Douglas you said "They were aimed – successfully, as it turned out – at drawing out those people who recognise themselves in that description. Perhaps I should have described them as cow'rin' tim'rous beasties, as that is what it seems our cyber-Bravehearts become when challenged." My questions douglas were also used with the same intention as your vermin comment to draw you out. Ive now done that. I have now outed you as a labour supporter so everyone can now read your blog and your articles and know that you are not in fact an unbiased journalist but are in fact a labour supporting journalist. You confirmed it by answering my questions. That was the intention of the questions. And yet you failed to see it. I'll post it again and it will suddenly be very very clear to you douglas. You let your emotions get the better of you which was my intention. By letting your emotions take over instead of putting your opinion to one side and remaining dispationate and looking at the facts you failed to see what was staring you in the face. The intention was to make you post an answer to my question which was plainly there. and you cant criticise me for doing it because you did exactly the same thing with your vermin comment. My questions were intended to get an answer it did. everyone mr douglas fraser the labour supporting journalist. re internet vermin this is my questions to douglas in case anyone was wondering what all the no answers were about.. God sake douglas i beat you to that conclusion on the scotsman. Its obvious that wendy is to be dumped and andy kerr given the job. Douglas arent you getting worried about your job yet. ( douglas answer No) There are so many people waking up to press bias that I am suprised there are still labour supporting journalists left. I would be interested to know what its like being a labour supporting journalist since the snp came to power. Do you get more annoyed than you used to( douglas answer No). There you see douglas you confirmed you are in fact a labour supporting journalist.

i should also add i suppose that you have now doubly confirmed it with this comment. [quote]They were aimed – successfully, as it turned out – at drawing out those people who recognise themselves in that description[/quote] seeing as i answered you you have now confimed that i was one of the poeple you were talking to. everyone see above and comments on vermin board.

and now eveyone one can read your blog and your articles with the added knowledge that it is written by someone confirmed by his own hand as sympathetic to labour and not the snp. biased. well obviously. Doubt is now removed to be replaced with fact. Isnt that what everyone wants FACTS and the TRUTH. I have to say i find the posters more honest be they unionist or nationalist at least they declare their allegiance without being provoked into it.

and now eveyone one can read your blog and your articles with the added knowledge that it is written by someone confirmed by his own hand as sympathetic to labour and not the snp. biased. well obviously. Doubt is now removed to be replaced with fact. Isnt that what everyone wants FACTS and the TRUTH. I have to say i find the posters more honest be they unionist or nationalist at least they declare their allegiance without being provoked into it.

Douglas, you have now said openly, that you are still to be convinced of the SNP's arguement, fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, but don't you think it would be more honest still ,if you ( and other journalists) stated what political opinion you were in favour of, what ever it is, you and they would still be entitled to hold it. You still remain at least a tad 'strange', in that you say that blogs are no place for the faint hearted and yet you still seem a little put out by the comments of others. As for myself, what displeased me about your last comments was the fact that you did not name those who you were having a go at therby branding every one guilty and in this instalment you do the same again. When you claim it was to draw out those who recognised themselves in the description, are you refering to those who replied, if so that would mean everyone, myself included. So Douglas time to have the courage of your convictions and to name and shame. It would also help if you were to consider just how you portray nationalism yourself, it would also help if you were to show some balance by reminding the world of those, shall we call them extermists? who are of the unionist persuasion. BTW (2) Apology accepted.

Douglas, sorry, forgot to add, you commented on the replys etc to your last comments, but I do find it a little strange that you did not say anything more about the ongoing Wendy Alexander affair, if only because it's not like you to be reticent where comments in your own blog are concerned.

Take a chill pill, Karin - Our Douglas has certainly rattled your cage (which I suspect is what he wanted to do all along). Douglas Fraser wears his heart on his sleeve, the man has his beliefs. Don't encourage him. [quote]Some people send their poison by post. Others post it online. Either way, they betray their cause. [/quote] Some even have it published as a piece of news, or scattergun it in their blog. Either way, they're not fooling anyone.

