Better late than never
Posted on
February 20, 2013 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
It might have taken three days, but we got there in the end. After:
And before:
It’s a lot harder to get away with stuff when people are watching.
I would guess that the editor would wish he could shut down the internet. Pity we did not have this medium in 1979. Well done.
Oh dang, that’ll leave a mark. 😀
You can almost hear the sucking and grinding of teeth. Am I the only one, but does it still not seem a bit ambiguous? A big improvement, but it could be taken either way and doesn’t fairly reflect the clarity of the article.
Karine replied to an email I sent her, saying she would not be asking for a correction and was happy just to have had so much attention paid to the piece in the first place plus the added bonus of the furore surrounding the headline. Meaning it’s been pressure applied from elsewhere that has brought this about.
So it could not have worked out better – a brilliant, thoughtful piece in favour of independence gets published, said piece causes no end of bother for the paper because of its ham-fisted attempt to spin it and finally it is forced into correcting the mistake creating another wee frisson of attention … and all of it in the Scotland on Sunday!
We should just them do our job for us – they’re brilliant at it.
What a strange newspaper.
Yup, one really has to wonder what the hell goes on the minds of these hootsmon chancers, do they really think that they will get away their infantile nonsense. No respect shown for the writer or the people of Scotland in their futile quest to belittle the only party in recent history that genuinely tries to work for the people of Scotland against the unionist biased place-men & women.
Good riddance to them all come 2014.
I am beginning to think that this is a tactic. There’s this change in the Scotsman and the 19K Trident jobs headline change in the Herald. That’s two that I know about and no doubt there are many more.
The key point is that the damage is done with the printed copy, less so the online copy, on the day of publication. Let’s face it, very few people will read the online copy when it’s days old.
So, the tactic is publish the twisted headline and lots of people see it – Publish the change a few days later, and maybe retract (the Herald), and very few see it. Job done!
There are. Not enough lam posts in Scotland for all those internal enemies of our nation.
Post Independence when we control media and broadcasting we can fillet out these lying toads
It took the editor three days to realize something was wrong. He looked down and noticed there was a big, smoking hole in his foot that was causing some pain.
The BBC and the MSM must really hate the internet, because their is no hiding place for them from it when they play silly buggers with lies and half-truths. With the BBC baning comments on only its Scottish political and economy blogs and the massive drop in readers in many of the newspapers it really shows the power of the internet and the fear that it generates to oldstyle MSM.
We own the net. Vote Yes.
Alba Gu snooker loopy!
@ Donald Kerr.
You may be right. Cheap a**holes that they are. Scrapping the bottom of the barrel and no doubt guided by the unionist establishment. Nevertheless through time the truth will out.
Rabbie Burns 1793: Scots Wha Hae. (adapted)
Vote No= Welcome to your tory bed.
Vote YES= Or To Victory
@Rod Mac
Really? I’m guessing that the lampposts are a reference to the fate of collaborators. And as to filleting out lying toads – what does that mean?
Can’t you just accept that some people have a different point of view, even if they are wrong?
Job not done. It’s a tactic also used by The Herald simply to boost online click rates and postpone their demise until after the referendum. Every time you make any reference to these two comics, you finance their existance for a bit longer when neither of them are serving democracy well, at all.
Only when this rag & The Herald have been liquidated will I rest, satisfied that the job is finally done.
But if you must keep buying these comics or visit their websites, you shouldn’t cry when the referendum returns a NO vote, aided & abbetted by these two rags. You will have got the government you deserve.
And you will have enabled the commencement of the dismantling of all of the institutions, agencies & frameworks that make our wee country unique. One nation, one state, one Britannia will be the your product & you will only be able to blame yourself.
Rod Mac said:
There are. Not enough lam posts in Scotland for all those internal enemies of our nation.
Post Independence when we control media and broadcasting we can fillet out these lying toads
Are you deliberately trying to give ammunition to the unionists who are looking for something to smear independence supporters with, or is it just natural stupidity?
Nobody is going to be murdered for supporting the union, and post independence “we” will most certainly not control the media. You make this sound like some sort of stalinist dictatorship we’re working for. I certainly wouldn’t want to be a part of the independent Scotland you seem to envisage.
@Donald
I agree. How many casual readers bother to view articles days later? We do as we have seen the tactic and follow the “evolution of the truth” in the MSM. But would anyone else? Also, the print version headlines are seen subliminally even when no one buys the paper. So all in all, although this is welcome and may have some impact on those who may follow a particular story, I’m not sue how meaningful the changes really are.
