A year-long academic study carried out by researchers at a Scottish university has revealed that both the BBC and STV have been favouring the No campaign in their TV news coverage of the independence referendum.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8598-broadcasters-favouring-no-campaign-according-to-new-academic-study

The study revealed:

Reporting Scotland broadcast 272 news items deemed favourable to the No campaign against only 171 favourable to Yes. STV was only marginally less biased with the 255 for No and 172 for Yes.
Statements which made use of academic, scientific or ‘independent’ evidence favoured the No campaign by 22 to 4 on BBC Scotland and by 20 to 7 on STV.
Personalising independence arguments as being the wishes of Alex Salmond appeared 35 times on BBC and 34 times on ITV with no such personalisation of any of the No campaign’s arguments.
Broadcasts containing language that was considered insulting to independence campaigners occurred on 18 times on both BBC Scotland and STV but language interpreted as insulting to pro-Union campaigners appeared only 3 times on each broadcaster’s news reports.
Finishing a broadcast item with anti-independence claims which were unchallenged happened 28 times on BBC Scotland and 34 times on STV whilst ending items with unchallenged pro-independence claims occurred only 8 times and 17 times respectively.

Apparently the BBC emailed the researchers disputing their findings and demanding to see the raw data – and copied the email to the university chancellor.

Pretty dodgy…

Is it because an independent Scotland is a stupid and expensive idea?

A year-long academic study carried out by researchers at a Scottish university h

Predicts follow up being ‘an academic study carried out by a non-Scottish group of an academic study carried out by a Scottish University has concluded that the study was biased’.

😉

Can we have a separate forum for Scotchish threads? They do rather seem to be taking over the place!

😉

Let’s have a vote on forum independence!

Let’s have a vote on forum independence!

😀

I want a French forum (that’s not a euphemism!). Who’s with me?!

Allons enfants de la forum,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé!
Contre nous de la tyrannie,
L’hammer du ban sanglant est levé!

The main conclusion I seem to draw from this is that Scots who are pro-independence are more easily offended than those that aren’t?

Allons enfants de la forum,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé!
Contre nous de la tyrannie,
L’hammer du ban sanglant est levé!

Attention! Vous obtiendrez une interdiction pour que!

The main conclusion I seem to draw from this is that Scots who are pro-independence are more easily offended than those that aren’t?

I haven’t seen anyone suggesting thats what it’s about at all.

It’s all about being balanced. Totally equal balance is hard to achieve, but a strong bias one way or the other from the BBC which is meant to be impartial is unfair to the Yes Campaign.

University of the West of Scotland?? One of the worst Universities in the UK, sorry but I’ll ignore their findings.

Wouldn’t call that an academic study, as such. Just some doss-bags watching telly and seeing what they want to see – ‘deemed favourable’, ‘considered insulting’. Pish, really.

The BBC a soft propaganda outlet for the government? Who would have thought it?!

Quels pneus pour assaut les barricades?

Mind you, aren’t the BBC supposed to attempt ‘balance’ as in broadly reflecting the views of the people – and given that most people in Scotland seem to be in favour of a no vote according to current polls it sounds like the balance is about right.

If they are supposed to give equal weight to any view then you run into the problem of giving equal airtime to creationists as you do scientists, or holocaust deniers and credible historians. 😉

Maybe there are just many more compelling arguments against independence on a day-to-day basis?

I’m off to start a thread slamming BBC pro-independence bias (in the interests of fair coverage on STW, obviously)

They actually do get into to trouble for doing that as some folk argue they try to get balance that they give too much air time to views which are very marginal – like the ones you mention

The establishment in being a bit establishment and conservative with a small c just like they are liberal with a small L

there was a piece on R4 last night that i thought was quite Yes-positive.

actually, there have been a few – talking about it as if it’s a done deal.

I’m sorry but a University that describes Paisley as:

Paisley – Urban, Contemporary, Dynamic

cannot be taken seriously!

Apparently the BBC emailed the researchers disputing their findings and demanding to see the raw data – and copied the email to the university chancellor.

‘We said something and they told our Dad, Wagh!!’
What bobbins. WGAF?

Is this actually bias though? There may well be more ‘No’ stories than ‘Yes’ studies.

ohnohesback – Member
The BBC a soft propaganda outlet for the government? Who would have thought it?!

It has been found to be anti government on previous issues.

Cressers drawing this sort of conclusion from one study? Who would have thought it?!

Why would the academic be afraid of sharing the raw data? If you’re going to publish controversial material, then it’s to be expected, even if you attack a soft target like the Beeb, which normally hand-wrings over any criticism.

I was playing devil’s advocate slightly (aka trolling) but it is a serious point. Say the BBC goes out in the street and does 15 2 minute interviews with people – if 11 of them are anti independence, should the ones they show reflect that, or be evenly split?

Just read the report and it’s got plenty of results but very little on the methods and criteria used to determine whether an item is pro or anti.

“Demanding” to see the data sounds very harsh, but as anyone who works in academia knows we’re all being pushed towards open data and publishing datasets as well as any papers we write.

Maybe there are just many more compelling arguments against independence on a day-to-day basis?

Could be true, but the analysis in the article should account for that as it takes into account rebuttals of headlines etc.

is that Scots who are pro-independence are more easily offended

In a nutshell.

If, as a Nation, you are still narked by the result at Bannockburn, you need to let it go, and move on.

Grum – ad hoc vox-popping and polling in the street on something so sensitive would be editorial suicide however you conducted it. It’s a complete no-win situation.

