Not even trying
Posted on
January 08, 2013 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
The world's most-read Scottish politics website
-
About
Wings Over Scotland is a (mainly) Scottish political media digest and monitor, which also offers its own commentary. (More)
-
Recent Posts
- 04-29
- 04-29
- 04-29
- 04-28
- 04-27
- 04-27
- 04-26
- 04-26
- 04-25
- 04-25
- 04-25
- 04-24
- 04-24
- 04-22
- 04-20
- 04-20
- 04-18
- 04-18
- 04-17
- 04-15
Wings Over ScotlandA tall tale
Wee Books
Video
Probably a robbery
Transphobia
Maybe they’re just trying to say that all of us independence backers are extraordinary members of the public?
That really is a total, utter and complete disgrace.
Oh I see Tanya the shipyard worker is back in the fray…
“The shipyards to me mean being part of an extended family. My great grandmother, my grandfather also worked there. I have been there myself for the last 23 years. I want my children and my children’s children to have that same opportunity, to follow on in the family footsteps. That is one of the reasons I will be voting no to Scottish independence.”
“People who want independence don’t even live here! And some of them are gay!”
This juxtaposition serves to parrot the Better Together talking point of “the silent majority of ordinary people being Unionist” doesn’t it.
If this is the best they can manage, perhaps all those Beeb license fees should be included in the No campaign funding calculations…
I’ve noticed the BBC carefully avoiding the word “No” of late. At the top of the same page is a picture of Darling describing him as “Pro-UK” and “pro-unionist” rather than as “anti-independence” or “No campaign chief”. A positive case for the Union! Except isn’t it “Better Together” who are supposed to provide that, not the BBC?
Alistair Darling is positive about no…
“We make a positive case for staying together. A positive case that celebrates not just what makes us distinctive but also celebrates what we share. We put the positive case for staying together. We are positive about our links with the rest of the UK, through families and friendships, through trade and through shared political, economical and cultural institutions.”
Very Positive, yet doesnt explain why???
What the feck is a silent majority anyway? And how does anyone know what they think if they’re silent?
Ruth Davidson on not understanding voting…
“Better Together is about giving the shipbuilder from Glasgow to the nanny in Inverness a voice in the biggest decision Scotland has faced in 300 years. The future of the United Kingdom is about the future aspirations of a majority of ordinary Scots, who want to remain part of one of the most successful economic and political unions in the world.”
Erm… they get a voice with their vote, and BTW its the Referendum giving them the voice. If the Westminster Parties had their way there would be no vote at all!
See, I knew independence was only for dreamers, idlers, ne’er-do-wells and ahem..’artists’, none of whom have any common sense and are totally out of touch with ordinary people like me, living as they all do on Richard Branson’s private island in the Caribbean.
If I forge common cause with poltiicans like Clegg, Darling and Davidson, all of whom are totally grounded in my mundane realities, then I can’t fail.
Do I get a prize, BBC?
And heres that shipbuilder and that nanny:
Craig: Shipyard worker from Dumbarton
“We want to keep the stamp of the Clyde on the ships – built on the Clyde, that is the history of the place. There is a great fear that independence will take that away. We have been together, we have worked together, we have even fought together and, as the slogan says, we will be better together.”
I dont think that Craig has really thought through the implications of current UK policy on procurement.
Ceilidh Watson: Winner of Miss Inverness 2010 and a professional nanny to four children
“We have a massive 300 year history and I believe that our generation of children should be a part of that. My boyfriend is down at Sandhurst at the moment, he is going through his training to become an Army officer. I think I speak for everyone when I say how I am immensely proud of our armed forces.”
So history will somehow cease to exist. Most people are proud of the military protecting us, but less so of the political maneouverings or wars they are asked to get involved in. And you can still see your boyfriend luv…
I know I’ve asked this before, but seriously – what happened to Patten’s promise to Salmond to sort this out?!!
