TO QUOTE ‘Allo ‘Allo! for the first and last time in this blog, I will say this only once.
There are political journalists on the Scottish scene who carry a Labour Party card or have done so in the recent past. I’m not going to name names — it’s a free country and a matter for them — but I can say this with some certainty; Douglas Fraser isn’t one of them.
Is that clear enough? As for my other Holyrood colleague, Kevin Schofield, he simply goes after stories with no pre-set agenda. He was, after all, the reporter who broke the whole Paul Green illegal donation story. How does that make him a Unionist stooge? Or why are we collectively “crypto-facists” (sic) as the astoundingly bitter Ronald of Glasgow would have it.
Why is it that our readers, in particular our cyber-readers, assume a conspiracy every time a story is written? There is an assumption about who is allocated stories, when sometimes it is about who’s on day off or out of town or working on another story.
Or the prominence of stories. Always there is an assumption that our editor, or our comment editor Alf Young (who has never denied past party allegiance), or some other conspiracy-driven group decide where every story will go, purely on some Nat-Lab formula.
Then there’s the question of how we construct stories. Yes, it is a subjective process. But once a story has arms and legs and all sides are commenting on it, such as the rows over Trump or Aviemore, we can’t just ignore it. I’ve said this before. It’s not our job to airbrush events from history. Valid questions were raised. Concern about the way the new ministerial team is handling planning issues is a genuine issue, not just some kind of presumed smokescreen to cover Labour’s difficulties.
Take yesterday as a case in point. The Daily Telegraph splashed a story about the Aviemore development. Admittedly you had to turn from the front to page 14 to be told that the recently-retired Sepa chairman Sir Kenneth Collins was in fact the same old Ken Collins who was Labour MEP for 20 years and a Strathclyde councillor before that.
He was also completely rebutted by the Sepa chief executive, who continued to deny that the agency had been put under any inappropriate ministerial pressure. So, on balance, we decided not to do a follow-up.
We also tried, as we have done every working day for more than two months, to see if there was anything we could usefully add today to the saga regarding the Electoral Commission’s leisurely pursuit of Ms Alexander, which may or may not be coming to a head this week. No obvious story emerged from these checks.
Please, please, don’t see everything through that weird 2am cyber-prism. Don’t believe everything that other threads aver as “facts”. Try not to make assumptions about where writers are coming from. We’re trying to do a decent job under considerable pressure. Don’t continually slag The Herald on The Herald website. If you hate us that much go and colonise some other bit of cyberspace.
Clare of Lanarkshire; you and I have had reasonable exchanges in the past. Calling my colleague lower than a snake’s belly was not impressive. You’re better than that. In a direct answer to one of your questions, The Herald did name only two MSPs offering unsolicited praise for Wendy last week, Cathy Jamieson and Jackie Baillie. But we now know second-hand of other such calls and these included Iain Gray, Andy Kerr and Michael McMahon, and Margaret Curran.
_________________________________________________
And finally, as they say, the inestimable midnight poster Wardog of Buckie asked recently whether I was personally in favour of Scottish independence. The answer is yes. Is that clear enough?
Partly it’s human; I like the concept of not being dependent, of collectively taking our place in the international community in our own right. Partly it’s journalistic; what a great story to cover!
But I do not consider myself a Nationalist. Indeed I am queasy about many manifestations of nationalism (look at the US with a flag in every public building and on every lapel), and I have always preferred the argument about the English-Scottish relationship changing from surly tenant to good neighbour.
On balance I think Scotland would be a more interesting place if it ran its own affairs in their entirety. It always strikes me as odd that a whole tranche of Labour politicians in Scotland support independence for Ireland but reject the concept here.
But be warned. If anyone is putting me off at present it's not the Conservative and Unionists, or Labour, or even the LibDems. It’s the pure venom of some CyberNats. Sometimes I read these midnight posts and find myself agreeing with the Labour spin doctor who spoke of a narrow, racist country.
Well said
But clearly you have been got at by labour's mind controllers. Please report to cyber-trash HQ at 1am tonight for you tin foil hat. Then and only then can you protect yourself from the self hating unionists who want to ban tartan and haggis.
Well said
But clearly you have been got at by labour's mind controllers. Please report to cyber-trash HQ at 1am tonight for you tin foil hat. Then and only then can you protect yourself from the self hating unionists who want to ban tartan and haggis.
" Always there is an assumption that our editor, or our comment editor Alf Young (who has never denied past party allegiance)
PAST party allegiance!!!!!!
Very interesting blog , especially the bit about letting anonymous internet comments influence how you might vote (note to Unionists, all you have to do is become an exreme version of a cyber Nat, post inane rantings about your hatred of the Union and all it's works and voila, you'll have persuaded another intelligent person away from the dark forces of independence.)
Now admit it Robbie, you haven't thought this through have you?
" Always there is an assumption that our editor, or our comment editor Alf Young (who has never denied past party allegiance)
PAST party allegiance!!!!!!
Very interesting blog , especially the bit about letting anonymous internet comments influence how you might vote (note to Unionists, all you have to do is become an exreme version of a cyber Nat, post inane rantings about your hatred of the Union and all it's works and voila, you'll have persuaded another intelligent person away from the dark forces of independence.)
Now admit it Robbie, you haven't thought this through have you?
Look at the Herald's coverage of the Free Personal Care issue when it broke, and then the continual coverage of the ring fencing issue that seemed to go on for days. I'm sorry but these stories read like a Labour party press releases - it was scaremongering. it was not put into context. Douglas is the political editor, he carries the can. Feel free to tell me where I am wrong.
Look at the Herald's coverage of the Free Personal Care issue when it broke, and then the continual coverage of the ring fencing issue that seemed to go on for days. I'm sorry but these stories read like a Labour party press releases - it was scaremongering. it was not put into context. Douglas is the political editor, he carries the can. Feel free to tell me where I am wrong.
A Journalist's Critique on Journalism, by Peter Wilby:
[italic]In his Cudlipp memorial lecture last week, the former Downing Street spin doctor Alastair Campbell analysed the failings of the media. He did so with wit and precision. He pinpointed the media's failure to distinguish between speculation and information or between the important and the trivial; the incestuous way in which TV, radio and newspapers re-tell each other's stories, without further verification; the focus on getting the story first rather than getting it right; "the language of extremes" in which most news is framed; the habit of reporting ministerial speeches and official reports before they were delivered.
It was hard to disagree with any of it, but Campbell was not the man to make the critique. Indeed, some members of the audience clearly thought he had a brass neck. As political editor of the Daily Mirror, he was little more than a propagandist for Neil Kinnock, then the Labour leader. When he worked for Tony Blair, he turned the aide's legitimate role of getting the best possible press for his employer into a high art of media manipulation.
Campbell hugely extended the practice of trailing government announcements in advance, leaking them only partially so that they were reported in terms that suited his masters. And there have been few better examples of "the language of extremes" than the notorious claim - almost universally accepted by the media at the time - that Saddam could blow us all off the planet within 45 minutes.
Campbell is (or was) part of the disease, and that is true in a more profound sense than is usually understood. The focus is always on journalism; it should be at least as much on public relations, the industry that Campbell temporarily joined when he worked for Blair.
Most journalists at least aspire to some version of the truth. Public relations, at best, aspires to a partial truth and, at worst, to outright fabrication. Over the past three decades, it has become infinitely more powerful, and not only in government. Today, nobody in the public eye - from a Z-list celebrity to a couple who have lost a child, from the prime minister to a district council chief executive - is without a PR to mediate their relations with journalists and the public. In 1979, barely a quarter of top companies used PR agencies, now nearly all of them do. The growth in government PR, and particularly ministerial spin doctors, is well documented. Campbell referred to the pressures "to shout louder and louder to get noticed".
But it's not just the journalists doing the shouting. It's the PRs and the spin doctors too. Campbell was one of the loudest shouters of all, sometimes literally. In other words, Campbell told only half the story about what's wrong with the media. If you want the whole story, read a new book, Flat Earth News, by the investigative journalist Nick Davies (who also writes on the Guardian Comment page today).
The main reason why you read so little decent journalism, he argues, is simple: hacks don't have time to do it. In 20 years, the amount of space they have to fill on national papers has trebled. But staffing levels are, if anything, slightly lower. The position is worse on local papers, where journalists sometimes write 10 stories a day. A swollen public relations industry has filled the gap, issuing press releases, organising conferences and offering briefings that set the agenda.
