critisised. Ponsford (2018) found they were too ‘UK-centric’ with politicians quoted by the media rarely being from other EU countries. The Reuters research (2018) found that foreign politicians were only quotes in 5% of reports. He points out that “this contrasts with the impression sometimes given in UK media coverage that European politicians ‘meddle’ in UK affairs”- an argument frequently used to scare voters invoking a loss of control in to media-consumers. Another issue with the lack of voices was a lack of context. Despite“ expert opinion overwhelmingly held that leaving the EU would harm the British economy”, (Menon 2017) suggesting a consensus and perhaps educated stace, “the BBC routinely put one of the few Brexit-supporting economists alongside a pro-Remain voice”. Aswell as being unrepresentative, the BBC were also at fault as they did so “without mentioning that a clear preponderance of economists backed Remain.”
When the media did get contributors, they focused on them too greatly almost resembly America’s style of ‘Presidential’ or ‘personality-based’ media coverage. Dr David Levy, director of the Reuters Institute, told The Guardian (2016): “coverage was relatively more focused on the contest itself and personalities than any of the complex issues at stake. Aswell as shifting the focus and creating a ‘media circus’ distracting from time spent analysising and fact-checking it also created unhealthy discussion with (Horsley 2017) “Leading figures on both sides of the argument suffered vicious personal online attacks and some reportedly faced death threats.” This decreased slightly after the murder of Jo Cox but the rhetoric around the coverage may be attributed to a contributing factor to her death. Horsley also found that there was a internal battles between Tory politicians took up an excessive amount of coverage accounting for “as much as 64 percent of all UK politicians cited in articles.” Martinson wrote in The Guardian (2016) that “despite being home secretary at time Theresa May was referenced in 1% of newspaper coverage”. This suggests the coverage a politician recieved was not reflective of their knowledge or authority but of their ‘sex appeal’ (gained for affairs or arguing). Professor Deacon (2018) documented the ‘ top five most frequently reported participants’ as David Cameron (8.9% of all appearances), Boris Johnson (6.7%), George Osborne (4.0%), Nigel Farage (3.2%) and Michael Gove (2.8%). “Cumulatively these individuals accounted for more than one in four of all media appearances” It is worth noting they are all white, middle class, men showing the lack of representation and concern to race, class, culture and region not only in the issues discussed by a lack of diversity also in politicians consulted. It is clear the media was a focus of politicians. Dominic Cummings (2016) documents politicians’ obsession with the media and with appearing on TV. Craig Oliver’s published diary (on life as Cameron’s head of communication) focuses on his quest to gain attention in papers and on screens. Moore (2017) also notes how tactics have changed to focus more on new media with “nearly a billion targeted digital adverts’ and spent approximately 98% of their money on digital campaigning. ‘Stronger In’, part of the Remain campaign’ also prioritised digital employing
“Tom Edmonds, joint director of the Conservatives’ 2015 digital election campaign, and Jim Messina, who was campaign manager for Barack Obama in 2012”.
Is the onus on press or politicians to inform?
“Likewise, on the individual level, Holtz-Bacha and Norris (2001) found a significant positive correlation between self-reported exposure to public television news programs and levels of factual knowledge about the European Union. Their results supported, they suggested, a pessimistic conclusion about the consequences of the introduction of commercial broadcasting. In most countries, higher levels of knowledge were positively correlated with preferences for public broadcasting, and in particular with a preference for public TV combined with regular exposure to its news.”
Aalberg, T and Curran, J. 2013 “linked to political parties and organized social groups are in decline. And, fourth, a number of social and political changes—such as increased secularization (leading to a decline of political-religious dogma) and the growing marketization and professionalization of politics—has contributed, in their view, to a general process of homogenization that is influencing media systems in many parts of the world.”
Cummings, D. (2016) “Media organisations should have someone on the political staff who is a specialist in data or have a route to talk to their organisation’s own data science teams to help spot snake oil merchants.”
“Almost three million people who did not vote in the 2015 election turned out in 2016” (Menon 2017)
Conclusion
RESPONSIBILITY
FAULT OF POLITICIANS OR PRESS; MISINFORMATION, PERSONALITY FOCUS
NOT HELPED BY ‘BAD CAMPAIGNS’ BUT PRESS NEGATED THEIR DUTY BY ENGAGING IN SCAREMONGERING, GIVING INSUFFICIENT BALANCE TO ISSUES AND RANGE OF VOICES