Objective journalism in retreat at the Herald, thriving at the Scotsman

The mysterious turnaround in the Scottish ‘quality’ press – what can be at work?

Even six months ago, if I had commented “almost totally anti-SNP, unionist in instincts, biased in news coverage to another party, mainly lacking in objective journalism, never provides space for nationalist viewpoints” I would have been talking about the Scotsman.

If I had written “Supports one unionist party in editorial comment and biased towards that party in opinion articles, but not anti-SNP, and relatively objective in news reporting, an occasionally presents a nationalist view point”, I would have been talking about the Herald.

Of late, I can virtually reverse these judgements.

With the always honourable exception of its superb Letters Page, the Herald has dragged the proud traditions of objective political journalism into the mire of blatant bias in news coverage and opinion towards Labour and unionism. William Randolph Hearst would be proud of it: Rupert Murdoch and Fox News would be happy to have the Herald in its stable. It provides a regular platform for journalists with links to the Labour Party: it almost never accords a similar platform to the many fine journalists with nationalist views.

Let me make my case from yesterday’s editions of both papers, the day after John Swinney’s budget for challenging times.

The Scotsman headline -

Swinney spreads the pain of £1.2bm cuts

Eddie Barnes Political Editor

For seven paragraphs and some  250 words, Eddie Barnes gave a factual and objective summary of John Swinney’s measures. Only at paragraph eight did the ‘but’ appear, and it began an equally objective account of the opposition and union responses to the cuts, moving to pages four and five and a double page spread. It was headed with an opposition quote in inverted commas -

‘Swinney’s running election campaign, not country’

This was fair enough in the light of the front page headlines: the entire structure of the two-page spread was completely objective news reporting and analysis. There was even a short piece in the right-hand column about internet and blog views.  The detailed objective coverage and analysis went on through to page 11, with various journalists and commentators setting out the arguments for and against one of the most important Scottish budgets in modern times.

This was journalism, not political polemic: it was objective news reporting and comment, with opinion clearly labelled as such when it occurred.

The Herald front page -

The top of the page was given over to a news item about secret talks to take over Rangers football club. That in itself says something about the Herald’s journalistic priorities, but we’ll move swiftly past that, and put it down to Glesca jist bein’ Glesca. (The more sinister interpretation would be the ‘bread and circuses at a time of national crisis’ theory, just in case the Royal Wedding wasn’t enough on its own!)

The headline beneath it was -

Swinney delivers a Budget sidestep

This is a loaded, pejorative statement, straight off the bat. Where the Scotsman delivered an objective news report at a time of national crisis written by one man, political editor Eddie Barnes, the Herald needs a trio - maybe to ensure that any blame is evenly spread – Brian Currie, Robin Dinwoodie and Gerry Braiden.

It leaps straight in with two paragraphs of criticism before it gets anywhere near reporting what the Finance Minister actually said, with phrases like “John Swinney was last night accused of dodging the tough decisions …” and “Opponents accused him of delivering stop-gap policies …”

As any jazz or pop musician will tell you, the introduction matters  - it sets the tone for the piece to follow. (Louis Armstrong’s introduction to West End Blues is regarded as a musical masterpiece in its own right.) This intro certainly set the tone. Six paragraphs are devoted to the criticisms of the Holyrood opposition leaders, and the relentless negativity persists, but with some attempt to actually detail what John Swinney actually said set out in the last few paragraphs. However, in the bottom paragraph, leading us into the page two and three spread, we return to an attack on the budgets measures by the General Secretary of the STUC.

The headline across pages two and three is -

‘20,000 public sector jobs on the line, union warns’

The whole of the page two article beneath it is a list of criticisms, when we still have had no objective summary of what the Finance Minister actually said, nor of the measures proposed, except through the mouths of his carefully selected critics. Three photographs appear of critics, Mary Taylor, Lucy McTernan and Fiona Moriarty.

In a box on page three, we finally get some fact – The Budget in Numbers, as a list. This is quickly offset by an opinion piece, Sketch by Ian Bell, deploying what passes for humour in such pieces, and a token attempt at balance. But its core message was clear – the SNP was playing politics with the Budget, trying to gain electoral popularity ahead of the May 2011 elections. There was a note of fear in this – fear that it might actually work.