At least half the news in papers is generated not by journalists, but by PRs or spin doctors, and very little is subject to serious critical scrutiny. Davies is right to compare the modern newsroom to a factory production line and to say that most reporters practise "churnalism", not journalism. Some of the raw material that goes into the churn is genuine news. But much of it is pure PR hokum: a new government "initiative" (nearly always an old initiative rebranded), a bid for a star football player, a possible company takeover, a pressure group claim about the effects of migration, a popular singer's exciting visit to a nightclub, a lifestyle survey that has had no acquaintance with random sampling or statistical testing, a "wonder drug" for backache.
Sometimes, as Davies's example of the millennium computer bug shows, a completely false story can run for years. When I edited the Independent on Sunday, I was offered what (I think) would have been the first story about the bug in a British newspaper. It seemed to me so obviously implausible - and so clearly convenient for those trying to sell new computers - that I refused to print it, despite repeated pleas from the newsdesk. Yet though I never doubted I was right, I later regretted my decision. I had spurned the opportunity to be first with the biggest story of the late 1990s. That it wasn't true was beside the point.
Davies overstates his case. For example, the internet, email and mobile phones have all made information and contacts more easily accessible. It isn't, therefore, unreasonable to expect journalists to fill more space. Time spent "cultivating contacts" was, in any case, often time spent on overlong, overliquid lunches. But experience also tells me his argument is fundamentally sound.
As Sunday Times education correspondent in 1980, I was allowed to spend four weeks touring schools in America, just to enhance my background knowledge. There was no requirement to find and write more than a couple of stories, and I was told not to file any while I was there. Such indulgence is inconceivable now. On the other side of the coin, I could ring almost any local authority education officer or university vice-chancellor, confident of talking to them personally; now I would be bounced off to a press officer.
As an explanation of why most news outlets reflect the worldview of the rich and powerful, fewer journalists producing more copy, plus more PRs offering more instant "stories", sounds banal. But it is more significant than the conspiratorial pressures from owners and advertisers that most outsiders claim to detect. PR, far more than journalism, shapes the news agenda. And governments, big companies, well-funded pressure groups and wealthy individuals can afford more and better PR than anybody else.
Can anything be done about this state of affairs? Alas, both Campbell and Davies are stronger on diagnosis than cure. "I fear the illness is terminal," Davies concludes. "I don't care if this speech gets any media coverage or not," Campbell told his audience.
But let me make one tentative suggestion. The Northern Rock debacle has led to proposals for "narrow banking", whereby some banks would just look after your money for modest rates of interest without doing anything fancy or risky with it. Perhaps somebody could start a paper that carries only "narrow news". Every statement would be rigorously checked and attributed to named sources. Its journalists would never speak to PRs and use press releases only if they could corroborate the contents from other sources. Editors would apply some kind of test to distinguish the important from the trivial.
Even as I describe it, I realise this narrow newspaper would be utterly weird. But it would be quite different from anything else available and, who knows, there might just be a market for it.[/italic]
Lets be truthful Robbie you and your colleagues in the Scottish media have indulged in Press Release journalism for so long you have lost the ability to see what you have become.
Why not join Tesco's and do a real job for a change.
A Journalist's Critique on Journalism, by Peter Wilby:
In his Cudlipp memorial lecture last week, the former Downing Street spin doctor Alastair Campbell analysed the failings of the media. He did so with wit and precision. He pinpointed the media's failure to distinguish between speculation and information or between the important and the trivial; the incestuous way in which TV, radio and newspapers re-tell each other's stories, without further verification; the focus on getting the story first rather than getting it right; "the language of extremes" in which most news is framed; the habit of reporting ministerial speeches and official reports before they were delivered.
It was hard to disagree with any of it, but Campbell was not the man to make the critique. Indeed, some members of the audience clearly thought he had a brass neck. As political editor of the Daily Mirror, he was little more than a propagandist for Neil Kinnock, then the Labour leader. When he worked for Tony Blair, he turned the aide's legitimate role of getting the best possible press for his employer into a high art of media manipulation.
Campbell hugely extended the practice of trailing government announcements in advance, leaking them only partially so that they were reported in terms that suited his masters. And there have been few better examples of "the language of extremes" than the notorious claim - almost universally accepted by the media at the time - that Saddam could blow us all off the planet within 45 minutes.
Campbell is (or was) part of the disease, and that is true in a more profound sense than is usually understood. The focus is always on journalism; it should be at least as much on public relations, the industry that Campbell temporarily joined when he worked for Blair.
Most journalists at least aspire to some version of the truth. Public relations, at best, aspires to a partial truth and, at worst, to outright fabrication. Over the past three decades, it has become infinitely more powerful, and not only in government. Today, nobody in the public eye - from a Z-list celebrity to a couple who have lost a child, from the prime minister to a district council chief executive - is without a PR to mediate their relations with journalists and the public. In 1979, barely a quarter of top companies used PR agencies, now nearly all of them do. The growth in government PR, and particularly ministerial spin doctors, is well documented. Campbell referred to the pressures "to shout louder and louder to get noticed".
But it's not just the journalists doing the shouting. It's the PRs and the spin doctors too. Campbell was one of the loudest shouters of all, sometimes literally. In other words, Campbell told only half the story about what's wrong with the media. If you want the whole story, read a new book, Flat Earth News, by the investigative journalist Nick Davies (who also writes on the Guardian Comment page today).
The main reason why you read so little decent journalism, he argues, is simple: hacks don't have time to do it. In 20 years, the amount of space they have to fill on national papers has trebled. But staffing levels are, if anything, slightly lower. The position is worse on local papers, where journalists sometimes write 10 stories a day. A swollen public relations industry has filled the gap, issuing press releases, organising conferences and offering briefings that set the agenda.
At least half the news in papers is generated not by journalists, but by PRs or spin doctors, and very little is subject to serious critical scrutiny. Davies is right to compare the modern newsroom to a factory production line and to say that most reporters practise "churnalism", not journalism. Some of the raw material that goes into the churn is genuine news. But much of it is pure PR hokum: a new government "initiative" (nearly always an old initiative rebranded), a bid for a star football player, a possible company takeover, a pressure group claim about the effects of migration, a popular singer's exciting visit to a nightclub, a lifestyle survey that has had no acquaintance with random sampling or statistical testing, a "wonder drug" for backache.
Sometimes, as Davies's example of the millennium computer bug shows, a completely false story can run for years. When I edited the Independent on Sunday, I was offered what (I think) would have been the first story about the bug in a British newspaper. It seemed to me so obviously implausible - and so clearly convenient for those trying to sell new computers - that I refused to print it, despite repeated pleas from the newsdesk. Yet though I never doubted I was right, I later regretted my decision. I had spurned the opportunity to be first with the biggest story of the late 1990s. That it wasn't true was beside the point.
Davies overstates his case. For example, the internet, email and mobile phones have all made information and contacts more easily accessible. It isn't, therefore, unreasonable to expect journalists to fill more space. Time spent "cultivating contacts" was, in any case, often time spent on overlong, overliquid lunches. But experience also tells me his argument is fundamentally sound.
As Sunday Times education correspondent in 1980, I was allowed to spend four weeks touring schools in America, just to enhance my background knowledge. There was no requirement to find and write more than a couple of stories, and I was told not to file any while I was there. Such indulgence is inconceivable now. On the other side of the coin, I could ring almost any local authority education officer or university vice-chancellor, confident of talking to them personally; now I would be bounced off to a press officer.
As an explanation of why most news outlets reflect the worldview of the rich and powerful, fewer journalists producing more copy, plus more PRs offering more instant "stories", sounds banal. But it is more significant than the conspiratorial pressures from owners and advertisers that most outsiders claim to detect. PR, far more than journalism, shapes the news agenda. And governments, big companies, well-funded pressure groups and wealthy individuals can afford more and better PR than anybody else.
Can anything be done about this state of affairs? Alas, both Campbell and Davies are stronger on diagnosis than cure. "I fear the illness is terminal," Davies concludes. "I don't care if this speech gets any media coverage or not," Campbell told his audience.
But let me make one tentative suggestion. The Northern Rock debacle has led to proposals for "narrow banking", whereby some banks would just look after your money for modest rates of interest without doing anything fancy or risky with it. Perhaps somebody could start a paper that carries only "narrow news". Every statement would be rigorously checked and attributed to named sources. Its journalists would never speak to PRs and use press releases only if they could corroborate the contents from other sources. Editors would apply some kind of test to distinguish the important from the trivial.
