Causing a cache-flow crisis
Our story of this morning raised an interesting issue in the comments, namely whether sites like this one are actually helping to prop up the Scottish mainstream media by linking to its articles and thereby generating web traffic, page rankings and money for what is too often a toxic and dishonest propaganda tool for the Union.
For some time, readers have occasionally pointed this out to us and urged us not to help them, so that their deaths might be hastened. But here’s the conflict: we have no desire to destroy Scottish journalism, only to keep it honest.
If we kill the Scotsman and Herald, an independent Scotland would have no non-tabloid newspapers – because we can’t see anybody starting up a new one – and a lot of good writers and columnists would no longer have a source of revenue.
That’d be a Pyrrhic victory. Some bad ones would be deservedly out of a job too, but we’re not sure we want to throw Iain Macwhirter, Ian Bell and numerous others out with the bathwater. So for now, WingsLand will still be linking to stories – except in really offensive cases where (as previously) we might use Google cache versions instead. If you object to clicking on them, nobody’s making you.
However, what you COULD do is install browser plugins that let you choose to go to cached versions directly. This is the one we use in Firefox. Install it and instead of left-clicking a link as normal you can right-click it, which will bring up a menu offering you various cached options, which will let you read the piece without contributing to the source’s web traffic.
(That applies, of course, to links on any website, not just on Wings Over Scotland.)
Withholding your custom from a newspaper website – ultimately damaging its ad revenue – when newsstand sales are in freefall is a powerful weapon. And there’s certainly a legitimate case to be argued that the Scottish media doesn’t deserve to survive. Just be sure that’s what you want.
I wonder how many developed countries are out there with no non-tabloid newspapers. Would it really be that big of a deal in this day and age if they disappear? If independence was gained there could be a surge in support for new physical newspapers documenting our new future, a clean slate as it were, but after time they’d no doubt suffer like every other newspaper.
If the papers now are doing damage in the ways mentioned numerous times on this site, then it’s probably best not to help them carry on with it. It doesn’t seem like they’ll buck up their ideas anytime soon.
Maybe we could help them out by only linking to honest articles – assuming we can find any.
Which would you prefer: an independent Scotland with no broadsheets, or a subsumed one with?
O/T Anyone see the brief letter in the Scotsman today (I gingerly flicked through a copy in the coffee shop at lunchtime) from Blair Jenkins pointing out that Alastair Darling had ‘misrepresented’ the Yes campaign and should desist? Seems Captain Darling had avered that the Yes campaign had said that taxes would rise in an Independent Scotland, which clearly wasn’t true. Busted!
The lie is in the ether though, unlike any retraction will ever be. It does not look like the Scottish broadsheets want to survive the referendum.
Let us all be clear here, The Scotsman and Herald are not losing readers because – or, at least, only because – of their pro-unionist stance. Falling circulation figures apply right across the MSM board.
There was a time not so long ago when The Scotsman – which since its inception was in favour of home rule – still proudly pushed that agenda … and it was still losing readers and advertising revenue. Moreover, for much of the 90s, that haemorrhaging was happening before the internet’s devastating effect.
The problem is that both newspapers have been, to a greater or lesser extent over the last 15 years or so, bought and sold by speculators and asset strippers who have imposed one self-harming cut after another overseen by place men and charlatans with little or no knowledge of or regard for the Scottish political scene. It has been a slow and hideously painful suicide to observe.
What we can say is that the option – the very real commercial option – of standing up for Scottish institutions, of treating the nation’s parliament and government with respect and of, you know – just occasionally – saying something positive and truthful about our prospects under independence has never been countenanced by either paper.
In the circumstances, I am with the Rev in that I don’t see the advantage in having them fold altogether. Not unless there is some Indy-supporting sugar daddy out there prepared to immediately pick up the pieces and start from scratch – and I don’t see one of those on the scene, does anyone?
Put it this way – we have the tiniest, faintest flicker of a hope of pressurising Scottish-based broadsheet papers into giving independence a fair crack of the whip. We have absolutely no chance with the London papers. And that’s all we’d be left with.
It is certainly a dilemna for many of us. Do we starve these unionist organs of oxygen, or do we visit the sites and challenge the ridiculous claims made against Scottish independence? Many people still read these papers and online there is at least an opportunity for rebuttal. I understand why people now avoid these sites, but I think that, at this stage, there is still some value in visiting them and defending the cause for independence. Perhaps we can reach some people there that otherwise could not be reached?
The traditional Scottish print news media MUST be destroyed & your links to their comic stories are helping them to survive.
MacWhirter & Bell have a choice; they can always go and set up their own publishing arm if they want to, if they are so confident that anyone actually wants to read their indecisive rants. Lots of younger people self publish these days.
So what if the only Scottish news publsihed in Scotland is online? Are you suggesting one day you might like to offer a print version of WOS? Didn’t think so; its expensive & inefficient.
The Scotsman & The Herald are a disgrace to journalism; instead of printing balanced articles, backed with facts, they have become simultaneous mouthpieces of Labour & the platform for die hard Unionist hacks who, like Adolf Hitler during his last days in his bunker, refuse to acknowledge there is even an alternative argument never mind the inevitable path to independence.
They, like London are fixated, stuck, mesmerised by Great Britain & its supposed imperial glory & international muscle, despite being a morally, socially & financially bankrupt state.
Britain is at the beginning of the end; unionists including these rags cant/wont see it. That’s understandable but they are holding Scotland and her people back. Britain is on an economic precipice, likely to fall off it when interest rates rise and they will. Britains debt is greater than almost every other industrialised country and will simply be unable to service it if rates rise to normal historic levels of around 5%. The British government then will restrict access to your own money to fend off a run on liquid capital & slash pensions & obliterate benefits. The future is so grim, I am starting to take my savings out and put it physically where the government cant get at it. Scaremongering? For reference look at Argentina or Greece. We are in fact worse off than they are and only being held together by low interest rates. When that changes, Britain will face an economic catastrophe.
I wont rest until these newspapers are consigned to the records office in the Mitchell Library assuming that hasnt been burned down in the riots which will surely happen when folks cant even put food on the table.
Our potentially bright future is a fragile realisation that could be dashed by corrupt, lying newspapers which is why I’ll cointinue to argue that they should be liquidated.
It is a dilemma – but it seems to me that what we want to do is to reinforce fair behaviour. If we direct traffic to Garham’s articles in the Herald we reinforce behaviour that we don’t want. If we direct traffic to MacWhirter’s articles, we reinforce behaviour that we do want. I don’t know a lot about how internet traffic is recorded, etc., but would there be any advantage to commenting only when the article is fair, i.e. rewarding fair behaviour? On the same principles as, say, training a dog?
@Freddie Threepwood
Pretty much a spot on assessment and couldn’t agree more. Let’s also not forget that when visiting these sites there is the chance to slip in some shameless punting of some of our own sources of news and information. Yes, some are policed quite thoroughly and counter argument posts pounding the snot out of the author’s piece get axed, but with enough traffic we can redirect bods to alternative views. Basically use their own tools against them.
FT: Let us all be clear here, The Scotsman and Herald are not losing readers because – or, at least, only because – of their pro-unionist stance.
Given that over the period 2001-2011, the main titles in Scotland saw circulations decline at twice the rate of that for the main UK titles UK wide, there must be some other explanation for this in addition to the rise of new media. Circulation figures since 2011 suggest the rate of sales decline has increased further in Scotland compared to the rUK adding additional support that political leanings (namely anti-SNP/independence) are the main other factor in the equation. The Sun data is quite striking; it bucked the trend and had rising circulation until that infamous ‘SNP will put Scotland’s head in a noose’ ahead of the 2007 elections at which point its circulation went south too.
Well I’m all for the Hootsman going under, and here’s why.
Their journalism is rubbish, well at least 90% of it is. If said journalists are scared that they will lose their pay packet and are over ruled by editorial policy that ‘makes’ them write pro unionist scare stories that are far from any perceived truth then sure – it’s a difficult dilema, but hey – welcome to the real world. Does this mean that these journos somehow deserve my sympathy more than say the bin collector or lowly paid council worker whose job is under imminent threat ? Of course not.
There is an awful lot of people out there who do jobs that they absolutely detest but still do so just to put food on the table. Does that somehow make journalism worth saving while we are happy to see other industries ravaged by market forces ?
How people can defend ‘journalism’ with what is currently being served up by the majority of the media I find quite bewildering. Tell me, what is so special about Dave Maddox or Alan Cochrane or Severin Carrell that deserves my support ?
If the death of this rag and others leads people into a brave new online world where multitudes of reporting (unregulated, unfettered and not in the pay of any person of influence) gives me the opportunity to look at a broader spectrum of opinion then I’m all for that. I’ll support that and if that means websites like this or NNS or Bella start being able to afford pieces from Ian Macwhirter or Lesley Riddoch on a regular basis – then good.
Yes, some online stuff is absolute rubbish, but so is the hootsman, so is fox news, so is the BBC and so on. The idea that somehow I should be more supportive of these ‘ institutions’ over smaller outlets (like this website) is daft. Thats exactly the kind of blind worship that leads to complete unaccountability – and the need for such enquiries as Leveson.
This is a good article Rev, and much appreciated – especially after the other day when you said that you were fed up hearing the calls from us not to visit the Hootsman website (I”m the main culprit here !). You’ve stuck with this and given us a balanced opinion with advice on how to take action if we want but warning of consequences. Thats an honesty we would never witness in the MSM. Thanks.
