1. Brexit occupied an unprecedented share of election coverage

EU and Brexit-related features occupied 21.6 per cent of Today’s available airtime –  12 hours and 23 minutes across the survey period. This was a third more than during the 2017 General Election, three and a half times the proportion recorded in 2010 and 2015, and five times that recorded in 2005.

2. Coverage was weighted towards pro-EU and anti-Brexit perspectives

Of the 332 contributors, 178 –  53.6 per cent –  were broadly pro-EU, anti-Brexit, supportive of a second referendum or in favour of revoking Article 50. They delivered 51 per cent of all contributor words. By comparison, 112 broadly pro-Brexit contributors, including supporters of Boris Johnson’s agreement, accounted for 33.7 per cent of speakers and 37 per cent of words.

3. Firm withdrawalists received only nine per cent of the coverage

BBC-cited polling indicated that 38 per cent of voters supported leaving the EU without an agreement. Yet only 31 contributors –  9.3 per cent of the total –  represented this position, delivering 9.1 per cent of contributor words. Twenty-one of the 31 spoke for fewer than 100 words, limiting their opportunity to make a sustained case.

4. Much of the withdrawalist airtime was concentrated in four adversarial interviews

Nigel Farage supplied 3,115 of the 6,494 words spoken by firm withdrawalists – almost half of their total contribution. The report found that his four interviews concentrated heavily on his electoral tactics, character and credibility, leaving considerably less space for an explanation of the substantive case against the Withdrawal Agreement.

5. Negativity extended beyond the selection of political contributors

The programme’s Reality Check strand repeatedly questioned whether Brexit could be completed within the promised timetable, often presenting disputed forecasts and judgements with the authority of factual adjudication. In business coverage, 26 contributors expressed broadly negative or cautious views about Brexit, compared with only six who identified possible benefits.

The imbalance identified by the survey was not confined to the number of speakers or the duration of their contributions. The content analysis also examined how withdrawalist contributors were questioned, the subjects on which they were invited to speak and whether they were given sufficient opportunity to explain their arguments.

It found that advocates of a clean-break Brexit were often questioned about electoral tactics, party organisation or personal credibility rather than the substance of their objections to the Withdrawal Agreement. Nigel Farage supplied almost half of all the words spoken by firm withdrawalists, but his four interviews concentrated heavily on his electoral strategy, character and credibility.

At the same time, Today devoted sustained attention to the anticipated risks and difficulties of Brexit while making little comparable effort to investigate its possible benefits. Its Reality Check sequences repeatedly challenged claims that Brexit could be completed within the promised timetable, while business coverage featured 26 contributors who were negative or cautious about Brexit and only six who identified possible benefits.

The report characterised this as bias by omission: the clean-break position was not entirely absent, but its supporting arguments were rarely explored with the depth afforded to opposing perspectives.