Even as I describe it, I realise this narrow newspaper would be utterly weird. But it would be quite different from anything else available and, who knows, there might just be a market for it.
Lets be truthful Robbie you and your colleagues in the Scottish media have indulged in Press Release journalism for so long you have lost the ability to see what you have become.
Why not join Tesco's and do a real job for a change.
I appreciate your comments Mr Dinwoodie. Although I'm a supporter of independence I would also like to see the the discussions from the angle of surly tenant to good neighbour. Let's appreciate the emotions become a little heated from all sides but I do think some supporters from all parties use inappropriate language at times.
In my opinion there are many people who do offer sensible and informed opinions/thoughts and as someone who regularly reads the comments, I know what posts to read and what to ignore.
Yes there are times I would criticise a journalist. Why not? But mainly my criticisms are because a story has not been covered rather than content.
Personally I don't think it's anyone's business on these forums to know who is carries a political card. What I can say if I was a member of the SNP (for example) there are policies and ideas with which I strongly disagree at times. Does that make me a supporter of the union? Aye right (as they seem to say nowadays)!
I appreciate your comments Mr Dinwoodie. Although I'm a supporter of independence I would also like to see the the discussions from the angle of surly tenant to good neighbour. Let's appreciate the emotions become a little heated from all sides but I do think some supporters from all parties use inappropriate language at times.
In my opinion there are many people who do offer sensible and informed opinions/thoughts and as someone who regularly reads the comments, I know what posts to read and what to ignore.
Yes there are times I would criticise a journalist. Why not? But mainly my criticisms are because a story has not been covered rather than content.
Personally I don't think it's anyone's business on these forums to know who is carries a political card. What I can say if I was a member of the SNP (for example) there are policies and ideas with which I strongly disagree at times. Does that make me a supporter of the union? Aye right (as they seem to say nowadays)!
Posted by: David Alexander at 11:44am on Wed 6 Feb 08
Robbie
[quote]It’s the pure venom of some CyberNats. Sometimes I read these midnight posts and find myself agreeing with the Labour spin doctor who spoke of a narrow, racist country.[/quote]
I think that you are being a wee bit dishonest here.
This is, if you choose, an anonymous website and there are nasty posts from both sides. Graham from Glasgow posted some of the vilest posts I have seen in a long time last night and he claims to be an ex union man and Labour supporter.
Most of the posts on these sites come from the heart. However, there are provocateurs on both sides who string each other along on and spoil the threads for everyone.
However, although some of the thought processes can be seen as infantile, they are borne as a result of having the ability to joust right back at the perceived unfairness of a comment, something you can't do reading a newspaper or watching the TV.
Heavens, I've read political websites on both sides of the Atlantic and if you think this is bad then you want to open your eyes a little more Robbie.
The banter on here, although rough and ready at times is directly comparable to that which you would hear in many a workplace.
To pin it all on SNP supporters is, I would suggest, unfair.
Finally, if you can't see the bias and pejorative terms which your newspaper, the Scotsman and the BBC display, then I fear for your career as as objective journalist.
PS If you want my full name and address, Douglas has it.
Robbie
It’s the pure venom of some CyberNats. Sometimes I read these midnight posts and find myself agreeing with the Labour spin doctor who spoke of a narrow, racist country.
I think that you are being a wee bit dishonest here.
This is, if you choose, an anonymous website and there are nasty posts from both sides. Graham from Glasgow posted some of the vilest posts I have seen in a long time last night and he claims to be an ex union man and Labour supporter.
Most of the posts on these sites come from the heart. However, there are provocateurs on both sides who string each other along on and spoil the threads for everyone.
However, although some of the thought processes can be seen as infantile, they are borne as a result of having the ability to joust right back at the perceived unfairness of a comment, something you can't do reading a newspaper or watching the TV.
Heavens, I've read political websites on both sides of the Atlantic and if you think this is bad then you want to open your eyes a little more Robbie.
The banter on here, although rough and ready at times is directly comparable to that which you would hear in many a workplace.
To pin it all on SNP supporters is, I would suggest, unfair.
Finally, if you can't see the bias and pejorative terms which your newspaper, the Scotsman and the BBC display, then I fear for your career as as objective journalist.
PS If you want my full name and address, Douglas has it.
Id say a reasonably fair commentary. However, I think its unfair to criticise the CyberNats without some consideration of context that has led us to where we are.
The opposition since May, and the majority of the Scottish Press, have persisted to obstruct, pervert, warp, manipulate, whatever you want to call it; the entire political agenda in Scotland. While I am not defending some of the tripe that appears in article commentaries, is it any less tasteful than some of the underhand manouvreing that has come from the opposition and certain other media organisations?
People who choose to comment, do so from an unpaid (and some would argue uneducated) viewpoint or perspective, but it is not their job to be fair and open. This raw release is the response to the utter nonsense we are subjected to from the current opposition and for a longer period, certain quarters of the media. The very people who are paid to serve this country or are paid to report a balanced and fair picture of Scottish politics cannot complain when the people have the tools to see through the lies and bullsh*t.
Just as some readers would do well to temper their language, attitudes and aggresion in this virtual age, the media would do well to realise that it is ever easier to spot politicking by certain publications. Is it wrong to suggest that if the press and media as a whole started showing some respect to its audience, we'd maybe start seeing some go the other way.
Thankfully, I would clas The Herald above the rest and it is rather unfortunate that it suffers idiots it does not deserve.
Id say a reasonably fair commentary. However, I think its unfair to criticise the CyberNats without some consideration of context that has led us to where we are.
The opposition since May, and the majority of the Scottish Press, have persisted to obstruct, pervert, warp, manipulate, whatever you want to call it; the entire political agenda in Scotland. While I am not defending some of the tripe that appears in article commentaries, is it any less tasteful than some of the underhand manouvreing that has come from the opposition and certain other media organisations?
People who choose to comment, do so from an unpaid (and some would argue uneducated) viewpoint or perspective, but it is not their job to be fair and open. This raw release is the response to the utter nonsense we are subjected to from the current opposition and for a longer period, certain quarters of the media. The very people who are paid to serve this country or are paid to report a balanced and fair picture of Scottish politics cannot complain when the people have the tools to see through the lies and bullsh*t.
Just as some readers would do well to temper their language, attitudes and aggresion in this virtual age, the media would do well to realise that it is ever easier to spot politicking by certain publications. Is it wrong to suggest that if the press and media as a whole started showing some respect to its audience, we'd maybe start seeing some go the other way.
Thankfully, I would clas The Herald above the rest and it is rather unfortunate that it suffers idiots it does not deserve.
Posted by: TheGlaswegian at 12:17pm on Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]But be warned. If anyone is putting me off at present it's not the Conservative and Unionists, or Labour, or even the LibDems. It’s the pure venom of some CyberNats. Sometimes I read these midnight posts and find myself agreeing with the Labour spin doctor who spoke of a narrow, racist country[/quote]
LOL. You would change your whole political outlook becuase anonymous "internet vermin" happen to pick holes in some of the stories that are published here? If you can't accept our comments then don't ask for them.
Both you and your boss ought to take a good long hard look at yourselves as you are both too quick to throw your toys out the pram.
What's next? First you ban comments, then you allow them but go all huffy. What's next? Full censorship?
BTW - what has racism got to with anything? You complain about manners but like your boss, you are more than happy to throw insults.
Wean.
But be warned. If anyone is putting me off at present it's not the Conservative and Unionists, or Labour, or even the LibDems. It’s the pure venom of some CyberNats. Sometimes I read these midnight posts and find myself agreeing with the Labour spin doctor who spoke of a narrow, racist country
LOL. You would change your whole political outlook becuase anonymous "internet vermin" happen to pick holes in some of the stories that are published here? If you can't accept our comments then don't ask for them.
Both you and your boss ought to take a good long hard look at yourselves as you are both too quick to throw your toys out the pram.
What's next? First you ban comments, then you allow them but go all huffy. What's next? Full censorship?
BTW - what has racism got to with anything? You complain about manners but like your boss, you are more than happy to throw insults.
Wean.
Auld Reekie - "Id say a reasonably fair commentary. However, I think its unfair to criticise the CyberNats without some consideration of context that has led us to where we are."
Nearly but no cigar.
In other words you might have a point but the hatred from cyber nats is purely a proportionate response to the conspiring unionist mind controllers.
Tin foil hat time.
Auld Reekie - "Id say a reasonably fair commentary. However, I think its unfair to criticise the CyberNats without some consideration of context that has led us to where we are."