If I may offer my version of Ian Bell’s message, it is this -

The SNP Government and John Swinney - in the face of a UK economy destroyed by the Labour Party, and a ConLib Coalition determined to protect the rich and powerful and attack the poor and vulnerable in their attempts to tackle the deficit - have tried to protect the sick, the vulnerable, the pensioners and the low paid from the full weight of draconian cuts to the Scottish Budget made by a coalition of two political parties totally rejected by the Scottish people in May 2010, in favour of the party – Labour – that had spent 13 years destroying their hopes and dreams.

If we remove Ian Bell’s pejorative lead-in to his paragraph on these measures, “Yesterday the plan was to cling on to anything …”, they are, in his words “a council tax freeze, travel for the elderly, the abolition of prescription charges”.

And we may hear the fear in his voice – and in the inner sanctum of the Herald – when he concludes by saying “voters might remember whom to blame and whom to praise.” I hope they do …

There is something rotten in the state of politics and the press in my native city, Glasgow, and there has been for a long time.

The Purcell debacle, the questions over the ALEOs, of links between PR companies, newspapers and local government, the criminal prosecutions, the resignations, and the catastrophic decline in objective reporting in the print media have only been alleviated in part by probing journalism by BBC, by ITV and by the new media of blogging and tweeting.

There is a kind of inchoate panic afflicting the UK unionist Establishment in the midst of its paranoia and confusion over Europe, its criminal and doomed foreign wars, its sleazy, venal, corrupt Parliament, and the results of its economic greed.

That panic is intensified by the ever-present threat that its fading, discredited empire might finally lose one of its last subject territories, Scotland, and that instead of providing cannon fodder for foreign adventures, and being some kind of northern theme park and playground for rich southerners, this proud nation that has punched above its weight intellectually, culturally, scientifically and ethically might regain its confidence, its autonomy and its integrity among the nations of Europe and the world.

It is profoundly sad that the Glasgow Herald and the City of Glasgow seem to be rejecting that future, and seem to be gripped by the same panic.

It is deeply encouraging that The Scotsman seems to be at last recovering its reputation and its journalistic integrity, after losing its way for a time.

Saor Alba!

The gentlemen - and gentlewomen - of the Press: Joan McAlpine and The Scotsman

I have held the view for many years now that The Scotsman spectacularly failed to live up to its title, that it was blindly unionist and establishment-biased, and that objective journalism had gone oot the windae a long, long time ago, subservient to proprietorial values rather than journalistic ones.

In fairness, as a west-coaster, I also had a long term loyalty to the Herald, even though its ancient journalistic traditions (the oldest English language newspaper in the world) had become subservient to Labour and New Labour values. I stuck with it because its Letters page was - and is - the glory of the newspaper, superior to any other British newspaper that I know.

The Scottish nationalist views and perceptions were fairly presented there, even though it was as likely that they would get a fair exposure in news and opinion features as the prospect of The Soldier’s song being voiced by an Ibrox crowd, or No Surrender rising from the terrace of Parkhead.

But I continued to sample The Scotsman, buying the paper in addition to the Herald a couple of times a week, and regularly looking at the online edition – and in the last week or so, it has frontally challenged my negative expectations on a number of occasions. Yesterday, it exceeded my most hopeful ones.

An article by Joan McAlpine headed It’s time to get angry and get ahead of the pack instantly caught my eye, because the headline and the sub-header encapsulated exactly how I was feeling about the challenges facing Scotland now, and in the future. I would love to reproduce it verbatim, but it is categorised by The Scotsman as premium content, requiring a subscription to read it in full (I bought the paper!) and if ever an opinion piece deserved the title of premium content, it was this one.

So you’ll have to either get a copy of Wednesday’s paper or subscribe to get it, unless some less scrupulous blogger has put up a bootleg copy.

In 800 or 900 words, it tightly, economically, cogently and passionately said all that I want to hear said about Scotland today, articulating the core ideas that define my late, but passionate nationalism. It was so well written that - as a writer of sorts myself -  it would have commanded my respect even if I had fundamentally disagreed with the viewpoint expressed.

This is the kind of journalism Scotland needs at this defining moment in our history, and we rarely see it.

I have never met Joan McAlpine, and have had no contact with her until today (an email of congratulation and thanks for her piece from me.)

The Scotsman surprised and delighted me today, and I will now buy it daily, in the hope that at least one quality Scottish newspaper is now prepared to exhibit journalistic and editorial balance across the parties, a balance that was never needed more than it is now.

I fully expect that an avalanche of mail, some of it hostile, some supportive will hit tomorrow's Scotsman letters page, and that there will be some real debate, red in tooth and claw, of the type that Scotland needs today.

