We appear to be spending a lot of broadcast time listening to tired old arguments from well heard advocates for well defined arguments over the issue of the moment, the EU referendum. David Cameron who for a long time has been arguing that unless we get reform, that we were better off out of the EU, has despite a lack of reform (no one I have heard argues that reform has been achieved or offered) suddenly discovered long term issues that make membership of the EU vital. Issues such as immigration which were never mentioned as a reason for staying in previously, are now making the case a vital one. Meanwhile news channels keep on inviting people whose views are well known to speak about their views or the views of other people, some of whom are dead and have for too long influenced policy makers. It was fascinating listening to some of the people Charles Moore interviewed on Today this morning. However it simply demonstrated why journalism demands an objective point of view, something that Charles openly lacks. My own limited experience of certain elected MPs and Councillors is that far too often, they rely on the understanding of civil servants and professional advisers to help them form their view of complex documents. It seems reasonable to assume that many of us have not read the proposal being debated by Moore et al. Would it be possible for our broadcasters to spend a bit less time interviewing tired old hacks, and a bit more time explaining the terms of the agreement and its impact on the EU framework? That would be a bit closer to the concept of the news and a bit further away from prejudice and biased opinions.