Category Archives: Newspeak

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

Leave a comment

Filed under CyberNats, Newspeak, Wangs Watch

Sturgeon signs mutual “torture” pact with Trump and May

NATIONALIST leaders vow to torture legions of unbelievers into submission.

trump-may-sturgeon-torture

“We do solemnly declare that we do not know of any lawful impediment why we, Trump, Sturgeon and May, may not be joined in mutual torturing of our respective sovereign people and populations.”

By Owch Yabassa waterboarding and political torture correspondent

FOR YEARS it has been fashionable to express disgust at the use of torture by western governments. Donald Trump’s new pact with Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon is set to turn that norm on its head and make torture socially acceptable.

The Donald, yesterday, vowed to continue torturing the populace of the free world and claimed to have taken a leaf out of Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon’s books:

“Theresa May has tortured both the Brits and the Europeans for months now over what Brexit actually means.

“First she said ‘Brexit means Brexit” and then she said “Brexit means a red, white and blue Brexit”, which meant Brexit wasn’t a black, white or grey Brexit.

“That’s one of the most effective forms of mass population torture I have ever witnessed. Even I found it tortuous and I thought I was a master of the art.”

Theresa May thanked the Donald and even found time to coin a new slogan in praise of the new mutually exclusive torture pact:

“Torture means torture” she said. “And our torture will be a red, black and blue torture which will become infamous throughout the western world.”

Not to be outdone, but knowing her place, Firstminster Sturgeon made the following pledge:

“I swear that I will continue torturing the population of Scotland by threatening to call a second independence referendum every time someone looks at me the wrong way or says something I don’t like.

“Unlike Prime Minister May and President Trump I have managed to torture the whole of the Scottish population simultaneously.

“First I tortured the Unionists with my threats to call a second independence referendum. And then I tortured my ain folk with my pledge to take indpendence aff the table if we could compromise on Brexit meaning something other than Brexit.”

All three leaders have entered willingly into the torture pact and have vowed to continue torturing anyone who has the misfortune to hear anything they have to say.

2 Comments

Filed under Diplomacy, Law, Newspeak

Idiot Nationalist MPs attack BBC based on false premise

SNP DELEGATES voted by 4999 to 1 yesterday that all Nationalists who care about their country – from internet “oddballs” to Members of Parliament – should attack the BBC for anything and everything: even when dear old Auntie’s to blame for nothing but reporting the news. Poor old Uncle Ken Macdonald got the brunt of it yesterday. AhDinnaeKen reports:

By Meeja ByassAnally retentive semantic etymologist

“SNP members at the conference in Aberdeen have rejected calls for the party to back an outright ban on fracking” reported the BBC’s Uncle Ken Macdonald yesterday on Newsdrive circa 5:10pm.

Little did he know the hot water it had just placed him in. Sitting beside him in a cold caravan outside of the SNP conference were two of the SNP’s most recent Members of Parliament; Tommy Sheppard and Stuart McDonald.

Both politicians, in unitary and drone like fashion, attacked Uncle Ken: putting words in his mouth while demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of news reporting and news values.

“I have to say, the option for voting for an outright ban was not before members, you’re wrong to say that” chided Stuart McDonald officiously.

It was a classic example of Nationalist projection. At no point did Uncle Ken refer to a vote. But it didn’t stop Stuart McDonald from stomping around on his moral high horse insisting the BBC man had.

According to the The Friends of the Earth Scotland Blog – who attended the event:

“Speaker after speaker was cheered when they called for a full ban, there were even standing ovations. If the motion on offer had been for a full ban it would clearly have sailed through.”

Which clearly – and independently – shows Uncle Ken was factually correct: there were calls for a ban which were rejected because such a vote was not on the cards.

“We didn’t actually say there was a motion calling for an outright ban” defended Uncle Ken.

But it didn’t stop Tommy Sheppard MP from insisting, “you did, you did Ken”?

Aside from outright stupidity, projection or intentional malice, there appears to be no excuse for Sheppard’s misplaced idiocy.

