Are You Doing Your Bit?

[Scary Bear]

Fair enough - I imagine Mr Bairn will be along to enlighten us presently.

No need to get into Rangers, but I used to be quite well-disposed towards the SNP. I've voted for them twice, although not recently. That mild affection entirely disappeared at roughly the moment that crowds of flag-waving idiots began descending on BBC Scotland demanding that the news be reported in a manner that they found more congenial, and that journalists who displeased them be fired.

Those incidents reminded me quite strongly of e.g. Rangers nutters mobbing BBC Scotland to demand that Jim Spence be fired for upsetting them. Similar intolerance; similar strong-arm tactics; similar indifference to reality.

The difference, of course, is that the Rangers zoomers aren't currently polling at just under half of the electorate.

I found your criticism to be a bit of a generalisation. I could make similar observations to the ones you made, with regards to the Celtic support, however I realise that it's probably a minority of the Celtic support.

My personal point of view is that the BBC did cross the line in the run up the the referendum. Roughly around the time when Gordon Brown was wheeled out. It annoyed me, but not enough to protest or even to send a snotty e-mail to the BBC. However, I did think that it lurched towards pro-union news for a key two or three days. I realise it must be difficult for them to strike a balance but I don't think they achieved it towards the end of the referendum campaign.

[flyingrodent]

I found your criticism to be a bit of a generalisation. I could make similar observations to the ones you made, with regards to the Celtic support, however I realise that it's probably a minority of the Celtic support.

I think you could and, if they were general observations about tendencies towards insane paranoia, dickish behaviour and singing cretinous songs about long-finished conflicts, then they'd be mostly correct.

My personal point of view is that the BBC did cross the line in the run up the the referendum. Roughly around the time when Gordon Brown was wheeled out. It annoyed me, but not enough to protest or even to send a snotty e-mail to the BBC. However, I did think that it lurched towards pro-union news for a key two or three days. I realise it must be difficult for them to strike a balance but I don't think they achieved it towards the end of the referendum campaign.

I think the BBC trod the balance about as well as could be expected, under the circumstances. I also think that its perceived bias has been ludicrously and deliberately wanked-up by the party leadership into an utterly mental everyone-is-against-us mindset that's principally used to send great armies of arseholes out into the wild to kick up shit and generally act in as ignorant and rabid a manner as possible. Nothing gets people on-side quicker than a common enemy, after all.

Further, I think that the BBC was specifically chosen as the target of all this hate because its charter forbids it from doing what e.g. the Sun or the Record would do, if they were repeatedly attacked by a political party and its supporters - i.e. running months-long poisonous vendettas filled with unprecedented levels of bile.

This is precisely the reason why Rangers ban the BBC and whip their supporters into hate mobs against it, while also allowing the Sun to continue more or less unhindered. Not because the BBC are particularly awful at journalism (they're far, far better than most, and much better than the Sun) but because they're the best kind of enemies - ones that can't really hit you back.

There are words that describe people who deliberately choose only to attack the weakest enemies that they can find. "Cowards" and "Bullies" strike me as the most apt terms, although worse ones exist.

[AUFC90]

Let me get this straight, then - which of my posts struck you as the most e.g. "uber-Catholic"?

And when you say "You seem to have a real problem", are you indicating that I must be e.g. "obsessed" with Rangers or the SNP?

But these are some really odd tactics, here. If somebody has compared your behaviour to the ultra-zoomerist paranoia and constant rage of post-admin Rangers fans, and you want to deny that this is true, it'd probably be a good idea for folk answering to avoid doing things like

- Immediately concluding that the person that you're speaking to must be Catholic or

- Implying that only people with irrational anti-Rangers/anti-SNP prejudices could possibly say bad things about them.

You're just a c**t mate. No more no less. Comparing half the country to Rangers fan is cunty behaviour.

[flyingrodent]

You're just a c**t mate. No more no less. Comparing half the country to Rangers fan is cunty behaviour.

Maybe so.

If that's the case, then I'll pledge to stop doing it, at the very second that SNP supporters throughout the land stop picketing and abusing journalists who say things that they don't like; When they stop accusing people who disagree with them of being BritNats/Traitors/Labour drones/Wan ay thayme; Stop mobbing together waving flags, singing "patriotic" songs and telling everyone who will listen that they are "the people"; Stop concocting mad conspiracy theories about how everyone and everything is against them and stop angrily shouting down anyone who points out problems with their proposals.

