Flying a false flag
When you’re a journalist, it’s not uncommon to see your work hacked to bits in the time between being emailed to the commissioning editor and appearing in print. We long ago lost count of the number of times we’ve had vital explanatory passages chopped out leaving subsequent sections orphaned and incomprehensible, or the number of abominable, remedial-level grammatical errors and typos we’ve had inserted into our immaculately-proofed copy by a hapless young sub-editor from the generation when schools gave up teaching kids how to spell.
One of the most annoying things, though, is seeing your stuff go out with a headline that bears no relation to what the piece was supposed to be saying. It happens to the great and the good as much as to cub reporters and journeyman hacks – star Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker and the Independent’s high-profile political/feminist writer Laurie Penny have both suffered in recent weeks – and it drives writers crazy.
So we were only mildly startled to be browsing this morning’s Scotsman and see this:
The article itself features the words “independent” or “independence” six times, and mentions the concept of “separation” only once, in the sentence “This isn’t exactly the separatist fanaticism painted by some opponents”. That sentence is fairly obviously a critical reference to the Unionist camp’s dogged use of the word “separation” as a pejorative, intended to imply isolation, parochialism and xenophobia.
Hassan’s piece isn’t a partisan call to arms for either side, nor even one about the language of the referendum debate, but a calm, considered plea for a much wider, non-political, mature discussion of the sort of Scotland we want to see in the future (ie the same article Gerry’s been writing over and over again for the last year or more).
We can’t say with absolute 100% certainty that the article’s headline – which takes a sledgehammer and pneumatic drill to that happy notion and smashes it to a pile of ironic rubble – is indeed the work of the Scotsman (we’ve asked Gerry and await reply) but at this point we’d be happy to have a tenner on it.
If you’re wondering about our own headline, incidentally, Wikipedia defines “false flag” thusly:
“False flag operations are covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is: flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations and can be used during peace-time.”
We’ve been reading Gerry Hassan’s work for a very long time and we’ve never once heard him describe independence as “separation”. But when supping with the devil it’s best not just to use a long spoon, but to also have a bottle of Dettol to hand.
Stuart,
I suspect to some, your point in this post may seem minor. Who cares what language The Scotsman uses and aren’t we used to it by now? But for anyone familiar with the work of, say, Chomsky, language and its use in politics is critical. Language has material effects, it affects and determines real beliefs and values as well as real social and cultural practices. No more so than in politics. The trick for those who exercise power – or three-dimensional power – in our societies is to get their ‘version’ of social reality and its associated vocabulary accepted as the norm. Language plays a crucial role in this.
We can easily test this with the example from The Scotsman that you provide here. When confronted with a headline like this, it’s always a good idea to turn things on their head. So let’s try that. Suppose The Scotsman had ran with the headline:
‘Stop seeing independence in black and white’.
The first consequence of this would have been that the average loyal Scotsman reader would have choked on his porridge this morning. But The Scotsman isn’t daft. It already knows what its loyal readership wants. That, after all, is why they buy it (not much point in preaching to the converted other than to reaffirm pre-existing prejudices). The Scotsman is much more interested in the casual reader.
What effect might the above headline have had on the casual reader, say, someone not familiar with The Scotsman’s unionism and/or some reader who was undecided in how they are going to vote in 2014? Or someone who might turn to The Scotsman in the (mistaken) belief that, as one of Scotland’s two leading ‘quality’ newspapers, it can be relied on to provide an impartial account of the debate on independence? Confronted with an amended headline like that above, the effect on these casual readers would have been, among other things, to neutralise independence as a political issue. It would have implied that there is a genuine debate that ought to be held on the issue. It would have suggested that The Scotsman is impartial on the issue of independence (at least in the headlines it uses).
Critics of both Wings and most of us who contribute to it will perhaps read this and think that this is just another case of potkettling. But here’s the difference. Our contributions aren’t hidden beneath the veneer of being a ‘quality’ newspaper (apologies Stuart), or of being an authoritative impartial voice in Scottish society (again, apologies). Perhaps most important of all, our contributions aren’t the subject of daily news stories and newspaper reviews on the daily broadcasting media on GMS, Reporting Scotland, Newsnicht etc.
All of which reminds me of an important point that Alex Salmond made at Leveson. Correcting himself in mid-sentence, he told Robert Jay that, “Most of the papers in Scotland, or all of the papers in Scotland, are hostile to Scottish independence”. By citing examples like the original Scotsman headline, as well as the numerous other examples from The Scotsman and the rest of the printed and broadcasting media in Scotland,we can see how the British MSM, both within Scotland as well as in the rest of the UK, create what Chomsky called a “manufactured consent”. In the case of unionism, this works by unionists’ using language in their attempts to normalise unionism and demonise independence.
I agree with you about Gerry Hassan. He wouldn’t have used the word “separation” in this headline. And I suspect that, had he known that The Scotsman was going to use it, he would have insisted that it be enclosed in pinch marks (a non-starter with The Scotsman of course). It’s true that Gerry Hassan has been writing variants of this article for some time now but, in case anyone should mistake your point here for an implicit criticism of his work, it should be pointed out that he does many other things as well.