Sheppard said – in the same officious moralising tone as McDonald: “You said SNP members rejected calls. They never ever voted on whether there should be an outright ban.”

It resulted in a robust and somewhat frustrated rebuttal from Uncle Ken. He couldn’t resist mocking the pair for their paranoid idiocy:

“It’s not a massive conspiracy really. I didn’t get my instructions from the Duke of Edinburgh this morning.” he said.

Things settled down and the interview continued. But it left a bad taste in the mouth.

Have Nationalists been given instructions from party central to attack the BBC on any premise, no matter how petty or inconsequential or plain incorrect?

Given this exchange it looks as if they have.

Attacking the BBC in concerted fashion puts the SNP on the same grounds as the worst of the Tories.

It’s clearly an undisguised attempt to intimidate and stifle free reporting – a phenomenon SNP apparatchiks are increasingly militant and blatant about.

*The edited report and interview can be listened to above. It includes the initial one line report circa 5:10pm by Ken MacDonald on Newsdrive. The full interview can be listened to on the BBC iplayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06gxtmf around the 01:36:00 mark – unless, of course, the BBC have sinisterly ‘doctored’ and replaced the file for a black ops MI5 version.

4 Comments

Filed under Media, Newspeak

America deserved 9/11 said ‘Reverend’ who laughed at it all on TV

NATIONALISTS AND extremists alike are well known for their moralising and pontificating judgemental style. Witness the manufactured outrage of Wings Over Scotland’s faux ‘reverend’, Stuart Campbell, regarding tasteless comments Tweeted by a Tory councillor recently. Stones and glasshouses, pots and kettles come to mind. But what about laughing at 9/11 on TV? AhDinnaeKen provides some much needed context:

"Mawkish, maudlin c**ts" the lot of them said the forensically analytical fraudulent 'reverend'.

“Mawkish, maudlin c**ts” the lot of them said the forensic analytical faux ‘reverend’ in an outburst of 9/11 context, recently.

By Longshanker aka @Ergasiophobe – context correspondent

A REVEREND who “laughed” at 9/11 on TV, has attacked the people who observed a Europe wide three minute silence to honour the Twin Tower victims, as “mawkish, maudlin cunts”.

Reverend Stuart Campbell, a hate preaching Scottish Nationalist from England, claimed America got what it deserved from the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York.

Comparing terrorist murderers, Al-Qaeda, to a dog, the Reverend said: If you kick a dog long enough, eventually it’s going to turn round and bite you, and it’s nobody’s fault but your own.”

And, in further reinforcement of this twisted belief, he also said: There was a widespread sense in this little village of America’s chickens having come home to roost.”

The comments were made on the ‘reverend’s’ blogsite, World of Stuart.

Not content with blaming America for the terrorist atrocity, Campbell turned his rabid froth on the three minute silence proposed in 2001 by the Council of Europe to demonstrate solidarity with the American people.

Finding himself in WH Smith at the designated time of the continent wide vigil, Campbell explained his reaction to those marking their respect for the 9/11 victims: “I was genuinely stunned, in the angry rather than the impressed sense.

“As I walked down the main street, looking at all these idiots standing stock still and silent outside River Island, I just thought: “Fuck you, you mawkish, maudlin cunts.”

“I bet you didn’t stand here like goons for the victims of Enniskillen, as if they’d have given a shit if you did. So why are you suddenly choking back tears for a bunch of American stockbrokers from even further away than Bosnia? Fucking hypocrites.” I kept on walking, and fired all their dirty looks right back at them.”

The Reverend has form on the terrorist outrage. In 2009, in a game forum thread, he confessed to an American game console fan that “9/11 was brilliant. I watched it all on TV and laughed the whole time.”

Yes! How those Americans must have laughed to know just how comically extreme the 'kind hearted reverend' really is.

Campbell said his laughing at 9/11 comment “was an ironic, sarcastic joke which set out to say the most offensive thing possible in order to illustrate a point.” The illustrated point being, of course, that he watched it all on TV and laughed the whole time – ‘comically extreme’.