A fair quid pro quo, there - if the SNP's fans stop acting like Rangers supporters, I'll stop drawing these comparisons.

[AUFC90]

Maybe so.

If that's the case, then I'll pledge to stop doing it, at the very second that SNP supporters throughout the land stop picketing and abusing journalists who say things that they don't like; When they stop accusing people who disagree with them of being BritNats/Traitors/Labour drones/Wan ay thayme; Stop mobbing together waving flags, singing "patriotic" songs and telling everyone who will listen that they are "the people"; Stop concocting mad conspiracy theories about how everyone and everything is against them and stop angrily shouting down anyone who points out problems with their proposals.

A fair quid pro quo, there - if the SNP's fans stop acting like Rangers supporters, I'll stop drawing these comparisons.

I think you need to calm down a little mate. It seems that some yes voters in Twitter or Facebook have gotten to you. You're coming across as a very bitter little man.

The yes side was always a lot more inclusive than the no side during the campaign. You are on the same side as the BNP, OO, Rangers Fans, The Tories, UKIP, and a whole host of unsavoury organisations and you're making out we are the bitter ones

I'm sure you'll be able to show us examples of yes mobs causing total destruction in their wake or are you getting mixed with the Britnats burning satires and hitting women.

Anyway, enjoy the utter routing of your nearest Labour careerist come May

[MarkoRaj]

Maybe so.

If that's the case, then I'll pledge to stop doing it, at the very second that SNP supporters throughout the land stop picketing and abusing journalists who say things that they don't like; When they stop accusing people who disagree with them of being BritNats/Traitors/Labour drones/Wan ay thayme; Stop mobbing together waving flags, singing "patriotic" songs and telling everyone who will listen that they are "the people"; Stop concocting mad conspiracy theories about how everyone and everything is against them and stop angrily shouting down anyone who points out problems with their proposals.

A fair quid pro quo, there - if the SNP's fans stop acting like Rangers supporters, I'll stop drawing these comparisons.

What a roaster

[doulikefish]

Maybe so.

If that's the case, then I'll pledge to stop doing it, at the very second that SNP supporters throughout the land stop picketing and abusing journalists who say things that they don't like; When they stop accusing people who disagree with them of being BritNats/Traitors/Labour drones/Wan ay thayme; Stop mobbing together waving flags, singing "patriotic" songs and telling everyone who will listen that they are "the people"; Stop concocting mad conspiracy theories about how everyone and everything is against them and stop angrily shouting down anyone who points out problems with their proposals.

A fair quid pro quo, there - if the SNP's fans stop acting like Rangers supporters, I'll stop drawing these comparisons.

You stood with the orange lodge last september,you are a union jack waving britnat, live with it

[RedRob72]

It's a valid comparison, as it happens

- Bone-headed insistence that they're right, because they just are, because they just are, right?

- Utterly mental ideas angrily defended to the death i.e. "We're the same club"; "The best way to keep the Tories out is to not vote for their only credible challenger"

- Brainless flag-waving; daft wibble about how they, and only they, represent "The People"

- Oor tradishuns

- Loopy conspiracy theories

- Protesting the BBC and hate-Tweeting journalists who say things they don't like

- Banning journalists from events on spurious grounds of "bias"

- Sniffing out traitors and quislings everywhere, because

- if you're no wan ay us, you're wan ay thayme

- Unfortunate habit of accusing people they don't like of complicity in child abuse scandals

- Respond to every enquiry about their own heroes' mental behaviour by announcing that they other yins are much worse

- Accuse everyone else of swallowing propaganda while rabidly repeating party-approved mantras zombie style

Took just a page and a half to hijack the thread and turn it into a rant about Rangers, impressive stuff and not obsessed at all.

[Granny Danger]

Took just a page and a half to hijack the thread and turn it into a rant about Rangers, impressive stuff and not obsessed at all.

You and flying rodent have so much in common.