When are the Nats and the Yes guys going to get on the front foot on this … and use the other one to start kicking some arses at Atlantic Quay?
Even the language on the captions is stretching impartiality to breaking point. Being in the No camp is “pro-Union” and “pro-UK” – again the actual N-word is absent. Being on the Yes side is “going it alone”.
@Rev,
I think there is a case for arguing that if they use “Pro-UK” for the Better No campaign then they need to call the Yes Scotland campaign “Pro-Scotland”.
See how they like them apples…
Have made a complaint
Whose work is this? Glenn Campbell or Douglas Fraser? Why have they put Yes and No at the top and then changed it to pro-union? Surely not to make it sound more positive? After all, the referendum ballot paper will only have a Yes/No option on it. Also, BBC Scotland are obsessed about Salmond and the SNP and yet they don’t include a photo of either Salmond or Sturgeon. I hope Blair Jenkins is watching their coverage of the referendum. I have said before that it only needs one person inside Pravda-on-the-Clyde to get disillusioned with the completely biased coverage and then it could get very interesting…
“Ordinary members of the public join politicians in pro-UK campaign.”
“And after the referendum, most of these pro-UK politicians will join the ranks of ordinary member of the public.”
“Have made a complaint”
I can save you some time and give you the Beeb’s reply now.
“We uphold the utmost standards of impartiality. The item in question refers explicitly to, and links to coverage of, the respective campaign launches, at which Better Together prominently featured members of the public while YesScotland concentrated on celebrities. Therefore it is a legitimate description in that context.
Furthermore, the reason we refer to the No campaign using positive terminology like ‘pro-Union’ and ‘pro-UK’ while using more negative phrasing like “go it alone” for the Yes campaign is oh my goodness is that the time I really must be off.
Yours sincerely,
Automated Response Department.”
I meant to add, is anymore on this site remotely surprised at this ‘reporting’ by BBC Scotland at all? I know I am not…
Incidentally, from the BBC article..
“He (Darling) said he would seek the views of business people, representatives from charities, trade union officials and heads of veterans’ associations”
Do they qualify as the ‘ordinary people’ the BBC tell us have made concert with the NO campaign (to give it its correct name)?
It is for exactly this reason that I no longer sponsor the BBC.
Kate Middleton – bottom row, first pic
The image title states “The ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns”. So the two sets of pictures will naturally match this, with ‘yes’ first (Darling), ‘no’ second (Jenkins).
Yes you are right, they are not even trying. Even the word count, a staple indicator for journalists everywhere, never mind the ‘we-must-always-be-balanced’ BBC, is a give-away:
‘No’ quotes total of 598 words
‘Yes’ quotes total of 430 words.
This is so blatant it seems that they have past caring/bothering, which means that they have been given the green light by BBC London/Westminster that they can play dirty, that normal rules and protocols no longer apply here…if so, time for gloves off!
Oh, that’s interesting…maybe they’ve done us a favour – I’m looking at the No group and thinking to myself, “Who, in their right mind, with even a grain of self-respect, would want to be in the same team as such embarrassments as Alastair Darling, Michael Moore, Nick Clegg and Ruth Davidson?” What in the name of god would that say about you? Just imagine for a second that the picture of the nanny and the picture of the shipyard person were removed and replaced by a picture of yourself, smiling away there. If you don’t feel a degree of self-disgust at that image, then there’s not much hope for you, I think.
Have made a complaint also, something I rarely bother to do given the BBC’s tendancy to stonewall. But that is simply biased. I even suggested they change the wording to “Who are those supporting Better Together?” and “Who are those supporting Yes Scotland?”
If you want to understand the BBC Scotland types then read the last paragraph in this article, and then the accreditation beneath it.
Cuphook: wow.
@Cuphook
Interesting, does indeed tell you all you need to know. Bonnington made himself look foolish on TV recently, completely unable to disguise his irrational hatred of the SNP.
