Thursday, 3 November 2011

I’m finding it hard to defend BBC Scotland today …

I grew up with the BBC. My earliest memories are of the BBC in 1939 in the lead-up to war. I didn’t understand the significance of what the announcers were saying, but I saw the tension and sensed the apprehension among my older male relatives. The BBC was my ear on the world and in the 1950s it became my window on the world.  I am one of a declining minority of the population who heard William Joyce – Lord Haw Haw – live, and felt the chill at that braying voice saying “Germany calling, Germany calling”. My instinct is to defend the BBC, because it was the voice of freedom in a world infected by fascism.

Since becoming a nationalist, then a blogger and a YouTube clip poster, radio and television news broadcasts have become very important to me, and with this has come a highly-developed sensitivity to balance and bias in the media. In this period, I have to say that had I, or any Scottish voter, never mind any nationalist, relied on the Scottish or the UK press to get an idea of what was going on in Scottish politics, then the SNP governments would never have been elected, no matter how hard they campaigned on the doorsteps – their voice, and vitally, the image of their people and politicians would have been either completely absent or presented pejoratively.

It was television news and current affairs programmes that made the SNP what it is today, and the BBC, with all its failings, was in my view the major contributor to that, albeit sometimes in spite of themselves. Its nationalists critics – and by God, have they bent my ear – would never have been aware of most of the issues they were addressing without the BBC, their target. (Of course this was not true of party activists and insiders.)

Without the Politics Show Scotland, Newsnight Scotland, the weekly broadcast of FMQs, Channel 81 coverage, and, yes, the UK-level programmes like The Daily Politics, Newsnight, and Question Time, the Scottish National Party would not have had many of its best moments, its peak exposure, Alex Salmond would not have become the national and international figure he has become, nor in my view, I repeat, would the SNP have been elected to government.

Had the nationalist movement been reliant on NewsnetScotland and the army of bloggers like me, it would not remotely have been enough. The online community, vital though they are to our democracy and freedom of expression, would have had only marginal impact of they had not had the televised media to react to, to clip, to deride, to criticise, to comment on. And capable though many online commentators are, few, if any, can match the professionalism and the resources that professional journalists and commentators can bring to the debate.

But I have not been an uncritical defender of the BBC, or any media outlet, and anyone who thinks this should really take the trouble to trawl through my output over the last few years. I can say that I would have had no existence as a blogger, commentator or YouTube poster without the mainstream media. The relationship, whether I or anyone else likes it or not, is a symbiotic one.

But it has got harder and harder to ignore the blatant bias in the print media, the insidious practice of unionist propaganda by partisan headline in factual news items while a pretence at objectivity is maintained – one might say buried – in the main body of text. The Scotsman has become notorious in this regard. The Herald, often guilty of it, seems to be emerging into a period of relative objectivity, with periodic lapses.

NEWSNIGHT SCOTLAND

The focus of much of the inchoate rage of some nationalists has been Newsnight Scotland, and I have to say they have sometimes deserved it. Their position is unenviable in the schedules, with 20 minutes after the big budget Newsnight. I’ll say no more on that, because it has been covered comprehensively and effectively by Pete Martin, creative director of the Gate Worldwide in the Scotsman today in his article STV’s new contender has BBC on the ropes. Pete Martin article – Scotsman

He is referring to Scotland Tonight, with John Mackay as frontman, scheduled at 10.30 p.m. Last night, the juxtaposition and content of these two programmes pointed up, as nothing has previously done, what has gone wrong with Newsnight Scotland recently.

Leaving aside the fact that the global finance system appears to be approaching meltdown, the EU is in crisis, and the spectacularly incompetent UK Coalition government has no idea where to position itself in this maelstrom, the big story for Scotland yesterday was the ‘confidential’ advice given by Cititgroup, an international banking giant, to its investment clients which found its way at remarkable speed on to the media and into PMQs in Westminster, to avoid investment in renewable technology in Scotland while “the uncertainty created by the referendum” – a line that could not have been bettered by an uber-unionist – continued.

A correspondent yesterday, Joe Boyle, offered me this analysis of David Cameron’s delight, as he seized  upon this, an analysis that I cannot better -

Joe Boyle (by email)

It may also interest you to know that David Cameron is possibly the only head of state of the UK parliament to ever suggest ( in or out of the Parliament) that it is a bad idea for investors to invest in a part of the British Isles. Not even at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland was such a suggestion ever proposed. In fact this may well be a world first for Mr Cameron..... so potentially Guinness Book of records stuff

This statement was instantly picked up by all the news media, and uncritically reported in news bulletins from lunchtime onwards. The SNP’s response was frankly, underwhelming. In fairness, they were flat-footed initially by this bolt from the blue, and simply pointed out that the knowledge of the referendum had not deterred investment up to this point. But there could be little doubt that it was damaging – the unionist pack clearly thought so, and I for one felt that the recent SNP stance on negative stories, of lofty disdain and “we don’t do negative – keep your eyes uplifted to the shining future ..” might be a bit inadequate to cope with this.

