The death of truth

Just thought I’d drop this into the current discussion about the condition of media and journalism in Scotland and elsewhere. It’s an extract from an article titled The death of truth which first appeared in the March 2017 issue of iScot Magazine.

Isn’t there an irony – delicious or distasteful according to personal taste – in the fact that the propagators of fake news are elevating themselves to the status of noble heroes defending their right to propagate fake news against a politically-motivated onslaught that deploys fake news as one of its principal weapons?

For all this, there remains a sense that there is something different about the present morass, as compared with previous morasses. This, it seems to me, is not adequately captured by anything in the currently fashionable journalistic lexicon. Not ‘fake news’. Not ‘post-truth’. Not even ‘anti-truth’ – which, I confess, was the term for which I first reached when seeking to pin down a concept that I found rather elusive.

While researching the term, I encountered some interesting comments from an Indian blogger going by the name, Factorator. Interesting, not least for the fact that they were writing about Indian politics – demonstrating that the phenomena under discussion are by no means exclusive to the West. I am taking the liberty of quoting at length.

Can deliberate and selective subversion of facts, irrespective of the frequency of their occurrence or the severity of their impact, lead to establishing a narrative contrary to reality? Is post-truth actually ‘forced-truth’?

But here’s the real deal. Picture a situation where lies about one side are ceaselessly repeated and inconvenient facts about the other are diligently suppressed. Can this be the potential force-multiplier that opens up a vast, permanent chasm between reality and perception? Can it create an artificial, alternate version of contemporary events suited to the interests of a cartel?

As an observer of Scottish politics and, in particular, the campaign to restore Scotland’s independence, these two paragraphs resonated like some planet-sized bell. I have never read a better description of the British state’s anti-independence propaganda campaign. It could be the mission statement for Better Together/Project Fear.

It also serves as a very adequate summary of a situation that goes well beyond Scotland’s politics and Scotland’s borders. At minimum, it captions US and UK politics with disturbing accuracy.

And yet, I’m still left with this nagging feeling that there is something more. It seems not enough to say that truth is being supplanted. That it is being overwhelmed by a “narrative contrary to reality”. For all its vivid persuasiveness, the concept of a “vast, permanent chasm between reality and perception” is wanting. Possibly because it leaves reality distanced, but intact. And the sense I get is, not of truth being set-aside or distorted or obscured, but of truth being demolished. Obliterated. Eradicated.

Neither ‘post-truth’ nor ‘anti-truth’ do justice to what is going on. We need a new word to refer to the destruction of truth. A word that conveys the uncreation of reality. A word that speaks of the death of truth. The killing of truth. The murder of truth.

If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit

Sunday Herald’s death rattle

If you’re looking for words to describe Neil Mackay’s open letter in today’s Sunday Herald, the following list might prove helpful.

self-righteous self-obsessed self-satisfied self-pitying
self-devoted self-indulgent self-flattering self-complacent
self-conceited self-aggrandising self-interested self-involved
self-congratulatory self-seeking self-regarding self-serving

herald-march-300x273The Sunday Herald editor’s attempt to deflect and defuse scathing criticism of his paper’s coverage of the All Under One Banner (AUOB) march in Glasgow last Saturday (5 May) brought to mind the BBC’s established practice of dealing with complaints by the simple expedient of declaring itself innocent – having first appointed itself the ultimate arbiter in all such matters. Mackay goes one better, however, by pronouncing himself and his newspaper, not only guiltless, but impeccable – a splendiferous flowering of all that is purest and brightest in the realm of print media. If his piece had run to another hundred words we might have been obliged to add self-beatification to that list.

Hark at this,

we wish to provide balance, accuracy and fairness. Our coverage last Sunday was an attempt to maintain that tradition.

the Sunday Herald has long tried to provide balance

the Sunday Herald office is staffed with some of the most experienced and talented reporting staff in journalism.

the Sunday Herald prides itself on the accuracy of its journalism and photo-journalism.

the Sunday Herald has impeccable credentials when it comes to our journalism

Was Neil Mackay explaining editorial decisions? Or was he writing his own testimonial?