"...we are the tranche of voters that the SNP needs to win over..." Douglas, with your use of unionist buzz-words like, "Bravehearts", and, "grudge and grievance", and your attempt at guilt by association by linking the two isolated and deluded nutters who seem to have provided the entire complement of the SNLA with the large number of nationalist posters on the Herald it doesn't look very likely that you'll hurry along to the SNP social next time without unfeasibly large amounts of chocolate, little white roses and a new ballgown. I accept your apology though I must say I never thought that your rodentism was blatant but I do take umbrage at being described as, "angry, abusive and ugly." There is no way I'm ugly, I'm a very good looking rat.

dws i know he has his beleifs and now so does everyone else there is no doubt now hes told everyone he is a labour supporting journo. I have to say i agree with jims comment that perhaps if political journalists were honest about their allegiance then we wouldnt need to read those we dont agree with. we could read them to see what labour supporting journalists like douglas think but if they were honest there would be no argument about why a particualr comment was used it would be obvious. I see no reason for journalists to hide their allegiance from the public unless of course they are pretending they are not influenced one way or the other in which case they are telling porkies about not being swayed one way or the other and being impartial. I am biased and im happy to admit i am biased at least that is honest. It might mean i look at things through snp tinted glasses but at least its clear for all to see that they are snp tinted. Douglas fraser and other journos are trying to hide behind a pretence of non biased impartiality which they do not possess. I actually dont care that Mr fraser is a labour supporter hes entitled to his opinion and to support whoever he likes. What i do object to is him hiding that opinion. He has no need to. Mr fraser has no right to judge political persons including wendy alexander and alex salmond or any other leader on the openess and honesty of their beleifs if he is not prepared to nail his own politcal colours to the mast. Douglas fraser complained the other day about wendys little script and how it wasnt above board. POT KETTLE AND BLACK. What would now be good from douglas would be for him to have an honest to goodness discussion about being a poltical journalist and why journalists dont declare their allegiance and why the pretence remains that journalists are objective. Political journalists above all.

Hi Douglas, [quote]For those of us who are open to persuasion on the case for independence – and we are the tranche of voters that the SNP needs to win over – there is no surer way of alienating us than to portray nationalism as an unthinking campaign of grudge and grievance.[/quote] Are you open to persuasion on the case for independence? Somehow I think not. I have just read your article 'Perception could count most of all' and yet again you misreport on the Alexander case and twist the facts. As [bold]Clare[/bold] says on your other blog: "To write a political article and seek to limit the damage to one's favoured Party because the news being imparted doesn't present them in a great light is basic dishonesty." When you go to visit Wendy to receive your instructions do you open the door before going in or do you just crawl under it? LOL Come over from the dark-side Douglas. This Labour Party you support is no longer the Labour Party of yore. Doing damage limitation on their behalf isn't helping them. All you're doing is trying to stem a cut artery with a sticking plaster. Instead, show them up for what they are and make them change for the better. You know that you guys in the media actually have that power, knowing how headline conscious political parties and politicians are.

Mr. Fraser, your bias oozes through your text like a malignant jelly.

Douglas - you reap what you sow. Were to attempt balanced reporting on a more consistent basis, you would not receive the attention your blog and reports do. Were you to stick to the facts, and the subject at hand rather than lacing your reports with at least one attack against the SNP, you would not receive the attention you do. Were to to criticise and commend all parties equally, you would not receive the attention you do. Were you to temper your comments in the manner you demand of your respondents, you would not receive the attention you do. Your entire modus operandi, as confirmed in your latest blog, is not dictated by the goal of reporting objectively but rather is geared entirely to elicit reaction. With each blog you enhance the perception that you are less a journalist of integrity and objectivity and more a petulant attention seeker. As you yourself proclaim - perception is key.