So I dug a bit on Citigroup, relying on memory and significantly on Wikipedia – always  a risky course – and banged up a hasty blog early in the evening in the slight hope of influencing the late night media programmes Scotland Tonight and Newsnight Scotland. I realised that this was almost certainly futile, since the programmes were probably being recorded at that moment, but I retained a touching faith in powerful, albeit regional broadcasters, well-resourced, to shift gear rapidly in the face of breaking stories.

This faith was partly vindicated by Scotland Tonight and utterly betrayed by Newsnight Scotland.

Scotland Tonight led with the Citigroup story and had a former Scottish power supremo pitted against Fergus Ewing, the relevant SNP minister. Fergus Ewing was as unimpressive as the earlier SNP responses, seemed unprepared factually, and both he and Scotland Tonight did not see fit to address the elephant in the room – the facts about Citigroup, its monumental failures, losses, bailouts by the US government, strange relationships with powerful regulatory officials in the US government, etc.  Something of an open goal for Fergus Ewing, the SNP and a great story hook for any journalist worthy of the name, one would have thought. But no – not a whisper.

But at least Scotland Tonight covered the story. Newsnight Scotland seemed to have suffered an attack of amnesia about that second word in its programme title – Scotland. Instead, it chose to do its own little derivative coverage of the big European crisis, a story already covered in depth and highly professionally across the entire UK and international media all day, and by Newsnight just before Gordon Brewer launched in to his Ladybird Book of the European financial crisis.

He had chosen to aid him in this little copycat venture three arch unionists – Bill Jamieson, John McFall and Alf Young. Of the Scottish Government, a government recently elected with a massive majority and a firm mandate, not a sign, nor of anyone that could put the European story in the crucial context of Scotland at this pivotal point in its history. Of the Citigroup/renewable investment story – not a dicky bird.

This programme, by omission and by cack-handed selection of topic and panel members was, last night, an embarrassment to the BBC as a public service broadcaster, to Scottish democracy, and frankly to journalistic values.

I’m finding it hard to defend BBC Scotland today …

21 comments:

  1. The BBC's NNicht - obvious by omission/side swerve, is evidence of it's ability at self-defence. Perhaps they had read your expose of Citigroup yesterday?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's not forget the hundreds of SNP supporters who wrote thousands of letters to newspapers over the years, knowing few would be published. But they continued to do so.

    I remember I used to be able to phone the BBC Scotland newsroom directly and complain about the content of a programme. No longer. That phone number is obsolete now.

    Oft I have mentioned the SNP's apparent lack of ability to cope with issues such as this. I haven't viewed News Nicht yet but I believe your comment about Fergus's performance. They need to get smart - and quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're right to point out the letter writers, Ruth. Especially in the Herald, they have been a valuable counter to the lies and misinformation, and I've always given credit to the Herald for maintaining the Letters Page.

    Nicola was good in the Parliament today, and emphasised the positive, but I find the avoidance of talking about Citigroup's right to tell anyone how to invest after their own lamentable failures - and worse - inexplicable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Having thought about David Cameron`s speech at FMQT at westminster yesterday.....the thing that now amazes me most is that no one in the media or politics, north or south uk, has picked up on this rather bizzarre comment from a uk first minister.
    I believe, personally, that it was a dangerous and economically harmful statement to make about a region of the UK especially as it was delivered from the "stage" of westminster to a waitingworld audience.
    It begs belief that neither the Labour or amazingly even the SNP picked up on the potential constitutional implications of such a statement delivered in such a public way.
    David Camerons statement that it would be dangerous to invest in Scotland does not provide "best value for money" in my opinion and can only serve to undermine any efforts past and future by the various departments and branches of the Uk governments to attract investment into any part of Britain
    His statement surely must be a breech of Parliamentary Standards and as such really should be reported to the Parliamentary Standards Committee..but which MP is going to do it I wonder.....But I think I will be asking some of the Scottish opposition in Westminster at least, and would suggest that any one else with a mid to do so, should as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Brit nats would like to put us on the defensive all the time.

    That is a recipe for failure.

    Still, a clear factual response is required and should be ready.

    The SNP does need to get smart on this sort thing?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cameron is the highest profile creep in history!