And what about those editorial decisions? Mackay doesn’t quite manage an apology for the picture which adorned the front page of last Sunday’s edition. Or for the caption which accompanied it. The picture was widely condemned for giving the impression of a British Nationalist counter-demonstration which was (at least?) equal in size to the march. Or, as he puts it in an early instance of his self-serving narrative,

the picture was not representative of the day’s event

Even as he attempts to justify the pejorative image he can’t help slipping into language which reveals the same sleekit dishonesty. The complaint wasn’t that the picture was “not representative” of the event. The complaint was that the picture massively misrepresented the event. It misrepresented the event in ways that should have given any professional journalist pause. It misrepresented the event so completely and so comprehensively that it should have rung alarm bells on sight. It should not have needed to be pointed out. It was so wholly inappropriate as to be like a sharp stick poking the eye of the beholder.

But “the most experienced and talented reporting staff in journalism” were totally blind to the problem with that image. They were unaware. They just didn’t see it. That’s the issue here, Neil! That’s the problem. As the editor, it’s your problem. And you are evidently as oblivious to that problem as you were to the unacceptable nature of the image. It’s about the mindset. It’s about the ethos. If your newspaper was even half as good as you imagine it to be, somebody would have caught that picture before it went to print. But nobody saw it. Or, worse still, somebody may have spotted the problem but felt unable to speak up. What does that say about your “impeccable credentials”, Neil?

Then there’s the caption below the offending image. The caption which compounded the pejorative nature of the picture by claiming that “ugly confrontations marred the event”. The term ‘confrontations’ implies two or more parties. It is reminiscent of British media reports which described the British Nationalist rioting in George Square on the day after the 2014 referendum as “clashes”, suggesting that Yes supporters participated in the violence rather than being the targets of it.

The caption is at least as misleading as the picture. Again, it begs the question as to why “the most experienced and talented reporting staff in journalism” so readily resort to material which does anything but “provide balance, accuracy and fairness”.

It’s a conundrum that Neil Mackay urgently needs to address. If he and his staff are to be credited with the principled professionalism to which he lays claim, than how can this misrepresentation and distortion be anything other than deliberate? How might we simultaneously accept that they are exceptionally good at their jobs and that they make repeated blunders such as have been described? How does Neil Mackay reconcile this grating contradiction?

While he’s about it, perhaps he might try to explain how his claim of “balance, accuracy and fairness” can be compatible with holding the SNP leadership responsible for every word uttered by anybody who so much as hints at even the most tenuous association with the independence campaign, while the likes of Ruth Davidson and Richard Leonard are not similarly held to be accountable for the behaviour of British Nationalist bigots spewing bile on social media and confronting peaceful marchers on the streets with abuse and Nazi salutes.

Warning! The prejudice oozing out of the following paragraph may permanently stain clothing or carpets.

It is also disheartening that SNP figures do not speak out to condemn such distortion of the truth, when they know full well the values and the standards of the Sunday Herald. By maintaining their silence, they are allowing lies to poison the body politic. Staff in this paper have had many conversations with many senior elected figures in the SNP who are as disgusted by the conspiracy theories of the Yes fringe as any right thinking person would be – so we would ask them: when you see your supporters lying and bullying, have the courage to stand up and call them out; failing to do so betrays any claims by the party that it stands up for what is right and fair and decent.

See how that first sentence turns the accusation of distorting the truth back on those who are levelling that charge against the Sunday Herald. See how Mackay assumes authority to speak on behalf of “SNP figures”. See how he makes the SNP guilty by default. See the way the entire independence movement is reduced to a “Yes fringe”. See how he claims the moral high ground of “right thinking people”. See how everybody who dares complain about the very thing he’s doing in this passage are collectively condemned for “lying and bullying”. See how whatever he does is lauded as “right and fair and decent”.