Just had a look at the data and all the main titles (Scotsman, Herald, Record, Sun) show a sudden acceleration in loss of circulation rates post 2011, i.e. after the SNP win. Scotsman rate of decline nearly doubled from 2010-11 to 11-12.
No coincidence methinks.
Will be interesting to see the latest ABC figures which will be out soon.
@ scottish skier
I don’t doubt taking a hard line against Scottish self-government had a role to play during the time you mention (it was a particular tragedy that just as the nation achieved a degree of self rule again The Scotsman, which, like I said had campaigned for this for more than 100 years, chose that time to appoint one Jock-hating editor after another and treated Holyrood – even the version with Steel, Dewar etc in it – with open contempt and derision).
All I’m saying is there is a lot more to determining a newspaper’s success than just its political stance. When I worked there The Scotsman had genuine aspirations to being not just a national title, but an international one. We not only had a proper, fully staffed office in London, we had correspondents in Brussels and Washington … and, of course, Perth. We also had a ‘city desk’, investigative teams, sub editors who knew what they were talking about, oh, and a canteen.
Go into Barclay House now and you will find none of those things. Those of my former colleagues still there are doing two and three people’s jobs and I’m told it’s a triumph every time the presses roll on time. It’s not just politics that is killing these papers, it’s a legacy of slash and burn mismanagement and insane commercial shortsightedness.
@ tartanfever
Couldn’t agree more. Generations of learned obsequience to authority may have something to do with any good will still directed to these institutions and their lackeys. (Note; not all employees)
If both the Herald and Scotsman fail won’t a chunk of people be left only with the Daily Mail, Telegraph or Times to buy? How will that help?
I continue to attempt to rebut unionist nonsense in the Scotsman far more often than I preach to the (largely) converted here. I also try to do the same with the Herald but around half my submissions are rejected for publication.
By the way, my relative absence of comments on this site is not a criticism and I have therefore contributed financially to this site near the commencement of the appeal.
@Rev Stu
How is the appeal going? Do you think we can raise enough before the deadline?
Evolution, let them die.
Yes we need balance (doesn’t that just sound natural when you say it), but how long do broadsheets have as a viable news medium? You saw what happened to the content of the Inde, when it went tabloid.
“How is the appeal going? Do you think we can raise enough before the deadline?”
£16,506 including everything. Very slow the last few days, but the middle period is always pretty dead with this sort of thing. Going to make a push at the end of the month when everyone’s been paid, and see how it goes from there.
@Rev Stu
Have you thought about contacting Yes Scotland? I see they have over 15,000 followers on their website.
@Jeannie
“If we direct traffic to MacWhirter’s articles, we reinforce behaviour that we do want. ”
It should be remembered that Iain is, on more than one occasion, a self-avowed unionist, even if he does often seem at times to be trudging along somewhere on the road to Damascus.
I agree that his articles are often worth pointing out purely because of his high journalistic standards and I have often done so myself. But isn’t that in itself indicative of the media malaise the ‘Scottish’ press finds itself in?
Iain maintains an excellent blog which frequently reflects his current MSM view or parts of it, so often an alternative link there can still spread it without adding to the Heralds coffers.
“If we kill the Scotsman and Herald, an independent Scotland would have no non-tabloid newspapers – because we can’t see anybody starting up a new one – and a lot of good writers and columnists would no longer have a source of revenue.”
Yeah, it’s a bit of a dilemma. It’s basically a question of what does more damage to Scotland: having no non-tabloid press (and it’s telling in itself that we’re using this term rather than “quality press”), or having a non-tabloid press that willingly and purposefully misleads the public. if the choice is between getting their lies from English broadsheets or Scottish broadsheets, should we be saying “they may be liars, but at least they’re OUR liars”?
Personally, I’ve lived my entire life without a copy of either the Herald or the Scotsman being in my home, so either paper ceasing to exist would have absolutely no effect on my life. I’m only exposed to them when someone links to an article online, but is the existence of a few good articles by a handful of writers a good enough excuse to accept the existence of the truly awful and downright dishonest pish produced by people like Michael Kelly, Tom Peterkin and Magnus Gardham?
On the other hand, would these same idiots cease to exist just because the papers that currently print their pish ceased to exist? The fact that the News of The World’s demise merely led to Euan McColm getting a job elsewhere suggests not.
I dunno, and to be perfectly honest, I know fine I’m going to keep falling for the Scotsman’s clickbait, because just today I left a bunch of comments on an excellent article by Lesley Riddoch. And there’s the dilemma again, because that article exists because the Scotsman paid her to write it. And yet, it also seems to be the worst offender when it comes to bad articles.
If only all the good writers would coalesce around the one publication…
Yeah But! what is the Nationalist definition of ‘Honest’ so far
its just means snp right everybody/Unionist else wrong.
Are the Nationalists able let alone willing to print any
criticisms let alone condemnation of Nationalist snp
actions.
http://reidfoundation.org/2013/02/selling-an-islands-future-for-2000-is-a-ministerial-responsibility/
Cant imagine any Nationalist/snp supporting Blog etc
running a story such as this.
Unfortunately freedom of the press means having
things you don’t like and don’t want to see printed.
It sort of goes with ‘Freedom’
@ Doug Daniel
good writers
In your case that would be Nationalist writers
Luigi says:
“It is certainly a dilemna for many of us. Do we starve these unionist organs of oxygen, or do we visit the sites and challenge the ridiculous claims made against Scottish independence? Many people still read these papers and online there is at least an opportunity for rebuttal. I understand why people now avoid these sites, but I think that, at this stage, there is still some value in visiting them and defending the cause for independence. Perhaps we can reach some people there that otherwise could not be reached?”
I think it has to be an individual judgment call. Personally, I used to make my case on the comments threads of the Herald and the Scotsman, but in both cases eventually found excessive and distinctly selective ‘moderation’ by the editors to be too stifling. Curiously enough, this ‘moderation’ (or censorship) kicked in especially when my comments were critical of biased, anti-independence reporting by those papers.
I tried to raise the issue of some of my comments being censored directly with the moderators, offering them a chance to explain their decisions in more detail, but they would either not reply at all or just reply with a bogstandard template about not entering into any discussions and the moderator’s decision being final. In both cases, I eventually just decided enough was enough and would take my contributions elsewhere. I don’t know for certain whether this was tactically useful or not but I just wasn’t willing to be treated like that anymore.
Now, if others find that they can get their message across in these papers without the problems I have encountered, then by all means go for it. Experiences may vary from person to person. But all I can say personally is that on this site, and on facebook and other sites, and even just in daily conversations, I feel much more able to speak freely and feel like I may be having at least as much influence with waverers as I was having on the pages of the Scotsman and Herald. Of course, whether I’m right about this is pretty much impossible to measure with certainty. But there’s at least no tangible evidence so far to suggest that my judgment call has done any harm tactically – and it certainly improved my mood!
The article on mediachimp was a fascinating read. Really brings home just how powerful google is in the modern world. Amazing to think that a powerful media entity could be brought down just because they tried to be a bit sneaky with their search engine optimisation!
@ Nikostratos
Hello, I see that you are in orbit again. You want to lay off it you know, as it does none of us any of us any good. I have been a supporter of Scottish independence for over 30 years now, and think I am sufficiently sophisticated to recognise shite when I smell it. There are no truly impartial sources of “news”, just as there is no positive case for the union.
If you chose to reply, please include some fact based evidence to support whatever point it is that you are failing either to make, or make amusing.
@Nikostratos
Ah the inverse Descarte. “I am here therefore I cannot exist”.
Nikostratos – Spoken like a good unionist.
Definition of ‘honest’ – simply a fair appraisal of a story. In the case of the BBC that means no headline manipulation and fair coverage to both sides of the story. Or how about actually asking a politician some questions on camera rather than just regurgitating a press release then following it up with a the reporters opinion. That would do for starters.
In the case of the hootsman, not bending over backwards and reporting the lies of such politicians as Jackie Baillie and her fiddled figures would be a start. I thought the press were there to help keep politicians more honest, not aid and abet them.
As for us being able to accept criticism, I look no further than the whole SNP debate on Nato. A fine debate was held at the party conference, it divided the SNP, many supporters disagree with the decision, some have left the party, some of us are still very disappointed with it. However, the party members voted on it and the change of direction was agreed on and that’s democracy for you. The SNP rightly came under scrutiny for it from the press.
Can’t remember the last time such a thing happened at an unionist conference.
As for the story you link to, yes, you’re absolutely right. It’s a fair point. Criticism is due and by golly, the unionists are doing a fine job of it, you really don’t need our help do you ?
Should not the inverse to Descartes be, “I’m here therefore I can not think”? 🙂
Nikastros,
Can I point out that not all of us are “nationalists” or SNP members / supporters.
I support independence with every fibre but I wouldn’t join the SNP if I was paid…FACT!
I know bullshit when I smell it and there’s been a particularly strong whiff coming from Westminster for a while now. Take the peg off your nose and you’ll smell it too.
Another thing to consider is whether there might not be a credibility tipping point beyond which their continued existence is beneficial to the cause of normal levels of self-government.
Or, to put it another way, everyone has a point where their credibility elastic will snap when stretched far enough. If the increasingly nonsensical pro dependency output from the MSM gets to the point where Joe ‘never reads’ Blogs can no longer, by putting his head any further into his bucket of sand , ignore it is propaganda, wouldn’t the continued presence of the press lackeys be beneficial to the cause of normal levels of self-government?
