Thursday, November 16, 2017

A gentle hint: this kind of behaviour doesn't just bring journalism into disrepute, it turns journalism into a laughing-stock

Those of you on Twitter are probably well aware that there's a Herald journalist called David Leask who is notorious for being the least tolerant person you could ever encounter.  It's almost comical - he's literally blocked every single person who's ever interacted with him unless they've unreservedly agreed with his own worldview in each and every microscopic particular.  He has no self-awareness at all about how this behaviour reveals him to have a sinister, mildly fascist mindset (I use the word 'fascist' advisedly - defined in part as 'no tolerance for opposing opinions') and indeed he advertises what he is doing quite openly - after most blockings he 'names and shames' the offending person and states his 'reason' for blocking, which in most cases is silly beyond all belief.  He carries on doing this without any understanding of the immense harm he's doing to his own reputation - and by extension to the reputation of his profession - because, you've guessed it, he's already blocked anyone who is capable of being a candid friend to him and taking him to one side.

Over the years I've been on Twitter, I've watched in genuine astonishment as practically everyone I know, across all shades of pro-independence opinion, has been blocked by Leask, often after interacting with him very respectfully on just one single occasion.  Being aware of his antics, I began to regard it as a game to see if I could end up as just about the only non-sycophant left that he hasn't blocked, simply by permanently ignoring him.  However, over the last few days he has lost the plot even by his own high standards.  Because of his hardline views about Russian-funded media in the UK, he's taken to declaring that anyone who defends Alex Salmond's association with RT cannot by definition be part of the 'real SNP' or share the values of the 'real independence movement' (a jaw-dropping piece of conceit given that Leask is not actually in the indy camp).  This naturally means that Salmond himself, the man who led the Yes campaign in the indyref and has been leader of the SNP for almost one-quarter of its entire existence, is not 'real SNP' or 'real pro-indy'.  I'd humbly submit that is quite possibly the most embarrassing argument ever put forward by any professional journalist who does not work for the Express.


So I finally cracked.  I decided a more interesting game than ignoring Leask would be to see if I could gently challenge him by making a point that is practically irrefutable, and come away without being blocked.  The result, I'm afraid, was all too predictable.


Remember that the above tweet is the only time, in eight years as a Twitter user, that I've ever interacted with the guy.

Try the game yourself.  Go on, it's fun.  Say to him: "It's Thursday, David", and ten seconds later he'll publicly execute you with the words "Blocked for denying it's always Wednesday".

Ladies and gentlemen, I give to you the one and only Mr David Leask.  

36 comments:

  1. So, what reason did he give for blocking you? Actually, if you're blocked I suppose you won't be able to see his reason for blocking you.

    I can't find anything in his timeline.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does he block and then publish his blocklist complete with instructions? FWIW, both block me for god knows what!

      Delete
    2. Perhaps David is not so widely read/followed on twitter, for that to be considered worthwhile.

      Delete
  2. For many years I sat in various press boxes in Scotland beside a particular Herald journalist. Then, I got a new job and didn't see him for a while. When we met, I asked how things were at the Herald nd he replied: "Not good, but, I think there are still more of us on the staff who still care, than those who don't care."

    Shortly afterwards he had to take early retirement, subsequently passing from Cancer. I feel, in the person of Leask today, we can deduce - there are no longer enough staff at the Herald who still care.

    ReplyDelete
  3. James - you're doing this all wrong.

    Let me help you understand.

    You should not at all EVER challenge David Leask because - well because he's a Unionist journalist and Unionist journalists are ALWAYS right. Their worldview cannot ever be challenged because it is the infallible truth.

    Why can't you understand that simple, obvious fact? Over and above which, you have absolutely ZERO right to challenge a Herald journalist. It's not fair and it's definitely not cricket. How dare you!

    I hope you now have a better understanding of how this all works.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm blocked and I have NO idea why. I can't even recall ever commenting on some rubbish he'd Tweeted. He's an odd man.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't do Twitter and I have never heard of this chap, I stopped taking the Herald some time ago, so I consider myself fortunate. I will never see his pish :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wish someone would ask him in stark terms if he and Tom Gordon will publicily protest\tender their resignations if the Herald or wider Newsquest stable spend any money sending journos to Russia to cover World Cup 2018 aka Putin's Kickabout?

    The award to Russia was itself mired in controversy with the BBC subsequently spending millions acquiring rights to its coverage (and will send over 250 staff). In **anyones** language outside of issues linked to sporting value and integrity; the hosting of this tournament is second only to the Olympics in terms of the rest of the world endorsing and legitimising the international standing of the recipient nation-state, its credentials as a polity, and of its leadership. It is an exercise in soft power that makes Salmond's RT sojourn more damp squib than Molotov Cocktail. If Leask, Gordon et al *do not* resign as a result of the Herald's undoubtedly significant coverage of Russia 2018, they will be shown-up as the bigoted dog-whistle hypocrites we know them to be.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In his bio Leask claims to have attended Воронежский Государственный Университет / Voronezh State University Russian Language and Literature 1988. Afterwards for a number of years he did many translations working for a Russian publishing firm, an arm of the Kremlin. Why is he now antipathetic to Russia?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was a really mediocre student in Russian, and basically disliked and avoided me as I was much better than he was. I took great pleasure in showing him up at every opportunity.

      Delete
    2. A bit like his performance now then? If you show him up he blocks !

      Delete
  8. He was in some of my Russian classes at Glasgow Uni in the late 80s and I found him an utterly pretentious tosser. No change there then.

    ReplyDelete
  9. He blocked me before I even heard of him. Then he unblocked me just as mysteriously. But I find the worst blockers are always journalists. Like Andrew Neil. It's a sign of an overinflated and fragile ego.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mr Leask was in some of my Russian classes at Glasgow Uni in the late 80s and I found him to be an utterly pretentious tosser - no change there then.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I stopped buying the Herald years ago and don't look at it's website, but I've seen this Leask character's tweets here and there. I didn't realise he was a journalist - I just presumed he was a Mr Angry sitting in his pants and vest in front of the TV cheering along with Jeremy Kyle's studio audience.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The funniest part of all this, is that it is exactly this kind of behaviour that has convinced me (and I'm sure most people on here) that Scotland's media is not fit for purpose.

    AND it is exactly this reason why most of us will support RT from now on to make the Alex Salmond Show a huge success.

    This is why Leaski or whatever his name is is fuming, because if this show is successful, it will give fuel to the fire that is currently burning for Alex to take over the Scotsman

    and if or rather WHEN the Scotsman is a success under Alex, it will kill off the Herald stone dead.

    Because most people will switch away from their half-hearted (until near election time) attempts at being a pro SNP outlet, and switch to the Scotsman, costing the Herald lost sales and lost revenue streams.

    The Herald is already hanging by the skin of its teeth, they simply couldn't compete with genuinely fair and balanced journalism.

    poor Leaksy...oh well, never mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roden, what a long winded useless nat si loser you are.

      Delete
    2. ooohhh, I seem to have struck a cord...

      Pleasing :-)

      Delete
  13. Seems the Nat sis do not like the Herald! They must be pissin you fash aff.
    Kim Yung Eck is Scottish so why has he joined a Russian propaganda TV channnel.
    If the Cold War was not ended he would be arrested. The Lord Haw Haw of Radio Moscow.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To be know henceforth as Lord Haw Haw of Salmund.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Meanwhile Leasky's bestest girlfriend won Scottish Politician of the Year for being a racist, sectarian bigot who personally selected a child abuser to be a councillor. Well done her.

    And turned up wearing the same black overstuffed sausage skin thing. Must be her only dress poor cow. You'd think she could afford more than one. Especially given how much she saves on make-up and haircuts compared to normal girls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds interesting but you do not do names! Nat si coward.

      Delete
    2. In a normal country it would be amazing that a hapless soul like Rape Clause Ruth would be chosen as Politician of the Year.

      Delete
    3. 'nat si.' Such waspish Wildean wit. One stunning, simply STUNNING piece of wordplay in a whole lifetime is a proud achievement. Laughable. Betrays the writer of it as a total dunce. And I'm not even an SNP member.

      Delete
  16. For some bizarre reason for the first time in lears Leasky unblocked me. I don't think it will last long considering my response to his truly mind-boggling tweets supposedly defending the integrity of the Yes movement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nat sis have no integrity. Your argument was false and based on hatred of the English. You do not have the gumption to admit you hate the English and that is why you got gubbed in the referendum. Just admit it you fascists will crawl to anyone for your pretand independence that you want to hand over to the EU. Pure wee scumbags ye are.

      Delete
    2. JTRIG JTRIG agent provocateur

      Delete
    3. Big Babe Tank Commander is politician of the year in Jocko Land.
      What a state of affairs.
      Cut the waster MSP'S by half. Leask has an article today about the Glasgow to the Airport proposal. What is it with Jocko politicians when it comes to clean air public transport. They prefer handing out money to the Tory bus rackateers.

      Delete
    4. He does do a mass unblocking from time to time. Presumably when he finds he's no one left to talk to?

      Delete
    5. Dearest Mr/Mrs 'GWC2'. Your diction and phraseology reveals you to be English, and a nasty wee piece of work at that. 'Jocko'? Listen, chimp. The Scots do not hate the English. We hate Westminster, as do many English people, especially those who despise paedophiles and people who murder the disabled and vulnerable by cutting their benefits. And Scotland-hating trolls like you. Why don't you just shut up, take your one tired 'nat si' (which could far more easily apply to English nationalists) phrase, and just go crawl back up yer own bahookie, where your head is hiding? Seriously. You're a clown, a chimp, a semi-evolved, semi-sentient simian, and your deranged, tired, one-note Scotland-hating crap adds precisely ZERO to any debate.

      Delete
    6. Were you masterbating during your rant or do you need both hands on?

      Delete
  17. I don't think he's a Unionist James, in fact I think he's an indy supporter.

    But his take is that he tells the story and we all nod our heads and agree, he doesn't take criticism, and doesn't take opposing views either. After all, he's the journalist and knows better than all us ignorant punters. Sad. He replies below the line in the Herald, the only one that does, and though it's at times to clarify a point, other times it's to tell someone, not very politely, that what they say is wrong - when it's a matter of opinion not a "fact".

    Edit: Good grief, these captchas keep going and going and going and are absolutely brutally bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He must be a Unionist. Anything else would be stupid and more so Jocko supremist anti English fascist.

      Delete
    2. I had a few very cordial (I thought) conversations with David around the time he was defending the introduction of Gaelic road signage. He was really interesting and seemed particularly upset that regular readers could/would not understand the difference between news reportage and opinion pieces. (I myself often couldn't see the difference in the Herald's coverage, but I'm no expert). He was also not a fan of the SNPBad hashtag. I didn't get the feeling he was a Unionist, he could easily be a purist Yesser who thinks the Scottish government needs to be challenged by the press (as every democratic government would want to be). When he blocked me I was really mystified. No doubt that's because I can't see my own mouth-frothing bias, but our conversations had seemed so uniformly polite and friendly it did seem a bit odd. I concluded that at least it was a good thing that he'd taken the time, out of what I assume is a very busy journalistic day, to engage with us 'civilians' at all. He deserves thanks for that, because so few mainstream journalists even attempt it. You do get the feeling he doesn't like to be gainsaid, but since in the past the only disagreement they ever had was in the highly selective Readers Letters page perhaps we can forgive him that. Maybe he blocks so many people so readily because he just gets bored with us?

      Delete