There was a time when journalists could get away with this kind of manipulation. But people are daily growing more aware of trickery which, in any case, isn’t nearly as subtle and clever as the likes of Neil Mackay suppose. Among a more aware and astute readership, such clumsy, clunking rhetoric is likely to have an effect quite opposite to that which is intended.

If it wasn’t already clear just how woefully Neil Mackay has misread the situation, there’s the following,

There seems to be a hatred of journalism – of questioning, of analysis, of nuance, of open debate – at the heart of such sentiment which is truly not good for democracy.

For a start, Neil, it’s not “hatred”. Labelling it as such is just an inept attempt to diminish criticism by portraying it as overly emotive. It’s not hatred. It’s anger. Anger at the media’s failure to adequately serve democracy by providing the questioning, analysis and nuance which contributes to open debate and informed electoral choices.

What Neil Mackay and others plying his dubious trade need to understand is that, however many award ceremonies they organise for themselves, they don’t get to decide when they are doing a satisfactory job. We’ll decide! They don’t get to be the final arbiters of what is good journalism. We do! They don’t get to declare themselves righteous and innocent. They don’t get to stand in judgement of their critics. They don’t get to act with impunity. The consumers of their product have the final say.

You don’t tell us, Neil! We tell you! And you really should have listened.

If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit


Not settling for less

bbc_union_at_any_costIt’s like being promised a new house only to find that what you’re actually getting is a garden shed. Not a top-of-the-range garden shed, but the smallest, cheapest, flimsiest, most low-spec garden shed on the market. It looks great in the brochure. But the one you’re getting isn’t painted. And, if you look closely just below that image in microscopic lettering are the words “Not shown actual size”. The attractive young lady in the bikini pictured gazing up in delighted wonder at the imposing edifice is actually only four foot three inches tall. You feel disappointed. You feel cheated. You feel Scottish.

Even if you don’t fully comprehend all the stuff about budgets and production costs and all the jargon of the TV industry, it’s easy to understand the difference between standard definition (SD) and high definition (HD). Anybody who has a fairly modern TV can appreciate the fact that HD is very much better than SD. For most of us, I suspect, HD is now the standard. It’s what we expect. SD actually stands for sub-standard definition. What the BBC is offering us is sub-standard. That crappy wee garden shed isn’t even made out of real wood.

But there’s more! Belatedly realising that the uppityness of the Jocks has now reached such a level that the ingrates decline to be fobbed-off with factory rejects, the BBC amended its offer. On 14 March 2018, Chris Roswell (Head of Regulation & Economics – a BBC title if ever I heard one) wrote to Ofcom (PDF) advising that the new BBC Scotland channel would only be broadcast in sub-standard definition part of the time. The great news was that the BBC had graciously deigned to provide the quality of picture viewers in Scotland pay for a few hours in the evening. The letter was (not really) signed, yours in anticipation of some grateful forelock-tugging from those pestilential provincials.

It has to be said that Mr Roswell (HoRE) took some of the shine off this grand new offering when he gleefully proclaimed that it didn’t involve spending any more of Scottish licence fee-payers’ money in Scotland. Due to “recent technology changes” the shabby little garden shed could be equipped with the luxury of a fourth wall (part-time only) at no additional cost.

We’re told nothing about the nature of those “technology changes”, and whether they are anything to do with the fact that the HD for the new BBC Scotland channel is being provided by taking it from the children’s channel, CBBC (in Scotland only). Will we, I wonder, be able to truly enjoy that glorious HD knowing it’s been stolen from our own bairns?

Am I the only one struck by the apparent effort the BBC puts into avoiding viewers in Scotland with the services we pay for? It’s almost as in there was something in the corporation’s charter about ensuring Scotland is always relatively worse off. The attitude seems to be that the BBC may grudgingly make some kind of gesture if we make a big enough fuss, but on no account must this amount to anything approximating the kind of public service broadcasting provision a real nation might enjoy.

It’s not about the money. We know that licence fee revenues raised in Scotland are sufficient to pay for a full broadcasting service. It’s as if the service provided by the British state broadcaster is being purposefully curtailed and diminished. It’s as if we are being deliberately short-changed. And not necessarily or entirely for financial reasons.