[I'm Brian]

I think the BBC trod the balance about as well as could be expected, under the circumstances. I also think that its perceived bias has been ludicrously and deliberately wanked-up by the party leadership into an utterly mental everyone-is-against-us mindset that's principally used to send great armies of arseholes out into the wild to kick up shit and generally act in as ignorant and rabid a manner as possible. Nothing gets people on-side quicker than a common enemy, after all.

Further, I think that the BBC was specifically chosen as the target of all this hate because its charter forbids it from doing what e.g. the Sun or the Record would do, if they were repeatedly attacked by a political party and its supporters - i.e. running months-long poisonous vendettas filled with unprecedented levels of bile.

This is precisely the reason why Rangers ban the BBC and whip their supporters into hate mobs against it, while also allowing the Sun to continue more or less unhindered. Not because the BBC are particularly awful at journalism (they're far, far better than most, and much better than the Sun) but because they're the best kind of enemies - ones that can't really hit you back.

There are words that describe people who deliberately choose only to attack the weakest enemies that they can find. "Cowards" and "Bullies" strike me as the most apt terms, although worse ones exist.

Maybe so.

If that's the case, then I'll pledge to stop doing it, at the very second that SNP supporters throughout the land stop picketing and abusing journalists who say things that they don't like; When they stop accusing people who disagree with them of being BritNats/Traitors/Labour drones/Wan ay thayme; Stop mobbing together waving flags, singing "patriotic" songs and telling everyone who will listen that they are "the people"; Stop concocting mad conspiracy theories about how everyone and everything is against them and stop angrily shouting down anyone who points out problems with their proposals.

A fair quid pro quo, there - if the SNP's fans stop acting like Rangers supporters, I'll stop drawing these comparisons.

Needless to say I disagree with your assessment about the BBC, but if you will hear me out I will try to explain. For the record I am not one of the people you describe. I would never picket anything although I will admit to waving a flag on occasion. For avoidance of doubt there are many journalists within the BBC who are excellent at their jobs, others not so, but isn't that true for every workplace. Some get a hard time unfairly. James Cook being the most recent example of that when he made an error and then as soon as he realised he made an error reported as such. James Cook let us not forget was the man that live on air suggested that Johann Lamont's political career had been a waste of time. A few others no longer hide what side they are on. But that does not in any way shape or form mean they should be hounded in the way that they have been.

I admit that many people out there cannot see the wood for the trees, and will jump on every opportunity to put the boot into anyone who doesn't toe their line, but you have them on both sides and they are in the minority.

What I want from the media is balanced reporting. I accept that the person writing or reading an article may not share the same view as me, but as long as they tell both sides of the story then I am happy with that, and if it isn't what I want to hear then so be it as long as it is accurate. The BBC is in the position of legally having to have impartiality. Unfortunately for them BBC Scotland is intrinsically linked to the Labour Party in Scotland. There are numerous examples of links, but for the purposes of this argument, the head of BBC Scotland news is none other than Susan Deacon's Partner. I can't find it just now, but if you search hard enough their is a family tree of Scottish Labour and their links to BBC Scotland.

There was research done by a Professor in his field that conclusively proved that the BBC Scotland and STV had a pro union slant during the referendum. This study was done using methodology that had been praised elsewhere when it was utilised. The BBC then tried to destroy the guy that did the research, with some pretty underhand tactics. For balance STV took on board the criticism.

On the flip side had the BBC been in favour of independence and had a pro independence slant to their news reporting, I would have equally been as critical of them. It is for this reason I don't buy the National or the Sunday Herald or indeed tend to read them.

You keep going on about bullies and the likes. I have come across literally no one who is like this within the party. I have met a few who perhaps need to improve their networking and marketing skills and I have met a few from outwith the party who perhaps cannot see that people have an opposing view, but again this is the tiny minority of people. Dare I say you are believing the press too much?

Whether you believe me or not is entirely up to you but if you keep trying to pull parallels with Rangers all of the time, you will simply paint yourself as a bitter Celtic Fan whose life revolves around an obsessive hatred of Rangers.

[John Lambies Doos]

Fair enough - I imagine Mr Bairn will be along to enlighten us presently.

No need to get into Rangers, but I used to be quite well-disposed towards the SNP. I've voted for them twice, .

^ an obvious lie

[Granny Danger]

'Journalists' who report on politics are, by definition, politically engaged. The idea that they don't take their politics into their work is incredibly naive. The only way to get any balance would be if their was a cross section of views amongst these people.