Incidentally, you’d think that a ‘progressive’, ‘liberal’ newspaper like the Guardian might take issue with Bonnington’s claim that Holyrood has never done anything useful. No Tuition fees? Free prescriptions?
But as we know, the Guardian isn’t actually progressive and liberal..
Yup. I notice Sneekyboy was quick on the comments though.
@Training Day
When it comes to Scottish politics, and especially the independence campaign, the Guardian is curiously purblind. They will attack principles which they claim to uphold just because they’re in a Scottish context.
@Cuphook says:
If you want to understand the BBC Scotland types then read the last paragraph in this article, and then the accreditation beneath it.
I’ve almost spat my tea out on the monitor!! What an absolute train wreck of an article.
Holyrood has done more for us in it’s short life than Westminster have done in over 300 years FFS!!!
Unbelievable article!!
@Rabb
Bonnington is the guy who was complaining last year that Holyrood is damaging Scots law. he’s a Unionist pure and simple.
I thought that Bonnington’s remark “then maybe for once Holyrood could do something useful. There has to be a first time for everything” was almost as crass as you can get and very telling.
@Training Day
Bonnington made himself look foolish on TV recently, completely unable to disguise his irrational hatred of the SNP.
It really seems to be the prevalent attitude of Scottish unionists at the moment. You only need to see the contributions of the likes of Simon Pia, Ian Davidson, Brian Wilson, Lamont etc. By contrast, the PM got the No campaign’s name wrong twice yesterday. You could only guess at what the Tory backbenchers are saying at present about Scotland!
“Yup. I notice Sneekyboy was quick on the comments though”
Feel free to showcase that article with my responses embedded if you wish as a prime example of what passes for thinking in the BBC these days.
It truly was a “train wreck” of an article!
I see the BBC has raised its game.
For a minute I thought it was BBC Scotlandshire.
Rev:
“I can save you some time and give you the Beeb’s reply now.
“We uphold the utmost standards of impartiality. The item in question refers explicitly to, and links to coverage of, the respective campaign launches, at which Better Together prominently featured members of the public while YesScotland concentrated on celebrities. Therefore it is a legitimate description in that context.”
You’ve got it spot on, and in fact the BBC would be perfectly entitled to say that. It’s the YES campaign that’s got it wrong, and even now they were waffling on about “unveiling more celebrities throughout 2013 who support Independence”. Who gives a flying ….?
The YES campaign have this fundamentally wrong, and in this case, I find for the BBC. Maybe they’re really pro-indy and trying to make a point …
LOL
Is this the BBC’s permanent anti-independence page?
It links to stories going back to January last year.
The stories highlighted here are;
NO- 25 June 2012 Last updated at 18:09
YES- 25 May 2012 Last updated at 17:54
Also, is it just my browser or have the BBC started advertising on their website?
Don’t they get enough money?
@dadsarmy
You’ve got it spot on, and in fact the BBC would be perfectly entitled to say that. It’s the YES campaign that’s got it wrong, and even now they were waffling on about “unveiling more celebrities throughout 2013 who support Independence”. Who gives a flying ….?
The YES campaign have this fundamentally wrong, and in this case, I find for the BBC. Maybe they’re really pro-indy and trying to make a point …
LOL
You are talking about the Yes Scotland launch, which was more than 6 months ago. The independence march in September saw thousands of ordinary Scots attend. I am not sure why you are still criticizing the Yes launch? More to the point, why are the BBC still bringing it up? You have to remember that it would have been criticised anyway by the media because they are overwhelmingly against independence. They were never going to praise it.
In addition, you say that introducing well-known figures is ‘waffling’ by the Yes campaign. Can you not see that it serves other purposes? It is about saying that prominent Scottish public figures can see through the media bias. It is about breaking the fear in Scottish public life about supporting independence. It is also about saying to ordinary Yes supporters that they are not isolated, that there is demonstrable high-level support for independence. This in turn boosts the grassroots support and confidence.