    Remember his nauseating performance on that boot-licking mission to the US?

    Has anyone ever seen any national leader vigorously promote the idea that his/her country is subservient to another?

    Quite apart from the obvious insult to everyone in the UK, he further illustrated his stupidity and ignorance by claiming that Britain was 'junior partner' to the US in 1940, the year of the Battle of Britain!

    How could the Prime Minister not know that the Americans were not forced into WW2 until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in December, 1941?

    What a Witless, worthless wimp!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10727983

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just a thought if Citigroup are against renewables in the energy way yet love renewable money recycling from the weak to the wealthy. What am I missing?

    ReplyDelete
  8. You know Albamac, I really care little if he is a creep or not, nor do I really care too much about his understanding of world history, or even that you consider him to be a whimp....that is your opinion and it obviously concerns you.

    But what I do care about is that David Cameron was elected first as an Conservative MP to serve in Parliament and then by his party, the Conservative Party, to Lead and Represent British interests both at home and abroad.

    I refer you to official parliamentary literature, sorry to sound so dry, but this is an important issue, and rhetoric and name calling does not do justice to what he committed in my opinion....but....


    Your MP
    The size of constituencies varies according to a number of factors but on average a
    constituency will contain approximately 68,500 electors. Your MP gained the right to
    represent your constituency by receiving more votes than any of the other candidates
    at the last general election or by-election. Once elected, the job of an MP is to
    represent the people of his or her constituency (constituents) in Parliament, whether or not they voted for him or her. You only have one MP so even if you voted for one
    of the other candidates and you disagree with the views of your MP's party, your MP is still there to help you with all matters for which Parliament or central government is
    responsible.

    and,

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmbills/060/2002060.pdf


    Prime Minister (Office, Role and Functions)Bill 2001

    3 Functions of the Prime Minister

    a) to determine the policies of the United Kingdom government;
    b) to communicate the policies of the United Kingdom government;
    c) to execute the policies of the United Kingdom government;
    d) to decide which measures represent the legislative programme of the
    United Kingdom government;

    8 Duty to behave lawfully
    Nothing in this Act shall empower the Prime Minister, or any person acting under his authority, to disregard any provision of the Human Rights Act 1998, or any obligation under international law or treaty, under common law or equity or any other obligation to behave justly, fairly, reasonably and lawfully, or any published rules for the time being in force for ministers and civil servants in the conduct of public life, or to act in contempt of any resolution of the House of Commons.

    9 Duty to account to Parliament
    The Prime Minister, ministers of the Crown and other persons acting under his authority, shall be under a duty to account to each House of Parliament in such ways as each House may prescribe.

    10 Public policy
    For the avoidance of doubt, in any matter which is not the exclusive responsibility of the European Union or a devolved Parliament or Executive within the United Kingdom a statement by or on behalf of the Prime Minister shall be regarded as a definitive statement of the public policy of the United Kingdom.

    I think that under the above sections of the Bill of 2001, David Cameron in his speech that day acted, in the very very least, completely out of hand and may have breached Parliamentary Standards, and may also have in fact made a Policy Statement about a region of the UK, ie Scotland.

    I will be sending this info to the Scottish Members of westminster to make them aware of these sections of the Bill and asking them why they have not publically commented on the whole scenario surrounding David Cameron.

    May I suggest to you in all politeness, that you do similar as I will do, and pass this information on to anyone who will be interested enough to pick it up and run with it.

    The more people who act on this the better.

    Personally I think there has been enough rhetoric and name calling in Scottish politics and Scottish opinion to last a life time.
    It really is time for it to stop and for us all to look ahead at what is to be done regardless of our personal political leanings and opinions.
    And there is a lot to be done over the coming months and years

    ReplyDelete
  9. Perhaps, the Britnat Broadcasting Company (and I'm not using a cheeky translation of the acronym) has passed from the phase of reporting the news when it was a ridiculous proposition to consider a break up of the union.

    Now that it's moved from sporadic headlines and 'fun' conflict to keep Labour a little bit on their toes to a majority Scottish government calling the shots, the Britnat part is going to come more and more to the fore.

    It's a simplistic analysis I suppose, they won't be able to help themselves from an innate Brit nat response.

    I suspect it will be difficult to justify their actions more and more as we approach the referendum.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Glasgow detail, your post didn't add anything to my knowledge of how things are supposed to work. However, I can see where it may be useful for those who have little or no understanding of what is expected of their elected representatives.

    That you chose to address it to me, rather than a general audience, is a wee bit presumptuous.

