Monthly Archives: October 2017

Analysis: Eric Joyce defends Wings “quality” lies

WITH FRIENDS like Ex-Labour MP Eric Joyce, you clearly don’t have any. AhDinnaeKen replies to Mr Joyce’s recent claim that Wings presents the world with “quality” analysis. 

Mail Monthly Browsers

Wings Over Scotland claims to have 346,000 unique visitors per month to his website. The Mail Online, by comparison, has 243 million. Oh!

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

DISGRACED EX-Labour MP Eric Joyce threw down the gauntlet to his readers recently.

He challenged them to compare the quality of Nationalist website Wings Over Scotland’s analysis to the standards of the BBC’s and the newspapers.

AhDinnaeKen decided to respond to that challenge.

Joyce said: “In simple terms of quality, I encourage any readers here who don’t already have a view about Wings (and there are a few) to take a look at any single Wings story and make their own judgement about whether analysis there is at least up to the standard of – frankly actually way above – the standard they’ll find at the BBC website or in most newspapers.”

To keep it simple and topical for Joyce – we assumed he was drunk or grievously assaulting someone when he made the challenge – we chose one of Campbell’s most recent anti-BBC clickbait rants: https://wingsoverscotland.com/heres-to-you-mr-robinson/

In the piece, Squealer Campbell, editor of Wings, responds to the BBC’s Nick Robinson’s claim that sites such as Campbell’s view their attacks on the BBC as a “key part of their political strategy.”

Campbell then embarks on a standard, for him, ad nauseum ad hominem attack on Robinson in which he attempts to justify his site as a plausible outlet of political commentary rather than the hyperbolic extreme propaganda that it really is.

Ironically, Campbell confirms Robinson’s claim that Wings ‘most shared and liked stories are attacks on the MSM and the BBC in particular’.

Campbell said: “Three of this site’s top 10 most-read articles of all time, including the #1 and #2, are about the BBC, and one of them concerns Robinson himself…”

So far so humdrum. Quality wise it’s pretty dull for non-partisans. Much like the low level drone of the local pub politics bore.

But then, near the end of the piece, the real, empirically quantifiable, demonstrably provable, predictably inevitable, drop in “quality” appears. And Mr Joyce should take careful note of the following and query it with Campbell.

For near the end of the piece, Campbell illustrates, through the use of a table, that his site is in direct competition – in terms of readership – with the mainstream newspapers.

It’s a cynical, manipulative, risible lie which has already been debunked by this site several times. For the sake of Mr Joyce we’ll summarise.

In the readership table below Campbell makes it look like his “Unique Readers” figures are on a direct “like for like” par with the newspapers.

Readers Figs Ho Ho

This table was published in Campbell’s recent rant in Nick Robinson’s direction. Impudent and bold it may be. But it’s a lie. Wings figures are not remotely comparable to the National Readership Survey figures.

They’re not.

They’re nothing remotely like it. The newspaper readership figures referred to by Campbell comes from the National Readership Survey which is conducted independently by IPSOS Mori and partners. It costs the newspaper industry a fortune due to its importance to advertisers who use the figures to plan their newspaper advertising strategies.

Campbell’s readership figures, however, come from his webhosts and are based on Google analytics figures. Actual reader figures can be reduced by a factor of up to ten or more. Usually more.

For the sake of clarity, Campbell’s webhosts use the term “unique visitors”. It is a term interchangeable with; “unique users”, unique devices” and “unique browsers”.

It is not interchangeable with “unique readers” because “unique readers” are living, breathing, quantifiable individual human beings.

For the sake of comparison, the Mail Online recorded 243 million monthly “unique browsers” in Jan 2017 as reported in the Press Gazette (illustrated above).

Unique visitors Wings

Campbell claimed the figures above were “something close to a like-for-like comparison of online traffic for Scotland’s biggest news brands.” That’s his ‘big lie’. They’re nothing close to a like for like comparison.

Campbell’s relatively paltry monthly figures are less than 0.15% of the Mail’s figure. And that’s a true “like for like” comparison.

Yet, according to Campbell’s table, he gets 68% of the Mail’s readership. In effect, Campbell has compared apples with oranges and got raspberries.

If a “MSM” newspaper, or the BBC, did such a thing in any of their reports or features, they would be hauled over the coals, and castigated for grossly misleading their readers.

But Campbell doesn’t have to answer to outside bodies. He doesn’t even answer to his “echo chamber” donors who – just like Eric Joyce – are clearly incapable of discerning “quality” from accuracy, impartiality, analysis or truth.

That’s why AhDinnaeKen decided to take Mr Joyce’s challenge. When diatribe dressed up and believed as quality analysis is so easily disproved, it needs to be pointed out.

Campbell’s a liar and that’s a “quality” that comes through loud and clear in  the “quality” of the piece looked at today.

We await Mr Joyce’s counter argument with distinct disinterest.

 

 

Like for Like comparison

Campbell made the above claim after his annual mendicant appeal on IndieGoGo. For “something close” read ‘nothing like’. This statement really did make AhDinnaeKen chortle. If you think the above is “quality” analysis then you should look up the meaning of the word. You clearly don’t understand it and should adjust your mindset accordingly.

 

 

 

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under CyberNats, Newspeak, Wangs Watch