What would be good this year would be if the well known people Yes Scotland reveal as supporters are not simply “celebs” but are high up in whatever their fields of expertise are – so scientists, business leaders, civic leaders etc. People who can talk with real authority about their areas and why they support independence from within them and for them.
That will add real meat and substance to the debate, whereas celebrities only offer assertion and fluff. OK they might be famous, but their opinion doesn’t count for any more than anyone else’s. Authority figures able to talk passionately and with expertise will hold a lot more sway. I suspect Yes Scotland does have plenty of these waiting in the wings for when the time is right: I really hope they do anyway. If they don’t and the No campaign do, that could do real damage to the case.
See Mr Sarwar’s team are keeping it clean and raising the tone then.
Couldn’t even make it past the week. (shakes head) 🙁
Muttley,
The (poor) launch was last May, yes, but they’ve also confirmed the celeb and luvvy nonsense by saying they’re going roll out more celebs this year.
On this, I think the NO campaign is better – it’s down to earth, rather than all-falluting arty farty up in the sky with celebs.
It might boost grassroots supporters, but it’s not going to attract the normal pleb in the street who’s undecided.
My opinion.
I should have pointed out that by well-known figures I do not just mean celebrities. After all, the person that is CE of Yes Scotland is Blair Jenkins; we need more of that type of calibre. There is only so much a range of actors, musicians can do for the campaign. We need to get endorsements from right across the spectrum of Scottish life, people involved in academia, business, arts, broadcasting, other parties’ politicians (that might be the most difficult thing!) etc. The grassroots is already looking strong.
@dasarmy
I used to think the same as you but after the launch an apolitical friend went from abstaining to Yes because of Alan Cumming. And I know that he’s shallow , but…
It’s good to have your confirmed convictions challenged.
@dadsarmy
The (poor) launch was last May, yes, but they’ve also confirmed the celeb and luvvy nonsense by saying they’re going roll out more celebs this year.
I am not talking about celebrities. I am talking about public figures like Blair Jenkins, who was at the launch to announce his support. This is exactly the type of person we need to introduce to the campaign. Ruth Wishart also supports independence and spoke at the march in September. We need to get support from a lot more than the usual suspects. Jenkins and Wishart fit this category. (Although quite a few people on Bella Caledonia seem to dislike her intensely for some reason.)
You also said the No campaign launch was better. It had Ryan, the sausage rolls, the model from Inverness etc. It was inane, turgid stuff. If that had been the Yes side can you imagine the media reaction?
It’s not an easy thing to do mutley, but we have to be able to stand back and pretend we’re not supporters of independence, perhaps even a little bit anti “we can’t afford independence”. And then look at the SNP and YES campaign. The SNP are about Indy and windfarms, YES is celebs and artists, and a guy from the BBC who is not someone you’d expect to meet in the pub as you stop in, dirty and sweaty from work, before going home for your tea. Whereas the other Blair (McDougall) is.
Perhaps it’s kind of a class gap, and I don’t think celebs close that gap.
I had an interesting Hogmanay. 14 people, 3 days. Various ages, from different parts of the country. 12 independence supporters and 2 unionists.
Unionist 1. Self confessed cultural unionist from Paisley announced she had voted SNP in 2011, but couldn’t possibly let her family know this. She’s 50 years old.
Unionist 2. English born, early 30s. Normally vociferous unionist, admits to strong dislike of Salmond. In reality quite apolitical. He confided in me that he has been persuaded to vote Yes, through listening to arguments, and being pointed in the direction of WOS and other sites. He observed that the Better Together campaign don’t really have to do very much, as the Scottish MSM do the job for them, and as he put it, ” It’s perfectly clear that they’re lying to me.”
Both were quite happy to sign a Yes card before they left. What a great start to the year. Very interesting that a (former) unionist felt the Scottish MSM, particularly the BBC, were insulting his intelligence through their constant feed of disinformation.
