Comments on: Are readers sophisticated enough to filter what they read?

By: Dominic Brett

Dominic Brett — Sat, 13 May 2006 13:53:21 +0000

John Middleton is factually wrong on quite a few points and indeed proves much of what I was making.

1) 80% of EU funds is spent by the Member States. It is fraud and mismanagement nationally that is far and away the greatest problem.

2) I never said that the fact so much of daily life is decided at EU level is a good or a bad thing but it is a fact of life, and one which many people are ignorant of. That IS a bad thing.

3) Proposed legislation is ALWAYS endorsed by the Council of Ministers (and usually the democratically elected European Parliament). It has to be. True, under qualified majority voting, a country can be outvoted by others but that degree of compromise is something all national authorities, including the UK, have agreed to in order to avoid paralysis of the system. If the UK has decided not to support the TV without frontiers directive, then it will make its representations to the Commission and other Member States and, if its case is strong enough, the proposal will be shelved. Simple.

4) No one has suggested the media become a mouthpiece for the Commission. Stop putting words in my mouth. My point, which stands, is that it is impossible for people to make informed decisions when, by and large, they don’t know - because the media don’t report the facts - what the EU does or how much power it wields. It may well be that more knowledge on these points could induce greater Euro-scepticism in some quarters (I have no way of knowing), but lack of knowledge is never conducive to democracy.

By: Stoomzee

Stoomzee — Wed, 03 May 2006 14:30:46 +0000

- Like water finds it’s own level, so too will information…

By: John Middleton

John Middleton — Wed, 03 May 2006 11:36:56 +0000

Where to start with Mr Brett…so the European Commission believes people are too dumb to decipher their own news? Adopting the typical Commission attitude of ‘we know best’ as is common in almost all their policy-making, ignoring the views of civil society, member states and businesses. The scorn of the EU in Britain comes because it is in many ways a ridiculous organisation - the clearest example being not being able to sign off its own accounts for over 10 years due to not knowing where or how it spends its money. The fact that ’so much of daily life is decided in Brussels’ is not a good thing - hardly anyone votes in MEP elections and the Commission are an unelected bureaucracy who are completely unrepresentative of European citizens and completely unaccountable. The critical media in the UK is a good thing, unless Mr Brett would like to suggest that the media become a mouthpiece of the Commission? Finally, saying that decisions in the EU are ‘always endorsed by UK Govt’ is frankly utter rubbish, see for example the recent debate over the review of the Television without Frontiers Directive that will have a massive impact on the development of media services in the EU that the UK Govt has adamantly refused to go with the Commission’s proposal because it believes its not very good!

By: neil baker

neil baker — Wed, 03 May 2006 10:51:47 +0000

Can readers and viewers decode media? Yes. everyone is this room can (yes, I’m at WeMedia too), but 95% of them are wearing suits, 80% probably work in the media and 100% are likely university graduates. Can my mum decode media? No. Can most people decode media? No. In fact, if there were any academic perspective at this forum - and why isn’t there? - the idea that we can easily decode media and get to “the truth behind it” or filter out its bias would be laughed at.