Just a thought.
@Niko good writers In your case that would be Nationalist writers
May I ask which pro-independence writers you admire the work of? (in addition to Rev Stu obviously).
I quite like Iain MacWhirter, Lesley Riddoch and Gerry Hassan as ‘non-nationalist’ journalists. Kevin McKenna’s stuff can be good too.
I thought the chairman on this debate was rather ironic.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/events/?action=details&id=6343
As circulation figures for most print editions of newspapers continue to tumble, the discussion will consider the impact of digitalization on traditional media and on the wider business community. Will current trends in digital consumption of news mean the end of print, and what are the opportunities and threats presented by the upsurge in the number, choice and variety of mobile means devices available.
“The Future of Printed Media” will be chaired by journalist, broadcaster and Glasgow University Alumni Andrew Neil who says, “More people are reading newspapers and magazines than ever before – just not as printed products.
CameronB says:
25 February, 2013 at 3:56 pm
Should not the inverse to Descartes be, “I’m here therefore I can not think”?
Your right, but in mitigation it was a contextual tweak. 😉
While we are waxing philosophical it also occurs that the old adage “If a tree falls in the forest but you don’t hear it, has it really fallen?” Could be quite appropriate.
Except in the S and H case even adding both together wouldn’t amount to tree per year. 🙂
Hang on a minute, I think you’re all putting Descartes before the horse.
I’ll get me cloak.
@ chicmac
Are you sure, re; Descartes? You probably thought you were Scottish? 🙂
How can we be Saussure of ourselves when we know Foucault about it?
@CameronB
Kant say for sure I follow that.
BTW did you know ‘German’ philospher Kant was third generation Scottish (first to change from Scottish spelling ‘Cant’ and never left the area which is now part of Russia?
How’s about this headline for the MSM to get their teeth in to?
UK Government Defies UN Universal Deceleration of Human Rights by Denying Scotland’s Existence.
Despite Atricle fifteen of the UN blah, blah, blah.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
“The SNP rightly came under scrutiny for it [the NATO debate] from the press.”
Well, you could read it as that. Or you could read it that Angus Robertson did a very fine job of getting a hugely biased media who were doing nothing but ignoring or dismissing independence to spend several months “normalising” it, by producing acres of newsprint with a debate about getting rid of Trident. Something that could only happen in a post independence Scotland. We had endless discussion in the unionist media of Scotland, as an independent country on the world stage, choosing whether to be in or out of NATO.
The press were so busy salivating over the idea that the hated Salmond could be “defeated” and there might be “a split in the SNP”, they also ensured coverage of an extremely busy conference, following months of all unionist papers imagining independence for us. To this day I’m honestly not sure whether the NATO debate was some vital policy switch the leadership really believe will help their case internationally or a very fine piece of sleekit media manipulation that could only work with a media blinded by hatred and bias. I hope we’ll find out after 2014!
I amn’t, therfor I don’t think.
@ chicmac
Re: Thinking you were in Scotland. You weren’t, so did not exist. winky
@ Braco
You have all the answers. winky
@CameronB
‘Deceleration’ typo? If not, a bit harsh, if anything the UN has tried to nudge things along. especially the human right to self determination.
CameronB,
Have I not already made that clear?
@CameronB
I get you now. Was only obeying meeja programming to forget that wee faux pas.
@ chicmac
Typo, yes. The mist rises and my fingers seem to develop a mind of their own. I’m not trying to be harsh, I thought that’s what the UK’s recent legal opinion indicated. Perhaps a bit rich, but I think we need to aim high to get anything. My point was that we haven’t had much MSM coverage of this banana skin. And I mean that in terms of its original usage i.e. that which is produced by the horses pulling said carts)
On further reflection, possibly not a typo?
@ Braco
It was a statement?
Cath,
That’s exactly how I started viewing the SNP NATO debate. Maybe it says more about my own fixation on the bias of the MSM than anything though? I find myself in total agreement with G H Graham’s (puritanical?) purity of analysis. I hope you felt as good after writing that post as I did after reading it G! (wink). Spot on.
I can’t help but feel that these titles are in a Kamikaze dive for our 2014 aircraft carrier deck. The Scotsman’s early and very public demise, at the hands of a totally disinterested Scots public, may be the only weapon we have able to bring the other titles (and the broadcasters) into some form of understanding that they live (or die) in a national market, the same as the media in every other European Country.
Taking your medicine becomes so much ‘easier’ when the patient in the next bed, with much the same symptoms as yourself, dies a messy and horribly blood curdling death alone in the middle of the night. The advice of doctors, once the bed is stripped, seems so much more palatable and lives can definitely be changed. Then there is a future. Ask my Dad.
Let what passes for journalism from the print MSM crash and burn. For wilfully lying to their readerships alone they deserve no sympathy. Yes, people will lose their job when they go but , ‘whit can ye dae, eh?’.
I may have a definite opinion on this, but I know of lots of people who are not in the slightest bit interested in politics who have stopped buying ‘the papers’ and they wouldn’t be bothered one way or the other if they survived or not. And once that habit of buying a daily paper is broken it tends to be broken for good.
As the older generations of newspaper buyers pass away it will become financially unviable for these print institutions to exist. News and information has moved online. To paraphrase, ‘ internet killed the newspaper stars’ (journalists).
It’s evolution in action. Evolve or die out. They can’t or won’t, so bye-bye and thanks for a few good things but mostly nothing.It’s just their time for extinction in the technological timescale.
http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2010/10/launch_of_newsp.html
CameronB,
Absolutely?
@ Braco
I am in no way trying to deny your point, but is that not a concern for after 2014? The task in front of us is one of securing the opportunity for change. Is it not?
___________________________________________
Never?
CameronB,
the final para is for an immediate timescale, post fellow patients death. Therfor, the quicker the death of whichever MSM hospital patient, the sooner the possibility the others may follow doctor’s orders and change their self destructive lifestyles and survive in the market.
If we kill ‘The Scotsman’ now, the others may be gifted a year or so of a low salt, low lard and high fiber diet. They will live and look good for their holidays after 2014 and then the rest of their lives (apart from the scars, but they are cool anyway (winky))
So, we MUST all take this opportunity to destroy The Scotsman in order to allow the Herald etc.. to live. WE must also ALL try to ignore ALL my mixed metaphors and try and understand what it is that I am trying (but so obviously failing) to say. Thanks
It doesn’t seem to have impacted on the JP share price, yet, though the shareholders may not yet have been told. Interestingly though almost 1.1m shares changed hands on 21 Feb – the average daily volume is in the tens of thousands. And 4.7m moved on 31 January.
Might be worth keeping an eye on . Someone has been selling, and someone else buying.
I find this illuminates the Nationalist way of thinking
by Eugen Hadamovsky
Propaganda and National Power:
The Organization of Public Opinion for National Politics
The Leadership of the Press
The activity of the so-called
liberal press was the work of
grave-diggers for the German
people and the German Reich
— Hitler —
The ideal of the German press is “impartiality,” or “objectivity,” which sounds better. Those who want to be “impartial” or “objective” forget that one can be so only when he serves a great cause. The press is not a cause in itself, only an instrument.
Hey Niko.
You didn’t answer my earlier question.
After stating you believed we independence supporters only like independence-supporting writers, I gave you a few names of ‘non-nationalist’ journalists we independence supporters like the work of.
Can you tell me which pro-independence writers you think are good? Or do you give no credit whatsoever to the opposing view when independence supporters do?
Thanks.
I believe we need to use the plug-in for the bllx BritNat articles BUT we ought to link directly to those articles which are fair and even pro-indy. It encourages them to be honest more than deeper entrenching their desire to feed their BritNat audience.
Rather than to trim the branches, sometimes you have to dig up the roots…
scottish_skier
I find this tome gives me all the answers to
life death and well everything.
http://compare.ebay.co.uk/like/350565558616?var=lv<yp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar&adtype=pla&crdt=0
Niko: I find this illuminates the Nationalist way of thinking
by Eugen Hadamovsky
BTW bang on there Niko re the Scotsman and its British Nationalist propaganda. The Labour party are the worst though; but they they are quite close to the National Socialists (Nazis) of Germany back in the WWII days socio-economically.
This from the political compass demonstrates. Sort of like a cross between Hitler and Thatcher. Quite scary really. Compare:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
The problem isn’t the bias of the print media – the newapapers are political fanzines and everyone knows which one they want to buy.
The danger is the BBC, which everyone supposes to be neutral. It is an enormously dangerous organisation and the nuisance it poses to Scottish independence is small beer compared to the criminality and barbarism it conceals or excuses elsewhere on the planet. People reading here should also read Craig Murray and MediaLens: our hyperborean concerns are a microcosm of greater anxieties. We have a lot of unrecruited soldiers south of the border. Could we find some way to call them up? It would be good to showcase Scottish independence as a radical British idea for the benefit of all.
A New New Enlightenment!?
Vronsky,
to what ends? They have no vote and are as helpless in the face of BBC ‘post’ imperialist world view as we are. No, the answer is here at home. Ignore what you can’t change and change what you can.
To me, that means focusing in detail on all those non registered voters who election after election choose to abdicate power to those intent on harming them. In the areas of most concern (West Central Scotland) they can make up as much as 70% of the electorate!
Mobilise even a fraction of this radical group (if conciously not voting can be considered a radical act) and the referendum is won. Better still it will be won under the radar of all polling, who purposely ‘weed’ out all opinion of those ‘unlikely’ to vote. Ie the poor and disaffected.
