In Scotland, the BBC seem to have been hoist on their petard with regard to how they have treated Ally McCoist. Here is a thoughtful expose of how the BBC worked their manipulation..
The Rangers manager was the victim of a quite brazen manipulation of video footage that left the viewer with the impression that McCoist had a flippant attitude to the very real and very serious problem of bigotry.
Footage from an answer to one question was deliberately positioned to make it appear the answer was given to another different question. Viewers were presented with images of a smirking Ally McCoist apparently not taking the issue of sectarianism seriously.
Last season of course Mr McCoist was involved in a touchline altercation with Celtic manager Neil Lennon that sparked a major investigation by authorities into the problems of bigotry in Scottish football and wider society. The result was an announcement that new legislation will soon be introduced to combat the malaise. The weekend just passed was the opening weekend for the SPL and excitement was high.
It’s against this backdrop that the BBC’s actions ought to be placed. Sectarianism is not a Scotland wide phenomenon, it is centred mainly in the West of Scotland. However its tentacles spread far and wide and there are smaller pockets of bigotry and examples of sectarianism in many communities in the East and North. The manifestations of this problem has witnessed young men murdered and others maimed. On Old Firm match days the casualty wards are at breaking point as the collateral damage is carried, dragged and wheeled in.
So, for the BBC to manipulate a news item on this subject in the way it did was not just folly, it was downright reckless. The question is though why this was done?”
And specifically what are the names of the people in the bbc who chose and edited the clips? And the names of the people who told them to do it and those who approved it being broadcast?
But even in the 2nd link (thoughtful expose) they are gulity of poor editing because the headline starts with “McCoist apology”…to not read on would give the impression that HE had apologised; this simple lack of decent writing/syntax is a black stain on media as a whole.
Indeed. The quality of writing is very poor in the media at the moment. The Beeboid Corporation and national newspapers seem to employ people nowadays who can’t even spell quite ordinary everyday words. The national broadcaster and newspapers used to be models of good writing and literacy. I can’t imagine people being paid to print mistakes such as 2+2 = 6, so why do they think it is acceptable to post news reports and blogs online and subtitles on TV with spelling and grammatical errors? And how can they justify paying the illiterates the large sums they do for such shoddy writing? Shouldn’t they be on apprentice wages until they have mastered their trade?
The McCoist apology is misleading enough but I saw an even worse caption in The Daily Mail today:
Rant: British extremist Paul Ray quotes from a Bible as he discusses why Prince William should fight the ‘invasion’ of Muslims from his self-imposed ‘exile’ in Malta
Only when you read the article does it become apparent that Prince William is not in exile after all.
“The quality of writing is very poor in the media at the moment”
I’ve said this before somewhere online, but as a teenager I used to read books of pieces written by Bernard Levin in the Times. They made great entertainment, as well as being informative, well argued, and thought-provoking.
Now I look at Bishida, I read something from Laurie Penny, Caitlin Moran (sorry, but..), even would-be heavyweights such as David Aaronovich.
The standard of writing has gone “down the pan”, as they say. And I find myself cheering on the rare occasion I find an article by someone who can think an original thought for themselves.
Still I suppose all the evidence is that I’m just turning into a grumpy old man, going on about how it used to be. Ben MacIntyre and Matthew Parris write readable English
I’m no expert on Scottish sectarianism – but I guess that puts me in a position to have noticed that the BBC coverage has a ‘line’ on this. As they have on most issues. Their reports have been noticably supportive of Neil Lennon and the Celtic point of view.
Since Celtic supporters are of disproportionately Irish catholic extraction, the BBC takes their side, because it automatically sides with the nominally catholic IRA/Sinn Fein in its news coverage and analysis of Northern Ireland.
By portraying protestants as evil (whether in the football stadium or on the streets of Belfast), it is giving good publicity to the likes of Martin MacGuinness and his murderous crew.
Left-wing organisations – like the BBC – tend to side with terrorist outfits, after all – and no doubt many employees of the corporation should be tried for the crime of “incitement to murder”, which they have committed many times over the years.
As well as cheering on IRA/Sinn Fein, they have also generated black propaganda toward our troops in Iraq and elsewhere, which has probably led to fatalities in these places also, the effect of television propaganda being international in character.
After serving their sentences they should, I believe, be sent to Israel to face similar charges. How times have changed – the Allied Control Commission would never have allowed broadcasters to encourage antisemitic attacks in postwar Germany!
I’m surprised no-one has stated the obvious yet. The BBC support the Celtic line because at the height of the troubles, Celtic were associated with Irish Nationalism – even the IRA. Rangers were associated with the Protestant Loyalists.
So of course the BBC will back anyone connected to their IRA heroes whilst they will seek to vilify, openly or underhandedly, anyone connected to supporters of the Union. It doesn’t help Rangers fans when they wave Union flags during Old Firm matches to get a fair hearing from the BBC.
Upsetting as the football angle is the article goes on to cover the same video manipulation of the leader of the SNP. Video edited to suggest he was disagreeing with his colleague when it was actually shot during an opposition response. Tawdry and disgusting.