If a thousand experts say one thing and one clueless idiot says the opposite, that's not balance.
If you then give those experts and that idiot an equal platform and equal time, that creates bias where consensus reigned.
If you then give those experts and that idiot an equal platform and equal time, that creates bias where consensus reigned.
When the media do a story about the International Space Station, complete with glorious footage of the Earth spinning beneath it, they don't invite on a Flat Earther to explain to viewers that what they're watching has been faked.
Yet that's exactly what they do with Brexit.
The CEO of some multinational comes on and explains factually and in detail why Brexit will harm their business... The media invite some random hayseed or political hack to say the opposite, then conclude with "so there you have it."
The CEO of some multinational comes on and explains factually and in detail why Brexit will harm their business... The media invite some random hayseed or political hack to say the opposite, then conclude with "so there you have it."
"There are strong views on both sides." Yes, but only one view is *true*. And that *should* matter.
"Opinion is divided." Yes, but only because you let it be presented as such by ignoring underlying reality. Actually there's one incorrect opinion and one factual one.
And so on!
"Opinion is divided." Yes, but only because you let it be presented as such by ignoring underlying reality. Actually there's one incorrect opinion and one factual one.
And so on!
You can see this played out for example in the argument about whether there would have to be checks on goods flowing to Northern Ireland or not. The law said "yes" but various useful idiots said "no" and the media gave them a soapbox.
Now the election is over, the truth is out.
Now the election is over, the truth is out.