I wonder how many BBC Scotland and STV 'journalists' were YES voters.

The insidious thing we are seeing in this election campaign is the Unionist parties actually rerunning the referendum campaign whilst accusing the SNP of doing it. Time and again Nicolla Sturgeon has spelt out what the SNP want to achieve from this election, meanwhile the Unionists are working in tandem to try to undermine her.

[Urban Gorilla]

Seen this thread and it reminded me of this song.

As you were.

[forever_blue]

I get moaned at for one smirky remark about the referendum in the hibs- hearts forum yet here we are in the politics forum with three pages of rants all about rangers .

[flyingrodent]

Needless to say I disagree with your assessment about the BBC, but if you will hear me out I will try to explain. For the record I am not one of the people you describe. I would never picket anything although I will admit to waving a flag on occasion. For avoidance of doubt there are many journalists within the BBC who are excellent at their jobs, others not so, but isn't that true for every workplace. Some get a hard time unfairly. James Cook being the most recent example of that when he made an error and then as soon as he realised he made an error reported as such. James Cook let us not forget was the man that live on air suggested that Johann Lamont's political career had been a waste of time. A few others no longer hide what side they are on. But that does not in any way shape or form mean they should be hounded in the way that they have been.

I admit that many people out there cannot see the wood for the trees, and will jump on every opportunity to put the boot into anyone who doesn't toe their line, but you have them on both sides and they are in the minority.

What I want from the media is balanced reporting. I accept that the person writing or reading an article may not share the same view as me, but as long as they tell both sides of the story then I am happy with that, and if it isn't what I want to hear then so be it as long as it is accurate. The BBC is in the position of legally having to have impartiality. Unfortunately for them BBC Scotland is intrinsically linked to the Labour Party in Scotland. There are numerous examples of links, but for the purposes of this argument, the head of BBC Scotland news is none other than Susan Deacon's Partner. I can't find it just now, but if you search hard enough their is a family tree of Scottish Labour and their links to BBC Scotland.

There was research done by a Professor in his field that conclusively proved that the BBC Scotland and STV had a pro union slant during the referendum. This study was done using methodology that had been praised elsewhere when it was utilised. The BBC then tried to destroy the guy that did the research, with some pretty underhand tactics. For balance STV took on board the criticism.

On the flip side had the BBC been in favour of independence and had a pro independence slant to their news reporting, I would have equally been as critical of them. It is for this reason I don't buy the National or the Sunday Herald or indeed tend to read them.

You keep going on about bullies and the likes. I have come across literally no one who is like this within the party. I have met a few who perhaps need to improve their networking and marketing skills and I have met a few from outwith the party who perhaps cannot see that people have an opposing view, but again this is the tiny minority of people. Dare I say you are believing the press too much?

Whether you believe me or not is entirely up to you but if you keep trying to pull parallels with Rangers all of the time, you will simply paint yourself as a bitter Celtic Fan whose life revolves around an obsessive hatred of Rangers.

Well, the Rangers thing is just to make a couple of points in context-appropriate terms.

This is a Scottish football website and I'm here talking about a bunch of people who have become wildly paranoid and are wholly convinced that legions of people are conspiring against them, for little or no reason. Rangers are a Scottish football team and its supporters are wholly convinced that legions of people are conspiring against them.

If you'd prefer, just on this BBC thing - I could switch the comparison to Ukip's view of the Beeb, which is more or less equal and opposite to yours. It's also quite comparable with many people's reaction to the recent bombing of Gaza by the Israeli Defence Force, during which diehards of both sides protested outside BBC HQ and bombarded its employees with lunatic accusations that their reporters hanker for the genocide of either the Israelis or the Palestinians. For the right-wing unionist nut version, you could try the Biased BBC blog as a good representative - a proper boobyhatch that's pushes views on the BBC that are just about the precise inverse of yours, even though their basic complaints are pretty much identical.

The result is the same for all such people, though: angry partisans from all sides who are equally convinced that the BBC is appallingly biased against them but, when you actually look at what their objections are, it turns out that they're pissed off because the Beeb

- Interviewed people that they don't like, without shouting "You lying motherf*cker" at them every ten seconds;

- They allowed opinions to be expressed that angry partisans don't like, and without appending the words "This motherf*cker is lying" on the end and

- Their journalists asked impertinent questions of the partisans' favoured spokespeople.