Maybe someone with more knowledge of these things can enlighten us.
Well said Morag.
Sounds more BNP than SNP.
Is this just a change to the headline in the online article? Not a new article explaining how they misrepresented the lady? Not much of a victory, then.
I saw the original article on a newspaper stand while I was in the queue to pay for my messages at the Co-op. I though, oh FFS Hootsmon, give it up already. I also thought, oh well fine, I don’t care what you think of the SNP so long as you vote yes. And promoting that viewpoint on the front page might not be entirely counterproductive.
But changing an online title three days later isn’t going to make any difference at all to the people who were in the checkout queue with me and saw the headline on the paper.
Sadly, one bastion of the British establishment which will never correct their propaganda, or even admit of its existence, is the BBC.
There was another example just there from U-Kaye in her programme on Radio Scotland.
Main theme of the programme was ‘Is Edinburgh a tip’. Lots of yes and no contributors, the tram fiasco (which the SNP minority government tried to stop, but failed) of course, featuring strongly. Fairly balanced input throughout.
However as a parting item on that subject she read out an email from someone, a long litany of how scruffy the place was, tram shambles etc. fair enough viewpoint. But then the email apparently finished off with with a statement which was logically disjointed from the rest of the content: “I certainly won’t be voting for independence.”
The logical inanities of that statement, I suppose the main one being that whatever is wrong with Edinburgh occurred during the Union, were not commented on by U-Kaye, although she habitually does comment after reading out emails.
Next and final phone-in was a return to the subject of male midwifery and the caller would obviously, therefore, have no opportunity to point this out or point out that the SNP government tried to stop the tram project or ask why the emailer seemed to think national pride in our capital would be diminished with independence.
I don’t believe this was by accident, including the way the bald “I won’t be voting for independence.” statement was not left as the very last word, because that would be too obvious. My last word on it ‘sleekit’.
@Rod Mac
Can’t agree with a word you say. I want a free Scotland. I respect the rights of the MSM print / online media to do what they want. I do NOT expect an Independent Scotland to be “controlling” anything like the media.
BUT I DO object to the BBC, which should be objective as it serves ALL of us, including those who support independence. Whether we NEED a BBC/State broadcaster in an Independent Scotland, I am not convinced.
Well I hope the press culprits do realise soon that the game is up—–although I doubt it. I’m in a hotel reading the March edition of “Scottish Field” in which “Ian Grant” has a letter complaining about a biased article by Alan Cochrane in a previous edition. Well done Mr. Grant!
However Cochers has another article in the March edition about the right to vote in the referendum, which is a thinly disguised criticism of the SG. And in another article the writer of a pieice on the new Golf describes it being lighter by 100kg–“the weight of an entire Alex Salmond”. If magazines like this are taking political stances they should join the list of purchases to be foregone.
PS I’ve just noticed that the Editor of Scottish Field is Richard Bath who coincidently writes for the Scotsman….
I hate to say it, but I strongly suspect Alex weighs more than 100kg.
@ Chic McGregor.
Agree. Suggest that U-Kaye runs a programme on the present state of the UK economy’s status and how she defends the status quo for the people of Scotland with her one liners..pound sterling collapsing against the Euro, US Dollar, China’s RMB. Call me Dave is in “ex-colonial” India pleading for investment and promising easy entry for the brains of that country to come to england to study…meanwhile his party is inflicting massive welfare cuts on their own nationals and restricting their access to education. Need I say more.
“So, the tactic is publish the twisted headline and lots of people see it – Publish the change a few days later, and maybe retract (the Herald), and very few see it. Job done!”
This is undoubtedly the intention. Where it backfires is that it only works on the tiny number of people who (a) buy the paper, and (b) don’t have the same reaction we did when they actually read the piece, namely “WTF? It doesn’t say that!”
What gets seen by a lot more people is the online fuss, which has the double benefit of getting many more eyeballs on the article itself AND drawing attention to the paper’s clumsy attempted spin on it.
I noticed dear old Dunc Hothersall this morning shouting about what a terrible own goal it was for our side to get the headline changed, as it was a great recruiting sergeant or some such. But that ship has sailed, the horse has bolted and the cat’s long gone from the bag. Pretty much everyone who was ever going to see it has seen it already. All the SoS’s backpedal does now is confirm publicly that there was something fishy going on.