Does anybody know how to register to vote at a proxy address? This would allow YES registers to register people in such a way as to guarantee them immunity from bailiffs, credit agencies and the like. This is a VERY important consideration.
There is a dilemma? Consider this:
Scotland has a biased British ‘free’ press that the Scots are in the habit of reading.
Scotland is NOT independent.
100 years ago Ireland had a biased British ‘free’ press that the Irish were in the habit of reading. The Irish nationalists took sledge hammers to the printing presses.
Ireland IS independent.
@vRONSKY
‘Does anybody know how to register to vote at a proxy address?’
You are a tit
just put tom dick and harry on yer registration form they never check
who is actually in the dwelling.
Or alternatively you have to get the registration form for postal ballots from the residents who don’t vote and then vote for them(the whole family) like they do in many ethnic districts.
@Niko
Sort of like Labour in Glenrothes you mean? 😉
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1271457/General-Election-2010-Postal-vote-fraud-amid-fears-bogus-voters-swing-election.html
At Glenrothes in 2008, the neighbouring seat to Gordon Brown’s at Kirkcaldy, there was a fourfold increase in postal ballots and Labour’s opponents demanded to see the marked official register which showed whether individuals had voted or not.
Unbelievably, the Sheriff ’s Clerk’s Office in Kirkcaldy had to explain, after five months, that the register had ‘gone missing’.
Just away for a shower. The daily mail has that effect.
Slightly cleaner link here:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2009/11/electoral-fraud/
Nikostratos says:
25 February, 2013 at 8:52 pm
@vRONSKY
‘Does anybody know how to register to vote at a proxy address?’
You are a tit
just put tom dick and harry on yer registration form they never check
who is actually in the dwelling.
Or alternatively you have to get the registration form for postal ballots from the residents who don’t vote and then vote for them(the whole family) like they do in many ethnic districts.
Unfortunately this is a tactic I genuinely fear Westminister will employ to secure a no vote.
They seem awfully cocksure of a result and thus far show no fear of losing.
We were cheated in 79 remember so they have form.
scottish_skier
I made a nice tidy corner on that one
Bought and sold for Labour Gold
Such a rogue in a nation
I have a subscription to the Herald On-Line.
It, honestly doesn’t make me a bad person!
I notice on several sites the likes of Scott Minto, aka as Sneeky Boy, and quite a lot of other people that write here BTL regularily arguing our case almost anywhere I go on this t’internet thingy. I do it myself, but I have less collected wit and wisdom as, say, Scott or Doug the Doug.
They bad guys would win, through repetition of lies. Were it not for the efforts that people like Scott and Doug make. At least the bad guys don’t get free reign.
We all know that Scotland pays more into the UK Treasury than it gets back. Yet that lie, when not contradicted, becomes a ‘truth’. We all know that Scotland has had very little influence on the outcome of any UK General election. ,But that lie, constantly repeated, becomes yet another ‘truth’.
The bastards that tell these lies never give up, they never admit error. They just repeat it and repeat it ad infinitum.
Without the challenge that various folk here make to these lies, they would become ‘facts’.
It is for that reason that we have to face off our chums from the West Midlands and those given OBE’s.
We should not and cannot surrender ground. Recall the opinion polls, we are not coasting to victory, as it stands we are looking at losing…..
I think, if we care enough about the cause, we have to take the case into the Lions Den(s). Else, folk from the West Midlands and folk with an OBE will take over that media and, without correction, it will become just another one of the channels that the bastards use to obfuscate and lie.
rabb
If i join the disappeared you’ll know why
Niko, Niko, Niko…..
you are making it harder and harder for me to defend you and your charming ‘end of an era’ isms.
Braco says:
21 February, 2013 at 6:55 pm Lay off Niko yous!
It was I, Braco, that was the ‘tit’ and definitely not Vronsky, who is way a head of the political intelligentsia with his thoughts on government by ballot.
Vronsky says:
19 February, 2013 at 9:57 am
On minorities….
Anyway Niko, much as I would appreciate you and New/Old Labours advice to alleviate my titdom, when it comes to voter registration, I would like advice that is legal. I know this will leave me as a ‘tit’ for a wee bit longer than you would like, but I am sure there is an answer out there, unlike your own, comfortably within the voter registration laws of Scotland. Thanks though.
Nikostratos says:
25 February, 2013 at 9:27 pm
rabb
If i join the disappeared you’ll know why
You could do us all a favour and just disappear now.
If you want to see just how completely unaccountable, arrogant, dissmissive and out of control the BBC has become in Scotland, you need only read the article on Newsnet today;
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/6821-creighton-eu-clarification-not-news-and-did-not-add-to-sum-of-human-knowledge-says-bbc
Those interested in plurarity within Scottish media should take not however, of the very sad news at the bottom of the story on Newsnet Scotland.
Honestly, I do wish some of the folks in Scotland who may be have a bit more cash than most, would put their freaking hands in their pockets once in a while. Whilst we all have our views of the comment policy at Newsnet, it will be sad to see it no longer function – it does something very important which NO other website in Scotland does.
Come on independence supporters with big pockets, how about it, both for this site and Newsnet. Newsnet Scotland took a long time to mature, and I think it will be a disaster if it no longer operates in a daily news function.
The ABC figures should be out any day now. This will also include the regional publications report, so we should also get an idea of where the Herald and Sunday Herald are.
Personally, I’ve always been fascinated by the commercial dishonesty of the Herald and Scotsman editorial lines. When you look at the circulation figures for national non-tabloid papers in equivalent nations to Scotland – e.g. Ireland and the Scandinavians – it’s hilarious. The Irish Times outsells the Herald and Scotsman put together, and it’s not even the biggest-selling non-tabloid in Ireland!
R Louis,
I have been trying to find funds to support this site.
If I do, and I will before the closing date, then Rev Stu will get any contribution I can make.
It is probably wrong of me, but the fact I was banned, despite being a financial contributor to Newsnet Scotland, when it appeared, apparently falsely, to split, was the last straw for me.
We have never had a straightforward explanation as to where my, and other contributors, money went. It may well be entirely innocent, but banning me for asking about it?
Nope.
I posted other times just to say I thought that apart from the political journalism I would be sad to see the end of some of the other work in the arts, i.e. theatre, music, visual art,; Joyce Macmillan, Duncan Macmillan and others.
For 15 minutes stand-up comedy each day that will have you pulling your hair out and colouring the surrounding air blue listen to ” battle for the airwaves” at 13:45 daily on radio 4.
Tha BBC’s version of. How they maintained their IMPARTIALITY against westminster pressure throughout the ages!
NNS having a funding appeal for a full time staff member at the same time as this site coincidence? I think not.
It does however shine an interesting light on the conundrum facing those wishing impartial coverage of the debate, and the ongoing quandary of supporting the existing press.
@ R Louis
Like Douglas Clark I washappy to contribute to NNS till they stopped publishing any comments I made, particularly (as readers of this site will, I hope, confirm) I never posted anything nasty or obnoxious.
They also ignored my queries regarding non-publication. I’m sorry I like what they are doing but won’t be censored without explanation!
No, I’m not funding NNS. I did give them some money, but they’re not getting any more.
Some of their articles are excellent, but they’re useless for linking the uncommitted to because they come across as biassed while trying to retain a veneer of “real journalism”. Just like the Hootsmon, but that doesn’t help.
Also like the BBC and the Hootsmon and the Herald, they absolutely ban any criticism of their own journalistic standards. Considering these standards are often none too high, this is a problem.
They also allow a bunch of absolute tossers to dominate the comments, while banning many intelligent commentators – I like to think including me.
Finally, they hide their own identities and personalities. I have no idea who they are, and I don’t mean IRL necessarily, I don’t even “know” any of the editors as a nickname or an internet handle.
I admit I’d be sorry to see them step back, as I do take a look at what they’ve got every day or two, but sorry, this isn’t the sort of undertaking I would actually part with any more cash for.
Oh yes, and their timing sucks. I want someone to succeed in getting a full-time editor in place. I choose to put my resources behind RevStu, and I just hope this suspiciously contemporaneous appeal doesn’t split the vote, as it were.
Steve Cosmic,
“It does however shine an interesting light on the conundrum facing those wishing impartial coverage of the debate, and the ongoing quandary of supporting the existing press.”
It does indeed. This site appears to me to run on the basis of extremely light censorship. And a fairly engaged approach to BTL commentators.
These are my main two main measures of whether a web site is engaged with it’s public or not. This one ticks the boxes.
Just as a by the way, why didn’t NNS adopt the marketing strategy that Rev Stu did?
It seems a tad naff to just tack a major announcement such as that onto the end of a post….
Still, their bureaucratic moderation is a wonder to behold. More moderators and less journalism is the way forward!
Just saying.
They’ve had a few good articles of late Morag, but the journalistic standards, and the style of delivery, have a long long way to go before they even appear on the radar of this site. That is not to say they don’t play an incredibly important role….they do, but let’s hope this ‘struggle’ they are experiencing, strangely absent in these these last two years, will give them pause for thought as to why this site is so ahead of the pack.
Too many mains!
Also, 12k for a full time editor?
That smacks of copycat to me. Most small businesses couldn’t get a decent secretary for that, even with public sector holidays and generous smoking breaks.