[bold][quote]I also wish to apologise to any rats who feel I have been blatantly rodentist in using the words "anonymous internet vermin". Some contributors were right to note that the words were not aimed at anyone in particular. Nor were they aimed at everyone. They were aimed – successfully, as it turned out – at drawing out those people who recognise themselves in that description. Perhaps I should have described them as cow'rin' tim'rous beasties, as that is what it seems our cyber-Bravehearts become when challenged.[/quote][/bold] Douglas, I have to say I'm disappointed in you. Having actually felt you were one of The Herald writers worth keeping - and disagreeing with the invective directed against you - I decided to read your blog tonight, having read numerous comments about your use of the term "internet vermin". Some of those comments, incidentally, were making your excuses, insisting that you were only referring to a small band of website users who post vile, bigoted messages intended either to offend or even have threads killed through sabotage. However, you appear to have clarified this to include all those who don't publish their name, rank and serial number on this website - which specifically invites comment without stipulating the level of identification required. Firstly, let me say that any problems you have with the manner in which people identify themselves on this website should be directed to Mr Charles McGhee. I trust he decides whether The Herald has [italic]relatively[/italic] free debate or insists on holding his readers personally accountable for their criticisms. Secondly, you are sadly misguided about the nature of internet debate. All the other titles that encourage comments seem to get it but you demonstrate that The Herald is not a title equipped for the new media age. That much could have been demonstrated by the presentation of the website - but you have betrayed an attitude that belongs in the 1980s. Any writer who uses such pejorative language in reference to his readers is on shaky ground, Douglas. Look around you, inform yourself and either wake up to the nature of internet debate or sink with the title. You can comfort yourself that vermin don't do that.

Fraser On Fraser[quote]And first, an apology. I am sorry if people feel my language was a bit strong and upsetting when I wrote on Friday, though it should be clear by now the discussion forums are no place for the faint-hearted.[/quote] Dear me. I am beginning to feel this journalist is losing sight of what it means to be a respected journalist. Perhaps if he had not personalised his reporting, or better still, used a Blogg site to expound his personal views, he would not receive personal views in reponse. It's self-perpetuating and self-induced. The reporter accuses some of unwarranted aggression, gets a similar sharp response, then retaliates, "Look, I was right. They're anti-democratic and potentially violent." This is niaive, egocentric stuff. Do you think the journalist will avoid using bloggs in the future and get on with reporting the news rather than making it? I guess not. Everybody wants to be a celebrity. Sigh.

as i have said on other threads, i am a conservative with nationalist leanings, perhaps to independence, but open to ideas. i think mr fraser actually does a pretty good balancing job, although of course i do not always agree with him. that he hold's these views, and is honest enough to give his opinion, is within the paper's prerogative. [bold]they pay him, not us.[/bold] that there is not a specifically scottish homegrown paper with my politics in scotland is something i have accepted. we can debate here, and if done with humour and sarcasm rather than in a malevolently demonic fashion then debate levels can be raised. one can criticise below the plimsoll line without resorting to the literal equivalent of the glesga' kiss. karin, who has passion in abundance, please take note. i read many political views i do not agree with, and then make my own opinion, rationally if i can. and mr fraser has on occasions taken the time to write to me personally with explanations on why he came to certain conclusions, which are private comments when i have had very specific questions, which i have appreciated. final comment, if you treat others the way you wish and expect to be treated, you may be pleasantly surprised at the outcome. that is why whilst AM2 is not my cup of tea politically, he has a level of class, intellect and decency that others could learn from.