Plus, y’know, if Dunc thinks something is bad for the Yes campaign, a thousand quid will get you 10p that it’s good.
Cuphook and Morag
Would you two please stop trying to be the politically correct nannies on this site, and whatever other sites you visit? As you wrote to RodMac … just accept that others have a stronger and different point of view than yours. And they are entitled to express it even if you don’t like it.
I think you’ll find Mr. Cameron is in India trying to convince them to by our manufacturers weapons of mass destruction as opposed the French manufacturers.
As with Thatcher and Blair great sales people, say anything they think you want to hear
“Would you please stop trying to be the politically correct nanny on this site, and whatever other sites you visit? As you wrote to RodMac … just accept that others have a stronger and different point of view than yours. And they are entitled to express it even if you don’t like it.”
Sigh. I hate this argument. You’re doing exactly what you (wrongly) accuse Cuphook and Morag of – attempting to silence opposing views. They expressed displeasure at the content of RodMac’s post, but didn’t demand it be censored or that he shut up.
(And I tend to agree with the point – I don’t think it’s either accurate or helpful to our cause to suggest that we’re planning mass executions and state control of the media post-independence.)
Regardless of that, though, I am and will continue to be the sole arbiter of what is and isn’t acceptable in the comments on this site. I’d greatly appreciate if other people didn’t take that role upon themselves. Thanks.
@commenter
So you think that free speech should be extended to someone who wants to physically attack journalists, if not eviscerate them, but I should keep any objections to myself?
Don’t I have that right to free speech?
What’s so ‘politically correct’ about expressing disgust at comments seeking to foment violence?
Are you going to join Rod Mac in the blood letting?
OK, Can you please tell me what actual complete weapons Scotland manufactures?
Rod Mac’s comment worried me a lot. It’s exactly the sort of thing BritNats like to fulminate about – these evil cybernatz who want to control the media and lynch everyone who doesn’t agree with them. It’s playing into their hands in an extremely big way. So much so that I half-suspect Rod Mac of being a Bitter Together mole planted for exactly that purpose.
Whether he is or not, I don’t know. I do believe, however, that when we see hate speech apparently coming from someone on our side of the argument, we should speak up against it so that there is a record in the thread of criticism coming from nationalists themselves.
That was the intent of my post, and I have no intention of ceasing to make such criticisms, unless RevStu askes me to. Which I rather suspect he won’t.
Cuphook
I didn’t say you should not express your objections to what you don’t like I merely said stop trying to force what you consider to be politically correct views down everyone elses’ throat. I am sure RodMac was being tongue in cheek when he wrote his piece so stop being so po-faced. But sadly it appears that regardless of the Rev Stu’s wish for freedom of expression you want to censor comments you don’t like.
And your last sentence: “Are you going to join Rod Mac in the blood letting?” I presume you don’t even realise how stupid that is?
“I merely said stop trying to force what you consider to be politically correct views down everyone elses’ throat.”
Someone expressing their views in a moderate and civil way – as both Cuphook and Morag did – is no more “forcing them down everyone else’s throat” than you expressing yours here. Please don’t make me say it a third time, because having to repeat myself when I’ve already done so extremely clearly makes me very irritable indeed.
Seriously, I actually read it as a typo for “lam(e) posts”, referring to their pathetic interventions on the internet, and how we need to be better at making robust and defensible posts in support of Independence. I’m a cup half full kind of guy.
Good job at not drawing attention to what may be a dodgy post though guys.
RevStu said:
This is undoubtedly the intention. Where it backfires is that it only works on the tiny number of people who (a) buy the paper, and (b) don’t have the same reaction we did when they actually read the piece, namely “WTF? It doesn’t say that!”
In this case, as I said, it was quite prominent on the front page, and I read it without even meaning to read it, never mind touching the actual paper. It was on display where anyone looking round aimlessly while waiting in the checkout queue could read it. It’s not at all unlikely the headline was visible in that way in newsagents and grocery chops the length and breadth of the country.
I saw the headline, and had no idea at all what the article said until I read the subsequent dust-up as reported here. It could have been a vitriolic attack on the SNP, for all I knew. I never got close enough to read a word of the text.
I think that’s the game, to a large extent. Never mind the people who actually buy the paper, just get the headline displayed for every passer-by to read for a period of 12 hours or so. Job done.
Morag says:
20 February, 2013 at 11:41 am
I hate to say it,……..
Well don’t then, it contributes nothing to the debate
I am sick to death of people mocking our FM because of his weight.