Alistair Beaton – where he stands

I had missed this piece by Beaton. My thanks to G.Campbell (see comments on last blog.)

Alistair Beaton: Ship of Fools - Herald 8th August

Any lingering doubts on where he stands are dispelled.

The Tories’ moral mandate in Scotland

A letter from a Tom Gill appeared in Monday’s Herald, critical of Alex Salmond’s comments about the Tory Party’s moral mandate to govern Scotland. I sent the undernoted reply, but it wasn’t published. As a great admirer of the Herald’s Letters page, let me say that I am sure my response was simply crowded out by a number of fine letters on other highly important topics, and that this was simply a question of space and priorities.

Nonetheless, I would like my argument to be on record, and here it is -

LETTER TO THE HERALD (unpublished)

Dear Sir,

Tom Gill (Letters 17th May) criticises Alex Salmond’s statement that a Tory government has no moral  mandate to govern in Scotland. Under the UK’s deeply flawed electoral system the new Tory/LibDem coalition - with the Tories as the dominant partners – has a legal and constitutional right to govern Scotland, but morally, they have no mandate. That is what the First Minister said.

85% of  Scottish voters did not vote for a Tory government – they voted for a centre left government, with the majority voting for a Labour government. Every commentator and media pundit has recognised that Scotland and England voted, to quote one such view, “as if they were on different planets …”, and that the implications of this for the Union and for democracy are deeply disturbing.

Tom Gill also advances the familiar, but deeply flawed argument that this is equivalent to an area of Scotland opting out of a general election result. Others have used the same argument for an English county opting out. Both analogies are utterly false and misleading.

No one, least of all the First Minister, is suggesting that we should opt out of the result – we are bound by the electoral outcome.  But Scotland is not an area of the UK – it is not a county, nor is it just a region - it is a nation of over 5m people, with its own legal system, its own church, its own Parliament and its own proud history and unique culture.

Scotland, a sovereign nation,  entered into the treaty of union voluntarily,  but reluctantly, with profound misgivings and with many dissenting voices. For the last century at least, that union has not served the Scottish people well. At the very least, a substantial minority of Scottish voters now believe that we should end that treaty and withdraw from the union, and no one constitutionally denies our right to do so if a majority vote for it in a referendum. The deeply undemocratic outcome of the general election has now caused many more Scots - and a great many English people - to question the continuing relevance of the UK as a political entity.

My belief is that a great political watershed has been reached, and that radically new thinking about political alignments in Scotland between the Labour Party, the SNP and the trades unions is urgently required. The outcome of the Labour leadership election will be a catalyst in this process, especially if it results in David Miliband as the new Labour leader  reviving the deadly power cliques and disastrous policies of New Labour.

yours faithfully,

Peter Curran

Glasgow and The Herald – the Purcell fallout

There is little I can say now about Steven Purcell as the magnitude of Glasgow’s political corruption under Labour unfolds. I have believed for many years that Labour was failing Glasgow, and my conversion to the cause of independence for Scotland was in significant part based on what had been done to my native city, although Iraq and Afghanistan were my dominant reasons.

I tried to get some of this across in my first political YouTube video in support of the SNP campaign in Glasgow East.

But I had a desperate need for at least one Glasgow hero, regardless of party, and I cast Steven Purcell in this role. I am left with a feeling of deep sadness at what has happened to this Glasgow boy. His political career is irretrievably destroyed and perhaps his health.

Over the life of my blog (with an unscheduled interruption for a heart attack and a quad bypass) I have been critical of the anti-SNP bias in the Scottish print media – a pro-Tory bias in The Scotsman and a pro-Labour bias in The Herald.  My main target was The Herald, because I have expected little from The Scotsman in recent years.

But the decline of the oldest English-language newspaper in the world, with a proud history in objective journalism, and arguably the true voice of Scotland, a voice that resonated beyond its West of Scotland and Glasgow base, worried me deeply, especially since its Labour-biased news and editorial coverage and comment was regularly contradicted by what has always been the glory of The Herald – its Letters page. There the true voice of Scotland was heard, a great, countervailing blast to the distorted and selective reporting on the other pages. The soul of The Glasgow Herald lay in these letters – the fearless, vigorous voice of the people of Scotland.

But in recent weeks, as the wheels have begun to come off the rotten Labour wagon, national scandal followed national scandal and the whole sorry Purcell affair gained momentum, I noted a gradual sea change in The Herald’s reporting, together with a rising note of unease in its tone.

