The Good, The Bad and The Daisley

STV JOURNALIST Stephen Daisley has promoted Wings Over Scotland’s political fundraising campaign three times in the last four weeks. Each time, he has used ‘impartial’ broadcaster, Scottish Television’s, official resources to do so. Could Daisley’s actions be a breach of broadcasting regulator OFCOM’s broadcasting code? AhDinnaeKen investigates:

Replete with Wings logo for brand identification purposes no doubt, Daisley makes sure you're in no doubt that Wings is worth donating to.

Replete with STV and Wings logo, for brand identification purposes no doubt, Daisley ensures you’re left in no doubt that Wings Over Scotland is worth promoting.

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

DOES STV journalist Stephen Daisley’s admiration of Stuart Campbell of Wings Over Scotland compromise the Scottish broadcaster’s “impartiality” remit?

AhDinnaeKen thinks so. But we*’re hardly impartial in the matter. So consider the following:

OFCOM, the UK’s broadcast regulator, has a set of fairly comprehensive rules and guidelines on broadcaster neutrality. According to OFCOM’s definition of broadcaster services “a website that provides content clearly and directly related to a Broadcasting-related Service may itself be a Broadcasting-related Service.”

In other words, it’s fair to conclude that the official STV News Twitter feed and website can both be considered to be covered by OFCOM’s rules and regulations. Technically it could be a grey area, but the definition makes that seem unlikely.

Section Five of the OFCOM broadcasting code covers the expected impartiality of UK based broadcasters.

According to section 5.5: “Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service.”

Daisley provides a service to STV and the wider public at large. He mostly controls the official STV News Twitter feed, which has approximately 172,000 followers, and regularly uses it to draw readers to the official STV News website

As referred to above, Daisley has gushed over and publicised the Wings Over Scotland blog three times in the last four weeks. Each editorial piece published/broadcast on the official STV website has been promoted by one Tweet or more on the official STV News Twitter feed.

So far so what, you may ask. If something’s newsworthy, for instance, it should be reported regardless of the source of the news and be done so “without fear or favour”.

And that’s the rub AhDinnaeKen has with Daisley. We*’re fairly sure his shameless plugging of Wings is indulged in with some sort of “favour” in mind. We* don’t know what it is and we*’ll spare readers any speculation on our* part for the sake of falling into the error of accidental defamation. But something’s not quite right with Daisley’s inexplicably embarrassing actions.

The repeated promotion of Campbell’s blog is, without doubt, deeply suspect. It has the potential to bring his employer, Scottish Television, into disrepute with OFCOM. With an MSC in Political Communication, you’d expect Daisley to be above that potential scenario.

The Ofcom Broadcasting Code’s core principles regarding commercial cross promotion are outlined below:

  • “To ensure that broadcasters maintain editorial independence and control over programming (editorial independence).
  • To ensure that there is distinction between editorial content and advertising (distinction).
  • To protect audiences from surreptitious advertising (transparency).
  • To ensure that audiences are protected from the risk of financial harm (consumer protection).
  • To ensure that unsuitable sponsorship is prevented (unsuitable sponsorship).”

In each of Daisley’s Wings editorials over the period covering 27 Feb to 26 Mar 2015, he has included an advert with a link to the Wings Over Scotland fundraiser. In effect, he has actively promoted and used the official STV website to advertise Wings’ Indiegogo fundraiser.

Those three adverts in a row. It might seem like small potatoes, but the principle of breached impartiality rules is anything but. Get a grip STV, yer boy's going native.

Those three adverts in a row. From top to bottom they were published on 27 Feb, 6 Mar and 26 Mar 2015 respectively. It might seem like small potatoes to some, but the principle of breached impartiality rules is anything but. Get a grip STV, yer boy Daisley’s going native.

Daisley Indygogo Mar 06 Daisley Indygogo Mar 26

There’s room for a legitimate complaint there – not least from the likes of Bella Caledonia, Newsnet Scotland and National Collective – all alternative pro-independence media sites who have run their own fundraisers. There also appears to be no ‘distinction’ made between Daisley’s editorial content and ‘advertising’ of the Wings blog which hardly fulfils the need to “protect audiences from surreptitious advertising.”

The Electoral Commission is currently investigating Wings Over Scotland’s incomplete spending returns from the referendum campaign. If found guilty of breaching the rules, editor Stuart Campbell potentially faces a prison sentence.

Yet, Daisley appears to see no conflict of interest in encouraging STV News site visitors to donate to the politically partisan site. It’s questionable at best, and a breach of broadcasting impartiality rules at worst.