(and I’m not an SNP member)
I’m not mocking his weight. I’m genuinely worried about it. I still vividly remember what happened to John Smith.
Energy watchdog Ofgem chief warns of bill rises
I see Bob Duncan has a piece in newsnet about this, err journalism. Would I be correct in thinking this provides a less than accurate picture of an independent Scotland’s ability to supply domestic demand.
The energy watchdog predicts power station closures could mean a 10% fall in capacity by April alone (the power of prediction, now that ambitious).
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, said that “we cannot afford to be complacent”.
The chief executive of Consumer Focus, Mike O’Conner, warned that it would be those who can least afford it who would suffer the most.
Caroline Flint, Labour’s shadow energy and climate change secretary said, it was important for the UK to have an energy market that “delivers fair prices and works in the public interest”.
link to bbc.co.uk
Don’t worry though, we will get 16 weeks of balanced broadcasting before we are faced with the largest decision we will probably ever take. Just trust Auntie until then.
link to blogs.spectator.co.uk
balgayboy says:
Call me Dave is in “ex-colonial” India pleading for investment and promising easy entry for the brains of that country to come to england to study
OK, Can you please tell me what actual complete weapons Scotland manufactures?
Not sure if this is to me,
If it is, I’m pointing out that the ‘pleading for investment ‘ etc is a side show for msm. The actual reason he and his companions, (who you will find are UK arms industry reps), are there to undercut/outbid their French counterparts and their almost signed multi billion pound sale to India of jets, tanks etc etc
Major Bloodnock, it wasn’t so much the misspelled lamp-posts I was concerned about, because clearly that was not meant literally. It was the “when we control the press” part.
Now it may be that Rod Mac was being heavily ironic, but it was by no means clear to me that he was. The internet doesn’t do irony well. And in my experience BritNat agitators don’t do irony either.
I wasn’t asking for the post to be deleted or censored in any way. However, when an ill-considered (or even possibly deliberately smearing) post appears, I don’t think it’s wise to refrain from criticism.
To Rev Stu
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
20 February, 2013 at 12:20 pm
““I merely said stop trying to force what you consider to be politically correct views down everyone elses’ throat.”
Someone expressing their views in a moderate and civil way – as both Cuphook and Morag did – is no more “forcing them down everyone else’s throat” than you expressing yours here. Please don’t make me say it a third time, because having to repeat myself when I’ve already done so extremely clearly makes me very irritable indeed.”
Well people being politically correct and acting against free speech irritates me greatly. So this site is not for me. Goodbye.
I think people should be aware that this will not be a clean campaign, particularly from the No side. This is because their campaign rests solely on negativity. Their positive case for the union has not been forthcoming. Therefore, there is no doubt that the Yes campaign will have to be watchful for dirty tricks. As Morag said, one way is for No campaigners to come on to sites like these, and post extreme statements. This is then used to tar the Yes campaign, and damage its credibility. Remember all the No campaign care about is winning, they don’t care about the methods used. If they did they would not accept Tory funding. I am not sure about Rod Mac or his intentions. However, when I saw his post I must admit that I became suspicious of his motives. That is maybe wrong, but posters have to consider which cause they are helping when making remarks. There is nothing wrong with letting off steam or being annoyed, angry with the other side. But it does have its limits.
@commenter
Exit stage Right.
@MajorBloodnock
I was more concerned with Rod Mac’s fallacy in stopping someone after the event.
Commenter, don’t go mate. We need you. Scotland needs you, dare I say it.
And don’t get pissed off by the arbiters and the egos here – it’s only the internet.
And as for Rev Stu’s low irritability threshold – it’s what makes him so endearing.
Well done, Rev, but it does remind me of the episode in ‘Drop the Dead Donkey’ when a journalist is forced to print an apology after suggesting that a vicar is a vampire.
Ed: We were asked to print an apology…
Journo: It’s there – today’s edition.
Ed: Yes – I found it. Six across: he is not a vampire.
@ MajoBloodnok
Smoothy.
“Well people being politically correct and acting against free speech irritates me greatly.”
The only person attempting to infringe on others’ rights to free speech was you.
May I just say ‘hear hear’ to Morag.
And to Commenter… don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out. I suppose you failed to see the irony of telling others to shut up in the name of free speech!
I think almost everyone will have experience of BritNat forums and blogs where hateful nastiness and lies are posted freely in the comments and never criticised or deleted. These same sites will heavily moderate any post that doesn’t agree with the party line. And we’ve all criticised that. Look at the sort of post that person allows, and nobody says a word against it!
