Thread by @docrussjackson

#THREAD

In an attempt to examine how the public made sense of Brexit & its potential consequences, researchers analysed ALL letters to the editor discussing Brexit/the campaign published in UK daily national newspapers in the two months before the vote.

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

This project illustrates how British national newspapers help to construct citizens’ political motivations, justified because of their role in the mediated construction of citizens’ political views, since letters are presented to readers as unsolicited, non-mediated content.

All published letters underwent a selection process deeming them worthy of publication. Through publishing some letters – and discarding others – newspapers legitimise views they contain, indicating these views are worth considering.

Through a content analysis of 1419 letters, they examined the main themes, capturing key concerns, criticisms, & political aspirations expressed by citizens. Leave messages largely dominated in Leave newspapers, whereas a wider range of voices were represented in Remain titles.

There was a remarkable numerical difference in the overall number of letters published in Leave newspapers (907), almost doubling letters published in Remain papers (456).

One in 20 letters was authored by an expert, whereas politicians/spokespersons wrote 48 letters in total.

Remain voices hardly featured among letters in Leave newspapers. Readers of papers supporting to remain in the EU, however, were significantly more exposed to letters favouring to leave the EU than readers of Leave newspapers were exposed to letters in favour to remain in the EU.

The wider range of voices in letters in Remain papers may have contributed to balance the editorial line of these titles, offering a richer, more diverse representation of citizens’ opinions & exposing readers to citizen voices supporting a vote against their editorial position.

Whilst half of letters advocating to remain contained arguments in favour of remaining (48%), only one in three letters advocating to leave listed any benefits of leaving (35.8%). This supports the suggestion that voting to leave was a protest vote – at least for some citizens.

In Remain newspapers 36.2% of letters contained at least one argument supporting to leave or remain in the EU, as opposed to 26.7% in Leave papers: Remain newspapers were more inclined to publish letters containing evidence-based arguments, rather than unsubstantiated opinions.

Letters in Remain newspapers occasionally included arguments in favour of leaving the EU. Arguments supporting remaining featured sparsely in letters in Leave newspapers - NO arguments in favour of remaining in the EU could be found in letters in the Express (just 1 in the Sun).

Leave voices, therefore, resonated more strongly throughout the letters.

Analysis points to changing forms of public debate: in a debate dominated by negativity, readers mainly argued against leaving or remaining in the EU, as opposed to arguing in favour of these options.

The most prominent theme in letters in all newspapers – except The Times – was “actions of British politicians", ranging from one in every five letters in The Times to half of the letters in the Express.

A sizeable proportion of letters in Leave newspapers criticised the Remain campaign, not its arguments. The negative characterisation of the Remain campaign, together with the criticism of “scare tactics”, constitutes further evidence of the negativity that permeated the letters.

Letters often appealed to the importance of democracy & for it to be “restored” in the UK. These didn't discuss the democratic-ness of the EU: presented as incontrovertible truth, the unsubstantiated idea that the EU is undemocratic was widespread in letters in Leave newspapers.

More than half of the 10 most prominent themes in letters in Leave newspapers did not engage with the with the pros & cons of remaining or leaving. The most prevalent themes in these letters engaged with politicians & the campaign, not what leaving or remaining meant for the UK.

Letters contained a wide range of themes, but the key issues driving the official campaigns had a particular prominence: immigration/free movement (the most prominent, reflecting the core concern of the Leave campaign); impact on the (British) economy; & terrorism/war/security.

Newspapers privileged the publication of letters endorsing their editorial positions (the Independent & Mirror were exceptions). With different degrees of intensity, all newspapers – but the Express & practically the Sun – also published letters opposing their editorial stance.

Leave newspapers provided limited exposure to legitimised narratives and arguments where citizens justified a vote to remain in the EU, effectively constructing the vote to leave as the main legitimate option in the referendum.

Letters in Remain newspapers contained a more diverse range of arguments & a wider spectrum of opinions, thus contributing to legitimise the idea that citizens’ arguments in favour to remain or leave the EU were all equally worthy & legitimate contributions to the debate.

The EU ref campaign combined different factors (nationalism, a community under threat, fear of outsiders, WWII, bureaucracy, populism, anti-elitism, anti-EU sentiment) that have traditionally defined British tabloid journalism but may have been prominent in Leave broadsheets too.

The overlap between these recurrent themes for Leave newspapers – which are probably of vital importance for their readers – and the defining issues of the EU referendum may explain the homogeneity of themes and positions identified in letters published in Leave titles.

Negativity featured prominently. Negativity has traditionally been a typical attribute of letters to the editor, & it is plausible that this negativity got reflected (or amplified) in the letters analysed given the aggressive, negative nature characterising the campaign.

The views & opinions on European integration & Brexit in letters may have contributed to deepen polarisation of this debate. Letters are a privileged platform for readers to express disagreement with the media coverage of an issue, or with the nature of the debate itself.

In this vein, some readers expressed frustration with the campaigns, their negativity, and also with media coverage. Rather than merely constituting criticism, this disagreement may constitute an indication of good, constructive, salutary debate.

The letters analysed also underlined readers’ dependence on campaign/media messages. While party politics did not feature prominently in letters, actions of politicians constituted the most prominent theme, signalling the enduring importance of the personalisation of politics.

Rather than constituting an arena for debate, where different positions were shared & confronted, the letters page largely constituted yet another platform for newspapers to advance the legitimation of their declared position, potentially contributing to further polarisation.

Especially in the case of Leave newspapers, the homogeneity of voices in the letters, and the reproduction of newspaper and campaign lines and discourses in these letters would indicate that, on this occasion, the letters page effectively worked as an off-line echo-chamber.

This occurrence may underline the role and function of tabloid newspapers in a polarised media landscape, and may also lead to question whether tabloids and broadsheets effectively played different roles when representing the views of citizens in this debate.

The widespread use of epithets such as “undemocratic,” “corrupt” or “failing” to characterise the EU as if they were indisputable facts without attempting to substantiate them reveals the extent to which these conceptions of the EU had been naturalised among Leave supporters.

The negativity dominating the debate, as well as the negative perceptions about European integration, is probably the result of years of anti-EU messages fuelled by the so-called Eurosceptic press and anti-EU politicians.

This negative framing of the EU constitutes a hegemonic, taken-for-granted shared understanding/common ground for Leave supporters, ultimately acting as a binding agent for them as a community.

It is revealing that a debate where the notion of democracy played such a central role took place in contexts largely dominated by like-minded individuals, rather than in 'a marketplace of ideas' in 'a free press'.

This points to a tension between two different normative conceptions of the role journalism should play in a democratic society: the tension between journalism understood as a platform for deliberative conversation, and journalism understood as a tool to foster community.

Broadly speaking, Remain newspapers were seemingly guided by editorial principles/business models that privileged deliberation, whilst Leave newspapers privileged building – or restoring – a community.

This article has demonstrated that the public debate on Brexit in letters to the editor was distinguished by the negativity and personalisation of arguments, reflecting the polarisation of the debate about the UK’s membership of the EU, both in British society and journalism.

Readers’ dependence on media/campaign themes, effectively turned letters into a sounding board for discourses already in circulation, instead of contributing to expanding the debate.

Finally, this article has also revealed the frustration that the negativity and polarisation that largely dominated the campaign and its media coverage generated amongst a minority of citizens.