Have The Brexiters Been Brainwashed?

[TheChair]

http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/study-shows-majority-press-coverage-eu-referendum-campaign-was-heavily-skewed-favour-brexit

[jno]

as far as I can see, Mordaunt's the only one who's ever claimed that Britain doesn't have a veto on new members. Everyone else agrees that it does - as when De Gaulle vetoed Britain's own application.

"When the negotiations and accompanying reforms have been completed to the satisfaction of both sides, the country can join the EU – again, if all existing EU countries agree."

http://europa.eu/pol/enlarg/index_en.htm

I think that's unambiguous.

[mikey4444]

Its been obvious for weeks now, that as the LEAVE camp makes most of the noise, the media was bound to concentrate on them.

[naomi24]

Jno, thanks. That seems to settle the question.

Come off it Mikey! We’ve had at the very least over recent weeks the headlining ‘Daily Fright’ from the Remainers!!

[mikey4444]

Naomi...the STAY camp have been soundly shouted down by the LEAVE camp.

Look at the post here on AB. Although our recent straw Poll gave the STAY camps about one third of the vote, its only me and a very few others that have been heard above the noise of the LEAVE camp.

This whole debate has now slid down into a ignominious scrabbling in the turgid depths of the Tory Party basement, as I predicted, which is creating a successful diversion on the way to a civilised an informed debate.

[sevenOP]

You might well be 'brainwashed' if you gave credence to that Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism study with its focus of 'two' days and 'one' form of media(selective, inadequate sample size): this seems the common way for statistics to be 'interpreted' to suit an agenda.

What has never been discussed, as far as I can determine, in this Referendum and every other decision that is put to an electorate(any 'electorate'/group of people who are in a decision making position, OUTSIDE the judiciary- and even there complicity could not be discounted), is that the decision is predominately made on 'material'(Materialism) considerations - and this is where the real brainwashing has been successful.(as it was intended to be)

This brainwashing is so globally pervasive it controls the parameters of the debate.

[jno]

that's two days a week for two months, sevenOP.

[sevenOP]

youngmafbog - "The problem with the press coverage is that each organization must ore-empt its reader/viewership. Or risk loosing custom."

Careful avoidance of calling them 'newspapers' ymb, unfortunately a majority of the population may think of them as 'Newspapers' rather than the partisan, opinion sheets you correctly describe.

Maybe Pandersheets would be a better description of them.

[sevenOP]

Thanks for that jno, but it is just the paucity of the sample size - number and spread and medium focus - that makes it have no practical relevance.

[jno]

it's to be a study of the UK daily press, which seems an appropriate focus to me - the newspapers based in and catering to the country affected. It would be difficult to monitor TV news (how many channels are there, and how many are UK-based?) and impossible to monitor the thousands of other sources like Twitter and Buzzfeed.

But there are still nearly 7 million papers a day sold in Britain (and actual readership will be considerably higher). So it seems a far way of calculatng what much of the country is being told.

[sevenOP]

jno, I am well aware that the Pandersheets are skewed.

I realise that 9 newspapers encompasses the press in their two day a week for 2 months press survey. Their data collection started on the 20th Feb and the official campaign started on 15th April, that alone is enough to skew results of pro- and anti- that were reported, and I doubt that the results of the less than 33% sample size is definitive given the possible variation in coverage from day to day.

The OP is about brainwashing, a subject that interests me more than some 'study' which may have had its result negated by subsequent, more current press coverage.
My view is that this Referendum will be decided on material considerations and the side that convinces a majority that you will lose less/gain more[£] will win.

There is no room for morality in this controlled narrative, the brainwashing was too effective to allow it.

[Old_Geezer]

Any papers that state what is already known and objected to has no ability to brainwash. If anything it is the remain arguments that appear to be trying that strategy.