MOAN MCVULPINE: TV bosses! Wise up or face the wrath of the Nationalist Inquisition

Joan examines work from List D academic Doctor Johnson Robertson and says it exonerates every chip on the shooder paranoid speculative belief held by the wilder eyed fringe of the Nationalist Grievance Brigade.

By Moan McVulpine – putting the pars into paranoia

DR JOHNSON Robertson is a respected academic, particularly in Nationalist circles, with a long history of saying what the Nats like to hear.

His work includes detecting bias in everything the media does.

Now the Reader in Media Bias and his researchers have turned their expertise to the Scottish emancipation campaign.

Dr Robertson’s undisclosed ‘team’ at the List D University of the West of Scotland spent a year, looking for instances of bias in the BBC and STV.

Guess what? They found them. Quelle surprise!

It’s a not so well known maxim that if you go looking for bias in a medium, you will find it.

You’ll even be able to make your grievance credible by supporting it with selected evidence.

Why do you think frothing right wingers refer to the BBC as the “Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation?”

Why do you think frothing left-wingers refer to the BBC as the “Bourgeoise Broadcasting Corporation?”

And why do you think Nationalists – particularly Firstminster Salmond – refer to the BBC as the “British Brainwashing Corporation?”

They’ve all found ‘evidence’ to back their claims.

Nowhere in the ‘extensive’ 12 page report by Dr Johnson is there anything covering the inherent bias which affects all media outlets – including the BBC.

Nowhere in the ‘extensive’ 12 page report is there anything covering how these inherent biases are mostly ‘structural’ and part of the process of news reporting.

And, nowhere in the ‘extensive’ 12 page report is there anything relating to how these inherent biases affect ‘apparent’ political bias.

But there doesn’t need to be for the Nationalists to be convinced by the veracity of the report’s conclusions.

It fits in with their parochial world view of “they’re aw against us”.

The fact that the report says there is bias against independence is enough for the Nationalists to be convinced. No more questions asked.

In short, the report gives foundation to their fundamental grievance campaign. If it wasn’t so potentially dangerous, it would be raucously laughable.

What the whinging Nationalists don’t say. Or what they would prefer to cover up is that the sport of claiming bias against the media is fundamentally elitist.

It has it’s roots in a distrust of the people – it assumes they aren’t able to make up their own mind.

Effectively, they don’t think people are capable of detecting bias or thinking for themselves.

One other very important bias which hasn’t been declared, or touched upon, is the bias of the researcher himself.

Who the funders for the research were hasn’t been declared either. Nor has the political leanings of the academic and his team.

Moan’s prepared to give the Doctor and his invisible team the benefit of the doubt on this – despite the conclusions reached.

But it’s worth taking a closer look at some of the conclusions actually made.

On page 12 the report refers to the “objective evidence presented here“.

Sorry to tell you this Dr Johnson, but there’s no such thing as ‘objective evidence’ when it comes to reporting media bias – sorry for getting all ontological on your ass.

It all, ultimately, comes down to opinion and the bias of the individual/individuals making the claim.

And that conclusion is backed up by statements like this one on page 11: “Comparing Reporting Scotland with STV News, the former seems less balanced and fair to the Yes campaign“.

“Seems” is hardly objective or irrefutably conclusive is it?

It would be easy to go on. But I don’t need to.

The fact that the Murdoch Press haven’t picked up on this report and screamed it from page one of the Scum tells you all you need to know regarding its credibility.

TV bosses are probably pishing themselves laughing up their sleeves.

Politicians have a moral obligation not to knowingly dupe their electorate.

And that includes Joan McArthyalpine and her concerted grievance narrative bias in the Daily Ranger.

COMEDY RELIEF

The question BBC Radio Scotland needs to answer

@Ergasiophobe tweeted BBC Radio Scotland’s Sunday morning Headlines programme last week (see below). The show’s presenter, Ken McDonald, chose to mention the tweet on air to deliver a gentle rebuke. He also used it to further deliver a lesson on BBC news ‘values’ to the tweeter and internet commenters in general. AhDinnaeKen figured that this alleged Macdonald “smackdown” entitled us* to this  reply:

This is the original tweet which elicited Ken’s mild rebuke. It was like being savaged by a dead sheep. Phew! Thank goodness it wasn’t Brewer. Eh?

Dear Ken, Headlines, BBC Radio Scotland.

Last Sunday I tweeted the above message with the hashtag #rsheadlines.

I chose my words – and punctuation – carefully.

On air, you chose to mock the message and deliver a mild put down.

Here’s what you said:

“A tweet just came in from somebody saying ‘The BBC has promoted a Nationalist Front website yet again referring to the “Reverend Stuart Campbell”.

“At least I know the Reverend Stuart Campbell’s name, whereas, I don’t know the name of the Tweeter because they’re hiding behind a pseudonym – Braveheart, eh?”

Which would be fair comment if your statement about ‘Reverend Stuart Campbell’ was acccurate.

