[QUOTE]Perhaps the most arresting fact about the [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/live/2014/sep/16/scottish-independence-referendum-reaction-to-the-cameronmilibandclegg-vow-live"]Scottish referendum[/URL] is this: that there is no newspaper – local, regional or national, English or Scottish – that supports independence except the [URL="http://www.heraldscotland.com/"]Sunday Herald[/URL]. The Scots who will vote yes have been almost without representation in the media.
There is nothing unusual about this. Change in any direction, except further over the brink of market fundamentalism and planetary destruction, requires the defiance of almost the entire battery of salaried opinion. What distinguishes the independence campaign is that it has continued to prosper despite this assault.
In the coverage of the referendum we see most of the pathologies of the corporate media. Here, for instance, you will find the unfounded generalisations with which less enlightened souls are characterised. In the Spectator, [URL="http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9226741/little-scotlanders/"]Simon Heffer maintains that[/URL]: “addicted to welfare ... Scots embraced the something for nothing society”, objecting to the poll tax “because many of them felt that paying taxes ought to be the responsibility of someone else”.
Here is the condescension with which the dominant classes have always treated those they regard as inferior: their serfs, the poor, the Irish, Africans, anyone with whom they disagree. “What spoilt, selfish, childlike fools those Scots are ... They simply don’t have a clue how lucky they are,” [URL="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4200523.ece"]sneered Melanie Reid in the Times[/URL]. Here is the chronic inability to distinguish between a cause and a person: the referendum is widely portrayed as a vote about Alex Salmond, who is then monstered beyond recognition (a Telegraph editorial [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11087226/Alex-Salmonds-stance-will-drag-Scotland-down.html"]compared him to Robert Mugabe[/URL]).
The problem with the media is exemplified by [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2747291/New-Labour-s-war-British-identity-left-Salmond-open-goal.html"]Dominic Lawson’s column for the Daily Mail last week[/URL]. He began with Scotland, comparing the “threat” of independence with that presented by Hitler (the article was helpfully illustrated with a picture of the Führer – unaccompanied, in this case, by the Mail’s former proprietor). Then he turned to the momentous issue of how he almost wrote something inaccurate about David Attenborough, which was narrowly averted because “as it happens, last weekend we had staying with us another of the BBC’s great figures, its world affairs editor John Simpson”, who happily corrected Lawson’s mistake. This was just as well because “the next day I went to the Royal Albert Hall as one of a small number of guests invited by the Proms director for that night’s performance. And who should I see as soon as I entered the little room set aside for our group’s pre-concert drinks? Sir David Attenborough.”
[...]
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/media-shafted-people-scotland-journalists[/url]
Alex Salmond is literally Hitler and Darling is literally Stalin.
The BBC have been especially bad
[QUOTE]Perhaps the most arresting fact about the Scottish referendum is this: that there is no newspaper – local, regional or national, English or Scottish – that supports independence except the Sunday Herald. The Scots who will vote yes have been almost without representation in the media.[/QUOTE]
That's because Independence is a bad idea. There isn't some media conspiracy.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46006938]Alex Salmond is literally Hitler and Darling is literally Stalin.[/QUOTE]
I assume by that you're implying they're as bad as each-other? (They're almost complete opposites)
[QUOTE=The mouse;46012448]That's because Independence is a bad idea. There isn't some media conspiracy.[/QUOTE]
Bad and poorly thought out.
They haven't even planned what they're going to do and seem to running under the impression that once they have a yes vote they'll wing it.
[QUOTE=Scotty.;46012436]The BBC have been especially bad[/QUOTE]
Have they though? Or is it just that people have held the BBC to an unattainably high standard compared to other news outlets? Yes, the BBC is supposed to remain unbiased, but it's still run by humans and is therefore not completely infallible.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46012448]That's because Independence is a bad idea. There isn't some media conspiracy.[/QUOTE]
If 50% of the people support it you would expect at least some support from media...
