Opinion: Brexit challenges the meaning of ‘political’ reporting

The problem isn’t just about quoting unnamed sources. It’s about what’s reported in the name of ‘politics’

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED OCTOBER 27, 2019 | UPDATED OCTOBER 29, 2019

Some hard-hitting comment has been written recently about the dangers of using of unnamed sources in reporting about Brexit. Less attention has been paid to how the main broadcasters put different aspects of Brexit into separate reporting categories — particularly “politics” — and how this affects the debate.

The two issues are linked, though. The priority given to what the “sources” say colours the meaning of “political” reporting too. Journalists compete to get the scoop instead of providing the most informative coverage. They are not the same. Continue reading “Opinion: Brexit challenges the meaning of ‘political’ reporting”

If we’re to understand the Brexit talks, the media must do better than this

The notion that the EU was uncompromising was as absurd as the claim that Brussels had buckled. Brexit has entered a negotiating phase. We need to understand negotiations and to spot the flexibility in the noise

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED APRIL 1, 2017 | UPDATED APRIL 1, 2017

Perhaps we should not be surprised, but should we be concerned? After Donald Tusk presented the EU–27’s draft negotiating guidelines for Brexit on March 31, 2017, the headlines showed widely different interpretations.

They ranged from fact and conciliation to confrontation and capitulation, all based on the same document: Continue reading “If we’re to understand the Brexit talks, the media must do better than this”