[quote]... and I'm told by a colleague that someone has me down this morning as "lower than a snake's belly". That's a top insult.[/quote] Douglas it would be for the best if your colleagues could differentiate between hate and anger. The description was born from the latter and it's unfair to group it with some of the hate filled descriptions you've had. Especially as that person was one of the few to defend you in your last blog. As it happens that was the first article which I've felt the need to comment on the quality of it as more than a passing word or two - I'm sorry but it was an truly awful piece! As I commented there, it was so slanted it was lying down. [quote]It is telling that the two blogs since last May that have received by far the most response have been about the nature of the "debate" taking place on here.[/quote] Yeah, it tells us that most of your blogs aren't worth commenting on! Hahaha, oh dear only kidding. You walked into it though. By the way you didn't mention how the restyling is going - can we expect a comic relief special? Do it for charity mate (in an aussie accent). [quote]Two themes seem to emerge. ...[/quote] Well, I stuck my neck out last time and survived with most bits intact. I know now that it wont be the ciggarettes that kill me. And may I say this [italic]doesn't[/italic] apply to most people (I may, I just did). I wish people would ask themselves which is more important, their own online image or the future of Scotland. Or whether they are coming across as a pubescent child on a rant or a (reasonably) balanced adult. Whether what they post would be inviting to someone considering support of the SNP, or turn them away altogether. Unionists support the status quo and hence do not need to gather support from the electorate, nationalists do and should ignore the temptation to get dirty in the same mud when it comes to insult time (surely that's what family is for anyway). When I supported Labour (I feel dirty) I was disenchanted with them for years. Couldn't stand Blair and his ridiculous grin as he'd tell us how his murdering spree was going - it could turn a buddhist monk to acts of violence. But I didn't have another party to support. Not voting tory needs no explanation, I forget the Lib Dems exist most of the time and the sterotypical (as protrayed by their opposition) SNP voter is not someone I'd invite round for tea and sticky buns. Abuse from SNP supporters on sites like this just seemed to confirm what I'd heard. Ultimately it was during a conversation with someone that I realised I was ashamed of belonging to the UK (a dig at the actions of Westminster and how they were spending our money, not England or English or Wales or Welsh or Norther Ireland or Northern Irish), Blair and his warcrime henchmen had done this. Anyway, it was Labour's extreme change in direction and their actions that pushed me to remove my Labour blinkers and lift the SNP covers to see that (as is so often the case) the stereotypical description is the worst fitting. The extremist rabble making SNP "supporters" were making Labours job of retaining the electorate easier. Finally, feeding the stereotypical view of SNP supporters attracts yobs to feed that view even further. That is SNP's biggest hurdle, we are our most effective opposition. Let's not also make us our own downfall. Sorry for the long boring post which I'm told people don't read. I don't want to get into replying to everyone that addressed me like last time because I just repeated myself over and over and it made boring posts even more boring, even more boring for boring old me (I hear the cheers already)! Plus I'm going out today for the first time in months - I'm agoraphobic - so repeated taunts will only make the poster look sillier. I'm looking forward to seeing the hover cars and little green men I've heard so much about, how exciting. I shall be thinking of you all as I tuck into my warmcream cube. Again, for belts bracers garters and purple chastity y-fronts everywhere, the above isn't aimed at everyone so don't take it to mean you if you don't fit the crime.

Celtic Lion really sorry to hear about the agrophobia. Thats a really difficult thing to deal with. Well done you for going out. Have to say I also used to vote labour dont know if i could call it support. It was more of a what option do i have what with beleiving all the press coverage about the snp. (i feel dirty as you said). The war in iraq was the last straw for me. I dont care how many papers said it was about freedom it wasnt it was the oil. Even when i voted labour i deluded myself that they wanted the best for scotland. I now know how wrong i was. Douglas may go on about convincing people. I dont want to convince anyone people vote for who they beleive is right. I support the snp i used to be a labour voter. So does that make me vermin when i voted labour or just when i started supporting the snp. I am sure douglas is a very nice man however hes not honest about his politics same goes for most of the journalists in scotland. Why i dont know. Myabe hes like you say celtic lion wearing labour blinkers. I dont know why he feels the urge to hide his labour supporting maybe he feels dirty too. Because he has certainly never proudly declared it. I say i support the snp with pride. Douglas has a responsibility to tell people the truth he is in a position of power over people and not everyone can see that he is writing from a labour supporting perspective. If he wont speak up to make that clear to people who dont know that. then who will. The snp are truly the party that want the best for scotland they have shown that time and time again. Look at nicola sturgeon, four hours to sort out a poor womans problem when nicol stephen raises it. four hours. How many times have you been to a labour mp or msp and they do that. me. never. Everytime you write to the snp or email them they write back. They actually listen to what you say. The people of scotland matter to them. I voted labour in the past because of their former socialist principles i beleived wrongly as it happens that they cared about people. I now see that all they cared about was being an msp or an mp. They dont actually care about the people in scotland the snp does. Douglas does not need to agree about independence its his choice. What douglas should care about however is reporting the facts about independence and giving people the information to make their own minds up. Like the people who dont come online they deserve the facts not the spin. Good or bad facts. The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They should do an article on what happens when a country becomes independent. The good and the bad. There are so many people out there who want to know exactly what it means for them but cant access the information for whatever reason. I have read everything i can on it and i am more convinced rather than less with everything i read. From the mccrone report to the adam smith institute to the heralds own peice on the economics. Celtic lion i should be able to pick up a newspaper and see political facts. If its opinion im getting that should be clearly stated otherwise its a lie by ommision. i hope you have a nice day.