On the Scotsman/Johnston Press issue, I’ve been watching with interest the state of affairs with that company. It’s almost coming to the end of its life, I’ve said previously that after two major restructures in the last 12 months, still only trading at 13p a share, I believe it will be game over by April. Over the past year it has never risen above 15p per share despite the restructures and relauches. Quite frankly Johnston Press with £350m in debt is toast. So what is going on? There are three major shareholders of JP stock, PanOcean Management (Malaysia), Orbis Holdings (Bermuda) and Sir Ray Tindle (Surrey).
The last one is interesting, Sir Ray has Tindle Newspapers based in the south of England with about 200 titles (not all newspapers). Sir Ray is an arch Unionist of the old school (ie imperialist), a personal friend to the Maggie Thatcher and generous donator to the Conservative Party. His newspapers reflect his politics even to the point where he has ridden roughshod over his editors and reporters. Over the last three years Sir Ray has been discreetly buying JP shares by the bucket load and now he is the third largest shareholder with about 10 per cent. That was up until last year. Heraldnomore @6.16pm has mentioned of large amounts of JP shares being sold off recently … to whom? My guess is Sir Ray Tindle, whose publishing empire is doing very well and operating with no debt, maybe looking to take over Johnston Press and save it, or at least the most profitable parts of it. True to form, he likes to keep the most historical of mastheads.
So the The Scotsman may have some guardian angel willing to rescue it, unfortunately the politics won’t change within it if it does turn out to be Sir Ray Tindle. (By the way this is the chap who supported the Iraq War so completely he banned all of his newspapers reporting on anti-war demonstrations).
2nd patron payment paid in now Stu. Should get another in next pay day before the campaign ends 🙂
I would strongly urge those who can spare a few quid who haven’t already donated to please do so. It’s a worthwhile cause.
@ Stevie Cosmic
Sadly, that thought occurred to me as well.
Surely having run so long they could have delayed a month or two?
@Morag
I agree with all you say in your comment. I visit NNS daily to keep abreast of subjects not covered in Wings.
I think that NNS is trying too hard to be a serious newspaper. Wings on the other hand has humour both above and below the line and so I look forward to reading all of it, sadly reading NNS is becoming a bit of a chore.
I’m also, sadly, finding NNS a chore to read!
NNS seems to stifle any sort of debate that runs counter to their way of thinking.
It’s like the site has been taken over by pro-unionists and is slowly shutting it down by ‘modding, banning and hindering’ any serious debate.
Setting a time limit between when you can post your next comment is a sure fire way of stopping meaningful and constructive arguments.
I’m in ‘pre-mod’ and have been for months.
Ok, some on this site may not like this, but it needs said.
I am frankly astonished and dismayed at the blind-sided naivety of some of the comments made above regarding Newsnet Scotland. So, for those who do not know, here is a wee history lesson.
Long before Rev Stu or wings over Scotland , many years ago, a few folks got together, to create a Scottish news website that would cover Scottish affairs, without the pro union bias. In the early days it was a newsletter, and very basic. I and many others who comment here, were regular visitors to newsnet Scotland in the early days, and KNOW that it was Newsnet Scotland that first properly challenged the pro union media in Scotland. Gradually, the site grew, and its readership also grew, quickly becoming a thorn in the side of the unionist cabal, famously referred to by chairchoob, Ian Davidson in a BBC interview as ‘Newsnat Scotland’.
If it annoys the chairchoob, then you know it is at least doing something right.
Time and again, and even now (http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/6821-creighton-eu-clarification-not-news-and-did-not-add-to-sum-of-human-knowledge-says-bbc), it has been NNS that has tackled the BBC head on, and highlighted their pro Britannia anti independence bias.
Many of the people who work on it are volunteers, and give their time for nothing. Over the last few years, they have taken the BBC head on, on many, many occasions, and have provided high quality articles by leading Scottish authors. Newsnet Scotland right from the start helped to bring together many disparate voices across the web in favour of independence.
Now a year or so ago, NNS changed its comments policy, a move which I and other disagreed with, but importantly I still supported the site, as I can see a need for such media in Scotland. Now, it looks like they are appealing for funds, and need help, yet I see quite naive postings on here, literally condemming them. We need more sites like NNS and wings, not less. Rev Stu cannot single handedly cover ALL news in Scotland whatever some here might like to think. Rev Stu tackles issues in a particular way, whereas NNS tackles them in a different way, and some people may prefer one or the other, but that is NO REASON to wish the demise of Newsnet Scotland.
So, please, whilst some here may not like the style of NNS, or think that wings is all they want to read, let’s bear in mind, that we need EVERY source of media free of pro unionist bias, we can get, whether it be wings or NNS.
Let’s be a wee bit smarter about this folks.
Keef,
NNS could hardly be described as pro unionist. Yes, they control comments, soemthing which I disagreed with, but aside from that, they have done excellent work in challenging the unionist media. This site here, tackles things in a different way, but let’s not put all our eggs in one basket.
Just for the record, I read both NNS and this site amongst others, and would want both to succeed.
@R Louis –
For what it’s worth, I agree, and hope NNS survives. Although I haven’t been following NNS and this site for very long, I do notice differences between them, and can’t honestly say those differences have ever bothered me – NNS appears to have a more traditional ‘newspapery’ feel about it, and that surely appeals to older readers who may be loathe to ditch the Herald/Scotsman, and would more naturally gravitate towards a site which resembles their favoured papers. It would also explain the stricter moderation – a lot of people really REALLY don’t like to see ‘swear’ words unexpectedly, and certainly not in a ‘newspaper’ – I’m not saying that’s the reason for such (sometimes very lengthy) moderation on NNS, but it would make sense. I do like to let-rip every now and then, but don’t do so via NNS – it’s clear they don’t like it, so why bother?
Rev Stu is really spoiling us with the freedom we get here, but, ironically perhaps, that lack of ‘moderation’ is only effective if Rev is, in effect, monitoring new input constantly. I’ve no idea how many hours per day he has to spend reading all this stuff, but I daresay it’s like having a wean, requiring 24/7 attention – you can’t leave it alone too long, even if it’s not making a sound.
I sometimes wonder if those who are, say 30 or less, really appreciate what an amazing tool this is. The sites we have which do support Independence are doing a great job covering a huge array of topics allowing us to self-educate at a time when the institutions traditionally trusted to assist that function have been exposed for what they are – reactionary commercially-driven propaganda operations which have all-but abandoned any pretence at impartiality. They’ve become brazen and shameless because no-one – ever – has taken them to task, and they have no experience of dealing with effective opposition.
Imagine – say thirty years ago – thousands of us in public libraries, all studying away, trying to make sense of what’s happening, but all silent, afraid to even sneeze. Now, we can openly chat to each other – have you seen this? What about that? Aye, but did you hear this one? Thousands of us, all studying, making sense of it simultaneously, and able to share that understanding by just pushing a few buttons.
It’s pure sci-fi, but we’re living it – that’s what makes this campaign so different, and that’s why we will win.
ianbrotherhood A great assessment of how things are ‘ Thank You .
Even the march that took place in Glasgow on Saturday will help as all it takes is one person reading the leaflets or one person watching to start questioning what they are being told by the media . As Margo said if one person can convert one undecided and so on then independence is ours for the taking .
update
http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-court-case-in-horsham-today-bbc-must-answer-allegation-regarding-the-covering-up-of-information/5324225
gerry p
@R Louis
I still occasionally read NNS, and yes, as I noted above, it has an incredibly important role to play in the debate. However, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s ‘new’ moderation policy is both short-sighted and damaging to the debate; it is quite literally, driving it’s own readership away and, in the process, undoing much of the good that it has done these last two years in positioning itself as a real alternative to the traditional press.
The true strength in online resources like NNS and WoS is surely the ability of BTL comments sections to bring people together and help them communicate their common cause. From these humble beginnings come anti-BBC rallies and independence marches and nats descending en-masse on printed news titles to challenge the lies and propaganda they print. If you stifle that communication, if you censor even moderate opposition to what is after all only personal opinion, then you are as guilty as those who would seek to take Scotland’s own voice away for good.
I understand why NNS implemented a heavy handed moderation policy; it was a knee-jerk reaction to the chair-choobs of the world who were peddling the lie that NNS was no more than a viper’s nest of swivel-eyed nats, and NNS believed this notion was gaining traction and potentially damaging their ‘brand’. Censoring everyone because of literally, a few bawbags, was not the answer. That ill-conceived move has done more damage to NNS than Davidson an co ever could.
R Louis says:
26 February, 2013 at 6:53 am
Ok, some on this site may not like this, but it needs said.
Well said as we need every outlet in different forms to succeed.
Well said RL.
@Stevie Cosmic –
I can see where you’re coming from, and broadly agree, but ultimately these are editorial decisions. There are those, such as Davidson, who condemn WoS and NNS in the same breath, citing ‘cybernats’ as the root of all evil. Those inclined to believe such rubbish swallow it whole, without even bothering to read the sites being condemned. Davidson et al KNOW this, and rely upon a combination of intellectual cowardice/laziness to keep large swathes of the electorate uninformed and fearful. If the effective function (if not the aim) of NNS’s moderation policy is to act as bridge between MSM and sites like this, surely that’s important and worthy of support?
It’s like the toxic subject relating to ‘an autumn day in 2001’ – the mere mention of that has been sufficient to cause chaos on this and other sites, and no-one could blame any editor for being very wary of going near it with a ten-foot proverbial. Similarly, regular commenters on this site (myself included) give suspected ‘trolls’ such a hard time because they are undermining our efforts to conduct the real debate the MSM can’t/won’t. In the end-up, there are topics none of us dare go near, even if the motivation is sound – there’s no censorship like self-censorship, and we all make editorial decisions of our own every time we submit a contribution here, to NNS or anywhere else.
