Media Melts Down over Brexit Outcome
Print Friendly and PDF
The Brexit media aftermath continues to roil, in part because the press was caught flatfooted regarding the results. In addition, Britain’s choice to return to nation statehood upsets the globalist values of the liberal stenographers of elite views.

Per playbook, liberals and their media squawk with the usual accusations of racism against anyone who disagrees with approved issues, and by extension, with libs’ imagined moral superiority. It’s tiresome and unimaginative. As Tucker Carlson notes in the video below, there were sound reasons to oppose the Brexit, but to accuse the supporters of being evil racists reveals libs’ kneejerk habit of personally castigating opponents if the results do not suit them.

In addition, the lefty globalists in this case want to shred the democratic outcome that resulted from a months-long debate and the votes of more than 30 million citizens: an online petition for a do-over of the referendum is being run which insists on new rules: “We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.”

The overall turnout was 72 percent, higher than in last year’s general election. But that’s not sufficient for a certain group.

Plus the automatic accusations from the other side make it hard to engage in political debate when their arguments have so little integrity.

TUCKER CARLSON: After British voters decided to leave the European Union, many in the press here in the US were quick to label the Brits bigots.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: A lot of these leave movements are led by the hard right, very very xenophobic anti-immigrant, are very populist, nationalist, white identity politics.

NBC REPORTER: What this was really about was fear, xenophobia, in some cases certainly racism.

CARLSON: So has Christiane Amanpour recovered this morning, or is she hiding under the covers weeping? Let’s talk to Dan Joseph; he’s a video correspondent political analyst for the Media Research Council in Washington. Dan, good to see you this morning. So in the UK, there was a robust debate about this. i mean the papers were kind of split on it and there was a debate. In the US, I think the New York Post was the only print media outlet that was sympathetic to Brexit. Why was the American media so against this?

DAN JOSEPH: For the same reason that the liberal media overseas was against it. I think people forget that liberal media bias does not end at the water’s edge, and if you saw Christiane Amanpour there, you would think you’re watching an episode of the Real Housewives of CNN. She just had a complete meltdown and here’s the thing: she used terms like — I have right here — xenophobia, anti-immigrant, white-identity politics. These are the exact same terms that liberals in the United States use when they lose elections, and it reminded me a lot of how media reacted in years like 2010 and 2014. President Obama lost and they blamed it all on the fact that they’re these white voters who don’t like having an African-American in the White House. it’s always the same; it never changes and it’s bad for everybody.

CARLSON: Christiane Amanpour is a joke and has been for 30 years but it wasn’t just her. I mean that was kind of predictable. The architecture critic from the New York Times why is he weighing in? Michael Kimmelman wrote this: “Brexit a clear signal, albeit not surprisingly for increased skepticism when it comes to all polling that involves xenophobia and racism.”

Wow! Here’s my question: there’s a real debate; I think there’s a debate over the the economic effect of this that’s real, and you can take either side, and both are kind of legitimate in my view. Why does it have to be a referendum on your moral standing? If you don’t agree with us, you’re not just wrong, you’re immoral. That’s the position of the left on almost everything. Have you noticed this?

JOSEPH: Absolutely, because the left thinks that’s the winning strategy when in fact it’s not. In fact, it just overrides the other things that they could be talking about that would benefit them; there are some legitimate, very compelling arguments, economic reasons why they should have stayed in the EU; there certainly are but it was overwritten because they wanted to make everything about race.

Print Friendly and PDF