Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nvoid 1896 days ago
Citation needed here. Iirc, the media were quite anti-brexit.
4 comments

Brexit was the result of thirtyish years of the media printing misleading clickbait about Europe, followed by uncritically publishing the "all upside no downside" claims of the Brexit side.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/15/brexit...

Besides, there's no boundary between "media" and "politicians"; early on while he was PM Johnson was paid more to be a Telegraph columnist than his official PM salary.

I think "culmination" rather than "result", because whilst I think the right wing gutter press (and I include the Mail and Times) were a factor, I don't think they were the most important factor.
"UK press coverage of the EU Referendum" https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/uk-p...

The report is based on analysis of two days of press coverage each week for London editions of nine national newspapers over 4 months of the campaign. Of the 2,378 articles analysed which were focused on the referendum, 41% were pro leave as against 27% pro-remain.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190531154332/https://blogs.ec....

The original site is no longer maintained and redirects to the new wayback machine, but that site is down, sadly. So here's a snapshot from the old wayback url.

Fake news about the EU was so prevalent that the EU started maintaining its own list. Note that one of the "journalists" that wrote these fake news stories was Boris Johnson himself.

"Citation needed": every article mention the EU in "The Sun", "Daily Express", "Daily Mail" multiple times and also "The Telegraph" for the posh version of most of the same crap.

"Media was quite anti-brexit" not really. Unless you really think the GDPR prevents kids from writing letters to Santa Claus

Some media was quite anti brexit - The Guardian, The Independent, the FT, the BBC a bit. People had a choice as to which to read.