Scottish Independence v. Further devolution, or just convoluted lies?

[Vurtual]

True - i'm pretty sure a coup's not in the offing though

 

[gannetsarewe]

Scotland's not a real country anyway. If becoming a country was a simple as getting drunk and speaking with an accent no one can understand they would simple draw a line through Derby and make everyone north of it fly the same flag

Australia was still in supine obeisance to The British Crown last time I looked, now be good over there or the Governor General will have to take ye in hand.

 

[One Thousand Words]

Not being Australian that really hurt my feelings

 

[Chatative]

I could swear you lived down under, but nevermind... no idea where I got that impression from.

 

[Shambles]

They are hardly fascists that would imply some sort of political consciousness, fascistic maybe, but probably just as an extreme type of Shoneenism, any truth in reports they were burning Saltires?

Also pissing on 'em. Somewhat hilariously the fact that it's a rather cheaply bought flag combines with being pissed upon to reveal a quite remarkably small penis doing the pissing. I say that not as insult cos it was probably a chilly night and we've all been there but really doesn't quite convey the message the moron was probably trying to convey.

NSFW:

(you're such a bloody liberal ) That increased awareness of blatant media bias (no phantom) will be one of the big implications for the british political landscape (bbc has lost a lot of trust, and not only in scotland). It seemed it was mainly the pensioners who couldn't bring themselves to not trust auntie who swung the vote to no. To me control of information is one of the biggest pollitical issues (as it's successfully used to corral opinion on all other issues).

To be honest, the only real coverage of the whole bizniz that I saw enough of to be worth considering was BBC coverage and it kinda came over more in favour of independence from what I saw. Maybe that's just me - was fairly subtle but abunduntly clear if you observed the indivdiduals rather than whatever they were scripted to say. As Sam points out, it's a state-owned broadcaster so will have it biases just as all sources do. If there's one modicum of use anybody could ever gain from doing media studies and the like for years is to not be so easily swayed by surface and look a lil deeper.

Whilst I do agree somewhat with the "message not messenger" thing there is also an important reversal of that which can be at least as relevant if not more so in some ways due to being actually subversive cos it is from within "the system". Eye of the beholder and all that...

 

[gannetsarewe]

Is he pissing on the flag? cos they look like pro independence people, the guy on the right is wearing a PLO scarf which would be a key signifier, that and the good looking woman in the foreground.

 

[Vurtual]

...To be honest, the only real coverage of the whole bizniz that I saw enough of to be worth considering was BBC coverage and it kinda came over more in favour of independence from what I saw...

That's really surprising - i suppose we both probably see what we want to see. Did you read the medialens alert i posted above? Did you see nick robinson's treatment of alex salmond? They're supposed to give equal time to each party in an election (they don't, but they 'try'), and their efforts to do this can appear to be balanced , but to me it doesn't take much analysis to see how biased they are beneath this veneer; there's also more subtle forms of bias, like only showing alex salmond and ignoring the as-important non-snp independence people (RIC, common weal) who provided a large part of the momentum.

Did you read the story of that university of glasgow research showing bias that the bbc tried to squash i posted somewhere up thread - here it is - seems pretty convincing to me.

 

[Vurtual]

Interesting link about setting up independent media in scotland: http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/26/an-independent-media-for-scotland/

Here's a quote from it about media bias:

Don’t believe us. Paul Mason, Newsnight’s former economics editor (now at Channel 4 News) has said of the state broadcaster: “Not since Iraq have I seen BBC News working at propaganda strength like this. So glad I’m out of there.” On Twitter, he also posted a link to a YouTube video claiming that the BBC had been “completely biased and unbalanced in their reporting of the referendum”, adding the comment: “Media students, journos, (coughs loudly) this is well worth watching.” It is also true however that “A political movement never flourishes by blaming its defeats on the media, or by deploring the motives or gullibility of the electorate”.

 

[Shambles]

Is he pissing on the flag? cos they look like pro independence people, the guy on the right is wearing a PLO scarf which would be a key signifier, that and the good looking woman in the foreground.

Pic is from the Heil's attempt to turn the outcome into the sky falling in and landing on Decent People's heads. He is pissing on the flag. I will admit I mistook the light glinting off his bellend to be his entire penis so retract the more superficial element of my unusally small penis comment and leave the more metaphorical sense in place.

Did you read the story of that university of glasgow research showing bias that the bbc tried to squash i posted somewhere up thread - here it is - seems pretty convincing to me.

Have read it before but the problem with quoting any study is that you need to then go back into the details of the study, its methods, its own biases, its citations and so on and so forth. Is something I've been guilty of doing in the past but is a habit I'm trying to get out of. Anybody can produce a study "proving" whatever the hell the people setting the study wish to have proved. Context is all.

