Khana Lagur Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies is a great book about the shortcomings of the media. It came out almost a decade ago, but a lot of it is even more relevant today than when it first came out; deals a lot with how the Internet has changed the news gathering/reporting process, how huge cuts in newsrooms have meant newspapers increasingly rely on picking up stories from news agencies (eg Press Association, AFP, Reuters etc.) and/or regurgitating press releases, rather than doing their own original reporting or investigations; how the rush to get stories up online first is leading to errors and a lack of secondary reporting ; crap pay means seasoned veteran reporters are going to work in PR for better wages, leaving newspapers understaffed mainly by young graduates who are on much lower pay. It's the various newspapers and news organisations that fund the likes of Reuters and Press Association. They effectively 'own' them collectively by employing them to cover the stories they don't have direct access to work up themselves. aye, that was the point about the Referendum Bias. The BBC dont find out or investigate the news, they report what the newspapers say. as 95% of the newspapers were anti Indy, the BBC looked like it was the same. The older demographic think the BBC is infallible... The BBC take their news lead from the Daily Mail & Telegraph. They follow up what the Mail & Torygraph run with, as they are the only two dailies that have any journalistic strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld_Reekie Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 I absolutely would pay for impartial news. I want to read critical thought. On occasion I will read some newspaper articles because I find it important to understand what opposing views or opponents are saying about something. Unfortunately, it's mostly hyperbole and rhetoric but then so is anything that confirms my bias. I'd much prefer to just read something that prides itself on standing back and doesn't rely on opinion pieces. I also want to read critical pieces of SNP and independence without questioning motives all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-ambulance-chasers/#more-80452 Despicable, even for the Daily Redcoat. To be fair, some people just invite trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hertsscot Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 To be fair, some people just invite trouble. And some people will look for it to smear a thousands more and tar them all with the same brush. Gutter journalism once more from Scotland's self styled champion. Trying to score cheap political points when the guy's just died. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 To be fair, some people just invite trouble. Aye, but not on this occasion. The Retard just made it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Aye, but not on this occasion. The Retard just made it up. Which part? I removed a tamber from my Facebook page last night for his comments regarding Bowies death. Not quite a Britain First clear out but Kumnio's post is accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Which part? I removed a tamber from my Facebook page last night for his comments regarding Bowies death. Not quite a Britain First clear out but Kumnio's post is accurate. If the 'journalist' was convinced of its 100% authenticity, I'm sure he/she would've put their name to the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 If the 'journalist' was convinced of its 100% authenticity, I'm sure he/she would've put their name to the article. And given some real examples of abuse by cybernats. If we had the "journalist's" name maybe Scunnered could send him some real examples. If he has got any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 If the 'journalist' was convinced of its 100% authenticity, I'm sure he/she would've put their name to the article. It was an agency piece which generally doesn't have the authors name on it. I doubt there is anything that is actually made up in that piece, I don't think that any of the tweets or Facebook postings were fabricated. What is deliberately misleading about this article and others in a similar vein is that it pushes an agenda that implies that this is what *all* independence supporters think and that it is only independence supporters that act in this way. Although, post the Syria vote I see the same tactic was being used against the anti-bombing side. There must have been tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of tweets from Scottish people yesterday regarding David Bowie and they managed to come up with a handful if derogatory comments that they could tie to supporters of Scottish Independence in the most loosest manner. No doubt the majority of comments were positive and I'm sure you'd have found orders of magnitude more who said "I didn't agree with his views on independence, but I'm sorry he's gone". Is this really news. Funny thing is that not long after the news of his death broke, Wings was predicting that some journalist was "as we speak" going through Twitter looking for anti-Bowie quotes. My money would have been on the Mail, mind you they were probably too busy trying to backtrack from the hatchet piece by Angie Bowie that they had just published. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 If the 'journalist' was convinced of its 100% authenticity, I'm sure he/she would've put their name to the article. And given some real examples of abuse by cybernats. If we had the "journalist's" name maybe Scunnered could send him some real examples. If he has got any. Other tabloids have reported the same, complete with their journalists names printed and examples cited. The only part of the Record article I doubt is the SNP insider part, but even in Wings nonsense he ####s up his reasons for it being false. Tabloids shouldn't have went looking for abuse of Bowie from Cybernats, but to deny it happened is equally nonsensical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld_Reekie Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 What I genuinely dont understand is how the Record sees this as healthy for their title and future business. I mean, I dont think people are going out their way to buy a paper because of the piece, and Im pretty sure some are looking on wondering why a paper would bother with such guff. It surely can't just be about clickbait and there being no such thing as bad publicity. Not that anyone should ever define themselves by the reaction from Wings, why would they give him or anyone else such easy material to use to demonstrate the gutter journalism they're publishing. While we're talking about the state of journalism in this country, check out @sarah_hilary. She's been trying, in vain, to get an apology from the Herald after they lifted a piece from an agency that ripped off her interview with Ian Rankin. Herald shrugged her off and told her to take it up with the agency as if they thought they were blameless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Which part? The headline for a start which is about as far as a lot of folk will read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 The headline for a start which is about as far as a lot of folk will read. What's wrong with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 What's wrong with it? They provide no evidence of "abuse" and they make no effort to show that the comments that they have used were made by "cybernats". If they had some evidence I would have thought that they would use it in their article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killiefaetheferry Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 They provide no evidence of "abuse" and they make no effort to show that the comments that they have used were made by "cybernats". If they had some evidence I would have thought that they would use it in their article. One of the examples of 'abuse' was a joke that he had said, "Please Scotland, stay with us !", but it was him that had fukced off. That's 'abuse' apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewelk Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 You can find anything you want to find on twitter. I could decide to write a random agency article about how unionists are cruel to animals and twitter would provide me with the evidence. Probably much more substantial evidence than was provided for the Bowie one. And someone was paid for that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 One of the examples of 'abuse' was a joke that he had said, "Please Scotland, stay with us !", but it was him that had fukced off. That's 'abuse' apparently. Some folk seem to be awfy easy offended these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 One of the examples of 'abuse' was a joke that he had said, "Please Scotland, stay with us !", but it was him that had fukced off. That's 'abuse' apparently. That reminded me of E J Thribb in Private Eye. So farewell, then, David Bowie... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bzzzz Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 It's a unionist rag and most fowk see that. The evening news, when it was actually a local newspaper, was great, provided a great service. Now it's just filled full of the same shite that seeps out of the rather offensively named "The Scotsman"'s orifices. F*** it, good riddance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brassrubber Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The EEN has become a hibs comic hence the decline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.