Talk:Media of Scotland

newsnetscotland.com

Getting tired seeing that newsnetscotland.com blog site being added with a weasel worded description.

This is an encyclopaedia.

'Launched in 2010, the Scottish-based not-for-profit Newsnetscotland.com provides an alternative to traditional mainstream media outlets'

The above is not an encyclopaedic description of a Pro-Independence current affairs blog. My Granddad might have a website which provides an 'alternative to traditional mainstream media outlets', but this is hardly descriptive and honest; and his site is not 'notable'.

if it is imperative that newsnetscotland.com be listed here, at least have an accurate description. 109.158.52.107 (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)KS

I agree that there are serious problems with the way this has been added to the article. It's clearly self-promotional and if we're going to list Newsnet Scotland then it should really be in a separate section (alongside other similar websites such as Wings Over Scotland) rather than in the same section as established mainstream media organisations like the BBC, ITV, Herald and the Scotsman. We have to be extremely careful on article like this not to allow them to be colonised by people who simply want to promote an agenda or their own website. 82.26.17.69 (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty with labelling Newsnet Scotland 'pro-independence', which may well be accurate, is that it then necessitates labelling the likes of the Daily Record and The Scotsman 'pro-union' -- both are on record through editorial commentary as being so -- which is likely to make this page more contentious, not less. Newsnet Scotland is clearly not an online blog, as it frequently has articles by well-known journalists who also write for the likes of the Scotsman, The Herald, and so on. Our job on Wikipedia is not to censor websites that provide news content because of their political sensitivites, but to appropriately categorise and describe them, and allow people to make up their own mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.37.212 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a way around this which is just to describe the site in neutral terms. I've changed it to "organisation" - surely nobody could argue it isn't an organisation of some kind. There is a real debate about what you call a site like that. Some would say it should classify as a news site, others would argue it's a lobbying site for the Yes campaign. Clearly they would like to be called a news site because they believe it gives them more credibility, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are one or that everyone accepts it. Wings Over Scotland is clearly a blog, the Herald is clearly a news site, then you have sites like Newsnet Scotland somewhere in between (which is why we have disagreement over it). Simply having journalists write on your site doesn't make it a news site - e.g. academic blogs regularly have journalists write for them but they're still classified as blogs.

I'm fully aware some people want to try and fight over this as part of the referendum, but the only way forward is a compromise and I think a neutral word like "organisation" achieves that.

A word like "organisation" could be perceived as an attempt to water down the status of NewsnetScotland, and that in itself would be indicative of bias. NewsnetScotland clearly represents a pro-independence stance, and whilst I am no fan of it, it nonetheless is very clearly a news outlet. Its articles are, for the overwhelming part, news items. Moreover, from an objective viewpoint it does not represent any blog that I am aware of in shape or form, so it would be some considerable stretch of a particularly wild imagination to call it that.

In short, if we call it an 'organisation', then if we are to be truly neutral we must also classify the BBC, the Daily Record, the Times, the Scotsman and the Herald news 'organisations'. But that would be pendantry, and serve no-one. I suggest we do what WikiPedia does when at its best: and that is simply not to take the average of two extremes of opinion, but rather to strive to wholly objective and truly free from bias. 80.192.37.212 (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A "wholly objective and truly free from bias" decision that happens to agree with one side of the argument entirely doesn't seem particularly credible to me. Everything you've said about the phrase "news outlet" could equally be said of the term "campaign site" or "lobbying organisation". It meets the definition of a campaign/lobbying site in almost every respect - it's explicitly set up to campaign for independence, it almost exclusively covers pro-independence stories (beyond a few random articles about cultural events), and it endorses (tacitly or otherwise) demonstrations such as the one against the BBC. Nobody could claim the first two points are true of a site such as the Daily Record, however biased it might be. It also produces clear campaigning material such as this "Independence Fact Sheet" linked to on their home page which has the explicit intention of serving as "an antidote to the very many claims put forward by those who would oppose Scotland and her people taking back all of the powers currently reserved to Westminster".

Yet calling it a "campaign site" would presumably be seen as lopsided and unfair - which is why we have this disagreement in the first place. Newsnet Scotland wants to be seen as a news site, the No campaign want it to be seen as a front for the Yes campaign. We're not here to say which one of two political campaigns is correct, we're here to be neutral and allow people to make up their own mind. The word "organisation" is perfectly neutral and doesn't ratify either side of the argument so I fail to see what the issue is with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.82.199 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I undid the addition of detailed info on Newsnet Scotland. We don't give this level of detail onany of the others, or make o point of saying which ones are not for profit. Meters (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I undid your deletion of the details. The key point here is that everyone who has some involvement in the debate knows what Newsnet Scotland is - whether we call it a "news site" or not it's openly campaigning for independence/greater powers for Scotland. It says that explicitly on its website. Portraying it as the equivalent of the Herald, the Daily Record or any other regular news outlet is misleading and has the potential to confuse anyone who doesn't already know what the site is. Removing that content when it appears directly on its homepage is therefore unjustified and I can see little reason (other than to hide what the site actually is) to remove it. Reword it by all means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.17.69 (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And I'm restoring the article to the status quo per WP:BRD. A Bold addition was made, I Reverted it and gave my reasons on the talk page. The next step is to Discuss it on the talk page so that a consensus can be reached (and "Discuss" does not mean reinstating the edit after a unilateral statement of one editor's position). Suggesting that I am attempting to hide anything, particularly when I have never even edited this article before (as far as I can remember), is a violation of wp:AGF.

