Can someone explain this wierd BBC story to me?

[Pangloss]

Yeah I know, here goes ol' Pangloss looking for bias in the media again. Believe me, I'll understand if you think that about me -- I wonder it about myself sometimes. (Hopefully it's at least a good sign that I recognize that predispotion in my thinking.)

 

Here's the story, and the quote I'm curious about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4673421.stm

 

Abortion is illegal in Portugal, a Roman Catholic country, except in cases of rape or serious foetal disability.

 

In 1998, a referendum on the issue was narrowly defeated. Portugal's parliament has voted to hold another popular vote this year.

 

Ok.... um.... am I the only one who sees a problem here?

 

Are they saying that a referendum to hold a referendum on abortion laws was defeatred, are they saying that a referendum to overturn abortion laws was defeated, or are they saying that a referendum to maintain abortion laws was defeated?

 

Maybe there's just a different usage for the word "referendum" over there that I'm not familiar with, but it seems to me that a referendum can ask people to take either side of an issue. Can it not?

 

So is the problem here that the writer simply forgot to include the phrase "... on the overturning of anti-abortion laws..." between the words "referendum" and "on"? (Note that the writer went on to do the same thing later in the story.)

 

Or is the problem here that the writer simply is unable to comprehend that anybody could possibly want abortion to remain illegal?

[Phi for All]

Are they saying that a referendum to hold a referendum on abortion laws was defeatred, are they saying that a referendum to overturn abortion laws was defeated, or are they saying that a referendum to maintain[/i'] abortion laws was defeated?

I would say since abortion is currently illegal there and the referendum was defeated, the referendum was probably to allow a vote to overturn the current law.

[Pangloss]

But you see my point here, right?

 

So maybe the referendum was to end abortion restrictions, and maybe it wasn't, but shouldn't that information be clear from the story? Why should a reader be forced to read between the lines just because they happen to have a viewpoint that's different from the reporter's? Is the reporter so convinced that any reader could not possibly oppose abortion, and therefore any reader will automatically assume the correct position of the referendum?

 

Why doesn't the reporter just go ahead and shove a middle finger in the politically incorrect reader's face?

[Ophiolite]

Panglosss. Here is the one word answer: context.

Here is the longer answer:

the current situation in Portugal is that abortion is illegal

any referendum would be considering the option of making it legal (or more precisely extending its limited legality)

that the referendum could contain the option of maintaining the status quo is probable, but does not alter the fact that the option perceived is one of change

it was this perceived option that was narrowly defeated.

In context there is nothing odd or biased about the report. In hindsight, given your peculiar interpretation, the writer could have been more precise, and not relied on context to convey meaning.

[Pangloss]

Peculiar? Isn't it the reporter's job to be objective in reporting the news?

 

Why is this okay when the BBC does it, but not when Fox News does it?

[Dak]

It doesnt really seem that odd usage... whilst the outcome of the referendum could have caused change or maintained the status quo, it seem natural to equate the referendum to the change as it was likely people pushing for change which caused the referendum to be held in the first place.

 

Were there a referendum in england as to wether we should illegalise abortion or not, and the result was that it should remain legal, then i would imajine that it would be reported as "a referendum on the issue was defeated".

[Phi for All]

But you see my point here, right?

Actually, in looking back over the wording, you're right that the use of referendum is inconsistent with the later usage of "another popular vote". A referendum is a vote to see if the people want to have a vote. A popular vote sounds like the actual voting on the issue. Clarity is more important than being succint when reporting the news (reporters aren't paid by the word anymore, are they?).

[-Demosthenes-]

Either Pangloss is right or the reporter doesn't write very well. It should be easy to understand something that a good writer wrote. I can definitely see where Pangloss is coming from.

[Dak]

A referendum is a vote to see if the people want to have a vote.

 

is it

[Pangloss]

I've heard it used in that context as well (to mean "a vote to have a vote"), but I just don't know if that's the case here. My sense of context from the story was that the referendum was about whether to overturn the law against abortion. But I don't want to fault the reporter for bias if I'm wrong about the context.

