May 24, 2016
Brexit: in praise of Wikipedia (BBC beware)
So, the other day, I was listening to Radio 4 covering “The Brexit Debate”. Topic of the day was whether or not we should worry about Turkey joining the EU. A Steadfast Remainer reassured us that we need not worry, as we can block Turkey’s membership at any point. A Vote Leave interviewee said the opposite. The BBC interviewer (I think it was Nick Robinson) made no comment or intervention either way. Apparently, this counts as quality journalism: hosting two people contradicting each other.
Really? Is adding to our confusion part of the BBC’s role?
I am taking no sides on Brexit in this blog. However, surely the BBC has a duty to do better than making no comment either way. There are facts in this instance, as a quick trip to Wikipedia and its footnotes will reveal. It is a fact that Turkey’s accession to the EU requires unanimity from those who lead all 28 member states. Just as it is a fact that excess sugar makes you fat. Some things are not about debate, and journalists should surely cut debate short when the facts are not embraced.
And there are other facts that might be handy to bear in mind. Turkey has to pass at least 33 tough social & political tests before joining. Since applying for membership in 1987, just one of these tests has been passed (involving standards in science and research). That leaves 32 far tougher nuts to crack. Would it not be useful to know this – as a fact?
Is it not slightly concerning that Wikipedia can give us more of the facts than a journalist hosting the Today Programme? I love the BBC, but their end of term report must surely read “must do better”.
POST SCRIPT: June 6th: Since this blog was uploaded, Radio 4 has made immense efforts to make its “fact checking” more visible. This work goes some of the way to answering the concerns raised above. That said, there are still many examples of interviewers overlooking factual inaccuracies in real time. Maybe this is down to the sheer pace of broadcasting? Maybe it’s down to budgets being cut on good old-fashioned research? Either way, the updated report now reads: “great progress, but given your pedigree, we know you can do better still !” Thoughts?
11 Comments
For sure, the BBC interviewer should have waded in with the facts. His role as a journalist is to challenge both sides and get to the truth of the matter.
However, I wonder how much difference all this debate will make. After the Scottish referendum, someone commented that in the end people voted according to their existing, long-held views. Will it be the same on 23 June?
Thanks Fiona – I suspect you are right. Not sure where that leaves the pollsters! M: – )
Despite the difficulties for the BBC in providing a platform for Brexit debate- where every word is scrutinised for alleged bias, I do think BBC presenters should at least be capable of correcting clear factual errors. The obvious example is Turkish membership of the EU. Accession of any new Member State requires a treaty detailing the terms of accession , and that requires unanimity among existing Member States. One of the reasons negotiations over Turkish membership stalled was because of the hostility of Cyprus. So to suggest the UK does not have a veto over Turkish accession is just wrong and the presenter should have, at least, challenged the contrary argument. But unfortunately, much of the Brexit debate is being conducted by politicians who have no idea about how the EU works. To take a minor example, Michael Gove, our non-legally qualified Justice Minister, insists on referring to the European Court of Justice. That’s not, and has never been the court’s correct name: it is the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU), and has been since the Treaty of Lisbon. Given the fact that he can’t get its name right, it is probably no surprise that Gove and many others have no real idea of the CJEU’s functions. Often the attribute to it the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights ( ECHR) which is not an EU court at all. We live in a world where facts matter less than noise, as Trump and Boris know well. All the best. Michael
Thanks Mike. Real facts. Very impressive. Who needs wikipedia, when there is Mike of The Bailey to hand? M ; – )
I agree with you about the poor quality of BBC or any journalists who are more concerned with ensuring both sides are given airtime when they should be asking ‘how do you know 890,000 people will lose their jobs/holidays will cost £232 more/the NHS will go down the tubes if we stay in/leave?’
So much of the debate about Brexit or not to Brexit consists as speculation disguised as facts. It seems to me that it falls into the Stonehenge category as in ‘we don’t really know for sure….’ I can’t see the point of having a referendum where we are all being asked to provide an answer based on ideological and financial speculation but that seems to me what it is all about.
Thanks Clare. I agree on your point about referenda. The muddled leading the muddled seems to be the story so far !
Oh dear – I think I’ve got to stand up for Amuntie here. I listen to the Today programme a lot and – whilst Robinson or whoever is was should indeed have challenged the debaters – all of the facts about Turkey I have heard clearly expounded on Today recently. They also have a very good weekly analysis of precisely the disputed ‘facts’ bandied about by both sides of the Brexit debate. Their ‘Reality Check’ strand does its best to pick out the truth from the claims and is more balanced and authoritative than any if the hopelessly partisan press articles I’ve seen. Here is just one example of the clarity the well-informed BBC journalists bring to the debate if you can be bothered to look. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201
It is easy to bash the BBC but – for all its faults – we would be the poorer if the crass and ignorant Whittingdaes of this world destroyed it as the would like to do. And we should be wary of believing everything we read on Wikipedia!
Alex – hoorah: I was hoping someone would catch me out for only listening to one bit of the BBC’s output. I probably love the Today programme as much as you do (maybe!). And I’m sure you’re right about the facts being there if you dig around. I guess I’m calling for a little more peak time, real-time intervention by journalists brave enough to be sure of their facts in the heat of battle. That’s probably unfair. But it’s made a good blog and got a few people thinking – for which, I thank you, me and the BBC ! See you soon I hope. M: _ )
Ahhh.. the murky world of facts. To be honest I just wish the BBC would call out when both sides of the campaign are trying to assert a fact which is simply speculation and opinion. The nation is fully blind in this referendum. A constructive role for the Beeb would be to ensure some level of perspective over the facts we’re being fed.
Well,with respect to Turkey’s membership and the possible veto or not, in the end does it really matter? After all Greece didn’t really pass all the economic and other check-points and they pushed Greece’s membership through. Look where that got the Greeks! The politicians will go where ever the gravy train takes them.
I think the BBC is so scared of seeming biased with their charter up for review, that sometimes they sit on the fence and do not challenge fact/fiction in the hope that they will appear neutral. I listen to the Today program religiously and I do think they try to challenge some of the more outlandish “facts” on both sides. They are constrained by time though in the morning. In my opinion Channel 4 news have got it right in their coverage.
Personally I think half of the politicians in the Remain camp don’t believe the EU is fit for purpose anymore, but that it’s too big to let it fail (much like with the banks), so the status quo has to be maintained.
Keep writing and provoking Mark..!
Thanks all – this has made me think. Which was the idea. Keep those comments coming !!
Leave a comment
Brand refreshment is probably overdue:
4 years ago
© 2024 manwith3heads. All rights reserved.