Apologists defended the Reverend’s shocking outburst, claiming the comments were “taken out of context” and that they were, in fact, a joke.

Longstanding critic of the fraudulent ‘reverend’, Longshanker, put the “out of context” claim in context.

He said: “The context of Campbell’s laughter at the 9/11 tragedy goes way beyond the immediate context of the quote and the surrounding hateful outbursts.

“Campbell had been criticised on a games forum by people more knowledgable than him over a feature he had written for Retro Gamer magazine on a games franchise called Metal Slug.

“The forum is, and was, dedicated to the Neo-Geo games console. The Metal Slug franchise is revered by these guys.

“It’s telling that Campbell’s critics were American. Campbell clearly holds a pathological hatred for America or Americans, as can be seen from his Al-Qaeda sympathising comments quoted here.

“Also worth noting, context wise, is that Campbell was 41 when he made these comments – not just some silly adolescent games geek trying to say the most outrageous thing he could in order to gain notoriety and a reputation as a bit of a ‘naughty’ boy.

“41 year old Campbell made the 9/11 statement in the full knowledge that the limited audience for his toxic offensiveness were Americans on an American forum.

“So, whether the laughing at 9/11 comment was a joke or not, it should still be taken within the context that it was said, that is, to deliberately offend an American audience in the most disgustingly noxious and targeted form possible.

“Anyone claiming otherwise has no concept of context.

“I wonder how Campbell’s cabal of piss-pathetic apologists will excuse his ‘mawkish, maudlin cunts’ comment. Unless, of course, they agree. Which, knowing the apologist type who hang on Campbell’s every word, they probably will.”

Campbell, 46, is a middle-aged, childless, partnerless, siblingless, “oddball” loner, who takes pictures of his shadow on solitary walks and articulates the voice of a certain type of flag and soil Scot, in Scotland.

He also blames 9/11 for his loss of a living, games magazines surrendering to advertisers – as if games magazines had ever done anything else pre or post 9/11 – and the wholesale corruption of the games industry.

Duncan's a thoughtful fellow. We're sure he'll put those thoughts into context.

Campbell claimed Duncan Hothersall had an agenda against Wings “…based on extensive personal experience of Hothersall issuing a long string of despicable lies, defamations, smears and general falsehoods in an attempt to discredit this site.” Ironically, Campbell cited the Tweet above to clear his name. Ye couldnae make it up.

 

5 Comments

Filed under Diplomacy, Newspeak, Wangs Watch

Salmond demands apology for BBC bias during sacking of Berwick

BERWICK WAS the key to mediaevel Scotland’s economic wealth and formed a major part of the country’s culture and identity before it was put to the sword by the evil English basturt homophobe, King Edward Longshanks. Exminster and Regent of Scotland, Alex Salmond, has demanded that Queen Elizabeth personally apologise for its sacking in 1296. AhDinnaeKen reports:

We need the kind of upstanding reporting of political affairs you find in the Sun said Exminster Salmond, yesterday

We need the kind of upstanding reporting of political affairs you find in the Sun said Exminster Salmond, yesterday

By Fewdull Mastersretrospective history and grievance correspondent

ALEX SALMOND has called for the return of Berwick and a full and unconditional apology from the BBC for its “biased” report of the sacking in 1296.

The Ex-Firstminster also demanded reparations be paid for the ensuing damage to Scotland’s economy and that the Queen should be forced to take the “walk of shame” doon the Royal Mile.

“Berwick was the economic powerhouse of mediaevel Scotland” raged Salmond “and its loss has reverberated throughout the centuries of our oppression and tortured subjugation by the imperial basturt English.”

The outburst follows yesterday’s Salmond led launch of a Nationalist campaign entitled ‘It’s Oor Berwick – hauns aff English basturts!’

Mr Salmond said he did not voice his criticism earlier due to an important consultation with William Wallace’s entrails.

The BBC’s feudal overlord in the Scottish province, Sir Auld Nick Robinson, said: “It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are reporting, but for freedom of speech – for that alone, which no honest BBC man gives up but with life itself.”