For the sake of “transparency” and editorial “impartiality”, Daisley, or his employer STV, must explain the reasons for this sustained and blatant promotion of one individual’s pro-media blog.

Clever and playful as he is, Daisley doesn’t appear too savvy regarding non-social media perceptions out there. Three big plugs in four weeks looks like he’s doing a friend a “favour” beyond the call of journalistic duty or the public interest. He may be guilty of nothing but, to AhDinnaeKen’s eyes at least, it looks like a straightforward case of back slapping camradery, surreptitious advertising and shameless cross promotion with ulterior motive attached.

We* respectfully request that Daisley get’s a grip and provides ‘transparency’ for the various STV News reading publics out there – otherwise, he’s keeping everyone in the dark. The repeated and sustained promotion of Wings Over Scotland through STV’s official broadcasting media services is the behaviour of a besotted schmuck and is unbecoming of an allegedly impartial broadcaster.

Daisley’s not only embarrassing himself, he’s embarrassing Scottish Television.

And that embarrassment could prove to be embarrassingly costly.

What a putz!

Readers, as ever, can make up their own minds.

The full OFCOM definition of Broadcasting services in the section covering cross promotion.

The full OFCOM definition of Broadcasting services in the section covering cross promotion.



Filed under Media, Wangs Watch

19 responses to “The Good, The Bad and The Daisley

  1. Major Disaster

    Seems like Wingsy is still pissed off big time…

  2. Almost half of Wings alleged Twitter followers are fakes or inactive. His readership figures, as I’ve documented elsewhere are a complete and utter sham, and his personality is that of 14 year old who never experienced any other rites of passage.

    Of course he’s in the huff. Kate Higgins is an adult in an adult world. Wingsy is a sprite in a virtual reality game.

    The sooner his half-wit donors realise that the better.



    NB: the donors will never realise that. They are the people you can ‘fool all of the time.’

  3. Major Disaster

    Amusing to see this;

    Rev. Stuart Campbell says: 30 March, 2015 at 10:51 am
    “the last thing we need is articles saying SNP bad.”

    No, the last thing the Yes movement needed was some fucking halfwit deciding that five weeks before an election was the best time to raise such a divisive issue at the SNP conference. Someone needs their arse kicking up and down the corridors of SNP HQ for a week for that.

    I care that people as massively politically engaged and committed to our common goal of independence as Lauren are being driven from their party by stupidity. I don’t think that’s good for either the SNP, the independence movement or politics in general.

    # Hmmm I wonder who he could have in mind for raising ‘such a divisive issue’?


    Rev. Stuart Campbell says: 30 March, 2015 at 10:46 am

    “but throwing your toys out of the pram and leaving said debate is a little self-defeating”

    That’s enough. From now on anyone using the phrase “toys out of the pram” or anything similar gets deleted. Everyone has their own red lines, their own views on which compromises are acceptable and which aren’t. By all means debate the decision to resign, but I’m not having it in such insulting terms any more.

    # He’s really not happy…

    Interesting also to see his comment;

    JimStir says: 30 March, 2015 at 10:47 am

    To be honest this post looks like a bit of revenge for the Rev,after the Kate Higgins thing ,which is still not been stated officially.

    This site has at times quite a misogynistic leaning, and i feel this article/rant was selected to reflect this. 78% of Westminster seats are held by men.At Holyrood it is better at with Women at 34.9%, still way short of equal representation.”

    and this

    bookie from hell says: 30 March, 2015 at 10:19 am


    soaring above scottish politics

    REV # fail

    Rev has had a hissy fit last few days,and it’s personal

    starts with a personal assistant to nicola sturgeon

    woman’s quotas

    I’m right everyone else wrong agenda

    tweets about penis envy

    then reads out a riot act before you can post

    you couldn’t make it up

    # Indeed!

    The Rev is definitely not happy

    • Jings

      Yes the cracks are beginning to show. It was only a matter of time as a fair few of the snp’s new members will be the sort that supported the SSP, that other shyster perma tan Tommy or are idealistic, politically ignorant new age commies that came out of the national collective. Just wait until that lot start to realise that they aren’t going to get their way. Things could get very interesting indeed.

      • Yoshi

        Now the followers are suggesting Campbell has lost it:

        “Rev you need to take more time off, go to anger management classes, because the way you have been replying to some of your loyal followers and subscribers to you fund raisers has Frankly been appalling. No point in having a go @ the SNP OR it’s leader for just doing what the hell they liked, when you obviously run this site to please ONLY yourself, going by posts from you as of late.”