It’s a minefield, but one thing’s for sure – post-referendum, whatever the result is, the media landscape in Scotland will never be the same. And that’s got to be a good thing, eh?
Rev – what does it matter what format a newspaper is in? Surely it is the contents that matter. as it is the Scotsman is awful and don’t see why that should be saved for what little acceptable content appears within. Same goes for any news outlet, whatever its shape.
Broadsheets were a PITA to read on trains and buses or even busy cafes anyway.
I do not belief NNS has been taken over by Unionists, but they do give far too much leeway and credence to a nasty strain of right-wing thought that was tried and failed at the ballot, and now seeks to puff itself up through the comments thread on Newsnet.
Add to that the moderation limits so these regressive wankers can’t be challenged, though I’ve convinced that it’s two guys with multiple accounts, and I rarely ever bother with it now. I found their post this morning whiny compared to Rev Stu’s more positive “let’s put your money where your mouth is” challenge.
We’ve donated already, next payday a similar amount will be going to the Rev. A better use of my funds.
Iainbrotherhood – amen to that! It is a quite incredible resource we have and I hope it does make the difference.
When the history of the media struggle for independence comes to be written up, NNS will be there near the start, the offspring of Alan Clayton’s mediawatch round robin email, the first website to really gain traction for the cause. It has made a valuable contribution in highlighting BBC bias and I have seen at least one news article there recently not reported anywhere else, a dissection of recent police figures on racism, where the BBC and most newspapers deliberately and falsely trumpeted a rise in anti-English racism when the figures showed the exact opposite was the case. ONLY NNS reported this.
However NNS frustrates with its comments policy and I admit I no longer comment there, mainly due to the 30 minute limit between comments but also having comments moderate for reasons unknown (I suspect for using a word on their unpublished list of banned words). Most commentators have also moved elsewhere, giving it the feel of a site that has gone out of fashion a bit.
I’ve given this site some money and I’ve given Scottish Review some money so I guess I will go over to NNS and give them a few quid as well.
@ ianbrotherhood
I don’t believe their moderation policy is helping either their cause or our own. You may have noticed that from all the comments above, whether positive or negative about NNS in general, ALL of them have condemned NNS’s moderation policy as heavy handed, unwieldy and cumbersome. I don’t think anyone is questioning the value of such a site and all that it has achieved, merely that it’s censorship policy has a net negative effect. It’s one thing banning a few bawbags and trolls, quite another to implement an across the board moderation policy that seems to have no focus and indeed prevents rational conversation through Orwellian censorship and a 30 minute posting delay. There are FB groups with more comments than NNS that manage rational conversation and the banning of trolls without resorting to those measures….and more often than not, they are moderated by one or two admins.
An interesting dilemma, even at a personal level, I have read the above with interest. I have therefore donated 100 pounds to NNS. I remember Nicola Sturgeon’s comment. “The day after the referendum, ask yourself if you did enough”. It behoves us all to be mindful of that.
Gerry Parker. Tony Rooke didn’t pay his TV licence. He got a summons to the JP court over the matter, and at that hearing he was told to pay up. That was it. The spin the twoofer brigade is trying to put on that is fall-down funny though.
The once popular press have committed suicide.
They no longer existed to inform, but to manipulate.
R Louis, I don’t really think the history lesson is relevant. The Scotsman has a long and proud history, but it is judged on what it is doing now, today, not on its history.
I don’t agree that NNS has been taken over by unionists. I hope it survives. However, this is the internet. Lots of people do a lot of things on an entirely voluntary basis, things we like and appreciate and hope they go on doing. To move from that to say, pay me or I’ll stop doing this, is a completely different matter. I’m not necessarily prepared to give money to people I don’t know from Adam just to let them continue with their hobby.
I don’t like their attitudes, I don’t like their anonymity, and I don’t like their moderation policy. I also don’t like the majority of that bunch of wankers who have taken over the comments now that most normal people seem to be effectively banned.
So basically, in contrast to WoS where I have decided to put some money where RevStu’s mouth is, NNS is not the sort of web site I am going to support financially. It’s a competitive internet out there, and their model is not one I’m prepared to fund. Read, yes. Fund, no.
And by the way, Davidson was having a go at Newsnight Scotland, the actual TV programme he was appearing on. Nothing to do with NNS.
NNS do good work, of that there is no doubt (the Cataln journalist’s recording of the interview with the EC deputy that exposed the EC as liars springs to mind), but Morag has a few fair points there that I can’t disagree with.
Also, that wee takeover attempt at NNS last year left a very bad taste in my mouth. Folks have donated to that site before, and were left wondering where exactly their money had gone….not a gopod starting position to start asking folks for cash.
“Rev – what does it matter what format a newspaper is in? Surely it is the contents that matter.”
I wish that were true, and it will become true one day, but that day isn’t here yet. Print and broadcast are still the mainstream, online is still the domain of the nerd, in terms of perception. Those impinge on the consciousness of people in a way that websites don’t.
You have to seek out a website. If you’re not a politics geek like most of us are, you probably won’t. But you can’t escape seeing newspapers on newsstands, or on a colleague’s desk, or on your own breakfast table even if you only bought it for the football or the free-DVD offer. You can’t escape hearing the news, unless you only watch Dave 24/7. For all their lower numbers compared to a lot of websites, they reach a lot of voters that websites don’t, and we can’t afford to write those voters off.
I think that is why, Rev, that social media is so important in this debate, and why for example, a FB page was so important for this site; it get’s Wings on peoples’ radar. Social media is beginning to penetrate this issue in a big way.
@R Louis
I’m pretty sure Davidson’s “Newsnat” jibe was directed at Newsnight Scotland/Izzy Fraser (where’s she gone?) and nothing to do with Newsnet.
@ Morag: re NNS anonymty : I don’t know Rev Stu yet I have contributed to date a very modest monthly sum in response to his funding proposal since he put forward a logical case for the funding and I had been wondering how on earth he, singly, found the time to produce articles and comment too. I really enjoy the comments contributed by so many to WOS , and the occasional meandering off topic at times adds spice – remember the Flowers O’ the Forest discussion? in contrast i find NNS increasingly arid. Worthy articles but their moderation policy has become too po-faced in my view.
By odd coincidence reference anonymity, i met a charming young lady representing NewsnetScotland at the Rally on Saturday. She came forward, introduced herself as representing NNS and we chatted for a few minutes, and I did gently tease over NNS moderation policy and on naughty words being verbotum.
i responded to Rev Stu’s appeal for funds saying that cashflow would be a more secure means of funding than a lumpsum. I only buy the i paper at a cost of 20p per day. The Herald now costs £1,10. So if WOS and NNS could set up a daily viewing fee then i would be happy to pay the balance to them
In effect that is what I’ve already committed to WOS as a monthly standing order. Less costly than a Herald each day but much more informative.It is also a form of continuing approval in that if you don’t like the output you stop paying, as the Scotsman and the Herald are experiencing.
Velofello, I don’t know “Stuart Campbell” either. I’ve never met the man, and I only have his word for it that he’s a professional journalist who lives in Bath. However, I do “know” the “RevStu” persona who runs WoS, and I like the chap. If he’s scamming, he’s working at his cover story beyond reason.
I have no idea of the personalities behind NNS. They don’t engage at all. I gave them some money nearly a year ago, and was about to set up a standing order when I was in effect summarily banned for complaining that one of their articles was presenting erroneous spun voting figures in exactly the same way they were complaining the BBC was doing.
The people who remain permitted to engage on NNS are largely, as I said, a bunch of wankers.
At the same time WoS was getting better and better, and I found myself camped here and just looking at NNS ocasionally. I actually began to wonder, is there any way RevStu could be funded to keep at this for the duration. So I was in a receptive mood when he decided to give it a go.
I don’t wish ill on NNS. There is room for a several different approaches to online nationalist news and comment. I merely say that their model is not one I wish to fund.
@ Morag: ” The people who remain permitted to engage on NNS are largely, as I said, a bunch of wankers”
Phew! Am I glad you included the word largely there as I am permitted to comment on NNS!
And just to ensure absolutely clarity, I’m 100% with Rev Stu., that he is a professional journalist, and a reverend is of no concern to me, I appreciate his pawkie style and that is good enough for me.
Lumpsum payments for me conflict with other necessary demands and so a drip drip daily (paid monthly) committment suits me better. it won’t help very much towards the £30,000 goal of late March nor will I earn a Hero badge, but no matter.
Ideally NNS will lighten up a bit and reconsider their moderation and time bar comment policy and so get a dialogue with their readers going again.
I think the thing about NNS is its been caught between a rock and hard place, it wants to be a serious news-led site so tries to inhibit comment (which detracts from the news message) but people think of it as a blog where they have a divine right to comment on everything (but they don’t.)
I think they’re trying to follow a BBC-esque online model where some opinion pieces can be commented upon but news is the news – its an exercise in transferring facts not an opportunity for debate. (I say facts but in the BBC’s case that might be a bit of an overstatement.)
For what its worth, at the bottom of the NNS home page there is a list of people involved with limited bio’s.
I’ll admit I look on this site now where before I looked at NNS, in terms of commenting on posts, I don’t wish to offend anybody but some folks need to get over themselves a bit, its fine to have an opinion but it doesn’t mean others must automatically offer you a vehicle to vent it.
