Daisley binned

[doulikefish]

A Twitter account with swearing in it?  I'll inform the church elders.  There are dozens of accounts like that on Twitter relating to politics.

I don't think an MP poring over a journalist giving a follow recommendation to a photoshop account is normal, although when you consider the way politics is going maybe it is.

Photoshop account?

[ICTChris]

5 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

Photoshop account?

Isn't Brian Spanner mainly a photoshop account?  Even if it wasn't, tweeting that you should follow an account that some people find objectionable is hardly a cardinal sin, or a sin at all. 

 

[doulikefish]

Isn't Brian Spanner mainly a photoshop account?  Even if it wasn't, tweeting that you should follow an account that some people find objectionable is hardly a cardinal sin, or a sin at all. 

 

Nope its real,dont you follow mr spanner?

[ICTChris]

2 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

Nope its real,dont you follow mr spanner?

I follow far too many accounts.  I know it's real, I mean that it was account that tweeted photoshops, like the General Boles account.

The pearl-clutching horror shown by so many about Brian Spanner is fairly over-egged I think.

 

ETA - He follows me!  Am I part of the plot now?

[doulikefish]

I follow far too many accounts.  I know it's real, I mean that it was account that tweeted photoshops, like the General Boles account.

The pearl-clutching horror shown by so many about Brian Spanner is fairly over-egged I think.

 

ETA - He follows me!  Am I part of the plot now?

Nope but im sure youll agree nicolson calling out(in a nice john nicolson way) a so called fair and balanced journo was only right and proper after he abused lamont/black etc etc

[invergowrie arab]

25 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Isn't Brian Spanner mainly a photoshop account?  Even if it wasn't, tweeting that you should follow an account that some people find objectionable is hardly a cardinal sin, or a sin at all. 

 

Do you know the difference between a broadcast journalist and commentator or essay writer for a paper and what they are allowed to say?

It seems the grey area between broadcast and the digital arm of a broadcaster is one neither Daisley or STV had really thought through. Wishart and Nicolson quite right to point it out. It seems STV have now appreciated that nuance.

There also might just be the possibility that STV thought he was a shite troll.

[Fide]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

He hasn't been critique'd back, he appears to have been removed from writing comment pieces.  That's different to being critiqued or receiving abuse or anything like that.  Your post sounds like something want to say about the media rather than addressing this issue.

 

I was talking about the media in general in my response.  I would have thought that was obvious.  And I'm not alone in thinking that way.

And for a guy who tries "to keep away from Scottish politics online", you've fairly got your finger on the old pulse.

[Colkitto]

He should have been binned for the "hunky Jim" stuff during indyref1 alone. Fekin embarrassing! 

[ICTChris]

Do you know the difference between a broadcast journalist and commentator or essay writer for a paper and what they are allowed to say?

It seems the grey area between broadcast and the digital arm of a broadcaster is one neither Daisley or STV had really thought through. Wishart and Nicolson quite right to point it out. It seems STV have now appreciated that nuance.

There also might just be the possibility that STV thought he was a shite troll.

Stephen Daisley's articles, which are what this story is about, weren't broadcast, they were comment pieces that appeared on the STV website. As far as I know STV still carry comment pieces on their website. Also, plenty of broadcast journalists have had opinion columns - Jeff Randall and Adam Boulton both did while working for Sky News. There's also many journalists whose political views are no secret working in the broadcast media, Jon Snow, Andrew Marr, Andrew Neil.

I suppose there might be a grey area about this though. Do you think that a closed door meeting between two MPs and a broadcaster is the best way to deal with it? I think there's a big problem with that - no oversight, no safeguards against the state overstepping its mark. If Daisley broke a rule or overstepped the line then there should be a process to deal with that, not a quiet word with his boss.

Aside from those concerns anyone cheering the idea of a hack being benched after a quiet word from an MP should be careful what they wish for. What your good guys do today, your opponents will do tomorrow. As Alex Salmond precipitously said oppositions tend to become governments. How would you feel if First Minister Davidson had Ponsonby or McWhirter sidelined in a couple of years?

[ICTChris]

He should have been binned for the "hunky Jim" stuff during indyref1 alone. Fekin embarrassing! 

Jim Murph-bae.

[mjw]

How would you feel if First Minister Davidson had Ponsonby or McWhirter sidelined in a couple of years?

