My criticism of much mainstream media journalism about just leaving the EU is the lack of neutrality or objectivity in the reporting.
Many of them just assert leaving without a deal is “falling off a cliff edge” or will result in “cataclysm, or disaster”. This is the extreme language of some Remain MPs.
A neutral commentator should use neutral language to describe such an exit . “Just leaving the EU without signing the Withdrawal Agreement” would do it.
They could then expand on how the two sides view that –
“Remain thinks this would be like falling off a cliff. They think it would be disastrous for the UK economy. They think the UK does owe more money to the EU and has to settle the bill. Leave on the other hand think it means quickly achieving their aims of taking back control of our laws, our borders and our money. They say it would enable the government to boost the UK economy by spending the money saved from EU contributions on improved public services and tax cuts at home ”
That is as far as a reporter might wish to go. A commentator might go on to explain why he or she favoured the Remain or the Leave view, placing more information and criticism on the table. Where the media is using so called experts it would be helpful for them to reveal whether they are Leave voting or Remain voting experts, given the intensity of feeling on this issue.