5 ms·

What is amazing about the Yes campaign is the odds they were up against: all but one newspaper were against independence, the one for is a weekly paper. We have

What is amazing about the Yes campaign is the odds they were up against: all but one newspaper were against independence, the one for is a weekly paper. We have seen a strong and undeniable media bias. Even though the majority is for No, ~1.6m voted for radical change. This was not a "nationalist" movement. It was a movement of ideas (the breadth of the campaign has been astounding). A majority of the ~2m that voted No did not vote for the status quo: they just thought the risks too great.

UVB-76 12y ago
> We have seen a strong and undeniable media bias On the contrary, the media insisted for weeks the referendum was "too close to call", citing endless polls that generally favored the 'no' vote, but were close to 50-50. Obviously people vote more conservatively when it matters. Meanwhile, the bookmakers, who actually had skin in the game, knew a 'yes' vote was unlikely, and reflected that in their odds.
- treerock 12y ago
  Not sure how that is to the contrary? Press may report that it's too close to call to motivated No voters to get out and vote. (I don't know either way, not being paying much attention to the press, though BBC Scotland has seemed quite balanced)
- jcbrand 12y ago
  Saying the referendum is "too close to call" is not the same as being even-handed (i.e. not having a bias). They were biased because they consistently took a negative stance towards the potential ramifications (not chance of outcome) of independence.
  - UVB-76 12y ago
    The media thrive on fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The possibility of Scotland voting for independence had that in spades; nobody really knew what it would entail. Thus the media persisted in presenting it as a realistic, likely prospect, even when it was quite apparent (as per bookmakers odds) that a 'yes' vote was very unlikely.
  - tobylane 12y ago
    What is an ideal amount of coverage on the negatives? Especially when the negatives of a No vote can be said and understood simply - Westminster keeps some control.
- ZeroGravitas 12y ago
  I was following the polls more closely than the bookmakers, but both were clear that No was likely to win. If the media, who overwhelmingly supported No were reporting it as "too close to call" then either a) they felt that was the most effective way to bring about the result they desired, or b) they are idiots who don't understand the basics of the things they report on. Probably a little of both.
tobylane 12y ago
I saw the media coverage more as either populist - the majority did vote no, or wanting something to talk about - once you go into detail there's very little the yes side has, whereas the big companies were thinking of moving out of iScot which easily fills pages.
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  Yes definitely, though it can be even worse. Look at how poor Nick Robinson was the subject of professionally organised protest marches for the crime of asking Salmond difficult questions and then being blunt about his lack of answers: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755858/BBC-s-Nick-Robinson-denounced-nationalists-liar-battle-votes-referendum-gets-nastier.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755858/BBC-s-Nick-R...
  - learnstats2 12y ago
    Or, that is how it was represented in the media - I understand there was one "Nick Robinson" banner (here pictured) but the wider protest was against the BBC's bias. That is, in fact, strictly what the article says, but not how people are encouraged to interpret it.
  - ZeroGravitas 12y ago
    Did you just link to the daily mail on the topic of media bias?
    - mike_hearn 12y ago
      I linked to it because it had a photo of the protest.
  - brianmcc 12y ago
    The issue on that specific story was that Nick was given nearly 7 minutes of response, which was edited out on the main evening news with a "he declined to answer" dismissal. Technicalities surrounded the legitimacy of that edit, but YouTube videos showed the whole episode and the edit was, at best, disingenuous. This single event spurred the whole BBC protest, and brought widespread attention to actually quite a lot of small, arguably subtle but definitely existent, biases in the reporting.

UVB-76 12y ago

> We have seen a strong and undeniable media bias On the contrary, the media insisted for weeks the referendum was "too close to call", citing endless polls that generally favored the 'no' vote, but were close to 50-50. Obviously people vote more conservatively when it matters. Meanwhile, the bookmakers, who actually had skin in the game, knew a 'yes' vote was unlikely, and reflected that in their odds.

treerock 12y ago
Not sure how that is to the contrary? Press may report that it's too close to call to motivated No voters to get out and vote. (I don't know either way, not being paying much attention to the press, though BBC Scotland has seemed quite balanced)
jcbrand 12y ago
Saying the referendum is "too close to call" is not the same as being even-handed (i.e. not having a bias). They were biased because they consistently took a negative stance towards the potential ramifications (not chance of outcome) of independence.
- UVB-76 12y ago
  The media thrive on fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The possibility of Scotland voting for independence had that in spades; nobody really knew what it would entail. Thus the media persisted in presenting it as a realistic, likely prospect, even when it was quite apparent (as per bookmakers odds) that a 'yes' vote was very unlikely.
- tobylane 12y ago
  What is an ideal amount of coverage on the negatives? Especially when the negatives of a No vote can be said and understood simply - Westminster keeps some control.
ZeroGravitas 12y ago
I was following the polls more closely than the bookmakers, but both were clear that No was likely to win. If the media, who overwhelmingly supported No were reporting it as "too close to call" then either a) they felt that was the most effective way to bring about the result they desired, or b) they are idiots who don't understand the basics of the things they report on. Probably a little of both.

tobylane 12y ago

I saw the media coverage more as either populist - the majority did vote no, or wanting something to talk about - once you go into detail there's very little the yes side has, whereas the big companies were thinking of moving out of iScot which easily fills pages.

mike_hearn 12y ago
Yes definitely, though it can be even worse. Look at how poor Nick Robinson was the subject of professionally organised protest marches for the crime of asking Salmond difficult questions and then being blunt about his lack of answers: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755858/BBC-s-Nick-Robinson-denounced-nationalists-liar-battle-votes-referendum-gets-nastier.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755858/BBC-s-Nick-R...
- learnstats2 12y ago
  Or, that is how it was represented in the media - I understand there was one "Nick Robinson" banner (here pictured) but the wider protest was against the BBC's bias. That is, in fact, strictly what the article says, but not how people are encouraged to interpret it.
- ZeroGravitas 12y ago
  Did you just link to the daily mail on the topic of media bias?
  - mike_hearn 12y ago
    I linked to it because it had a photo of the protest.
- brianmcc 12y ago
  The issue on that specific story was that Nick was given nearly 7 minutes of response, which was edited out on the main evening news with a "he declined to answer" dismissal. Technicalities surrounded the legitimacy of that edit, but YouTube videos showed the whole episode and the edit was, at best, disingenuous. This single event spurred the whole BBC protest, and brought widespread attention to actually quite a lot of small, arguably subtle but definitely existent, biases in the reporting.