Crybaby Nationalist and the sin of omission – exposed

IN PROFESSIONAL journalism a balanced story, in normal circumstances, is the gold standard of ethical everyday reporting. In partisan propaganda “journalism”, such as that trotted out ad nauseum in the Wings Over Scotland blog, the truth is a subjective matter to be bent to the sovereign will of the editor, Stuart “Blub-blub” Campbell. AhDinnaeKen explains:

A little pointer in the art of transparent propaganda. This guy thinks he can hold the MSM to account? We*'re still laughing.

“Respected impartial UK fact-checking site”? Wings Over Scotland! We*’re still laughing.

By Blub-blub Campbell

“PROPAGANDA MUST not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side.” – Nationalist grass roots political activist, Germany 1929.

Following on from Sunday’s little twitter spat where Crybaby Nationalist Stuart Campbell, threatened a perfectly civil critic with a police visit (Crybaby Nationalist passim), this time we* have a case of “professional journalism” by omission. Or propaganda, by its real name.

Campbell’s link in the twitter exchange above takes you to his blog where the following statement is quoted verbatim from a Buzzfeed piece put together by Phoebe Arnold:

Those scoundrels, brigands, thieves and rogues. How very dare they.

Those Westminster scoundrels, brigands, thieves and rogues. How very dare they.

Given that the date referred to is 1980, the year following on from the great betrayal of Scotland by eleven SNP turkeys backing Maggie Thatcher, it’s hard not to feel your breast fill with indignant rage at the treatment of our proud region (country)by the Nationalists in handing it over to an arch-monetarist Tory like the Thatch.

But all is not quite as it seems with Blub-blub’s quote. If you follow the link to Phoebe Arnold’s Buzzfeed feature – Blub-blub knows that most of his ‘alert’ readers don’t – there’s a little surprise, in the form of a caveat, directly after:

Oh dear. That kind of undermines the sanctimonious point Blub-blub was making. Not hard to work out why it was omitted.

Oh dear! That nasty naughty “But” – kind of undermines the sanctimonious point Blub-blub was making. Somebody call the police and get that “But” arrested.

Hmm! One can only speculate as to why Crybaby Nationalist Campbell opted to forget about the clearly important caveat of the “But” which follows his sanctimonious rage inducing quote selectively highlighted in his blog.

We*’re sure it’s nothing to do with the fact that it undermines the quote’s impact.

Ethical journalism’s a bitch when it comes to reporting. That’s why Blub-blub Campbell’s blog is nothing to do with ethical journalism.

It’s a clear case of presenting “only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side.”

And that’s what AhDinnaeKen calls propaganda not journalism.

Worth remembering the next time some half-witted Wingnut quotes Blub-blub’s blog as an authoritative source.


Filed under Media, Wangs Watch

5 responses to “Crybaby Nationalist and the sin of omission – exposed

  1. Senior Moment

    The problem is that no matter what happens, it will be twisted by the likes of Sturgeon and Salmond. They are intent on making Scotland toxic to the rest of the UK.

    • The biggest threat to the solidity of the Union are the Unionists themselves.

      Salmond will hope to agitate and rile up the loony wing of the Tories and UKIP who will consequently say things that rile the Scots.

      Depressing, but true.


  2. Yoshi

    Damn, longshanker, you got there before me on one of my examples…oh well, it’s not as if there’s a shortage of pieces to critique 🙂

    You did, however, miss one key ‘misspeak’ in Campbell’s tweet, which is repeated in an article I was looking at. That’s the word ‘net’, as in ‘net excess contribution’. To be blunt, either Campbell’s doesn’t understand simple maths or he’s deliberately misrepresenting data. The figures linked to by the buzzfeed article compare amounts taxed in Scotland versus the rest of the UK. As you note, the timeline is of course the best possible range for the SNP case. However, a ‘net contribution’ would also need to take into account spending in Scotland versus UK, and once that’s factored in…well, Mr. House Of Cards, please meet Mr. Gust Of Wind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s