    I posted a comment, drawing attention to Cameron's propensity for public pronouncements of his own short-sightedness and stupidity, in the expectation that readers might gain some understanding of my opinion. As I see it, he is unfit for office and deserving of ridicule. I said so, here, without claiming any authority or special expertise, and without any expectation of changing a damned thing.

    My apologies, to Peter, for adding unnecessary clutter to his blog.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I found Cameron's comments beyond belief. Apparently, Cameron and the Tories have decided that the best way to convince Scots to remain in the Union is to do the utmost damage to Scotland that they can.

    If this makes sense to you, it honestly doesn't to me, but it does follow on the Westminster policies that literally drove Ireland to independence a century ago. Some say that Westminster never learns, and they may be right.

    Was declaring economic war on Scotland REALLY a good idea? My frank opinion is that it would be difficult for Cameron to have been any more stupid, but the SNP does need to use the weapon he handed them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Peter,

    I was absolutely gob-smacked that a serving Prime Minister should so obviously attempt to sabotage the developing economy of one of its constituent parts. Because, by any measure by highlighting this report at PMQ's that is what he has done. Surely not unintentionally?

    It raises several questions in my mind.

    Is it just because the Tories are in favour of nuclear power and don't really want to see the development of renewables anywhere in the British Isles or is just part of their "doing down" of Scotland?

    If it is the latter, how far are they prepared to go? Will they continue until we are in absolute poverty? Well that will help maintain the Union, won't it?

    Well possibly he might think that it might - if the Scots become sufficiently cowed we will forget about Independence. His actions cannot possibly be construed as having some intention of increasing the Tory vote in Scotland, surely. Why then, not just send in the army to quell the "rebellion"? Is that next?

    Regards,

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks, Rab

    How far are they prepared to go? We can only hope that they don't go as far as the British Empoire has gone in the past to hang on to the colonies they were exploiting.

    But none of the losses of countries to independence in the past has actually threatened the continuation of the Empire. The loss of Scotland does - they know it, and who knows how far they will go?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks, Jeanne

    It was extraordinary, and a number of posters have commented on it here.

    But among the media, and, strangely, the SNP - silencio.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I take your point, Albamac, and I'm not in favour of giving space to arguments between posters - there's enough of that elsewhere.

    But equally, I'm reluctant to veto posts that have real points to make. The format of Google comments means, on pre-moderation, that I either have to reject or accept the comment as is.

    But I would prefer it if posters simmply adrees themselves to the blog audience, not to each other. This doesn't preclude disagreeing with another post.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I understand your frustration with the BBC, Stevie, but I think there must be some recognition of how giant organisations actually work. The idea that there is a single controlling intelligence that is pro one political view and anti another is just not realistic.
    The BBC is top level directors, senior managers, programme makers and producers, writers, creative people of every imaginable discipline, engineers, accountants, lawyers, technical people and of course, the ones who take the flak - the journalists and presenters.
    Every day, in every way, the BBC is accused of bias by every political party and organisation, every religion, those of no religion - in short, every group in British society.
    That's in the very nature of being a public service broadcaster. While we must criticise when it's justified, we must avoid paranoia - and stereotyping.

    But we can be sure of this - powerful forces that are against Scotland's independence and pro-Union outside of the BBC will seek to exert pressure and influence them in every way in the run-up to the referendum- and since they are the UK Government, control the purse strings, and influence broadcasting legislation, they have the levers to do so.

    All Scotland can do is try to help the honest, professional programme makers and presenters to exercise journalistic objectivity, and to resist such innappropriate arm-twisting. What we mustn't do is alienate them by ill-considered attacks.

    My piece of yesterday was not meant to be such an attack, and I hope it wasn't taken as such. It was, however, a cry of frustration ...

    ReplyDelete
  17. I was alluding to a general Brit nat sympathy that will colour more and more their reporting and become more prevalent all over the BBC.

    Yet, I don't think we'll lose because of the BBC, so it's a shame that they can't just report the news - does anybody just report the news anymore?

    I love the news, I appreciate a well balanced article.

    I am so often disappointed with all news reporting related to the Scottish political scene.

    I don't think much (the DR and the Scotsman excepted) reporting deliberately goes out of its way to promote partisanship but as the referendum approaches this will get dirty.

    What limits the British Empire? None. Not a single limit?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Peter, you already know my views on the BBC, so you know where I'm coming from, but your point regards a "pro" or "anti" dictum not being realistic, is shurely a wee bit too simplistic, given the BBC Director General is a political placement.

    As for Scottish output, on TV and radio, I feel there's a visible and audible party line!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't think we're liable to surpise each other by our respective positions anymore, Barontorc - thanks for posting!

    Peter

    ReplyDelete