We swim in a media sea. We are immersed in it. There is no part of our lives that is not touched by the media. We view the world and ourselves through a media lens. Increasingly, we interact with others only through media. Our culture evolves in and is conveyed by the media. Our political discourse conforms to the demands of the media. It is baffling that people scoff at the idea of media studies as a ‘serious’ academic subject when the media looms so massively in all our lives. We live in a world made of media. So it stands to reason that established power will seek to control the media. And to use the media as a means of control.

Whether anyone in the BBC would admit it, or even be aware of it, that is what lies behind the extraordinary effort to detract from broadcasting in Scotland – even as they try to look as if they’re providing shiny new services. The British state requires that Scotland must be less than it might be. Therefore, the media in Scotland must be less than it might be. It is not a question of resources. The BBC’s stranglehold on Scotland’s media is both practical and symbolic. In practical terms, it prevents Scotland from either perceiving or presenting itself in they way we would choose were we permitted to do so. Symbolically, the BBC’s dominance of Scotland’s media represents the supremacy of the British state; while the paucity of the service provided by the BBC reinforces Scotland’s subordinate status within the UK.

Some in Scotland are content to settle for a dilapidated garden shed, so long as it has a Union flag flying above it. Others want the house we’re paying for.

If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit


Strong and stable… suckers!


The following is an extract from my article in the April edition of iScot Magazine.

There was always something very fishy about the idea of Ruth Davidson as the protector of Scotland’s interests. The Tories’ betrayal of Scotland’s fishing industry reveals just how misplaced was the trust put in Davidson by those in our fishing communities who voted, first to keep Scotland in the UK, then to take the UK out of the European Union. To people outside those communities, this always looked like serial self-harm. To many, it seemed inexplicable that folk who make their living from the sea should continue to put such faith in politicians who had spent three years demonstrating, on an almost daily basis, the extent to which they had misled, deceived and downright lied to the people of Scotland during the first independence referendum.

When it was revealed that the UK Government’s Brexit ‘deal’ with the EU involved the Common Fisheries Policy effectively being retained for nearly two years longer than had been promised, there was no great surprise amongst those who have their finger on the pulse of Scottish politics. While the less well-informed were expressing various degrees of shock and dismay at this blatant breach of trust, the attitude of those more aware of the realities of Scottish politics was nicely summed up by Holyrood magazine editor, Mandy Rhodes,

What was more surprising to me was that fishermen, who so loathed the Common Fisheries Policy, were prepared to put their faith in the same Conservatives that took them into it, to then take them out of it with no equivalent pain. They were expendable then and they are expendable now.

There is evidently a curious psychology at play here. Ms Rhodes is far from alone in being perplexed by the readiness of the fishermen to believe the promises of those who have so frequently and comprehensively shown themselves to be unworthy of anyone’s confidence. How is such behaviour to be explained?

To read the full article, and support Scotland’s independent media, please subscribe to iScot Magazine.

If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit


Killing trust

Anger after Reporting Scotland misrepresents First Minister’s Brexit comments

bbc_union_at_any_costAm I angry about the latest instance of blatant dishonesty from BBC Scotland? Of course I am! Not to be offended by lies is unnatural. And brazen falsehoods are very much worse when they are presented as news reporting by an organisation which purports to be the nation’s public service broadcaster. But, as much as I am outraged by such lies, I am also content that, in its arrogance, the BBC is surely destroying the very authority which makes it such a crucial component of the British state’s propaganda machinery.

That authority is inherited, rather than deserved. It is the fading echo of a time when the BBC enjoyed a thoroughly-earned reputation as the world’s foremost news-gathering organisation. That the BBC is trusted at all today is solely explained by the fact that it was so completely trusted for so much of the history of broadcasting. That trust was so profound, for so long, that it is ingrained in our culture. Confidence in the BBC’s news reporting is almost part of our DNA. It is actually difficult to destroy that kind of trust. But BBC is managing to do so.

