To think the American coverage of the referendum has been far better than British coverage?

[EvangelineP]

Reading the New York Times has been far more enlightening than any of the British press coverage. They seemed to have covered it in a much broader way.

Ditto the Washington Post. I think they are able to be more objective.

Reporting in this country is incredibly partisan. If you look at the DM now, there's virtually no mention of the financial turmoil!

YANBU. It's in the interest of British papers to slant the news towards internal issues than the bigger picture for now.

Reading foreign papers does help remove any bias - assuming they've done their own analysis and they are truly neutral. Not sure what Le Monde might want to signal if it's pro EU. (I don't know if it is)

Agreed. I read a good piece today in the NYT about voters in Sunderland viewing their Leave vote as a protest against being forgotten by the establishment, whether in Brussels or Westminster. It detailed all the local assets that had been part-funded through the EU like an Aquatic Center and university but the poor in the region felt no connection to these facilities at all and couldn't afford to use them. It was an interesting insight into the (misplaced) frustration that fueled the Leave vote.

Thanks for this thread. I find the lack of unspun data bewildering and will look to see how this is reported elsewhere.

The Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting opinion

www.smh.com.au/world/after-brexit-uk-gripped-by-profound-case-of-denial-20160626-gpsfqv.html

So they want to string it out as long as possible, to get the maximum amount of time to persuade Brussels to play nice on a new trade deal.

But not too long of course, because UKIP would make hay with too long a delay, and markets hate uncertainty so the economy will suffer.

Of course, it's a s--- sandwich.

But it's the s--- sandwich that the British people asked for.

I agree, although I have my own gripes with the coverage in the NY Times (I'm a subscriber). They correctly conclude that the UK would be better in the EU but their coverage has been dismissive of the leave voters, they pay lip service to the fact that there is social inequality in the UK but still don't grasp what the reality of social inequality is like in the UK so it comes off as a "lip-service" acknowledgement without meaning. Perhaps it's because compared to the USA, the UK is still somewhat of a Utopia for the social welfare net, so I wonder if the NY Times reporters think people in economically deprived UK areas are just purely racist/nostalgics. From everything I've read in the NY Times about the referendum, I don't think they sent a single reporter over to the UK to investigate, just relied on the resident UK reporters, which creates a subtly different nuance to the tone I think.

I'm honestly not sure how well the American public grasp the underlying issues behind the referendum. I live and work in Seattle in the tech field, which is very international and honestly everyone's default view is that Brexit is bad - of course because it riles the markets and caused uncertainty in international trade. No one really seems to be aware of the deeper underlying issues or why people voted to leave, which makes me question how good the coverage has really been here. That said, we are all in our little bubble out here sometimes!

Yes we are in denial, because we can't comprehend that Leave won. It is becoming increasingly obvious it's a disaster. Cameron obviously had no understanding of Leave voters feelings, which is shocking as he's PM. It's no wonder people feel they have no voice.

God, that Sydney Morning Herald article is a depressing read (if, like me, you hope we can come out of this with a close ties to Europe). Sounds a lot more realistic than anything I've read in our papers though.

Not sure SMH is the best source for serious news reporting.

True, it is usually more concerned with what the stars of Home and Away are wearing.

Another thread to hide

Why Whiteplate?

What an odd comment

Why bother coming on a thread to say you are going to hide it

I'm interested in this. I have a few American and Australian friends on Facebook and all they can talk about is Trump. Brexit happened because of Trump, this shows how much support there is for Trump, all this is because of Trump. It's really irritating actually. I don't know why everything has to be about American politics. I'm surprised to hear the press coverage has been good because they all seem so genuinely ignorant about the actual issues about Brexit.

I thought the Sunderland piece was well done and explained some of the conditions that led people to vote leave:

mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/world/europe/european-union-brexit-sunderland-britain-cameron.html

Uk media is biased, that's hardly a shock is it ? Nobody in Scotland takes any notice of bbc,Sky, sun or daily fail - maybe that's why we voted the way we did

NightWanderer I do think that there are some Leave voters who seem to have some attitudes in common with Trump supporters in the US, and this is an interesting angle for US media to cover. Trump has pushed this narrative as well, even though he didn't know what Brexit was until a few days ago.

I've been watching European news coverage, their slant seems in line with mine which also seems in line sort Australia's judging by the link above.

The British press is utterly ludicrous, particularly the red tops. The Daily Mail has pulled in every Brexit favouring journalist possible for their sensationalist headlines. It is laughable that the very people Katie Hopkins mocks suddenly think she speaks for them.

It is all a game for the wealthy elite, the outcome doesn't matter. Though I'm sure a few of the political elite are getting cold sweats over what the history books may say of them.

*with Australia's not sort.

Really must proof read!