I see little or no difference between any of these groups in their attitude to the press, to be honest: SNP, Rangers fans, Ukip, Israel/Palestine fanatics, Unionist nutters. For every valid point any of them make, there are a hundred lunatics scanning the BBC's staff roster looking for hacks who are married to politicians, or whatever.

The aim is exactly the same for all of them, though: to make reporting news that these groups don't like an enormous hassle, due to the great mounds of shit that get dumped on them for doing so. It's all about deterrence - making journalists think twice about doing their jobs however they think is best to do it, and to instead worry about saying the wrong thing and enraging a shower of monomaniacs.

And I have to repeat here that it's mighty convenient for these people that it's always the BBC that they wind up attacking, rather than some private news company that will answer back loudly and immediately.

I mean, and this is just the one issue, about people bombarding the BBC. There are plenty of other examples I could use to illustrate my main point, which is this:

If you find yourself e.g. flailing around shouting about how the media have got it in for you and your mates, because they just luuurve the people you hate, then it's probably not BBC Scotland or anyone else that's lost it and gone mental.

It's probably you that's lost any sense of perspective.

[1320Lichtie]

Well, the Rangers thing is just to make a couple of points in context-appropriate terms.

This is a Scottish football website and I'm here talking about a bunch of people who have become wildly paranoid and are wholly convinced that legions of people are conspiring against them, for little or no reason. Rangers are a Scottish football team and its supporters are wholly convinced that legions of people are conspiring against them.

If you'd prefer, just on this BBC thing - I could switch the comparison to Ukip's view of the Beeb, which is more or less equal and opposite to yours. It's also quite comparable with many people's reaction to the recent bombing of Gaza by the Israeli Defence Force, during which diehards of both sides protested outside BBC HQ and bombarded its employees with lunatic accusations that their reporters hanker for the genocide of either the Israelis or the Palestinians. For the right-wing unionist nut version, you could try the Biased BBC blog as a good representative - a proper boobyhatch that's pushes views on the BBC that are just about the precise inverse of yours, even though their basic complaints are pretty much identical.

The result is the same for all such people, though: angry partisans from all sides who are equally convinced that the BBC is appallingly biased against them but, when you actually look at what their objections are, it turns out that they're pissed off because the Beeb

- Interviewed people that they don't like, without shouting "You lying motherf*cker" at them every ten seconds;

- They allowed opinions to be expressed that angry partisans don't like, and without appending the words "This motherf*cker is lying" on the end and

- Their journalists asked impertinent questions of the partisans' favoured spokespeople.

I see little or no difference between any of these groups in their attitude to the press, to be honest: SNP, Rangers fans, Ukip, Israel/Palestine fanatics, Unionist nutters. For every valid point any of them make, there are a hundred lunatics scanning the BBC's staff roster looking for hacks who are married to politicians, or whatever.

The aim is exactly the same for all of them, though: to make reporting news that these groups don't like an enormous hassle, due to the great mounds of shit that get dumped on them for doing so. It's all about deterrence - making journalists think twice about doing their jobs however they think is best to do it, and to instead worry about saying the wrong thing and enraging a shower of monomaniacs.

And I have to repeat here that it's mighty convenient for these people that it's always the BBC that they wind up attacking, rather than some private news company that will answer back loudly and immediately.

I mean, and this is just the one issue, about people bombarding the BBC. There are plenty of other examples I could use to illustrate my main point, which is this:

If you find yourself e.g. flailing around shouting about how the media have got it in for you and your mates, because they just luuurve the people you hate, then it's probably not BBC Scotland or anyone else that's lost it and gone mental.

It's probably you that's lost any sense of perspective.

[welshbairn]

Well, the Rangers thing is just to make a couple of points in context-appropriate terms.

This is a Scottish football website and I'm here talking about a bunch of people who have become wildly paranoid and are wholly convinced that legions of people are conspiring against them, for little or no reason. Rangers are a Scottish football team and its supporters are wholly convinced that legions of people are conspiring against them.