 

[BecomingJulie]

Pic is from the Heil's attempt to turn the outcome into the sky falling in and landing on Decent People's heads. He is pissing on the flag.

Are you sure he's not just desperate to go, and his mates are holding it up just to give the poor chap a bit of privacy?

Context is all.

Abso-fucking-lutely. Without context, you can't know for sure what anything means.

 

[Vurtual]

...Have read it before but the problem with quoting any study is that you need to then go back into the details of the study, its methods, its own biases, its citations and so on and so forth. Is something I've been guilty of doing in the past but is a habit I'm trying to get out of. Anybody can produce a study "proving" whatever the hell the people setting the study wish to have proved. Context is all.

OK then, show me some studies proving that the bbc was not biased on independence (preferrably not by the bbc), and we'll go from there

 

[Shambles]

You seem to have missed the point entirely, Vurtual. I'll leave it at that...

 

[One Thousand Words]

If you have no control over your own free will and so easily swayed by what you see on television, then perhaps you shouldn't be voting. Or at the very least perhaps your vote should be counted as a half vote.

 

[Shambles]

Oddly enough I was gonna say that myself. Although, to be fair, the majority of people do watch television, read papers, listen to radio, speak to people and so on so will almost certainly be swayed by any combination of these factors. Should people in the run-up to an election be locked in solitary confinement so they aren't swayed by "media"? Probably not but it is always interesting that people who lose a vote tend to blame "media" whereas if they win a vote they don't assume the same to be true.

Speaking of media and Scottish Independence...

Frankie Boyles Referendum Autopsy

... is on iPlayer so won't be up for very long but is quite funny.

 

[ColtDan]

Cool, gonna give that a watch. Big fan of Frankie boyle. might rip that off iplayer and stick it on youtube

 

[Vurtual]

You seem to have missed the point entirely, Vurtual. I'll leave it at that...

I got your point (i think ), but if if it's as easy to create a study like that to give the conclusions you want (which i'm sure it is generally), then there should be similar quality studies with opposite conclusions available via the same feeble googling as i used to find mine, without having to analyse them in detail (if it could have the no campaign wouldn't have missed the chance of promoting a study 'proving' bbc impartiality, or pro-independence bias)) - if not maybe it suggests something (or not). Granted i could have googled for opposite studies myself (just had a quick go and couldn't find any (but i'm biased so i probably don't want to find any))

(It was as much the BBC's actions in trying to supress that study that were of interest - and that particular study is pretty clear in its methodology i thought). I'll leave it at that too (woof)

 

[Sammy G]

Feeling especially parenthetical today, Vurtual? :D

 

[BecomingJulie]

Either that, or perhaps he's getting into LISP. (Insert (feeble) joke about ((stereotypically) dumb) new person hired to type ((very very) long) program (written in LISP (naturally)) into mainframe and being done very quickly (because they missed out all the bits in brackets (like so)) here.) (By the way, does your favourite editor have a shortcut key that takes you to straight the opposite bracket matching the one at the cursor? (And if not, how come it's your favourite?))

 

[Vurtual]

Feeling especially parenthetical today, Vurtual? :D

I've got a problem ... on the upside i'm cutting down on my semicolons;

(oh and i've just watched that frankie boyle thing - ta shambles - hope he gets a series...) (and cool nerdy LISP joke julie) but i only use visual code))(

 

[Shambles]

I got your point (i think ), but if if it's as easy to create a study like that to give the conclusions you want (which i'm sure it is generally), then there should be similar quality studies with opposite conclusions available via the same feeble googling as i used to find mine, without having to analyse them in detail (if it could have the no campaign wouldn't have missed the chance of promoting a study 'proving' bbc impartiality, or pro-independence bias)) - if not maybe it suggests something (or not). Granted i could have googled for opposite studies myself (just had a quick go and couldn't find any (but i'm biased so i probably don't want to find any))

(It was as much the BBC's actions in trying to supress that study that were of interest - and that particular study is pretty clear in its methodology i thought). I'll leave it at that too (woof)

Who would benefit from paying for a study to "prove" the BBC were not as biased as that particular study suggests? The BBC would so would be of no value. Note I said the BBC not the BBC and the government cos the latter get regular kickings from Auntie no matter which stripe they happen to be from. This matters. As does the apparent complete lack of understanding as to what the term "media" actually means. It in no way means "unbiased" cos no such source exists - nor could it ever. You're barking up the wrong tree. In my (rarely) humble opinion the key is to know the biases - both "theirs" and your own. Then don't become blinded by them.