        Feminism has always been one of Campbell’s Achilles heels. I’ll give him credit for keeping his impulses somewhat under control for the last couple of years, supported ably by a huge following of enablers. But as always happens, his mistaken belief that he’s cleverer than everyone else comes back to bite him as he causes momentous strife where non existed, just to prove to the world that he’s always right.

        In this situation he normally doubles down rather than folding, and emboldened by his 100K of alleged donations, I’d put money on this not ending here. Pass the popcorn!

      • Once the tedious humdrum day to day shystering of Westminster begins its turgid wheel turning, the impatience of the ‘Radical’ element in the SNP will lead to schism. It’s beginning to look, on many fronts, that there will be a Salmond camp and a Sturgeon camp. I predict two versions of the SNP within 2-5 years. That totalitarian internal policy diktat regarding criticism within the party will only exacerbate things.


    • Indeed Major.

      Referendum was one track monomania.

      General election covers a multitude of choices. Propaganda only works with simple and repetitive mantras.

      If it’s possible, Wingnuts will become even more hard core.

      I’d laugh. But some of the Wingnuts seem like genuine people.


    • Thanks Major

      Surprisingly, I don’t read a great deal of Wings other than when his outpourings intrude on my Twitter timeline. Handy tip, always do an archive copy when comments like that appear. They may disappear pronto. Stuff that disappears tells you more about the twisted hypocrisy of Campbell than virtually anything else.

      Good to see that “toys out of the pram” is so “offensive”. At least the less than ultra loyal are beginning to see what everyone else could almost 4 years ago.


  4. Jim Fraser

    Do you really think Stephen Daisley is pro-SNP/independence? Blimey.

    • Where did I say that?

      Learn to read not to hypothesise.

      • Jim Fraser

        So you don’t think Daisley is biased towards the pro-independence movement? Truly, it’s a question, not a hypothesis. Personally, I think you’re shooting at one of your own, but it’s a free country 😉

      • The only bias I detect in Daisley is right wing – he’s a Thatcherite and a Zionist. I wouldn’t condemn him for either – but it colours his political outlook and at times dominates it.

        It also leaves him attracted to extremists like Campbell. Like every spurned lover by proxy before him, Daisley has thought he was the ‘special’ one to tame Campbell’s excesses. But, as he’s recently found out, you cannot appease or reason with a zealot.

        Not quite sure what you mean by “one of your own”. Much as I think some of Daisley’s written work is brilliant, he’s one of the last people I would consider ‘one of my own’.


      • Jim Fraser

        I had Stephen pegged as a (self-described, to be fair) Zionist, but first and foremost a New Labourite, keen to remind Scottish voters not only of the dangers of a Corbyn leadership, but the betrayal of his grandfather’s soul that voting for the SNP would entail. He has of course written entertainingly about the foibles of all of the parties in Scotland, but when he gets serious he sounds very much like a Labour special adviser.

        I think his position on Rev Stu is one of disdain. If he ever ‘promoted’ Wings Over Scotland he was doing it for a laugh. I do enjoy reading a lot of his work, but I imagine if STV ever let him on the TV they would have to curtail his online output, because he’s just not balanced enough to get away with it (which I imagine even Ofcom would spot eventually).

        So I think Stephen Daisley is Labour, albeit right wing/New Labour and would only be taken in to an independent Scotland kicking and screaming. In the meantime he’ll do everything possible to put off that dread day. Hence my surprise that you would take issue with him since, on that issue at least, you appear to be of one mind.

        If I can speak frankly, you seem to be so blinded by your very strong dislike of WoS (not an outlet I hold any brief for) that you’ll do anything to harm him, even trying to get one of your fellow-travellers (the bold Stephen) the sack if that suits your personal purpose. That would be a great pity, because although I think Daisley is at it most of the time, his writing is vastly superior to anything written by the political staff over on the BBC part of Pacific Quay.

  5. Jim

    Daisley’s a Zionist and a Thatcher admirer. He wrote a glowing, emetically charged, eulogy for the Jewish Chronicle or somesuch publication praising Thatcher to the high heavens. Based on the content, that makes him a certain type of Nationalist in my eyes; albeit, one without serious character defects.

    I think his position on Rev Stu is one of disdain.

    It may be now. It doesn’t quite square with his visiting of Campbell in Bath, but hey, you never know.