Nearly but no cigar.
In other words you might have a point but the hatred from cyber nats is purely a proportionate response to the conspiring unionist mind controllers.
"Why is it that our readers, in particular our cyber-readers, assume a conspiracy every time a story is written? "
Why do so many of your ex-journos assume it, even before the story is written? You know who I mean.
Anger at the Herald's political output is not confined to the squeakings of the rats beneath the sewer cover. I am quite sure you know that concern is often expressed by many journalists, including ex-Herald staff. I know the problems are complex and it's fair to mention the pressures you must work under: the printed media are sailing choppy waters right now.
While I accept that every newspaper is entitled to an editorial stance, it is risky to antagonise a large section of your readership when your pursuit of this preference seems a good deal less than objective. My personal issue with Douglas Fraser began some weeks ago when he produced a column which simply threw punches at the SNP. It was otherwise content free. He got upset on that occasion because I called him a fool: I must have been in one of my more charitable moods. I'm happy to accept your assurance that he is not in the Labour Party - the Labour folk I know usually attempt something a little more substantive when they argue with me. Still, that leaves me wondering what his problem is. Was it just a bad day? Shouldn't someone have read it, and pointed out the reaction it would be likely to produce? If it had been penned by some flunkey it might have been forgotten, but this vapouring was from the Political Editor. It was a very regrettable error.
I have about the same relationship with the Glasgow Herald (wish you'd go back to the old name) as I have with Glasgow: I know there's a lot wrong with it, but I like it anyway and wouldn't want anything to happen to it. Please help Douglas to recognise that there is a difference between stirring up debate and antagonising his readers by treating them as fools.
"But I do not consider myself a Nationalist."
I don't like the word either, so consider yourself a separatist - that's what I do. Look up the word 'nationalist' in the dictionary, as many dictionaries as you like, and you will find it has broadly three meanings, two of them positive, one negative. Hitler was a nationalist. So was Gandhi. That's the negative and the positive - an example of the third type might be someone like the late Norman Buchan, MP - a cultural nationalist. It's not a useful word in politics, tending to be used only for the nationalisms the writer disapproves of (which are all but his own, usually).
Unionists have tried to mould 'separatist' into a pejorative term, but it's worth liberating. It has the merit of being explanatory, and doesn't have nationalism's connotation of death camps, which George Robertson was so fond of slyly pointing.
Finally, I look forward to reading your report on the arrival of independence.
"Why is it that our readers, in particular our cyber-readers, assume a conspiracy every time a story is written? "
Why do so many of your ex-journos assume it, even before the story is written? You know who I mean.
Anger at the Herald's political output is not confined to the squeakings of the rats beneath the sewer cover. I am quite sure you know that concern is often expressed by many journalists, including ex-Herald staff. I know the problems are complex and it's fair to mention the pressures you must work under: the printed media are sailing choppy waters right now.
While I accept that every newspaper is entitled to an editorial stance, it is risky to antagonise a large section of your readership when your pursuit of this preference seems a good deal less than objective. My personal issue with Douglas Fraser began some weeks ago when he produced a column which simply threw punches at the SNP. It was otherwise content free. He got upset on that occasion because I called him a fool: I must have been in one of my more charitable moods. I'm happy to accept your assurance that he is not in the Labour Party - the Labour folk I know usually attempt something a little more substantive when they argue with me. Still, that leaves me wondering what his problem is. Was it just a bad day? Shouldn't someone have read it, and pointed out the reaction it would be likely to produce? If it had been penned by some flunkey it might have been forgotten, but this vapouring was from the Political Editor. It was a very regrettable error.
I have about the same relationship with the Glasgow Herald (wish you'd go back to the old name) as I have with Glasgow: I know there's a lot wrong with it, but I like it anyway and wouldn't want anything to happen to it. Please help Douglas to recognise that there is a difference between stirring up debate and antagonising his readers by treating them as fools.
"But I do not consider myself a Nationalist."
I don't like the word either, so consider yourself a separatist - that's what I do. Look up the word 'nationalist' in the dictionary, as many dictionaries as you like, and you will find it has broadly three meanings, two of them positive, one negative. Hitler was a nationalist. So was Gandhi. That's the negative and the positive - an example of the third type might be someone like the late Norman Buchan, MP - a cultural nationalist. It's not a useful word in politics, tending to be used only for the nationalisms the writer disapproves of (which are all but his own, usually).
Unionists have tried to mould 'separatist' into a pejorative term, but it's worth liberating. It has the merit of being explanatory, and doesn't have nationalism's connotation of death camps, which George Robertson was so fond of slyly pointing.
Finally, I look forward to reading your report on the arrival of independence.
late night discussions can be interesting, but it does seem to be the same people on all sides of the political spectrum that are incapable of reasonable dialogue.
has vronsky come up with a new term, morphing cyber nat to cyber gnat and now onto cybernazi? anyone who brings up hitler to back his argument up has in my eyes less credibility than most.
the editorial line has been a tad unfair on occasions, but it is the paper's right to take that line, and we do have the opportunity to comment.
and no, i am not a fool, at least i do not think so.
late night discussions can be interesting, but it does seem to be the same people on all sides of the political spectrum that are incapable of reasonable dialogue.
has vronsky come up with a new term, morphing cyber nat to cyber gnat and now onto cybernazi? anyone who brings up hitler to back his argument up has in my eyes less credibility than most.
the editorial line has been a tad unfair on occasions, but it is the paper's right to take that line, and we do have the opportunity to comment.
and no, i am not a fool, at least i do not think so.
I just like to say well done. Alot of the posters are folk who harbour political aspirantions without the wherewithall or the daytime communication ability to pursue such ambitions in 'real time'.
I think the Herald do a fine job, I dont agree with everything but they are made positively saintly by the squalor of The Scotsman agenda. Keep up the good work.
I just like to say well done. Alot of the posters are folk who harbour political aspirantions without the wherewithall or the daytime communication ability to pursue such ambitions in 'real time'.
I think the Herald do a fine job, I dont agree with everything but they are made positively saintly by the squalor of The Scotsman agenda. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: george alexander at 1:21pm on Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]Take yesterday as a case in point. The Daily Telegraph splashed a story about the Aviemore development. Admittedly you had to turn from the front to page 14 to be told that the recently-retired Sepa chairman Sir Kenneth Collins was in fact the same old Ken Collins who was Labour MEP for 20 years and a Strathclyde councillor before that.[/quote]
Which page on any Scottish newspaper should I turn to to find out the that there is a prominent sepa member involved in the Aviemore application who donated to Wendy Alexanders campaign?
Which page should I turn to to find out what investigations have taken place over Murray Elders (another Alexander doner) involvement with the electoral commission?
Which newspaper covered the criticisms the head of CBI Scotland voiced over this dreadfull 'Trumped up' enquiry'?
Which newspaper has yet been able to get Nicol Stephen to define the nature of the sleaze that he accused ministers, civil servants and investors of?
Which newspaper has sought to highlight the fact that Wendy Alexander was already too late to declare donations before she asked for an answer to a rigidly set question?
Which newspaper has sought the correspondence between Alexander and the clerks to verify her story?
It is my belief that there is undue prominence placed on unsubstantiated allegations against the SNP whilst stories crying out for scrutiny are not followed up.
Take yesterday as a case in point. The Daily Telegraph splashed a story about the Aviemore development. Admittedly you had to turn from the front to page 14 to be told that the recently-retired Sepa chairman Sir Kenneth Collins was in fact the same old Ken Collins who was Labour MEP for 20 years and a Strathclyde councillor before that.
Which page on any Scottish newspaper should I turn to to find out the that there is a prominent sepa member involved in the Aviemore application who donated to Wendy Alexanders campaign?
Which page should I turn to to find out what investigations have taken place over Murray Elders (another Alexander doner) involvement with the electoral commission?
Which newspaper covered the criticisms the head of CBI Scotland voiced over this dreadfull 'Trumped up' enquiry'?
Which newspaper has yet been able to get Nicol Stephen to define the nature of the sleaze that he accused ministers, civil servants and investors of?
Which newspaper has sought to highlight the fact that Wendy Alexander was already too late to declare donations before she asked for an answer to a rigidly set question?
Which newspaper has sought the correspondence between Alexander and the clerks to verify her story?
It is my belief that there is undue prominence placed on unsubstantiated allegations against the SNP whilst stories crying out for scrutiny are not followed up.
Posted by: John J. Sheridan at 1:23pm on Wed 6 Feb 08
Hi Robbie,
I will have to take your word for it regarding Douglas.