 

I know that when it came up recently here in South Florida, it was used in the sense of a specific up-or-down vote on whether to do the project in question (a high speed rail line). The referendum was worded to disallow, and it passed, so high speed rail is dead.

 

In all likelyhood I'm putting too fine a point on this, but never let it be said that I'm not capable of splitting hairs. =^>

[Skye]

A referendum is vote to accept or reject a proposal. Usually the proposal is a constitutional ammendment or other important issue that the government isn't trusted with buggering up on its own. In the US they seem to be called propositions, at least from what I've seen in The Simpsons, they are also similar to plebiscites.

[Phi for All]

I have always understood that a referendum vote was like saying, "Shall we put it to a vote? All those in favor...." As Skye mentions, it's a vote to accept or reject a proposal, but the proposal is not like, "Shall we allow abortions in Portugal?" It's more like, "Shall we allow a new abortion law to be proposedfor a vote?"

[Dak]

No, its a direct vote by the populance. plonkety

 

like, for example, the latest referendums that i can think of were on wether to accept or reject the EU constitution -- not wether or not to allow a vote on wether to accept or reject the EU constitution.

 

although, i suppose theres no reason why a referendum couldnt be held on wether or not to vote on a particular issue, itd just be a bit pointless.

 

If memory serves me correctly, tho, i believe that in switzerland if a pettition is sighned by x% of the local populance, then by law the issue which the petition pertained to has to be addressed and voted on in the local govournment, and the pettitions are referred to as refferendums (possibly -- my memory is a bit kak, so i might be wrong), which is kinda similar.

[Pangloss]

Right. In fact we had eight ballot referendums in Florida in November, and some of you may recall the discussion we locals had in this forum about them. They were immediate amendments to the state constitution, without any further consultation or consession from legislature, executive or judicial branches of government. They were examples of direct democracy.

 

The issue has come up here recently because one of the referendums called for slot machines to be allowed in my county. The law passed, but the legislature failed to set guidelines for the regulation of the slot machines, and now the county is suing the state for the right to set its own regulatory laws on slots. Businesses want to proceed with installation, but they would violate various regulatory statutes in doing so, and create a legal nightmare.

 

This points to a flaw in direct democracy -- if you think legislature is bad at making laws, just watch what happens when they're made by popular vote.

[Ophiolite]

Peculiar? Isn't it the reporter's job to be objective in reporting the news?

 

Why is this okay when the BBC does it' date=' but not when Fox News does it?[/quote']First, as has been clarified (I hope) in some of the posts above, a referendum is not about voting on whether or not to vote - certainly not in British English.

That given, the reporter was being objective. I tend (quite strongly) towards an anti-abortion stance and would expect, therefore, to detect pro-abortion bias in a report. I simply do not see it here.

To repeat, a literal, word for word, interpretation of the writing leaves it ambiguous (wooly not biased). An interpretation in context removes the ambiguity.

Should the UK TV watcher pay an increased licence fee to allow improved editing at the BBC? Yes.

Does this news item reflect biased editing at the BBC? No.

 

Edit: I described your interpretation as peculiar because I read the article half expecting, even looking for the bias you described and could not find it.

[Severian]

I seemed perfectly clear to me. Abortion is illegal in Portugal, and a referendum in 1998 to change that situation was held in 1998 and defeated (i.e the people were asked in a vote if they thought abortion should be legalised and they said 'no'). The parliament (which is democratic, and therefore votes on things itself before making decisions) has decided to hold another referendum on the same issue this year.

 

Rampant paranoia from Pangloss I think....

[Pangloss]

That given' date=' the reporter was being objective. I tend (quite strongly) towards an anti-abortion stance and would expect, therefore, to detect pro-abortion bias in a report. I simply do not see it here.

[/quote']

 

Ok, well I guess if you have that tendency and you don't see bias here, I have to put value in that. I guess I could be wrong here.

 

 

Rampant paranoia from Pangloss I think....

 

Don't interrupt me while I'm adjusting my tin foil hat!