You see, Ken, no one appears to know if he is a ‘Reverend’. Therefore, your claim of ‘knowing’ his name is incorrect – inaccurate, even. It could be legitimately counter-claimed that you’ve misled your listeners by making such a statement.

Perish the thought, eh?

Unless, of course, you managed to do what several print journalists failed to do earlier this year and verifiy that the “Reverend Stuart Campbell” is indeed a reverend.

I suspect you haven’t. Here’s why.

Consider the following tweeted questions to the “Reverend” from a variety of (non-reverend) print based newspaper journalists:

Not one managed to get a cogent, verifiable, reply to “Reverend Stuart Campbell’s” claim that he is a reverend – though he continued and continues to state that he is so.

My legitimate question to you Ken is this: Did you verify the reverend status?

If you didn’t, are you going to apologise on air for misleading your listeners?

A fair and relevant question, I’m sure you’ll agree.

ANOTHER TEDIOUS POINT OF PEDANTRY

After delivering your “smackdown” of @Ergasiophobe – which made me smile, bordering on, laugh – you then raised this wider point on the subject of internet commenters:

“People complain, not so much about how you handle the news – how you interpret the news – but about, simply, opinions that they don’t agree with being given some air.”

A fair enough comment, if it actually addressed the point of my original tweet. Which it didn’t.

My tweet raised the issue that you, Ken Macdonald, presenter of BBC Radio Scotland’s Headlines programmes, referred to “Reverend Stuart Campbell” of Wings Over Scotland.

I’d wager you haven’t corroborated that name from a secondary, verifiable, source. The circumstantial evidence is against you having done so.

On your other point of ‘interpretation’ and ‘handling’ of the news, by inference, you are effectively saying that Wings Over Scotland’s opinions are newsworthy.

Based on that notion, consider the following question put to a variety of prominent Indy tweeters:

The original question as put to several correspondents. Surprisingly, the majority of non-respondents were pro-indy bloggers.

The replies, in no particular order were:

Hardly scientific or conclusive, I know – and a few people declined to reply – but it is a straw poll based on identifiable, credible, individuals from both sides, and none, of the indy debate.

Optimistically, it’s inconclusive that Wings can be considered a source of news or a credible source of content to be considered newsworthy. But it does cast a shadow of doubt on your assertion regarding your “handling” and “interpretation” of the news.

Your programme, ‘Headlines’, by citing Wings Over Scotland as a news source grants the site a BBC legitimised credibility it doesn’t deserve.

As originally tweeted last week Ken, I find that “disgraceful“, bordering on offensive, given that much of the ‘polemic’ or ‘commentary’ or ‘analysis’ found within Wings Over Scotland is based on extreme, intolerant, divisive, bigotry – matched by a stream of hysterical diatribe and invective.

Within the pages of Wings Over Scotland, “Reverend Stuart Campbell” – or whatever his name is – has made the following statements: “I despise Unionists“, “the Scottish are cringing pitiful scum“, opponents of independence should be treated with “merciless contempt“, and stated that it’s “cowardly, craven and pathetic” to vote no.

So there you have it Ken. I’m calling you out on your editorial accuracy and your handling and interpretation of the news.

At best you’ve made an honest mistake re: the inaccuracy regarding Reverend Stuart Campbell’s name.

At worst, you’ve actively misled your listeners while promoting an extremist website.

Which is it?

If you ever want to verify my identity, send me a Direct Message. I’d be more than happy to provide you with some  worthwhile details.

Until then, you, your research team and your producer may like to reconsider citing Wings as a credible news source.

You undermine your own credibility by doing so.

Yours sincerely

Pseudonymous “Braveheart” – @Ergasiophobe

BBC is totally biased claims Murdoch

Truth will out was the maxim so openly demonstrated by the Inralavyson inquiry when QC Robber Jaybird questioned Goebbels Murdoch over his attempts to undermine the BBC

Each and every one of these Prime and First Ministers has complained about the inherent and total biased output of the BBC. A spokesperson for the under fire corporation said: “Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right, here we are stuck in the middle for you, the viewer.”

By Troothis Oot

GOEBBELS MURDOCH yesterday threw light on the worst kept secret in christendom that the BBC is completlely biased against everyone.

No matter the vested interest or the political party, the BBC was found wanting when it came to providing favour or lip service to third parties.

Questioned by QC Robber Jaybird on the position held by Optimus Prime, Bullingdon Dave, regarding the BBC, Murdoch replied “he hated them”.

When queried on what Tony Blair thought of the BBC, Murdoch said “he hated them”.

Following through, QC Jaybird asked what Margaret Thatcher thought of the BBC,  Mr Murdoch said “she hated them”.

Pressing further, QC Jaybird asked what John Major thought of the BBC, Mr Murdoch said “he hated them”.

Penultimately, QC Jaybird asked what Gordon Brown thought of the BBC, Mr Murdoch replied “he hated them”.

Finally, QC Jaybird queried what Sun King Alex of Salmond thought of the BBC, Mr Murdoch answered “what do you think?”

The revelations have led to accusations of total bias against the BBC.

Their silence and complicity  in the matter convicts them in the court of public opinion. Case closed.