On a good note, at least the pictures of the YES ‘backers’ does not include a politician.
O/T but something to cheer
“and in this case, I find for the BBC”
The bit about the launches would be fair enough. The unbalanced language is a bit trickier to wriggle out of.
We should be glad that the referendum is taking place peacefully.
The Spanish Defence Minister has said that “The military is prepared, they are keeping calm and in good spirits and not reacting to absurd provocations“.
The Spanish police are also trying to discredit Catalan politicians.
Meanwhile, the Barcelona Bar Council has said that it’s in favour of UDI if the Spanish try to stop their referendum.
I believe that both launches were flawed, and very poor to be honest. However, that said they were over 6 months ago so I don’t understand why the media, in this case the BBC, would want to bring them up again?
“We need to get support from a lot more than the usual suspects. Jenkins and Wishart fit this category.”
I have a sneaking suspicion (I hope it’s that and not just blind hope) that there are plenty such people backing independence and the Yes campaign. But 2012 was being effectively sacrificed as the “show us how negative the no campaign will be” year. It seemed to be more about getting some of the wicked issues (eg the EU, currency, NATO) out in the open early, so starting to normalise them, and the idea of an independent Scotland while also sorting out the dull procedural stuff. I don’t think it hurts the Yes campaign to look like it’s on the back foot at this early stage at all.
Now, this year, they seem to be moving onto the real substance, to welfare, the economy, social justice. I very much hope that, as this unfolds, the relevant people who can speak with authority and bring people with them are wheeled out at the appropriate time, when they’re likely to be listened to as part of the debate.
If too many “not usual suspects” had come out last year, anything they said would have been lost in the white noise, the smear attacks, and scaremongering and they wouldn’t have had that much impact. For example, I’ve heard both Denis Canavan and Tommy Brennan speak and both were excellent and really should be widely heard. I doubt anyone outside the committed already Yes voters heard a word they said.
I think we have to accept that what is obvious to us is not obvious to the average person. Its not that we are more intelligent than everyone else. Its the fact that by being actively interested in politics we are the abnormal ones. We represent probably less than 5% of population.
I think its a real shame most people at the very least don’t take a more active role in politics because if everyone did we could build a much better society. I did underestimate how easily many people would be manipulated by the media. I naively thought when SNP one there majority, that sense was finally going to prevail and when people had to think logically about a scenario many had never pondered before that independence was inevitable. Its unfortunate that most people still haven’t put critical thought into the matter and relied on the media to shape there views.
I’ve got an idea for the YES campaign, and one which I don’t think by its very nature, the NO campaign could even attempt to copy.
It’s a section called “Your Vision”, it would have a line at the top saying something like “this is a selection of what you would like to see in an Independent Scotland. It might not happen, but it’s your vision for the future”.
This would be for ordinary punters, even like me. I for instance like the notion of co-ops, mutuals and friendly societies, where we’re the shareholders.
The co-op supplies community co-operative shops in Scotland, and there are an increasing number of these. Unfortunately after the co-op took over Somerfield, money and resources were scarce, so any new co-op was put on the back of a list for being supplied by the co-op. Well, this is something that Government could help out with – a co-op fund. That’d be part of my vision, and I’d even put my name to it on the website, taking my time over the writing of “my vision”.
I think that sort of thing could be a winner, taking it down to the ordinary pleb in the street.
Quick off topic sorry, but I thought this was an excellent article by Stephen Noon on Scotland on Sunday linked from Yes Scotland website:
http://www.yesscotland.net/yes_vote_will_stop_westminster_system_s_damaging_changes_to_scotland
Given how much on the case Sneakyboy is, there should be a “Caffeine Pills for Sneakyboy” fund as he seems to be up at all hours of the day and night
ESTRAGON:
I can’t go on like this.
VLADIMIR:
That’s what you think.
ESTRAGON:
If we parted? That might be better for us.
