The BBC, Other Media Outlets and the Scottish Press
Black propaganda, authorised by the Westminster government, is routinely used by the BBC, other media outlets and the Scottish Press to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent those in Scotland who support Scottish independence.
Media Bias against Scottish Independence
The coverage of political events in Scotland’s press and television is devastatingly fraudulent so far as unbiased reporting is concerned. This is primarily due to the right wing policies of their owners and the adverse impact of the companies that place their advertising with the various media outputs.
Without advertising revenue, or state funding in the case of the BBC and Channel 4 many newspapers and the BBC Channel 4 would very quickly fold.
The foregoing indisputable fact completely dismantles any concept of democracy in the UK and subjects Scots to a society ruled by financial oligopoly’s interested only in the furtherance of an insatiable greed determined to ensure an accumulation of wealth to themselves and those to whom they might have an obligation.
But the present unsatisfactory state of affairs was not always the way in which the press went about its business. In times past the press and the BBC were much admired because of the plurality of opinion they brought to the nation.
The coverage of daily newsworthy events was indeed superb and senior political journalists were placed highly in society due to their unbiased delivery of news matters and political comment.
No politician or political party was ever given a cosy slanted bedtime interview which is often the case nowadays. Perhaps the most factor was that Editorial output was never driven by an need to satisfy the Advertising Department.
Scotland, up to the late seventies enjoyed a media largely free of unfettered bias, although there was always a right and left wing political banter for the nation to enjoy each day.
The Times (the voice of the UK) was a newspaper considered to be above political persuasion committing only the truth to print. All other newspapers served their readership dependant on their political stance but journalists would always demand of their editors that their copy would be presented to the readership nearly always unaltered so that their words would be presented accurately.
The Impact of Thatcher and Murdoch
The demise of the British press started at around the time Margaret Thatcher and the ultra right wing Tory party took up the reigns of government.
She adored Ronald Reagan and embracing the ideals of the Americans forced change on UK society. Overnight large tracts of the population of England dumped the British way of life and embraced with an indecent haste the “dog eat dog” approach actively promoted by the Tory party.
Scotland rebuffed Thatcher and her drive to create a Kingdom full of “Gordon Greco’s” preferring to retain political systems driven by the desire to ensure communities would always be at the forefront of individual thought.
An example is The Blood Transfusion Service. In England and in Scotland the Services had, up to 1980 been self sufficient in the collection of blood from volunteers within the community. The bulk of companies placed their facilities at the disposal of the service free of charge and allowed staff to be away from work to give their donation.
Very quickly after the election of the Tory Party to power things changed in England. Employers became increasingly reluctant to release their staff and free use of facilities markedly dried up.
The Blood Transfusion Service in England & Wales failed to collect enough blood and the NHS in England was forced to import blood and blood products from abroad, primarily the US, (and the problems that brought with it) who collected much of their blood from paid donors. Just at the time the Aids epidemic hit the world.
Scotland remained self sufficient in blood and blood products until the md- 1990’s due to the retention of the community ideal, until this was overtaken by the spread of the Thatcher Dogma.
The introduction of the press baron, Rupert Murdoch, his British American Society cohorts, and the secret service agencies of the UK and the USA was akin to releasing Dracula on a blood bank.
He purchased a poorly performing Sun newspaper and converted it into a “slick chick” rag with an approach radically at odds with the mainline press in the UK.
Page three photographs of topless young ladies, (often paid around £50 for the shoot) and similar pleasurable, superficial and erotically titillating headlines dominated its coverage.
He then followed up purchasing the News of the World, introducing “sex expose” headlines requiring access and financial persuasion of the protectors of society releasing information that would not normally have been in the public domain.
Not content he went on to purchase “The Times” and almost overnight destroyed its reputation for unbiased reporting of news and politics.
The final act of political vandalism supported by Thatcher was Murdoch’s destruction of “Fleet Street” which brought about the situation which is of relevance today.