Today, much become clear in The Sunday Herald. Its editorial comment on the Purcell affair goes under the headline -

PR, politics and the press – A conflict of interest? Yes – A barrier to the truth? No

Some selected quotes -

“Since Mr. Purcell’s departure, speculation has grown ever more fevered, encompassing suggestions of a network of powerful figures working behind the scenes to influence the workings of the city. The suggestion that this so-called network includes leading figures from the media is now threatening to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the Scottish press.”

(The colour highlighting is mine – PC)

“There have been hints that some Scottish newspapers have pulled their punches on the controversy, because editors have been too close to Mr. Purcell or, worse, they have been cowed into submission by Peter Watson and the PR firm Media House.”

Commenting on the allegation that a conflict of interest might exist because the legal adviser of the Herald and Times Group, who is also a listed shareholder in Media House and offers a service described as “reputation management”, which is aimed at keeping clients off the front page, with claims of “ …being networked at the highest level and having access to decision makers at the highest levels” as the key to its success, the Herald and Times MD, Tim Blott said he was extremely concerned at the conflict of interest which had arisen in the Steven Purcell case.

The timing is, to say the least, unfortunate, coming on the same day at The Sunday Times carries the headline -

Revealed: Labour’s cash for influence scandal

Steven Byers, former Labour trade and transport secretary describes himself as “… like a cab for hire – at up to £5000 per day”

Other senior Labour figures named include Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon. They all appear to have been caught out by a Sunday Times sting identical to the one that caught the dodgy Labour Lords recently.

COMMENT

This is the Union at work – the United Kingdom – ‘Great’ Britain – our rickety democracy, now rotten to the core, corrupted beyond redemption, with its participants tearing each other apart as the general election approaches.

Every organ of the state and of a free democracy is infected by this, including a free press and media. Those who profited from it, and accepted and exploited its patronage for 13 years under the laughably named People’s Party, Labour, are now jumping ship in all directions, and fighting for a place on whatever lifeboats they can find, desperately trying to ally themselves with what they see as the coming new ascendancy.

Wake up, Scotland! We have choices – in the general election, in the 2011 Holyrood elections and in a referendum on independence. We must rid ourselves of this poisoned Union and find a new, clean road for Scotland.

 

The Herald vacancy ad for an Editor in Chief

The Herald is still at it today over the Holyrood lunches thing, but has been forced by journalistic realities to cover the massive Westminster expenses scandal.

On the Appointments page, the Herald and Times Group are advertising for an editor in chief. This is a typical example of HR (Human Resources) jargon, a series of boiler plate banalities that could have been applied to any senior job, anywhere, anytime, and which say little if anything about what the Herald really needs at this critical point in its long history - a proud history up until the time it surrendered itself to the dubious attentions of New Labour and Gordon Brown.

As an old HR professional, I regret to say that I have produced stuff like this early in my career, and the gruesome style is all too familiar to me. A few examples ...

Para One is fine - straightforward and factual, a simple description of the role.

Para Two starts well enough, albeit with a statement of the blindingly obvious - they are looking for an experienced editor and manager with a sound knowledge of all aspects of a modern newspaper. Well, we guessed that from the job title, but I suppose it had to be said.

From there on in, it is pure HR-speak - meaningless guff

I won't quote - if you have the stomach for it, read it yourself. Applications to Tim Blott, MD. Presumably he hasn't read the ad, and is unaware that an opportunity has been missed to actually say what the Herald needs from the successful candidate.

I want to help the Herald - it is, with all its failings, my newspaper, and has many qualities, reminders of what once made it a great newspaper. It has a wonderful, vibrant letters column, throbbing with the true spirit of Scotland, where highly articulate contributors debate vigorously the real issues facing Scotland today, contributors who in the main are better informed than the journalists, have a sound grasp of the English language and who know how to present a cogent argument.

So let me offer the Herald and Tim Blott -completely free of charge - an alternative specification for their recruitment ad.

EDITOR - THE HERALD EDITOR IN CHIEF
Applications are invited for the position of Editor of The Herald/Editor in Chief of the Herald and Times Group.

The Herald is the oldest English language newspaper in the world and once ranked with the Guardian as a regional newspaper with a reputation that extended far beyond its nominal geographical boundaries. Just as the Guardian's voice resonated far beyond Manchester and the north of England, the Herald spoke authoritatively to a far wider audience than Glasgow and the West of Scotland. It spoke for the nation of Scotland, and to the huge diaspora of Scots worldwide.