But I am sure as fair minded man that you can see the obvious slant he puts into his writing?
I am no idiot Robbie, I don't suffer from a persecution complex, but I can and do see pieces which look as if could have been written by some wee nu labour spin geek and not a fair minded political editor.
By all means tell me that Douglas does not carry the paperwork, but please treat your readers as adults and don't try to make us believe that he does not carry the bias.......even just a little bit.
Hi Robbie,
I will have to take your word for it regarding Douglas.
But I am sure as fair minded man that you can see the obvious slant he puts into his writing?
I am no idiot Robbie, I don't suffer from a persecution complex, but I can and do see pieces which look as if could have been written by some wee nu labour spin geek and not a fair minded political editor.
By all means tell me that Douglas does not carry the paperwork, but please treat your readers as adults and don't try to make us believe that he does not carry the bias.......even just a little bit.
Some fair points Robbie.
One point you make seems to get to the nub of the problem: "Try not to make assumptions about where writers are coming from. We’re trying to do a decent job under considerable pressure."
Pressure from editors?
If that is the subtext I understand. Historically the vast bulk of the Scottish/Uk media has been anti-SNP. I can even remember the SNP getting fewer PPBs and news coverage than other parties -something which was accepted by broadcasting authorities. Even unionist journalists with some integrity will tell you that the press and broadcast media is overwhelmingly hostile to the SNP.
There is no doubt that obviously disingenuous propaganda from Labour has been accepted uncritically by journalists such as Douglas. If Douglas is uncritical because he is under pressure then perhaps he should go and colonise some print space. The Nuremberg defence doesn't hold in a job where you have a choice of leaving. Many have.
Ask the former political journalist and editor of The Herald Murray Ritchie: "So supporting independence editorially carries risks: ask those journalists whose careers have been damaged by it. All those broadcasters who are shunted from politics to sport or columnists who are fired while journalists loyal to the Unionist parties are left free to carry on. ‘Twas ever thus."
I understand that you like your colleagues but I'm sure you would like colleagues who reported ruthlessly too; it's not about personality Robbie, it's about democracy.
In an historical context where the nationalist voice has been ignored, in a context where, once in power, nationalist opposition parties are not being thoroughly scrutinised when they break the law, when non-stories with anti-SNP slants are prioritised by editors, is it not understandable that some nationalists become very indignant, severe and implacable?
Your ex-colleage Murray sums up these things better than I could: "In today’s political ferment in Scotland, with the SNP knocking at the door of power, there appears to be a conspiracy of editorial timidity. And circulations are collapsing. Is there not surely a connection?"
Now consider that the comment thread is one of the few conduits for people to express political feelings. Add to that mix unionist provocateurs and propagandists and you can perhaps begin to feel why there is so much anger under the surface.
The press have an historical problem which is that they think they control Scotland and not the people. McLuhan's theory about the people being the content of the media... It was horrified that the SNP won the election despite its best efforts.
And so we have the task-masters whipping the galley slaves. The press and political establisment can be corrupt but the people must not only be nice but be blamed for all our ills as soon as they open their uneducated vermin-like mouths.
Just a wee reminder from The Bard - The Twa Dugs:
"Caesar.
Lord, man, were ye but whyles whare I am,
The gentles, ye wad ne'er envy 'em!
It's true, they need na starve or sweat,
Thro' winter's cauld, or simmer's heat;
They've nae sair wark to craze their banes,
An' fill auld-age wi' grips an granes:
But human bodies are sic fools,
For a' their colleges an' schools,
That when nae real ills perplex them;
They mak enow themsels to vex them;
An' ay the less they hae to sturt them,
In like proportion, less will hurt them. "
Some fair points Robbie.
One point you make seems to get to the nub of the problem: "Try not to make assumptions about where writers are coming from. We’re trying to do a decent job under considerable pressure."
Pressure from editors?
If that is the subtext I understand. Historically the vast bulk of the Scottish/Uk media has been anti-SNP. I can even remember the SNP getting fewer PPBs and news coverage than other parties -something which was accepted by broadcasting authorities. Even unionist journalists with some integrity will tell you that the press and broadcast media is overwhelmingly hostile to the SNP.
There is no doubt that obviously disingenuous propaganda from Labour has been accepted uncritically by journalists such as Douglas. If Douglas is uncritical because he is under pressure then perhaps he should go and colonise some print space. The Nuremberg defence doesn't hold in a job where you have a choice of leaving. Many have.
Ask the former political journalist and editor of The Herald Murray Ritchie: "So supporting independence editorially carries risks: ask those journalists whose careers have been damaged by it. All those broadcasters who are shunted from politics to sport or columnists who are fired while journalists loyal to the Unionist parties are left free to carry on. ‘Twas ever thus."
I understand that you like your colleagues but I'm sure you would like colleagues who reported ruthlessly too; it's not about personality Robbie, it's about democracy.
In an historical context where the nationalist voice has been ignored, in a context where, once in power, nationalist opposition parties are not being thoroughly scrutinised when they break the law, when non-stories with anti-SNP slants are prioritised by editors, is it not understandable that some nationalists become very indignant, severe and implacable?
Your ex-colleage Murray sums up these things better than I could: "In today’s political ferment in Scotland, with the SNP knocking at the door of power, there appears to be a conspiracy of editorial timidity. And circulations are collapsing. Is there not surely a connection?"
Now consider that the comment thread is one of the few conduits for people to express political feelings. Add to that mix unionist provocateurs and propagandists and you can perhaps begin to feel why there is so much anger under the surface.
The press have an historical problem which is that they think they control Scotland and not the people. McLuhan's theory about the people being the content of the media... It was horrified that the SNP won the election despite its best efforts.
And so we have the task-masters whipping the galley slaves. The press and political establisment can be corrupt but the people must not only be nice but be blamed for all our ills as soon as they open their uneducated vermin-like mouths.
Just a wee reminder from The Bard - The Twa Dugs:
"Caesar.
Lord, man, were ye but whyles whare I am,
The gentles, ye wad ne'er envy 'em!
It's true, they need na starve or sweat,
Thro' winter's cauld, or simmer's heat;
They've nae sair wark to craze their banes,
An' fill auld-age wi' grips an granes:
But human bodies are sic fools,
For a' their colleges an' schools,
That when nae real ills perplex them;
They mak enow themsels to vex them;
An' ay the less they hae to sturt them,
In like proportion, less will hurt them. "
Hi Robbie
I'm disappointed to be singled out by you. Shocked in fact, but I'll get over it. In my opinion the state of the press in Scotland is the chief reason why so much corruption has been buried for decades. Certain political Parties had protection and that is a fact. The worst offender at the Herald, again in my opinion, is Douglas Fraser. I think journalists have a very serious responsibility and when they slant news items along their favoured line they do the public a great disservice. I think they also are failing to do their job. On the occasion I last commented I believe I did use the term you quote (again I've heard much worse from others which you didn't quote) in your Blog but it was the only one I could think of to suit Mr Fraser's conduct. I stand by it. And for your information I defended Douglas Fraser on his own blog against attacks in personal emails. But then HE was the one throwing around insults at that point. I believe "vermin" was the word he used.
Again I am disappointed to have been singled out on your public Blog Robbie. I can assure you I am no fanatic and if I am passionate about anything it is that political Parties function honestly. I apply that across the board. You have taken one phrase I used and turned me into something I am not.
Hi Robbie
I'm disappointed to be singled out by you. Shocked in fact, but I'll get over it. In my opinion the state of the press in Scotland is the chief reason why so much corruption has been buried for decades. Certain political Parties had protection and that is a fact. The worst offender at the Herald, again in my opinion, is Douglas Fraser. I think journalists have a very serious responsibility and when they slant news items along their favoured line they do the public a great disservice. I think they also are failing to do their job. On the occasion I last commented I believe I did use the term you quote (again I've heard much worse from others which you didn't quote) in your Blog but it was the only one I could think of to suit Mr Fraser's conduct. I stand by it. And for your information I defended Douglas Fraser on his own blog against attacks in personal emails. But then HE was the one throwing around insults at that point. I believe "vermin" was the word he used.
Again I am disappointed to have been singled out on your public Blog Robbie. I can assure you I am no fanatic and if I am passionate about anything it is that political Parties function honestly. I apply that across the board. You have taken one phrase I used and turned me into something I am not.
Posted by: David Alexander at 2:25pm on Wed 6 Feb 08
Clare
I'll support you.