Stunned.
Probably.

[ICTChris]

Stunned.
Probably.

Me too but I probably wouldn't have predicted the SNP winning an outright majority in Holyrood, winning 95% of Westminster seats, Scottish Labour finishing behind the Tories, Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, the UK leaving the EU, Trump being Republican candidate, the Lib Dems being in government and then in the wilderness.

The only event I would have confidently predicted in politics in the last few years was Ad Lib losing.

[invergowrie arab]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

 

Stephen Daisley's articles, which are what this story is about, weren't broadcast, they were comment pieces that appeared on the STV website. As far as I know STV still carry comment pieces on their website. Also, plenty of broadcast journalists have had opinion columns - Jeff Randall and Adam Boulton both did while working for Sky News. There's also many journalists whose political views are no secret working in the broadcast media, Jon Snow, Andrew Marr, Andrew Neil.

I suppose there might be a grey area about this though. Do you think that a closed door meeting between two MPs and a broadcaster is the best way to deal with it? I think there's a big problem with that - no oversight, no safeguards against the state overstepping its mark. If Daisley broke a rule or overstepped the line then there should be a process to deal with that, not a quiet word with his boss.




 

 

It doesn't matter whether or not they were broadcast it's to do with the license STV hold as a broadcaster.

Anyone can be a broadcast journalist and write opinion pieces in the papers or on their personal twitters. They just can't do it whilst representing the broadcaster. 

Daisley has used his STV account as his personal vehicle for everything from Israel, abortion, domestic politics and military intervention in the middle east. It's all been quite bizarre.

You are right though there should be ways to deal with that. First should be the Stv bosses should monitor their output across all media to make sure they are compliant with their broadcast  license. There are also ways in which STV or any other broadcaster could be formally investigated. A quick word in the ear of the organisation to remind them of their obligations seems to me to be more satisfactory than a formal investigation.

Are you suggesting MPs shouldn't act upon complaints about the ways public or licensed bodies are behaving for fear of being accused of political interference?

Of course the above is just a discussion point as both wishart and nicolson deny speaking about Daisley in particular.

[Ad Lib]

4 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

Do you know the difference between a broadcast journalist and commentator or essay writer for a paper and what they are allowed to say?

It seems the grey area between broadcast and the digital arm of a broadcaster is one neither Daisley or STV had really thought through. Wishart and Nicolson quite right to point it out. It seems STV have now appreciated that nuance.

There also might just be the possibility that STV thought he was a shite troll.

There is no grey area. If it appears on your television it's broadcast media. If it doesn't, it's not. Stephen Daisley and the web arm of STV are not editorially accountable to the broadcast arm and none of the content people like Wishart or Nicholson complained about involved anything that was broadcast on STV or STV Glasgow or STV Edinburgh. In fact, in Wishart's case at least (can't remember for Nicholson) he was literally complaining about a Tweet posted from Daisley's personal twitter account. STV's non broadcast output is under zero obligation to be impartial, neutral or fair towards anyone. The STV website should be held to no higher a standard than something like the New Statesman or Buzzfeed.

Anyone who thinks that Stephen Daisley's columns on Scottish nationalism, Gaelic, abortion and the Israel Palestine conflict represent the views of STV need their head examined. Anyone who thinks that STV has a corporate position on any of those things needs their head examined.

[Ad Lib]

1 hour ago, invergowrie arab said:

It doesn't matter whether or not they were broadcast it's to do with the license STV hold as a broadcaster.

Anyone can be a broadcast journalist and write opinion pieces in the papers or on their personal twitters. They just can't do it whilst representing the broadcaster. 

Daisley has used his STV account as his personal vehicle for everything from Israel, abortion, domestic politics and military intervention in the middle east. It's all been quite bizarre.

You are right though there should be ways to deal with that. First should be the Stv bosses should monitor their output across all media to make sure they are compliant with their broadcast  license. There are also ways in which STV or any other broadcaster could be formally investigated. A quick word in the ear of the organisation to remind them of their obligations seems to me to be more satisfactory than a formal investigation.

Are you suggesting MPs shouldn't act upon complaints about the ways public or licensed bodies are behaving for fear of being accused of political interference?

Of course the above is just a discussion point as both wishart and nicolson deny speaking about Daisley in particular.