redc;liffe62 You said the paper pays him not us thats where you partly right and party wrong. have you never heard the saying the customer is always right. Thats what we are the customers. The paper may pay his wages but ultimately we are the people that buy the paper or generate the advertising revenue on the site with our posts and clicks. You mentioned passion actually my problem is i am addicted to biased reporting it all started off with the bunty. I just used to do it once a week. I didnt see any harm in it back then. Gradually i started buying local papers they were a bit more than i was used to but i thought its only news wheres the harm. next thing you know i was buying the daily record (oh the shame). I didnt realise the damage i was doing to myself. Before I knew it i had a full blown addiction to bias. I would get my bias anywhere i could one day it would be the daily express the next the sunday mail. I would pick up my biased newspapers from dodgy looking blokes on street corners and even sometimes got it free at railway stations i didnt realise they were giving it free to suck me in. once to my eternal shame and mortification i even indulged in a bit of the sun. (i know that was my worst point i was down low) however my bias of choice when i could afford it was the herald the bias was just so much more pure so it seemed you see. I freely admit to having fallen off the wagon numerous times and indulged in the times. revelled in it even. You see i cant help it the bias is everywhere. i cant go out without seeing it staring at me, calling me. I admit it. im ashamed, im addicted to biased reporting im at my lowest point there is no hope for me. Take heed from my warning dont go the way i have. Dont ever pick up a newspaper if you dont want to become addicted to biased reporting. Get yourself into rehab and stick to the internet. Suddenly everything is now clear for the first time in years. I can see the biased reporting and my addiction to it was at the root of my problems. So redc;liffe62 you see by buying their paper your just getting sucked into the addiction to biased reporting. psst any of your kids want to buy a teletubbies comic.

Everytime that one of you diehard inner circle Labour Activists is exposed as being full of venomous attacks on the people who are in fact your fellow countrymen/women. You will now be permanently remembered as the first Neo Unionist media members who have been outed in the rebirth of our Nation of Scotland. Yes Douglas your comfy little position as a mouthpiece of the Union will soon be over. You will be there to join in the celebrations of Independance or if , as your obvious disdain for anything Scottish states, you will be living in some semi detached area of London proclaiming that Brittania still rules the Waves. You sad little man.

Douglas The flaw in your argument is that you present the issue of internet abuse as being the sole remit of nationalists, or that is what comes across. And this is clearly not the case. There are equal measures of unpleasant and uncivil comments on the boards from unionists, if we are to explore the matter in those terms. And that should be no surprise. It may be that you do not see so many unpleasant responses to your posts from unionists. That may be explained (possibily) by the perception that some of your articles are more appealling to unionists than nationalists. However, I would encourage you, if you are concerned by these matters, to explore the responses to other stories, especially those stories that comment positively on the Scottish Government or the SNP, and I think you will find much more abusive behaviour from the unionist camp. Amazingly, you will stil find parallels between the SNP and fascism (betraying deep misunderstaindings of the various types of "nationalism"), and many other insults, and even threats. If this type of behaviour was only perpetuated by nationalists, then you could have an argument that you were provoking discussion on the matter by giving the perpetrators a taste of their own mediciine. However, this is not the case. This type of behaviour is commonly witnessed from unionists as well. And by repeating that behaviour yourself, you simply bought into it and perpetuated the problem.

Douglas, the real issue here is that if Scottish newspapers were to publish balanced articles which gave people honest opinions on the subject matter , people of all persuasions could make up their minds. What appears to have happened over the previous months is that the Scottish papers just publish Labour Party fed releases , no investigative journalism ( with one or two exceptions on Sunday Herald ) publish and any old tittle tattle about the SNP which is subsequently shown to be rubbish on most occasions. So perhaps people are getting more and more cynical re the fact that the truth is being hidden and journalists are part of this. Overall this does not excuse some of the comments from all sides of the arguements but you should be big enough to take critism otherwise you should not be in the job.