Or, to be more accurate, it is being managed to do so. Because the culture of casual dishonesty that allows Reporting Scotland to so gratuitously misrepresent the First Minister’s words is entirely a consequence of incompetent management.

It is the management of a news organisation which is responsible for creating and maintaining the operational ethos. It is management which sets the standard. It is management which is charged with formulating and applying the framework of rules and guidance which keep the organisation true to its purpose. The management at BBC Scotland has failed. It has failed abysmally. It has failed in truly spectacular fashion.

Counterintuitively, this may be a good thing. Were this failure more subtle, there might be some doubt about it. It might be deniable. But the dishonesty has now become so brazen; the lies and distortions so transparent; the propagandising on behalf of the British state so audacious, that it cannot possibly be either dismissed or defended.

The BBC is destroying itself. Although this too will doubtless be blamed on Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP.

If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit


The right to hear

social_mediaEverything comes at a price. And that includes freedom of expression. We accept that, in return for a service which delivers letters and packages to our homes, there will also be some junk mail littering the doormat. In exchange for the convenience of email, we accept a certain amount of unsolicited clutter in our inboxes. The price of a ‘free press’ is that we accept the print and broadcast media being used to manipulate public opinion. It would be foolish to suppose that there would be no cost associated with social media.

In all cases, the cost must be weighed against the benefit. We don’t nail shut our letterboxes just because we receive a few leaflets we didn’t ask for. We don’t abandon our email accounts just because we get some spam. It would be unfortunate if an overreaction to the cost of free and open communication were to deprive us of useful services or place undue constraints on our ability to communicate.

It might readily be argued that freedom of expression, as well as meaning the right to say what we want, also implies the right to hear what we want. In a properly functioning democracy, such rights are vested in the individual. If the starting point for the right of free speech is that anybody can say anything, then the necessary and inevitable corollary is that anybody can hear anything. This also implies that we should be as wary of those seeking to regulate what we may look at or listen to as we are of efforts to regulate the manner and content of expression.

Of course, there are limits to freedom of expression. As a society, we adopt legislation to prohibit communication which has evident potential for serious harm. Incitement to violence is, perhaps, the most obvious example. Exhortation to racial or sectarian hatred may be more problematic, but we nonetheless accept the need to have laws. It is a matter of balance. A question of where the line should be drawn.

But the presumption must always favour the right over regulation. Otherwise, the right is too readily eroded. It is not the right which must be argued but the case for impinging upon it. And this applies also to the right to hear – or read, or view or otherwise receive mediated messages. A right which is meaningless without the element of choice. To mean anything at all, the right to hear what we want depends on there being numerous and diverse voices for us to select from.

In Scotland, we have a particular problem in this regard. On the overarching issue of the constitutional question the mainstream/corporate media lies almost entirely on one side. And when I say ‘lies’ I mean that both in the sense of favouring the British establishment and the sense of promulgating untruths on behalf of the British state. The British media – print and broadcast – lies to the people of Scotland constantly and incessantly and in every way imaginable. All is deceit and disinformation. With only a precious few exceptions, such as The National and iScot Magazine, the print media is firmly aligned with established power – differing only in the explicitness of their commitment to British Nationalism and the extent to which they are prepared to abandon principle and professionalism for the sake of preserving the structures of power, privilege and patronage which define the British state.

Broadcasting is even more one-sided. The BBC is the voice of the ruling elites of the British state. It cannot be otherwise. It is a loud, ubiquitous and inordinately influential voice. It is very well resourced and, despite numerous scandals, still clings to much of the authority it acquired when respect was actually earned.

Social media provides the only countervailing voice. Without the alternative media there is little or no choice. The right to hear what we want would be rendered meaningless were it not for the options offered online.

I don’t doubt that the power of the social media giants is being abused for political and commercial purposes; just as the power of traditional media is bent to the service of established power and vested interests. But, while being aware of the price we may pay in terms of our privacy and intrusive messages, we must be mindful of what we gain from a medium which is open, accessible and unconstrained. There is something essentially democratic about this medium. It would be regrettable if that were to be lost in a clamour of knee-jerk reaction to failings and deficiencies on the part of those charged with managing this invaluable resource.

