Had an argument with a relative about my attitude to journalists. Boiled down to whether an interviewer's role is to:
▪️ Just extract the messages from the politicians and relay them to other politicians.
Or
▪️ Come up with their own arguments against politicians' narratives
1/3
▪️ Just extract the messages from the politicians and relay them to other politicians.
Or
▪️ Come up with their own arguments against politicians' narratives
1/3
Them: If the politicians are bad, it's up to the people to see that and remove them. Journalists have no such electoral responsibility.
Me: The public aren't experts in all political issues, so journalists have to provide the info the public needs to judge MPs accurately.
2/3
Me: The public aren't experts in all political issues, so journalists have to provide the info the public needs to judge MPs accurately.
2/3
e.g
Journalists accepted the "Will of the People" narrative because neither Labour or Tories were saying: "If 52% want different incompatible EU-UK relationships, it's not possible to please them all".
And here we are.
Journalism shouldn't depend on Westminster Wisdom alone.
3/3
Journalists accepted the "Will of the People" narrative because neither Labour or Tories were saying: "If 52% want different incompatible EU-UK relationships, it's not possible to please them all".
And here we are.
Journalism shouldn't depend on Westminster Wisdom alone.
3/3
That's the thing. e.g.
If an MP tells an interviewer "It's thanks to Brexit that we were able to approve the vaccine quickly"...
The body that approved the vaccine has confirmed it's objectively not true.
So is that 'news' or 'opinion'?
If an MP tells an interviewer "It's thanks to Brexit that we were able to approve the vaccine quickly"...
The body that approved the vaccine has confirmed it's objectively not true.
So is that 'news' or 'opinion'?
https://twitter.com/_MacMajor/status/1361327423850094601
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