Perhaps people would be nicer to you if you weren't so blatantly biased towards labour, constantly peddling the labour line and lies is not going to win you any admirers. Perhaps you should take a leaf out of paul hutcheon and iain macwhirter's book and actually be an objective observer.

Well Douglas, This latest venting of your spleen has put the tin lid on it for me. Your colours nailed firmly to the mast, show a horse of a different colour. Are those enough metaphors to keep me going ? You really show a deep contempt for readers of the paper which employs you. To say that it is aimed at a few ne'er do wells is bunkum sir. I for one have never abused you, I have vehemently disagreed with you and have been less than complimentary towards your obvious political bias, yet I feel as if I am being slighted and categorised as. ' vermin' because I hold a differing opinion to yours. I deeply resent the ' braveheart ' metaphor and the "cow'rin' tim'rous beasties" jibe. I will meet you anywhere and any time to have a civilised and hopefully pleasant discourse regarding Scotland's future if you so desire, thereby doing away with your phobia of the " cloak of anonymity ". It is a bit rich coming from you to imply that because your picture is on the byline that you are an open fighter for truth and justice whose only shield against the creeping scurrying vermin is his journalistic integrity. You are as sheltered as the rest of us using this medium. I will send you my picture if you like along with my address ( you won't like it! ) if it makes you feel better. I don't actually believe that your comments are aimed at me personally, but the scatter gun approach makes some of us feel tainted. There is no doubt a loony fringe abroad, but that applies equally to labour as well as the lib dems and the SNP, you however choose to cite only those of a nationalist persuasion for special treatment. A sense of fairness and less shooting from the hip will engender the required responses Douglas, not sneering away from your well protected ivory tower about ' cybergnats ', it just makes you seem petty and rather timid.

I'm confused, first of all he apologises for the strong language (graciously accepted), then he says the words were not aimed at everyone, then he says that his words were aimed at drawing out those people that recognised themselves in that description ie as vermin. So as I was ''drawn out'' am I a dirty rat or not ? Karin you do bang on a bit hen, but fundamentally you are right. We are the Heralds customers and they ignore us at their peril.

Well, again he refuses to address the substantive points raised by the majority of posters. Points that questioned, with good reason, his and the Scottish Media's objectivity (Hutcheon and MacWhirter excepted). His most recent article on the woes of Alexander appeared to deliberately confuse the donations over 530 with the illegal donation again refusing to menmtion the falsifying of the source. In fact he was plainly wrong on one point regarding who answered Alexanders rigidly set question. Why would a so called journalist do this? Why would any journalist also completely ignore the fact that the time limit for declaring the donations had already expired before Alexander posed the strangely worded question? Like AM2, Fraser focusses on those abusive posts that we continually see from obvious trolls on either side. However, Scottish journalism has systematically failed to scrutinise fairly and has itself become the target of scrutiny.

I am a believer in Scottish self-government, though I refuse to be defined as a Nationalist as that particular word has now become an insult to be bandied around at will. First of all, when the comments section first appeared in the Herald and the Scotsman I welcomed it with open arms - here was a chance for the pent-up frustration of Scotland to be heard on the very web pages its aspirations were all-too often trashed. For a time the debate was elegant and controlled, as the articulacy and rationale behind the self-government cause was advocated widely and thoughtfully. There was simply no-one doing the same for Labour - they seemed to have little popular support. And for the purposes of energised debate, that's sad as it indicates that Labour relies on the apathetic for support. So in an internet discussion board, how do you get attention if you are swimming against a tide of consensus? You troll. You wind others up. You ridicule and you taunt. The Herald forum was essentially destroyed by a Labour troll by the name of Braveheart - it became so tedious I and thousands of others simply didn't go back. There are a few Labour posters, notably AM2 - they used to be easier to spot over at the Hootsmon as registration was required - who post tripe and sadly, many SNP supporters allowed themselves to be drawn into it - it became ever-more shrill as last May approached and after a while it simply dissolved into an arena of personal invective and bile. That's sad, though registration and more active monitoring should sort it out. As for you Douglas - I would advise you and all other Herald hacks to get over yourself. You are one of only a couple of Scots hacks reporting on the Scottish body politic in a Scots paper. The insults and invective spread by the so-called vermin here are as nothing compared to that displayed over at POPBITCH, for which I cannot believe that any self-respecting journo in the UK does not have a log-in. At least here at the Herald's message boards nobody makes jokes about Madeleine McCann or the Ian Huntly killings for months on end. Nobody posts 'ironic' racist or ableist bile without being shouted down. Of course, no-one takes popbitch seriously as it's the internet equivalent of a well-oiled pub conversation and as such sensitivity has to be left at the link marked 'enter'. The Herald's message boards are something similar. To draw comparisons between those who display febrile frustration from a keyboard with a print media that in no way reflects how people in Scotland feel, and terrorists is frankly, vile. Does it ever occur to you exactly why this frustration is aired? I can name a number of Tory-supporting hacks who can air their views in print and many (including yourself) who enjoy that privilege whilst supporting Labour. I can't think of one who does so from an SNP perspective. If you want to increase readership of your ailing titles and at the same time temper the bilious comments, perhaps it's time Scotland had something approaching a representative press.