If you'd prefer, just on this BBC thing - I could switch the comparison to Ukip's view of the Beeb, which is more or less equal and opposite to yours. It's also quite comparable with many people's reaction to the recent bombing of Gaza by the Israeli Defence Force, during which diehards of both sides protested outside BBC HQ and bombarded its employees with lunatic accusations that their reporters hanker for the genocide of either the Israelis or the Palestinians. For the right-wing unionist nut version, you could try the Biased BBC blog as a good representative - a proper boobyhatch that's pushes views on the BBC that are just about the precise inverse of yours, even though their basic complaints are pretty much identical.

The result is the same for all such people, though: angry partisans from all sides who are equally convinced that the BBC is appallingly biased against them but, when you actually look at what their objections are, it turns out that they're pissed off because the Beeb

- Interviewed people that they don't like, without shouting "You lying motherf*cker" at them every ten seconds;

- They allowed opinions to be expressed that angry partisans don't like, and without appending the words "This motherf*cker is lying" on the end and

- Their journalists asked impertinent questions of the partisans' favoured spokespeople.

I see little or no difference between any of these groups in their attitude to the press, to be honest: SNP, Rangers fans, Ukip, Israel/Palestine fanatics, Unionist nutters. For every valid point any of them make, there are a hundred lunatics scanning the BBC's staff roster looking for hacks who are married to politicians, or whatever.

The aim is exactly the same for all of them, though: to make reporting news that these groups don't like an enormous hassle, due to the great mounds of shit that get dumped on them for doing so. It's all about deterrence - making journalists think twice about doing their jobs however they think is best to do it, and to instead worry about saying the wrong thing and enraging a shower of monomaniacs.

And I have to repeat here that it's mighty convenient for these people that it's always the BBC that they wind up attacking, rather than some private news company that will answer back loudly and immediately.

I mean, and this is just the one issue, about people bombarding the BBC. There are plenty of other examples I could use to illustrate my main point, which is this:

If you find yourself e.g. flailing around shouting about how the media have got it in for you and your mates, because they just luuurve the people you hate, then it's probably not BBC Scotland or anyone else that's lost it and gone mental.

It's probably you that's lost any sense of perspective.

The BBC took a Londoncentric attitude that the SNP were a bunch of loons like UKIP, ignored the fact they had run a country, competently by most neutrals, and sent instructions to their journalists to go up to Scotland and take the piss. Newsnight in particular were awful, Scotland was the jokey skateboarding duck story after the serious stuff. It wasn't till the polls suggested there might just be a Yes vote in the last week or so, and their neutrality started being seriously questioned, that they started pretending to be remotely balanced.

[git-intae-thum]

Well, the Rangers thing is just to make a couple of points in context-appropriate terms.

This is a Scottish football website and I'm here talking about a bunch of people who have become wildly paranoid and are wholly convinced that legions of people are conspiring against them, for little or no reason. Rangers are a Scottish football team and its supporters are wholly convinced that legions of people are conspiring against them.

If you'd prefer, just on this BBC thing - I could switch the comparison to Ukip's view of the Beeb, which is more or less equal and opposite to yours. It's also quite comparable with many people's reaction to the recent bombing of Gaza by the Israeli Defence Force, during which diehards of both sides protested outside BBC HQ and bombarded its employees with lunatic accusations that their reporters hanker for the genocide of either the Israelis or the Palestinians. For the right-wing unionist nut version, you could try the Biased BBC blog as a good representative - a proper boobyhatch that's pushes views on the BBC that are just about the precise inverse of yours, even though their basic complaints are pretty much identical.

The result is the same for all such people, though: angry partisans from all sides who are equally convinced that the BBC is appallingly biased against them but, when you actually look at what their objections are, it turns out that they're pissed off because the Beeb

- Interviewed people that they don't like, without shouting "You lying motherf*cker" at them every ten seconds;

- They allowed opinions to be expressed that angry partisans don't like, and without appending the words "This motherf*cker is lying" on the end and

- Their journalists asked impertinent questions of the partisans' favoured spokespeople.

I see little or no difference between any of these groups in their attitude to the press, to be honest: SNP, Rangers fans, Ukip, Israel/Palestine fanatics, Unionist nutters. For every valid point any of them make, there are a hundred lunatics scanning the BBC's staff roster looking for hacks who are married to politicians, or whatever.