You are one of the most lucid, consistent and passionate posters on the Herald site.
For the Herald to get upset about the 'snake's belly' quote and then describe us as 'vermin' is a touch hypocritical.
I think we all know who the genuinely offensive posters on both sides are and the sum total would be in single figures.
Methinks a sense of perspective is called for!
Clare
I'll support you.
You are one of the most lucid, consistent and passionate posters on the Herald site.
For the Herald to get upset about the 'snake's belly' quote and then describe us as 'vermin' is a touch hypocritical.
I think we all know who the genuinely offensive posters on both sides are and the sum total would be in single figures.
Robbie
Answer me this mate, since your are in confessional mode. Why is it that some people with a public platform and who profess to a broad or generic belief in the concept of Scottish indepedence feel inclined to couch their expressions of that belief with commentary on what they don't believe or wish not to be associated with (ie why the so-called Scottish Cringe)?
"I'm a nationalist but not a Nationalist."...eh?! Look if you believe in the concept of specific geographic area being constituted as a nation-state then you are a n(N)ationalist full stop....regards of the paraphenlia, tradition or cultural heritage applicable to any given version of this model of government. I happen to agree with you re US public expressions of national identity but you could easily have referred to England on World Cup mode, France, Canada, Turkey...all famous flag wavers but with very different expressions of national identity on the world stage. Bottom line is I, as a Scot, feel no need to qualify my rationally acquired belief in Scottish self-determination in relation to what I DON'T like about nationalism as an ideology or cultural manifestation.
You do not hear Unionists defending British nationalism or Westminster rule in these terms, though your argument is equally applicable to them.
Secondly, it may have escaped your attention but for nigh on 300 hundred years public expression of a Scottish political and historical identity has been repressed, ridiculed or marginalised in almost every forum you care to mention. You doubt this or are sceptical about the impact this has had on the psyche of those who have sought to keep an independent spirit alive in this country??? If so let me refer you to the absolute GARBAGE that is the current 'debate' surrounding the teaching of Scottish history in our OWN schools!!! All for the sake of a couple of hours dedicated to Scotland's own development in the world! Really, is it an exaggeration to say that on this issue Scottish children (or the children of those who have chosen to live in Scotland) are being served any better than those 'rogue' States that have elected to ideologically mind-map their off-spring?
If there are several posters on Herald threads or within the Nationalists ranks whom you find distasteful in their rhetoric, try and remember that an entire poltical strand within Scottish society has had many decades to develop a sense of bitterness and injustice about the way it is treated by the media and ideological opinion-formers in this country. It has been - and in many cases continues to be - utterly contemptible. And please also remember the type of anti-n(N)ationalist garbabge that tends to spill from the pens of your average Unionist spin doctor (you know, the ones from whom you are now quoting as a source of righteous North British enlightenment). If in any doubt about the language and attitude used towards your AVERAGE n(N)ationalist by Unionists, then why don't you get yourself along to a count at the next election held in Lanarkshire?
I end with a plea. Stop apologising for what you believe in - the cause is a just one. You might not like all of its protagonists but there are enough enemies of self-determination (and that is what they are - this is not insult - it is a statement of fact); without proponents of n(N)ationalism flagging up the weaknesses on their behalf.
Best
James
Robbie
Answer me this mate, since your are in confessional mode. Why is it that some people with a public platform and who profess to a broad or generic belief in the concept of Scottish indepedence feel inclined to couch their expressions of that belief with commentary on what they don't believe or wish not to be associated with (ie why the so-called Scottish Cringe)?
"I'm a nationalist but not a Nationalist."...eh?! Look if you believe in the concept of specific geographic area being constituted as a nation-state then you are a n(N)ationalist full stop....regards of the paraphenlia, tradition or cultural heritage applicable to any given version of this model of government. I happen to agree with you re US public expressions of national identity but you could easily have referred to England on World Cup mode, France, Canada, Turkey...all famous flag wavers but with very different expressions of national identity on the world stage. Bottom line is I, as a Scot, feel no need to qualify my rationally acquired belief in Scottish self-determination in relation to what I DON'T like about nationalism as an ideology or cultural manifestation.
You do not hear Unionists defending British nationalism or Westminster rule in these terms, though your argument is equally applicable to them.
Secondly, it may have escaped your attention but for nigh on 300 hundred years public expression of a Scottish political and historical identity has been repressed, ridiculed or marginalised in almost every forum you care to mention. You doubt this or are sceptical about the impact this has had on the psyche of those who have sought to keep an independent spirit alive in this country??? If so let me refer you to the absolute GARBAGE that is the current 'debate' surrounding the teaching of Scottish history in our OWN schools!!! All for the sake of a couple of hours dedicated to Scotland's own development in the world! Really, is it an exaggeration to say that on this issue Scottish children (or the children of those who have chosen to live in Scotland) are being served any better than those 'rogue' States that have elected to ideologically mind-map their off-spring?
If there are several posters on Herald threads or within the Nationalists ranks whom you find distasteful in their rhetoric, try and remember that an entire poltical strand within Scottish society has had many decades to develop a sense of bitterness and injustice about the way it is treated by the media and ideological opinion-formers in this country. It has been - and in many cases continues to be - utterly contemptible. And please also remember the type of anti-n(N)ationalist garbabge that tends to spill from the pens of your average Unionist spin doctor (you know, the ones from whom you are now quoting as a source of righteous North British enlightenment). If in any doubt about the language and attitude used towards your AVERAGE n(N)ationalist by Unionists, then why don't you get yourself along to a count at the next election held in Lanarkshire?
I end with a plea. Stop apologising for what you believe in - the cause is a just one. You might not like all of its protagonists but there are enough enemies of self-determination (and that is what they are - this is not insult - it is a statement of fact); without proponents of n(N)ationalism flagging up the weaknesses on their behalf.
Personally I couldn't give a monkeys chuff who you might be persuaded to vote for, as long as you keep a semblence of impartiality in your day job as journo. You're not a delicate flower willing to bow in the direction of independence, but frightfully deterred by a few insomniac cyber ramblers.
I imagine Mr. Fraser is now considering that a re-read of what he vommed onto his keyboard might have been a more mature approach.
PS Any actual news to comment on today?
Personally I couldn't give a monkeys chuff who you might be persuaded to vote for, as long as you keep a semblence of impartiality in your day job as journo. You're not a delicate flower willing to bow in the direction of independence, but frightfully deterred by a few insomniac cyber ramblers.
I imagine Mr. Fraser is now considering that a re-read of what he vommed onto his keyboard might have been a more mature approach.
Hello Clare, I too was shocked that Robbie singled you out. Particularly when you consider the number of times both you and I and other parties have had to join together to challenge some really vicious racist and islamophobic posts that have been made by some posters. Strange that they have not been commented on in these blogs, or is it. It appears that the only form of racism or extremeism which is unacceptable to the Herald is that perceived to have come from nationalists.
Hello Clare, I too was shocked that Robbie singled you out. Particularly when you consider the number of times both you and I and other parties have had to join together to challenge some really vicious racist and islamophobic posts that have been made by some posters. Strange that they have not been commented on in these blogs, or is it. It appears that the only form of racism or extremeism which is unacceptable to the Herald is that perceived to have come from nationalists.
I never thought that I would ever post in this vein.
I would like to congratulate all those who have commented so far for the level of debate they have shown.
I don't agree with all the comments made, just as I don't agree with all of your comments Robbie, but I do applaude the manner in which they have all been made, and maybe that stems from the fact that your blog was written in a far more considered tone than any of Douglas's recent efforts, something he should thing on.
I trust the level shown so far will continue.
I never thought that I would ever post in this vein.
I would like to congratulate all those who have commented so far for the level of debate they have shown.
I don't agree with all the comments made, just as I don't agree with all of your comments Robbie, but I do applaude the manner in which they have all been made, and maybe that stems from the fact that your blog was written in a far more considered tone than any of Douglas's recent efforts, something he should thing on.
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
Hello Clare, I too was shocked that Robbie singled you out. Particularly when you consider the number of times both you and I and other parties have had to join together to challenge some really vicious racist and islamophobic posts that have been made by some posters. Strange that they have not been commented on in these blogs, or is it. It appears that the only form of racism or extremeism which is unacceptable to the Herald is that perceived to have come from nationalists.[/quote] Observer, thank you for that. I appreciate it most sincerely.
