Agree or disagree with the following statement: Brexit proves that some issues should not be decided by referendum.

After the referendum in the UK which resulted in Britain leaving the EU, many people protested against this decision. It seemed like people did not really understood the consequences for them leaving the EU. Days after Brexit the most googled question in England the question of what the EU actually is. This shows clearly that people weren't aware of what in meant for them exiting the EU. 

Even though this referendum did make many people unhappy, it is what was voted for. The referendum was not really the problem, it was more about the fact that the people were ignorant and didn't really inform themselves before making the decision. 

Since Brexit effected the people living in the UK I think it was right to make this decision by a referendum. In general, I believe that referendums are the right way of making decision for a country, even though it can bring problems. One way would be to make sure that people are aware of the consequences, so they can make up there minds. 

Can traditional journalism survive in a media environment in which consumption happens mostly on social media, and sites like Buzzfeed use sensationalism shock to increase clicks

Traditional journalism, like the newspaper were dominating the market for many years. With the introduction of social media this changed drastically. Nowadays, consumption of media happens via social media sites wich are using sensationalistic shock to increase clicks. Therefore it is really hard for traditional journalism to survive in the media environment. Especially many young people consume media though social media sites, like Buzfeed and Facebook, while the older generations tend to pick newspaper articles. 

Even though it seems like traditional journalism is a dying market, I would argue that it did adopt to the new situation. Many newspapers offer there readers online versions of the articles they publish. 

It isn't easy for traditional journalism to survive in this media environment, but many people are aware of the fact that social media articles are not always trustworthy. So people who want to get news that are actually presenting facts will tend to make sure to read articles from the traditional journalism market.  

Identity Politics in Conservative Media

The fourth episode of the Podcast “The United States of Anxiety” talks about conservative media. One aspect of conservative media the reporters of the podcast bring up is very relevant in today’s political climate: Identity Politics. The important question here is whether the right wing conservative media’s manipulation of identity politics is actually interested in the truth. 

Throughout the episode several instances that serve to illustrate the conservative media’s relationship with identity politics were reported on. They show that the conservative media seems to be obsessed with the alleged identity politics of the liberals. However, upon further examining various conservative media outlets, the reporters conclude that they appear to be creating their own aggrieved identity group: Conservative, straight, white, male Republicans. As far as their allegations of the liberal’s utilization of identity politics goes, they don’t exhibit a lot of interest in the truth. They say “everything is about race with these people” but don’t care to investigate instances they claim are evidence for this. Rather, they buy into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that President Obama wants to start race riots.

The truth value concerning their identity politics is not important to them either. The idea of their discriminated identity group relies almost entirely on an emotional response. Its fundament lies in the fear of many American citizens. By suggesting to them that their country is being taken from them, that they’re becoming irrelevant, they create an atmosphere of concern, fear and anger. In this atmosphere the truth becomes insignificant.

In conclusion, the members of the right wing media exhibit a manipulation of identity politics that hardly demonstrates their interest in the truth. They rely instead on the emotional response of their audience.

Is the best solution to the problems plaguing the US immigration system to export nearly all immigrants and start over?

Is the best solution to the problems plaguing the US to deport all of the Americans out of the United States and start over? This seems absurd, right?
The point is that the United States was built by the so called “immigrants”. Newspapers, or media in general are giving the term “immigrants” a harsh and unnecessary cruel meaning. Almost everything that can be seen on newspaper or TV is negative. Whether it is a robbery or for example a knife assault, it is almost always the one who is not an indigene.

In my opinion it is against all the rights a human being has. Take for example a “newer” immigrant. One who already lives about 20 years in the States. Is it fair to deport him, to make him feel like he has to give everything up for which he has worked so hard for? It does not seem right, even with the possibility that he could come back someday. Those people are living there with their families and they built a life for themselves. To deport them and bring them back when everything is “in order” is not necessary.

It might be the case that the United States also have to deal with refugees. Nevertheless, refugees are people, just like you and me. There is one thing that we do not have in common and we can be glad about that. It is the fact that those so called refugees, fled from war. They have nowhere to go, their country is gone. Families who are separated, lovers they have lost and everything terrible one can imagine happened to them. So what would you do to save your children? What would you do to save your life? Everyone should think about that, when they use the word refugee or immigrant in a negative way. 

Brexit proves that some issues should not be decided by referendum.

Despite the fact that the EU has for more than five decades been a guarantee for the peaceful coexistence of the different states on this formerly war-shaken continent, the British population has now voted for leaving the European Union. After the result of the vote became publicly known, great numbers of the population obviously were shocked by this development which nobody would have predicted. It became clear, that the vote had been more about emotions than about facts, since Google recorded the phrase “What is the EU?” as the most numerous search-request in the hours after the vote*. Most of the voters were neither aware of the economical nor the political consequences their vote would have for their country – which they cannot even be blamed for. They were made the pawns in a highly emotionally conducted debate by the political leaders, especially the populist parties appealing to the voters’ anxieties. As a matter of fact, most common people would prove unable to cope with so complex an issue, this is exactly the reason why in a democracy representatives are elected. Their duty is to employ their knowledge and their education in order to govern the country in a most sensible and democratic way – at least idealiter.

Therefore the question whether some issues should not be decided by referendum in my opinion should definitely be answered “yes” since it takes more than emotional sensitivities to control a nation’s fate.

* cf. Zadie Smith

 (238 words) 

by Anja Reuer