The aim is exactly the same for all of them, though: to make reporting news that these groups don't like an enormous hassle, due to the great mounds of shit that get dumped on them for doing so. It's all about deterrence - making journalists think twice about doing their jobs however they think is best to do it, and to instead worry about saying the wrong thing and enraging a shower of monomaniacs.

And I have to repeat here that it's mighty convenient for these people that it's always the BBC that they wind up attacking, rather than some private news company that will answer back loudly and immediately.

I mean, and this is just the one issue, about people bombarding the BBC. There are plenty of other examples I could use to illustrate my main point, which is this:

If you find yourself e.g. flailing around shouting about how the media have got it in for you and your mates, because they just luuurve the people you hate, then it's probably not BBC Scotland or anyone else that's lost it and gone mental.

It's probably you that's lost any sense of perspective.

You conveniently ignore the credible academic research done on the practice of BBC bias.

You seem to forget that up until very recently every single major newspaper was pro union.

To suggest that their has been no pro union bias in the Scottish/UK press is ridiculous.

You are in denial.

[oddly optomistic]

If the BBC do get more flack then it is because they are paid for directly by the public. They are supposed to be impartial. Other media outlets are not paid for with a licence fee. People don't get taken to court for refusing to pay for sky.

Whether you believe they are impartial or not is neither here nor there. As we pay for the BBC viewers are entitled to have their say. Or are you arguing that the Beeb doesn't make mistakes and is accountable to no one. I would like to point out that the editorial complaints unit partly upheld complaints against Nick Robinson's report in that when he stated that Salmond didn't answer his question it was misleading. Of course this did not make the headlines. I don't believe in abuse of journalists etc but if there are legitimate concerns with someone's reporting then people should be allowed redress without being dismissed as paranoid mobs. Lets face it the Beeb has covered up lots in the past. The more scrutiny it gets the better

[AUFC90]

Needless to say I disagree with your assessment about the BBC, but if you will hear me out I will try to explain. For the record I am not one of the people you describe. I would never picket anything although I will admit to waving a flag on occasion. For avoidance of doubt there are many journalists within the BBC who are excellent at their jobs, others not so, but isn't that true for every workplace. Some get a hard time unfairly. James Cook being the most recent example of that when he made an error and then as soon as he realised he made an error reported as such. James Cook let us not forget was the man that live on air suggested that Johann Lamont's political career had been a waste of time. A few others no longer hide what side they are on. But that does not in any way shape or form mean they should be hounded in the way that they have been.

I admit that many people out there cannot see the wood for the trees, and will jump on every opportunity to put the boot into anyone who doesn't toe their line, but you have them on both sides and they are in the minority.

What I want from the media is balanced reporting. I accept that the person writing or reading an article may not share the same view as me, but as long as they tell both sides of the story then I am happy with that, and if it isn't what I want to hear then so be it as long as it is accurate. The BBC is in the position of legally having to have impartiality. Unfortunately for them BBC Scotland is intrinsically linked to the Labour Party in Scotland. There are numerous examples of links, but for the purposes of this argument, the head of BBC Scotland news is none other than Susan Deacon's Partner. I can't find it just now, but if you search hard enough their is a family tree of Scottish Labour and their links to BBC Scotland.

There was research done by a Professor in his field that conclusively proved that the BBC Scotland and STV had a pro union slant during the referendum. This study was done using methodology that had been praised elsewhere when it was utilised. The BBC then tried to destroy the guy that did the research, with some pretty underhand tactics. For balance STV took on board the criticism.

On the flip side had the BBC been in favour of independence and had a pro independence slant to their news reporting, I would have equally been as critical of them. It is for this reason I don't buy the National or the Sunday Herald or indeed tend to read them.

You keep going on about bullies and the likes. I have come across literally no one who is like this within the party. I have met a few who perhaps need to improve their networking and marketing skills and I have met a few from outwith the party who perhaps cannot see that people have an opposing view, but again this is the tiny minority of people. Dare I say you are believing the press too much?

Whether you believe me or not is entirely up to you but if you keep trying to pull parallels with Rangers all of the time, you will simply paint yourself as a bitter Celtic Fan whose life revolves around an obsessive hatred of Rangers.

He is a bitter Celtic fan though. That's clear to see.