AS one who normally agrees with Carolyn Leckie, I am very loath to disagree with her on the occasion of her eulogy to the press barons and their unprincipled, porky pies in the piggy trough (Attacking the media doesn’t help our cause, May 21). Perhaps they are not overtly instructed to be boors and supporters of the establishment and all that is wrong with society, but the very fact they are singled out for employment in what must be a “Britain’s Got Nae Talent” Union Jack show should tell her something.
Today, the public can answer back to the privileged, non-elected pundits of the boss’s media. The result is that social media is replacing the hard copies and is supporting the saviours of coniferous forests.
Most “Scottish” newspapers are owned and remote controlled externally with no thought or concern for local culture history and politics. Hence, the rise of the politically educated social media in Scotland.
There’s nothing new in papers being used solely for political purposes: President Hamilton started his own newspaper for propaganda purposes and to denigrate political opponents. The railway and steel companies founded papers to denigrate and demonise the Native Americans and steal their land.
New money tried to enter the magic circle by buying “prestigious” imperial papers such as the London and New York Times. It did not work when Rupert bared his soul and acquired these rags. Non-PC Murdoch was still a rough Scots Aussie to them, causing him to take the huff and court Scottish independence for a wee while. Luckily he did not have the accent of his Scots ancestors. Jings, crivvens and help ma boab. Botany Bay Thames Estuary speak is still preferable to an “S”TV Uncle MacThomas.
Donald Anderson
Glasgow
I AGREE with Carolyn Leckie that much of the pro-Union bias of the mainstream media is in their terms counter-effective.
There’s an old joke about a Western tourist in the Soviet Union seeing a Russian reading Pravda.
Tourist: “Must be dreadful to have a press that’s full of lies.”
Russian: “We know our press prints lies. You think your press prints the truth.”
However, nowadays readers are more sceptical and approach opinion columns with a pinch of salt. It’s healthy for newspapers to give space to opposing opinions. Otherwise a pro-independence paper becomes seen as a political pamphlet and is read only by those already in the Yes camp.
The main problem with the pro-Union media is not what they print, but what they don’t print. Factual news reports – about promising industrial developments, employment statistics, think-tank reports or opinion polls – which could offer succour to the independence movement are completely censored out or relegated to column six on page 30.
The only way to counter this is through newspapers like The National and Sunday Herald or in the bush telegraph of social media which – despite the best efforts of the establishment – remains largely uncontrolled.
Mary McCabe
Glasgow
CAROLYN Leckie is missing the point about media propaganda. The rubbish written by journalists who have taken the King’s shilling is given huge gravitas on our state and Sky broadcasters every single day. This is the favoured way for the BBC to promote British nationalism while pretending to be neutral.
The point about the rabid tabloids is that they are not aimed at British nationalists, or at Yessers, but at the don’t-knows and the wider media.
Whether we like it or not, if you have a point of view, chances are there are others who disagree. However there should be two types of journalist: one that gives an opinion as a columnist and the other that reports the news. These two have morphed into one. Newspaper leader columns have now shifted to the front page. The only way for journalists to avoid criticism is to stop grinding their axes and start telling the truth.
Mike Herd
Highland
WHILE I agree in principle with Carolyn Leckie’s article, and that it would be a mistake to refuse to take part in interviews, I fear it is well nigh impossible to get our ideas and stances across on the mainstream media as our representatives are either misquoted and taken out of context, if their words are included in a piece at all, or on TV they are interrupted constantly and are unable to speak a whole sentence.
How refreshing it was to see our FM being interviewed by Robert Peston at the weekend, as he seems to be the only political interviewer to let any of our representatives answer questions.
Morna Kirk
via thenational.scot
WE are not attacking the media, simply responding to their persistent attacks on us. Though we have reached the stage of “attack is the best defence”.
Brian Powell
via thenational.scot
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here