[QUOTE=Wiggles;46012481]Have they though? Or is it just that people have held the BBC to an unattainably high standard compared to other news outlets? Yes, the BBC is supposed to remain unbiased, but it's still run by humans and is therefore not completely infallible.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. I have only seen one example where the BBC has fluffed up. If a long list of instances of bias is presented to me, then we can talk. Until then, I recommend a few people to go acquaint themselves with RT to remind themselves as to what a biased news service looks like.
[QUOTE=David29;46012588]Indeed. I have only seen one example where the BBC has fluffed up. If a long list of instances of bias is presented to me, then we can talk. Until then, I recommend a few people to go acquaint themselves with RT to remind themselves as to what a biased news service looks like.[/QUOTE]
Just because another thing is worse doesn't mean a thing isn't bad.
Thats like saying
"Monarchy isn't bad, look at how bad it is in Iraq, now thats bad! You should just settle with a monarchy and quit complaining."
Complacency is bad.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46012626]Just because another thing is worse doesn't mean a thing isn't bad.
Thats like saying
"Monarchy isn't bad, look at how bad it is in Iraq, now thats bad! You should just settle with a monarchy and quit complaining."
Complacency is bad.[/QUOTE]
A couple of points:
1. That sounds to me that you are basically saying: "if it's not perfect, we should bin it".
2. By your argument, we aren't allowed to measure the quality of something by comparison.
3. That example isn't exactly comparable anyway and I'm not really sure how comparing two differing qualities of rule (with one being defunct anyway and superseded by a separate form of rule) is the same as comparing one media outlet against another.
4. I still haven't seen any additional examples of how the BBC is bias and, therefore, bad.
5. Complacency is subjective.
[QUOTE=Wiggles;46012481]Have they though? Or is it just that people have held the BBC to an unattainably high standard compared to other news outlets? Yes, the BBC is supposed to remain unbiased, but it's still run by humans and is therefore not completely infallible.[/QUOTE]
Everyone's out for the BBC but when foreigners attack it they all flip that little switch and suddenly the BBC is the most important thing we have. I'd say the BBC have done a decent job of keeping it fairly unbiased but like you said they're not perfect.
[QUOTE=Wiggles;46012481]Have they though? Or is it just that people have held the BBC to an unattainably high standard compared to other news outlets? Yes, the BBC is supposed to remain unbiased, but it's still run by humans and is therefore not completely infallible.[/QUOTE]
Not exactly high standards. The unbiased thing is something they're very vocal about. I think they've tried relatively hard and it didn't deserve the backlash but you can see how things like this get people wound up:
[video=youtube;C18zpi2yBwE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C18zpi2yBwE[/video]
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;46013565]Everyone's out for the BBC but when foreigners attack it they all flip that little switch and suddenly the BBC is the most important thing we have. I'd say the BBC have done a decent job of keeping it fairly unbiased but like you said they're not perfect.[/QUOTE]
What the hell does foreigners attacking the BBC have to do with anything? Usually when people are against the BBC it's for wasting public money, if people accuse them of being bias it's usually something dumb like a comedian making jokes about Christianity and not immediately following it up with a joke about Islam and Judaism for balance. This is a pretty different situation overall.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46012448]That's because Independence is a bad idea. There isn't some media conspiracy.[/QUOTE]
This has always gotten me about newspapers, all tabloids (and maybe broadsheets I dunno) support one political party or another. No one ever accuses them of bias, but as soon as they show that same political allegiance on this matter they get accused of bias??
[QUOTE=Scotty.;46012436]The BBC have been especially bad[/QUOTE]
I noticed on Radio 1 newsbeat when they were letting young campaigners do their own little radio segment there were about three no votes and one yes.
[QUOTE=Midas22;46014369]I noticed on Radio 1 newsbeat when they were letting young campaigners do their own little radio segment there were about three no votes and one yes.[/QUOTE]
For all the flack Radio 1 / newsbeat seems to get from people (I have never understood it..) they are [B]really[/B] good at showing both sides of an argument.