Good post Oskar.

karin, passion with purpose! i like the meanderings, i can relate to reading the sun as a teenager, but i never got past page 3. unless you agree with someone's position then inherently what they say is biased, at least to you. you are clever enough to work out right from wrong, as you state so eloquently above here. the anally retentive ramblings that are found on many sites, said with malevolent viciousness rather than with style and analysis is the key issue for me. fraser is right when he adds these inept comments put people off trying to carry out rational discussion. just calling someone a [bold]******[/bold] or saying wendy off to the prison hehehe may let some steam out, but it adds little to the quality of the argument. with regard the analogy that the customer is always right, that is quaint, romantic even, but wrong in the business world these days. the shareholders and their representatives are right, and even if they are not they are still right. the crelevant ompany message is the one the sales team for any company have to spout. Even if it is an inferior product, it is pitched as if it has merit. in a country like scotland there cannot be many homegrown papers, and rather likle the republicans in the usa, you picked the least worst to follow. support is soft, but a vote is a vote, a reader is a reader, even if they would have preferred another option they believed fully in. digressing, it is interesting that mccain is polling only 4% in utah, who says people in the usa do not vote based on their religious beliefs! and if the reverse with christians is considered just as likely, albeit under the radar, as a secret issue, then had romney been a NORMAL christian based on the above figures then he would be polling 70% as the rest are not up to scratch. this issue is not overly mentioned, merely touched upon, and likewise many issues in the herald are not mentioned as much as you would like because it does not fit in with what it is perceived in their organisation that it should be covered in the media. can you see where the above may have relevance to the herald?

observer i dont want to be right but. I want to be completely wrong. I would have had the papers prove with facts figures number and research that they are not biased. That they dont just worry about their cirulation figures. I wanted to know that someone somewhere was standing up for us the little people who dont have any ifluence other than our pennies for the paper. I wanted to know that all the time i thought the papers were investigating and getting to the truth, unraveling the lies and the spin being a champion when we needed a champion giving us a voice when we had none To know those who questioned the powers that be did it with fair mind and even greater heart and laid aside their thoughts and bias to serve us and help us their readers that they werent westminster's whores bought for an increase in circulaion and the lastest government scoop I wanted to know that they were the knight in shining armour to the westminster dragon saving the little people from being chewed up and spat out. I wanted to beleive that someone somewhere in a newspaper office would not let us down when we needed them most I wanted to beleive that at least one of them cared enough about us the little people to not be bought. I wanted to beleive that the papers served truth and truth was their only master. Not government not poltical parties not money not influence not themselves nor their ego or opinion truth.

Drum well banged, Oskar!