If, as a Nation, you are still narked by the result at Bannockburn, you need to let it go, and move on.

ScottChegg – This is the whole iScotland issue in a nutshell.

Mind you, aren’t the BBC supposed to attempt ‘balance’ as in broadly reflecting the views of the people – and given that most people in Scotland seem to be in favour of a no vote according to current polls it sounds like the balance is about right.

Indeed – a solid 50:50 in coverage would be more indicative of a bias unless the electorate was similarly split. In other political campaigns would you expect the BNP or the Greens to get equal amounts of coverage to the mainstream parties?

The news items published/reported/broadcast can only also reflect the news thats being generated by either campaign- if one campaign is making more noise than another then the broadcasters can’t invent news to counterbalance that.

If, as a Nation, you are still narked by the result at Bannockburn, you need to let it go, and move on.

Erm, the Scots won at Bannockburn?

This is the whole iScotland issue in a nutshell.

Lazy trolling, I’ve seen very little of this type of argument from anyone, except from lazy trolls on internet forums.

Statements which made use of academic, scientific or ‘independent’ evidence favoured the No campaign by 22 to 4 on BBC Scotland and by 20 to 7 on STV.

Isn’t that like complaining that 99% of statements on climate change say it exists? Or that 100% of reports say an apples falls down, not up? The heliocentric view of the solar system is unfairly represented compared to the geocentric view?

I was playing devil’s advocate slightly (aka trolling) but it is a serious point. Say the BBC goes out in the street and does 15 2 minute interviews with people – if 11 of them are anti independence, should the ones they show reflect that, or be evenly split?

If they interviewed 15 people and asked them what does 2+2 equal and eleven people say “4” and four people say ‘5’ is the outcome of that the news that “2+2=4” or is it that “it could equal 4 or 5 depending on your views” or that “2+2=somewhere between 4 and 5”

Thats the problem broadcasters have with trying to balance a story, particularly if its a very binary one – is how you reflect the weight of two arguments. Where it goes spectacularly wrong is the instances that lead to MMR hoax where the volume of argument and weight evidence were very heavily stacked on one side of the argument but giving both the pro and anti vaccination lobbies a voice made it appear that the medical community was equally split (both in number and validity) into two camps. Balancing the argument actually massively distorted it .

Lazy trolling, I’ve seen very little of this type of argument from anyone, except from lazy trolls on internet forums.

I admit I was trolling but without going round the houses again, I think this whole thing has been done to death on here, a significant component of Scottish Nationalism is fueled by some romantic William Wallace, “the English are too blame for all our problems” mentality.

There are sensible arguments put forward by both sides, for and against but at the heart of a lot of the “Yes” feeling is a misguided sense of identity.

Indeed – a solid 50:50 in coverage would be more indicative of a bias unless the electorate was similarly split. In other political campaigns would you expect the BNP or the Greens to get equal amounts of coverage to the mainstream parties?

The news items published/reported/broadcast can only also reflect the news thats being generated by either campaign- if one campaign is making more noise than another then the broadcasters can’t invent news to counterbalance that.

Not sure you can equate a yes/no vote to the complexities of a general election campaign with many minor parties. I would expect the state broadcaster to aim for balance within items (ie right to reply), and broadly level coverage of the output of both campaigns. If reporters were tending to generate their own ‘no’ angle stories, or picking up more often on ‘no’ press releases, as an editor I’d want to know why.

If the research is correct, then that has gone too far in one direction.

Part of the problem is that negative news stories will always tend to outweigh positive ones. The ‘No’ campaign has the advantage that it can release a stream of warnings about things that might go wrong if the status quo changes, while all the ‘yes’ campaign can do is rebut those claims, or put out mildly positive suggestions about the future of an independent Scotland.

A claim that an independent Scotland will sink into the North Sea will always grab attention more than a press release saying that it will stay afloat.

In fact, this claim of bias is a perfect example of a negative story being ‘sexier’ for news outlets.

Was this a mejia studies PhD?

To be fair, the point about personalising independence arguments as the wishes of AS may have some validity* tempered only by the Book of Dreams being just that – a poorly argue wish list with AS fronting it.

Given how unfair this personalisation is, it’s a good job that AS doesn’t try and personalise anything around Cameron and the posh Tory-toffs in return……

* who is the leader of the yes campaign?

Edit: I started off agreeing with you Grum (for a change) but in reflection…. 😉 I do not think that it is correct to split time (excuse the simplification here) according to current opinion polls etc. In the case of political debate with a bi-nominal outcome. Shouldn’t there be the same (but less!!!) coverage of both sides of the argument allowing everyone to make their own mind up, especially given high percentage of undecided voters in this case.

Will the same university do a study in % of BS in the debate. I am sure that would redress the perceived coverage imbalance.

Pamplemousse?
Ananas?
Jacques Cousteau!

a significant component of Scottish Nationalism is fueled by some romantic William Wallace, “the English are too blame for all our problems” mentality.

I’d disagree, I’ve come across very very little of that.

“significant” is a big claim, is this just in your experience or are you just guessing. And you’re right, it been done to death elsewhere.

Dammit. Where’s my French forum! I insist that my views are represented!

My work here is done 😀

If they are supposed to give equal weight to any view then you run into the problem of giving equal airtime to creationists as you do scientists, or holocaust deniers and credible historians.

But that doesn’t apply here. In fact both sides (bar a few loons on each side) agree that independence is perfectly viable for Scotland. The arguments are about the advantages and disadvantages.