It’s also part of the following, happening daily in print and broadcast media and which will only increase as we get nearer to the day of the independence vote:
PSYOPS or Psychological Operations: “Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to certain audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce specific attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives.”
The use of the word “separation” is deliberate as it conveys, to some, a struggle for independence carried out by violent means.
Using “separation” instead of “independence” is classic psyops, calculated to induce negativity and fear to those who have not yet decided which way to vote in the Scottish independence referendum.
Dal Riada,
Agreed.
“The use of the word ‘separation’ is deliberate as it conveys, to some, a struggle for independence carried out by violent means”.
Precisely. It’s not for nothing that the violent and oppressive Chinese government refers to the Tibetan Independence Movement as ‘separatists’. Nice to know that the unionists share a vocabulary with such charming people.
The unedited version can be found here:
http://nationalcollective.com/2012/06/16/the-perils-of-content-free-campaign-scotland/
It would be quite cool if Gerry Hassan engaged with us. I doubt he is unaware of this site or the comments on it. It is the height of arrogance, c.f. Kenneth Roy and the BBC, to fail to engage with comments. It also suggests that the author is, and I’ve checked the definition, pretentious. I am confident(ish) that Mr Hassan is not tarred with that brush.
Gerry usually publishes his Scotsman articles on his blog a day or two after they appear in the newspaper, and indeed it’s often interesting to compare the two headlines.
As regards Gerry engaging with the lower orders in the MacBlogosphere, I’ve always been a bit annoyed at how his ‘blog’ seems to consist almost wholly of articles published elsewhere, and I can’t really recall him engaging with anyone in the comments or whatever, so if the blogosphere is to mean anything then it’s surely a bit more ‘value-added’ than just an MSM journalist republishing his efforts on the internet on something described as a blog?
And then his ‘blog’ win prizes and he’s described as a ‘blogger’ on Newsnicht, but precisely how his ‘blogging’ activities add to his status as a political pundit I’ve never been entirely clear. His blogging activities per se certainly adds nothing of substance to his otherwise self-evidently substantial contributions to Scottish political commentary.
Not that I blame Gerry for avoiding engaging with those contributing to social media everytime his name is mentioned – let’s face it, if any of us were afforded the opportunity to appear on Newsnicht or write in a newspaper than I’m sure we’d be doing that rather than this – but I think his/Newsnicht’s blogger schtick was simply an attempt to appear contemporary rather than representing anything of purely blogging substance (although I’m not sure if Newsnicht use the ‘blogger’ description when he’s on now).
Of course, none of the above is intended as a criticism of his work pe se.
Stuart Winton @ 6:22,
I am not at all convinced that punditry is anything more than who you know. Your opinion is as valid as their’s, most of the time. Hell, I should go further than that.
It is my opinion, always has been, that using the internet as a one way messaging system is the last redoubt of a failed or failing mainstream media model. The attraction of sites such as this and Newsnet Scotland, and a plethora of others, is that people who know stuff are able to challenge the pundits who, generally, don’t.
This is not an attack on the Rev Stu or Scott Minto, both of whom I hold in the highest esteem, because I do not see them as pundits, more as very intelligent punters. Which may, of course not be how they see themselves. But there are people who influence us that do not have their wit or erudition. Some of them write for the Telegraph, others for the Guardian. It is sometimes cathartic to unload on their dafter posts.
It is also possible to argue that essentially unmoderated channels, such as the ‘Telegraph’ and ‘The Scotsman’s’ comments section are atypical of blogging in general. If, heaven forfend, the Scotsman let me write a column that said, in essence, ‘it’s a nice day today’ the vitriol would be out of all proportion to the content. So, I’m not approving of that either.
That said, most comments sections on blogs are not like that. This site, for instance, is a haven of reasonable debate, most of the time.
It is generally the case that I do not now even read a site that does not allow comments. Indeed I am increasingly suspicious of sites where the writer of the comment does not engage in the comment on their own post.
I have discussed this with a variety of authors over the years. In essence they see it as their right to publish and be damned, after all they say, ‘I’m paying for this’!
My view is that they are denying us any decent debate, and if they cannot stand the criticism then they shouldn’t inflict their, generally daft, opinions on us.
You are their equal these days. That, sir, is the whole liberating point of this internet thingy…..
IMO, the “false flag” headline is the least of editorial sins, since it can end up being counter-productive. Someone who agrees with the sentiment of the headline, may well find themselves being uncomfortably educated by the content.
Just feel the need to point out that Gerry does indeed engage with comments on his own site. I’ve also seen him engaging with comments on articles he’s had published on Bella Caledonia, and he certainly doesn’t sit in an ivory tower on Twitter either.
He’s no Brian “publish it then run away” Taylor, that’s for sure!
Doug, I used to visit Gerry’s site to see if he would interact with commenters, because he self-evidently doesn’t do so on the Scotsman (and indeed who would blame him).
However, his interaction was in fact sparse at best, so in the end I stopped reading his blog and just read his articles in their original location instead of waiting for them to be posted on his site.