On "meddling"

Freedom of thought is, in the press, consist of developing a thought within freedom from intervention. While writing for a massive audience: in a way, yelling a truth in which one believe in, with general assumptions, thesises etc. is not a moral choice (would be kind of a propaganda poster) unless debate is on a scientific ground, because the essays, opinions should respect the audience, ethically, to have an authentic response, wether it coincides with the writer or not is irrelevant; in the end, the press is not for thoughts and opinions to be asserted to the citizen of the polis but for the free speech, and right to be informed. Assertion is however another issue to be protected in needs, by the safeguarding mechanisms of the freedom of expression.

Right to be informed, as well as free speech, in regards to a democratic ideal, should consist of thoughts and opinions from different backgrounds which is to ensure mutual guarantees of rights and obligations (or loyalties and affections, may be) which is a political submission to the democracy by the press as it is forming a part of the democracy, yet serving a proper material for the political body (and to the democracy, as well) to conclude these democratic demands/quests by legislation.

"Pluralism is the guarantee of the authenticity of universal suffrage. It is manifested in the exercise of various freedoms: freedom of communication (press, radio, television),  individual freedom, etc. But it particularly implies the freedom to form and run political parties. " Istanbul, 1992: UNIDEM

 There is no submission of the politics to the journalism, in theory.

Whenever the participation is not well-established so-told illusion of the press to have a political power may be attempted to effectuated this way, though. But its political power is bounded to the fundamentals of democracy, and limited by the line passing in between the demands from the participants of the democracy and the obligations of the political body.

If we are to have a Goebbelsian look into meddling, the art of propaganda, ideologies are the broader  model of the meddlings: as idea to be the given grammos/structure/domain for its collection of opinions, or thesises (in form, by any kind of proportions usually), and logos to be the inserted/constant architecture/or walls (like applied mathematics) of ensuring to diminish the range of reasoning: and the question is usually diminished for what reason...

Was Brexit an issue of the participatory democracy through elections, for example. It was maybe, in part. But it was only one part of it. Apparently, referendum as a form of democracy was used for political reasons between the EU and the Britain, for which FO would have been more experienced than the public for skills in politics, anyway. Did who ever meddled into Brexit referendum provocated the feelings of the Britons towards the EU, seems so. And a political decision turned out rather to be an emotional response, for which FO and many other bodies given great assistance for reparation, afterwards.

Code of good practice in electoral matters and Code of good practice in referendums is important contributions of the Commission for the Democracy through Law not only for legislation but also to understand the importance of elections and its relation to the democracy.

"In a sense, democracy is the system in which, in the absence of unanimity, collective decisions fall to the majority. But as many authors have observed, this function of the majority implies a consensus on the coexistence of the majority and the minority. Those in the minority in a democracy disagree with the majority, except on one point: that all must continue to live together, with the risk for one camp, and the chance for the other, that the minority will become the majority. In addition, the minority, as a group or as individuals, have "reserves" defined principally by human rights." Istanbul, 1992: UNIDEM

Those who voted for 'No' in Brexit is still not a debate on democracy among the UK politics.