Its journalistic standards were second to none, and it exemplified the rigorous objectivity and freedom of expression that constitute the heart of a great newspaper. Regrettably these standards have slipped badly in the last twenty years or so, and the Herald has succumbed to the insidious political pressures exerted by a complacent and corrupt Labour Party, pressures that intensified as Scottish Labour became the core driving force in the United Kingdom Government in the Blair/Brown axis of expediency. Put simply, the Herald was sucked into the moral vacuum created by this terrifying, values-free political machine.

The new editor must be capable of coming to grips with this inexorable decline, a decline that has seen the line between comment and factual news blurred to the point of invisibility. He or she must have the fortitude to force open the deadly grip of a Scottish establishment that will resort to any measures to secure their own dominance, wealth and power at the expense of the Scottish people, and the journalistic integrity to fearlessly investigate and report on the real issues that face the Scottish nation at this pivotal point in its history. In particular, the new editor must not become the creature of the Scottish Office and the career politicians who hold the discredited post of Scottish Secretary, a role that for generations has spearheaded the conspiracy to keep Scotland, its people, its language and its culture in a subordinated, devalued relationship to the failing rump of a dying empire.

In cleansing the stables, the new editor must recognise and reflect the complex interests and forces within Scottish society, and must beware of falling into the embrace of another hegemony, whether nationalist or unionist, religious or secular.

But if he or she holds fast to the model developed across the globe by truly great newspapermen and women, that of a burning desire to report the world as it is, rather than as powerful interest groups would like it to be presented, and an iron resolve to resist the seductive or intimidatory pressure of these group, the Herald can root out injustice in Scotland, show the people the truth about their world and empower them with the information to offer their verdict at the ballot box on how they want to be governed.

The Herald, the Sunday Herald and the Evening Times want to halt the slide towards the values of the Hearst empire of old and the Murdoch empire of the present day. If you share our values set out above and believe you can inspire more than 200 journalists and editorial staff to share them and reflect them, we want to hear from you.

Otherwise get lost - head for the simpler, less challenging but ultimately debasing fields of endeavour that may well be more profitable, but which will cost you your journalistic soul.

The Herald - the fearless, objective voice of Scotland. Aye, right ---

What's the big story today? The Independent gives the answer in its headline and lead story - MPs and expenses: the final damning verdict - 'Culture of dishonesty at Westminster allowed politicians to line their pockets

The figures tell the sorry tale - a majority of MPs (52%) are named by Legg as making excessive claims, and a total of £1.16m must be repaid. In other words, most of our elected representatives in this corrupt Parliament and decaying democracy are guilty of ripping off the people who elected them. This cesspit was presided over and defended by one Michael Martin, a Labour MP who held the office of Speaker, who resigned in disgrace, and who is now a Lord.

The highest dodgy claim was made by a Labour Baroness, Barbara Follett. A number of Labour MPs, including notable Scottish examples, are in disgrace over their claims, and will not contest their seats at the general election. Some may face criminal prosecution.

Is this the big story in the Herald? Of course not - something had to be found to obscure the evidence of the rotten political system in this United Kingdom; the Scottish people had to be focused on something else and quickly, and the Herald rose to the challenge, closely followed as always by STV.

The STV newsreader quaintly described the number of MPs on the fiddle as "over 300". Well, yes - if you regard 390 as simply being "over 300". Perhaps "almost 400" might have been closer to the truth.

The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had been fund raising for the SNP through a method used by political parties everywhere throughout political history - fund raising lunches and dinners with senior party figures. I was going to say time-honoured - or hallowed by time - but frankly these practices are neither honourable nor hallowed. I wish my party wouldn't use them, especially when they involve the use of Parliamentary premises. However honourable the intent or the implementation, they smack of favours for cash.

But this example must be placed in context. The SNP is faced with hostile media, biased to the Union. The kind of donors eagerly and profitably solicited by the major parties would not support the SNP, nor would the SNP accept their tarnished support. But the Tories have a long record of this, indeed one might almost say it is what Tories are all about. Labour is up to its neck in it, through its noble Lords and its MPs and Cabinet Ministers, often getting into bed with the very people that are profiting from the UK's lunatic and suicidal wars. The LibDems recently accepted a massive donation from a convicted criminal and refused point blank to give the money back.

Nonetheless, this kind of thing is a bit of an own goal. Gonnae no dae that again, Alex and Nicola?