1. Broadcast licences restrict literally nothing that you put on a news website.

2. Stephen Daisley speaks for himself and himself alone on any and all comment pieces published in his name on the STV website. Even as a matter of defamation law STV would only be liable to the extent they failed to remove, retract or clarify on a complaint being made against an offending piece.

Therefore this entire post is irrelevant nonsense.
End.

[Ad Lib]

Honestly, invoking the broadcasting licence here is like saying a doctor shouldn't be allowed to encourage a family member in respect of whom they're not acting as a clinician to smoke cigars with them at Christmas because when wearing a completely different hat they have duties of care to completely unrelated people with respect to giving good advice on how to prevent respiratory problems.

[ICTChris]

44 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

It doesn't matter whether or not they were broadcast it's to do with the license STV hold as a broadcaster.

Anyone can be a broadcast journalist and write opinion pieces in the papers or on their personal twitters. They just can't do it whilst representing the broadcaster. 

Daisley has used his STV account as his personal vehicle for everything from Israel, abortion, domestic politics and military intervention in the middle east. It's all been quite bizarre.

The license that STV hold as a broadcaster is subject to the Ofcom code.  I don't think the code says that they can't do it while "representing the broadcaster" - I'm not an expert in Ofcom so obviously am willing to be corrected on that. Given that the pieces were marked as 'comment' and 'analysis' and were clearly personal opinion I don't think anyone would think that Daisley was suggesting that his articles were the view of STV.  

There are plenty of examples of other broadcasters whose staff write comment pieces on the websites - Al Jazeera have opinion pieces written by their correspondents, Jon Snow writes a blog on the Channel 4 website.  If this had been a breach of the broadcast license I think it would have been dealt with much more quickly - Daisley had been writing articles for years.  I doubt that STV are so incompetent that they'd risk their broadcast license over something like this.

 

Quote

 

You are right though there should be ways to deal with that. First should be the Stv bosses should monitor their output across all media to make sure they are compliant with their broadcast  license. There are also ways in which STV or any other broadcaster could be formally investigated. A quick word in the ear of the organisation to remind them of their obligations seems to me to be more satisfactory than a formal investigation.

Are you suggesting MPs shouldn't act upon complaints about the ways public or licensed bodies are behaving for fear of being accused of political interference?

Of course the above is just a discussion point as both wishart and nicolson deny speaking about Daisley in particular.

 

I completely disagree with what you say here - "A quick word in the ear of the organisation to remind them of their obligations seems to me to be more satisfactory than a formal investigation".  If regulatory controls aren't exercised in an open and transparent way then there's no point in having them.  In fact a regulator that doesn't deal with things in an open way is worse, far far worse, than having no regulation at all.  The idea that the best way to deal with a dispute about the content of journalism or a potential breach of the broadcast code is behind closed doors, with no oversight, with no-one being held accountable for what's said, is bizarre.  It's also unfair - if I had a problem with a story on the STV website or that they had broadcast I can't demand a meeting with their board and give them a talking to.  I have a (distant) relative who made a complaint about a newspaper article he was the the subject of, he went to the then Press Complains Commission who investigated and ruled on it (they threw it out, rightly so).  He did that because he couldn't phone up the editor of the News of the World  If you have a system of "quiet words" and "private chats" then you create a huge imbalance, not to mention leaving the system open to abuse by politicians.

That moves onto your second point about MPs acting upon complaints from constituents - they can use the proper channels and procedures.  MPs can complain via Ofcom the same as others, they can help their constituents do so, they can ask questions in Parliament or write to MInisters.  These are all open and transparent.  

 

[invergowrie arab]

Shut up the SNP are the best.

[invergowrie arab]

Oh well fair enough. You learn something new every day.

I see C4 also do presenter blogs online.

If it is not a regulatory issue though I still think that shows STV are just embarrassed about his rig wing crap.

[Ad Lib]

1 minute ago, invergowrie arab said:

Oh well fair enough. You learn something new every day.

I see C4 also do presenter blogs online.

If it is not a regulatory issue though I still think that shows STV are just embarrassed about his rig wing crap.

Don't you think it's a *bit* of a coincidence that his "evolved" role coincides with a 1 month period in which both Wishart and Nicholson complained about him, not even with respect to his actual comment articles but a personal twitter account, when he's been writing "right wing crap" for easily two years now on their platform?