VLADIMIR:
We’ll hang ourselves tomorrow. (Pause.) Unless Godot comes.
ESTRAGON:
And if he comes?
VLADIMIR:
We’ll be saved.
Vladimir takes off his hat (Lucky’s), peers inside it, feels about inside it, shakes it, knocks on the crown, puts it on again.
ESTRAGON:
Well? Shall we go?
VLADIMIR:
Pull on your trousers.
ESTRAGON:
What?
VLADIMIR:
Pull on your trousers.
ESTRAGON:
You want me to pull off my trousers?
VLADIMIR:
Pull ON your trousers.
ESTRAGON:
(realizing his trousers are down). True.
He pulls up his trousers.
VLADIMIR:
Well? Shall we go?
ESTRAGON:
Yes, let’s go.
They do not move.
Seems to me that we continually tear our hair out and rant at the BBC while relying on them taking the slightest bit of notice of our complaints.
IMHO it’s time for some more ‘direct action’ and got our opinions of both the BBC and MSM out to the general public. Most of us will have seen the ‘for sale’posters in car windows and I reckon that’s the way we should go. How about:
THE BBC BROADCASTS WESTMINSTER PROPAGANDA
THE BBC IS BIASED AGAINST SCOTLAND
Well just anideasbands from what I’ve read on here you are all a lot cleverer than me and more than capable of giving it your own slant.
Is there a specific guide to “loyal” BBC workers to spin every news story to benefit the union, or do certain workers cross the line in an effort to please their unionist bosses? Is it like the News of the World carry-on, a corporate nudge here and a wink there, and when it all comes out, the big bosses plead ignorance! “We knew nothing”. It is very subtle, it may just be a cultural thing, with individual reporters trying to look as loyal and pro-union as they can. It would be rather stupid for their bosses to spell out anti-independence guidelines at the BBC, because sooner or later a whistler-blower is going to bust it all wide open. Perhaps, because they are the BBC, they still think they can get away with it, in spite of their recent public humiliation. Time will tell.
@Luigi
I believe it is institutional, only an extremely small selection of notable folks actually produce their own work, the vast majority of people in the industry are told what to write about, who to interview and how they should write it by a small minority in key management positions be that the BBC or in privately owned media.
This is traditionally how it has always worked so frankly nobody thinks anything is untoward and for even those that do, everyone is pretty much staring redundancy in the face so there is no chance of anyone speaking out.
OT – but bear with me…
Revealed: Gulf payments to British MPs
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/revealed-gulf-payments-british-mps-484880.html
If you follow the link at the end of the story to a list of the top 30 recipients of Gulf largesse we find that coming in at number 5 is none other than the leader of the Better Together campaign, Alistair Darling.
Now imagine if this had been Alex Salmond instead of Darling – the BBC would have had a field day with the story.
– 23 grand for a speech in the UAE back in April last year, if you cannot follow the link.
http://www.sponsume.com/project/make-believers-documentary
@ Vronsky
Appropriate in a number of context. Bravo.
After reading the atrocious Bonnington article Scott Minto linked to, then going back and looking at the BBC site (which contains the image at top), I’m wondering what editorial processes result in this kind of propaganda.
The use of language is sophisticated. It’s not something one of the interns knocked-together during a lunch-break. We all know enough about the BBC (via the public castration and jettisoning of the hapless Entwhistle) that online content, like every other aspect of BBC production, has a gestation period, requires midwives, and they move in numbers. There are influential, professional, well-paid minds behind this material – the end-result appears guided, shaped, polished, brainstormed etc. I imagine it’s the type of thing a PR company might produce as a pitch, with an eye to ‘bigger’ work down-the-line.
Put it this way – if you were given the Yes/No campaign launches to work with, and a brief to make one more appealing without overtly denigrating the other, how straightforward would that be?