Historical grievance and chip-on-shooder spokesperson for the Nationalists, Wee Naebudy, said: “Once we achieve oor ffrreeddoomm a hundred years from now, Auld Nick Robinson’s getting blacklisted and burnt in effigy – er haud oan, we’ve din that already.”

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Newspeak, Opinion

SNP ditch principles for foxes sake

ANOTHER PAPER cut on the road to the death of a thousand cuts. SNP decision to vote on the England and Wales foxhunting ban proves an old adage about politicians and lips moving. AhDinnaeKen reports:

"With regard to the problem of the Sudeten Parliamentary Sitz, my patience is now at an end!" said Gruppenführer Angus Robertson yesterday.

“The SNP have one overriding principle by which we all stand,” said GruppenFuhrer Robertson,  “We have no foxing principles!”

By Ewe TurnCompromised principles correspondent

IN AN unprincipled show of principle, the SNP will vote against attempts to relax the ban on fox hunting in England and Wales.

Angus Robertson, the SNP’s Westminster Gruppenführer, said the party wanted to send a message to the Tories about how principled the SNP’s unprincipled stance on principle was.

“We want to show the Tories that our principles are every bit as unprincipled as theirs,” he said.

“Therefore, it is right and proper that we assert that Scottish SNP MPs have the same rights as the Tories to turn our backs on and ignore promises made before the election. That is our vow and it will be as trustable and principled as that other ‘vow’ we never stop whining and bleating about.”

Holyrood Gruppenführer, Nicola Sturgeon, also waded into the debate to defend her party’s indefensible stance:

“The English want us to be this unprincipled,” she asserted without evidence.

“The real reason we’re compromising our alleged principles is less to do with foxhunting and more to do with our lack of principle.

David Cameron’s government has shown very little respect to the mandate that Scottish MPs have.

“We’re going to show even less respect to that mandate by sullying our ‘unsullied principle’ by voting for something we said we wouldn’t.

“That will send a clear and unprincipled message of principle to the Tories that, like them, you just can’t trust the SNP on anything we say you can trust us on.

“Trust me, this is one principle you can trust the SNP with – until, that is, we change our minds and decide you can’t.”

Sturgeon in the Guardian 8 Feb 2015.

Sturgeon in the Guardian 8 Feb 2015.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Lies, Newspeak, SNP-MPs

Notorious historian defends Nazis from comparison to SNP

CONTROVERSIAL HISTORIAN, David Irving, argues the Nazis were many bad and evil things, but comparing them to the SNP is beyond the pale. AhDinnaeKen reports:

The fascist fifty-six in the House of Commons, yesterday.

The fascist fifty-six in the House of Commons, yesterday.

By Ach TungHistory and politics correspondent

THE NAZIS may have been genocidal war criminals on an industrial scale, but comparing them to the SNP is a slur on their reputation according to a notorious historian.

David Irving claims that if you put aside some of the more negative aspects of the Nazis such as the centralised police force, state sponsored silencing of dissent and systematic oppression and destruction of undesirables, you would find the Nazis were much more effective in both rhetoric and action than the SNP could ever dream of.

“The Nazis did what they said they would do and eschewed the type of pretendy gesture politics we see from the SNP” said Irving.

“Hitler delivered for the working class – even throughout the war – and offered opportunities previously unavailable to ordinary German citizens.

“Unlike the SNP’s eight year subsidy of the middle-class, the Nazis delivered true social mobility.

“Unemployment was virtually eradicated, vocational training programs were greatly expanded, and efficient workers were rewarded with generous incentives for further advancement.

“All of these things took place over a five year period between 1933 and 1938.

“The SNP have had eight years to improve the lot of the working class. What they have delivered in real terms can be summed up by two words – hee haw.

“So stop impugning the Nazis by comparing them to the SNP.

“The Nazis were to progressive politics what the SNP are to numeracy and literacy. Er, haud on!”

 

2 Comments

Filed under Newspeak, Opinion