The ongoing spectacle that is Brexit is playing out like a television show given far more seasons than its writers know what to do with.
It isn't entertainment, though. It is the haggling over the future and fate of the United Kingdom - one of the most important and powerful nations the world has seen, albeit now a reduced version of its former pomp.
How did it get to this point? How is Brexit remaining in such a seemingly unsolvable state? Isn't democracy supposed to work better than this?
That is a moot point but it raises the question of whether democracy can function at its best when its fourth estate - the news media - is being undermined and recast through the explosion of the internet.
It is romantic to assume the news media was always a pure and fierce protector of the people, a bulwark against manipulation, exaggeration and deceit.
News services cost money to set up, run and promote; any time large sums of money are needed, return on investment is expected.
The news media is no different and never has been. Backers and owners have long sought a return on investment and there is a long history of investors having some say in the reporting of the news.
But times have changed rapidly since the internet snaked its way into nearly every room of every house in the developed world.
When before, news companies had narrow windows each day in which to promote themselves and their reporting, today they have almost unlimited access to their audiences.
They also have access to far more people. When news outlets were geographically constrained, all residents of an area could critique what was being published. The disinfectant of public exposure had a moderating effect.
That can now be circumvented by news agencies casting their nets wider to gather, and talk to, targeted groups of like-minded consumers.
They may be sparsely spread but, when bundled up in the massive net that is the internet, they can form considerable blocks of consumers. Those blocks are centred around beliefs, not geography.
The "news" can then be tailored to those beliefs. White nationalists are one of those groups, something of which we are now all too well aware.
That is not to suggest the Brexit debate is connected with white nationalists, or that the problems the UK is facing could be solved by removing the internet.
But it is worth considering whether, if the claims, counterclaims, concerns and promises - raised in the lead-up to Brexit and on to today - were filtered through the lens of reasonable and accountable newsrooms, the debate would be as it currently stands.
Democracy is complicated. It is difficult - it is not only fraught with conflict, it produces conflict, demands it.
It then demands that conflict be thrashed out, debated, turned upside down and debated again. Only then can a population move forward with, if not unity, then at least a sense of acceptance.
That isn't happening right now in the UK.
The "echo chamber" cliche exists because it is real. It is viral and it is here in the South and in New Zealand, just as it is in the UK.
Democracy's three estates - the legislature, executive and judiciary - simply must be open to critique, discussion and curbing from a well-informed public. That is the news media's ultimate job. It is imperfect but it is essential.
Is the stumbling furore over Brexit a warning sign that the fourth estate is crumbling? If so, what do we do instead, to ensure democracy can remain viable?
Or is Brexit simply a complex, divisive issue being concurrently propagated and saved by the fourth estate? Time will tell. And in that time we must demand those who we receive our news from are held to the level of account democracy deserves.