If you do want to vent your spleen start your own blog, if its anything like mine, no one will read it, but its still cathartic. In terms of BTL debate, some sites just don’t want it because it muddies the water and dilutes the message. Its a method the BBC use to good effect (Brian Wilson’s ‘blog’ as an example.)
I’ll sling a tenner NNS’s way on Thursday (and another at Stu.) I’m fully aware of the quality of my commentary so don’t feel particularly abused if I’m not allowed to offer it.
I suspect RevStu is a reverend in exactly the same way that Ben Goldacre’s dead cat Hettie is a qualified naturopathic physician, but that merely adds to the charm.
We give what we can, what we feel like giving, what we feel is reasonable. Some who don’t get the “Hero” status deserve it more than some who do, because they have had to figure out what their finances will bear rather than just saying well OK then, here you are.
I’m just far more comfortable doing that for someone who engages with his readers, who is a known personality, and who says I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN after he has fixed an error someone pointed out, than for a site run by nameless faceless people who simply ban you for pointing out the error.
I think a few people have cast envious glances at how spectacularly well the WOS fundraising has gone, for example LPW is also asking for help funding the For A’ That podcast. Now in that situation, I don’t mind chucking a few quid in, because I know they have some genuine expenses and want to upgrade to better equipment. Plus, I feel it’s adding something very positive to the indy debate that no one else is doing, and a podcast requires far more effort than a blog, which I know Michael puts in while doing the editing.
But I’ve no intention of giving money to a site which has a history of being less than transparent – I still have no idea what happened a couple of years ago when there was a big bust-up amongst the folk running Newsnet. I think this is partly why Stu’s fundraiser has gone so well, because he’s very clear what it is the money is for. Plus, you’re paying for a proper, professional journalist, who has to make a choice between his day job or the website. So we make sure that decision is a little bit easier. And there are no adverts, so we can be sure he’s not under any pressure to ignore certain targets etc.
(Plus Stu’s attention to grammar and spelling is miles ahead of even the MSM, never mind Newsnet, and I’m a big grammar Nazi.)
Pa Broon, I would have no objection if NNS did not have comments enabled at all, or only on a small minority of articles. It might actually improve the site a lot.
However, once comments are enabled, comes the choice as to which comments to allow, and who should be allowed to comment. I do not like NNS’s choices in that department.
They are entitled to make these choices of course. They have chosen not to allow me to comment, or a lot of people whose comments I like to read. They have chosen to turn their site over to a bunch of wankers, with a leavening of people who either comment so rarely or are so uniformly uncontentious that they have escaped the ban-hammer.
That is their choice. However, it is a choice that has consequences when they cast around in my direction looking for funding.
I have contributed to NNS in the past, and would be willing to do so again in the future, but only if they were to sort out their ridiculous moderation policy. I had the apparent cheek to draw their attention to this situation. They suggested I start my own blog and also stated that no-one had the automatic right to post anything they like on their site, which of course I had not in any way proposed. I was then promptly placed in pre-moderation!
Here’s an example of why NNS is important:
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6818-yes-to-a-just-scotland-trade-unionists-for-independence
The piece is by Richie Venton of the SSP – it’s an article about Trades Unions for Independence.
Where else would publish this right now, in this climate? I don’t know if he tried here, BellaC or anywhere else, but this information is important and relevant to a lot of people, and the chances of MSM carrying even parts of it are close to zero. Perhaps commenting on it is another matter, but it’s still good to see NNS publishing material which otherwise might reach a very limited audience.
PS to that –
Richie Venton will be speaking at a public meeting tomorrow evening in the Vineburgh Community Centre, Irvine, on the so-called ‘Bedroom Tax’. SSP have been leafleting heavily over the past month or so and the reaction on the street has been powerful – people are getting prepared to oppose this tax by all legal means, with a particular view to reassuring the most vulnerable in our communities that they will not face eviction.
Meeting starts at 7.30. All welcome.
Ian
Cat Boyd had a similar article in Bella the other day.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/02/24/just-say-yes/
In regards to NNS, added to their heavy handed and nit picking moderation policy, it came to my attention two days ago that their ‘online ed’ is not the editor over there anymore. Maybe theyve already explained this publicly and im behind the curve but its because of little nuances like that which make me reluctant to send a donation their way as i did previously. They also used to be in the habit of giving us all regular updates (usually monthly) then this stopped and throw in the acrimonous fight then subsequent parting of the ways that Doug Daniel mentions above coupled with a reluctance to fully inform us what happened to our donations, all this were contributing factors as to why im so reluctant now to do my bit for the cause.
Its such a shame as at one point it really had everyone on board and you could touch the excitement of the staff and readership alike and it seemed as if the sky was the limit at that point. I just scratch my head at the ability of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. I still do go over there as old habits die hard and i think although i dont now post either (yes moderated also) i still think they produce some excellent articles especially about the BBC but its bittersweet now to see their moderation policy beginning to ape the BWB blog as that is where i and others were informed by the poster online ed of his new website which would shine a light on the BBC bias and restricting of comments. It stunted my ability to take this message ultimately out into the big world. How ironic.
The way Rev clearly answered the questions as to why he was appealing for donations really impressed. Simple but very very effective and if ever NNS lays out their intentions in a similar fashion, then who knows. Wouldnt it be great to see both Wings and NNS soaring to new heights together as Scotland needs both and our cup is most certainly not running over in that department.
@Albert Herring –
Cheers Albert. Yes, I saw that, and linked Richie’s article.
I’ve never been in a Union, but the folk I know who are active (not all of whom are SSP) definitely have their tails up. Not sure if I can pinpoint why, but the referendum becoming sharper on the horizon is certainly a factor – there’s also a sense that the Con/Dems have blunderbussed their own privates with this ‘Bedroom Tax’, that it really is the final straw in much the same way that the Poll Tax was for Maggie. Difference is, this time they’re not guinea-pigging us Scots first – everyone’s going to cop it within a few weeks. With Clegg now desperate and cornered, it might be interesting to find out the odds on a collapse of the coalition and a snap election.
My story is the same as those of several other posters re NewsNet Scotland. The site and its crew fell victim to its own hubris.
When they decided to restrict comments I decided to restrict their page hits in return.
We need all the help we can get from the big hitters in the indy-blog scene to which WoS and NNS counts. It was reading NNS that got me started thinking more about the reality and quality of the news we were being fed daily by the MSN.
This is why it makes me sad to see what’s happened to NNS. It was punchy, quick and full of life and would have made a good sparring tandem with WOS. Both going for the gurgle and no clap-trap from trolls ..!
I wrote to the NNS mods a couple of times after being modded for no apparent reason, got no reply whatsoever and that was that. It looks as if my experience wasn’t an exception. If you don’t talk to your supporters how do you keep them motivated?
If anyone from NNS is reading this – take note what we’re saying and get moving again.
Rev’s doing a grand job and has the courage of his convictions which is why I’ll send more cash over when I can.
Although I explained yesterday that I stopped my subscription to NNS due to, what I suppose is their moderation policy, my comments not appearing on the page and being ignored when I asked why I do feel it would be a pity to lose NNS.
NNS and Wings are chalk and cheese really. While the Rev gives, in the main, the grist of a topic for us BTLers to disect at our leisure and drift the conversation hither and thitherwas the mood takes us. In essence the Rev acts as a ‘columnist’ for his adherents.
NNS, however (theres that word for whoever expressed ‘love’ for it), sees itself, and could probably be considered, a ‘news’ site. Giving us a daily diet of the stories which are unlikely to see the light of day in the MSM.
I detest their censorship but would hate to lose them. I’m seriously swithering but will hold any donation pending their performance over the coming weeks
OK I’m going to be completely frank here and all of the following is only my opinion but I hope it chimes with at least some of you.
First and foremost, my only concern is ensuring Scotland achieves independence. Therefore I try, really try, to apply that yardstick to every decision I make which might conceivably impact on that eventuality.
As a corollary my simple requirement of any media outlet, whatever format, is that it persuades as many people as possible to vote YES in 2014.
Therefore, such an outlet would attract as many as possible, especially undecideds, and present them with enough of the truth and correction of UMSM lies and distortions to be eventually persuaded of that action.
The other thing I considered might be helpful regarding media bias would be if we could try to bring the MSM to a position where democracy was given a chance in the forthcoming referendum. With regard to that I set up a website (PRISM) and private forums to discuss such initiatives and pretty soon we had about 60 members who were regularly discussing what might be done. This included the possibility of organising demonstrations, compiling youtube videos and other propaganda material and even compiling a Dossier of Discrimination regarding BBC bias intended for possible use later via the UCHR.
When NNS came along we all saw that as a potential major advance and set about considering ways it could best be promoted.
Along with many of that group and many more elsewhere without doubt, I diverted a lot of my time and effort into promoting NNS:
Make sure everyone in local SNP knew of it. Home made car stickers, posters, leaflets. Including self printed ‘read NNS’ leaflets in any door drops I did for other things (SNP, Independence march etc.) I also used a mail crawler to find every email address which I had ever had contact with and send out promotional emails which I tried to make viral in a chain letter way. Promoted on various forums (football forums are the biggest), facebook, twitter. I even designed an animated GIF banner which could either go on folk’s website (still on some e.g. Radio Free Scotland) or could become part of your email signature. I had it as my signature where it marqueed across the bottom of the email and took you right to NNS whenever you clicked on it. Still got it, see here:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f390/chicmac/nsmailad.gif
Also I donated a couple of times, not a lot, but then it seemed to be run by volunteers and therefore not in need of a lot beyond site and bandwidth.