I don't know why so little countries have adopted equal air time for referendums and elections. France might not be a beacon of avantgardism in terms of television but I feel this constraint that disallows TV stations from playing favorites and dismissing non-mainstream parties goes a long way in terms of reminding the audience that alternatives exist. Yet again we don't do it for referendums so that's really dumb, I hope this gets fixed asap.
[QUOTE=Flicker;46013701]Not exactly high standards. The unbiased thing is something they're very vocal about. I think they've tried relatively hard and it didn't deserve the backlash but you can see how things like this get people wound up:
[video=youtube;C18zpi2yBwE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C18zpi2yBwE[/video]
[/QUOTE]
Is there actually any proof that this was done on purpose, though? The yes voter was in frame as much as she was out of frame.
It's might be "convenient" and unlikely, but even unlikely things happen once in a while. If this was in a less divisive topic, this would probably just be put up to technological problems. If you have any proof, please post it - if it's actually true, it's really fucking scummy.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46014481]Is there actually any proof that this was done on purpose, though? The yes voter was in frame as much as she was out of frame.
It's might be "convenient" and unlikely, but even unlikely things happen once in a while. If this was in a less divisive topic, this would probably just be put up to technological problems. If you have any proof, please post it - if it's actually true, it's really fucking scummy.[/QUOTE]
Well its unprovable that it was on purpose. But consider that you barely ever see it cut out like that any other time (ive never seen it), they could still talk to her and she was deciding if or not they could continue with the video, then when it goes back the yes voter isn't there any more.
[QUOTE=Flicker;46013701]Not exactly high standards. The unbiased thing is something they're very vocal about. I think they've tried relatively hard and it didn't deserve the backlash but you can see how things like this get people wound up:
[video=youtube;C18zpi2yBwE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C18zpi2yBwE[/video]
What the hell does foreigners attacking the BBC have to do with anything? Usually when people are against the BBC it's for wasting public money, if people accuse them of being bias it's usually something dumb like a comedian making jokes about Christianity and not immediately following it up with a joke about Islam and Judaism for balance. This is a pretty different situation overall.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha I think that may have been taken out of context, but it still cracks me up when she comes back online
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46012503]If 50% of the people support it you would expect at least some support from media...[/QUOTE]
That's not how it works. How it works is they'll support whatever makes them the most money. If supporting those 50% meant greater profits then there'd be support. If supporting independence cost them money then why would they support it?
The 'media' isn't some kind of balance of fairness and justice. It's business.
It's in the best interest of pretty much every big media company in Scotland to be a part of the UK. That's why Yes was a very grassroots campaign.
[QUOTE=download;46012478]Bad and poorly thought out.
They haven't even planned what they're going to do and seem to running under the impression that once they have a yes vote they'll wing it.[/QUOTE]
You live in Australia.
I don't know how much insight you have to what's going on over here right now.
Jesus this forum is bias as hell.
[QUOTE=massaki;46016694]You live in Australia.
I don't know how much insight you have to what's going on over here right now.
Jesus this forum is bias as hell.[/QUOTE]
I have family in Scotland (Falkirk to be precise) and I would rather they not be screwed over.
[editline]19th September 2014[/editline]
Regardless, it looks like they won't be.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46014481]Is there actually any proof that this was done on purpose, though? The yes voter was in frame as much as she was out of frame.
It's might be "convenient" and unlikely, but even unlikely things happen once in a while. If this was in a less divisive topic, this would probably just be put up to technological problems. If you have any proof, please post it - if it's actually true, it's really fucking scummy.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCQFn13x6Pc[/media]
[img]http://img.ctrlv.in/img/14/09/19/541bc59514e22.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Karsten600;46019950]
[img]http://img.ctrlv.in/img/14/09/19/541bc59514e22.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Wasn't it only like this when voting had ended and they were counting the votes?
[QUOTE=Midas22;46014369]I noticed on Radio 1 newsbeat when they were letting young campaigners do their own little radio segment there were about three no votes and one yes.[/QUOTE]
It's not the quantity of what is said, but the quality of the argument presented. Maybe the yes person said everything there was to say? From my understanding, most lf the yes campaign is all bitching about problems and no real solutions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.