PS please don't shout Oskar!

observer i dont want to be right but. I want to be completely wrong. I would have had the papers prove with facts figures number and research that they are not biased. That they dont just worry about their cirulation figures. I wanted to know that someone somewhere was standing up for us the little people who dont have any ifluence other than our pennies for the paper. I wanted to know that all the time i thought the papers were investigating and getting to the truth, unraveling the lies and the spin being a champion when we needed a champion giving us a voice when we had none To know those who questioned the powers that be did it with fair mind and even greater heart and laid aside their thoughts and bias to serve us and help us their readers that they werent westminster's whores bought for an increase in circulaion and the lastest government scoop I wanted to know that they were the knight in shining armour to the westminster dragon saving the little people from being chewed up and spat out. I wanted to beleive that someone somewhere in a newspaper office would not let us down when we needed them most I wanted to beleive that at least one of them cared enough about us the little people to not be bought. I wanted to beleive that the papers served truth and truth was their only master. Not government not poltical parties not money not influence not themselves nor their ego or opinion truth.

DF - how big of you. Toys right out the pram. Your efforts receive a lot of negative comments because you attempt to hide the truth .You are proving day in and day out that you are a total hack and as many have pointed out, the herald deserves better than you. How can someone who so blatantly obfuscates the truth call themselves a decent journalist? Many of us are not happy living in a country where the majority of our journalists are afraid of the truth. If indeed, you are a labour voter and a unionist, you would do better to expose their scandals and corruption if you want to sort them out for the better of the people of Scotland. To refuse to do this suggests you are utterly incompetent and unable to grasp the bigger picture. Your sincerely, Internet Vermin Ps the longer you keep your head in the sand, the more likely your boss will come up behind you and boot your big elbow.

Douglas, among the internet vermin, the word about people like you goes about quickly: don't answer, you only encourage them. I really shouldn't break the rule, but once and once only, let me explain: your audience are not idiots - however much you might wish them to be, however urgently you might require them to be, however successfully in the past you might have treated them as such. And please put away your faux liberal sensibilities, it really is too sickening. We hear nothing from you about the mounting dead in Iraq. You are silent on Afghanistan. The bombing (what?) of Yugoslavia (where?) never happened. These continuing atrocities are Labour Party projects, and there is an arm of their organisation in Scotland. Try to excuse us a little anger.

Douglas What on earth do you expect from an anonymous Internet forum? Are you niaive or what? Discussion boards like these allow people a chance to vent off in a way never before allowed and, for that, the Herald (amongst others) is to be praised. Day in, day out, we see the truth being manipulated by the very people who are meant to be serving us up the truth, or at least something approximating it. Daily, you use pejorative terms for the SNP and you praise the labour Party, a party which we see has many failings and has ill served Scotland for many years. For goodness sake, Douglas, look around the Glasgow constituencies served by Labour MPs and MSPs and tell me you are proud of what you see. This once proud party has been reduced to waging illegal wars in cahoots with a neo conservative American government with the result of tens of thousands Iraqi dead and several thousand Allied troops, not to mention the destruction of Iraq and family structures for decades to come. Nuclear weapons are the weapon of choice for Labour and Labour MPs fall over themselves to sell weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Burma and Libya. Labour inveigle themselves in cash for honours, cash for questions and cash for anything you can think of. They have truly sold their soul. And you get **** off because some 'Bravehearts' use naughty words on your Labour friendly blog. The new SNP government, while not perfect, is one of the best things that has happened to Scotland for a very long time. Its about time that the press reflected that. PS I will e-mail you my full name and address so you can pop round for a meal and meet my English wife.

Well Done Douglas, I used to enjoy a good decent debate on either The Herald, or The Scotsman web forums. Until the inane, insane, inept or inert flooded them. AOL had a very good advert posing the question "Is the internet a good thing? With all the perverts, sex sites, flaming, abuse and as you put it poisonous anonymous abusive vermin about, the question has yet to be answered. The internet is an amazing thing. But it is far from universally good. Douglas, I think that you struck the right note. Incisive journalism, and in spite of a lot of personal abuse hurled your way by people who have no courage of their convictions and hide behind anonymity. For the record, and for the polarised poisonous factions, I am an ex Labour voter that voted SNP last time around. Alex Salmond has smartened up the SNP using intelligent debate. I have no doubt that was what won him the position of First Minister. He is by far the best statesman Scotland has just now. When the worst elements of CyberLabs and CyberNats get that message they may start to win votes than lose them. One thing is certainly for sure. The First Minister and governing party are in on a whisper of a margin. Cyber posters need to smarten up their own acts, whatever party they represent, otherwise it will be a case of losing the election that could have been won.