I even contributed an article and gave them stories and facts to use and of course posted many, many comments.
As the rise in NNS readership became spectacular, I mothballed, the PRISM group removed (hid) a lot of the content etc., although it still exists in that it was never formally wound up and the website is still there although not particularly interesting now. Convinced that NNS was the main way to go.
It was all looking fantastic. Whatever was working it was working. It had a large enthusiastic readership which returned regularly to read the articles and comments. Jury is still out on which they found the most interesting.
But then things started to go a little awry.
First sign was complaints of unwarranted censorship. We also had a parallel scenario of increasing professional journalistic contributions. I re-emphasise, in my opinion, some of those contributions were by those I considered to be out and out unionists, some less so although most remained pro independence. Something I did not agree with.
We heard the view about needing to appear balanced, but in my opinion, even given the readership NNS had grown to, we would have needed around 20 other news ‘printed’ outlets with unique readership, two UK National TV stations and one Scottish one (STV seem to be holding the middleish ground) all pro independence before you had anything like balance in the Scottish media.
Also in parallel I, and I’m sure others, became aware of an internal power struggle going on if only by rumour mill. The seeming result was another new outlet came into existence but I and it seems most others, stuck with NNS and probably with hope that NNS would return to former editorial policies. Indeed, there did to me seem to be a degree of this, but only for a little while.
But since then, there does seem to have been an increase in censorship (I was unaware of bannings and permanent moderation until this thread) of which I have suffered myself to an increasing extent, although as I have said before usually I do see, at least, why they have done so.
Also worrying was the twitterisation of comments to the point where proper explanation of one’s point of view often could not be made.
It does seem that they have determined to control the comments section to the point where I strongly suspect it has driven contributors away and I further suspect a significant section of the lurking readership as well.
I am not particularly concerned with the whys of all this, only really with what the situation actually is going forward.
I am however worried by the timing of their fund raising and trying very hard to ignore the little imp voice. Because it can only have a negative impact on our new rising star here.
Having said all that, while worried, I still support NNS as being an over all a plus on the balance sheet and will donate again, but next month.
This month it is another donation to WOS in which I see I had the honour of taking the fund through the 15K point on the on-line meter.
If they had held this over till April, I might have felt a little more generous. If RevStu succeeds in raising enough to secure WoS for a year, I might be feeling all rosy and generous. I might feel that having achieved one goal, starting on another one might have merit.
Right now, it looks like pure jealousy. And, as I said, an attempt to split the vote – or at least, something rushed into without any concern whether it might split the vote.
If Newsnet Scotland wants to continue it will need to change.
It has been going weird for at least a year now and I can’t be bothered with it.
Some of the articles they published were just quite anti Alex Salmond and when I complained they simply ignored my posts and didn’t show them. That sickened me.
The next thing was that they allowed another poster to use the same nom de plume as me (only one letter was different) and that person’s views were in no way similar to mine.
I didn’t want there to be any confusion and have people thinking that I had changed my attitudes to some things and just left them by closing my account.
I won’t be back.
@ Chic McGregor : Substantially agree with what you say. I do remember very interesting contributions to NNS on power generation technology by a blogger called chicmac, and the resulting discussions on NNS. My sneak views of the Herald show more reader comments on articles there than NNS are receiving now on their articles.
Plenty has been said here on this topic. Over to NNS to, hopefully, get back on track and have some fun.
@ Morag: You are really stroking my fur today. First I ‘largely’ avoided being called a wanker. Now, sob, I’m declared to be uniformly uncontentious because I’ve avoided moderation on NNS. Your job doesn’t require you to use a scalpel does it?
See, I can be pawkie too. Flotists and fiddlers should never meet i suppose.And a confession, I play the fiddle by ear, maybe that’s why i’ve avoided NNS moderation?
To be honest, I don’t read much of the NNS comments now, but I reckon anyone still unmodded has to be either an infrequent commentator or uniformly uncontentious. Or called Upspake, I suppose….
I hate to say it, but scalpels, whacking big knives and occasionally a saw. Today, it was the large industrial-size scalpels.
NNS back in the day was a breath of fresh air. It seemed to want a free Scots press. Unheard of at the time. For a while it did actually, more times than not, publish factual stories devoid of anti independence spin.
We all know that this is in fact ALL that is required, as it illuminates the debate and underlines how biased other ‘trusted’ media sources are and always have been. This in turn leads the reader to reach their own conclusions and do there own ‘research’. A one way street.
I drifted away from NNS when they obviously took it upon themselves to mirror the very MSM outlets that they set out to shame. Every article had a pro independence/SNP angle raggedly stabbed into it and comments querying/ridiculing those particular editorial decisions were removed or never actually appeared.
I can see where others are coming from, but I can not abide the idea that our victory will be taken by the likes of those in control of NNS to simply continue the shite biased news outlet template that we, by our very victory, obviously overcame! It will definitely not be ‘NNS wot won it’ so I would not worry too much about what they get up to. I haven’t for at least two years now and I still consider myself fairly clued in on the arguments.
Any arguments? Then first tell me why they refuse to link to other pro independence sites (that is for any reasons other than brand protection and market share?) Secondly, would you honestly direct a switherer to them, no matter the articles power the comments small ‘back slapping’ club atmosphere only verifies the preconceived image of ‘Petty Nats’ that the switherer is most likely already carrying around with them.
Vote lost, or at least a chance of change lost.
Apologies if things have changed since the last time I involved myself. I will happily withdraw and rewrite this review, but the comments before mine all sound so familiar. sadsadsad
Only change is that what you describe has become more marked. I used to link to the articles but no longer do, for the reasons you rehearse.
I did check the current lead article, and found this in the comments.
# amfraeembro 2013-02-26 01:26
I’m not donating anything until you sort out your moderation policy.
[Admin – If you wish to post messages freely on the internet you can do so by setting up a facebook site or similar. On this site no-one is guaranteed to have a message published.]
Says it all, really. It’s not just the moderation policy, it’s the hectoring, holier-than-thou lecture you get. The independence movement does not need this.
Morag,
‘We are NewsNet, just who do you think you are?’
“We are the BBC, just who do you think you are?”
Not really so different a voice, just a different level of authority (but not for the want of ambition though). As I say, sadsadsad.
@Robert Kerr
” I remember Nicola Sturgeon’s comment. “The day after the referendum, ask yourself if you did enough”. It behoves us all to be mindful of that.”
I hope her Party are asking themselves if they are doing enough NOW.
A Campaign might be a good idea.
If YES Scotland is the Official Campaign then we are screwed. Having said that, if you “like” it on Facebook it’s a great way of losing all those bloody “friends” you made.
@Morag
That particular poster was then put straight into pre-moderation.
Why am I not surprised about that? Really, if Velofello isn’t in pre-moderation he must be posting anodyne pap about once a fortnight.
Or talking up the SDA.
It might be true that NNS still provides some value to the greater effort, but I am both gladdened and saddened that others shared my suspicions concerning the site’s direction.
deewal,
I understand your frustrations, but there is no use talking to someone who is not YET ready to listen (or even hear). We are not the NO campaign. It’s groundwork that’s being undertaken at the moment by the YES campaign, not the actual campaign itself, which will commence quite late in the day when the electorate is facing the exciting realities and possibilities of their imminent CHOICE.
Minds will be focused and ears will be pricked. Whoever has the most reasonable arguments, delivered by the most trusted sources will win. The NO’s and their MSM pals are busy debasing their coinage, all with more than a year and a half to go.
Our message will be delivered face to face by family, colleagues, aquaintances, concerned strangers etc… All urging the voter to RESEARCH for themselves, before finally deciding (while of course giving them a few choice documents and websites to get their research started with (evilsmily)).
It’s anger that follows that kind of research and then the vote.
That is, as I see it, the strategy and it has been from the beginning. Nothing has changed except the MSM seems to be screaming for the Better NO team to change their strategy ASAP. The Strategy of constant negativity and swirling vortex’s of a future less Scotland within or outwith the Union.
Given that the work is done and we keep sprinting past the line, I do feel confident. (for what it’s worth. notsoabashedweewinky)
@Morag, while I agree that NNS comments policy is overboard and probably damaging their readership I really have no idea how you can justify that those that remain are mostly wankers or uncontentious or just not a regular.
So here is one recent article with 33 comments, please point out the majority of wankers?
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/6814-bizarre-wmd-statement-leaves-anti-independence-case-falling-down-about-their-ears-says-snp
As to uncontentious or infrequent why would uncontentious or infrequent comment be a bad thing in a debate? I would rather here and read more viewpoints not less.
I guess you are not going to point out the wankers without turning things into a monty python sketch 😉
Note: I am not part of NNS in any way.
I don’t think uncontentious or infrequent are bad things at all. They’re perfectly fine. They’re also about the only way anyone with a normal posting style can stay out of pre-mod on that site, that’s all.
If you haven’t checked out Stewart’s graphics on his site, have a look now. There’s some good graphics, but check out the Hope/Nope one. It’s superb.
I love the ‘don’t trust Dave’ poster. Brilliant!
Thanks Stewart
Just posted Nope/Nope on Facebook. We defo need more of this type of thing to share. I quite often post links on Facebook and I’m sure nobody reads them – even I sometimes only scan articles that are too long. Recently I’ve taken to just condensing articles down to a couple of sentences just to sow a seed. Good imagery is easy to share and leaves the readers to think about it for themselves. More of this, please, Stewart.