Many newspapers followed Murdoch’s lead and went for American ownership and the US dollar. It is therefore the needs, foibles and vices of the US that are driving UK press policies today.
The search for the truth no longer occupy’s the thoughts and actions of News Editors. It has been replaced with a driving force of “media control” ensuring the public is provided with news copy heavily slanted in favour of the politics of the news Barons and whichever government holds the reins of power in Westminster and the US.
The widespread and increasing failings of the BBC as an organisation reporting political and world events independent of government
BBC senior management in Scotland, an anti-independence Scottish press and a UK body corporate are determined upon the elimination of anything Scottish in the mantra of the Scottish electorate support policies only wholly favourable to the Westminster government.
This was demonstrated at the time of the Scottish referendum by the much reduced role required of BBC Scotland, Scottish journalists and the very expensive transfer from England to BBC Scotland of (British American Society), right wing political presenters Sarah Smith and James Naughtie who in the course of their secondment contributed, by their performances in the course of the referendum coverage to the biased reporting against the Yes campaign.
Paul Mason: BBC Newsnight’s former economics editor who is now at Channel 4 News said “Not since Iraq have I seen BBC News working at propaganda strength like this. So glad I’m out of there,”
On Twitter, he posted a link to a U-Tube 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.”
In recent weeks appeasement policies in favour of the government were given a further boost with the controversial appointment of Laura Kuenssberg to the post of BBC Political Editor replacing Nick Robinson. Kuenssberg, whom I have written about in my blog:
.…………. is a right wing, lightweight, opinionated, increasingly nasty political interviewer who follows the lead of her mentor, Andrew Neil – the BBC’s other very senior political commentator who, by chance is a former Murdoch employee and current Chairman of Press Holdings (viz the Spectator and the Barclay Brothers).
So at the very top of the political journalism tree of the BBC there are two ultra right-wing journalists. Kuenssberg and Neil are also Scots, so the anti Scottish independence bias is assured through all aspects of the BBC’s political coverage.
17 February 2015: The naked power of HSBC – Why I have resigned from the Telegraph -Peter Oborne – former chief political commentator of the Telegraph
This brings me to a second and even more important point that bears not just on the fate of one newspaper but on public life as a whole. A free press is essential to a healthy democracy.
There is a purpose to journalism, and it is not just to entertain. It is not to pander to political power, big corporations and rich men. Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth.
It is not only the Telegraph that is at fault here. The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy executives who determine what truths can and what truths can’t be conveyed across the mainstream media.
The criminality of News International newspapers during the phone hacking years was a particularly grotesque example of this wholly malign phenomenon. All the newspaper groups, bar the magnificent exception of the Guardian, maintained a culture of omerta around phone-hacking, even if (like the Telegraph) they had not themselves been involved.
One of the consequences of this conspiracy of silence was the appointment of Andy Coulson, who has since been jailed and now faces further charges of perjury, as director of communications in 10 Downing Street.
Last week I made another discovery. Three years ago the Telegraph investigations team—the same lot who carried out the superb MPs’ expenses investigation—received a tip off about accounts held with HSBC in Jersey.
Essentially this investigation was similar to the Panorama investigation into the Swiss banking arm of HSBC. After three months research the Telegraph resolved to publish. Six articles on this subject can now be found online, between 8 and 15 November 2012, although three are not available to view.
Thereafter no fresh reports appeared. Reporters were ordered to destroy all emails, reports and documents related to the HSBC investigation. I have now learnt, in a remarkable departure from normal practice, that at this stage lawyers for the Barclay brothers became closely involved. When I asked the Telegraph why the Barclay brothers were involved, it declined to comment.
This was the pivotal moment. From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged. HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph. Its account, I have been told by an extremely well informed insider, was extremely valuable.
HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me, is “the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend”. HSBC today refused to comment when I asked whether the bank’s decision to stop advertising with the Telegraph was connected in any way with the paper’s investigation into the Jersey accounts.
Winning back the HSBC advertising account became an urgent priority. It was eventually restored after approximately 12 months. Executives say that Murdoch MacLennan was determined not to allow any criticism of the international bank. “He would express concern about headlines even on minor stories,” says one former Telegraph journalist. “Anything that mentioned money-laundering was just banned, even though the bank was on a final warning from the US authorities. This interference was happening on an industrial scale.
“An editorial operation that is clearly influenced by advertising is classic appeasement. Once a very powerful body know they can exert influence they know they can come back and threaten you. It totally changes the relationship you have with them. You know that even if you are robust you won’t be supported and will be undermined.” When I sent detailed questions to the Telegraph about its connections with advertisers, the paper gave the following response. “Your questions are full of inaccuracies, and we do not therefore intend to respond to them. More generally, like any other business, we never comment on individual commercial relationships, but our policy is absolutely clear. We aim to provide all our commercial partners with a range of advertising solutions, but the distinction between advertising and our award-winning editorial operation has always been fundamental to our business. We utterly refute any allegation to the contrary.”
The evidence suggests otherwise, and the consequences of the Telegraph’s recent soft coverage of HSBC may have been profound. Would Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have been much more energetic in its own recent investigations into wide-scale tax avoidance, had the Telegraph continued to hold HSBC to account after its 2012 investigation? There are great issues here. They go to the heart of our democracy, and can no longer be ignored.
11 thoughts on “The BBC – Scottish Press and Other Media – Exist to Further the Policies of the Westminster Elite”
What puzzles me is how amateurish the whole propoganda thing is. There seems a sublime belief constantly telling the sames lie will work. But the days when a bloke like you, writing rebutals and handing out leaflets on a street corner have vanished.
I suspect Scottish politico’s are terrified of yourself, Wings and the rest of the gang who cough politely and raise an eyebrow. Quite probably this terror has let to the shambolic incompetence we saw today at FMQ where the opposition ‘leaders” are really the a never ending flow of spanners in the hope that one of them jams in the works.
One question I keep asking myself as I attempt to remain unbiased.
I stay in Argyll. How would I react if Argyll tried to opt out of Scotland and declare itself an independent principality like Luxembourg, Monaco, Lichtenstein, or the other one between France and Spain.
Could I resort to the tactics of ucock or however it is written. I don’t think so as an argument won on the strength of lies is an argument which will eventually fail.
The Union of Scotland and England was founded on lies, betrayal and the brutal enslavement of the people of Scotland. Having cleared half the population off their land and transported them to the colonys the English Royalty and their Earls and Lords proceeded to share out scotland creating huge estates within which they enjoyed the life of the Raj for the next 300 years. Tiring of the fun the same people sold off their ill-gotten lands to any foreigner that had the money to burn. Almost half of the land in Scotland is owned by under 50 absent landlords who retain their properties free of people in favour of good hunting stock for the enjoyment of their friends and customers who pay big bucks for a couple of weeks hunting. The Union, as the English view it has never existed except in the minds of self serving Earls, Lords and politicians
About 15 years ago, I wrote a masterpiece about the fight for an independent Scotland. Not a single publisher would touch it and I eventually decided it was probably self delusional crap as surely it could not be percieved as anti-england.
Three years ago submitted it to Kindle and forgot all about it as I’d more interesting things developing (leukaemia – still alive mostly – grin).
Received a few royalty cheques and finally got around to reading reviews on Amazon. Now wondering if the lack of publisher interest was more to do with content rather than ability. Absolutely hate any conspiracy theory nonsense but could it really be the case there is an automatic anti-indie Scotland amongst the English?
Out of interest, have you ever read anything about the Act of Demission and Deed of Separation. I bought a scroll at auction for literally a couple of quid in 2006 and was motivated to discover why 400+ Scottish clergy were signing this. Stunned I’d managed to be born, bred, and taught in Scotland yet knew nothing of this event.
O’ the trials and tribulations of Mary, Queen of Scots. Betrayed by her own brother who had designs on the throne. Persuaded to return to Scotland. A Church of Rome subject at the time the Protestants were in the ascendancy in Scotland. Her choice of suiters was poor since almost to a man they were simply after her money and power. The “act of demission” was signed by Mary when she was a prisoner in Loch Leven Castle. It transferred power and the throne to her son James. She attempted to have the act set aside after she escaped from Loch Leven but this was refused at the time she was recaptured. A newly presented document the “deed of Separation” was signed off by Mary so that she would be allowed to leave Scotland for ever. Control of Scotland was transferred to a Regent and the church. I think he was the Earl of Moray. The separation ensured she would never return to Scotland she had revoked any claim on the throne of Scotland.
There was the added difficulty in Mary’s life that was Good Queen Bess. Elizabeth1 was not the rightful heir to the throne of England since Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn (Elizabeth’s mother) was not recognised by the Church of Rome. The rightful heir to the throne was Mary Queen of Scots whose grandfather was Henry vii. This is the real reason Elizabeth arranged the murder of mary. Nasty bitch was she not. And the trait continues.
Act of Demission and Deed of Separation aka Act of Separation and Deed of Demission.
The scroll has Demission written with the germanic Demiffion and it messes with my head.
Nope, that isn’t the one. I hate posting links but http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/hilladamson/disruptionpicture/ features a scroll I bought for eighty quid.
Imagine 474 blokes, in 1843, making themselves (and their family) homeless, peniless, jobless, because they stood against the establishment appointing local ministers for the Church of Scotland. This was a really big deal and kinda makes the Tolpuddle Martryrs look like beginners. But guess which I remember from school?
I paid eighty quid for a scroll with all their signatures. Fool stop.
The birth of the Wee Free’s. I was aware of the animosity in the church around that time and the eventual split. Fire and Brimstone was thrown from the pulpit of many a wee free church which did not suit the mainstream church. Most of them ended up in ministry in the Isles and in Northern Ireland.
Importantly, it WAS NOT the birth of the Wee Free. That took until 1925 or so when the fundiemundiealmentalntists crawled out. This event was quite simple, the CoS saying no to the state.
(I’ve WeeFree family and apparently know the distinction. But nephews are Harry Potter literate so sometimes wonder how fundamental they actually are.)
I see what you mean about the history of Scotland. The subject you raised is new to me. I cannot remember being told about differences in the Church of Scotland being so bad. I always thought John Knox and his ilkhad it all firmly nailed down.
Oborne’s book, the Rise of Political Lying is an eye opener. Oborne is an unrepentant right winger and he does tend to concentrate on the Blair Process whilst mentioning and gliding over the Thatcher equivalent.
He portrays Blair as someone who lies through his teeth as a narmel trait, even if the truth could be easier and more beneficial. His justification if that he was doing for the righteous good, which takes us into his religious journey, but not here.
All the UK political parties have been sucked into that way of thinking and it has become the modus operandi of Westminster and in Holyrood the unionist cohort. Remarkable, and not a healthy state for democracy or our society; RBS (etc), VW, the City.
I do not agree with Oborne’s political views but I admired his display of courage under fire. His resignation did send the message that he was a man of principle.
Tony Blair is untrustworthy. His stay in politics was a lie foisted on the electorate by himself to gain and retain power for his own ends. His reign has blighted the Labour Party and rendered it unelectable for many years. One aspect of his character I made note of was his claim throughout his premiership that he was a committed member of the Church of England so that he would be able to retain the role of Prime Minister which required him to advise the queen on who should be appointed to senior roles in the church. Two minutes out the door and he was kneeling before the Pope in Rome seeking his blessing and permission to join the Church of Rome. An arrangement in place many months before the event.