Observer wrote:
Hello Clare, I too was shocked that Robbie singled you out. Particularly when you consider the number of times both you and I and other parties have had to join together to challenge some really vicious racist and islamophobic posts that have been made by some posters. Strange that they have not been commented on in these blogs, or is it. It appears that the only form of racism or extremeism which is unacceptable to the Herald is that perceived to have come from nationalists.
Observer, thank you for that. I appreciate it most sincerely.
Clare, the more apt phrase is, "Douglas Fraser, you are lower than a pregnant snakes belly!"
See what I did there?
cheers
Osc
PS Given some of the rantings from our Onionist chumrades on here, I'm surprised that Messrs Fraser and Dinwoodie can't reserve at least a little opprobrium for their disgusting Nazi analogies. Also, although open to debate, why are the BritNats always first to the insult?
Clare, the more apt phrase is, "Douglas Fraser, you are lower than a pregnant snakes belly!"
See what I did there?
cheers
Osc
PS Given some of the rantings from our Onionist chumrades on here, I'm surprised that Messrs Fraser and Dinwoodie can't reserve at least a little opprobrium for their disgusting Nazi analogies. Also, although open to debate, why are the BritNats always first to the insult?
"Also, although open to debate, why are the BritNats always first to the insult?"
Telling observation. Why do the forums comtain not one single example of a calm, literate, listenable case for the Union? The 'Unionist' posters seem to be a posse of picadors; in, jab, out. The crowd sits on its hands, waiting for the matador. Nobody comes. Wait. Nobody comes. It's pure Beckett.
\[Don't miss the Citz production\]
"Also, although open to debate, why are the BritNats always first to the insult?"
Telling observation. Why do the forums comtain not one single example of a calm, literate, listenable case for the Union? The 'Unionist' posters seem to be a posse of picadors; in, jab, out. The crowd sits on its hands, waiting for the matador. Nobody comes. Wait. Nobody comes. It's pure Beckett.
Cheers for the name-drop ;-)
Never been described as 'inestimable' before but I'll take it as a wee compliment.........
That's a good wee post and I'm sure chimes with a lot of people on these threads....
i.e. not necessarily nationalist, but not afraid of independence but only supporting it if it would actually brings about better & more accountable governence......
I wish more people were of that opinion, it's the most reasonable out of them all, certainly chimes with my own views.....
The bile spouted on either side is and has got out of hand and you and Douglas have been right to have a go at it..... so it's time that the Haerlad embraced the cyber world more readily and resourced a proper moiderator for these forums and weed out the pointless and often racist/hate filled bile that get's posted...
In the words of the inestimable George Foulkes...
[bold]CRY HAVOC! AND LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR......[/bold]
Cheers for the name-drop ;-)
Never been described as 'inestimable' before but I'll take it as a wee compliment.........
That's a good wee post and I'm sure chimes with a lot of people on these threads....
i.e. not necessarily nationalist, but not afraid of independence but only supporting it if it would actually brings about better & more accountable governence......
I wish more people were of that opinion, it's the most reasonable out of them all, certainly chimes with my own views.....
The bile spouted on either side is and has got out of hand and you and Douglas have been right to have a go at it..... so it's time that the Haerlad embraced the cyber world more readily and resourced a proper moiderator for these forums and weed out the pointless and often racist/hate filled bile that get's posted...
Posted by: Politically-incorrect Man at 4:03pm on Wed 6 Feb 08
Hi Robbie
Sometime the comments of "the internet vermin" or their fleas are a bit acidic even for my liking. The response is however understandable.
The clue is really in the word "journalist" as most people would take that to be the profession of someone who seeks out and reports fact.
If one wants opinion one would perhaps look for that in an Editorial and one would expect that one would get the facts as seen from a specific view-point.
When one reads a news article one has the right to expect that facts are presented and that one can interpret them as one sees fit.
Often it seem that Douglas presents his "selected" facts, puts his interpretation on them and suggests this is reality whereas it is only what is going on in his own mind ( one hopes not what he is being advised to say by others).
That apart he is a great human being!
Hi Robbie
Sometime the comments of "the internet vermin" or their fleas are a bit acidic even for my liking. The response is however understandable.
The clue is really in the word "journalist" as most people would take that to be the profession of someone who seeks out and reports fact.
If one wants opinion one would perhaps look for that in an Editorial and one would expect that one would get the facts as seen from a specific view-point.
When one reads a news article one has the right to expect that facts are presented and that one can interpret them as one sees fit.
Often it seem that Douglas presents his "selected" facts, puts his interpretation on them and suggests this is reality whereas it is only what is going on in his own mind ( one hopes not what he is being advised to say by others).
Robbie Dunwoodie. Me thinks he protests too much.
Robin has got a goatee beard, so he must be in the labour party plus he's a Glaswegian to boot. Its genetic that the newspaper industry is 100% labour. It always has been, always will be. It was ever thus.
Robbie Dunwoodie. Me thinks he protests too much.
Robin has got a goatee beard, so he must be in the labour party plus he's a Glaswegian to boot. Its genetic that the newspaper industry is 100% labour. It always has been, always will be. It was ever thus.
Robbie Dunwoodie. Me thinks he protests too much.
Robin has got a goatee beard, so he must be in the labour party plus he's a Glaswegian to boot. Its genetic that the newspaper industry is 100% labour. It always has been, always will be. It was ever thus.
At least you dont work for the Daily Retard ( Daily Record )
Robbie Dunwoodie. Me thinks he protests too much.
Robin has got a goatee beard, so he must be in the labour party plus he's a Glaswegian to boot. Its genetic that the newspaper industry is 100% labour. It always has been, always will be. It was ever thus.
At least you dont work for the Daily Retard ( Daily Record )
Posted by: george alexander at 5:13pm on Wed 6 Feb 08
To Alex Porter, great post, I doubt though if it will be addressed.
I urge everyone to read Al Gore's 'The Assault On Reason' to get a better undestanding of the power of the press and the need for factual information to be feely available to the electorate.
To Alex Porter, great post, I doubt though if it will be addressed.
I urge everyone to read Al Gore's 'The Assault On Reason' to get a better undestanding of the power of the press and the need for factual information to be feely available to the electorate.
Robbie a rebuttal on behalf of Mr Fraser really. Robbie please be TRUTHFUL and get your facts right. I never claimed that Mr Douglas Fraser was a member of the labour party. I said he was a supporter. Last time I checked just because I support the Scotland team doesn’t mean I get a place on the team. Mr Fraser also confirmed he was a supporter with his answer to my question about does he feel stressed about being a labour supporting journalist. He then doubly confirmed it with the comment that he had sought to draw me and other posters out. Which of these statement are not true.
Robbie many people seek the truth even fewer find it. Some because they dont want to and others because they cant. Does that therefore make it any less desirable or increase its worth. Only honest men and women seek the truth
Because only they understand its value. They understand that truth is the basis of all good in the world. Truth destroys distrust and hatred and anger and even governments. Truth unites those who were enemies and frees those who were slaves.
The truth Robbie can be hidden but it cannot be destroyed. Only by seeking and finding the truth can we be truly free. Truth does not choose sides or seek to gain advantage for one side or the other. Truth is the one thing that makes dishonest men and women afraid.
Who then would seek the truth? Only those honest enough to not fear it.
What is the truth about newspaper bias in scotland, the snp and independence and where does the truth lie buried. I don’t know Robbie I am actively digging. Are YOU?
Robbie a rebuttal on behalf of Mr Fraser really. Robbie please be TRUTHFUL and get your facts right. I never claimed that Mr Douglas Fraser was a member of the labour party. I said he was a supporter. Last time I checked just because I support the Scotland team doesn’t mean I get a place on the team. Mr Fraser also confirmed he was a supporter with his answer to my question about does he feel stressed about being a labour supporting journalist. He then doubly confirmed it with the comment that he had sought to draw me and other posters out. Which of these statement are not true.
Robbie many people seek the truth even fewer find it. Some because they dont want to and others because they cant. Does that therefore make it any less desirable or increase its worth. Only honest men and women seek the truth
Because only they understand its value. They understand that truth is the basis of all good in the world. Truth destroys distrust and hatred and anger and even governments. Truth unites those who were enemies and frees those who were slaves.
The truth Robbie can be hidden but it cannot be destroyed. Only by seeking and finding the truth can we be truly free. Truth does not choose sides or seek to gain advantage for one side or the other. Truth is the one thing that makes dishonest men and women afraid.
Who then would seek the truth? Only those honest enough to not fear it.