This is tricky stuff, and there’s real intelligence behind it – we shouldn’t underestimate how crafty and effective it is. Big question – is this intelligence ‘in-house’, or are licence-fee payers covering consultancy fees?
I know Holyrood is trying not to interfere in the Media in case it sends out the wrong message, but this has gone too far now. Someone in the SNP has to say something, and DO SOMETHING about the lies and nastiness being displayed by not only the papers, but also TV.
The longer this goes on, then we are just letting the media barons grow in confidence in doing whatever they want.
A damn and utter disgrace!!
The BBC in Scotland were at it again this morning, headlining on GMS with ‘it would cost billions of pounds and thousands of jobs’ to move Trident out of Scotland. They then reinforced that headline with their ‘look at the day’s papers’ (specifically the Scotsman and Herald, which carry the same story). What really struck was the deliberate diminution of the opposing view, it being represented with a pallid ‘the SNP say Faslane would have a bright future’. No quantification, no context, no explanation, a statement denuded of value tagged on to the end of the main scare.
It really is time we stopped referring to those who work at Pacific Quay as journalists. Doubtless several other titles are much more appropriate.
I think the MSM are overdoing it. There’s constant grotesque anti-SNP and anti-independence propaganda. Not everyone is as stupid as they think. A few days ago I looked at the headlines of all the papers on my local newsstand. They nearly all carried anti-SNP stuff but in most cases each produced a different story. Anyone could draw the conclusion that they were out to crucify the SNP. Yet we have seen from election polls that voters like the SNP despite this. Ian Brotherhood’s 10.07 post above is spot-on about who may be orchestrating this in the broadcast media. It’s not Jackie Bird, it’s whoever feeds her the stuff she reads out.
This is beyond a joke. Do they just not give a damn about even pretending any more or do they feel so untouchable that they don’t need to worry about accountability or complaints?
Appleby –
We already know that accountability is not something they lose any sleep over – have you seen the recent article on NNS (entitled The Untouchables)? – it’s brilliant. As for their ‘complaints’ process? It’s a sick Kafkaesque joke.
Maybe, sometimes, it feels like an echo-chamber here, and on other Yes-friendly sites – we can easily be dismissed by those who smear us collectively as ‘cybernats’ or worse, but gradually, with every rotten dod of propaganda broadcast, more and more BBC listeners/viewers are becoming scunnered, not through some sophisticated political discourse analysis, but via the same instincts which alert you to a wide-boy trying to flog something at your doorstep.
I spent years, like many hundreds, possibly thousands of other hopefuls, trying to write work which might find favour with the BBC’s radio and TV drama departments. God only knows how many hours I wasted researching, writing, attending workshops, polishing scripts for months, years, then waiting further months and years to receive the inevitable knockbacks. I’m not deluded enough to believe that my work had a better chance than anyone else’s, but I swallowed the line that they’re ‘interested in developing new talent’, are ‘the biggest commissioner of new work’ etc etc. They say that because they have to, and it would be odd if they didn’t. The truth? They function as gatekeepers, and their primary aim is to keep ‘new’ writers at bay UNLESS they produce material which is politically anaemic. (Try and write something, anything – a play, short story, radio or telly drama – which can’t be interpreted as conveying a Marxist sub-text. It’s surprisingly difficult.)
BBC Scotland is being used as the conduit for a narrative which has all the characteristics of ‘fiction’ (the goodies/baddies, the cliffhangers, shocking plot-points, red-herrings, ‘interesting, well-rounded characters’ etc) but it is being presented as ‘fact’.
It isn’t fact.
It isn’t ‘news’.
It’s propaganda.
We have to remind ourselves – constantly – that perception is all, and that’s what the BBC is about – propaganda is its raison d’etre, and what it’s best at.
(If you haven’t seen it, please check out a brilliant essay by Prof David Miller called ‘Caught Up in The Matrix’ – I can’t paste links, but just google it. Easy to locate and well worth a read.)
@ ianbrotherhood
How’s this for swivel-eyed lunacy?