Rather than a rush to regulate what people may hear, perhaps we’d do better to educate people about how to listen. Maybe what we need is, not more constrained media, but more critical consumers of media messages.

If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit


Down with breathing!

hold_breathImagine, if you will, a survey which asked respondents for their views on breathing. Imagine 68% of those respondents indicating that they either had no strong feelings on the matter or were actively opposed to the process of respiration. How would we makes sense of it? Apparently, two-thirds of the population want breathing stopped. If the survey is to be believed, there’s a significant majority in favour of mass suffocation.

I’m not aware of any such survey. But I’m just as perplexed by actual research which indicates large numbers of people opposed to human rights. According to a report published by the Scottish Human Rights Commission outlining the findings of a YouGov survey, only 17 per cent of Conservative voters are human rights supporters. This suggests that a massive 83% of Tory voters reject the idea of human beings having fundamental rights. Assuming that Tory voters are included in the category of ‘human’, more than three quarters of them want to be stripped of their own basic rights.

This is every bit as incomprehensible as being anti-breathing. And not just because the figure is so high. It would be startling if even one person scorned something that is essential for life. It is surely just as remarkable that anybody should spurn the principles which make life tolerable.

According to the research, 51% of SNP voters are also at best ambivalent about human rights. While that number doesn’t have quite the jaw-dropping impact of the Tory’s 83% opposition to human rights, SNP voters can’t really afford to be smug. That’s still a majority who, if we interpret their votes literally, disagree with the idea that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

That’s a majority who, based on their responses to the survey, think it’s OK to discriminate on the basis of race, colour, sex, language or religion.

It’s a majority who don’t agree that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

It’s a majority in favour of slavery and the slave trade.

It’s a majority in favour of people being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

It’s a majority in favour of arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

It’s a majority who reject the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

Of course, most of these people would almost certainly deny most or all of the above. They’d deny that they favour slavery and racial discrimination and arbitrary imprisonment without trial and the use of torture. They would probably insist that this is not what they meant when they repudiated the concept of human rights. They might even dispute the definition of human rights being used. Even when it is pointed out to them that it’s the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948, they’ll still insist that their own definition takes precedence.

They’ll say that, when they voted against human rights, they were voting against convicted terrorists being allowed to go free. They were voting against prisons being like luxury hotels. They were voting against the ‘political correctness’ that forces employers to take on barely educated black people when there are plenty of better qualified white people available.

Explaining why people would, apparently, eschew their own fundamental rights is difficult. But it may be easier to understand the disparity between Tory and SNP voters. They read different newspapers. They listen to different voices. They have a different world-view.

This is both cause and effect. They see the world differently because of the media messages they consume. And they consume those media messages because they seek confirmation of their world-view. If you think suspected terrorist shout be tortured to extract information, you’ll tend to avoid publications which denounce torture and those who advocate it. You’ll tend to favour newspapers which tell you torture is a good thing. You’ll derive satisfaction from reading stories of how torture was used to acquire intelligence which led to some murderous plot being thwarted. You won’t learn of the abundant research indicating that torture is woefully ineffective as a means of acquiring useful information.

It’s not a full explanation, of course. People are complex. And so are the issues. But, if nothing else, it illustrates an important point. A properly functioning democracy relies on informed consent. It depends on at least a significant part of the electorate actually knowing what they’re voting for – or against. Which leads to questions about the duties and responsibilities of information providers. That means the print and broadcast media.

Let’s look on the bright side, shall we? If, as is not entirely improbable, the Daily Express ever decides to denounce the fad of breathing as a dastardly plot by evil Eurocrats bent on undermining traditional British values, this could prove to be a very Darwinian solution. Would it be such a tragedy if three out of every four Tory voters chose to demonstrate their superior British stoicism by holding their breath until they expired?

If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit