Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Fancy putting the Express in the dock for lying about Scottish independence polling? Here's your chance...

In order to justify throwing the book at Craig Murray, the presiding judge notoriously dreamed up the novel principle that us mere bloggers must be held to a different legal standard than 'proper' journalists, on the dubious grounds that the latter are bound by codes such as the IPSO Editors' Code of Practice - a voluntary set of rules that to the best of my knowledge has no legal underpinning whatsoever.  If that's the brave new world we're now living in, it's perhaps not too much to ask that the 'proper' journalists - even ones as controversial as David Leask - should be rigorously held to the code, Clause 1 of which states "the Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images...a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published".

On Friday 10th September 2021, the Express website published an article by Dan Falvey entitled 'SNP President drops huge hint Sturgeon could backtrack on plan for referendum in two years'.  I have no idea whether it also appeared in the Express print edition, which you won't be surprised to hear I don't subscribe to - but that makes no difference because online articles also fall under the jurisdiction of both IPSO and the Editors' Code.  The article contained a blatantly inaccurate claim about Scottish independence polling, and yet four days later it still has not been corrected and no apology has been issued.  

Falvey ludicrously ignored the genuine polling evidence that had been published on Thursday and Friday by Opinium and ComRes showing a very even split in public opinion - Opinium had Yes ahead by 51-49, while ComRes had No ahead by 52-48.  Instead, he treated the propaganda poll commissioned by Scotland in Union, complete with its dodgy question about "leaving the United Kingdom", as if it was the only one that mattered.

Now, to be clear, there's no question that IPSO would let the Express get away with that part of the article - they would just mark it down as a form of "editorialising" that may have been selective with its facts, but was not strictly inaccurate.  However, there's one particular sentence in which the Express strayed into outright falsehood, and it's this: "Polls have shown a drop in support for independence over the past six months, with a "No" vote consistently now in the lead".  The words 'consistently' and 'now' preclude the possibility of a Yes lead in any current poll - and yet the Opinium poll published just one day before the article had Yes ahead.

If you have the time and patience to take on the Express through the IPSO complaints process, here's the online form you need.

*  *  *

Scot Goes Popcast: You can watch the full videos of my recent interviews with Yvonne Ridley and William Duguid HERE and HERE

14 comments:

  1. If complaining about the Express on this matter, is it worth including this at the same time?
    https://mobile.twitter.com/texastheband/status/1437475381150461961

    ReplyDelete
  2. James, the truth matters little if at all to the British media and all the House Jocks in the SNP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regarding the truth.

      Skier making a total arse of himself on WGD re why the polls have dropped for yes in recent times from a high of 58%. Even the numpties on WGD are getting wise to Skier. Just like the Britnat media who start with the narrative they want then try to bend the truth to fit it Skier does the same.

      Comedy gold on WGD.

      Delete
  3. The same newspaper published on twitter yesterday, some comments anti-independence from a Scottish singer of the band Texas which are about a decade old. The same band issued a rebuttal informing the Express that all now support independence since Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/NairnYes/status/1437657657540857858

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just read WGD's latest article.

    A fine article - nothing I disagree with. Janey Godley may support Sturgeon and she may have said some nasty things in her past but she has apologised so that's good enough for me. I did hear her on the stage in the Meadows after an AUOB march in Edinburgh and her relentless swearing did not go down well with some Edinburgh women but hey that's not a crime - just not funny.

    Kavanagh then focussed on Gove's history of nasty comments and rightly pointed out he does not apologise. I thought Kavanagh may then at the end of his article have been big enough to apologise for trying to fit up Campbell on a fake assault charge and also his despicable behaviour towards James Kelly, SGP but no nothing.

    Kavanagh is ok with calling out others for their behaviour but his own - no apology needed it seems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My concern about Janey Godley is her hypocrisy, or lack of self-awareness to put it mildly. She's been an enthusiastic supporter of cancel culture, but couldn't seem to see that to be consistent it *had* to cover some pretty outrageous comments she herself had made relatively recently (not when she was a teenager or naive twentysomething, by any means).

      Delete
    2. Clearly you know more about Godley than me James.

      Aha "cancel culture" is that what Kavanagh and his doggers want to do to me. Hope it doesn't hurt.

      The WGD numpties master of the avert your eyes and stick your head in the sand approach to any facts/evidence/truths they don't like. Kavanagh master of telling the doggers where to look and what beach to use to stick their heads in.

      Delete
    3. Godley boasts in her autobiography of her membership of the Tory party in the 80s and her pride in being introduced to Thatcher at the party conference in Perth. An odious, unfunny individual.

      Delete
    4. Did she join as an ironic wheeze, or was she genuinely a Tory?

      Delete
    5. She seemed pretty proud of it in the extract I read but I'll admit I haven't read the book as I wasn't a fan to begin with.

      Delete
  5. Should add it was all over social media last week in the wake of her twitter storm and I haven't seen her attempt to justify it or excuse herself as she has with her racism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alex Cole- Hamilton. LibDem MSP and party leader.

    Quite remarkable that we can have an MSP Alex Cole - Hamilton who is now the leader of the Lib Dems in Scotland casually admitting to the Scotsman newspaper that during his participation in the Scottish Parliament Inquiry in to the actions of Sturgeon and her government re the persecution of Salmond he was actively providing "individual support" to one of the two original complainers.

    Now what " individual support" actually means I don't know but whatever it was it should have been enough for any person with a tiny tiny amount of integrity and very very basic level of intelligence that he should not have been taking part in the Inquiry. Impartiality was always a joke on that Inquiry but to blatantly admit some sort of a relationship with one of the complainers shows in Scottish political life there are no standards at all and no ramifications for disgraceful conduct.

    Did any of the other members of the Committee know about this? Did any other MSP know about this relationship? Who else had a relationship with a complainer?

    Of course the Scotsman being the Scotsman and the journalist being Gina Davidson didn't express any comment on this lack of impartiality. After all Cole - Hamilton did keep saying Salmond was guilty and the women were victims during the Inquiry and the Scotsman like all Britnats would be happy with that as would Sturgeon and her minions on the Committee.

    Sturgeons Scotland - what a sewer full of unprincipled rats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does Alex Cole-Hamilton's admission amount to jigsaw identification? I mean, he can't have very many friends.

      Delete