Is it too much of a leap to suggest that the “The Matrix” film itself, was essentially a very polished limited hangout. That it was the Matrix’s own response to breakdowns in Matrix World. I am not sure if Prof. Miller spotted that irony, or am I simply seeing things that aren’t there? Would it be delusional to suggest that our current circumstances might be better depicted by George Orwell’s description of English Socialism (Ingsoc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Socialism
‘The Matrix’ is real Alice-in-Wonderland territory. The Wachowski brothers have said that no-one will ever decipher it entirely (and it’s a gold-mine for post-modernist navel-gazers), but the most obvious connection with Orwell is the concept of ‘doublethink’ – holding contradictory views and believing both simultaneously. In a rational world that should be impossible, but we know it isn’t – Prof David Ray Griffin has called it ‘fearful thinking’, and other regular posters here have referred to the same thing using different terms.
I wish someone like David Miller or Greg Philo would give us their thoughts on what’s happening right now – these guys are experts at decoding propaganda of the sort highlighted at top. In the meantime, it’s encouraging that senior BBC folk are breaking cover – in the current climate they should be applauded for their courage. We can only hope that more professionals with expertise in all of the areas required to mount effective propaganda will follow suit and help us get to grips with the nuts and bolts of what we’re up against.
That’s where ‘The Matrix’ is relevant, and useful – there are many regular consumers of MSM who flatly dismiss the notion that they’re being ‘lied to’, or that they’re susceptible to well-crafted persuasion. They can’t/won’t ‘see’ anything wrong with the piece at top, and have no reason to question the author’s intent.
@ianbrotherhood
I didn’t express myself very well, so here goes again. The main difference between the Matrix and 1984, as I see it, is that one clearly resembles reality and the other is clearly science fiction. One was written by a British empire insider and can help the reader interpenetrate what is going on around them, the other is of a more fantastical nature with little relation to real life. Was the film of The Matrix part of the smoke and mirrors itself? As it is from Hollywood, I don’t see how the answer could be anything other than yes. Perception management is the name of the game after all. That is why we all have a TV isn’t it? So we can keep up with the meems and stay in step.
There must be a lot of ‘in-jokes’ that ordinary punters won’t get, are aimed at industry insiders. A lot of heavy hitters like Zizek have great fun with The Matrix, it’s tailor-made for philosophical parlour games. Likewise, many people don’t see Nineteen Eighty Four as anything more than a flawed dystopian fable, and play down the linguistic/political themes – anyone familiar with Orwell’s work knows that he wasn’t trying to write ‘science-fiction’, but to treat it as ‘reality-based’ is a bridge too far for most. I suppose both contain a lot of ‘truth’, but exaggerate for effect. The difficulty for us, right here and now, is to take on board what these writers/artists are trying to tell us, and apply it to our own reality.
Easier said than done right enough, but hey-ho, so it goes…
I am not suggesting that 1984 was reality based, simply that the author knew what he was talking about.
I hope this link isn’t considered to be too OT, as I think it actually relates to a lot of the recent articles on WOS.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/democracy-terrorism-and-the-secret-state/5318091
Understood. I wasn’t implying any slight on your interpretation. These books and movies are stimulating and stand the test of time because they provide a framework we can use to compare with our own experience. No-one’s ever claimed that Orwell was the greatest novelist who ever lived – not least the man himself – but he achieved what he set out to do by making ‘political writing’ into a form of art. Bear in mind his experience with the BBC – he knew how difficult it was to state ‘inconvenient facts’ and ‘unpleasant truths’ because of the peculiarly ‘English’ (his own word) form of censorship he was dealing with while trying to find a publisher for Animal Farm. He wrote about this in the introduction (which was never published as he envisaged it) – that essay can be found online if you enter his name and ‘The Freedom of the Press’.
Here’s a typical Orwellism, from the end of that essay:
‘If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.’
Thank you;)