RevStu doesn’t moderate and good for him. But does that mean we have to read any sort of incitement to violence or hate speech, and not even criticise it? I don’t think so. All the more so because it’s not going to be censored.
@CameronB
They don’t call me the old soft-soaper for nothing, you know.
Just as an aside, few things irritate me more on the internet than people who seem to believe that freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you want without someone else criticizing it. It isn’t. Freedom of speech does not absolve you from the repercussions of your speech, and nor should it – that way leads to a very one-sided freedom.
I have to agree with Morag and others. ANY inflammatory post should be vigorously condemned. The YES vote will be run on factual, thoughtful, and reasonable grounds (at least that’s the message that I am getting from everything published by them) and posters who apparently suggest that an Independent Scotland will control the media ARE playing into the hands of the BritNat extreme (and ‘mainstream’) position.
An Independent Scotland will be a far more welcoming and positive place, I genuinely believe this. That message needs to be continuously reinforced by all commentators here and elsewhere. There are enough “suspicious” Independence supporters posting on CiF and other blogs to make me think the ‘black ops’ have probably started. Who was it said that there were probably rUK “moles” in place already?
I know, a bit paranoid. But as they say, just because you ARE paranoid, doesn’t mean that they AREN’T out to get you 🙂
I’ve fallen for an avatar on CiF. Should I be worried?
@CameronB
Perhaps you should run your avatars through here before you make your move.
@Cameron –
No offence mate, but I’d worry a bit more if h/she falls for yours.
Ouch.
@Cameron –
Don’t take it the wrong way man – it’s only true friends can tell each other this stuff – you just have to do something with that hair…
Watch it, that’s dangerous ground your treading now. 😉
@ianbrotherhood
I believe his true friend is The Bruiser.
@Cameron –
A 4 on the sides, 6 on top, make sure she blends it, and don’t forget the eyebrows.
Sorted.
I’d use a suitable avatar myself only I can’t find one of a naked mole rat wearing sunglasses anywhere. 🙁
@Macart
This one is called Rufus.
It is interesting how people perceive others, though it can actually be a little unsettling at times. I hope I haven’t made the wrong impression. 😉
I just pasted a good pic of Anas
link to wingsland.podgamer.com
@Cuphook
I remember the kids watching that. Kim Possible? Bit cutesy, but still cool.
Cheers.
I agree with the cutesy but it’s the only one I can find at the moment. Google images have changed their filters and ‘naked’ is an offensive term. I’ll have to try and work out how they operate now.
No sunglasses on this one but I recommend it if you’re in a confrontational mood.
Jeeeeeeez!!!!
Its got impact. 😀
No comment
@ Cuphool
Sorry you threw me a bit with that one. I take it you are meaning my pal here?
Morag said: “I saw the headline, and had no idea at all what the article said until I read the subsequent dust-up as reported here. It could have been a vitriolic attack on the SNP, for all I knew. I never got close enough to read a word of the text.
I think that’s the game, to a large extent. Never mind the people who actually buy the paper, just get the headline displayed for every passer-by to read for a period of 12 hours or so. Job done.”
That’s the technique exactly, and that’s why they don’t care if they have to change the online headline a few days later. They are reaching out to all the people (a massive majority of the population) who never will read the story, or even the subheading.
Think about how movie posters work, how they give you a pre-packaged impression of the film with just a title, a caption like “amazing” or “a must-see”, and a single large image. Is it a horror film, a thriller, a comedy? The poster will tell you just with a picture. You’ll find yourself having some kind of opinion on the film even without seeing it, and it works whether you want to have an opinion or not.
Newspaper front pages work the same way, and for years now they have all been saying “SNP accused…” and “we cannae dae it” in one form or another. That’s why I still regularly meet folk who, by their own admission, have never read much of anything, but still believe very strongly that Scotland is subsidised by England and Alex Salmond is a muppet.
Still won in 2011 though, eh? ; )
EDIT: Going back a bit, this is also why Calum Cashley handing that ready-made Cybernat front page to the Herald was so, so dumb.
@CameronB
Yup. I have some of those matches and old news footage etc that I like to watch while listening to Mogwai, Stars of the Lid, Sigur Ros etc. Everyone needs a pastime. Try playing your vid and this one at the same time.
@Morag and Cuphook.
Yawn!
Completely OT
What about the Olympics dropping wrestling?