    He actively promoted the Wings fundraiser. I’m surprised you’re trying to fob it off as a “laugh”. It was an abuse of an impartial broadcaster’s resources in order to try and detoxify Wings – and it clearly helped bung a few extra donors in the direction of Wings. I’d rather Daisley had plugged Bellacaledonia. At least there’s an element of plurality and diversity in that website’s output – rather than just tedious ad nauseum monomania.

    you seem to be so blinded by your very strong dislike of WoS

    Campbell raised a criminally serious charge against this website – he even named a person – and I made Daisley aware of that. All Daisley needed to do was ask Campbell for corroborative evidence other than Campbell’s ‘opinion’. You’re calling the wrong person ‘blind’. Iain MacWhirter made a similar mistake, which he surreptitiously appears to have corrected.

    An active promoter of Wings is no ‘fellow traveller’ of mine. You’re reading this site wrong – which is understandable – if you think that.


    • Jim Fraser

      Interesting, thanks.

      I didn’t know there was ‘previous’ between you and Wings (the trouble of coming in to a conversation ‘down the thread’ I suppose).

      You’ll possibly have seen that I’m a Yes-voter (still) so I suppose you might say Wings and I are fellow-travellers Although I find his style a bit shouty and sometimes counter-productive, I do appreciate someone digging in to the coverage provided by the regular media because if anyone thinks that’s always impartial (as it purports to be) they are deluded.

      I think we’re going to have to disagree on young Stephen.

      When he first started writing for STV online I think he did it almost completely under the rules of sketch-writing (he’s very funny) and so he took the mickey out of both sides of the referendum debate quite successfully. At that time I don’t think you’d know which way he would have voted.

      As we moved beyond the referendum we got closer to Stephen’s heart, I think (you’ll have seen his eve of poll speech about not betraying his/our grandfathers by voting anything other than Labour?) Clearly he’s not a Corbyn fan, and so I’d agree with your analysis of ‘right-wing’ in a Labour management class kind of a way. So perhaps he’s not a fellow-traveller of yours in a party political sort of a way. But from what I’ve seen of your writing I think he’d be in lock-step with you on Scottish self-determination, sorry, separatism 😉

      • I didn’t know there was ‘previous’ between you and Wings

        This is worth reading. It’s a bit ranty but doesn’t miss the mark. You should also read the original ‘The Personal Touch’ piece by Campbell. It’s an archetypal example of the type of underhandedness Campbell regularly accuses the mainstream media of. Notably though, no newspaper would have been stupid enough or extreme enough to run with a story like ‘The Personal Touch’.

        You can be a Yes voter and not be a fellow traveller with Campbell. There are many sensible and honourable reasons for voting Yes. Finger pointing and overtly aggressive othering had little to do with the Yes meetings and rallies I attended. Campbell appeals to certain types of Nationalists whom, despite the posturing and boastfulness of Campbell, I believe are on the fringes of mainstream Yes. Apart from the articulation and intelligence, he’s not far removed from The Scottish Resistance type.

        As for the media. It’s patronising and condescending in the extreme to think that people are empty vessels who swallow whatever’s written in a newspaper. In every survey taken on the subject throughout the 90s and 2000’s for example, only around ten percent of the general population thought journalists were trustable – ironically a figure lower than the number who thought politicians were trustable. So go figure. The general public is a lot more media savvy than Nationalists like Campbell give them credit for.

        And, to that extent, Campbell’s a one trick pony – dull, repetitive and monotonous.

        I like Daisley’s writing. On song his writing can be dazzling and is frequently hilarious. He showed his hand with his comments and frequent attacks on Corbyn – that’s the Zionist-Thatcherite Nationalist coming out in him. Hey ho, we all have our pecadilloes.

        As for Scottish determination, you appear to have made an incorrect presumption about the way I voted in the referendum.


      • Jim Fraser

        I am extremely pleased to hear you are a Yes voter. It is not at all obvious from your tweets or other writing I’ve seen online, where the line you take does seem to be a bit ‘perfidious SNP’. Each to their own, of course, and not particularly liking the SNP or Wings are no bar to being a self-determinist (is that a word?) I had certainly assumed from your comments over the months that you were a No voter, and a quite convinced one at that. Sometimes it’s hard to tell people’s allegiances, certainly, in a world where Chris Deerin is, apparently, a Labour man of long-standing, or so he says. I suppose we should applaud their ability to hide their true feelings so comprehensively. Out of interest, and perhaps just because i don’t want to go on misunderstanding where you’re coming from, what is it about Scottish independence that you think will be so positive?

  6. Pingback: A squalid sideshow – SNP MP denies involvement in silencing journalist, fails to prove case | The Nation said No Thanks!

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