Good Morning Scotland and Gary Robertson are usually fair but hard-hitting over the independence debate. But this interview fell short, and the failure I suspect was in editorial decision. At every stage this morning at various times, GMS delivered airtime to Vince Cable's claims virtually unchallenged but attacked the SNP rebuttal in a simplistic and inappropriate manner
When Cable was interviewed he was allowed to make his claims without being asked to justify them in any way. In marked contrast, Fergus Ewing – in marked contrast - was repeatedly asked for the exact cost of regulation in an independent Scotland, with Gary Robertson using the interview technique of the 'broken record', repeated question. Now this approach is valid if the interviewee is evading an answer, but consider the timescale and dynamics of this situation -
1. Regulation at every level in UK has failed spectacularly since the millennium - in banking, in the Press, police regulation, child abuse, NHS Trusts, Parliamentary expenses, etc. Major regulatory bodies have either been replaced completely or their heads forced to resign. This was virtually ignored.
2. Vince Cable is a Government Minister with all the current facts and costs of regulation, and a full knowledge of its failure. He was asked about none of these things.
3. Fergus Ewing is a Minister in a devolved government, over 14 months away from a referendum and the commencement of an 18 month complex negotiation on every aspect of government and the break-up of the UK. Scotland will achieve its independence in March of 2016, more than two and a half years from now on the conclusion of these negotiations. The SNP then has to prepare a manifesto for government and fight an election, together with all the other Scottish parties.
To ask Fergus Ewing to predict the exact cost of regulation under these circumstance is asinine and beggars belief, and Good Morning Scotland, Gary Robertson and the BBC should know better.
Posts
It is a bit too common for this tactic of badgering with a question and whether the question is actually answerable fully at this time, or whether it is actually answered, the idea can be to have the repeated questions as the story rather than the effort to provide an answer - the 'lacklustre performance' is then sometimes shown in later news clips.
ReplyDeleteI have seen this approach used against Westminster politicians as well (definitely not to the same level, say Vince Cable being asked a question on Independence in comparison to Nicola Sturgeon) over the 35 years I have been interested in politics, an interest that goes hand in hand with the somewhat deluded aspiration to be an informed member of the public.
However the current reportage,(current referring to a six year trend) more by the BBC in the main rather than say STV I think it is fair to say when you compare, appears to be reporting widely and supportively almost any statement that might throw doubt on what colour the traffic lights would be in an Independent Scotland.
With no evidence or proper scrutiny of Cable's claim they will be completely colourless because we won't be in the EU, all that is required is to accept that at face value and 'demand' answers to what are becoming very desperate frivolous questions, the mobile roaming nonsense of the last few days being an example.
The mobile phone roaming scare story of recent times was widely reported and STILL widely reported even when debunked as if it was written on tablets of stone-tthis is also a problem as the combination of occasional but high profile hostile interviewing and wide reporting of faux stories even when debunked, leads to repetition that is presumably supposed to sink into the public mindset slowly but surely as we draw nearer to the 2014 vote.
Partisanship is of course allowed within most of the media, not sure that the BBC can really claim it is within their public charter to be seen as partisan at any time in comparison to say the Daily Mail or Telegraph and perhaps the only way the balance can be required is to have the Electoral Commission or an outside body ensure that our democratic 'Informed' (very important) decision, whatever it may be, YES or no, is subject to a strong eye being held on the media to comply with at least some rules, particularly the BBC.
I am not whining or greeting but it is a matter of great importance to make an informed decision, and some tactics appear to be being utilised to do the opposite of inform.
Thanks, Gustopher. The Electoral Commission has no role in regulating media, and cannot have one. There is no way of ensuring 'balance' - we are in an adversarial political - and legal - system, and that's the way it will be until the referendum result. It's called democratic politics.
ReplyDeleteThe dice are loaded against independence communicators, so they must do a better job than they're doing with the media. Attacking the BBC and the wider media doesn't help, and in many ways it alienates good journalists and producers when it's done on a scattergun approach.
The YES Campaign does a fine job through its volunteers - on the street, on the doorsteps, online and in public meetings. But it must get more professionalism into its media relations and it has just made some radical changes to do just that.
My feeling is that the referendum will be won by the dedicated work of the doorstep/street campaigners and online.
But some online sites need to stop throwing red meat to independence supporters by the easy option of moaning about the media, and start addressing the voters we need to convince. Preaching to the converted is great fun, but contributes **** ***
regards,
Peter
I agree with you entirely Peter, it is obvious that there needs to be a more coordinated system by those who have the access to the media (the YES Campaign or supportive groups, artists etc) as opposed to us mere plebs who only have access to the public, useful and informative as it is, particularly your own blog which I check for daily updates even though I know that you publish only a few times per month.
ReplyDeleteI do also agree that merely repeating allegations about media bias is not going to be 'out there' as far as public interest is concerned and therefore there is a strong preaching to the converted though there are a lot of faceb**k links to the satirical mickey takes that can raise a laugh and awareness, it won't be more than a fleeting piece of information and hardly likely to swing the undecided voters for instance.
Why there isn't a mored media savvy body for the YES campaign to counteract at least the more blatant mistruths or opinion dressed up and reported as fact is beyond me and I suppose out of my control.
I did think that there was some sort of electoral commission 'ruling', (regarded as more a 'suggestion' and therefore ignored by the westminster side) and it stated the EC recommended (as they recommended the minor changes to the Referendum question for example) that both sides engaged in informative statements rather than muddying the public with long winded confusing conjecture without merit.......something along those lines?
Even if that request was adhered to in principle, I suppose the media are allowed to present it as they see fit, (as you rightly referred to above) and then the primary source appears, sometimes, to not have responsibility for the eventual manner their statements are reported.
The work on the street as far as the Referendum YES Campaign is concerned appears to be vastly superior to the efforts at political/media rebuttal, which beggars belief when you consider the media talent (I mean those who have worked in PR or the media) that the YES campaign must have access to and could in all probability tap into at little financial cost but to great effect if the brains are there.
I take my hat off to you as far as your blog goes Peter, it is nice for some of us to have the odd reminder and wake up call as to whom we are actually appealing to go for a Yes vote in the first place, we should remember that your vote and mine are likely to be already in the bag, and therefore look to those many others who need to know what it is all about and get their X in the right place.
Cheers
Angus