What is the truth about newspaper bias in scotland, the snp and independence and where does the truth lie buried. I don’t know Robbie I am actively digging. Are YOU?
hold on. there [italic]are[/italic] journalists that support labour? I don't believe it. Are you sure? You wouldn't think it to ready the papers hahahaha.
Personally i don't care who supports what, what i take issue with is the unbalanced reporting and sometimes all to obvious bias. At the last election the sun and the daily record were particularly shameful. I do expect more from the Herald, i commend Iain Macwhirter and Paul Hutcheon for having journalstic integrity and wish that it would carry through to others.
hold on. there are journalists that support labour? I don't believe it. Are you sure? You wouldn't think it to ready the papers hahahaha.
Personally i don't care who supports what, what i take issue with is the unbalanced reporting and sometimes all to obvious bias. At the last election the sun and the daily record were particularly shameful. I do expect more from the Herald, i commend Iain Macwhirter and Paul Hutcheon for having journalstic integrity and wish that it would carry through to others.
Oops Mr Dinwoodie, you picked the wrong target with Clare. I too supported the "call off the dogs" comments of Celtic Lion on Mr Fraser's blog. But what cannot be denied is that Mr Fraser is simply regurgitating Labour Party handouts.
I have no problem with that. But that makes him a columnist not a journalist. When I worked at The Scotsman (it was highly respected then) a definition of news was "A story someone, somewhere DOESN'T want printed." Nowadays, it seems the papers will print anything that someone, somewhere in the world of Unionism wants out.
But have no fear, when you depart this mortal coil, you will not be turned into a handbag. Thin-skinned or what? I thought journalists were masters of irony, riposte, put-down. Your comments about "cyber-nats" (copying Foulkes the Buffoon) is so silly. How do you know these posters are nationalists?
Oliver Brown once said the Tories were so unscrupulous that they would change their name to get elected. That happened 10 years ago. Today we have unpleasant people pretending to be SNP supporters spewing all sorts of muck onto these boards. If you don't like it (and I certainly don't) get the moderators to remove them immediately. I don't want to plough through three-letter and an asterisk anglo-saxon obscenities anymore than 99.999% of your readers. The solution is in [italic]The Herald's[/italic] hands.
Oops Mr Dinwoodie, you picked the wrong target with Clare. I too supported the "call off the dogs" comments of Celtic Lion on Mr Fraser's blog. But what cannot be denied is that Mr Fraser is simply regurgitating Labour Party handouts.
I have no problem with that. But that makes him a columnist not a journalist. When I worked at The Scotsman (it was highly respected then) a definition of news was "A story someone, somewhere DOESN'T want printed." Nowadays, it seems the papers will print anything that someone, somewhere in the world of Unionism wants out.
But have no fear, when you depart this mortal coil, you will not be turned into a handbag. Thin-skinned or what? I thought journalists were masters of irony, riposte, put-down. Your comments about "cyber-nats" (copying Foulkes the Buffoon) is so silly. How do you know these posters are nationalists?
Oliver Brown once said the Tories were so unscrupulous that they would change their name to get elected. That happened 10 years ago. Today we have unpleasant people pretending to be SNP supporters spewing all sorts of muck onto these boards. If you don't like it (and I certainly don't) get the moderators to remove them immediately. I don't want to plough through three-letter and an asterisk anglo-saxon obscenities anymore than 99.999% of your readers. The solution is in The Herald's hands.
This doubting the integrity of those who supply us with the 'news', is of course nothing new, as this piece from yesteryear shows, what is interesting about this is, that it was delivered by an insider, albeit in America, but there are those who may have thought along similar lines on this side of the Atlantic and in more recent times.
John Swinton (1829_1901)
The managing editor of the New York Times during the Civil War, John Swinton later became a crusading journalist in the movement for social and labour reform. Scottish born, he learned typesetting in Canada before moving to the United States. During the trouble in Kansas he was active in the free soil movement and headed the Lawrence Republican. Moving back to New York he wrote an occasional article for the Times and was hired on a regular basis in 1860 as head of the editorial staff. Afterward holding this position throughout the Civil War, he left the paper in 1870 and became active in the labour struggles of the day. He later served eight years in the same position on the New York Sun and published a weekly labour sheet, John Swinton’s Paper.
"There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
(Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)
This doubting the integrity of those who supply us with the 'news', is of course nothing new, as this piece from yesteryear shows, what is interesting about this is, that it was delivered by an insider, albeit in America, but there are those who may have thought along similar lines on this side of the Atlantic and in more recent times.
John Swinton (1829_1901)
The managing editor of the New York Times during the Civil War, John Swinton later became a crusading journalist in the movement for social and labour reform. Scottish born, he learned typesetting in Canada before moving to the United States. During the trouble in Kansas he was active in the free soil movement and headed the Lawrence Republican. Moving back to New York he wrote an occasional article for the Times and was hired on a regular basis in 1860 as head of the editorial staff. Afterward holding this position throughout the Civil War, he left the paper in 1870 and became active in the labour struggles of the day. He later served eight years in the same position on the New York Sun and published a weekly labour sheet, John Swinton’s Paper.
"There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
(Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)
Dear Mr. Dinwoodie
You have put the case for the defence of Douglas Fraser.
But I am confused why did you feel the need to rip down my post for the prosecution in my role as devil's advocate?
Don't both sides get to state their case?
I guess there is no role for the truth as a counter to your article!
That being the case, your case falls!
Finally to quote ‘Allo ‘Allo! for the first and last time in this blog, "I will say this only once" to Douglas Fraser.
Wendy Alexander is not a medic!
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Dear Mr. Dinwoodie
You have put the case for the defence of Douglas Fraser.
But I am confused why did you feel the need to rip down my post for the prosecution in my role as devil's advocate?
Don't both sides get to state their case?
I guess there is no role for the truth as a counter to your article!
That being the case, your case falls!
Finally to quote ‘Allo ‘Allo! for the first and last time in this blog, "I will say this only once" to Douglas Fraser.
Wendy Alexander is not a medic!
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Number two robbie dinwoodies politics have now been outed to a degree. He beleives in independence but is not a nationalist.
Two down........................
NEXT PLEASE.................................................................
Number two robbie dinwoodies politics have now been outed to a degree. He beleives in independence but is not a nationalist.
Two down........................
NEXT PLEASE.................................................................
"We also tried...to see if there was anything we could usefully add today to the saga regarding the Electoral Commission’s leisurely pursuit of Ms Alexander...No obvious story emerged from these checks...Please, please, don’t see everything through that weird 2am cyber-prism."
These are the some facts I didn't get from the Herald:
1. The fact that Ms. Alexander's request for advice to the Standards Officer came a month after the deadline for registration had passed and only when the Electoral Commission started asking questions about Mr. Green's donation. A large hole in her story.
2. The fact that her request for advice boiled down to asking if the other leaders had registered their donations. They hadn't, because they had nothing to register. It has been spun as if Ms. Alexander is the victim of some Standards Commission incompetence when in fact it is nothing of the sort.
3. The number of QUANGO's that Nick Kuenssberg the deputy leader of SEPA has served on and his links to the Labour party.
4. The fact that Laura Kuenssberg the BBC political reporter is the daughter of Nick Kuenssberg. Not particularly relevant but interesting.
5. The fact that there is a protocol between the police and the Electoral Commission on prosecutions under the, "Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000". I thought that the fact that the Act has effectively been removed from the control of an independent judicary would have been a big story. Have you asked for a copy of the protocol or the legality of a private association such as ACPOS cutting the judiciary out of the loop?
Perhaps the Herald isn't pro-Labour, but when it often appears that the Herald is not particularly interested in digging into a story which is one of the biggest political stories in Scotland and in order to find information you have to look elsewhere there is always an element of doubt about it.
The use of the term, "Cybernat", is also a little worrying when discussing political comments. Rather too close to the terms used by such as George Foulkes and his ilk for comfort, or confidence in impartiality.
"We also tried...to see if there was anything we could usefully add today to the saga regarding the Electoral Commission’s leisurely pursuit of Ms Alexander...No obvious story emerged from these checks...Please, please, don’t see everything through that weird 2am cyber-prism."
These are the some facts I didn't get from the Herald:
1. The fact that Ms. Alexander's request for advice to the Standards Officer came a month after the deadline for registration had passed and only when the Electoral Commission started asking questions about Mr. Green's donation. A large hole in her story.
2. The fact that her request for advice boiled down to asking if the other leaders had registered their donations. They hadn't, because they had nothing to register. It has been spun as if Ms. Alexander is
Politics