This article is not about Scottish independence, or about Newsnet Scotland, so this level of detail is unwarranted. We don't list the political affiliation of any of the other media outlets, and we don't mention which of them are not for profit, so why do it just for this one outlet? It's wp:undue. My opinion is that much of the Online Media section has an WP:undue interest in the independence campaign. We should either mention the independence issue for all of the media or not at all. I'll tag the section as undue so we can get some more comments on this. Meters (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that you personally are trying to hide anything - that would be reading a personal attack into a comment where none existed. There's a clear problem here - the nature of this website is contested (not just on this talk page, across the entire independence debate). Its supporters want to portray it as a regular news site. Its opponents want to portray it as a campaigning site. At present this page takes one side's position in that debate and entirely ignores the other view. That can't be a sustainable solution.

So far two possible solutions have been suggested. Both were designed to be fair-minded and to avoid prompting overt disagreement. The first was to remove the term "news outlet" and simply refer to it as an "organisation". That was reverted. The second solution is to continue calling it a "news outlet" but to include additional information directly quoted from the website's home page. You've called that a "bold" edit and removed it because supposedly it's unnecessary. If you have another solution then by all means propose it - but simply taking one side of a debate isn't a solution.

There is a clear difference between Newsnet Scotland and other websites in this respect. Other websites cover a range of content

As the (slightly abridged) comment above implies, there is a clear difference here between Newsnet Scotland and an ordinary news site like the Daily Record. The latter might have an editorial stance on independence, but it doesn't solely publish material on the independence campaign. Independence coverage makes up a relatively small proportion of its content - which is almost insignificant if taken across the full lifespan of the paper. On the other hand, with the exception of a handful of pieces about cultural events and other minor issues, Newsnet Scotland is almost exclusively a vehicle for stories about Scottish independence and essentially every one of those stories has an overt editorial line in favour of independence. That's a clear difference and it should absolutely be mentioned in a site about the media in Scotland - particularly when the comments in question are directly quoted from the site's own home page. Not mentioning independence in the context of such a site would be rather odd and borderline misleading. This really has to be resolved one way or another - we can't just revert/ignore every well-meaning attempt to solve the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.82.199 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree NewsnetScotland indeed mostly features news items concerned with independence, and that it has an pro-independence stance, but convincing evidence must be provided to suggest that is not a news outlet, and yet more that it merits the nebulous badge 'organisation'. It provides almost exclusively news items; that is incontravertible. As an aside, the Daily Record has in the past officially declared that it will actively defend the Union (this goes a bit beyond the usual "The editors believe..."). It is apparent that the real source of contention with NewsnetScotland seems to be its political bias - however, as mentioned previously, we cannot afford to be political censors on Wikipedia. 80.192.37.212 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack issue moved to IP 158's talk page. 158, I have proposed my solution. I've said that it's WP:undue to discuss the position on Scotland's independence of just this one media outlet in just this one section. It should be discussed for all of them, or for none of them. I don't think this information belongs in this article at all, for any outlet, but I've tagged the section and raised the issue here for other opinions on the problem. I don't care how many or which media outlets are included in the section on Online Media, and I don't care if Newsnet Scotland is one of the listed outlets or not. This section makes no attempt at inclusivity, so we are just giving examples of such media outlets. An online-only media outlet with more general coverage (if there is one) than the seemingly one topic Newsnet Scotland would be better example.

IP 80, I don't see this as Wikipedia attempting to be a political censor. I think the appropriate place to discuss which media outlets do or don't support Scottish independence is Scottish independence which already has sections devoted to this (Scottish independence#Support for independence and Scottish independence#Opposition to independence). This issue and more general discussions of particular positions of various media outlets should also be covered in any articles specific to individual media outlets. I see that Daily Record (Scotland) already mentions its political leanings and opposition of Scottish independence, for example. Meters (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue of "is it or isn't it a news outlet" is one thing, the other issue is "should you or should you not mention its independence stance/campaigning", so there are really two separate issues. Meters seems to be suggesting here that as the sentence in question simply functions as an example of an online based news outlet, we could remove the mention of Newsnet Scotland altogether and replace it with a less contentious/better example. I would agree entirely with that and if there can be agreement to that end then I would absolutely support it as a compromise, but I imagine some people would object - if anyone wants to put their opinion in on that front then they can, otherwise this could be tried. Gordonjohns32 (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for the concise summary. I should have split the Undue topic out into a separate thread. The material on media bias and BBC Scotland also needs to be removed. Not only is it WP:undue but the cited sources ds not concern BBC's online coverage. Meters (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

One moment. Are you suggesting that we delete an entry in this article, simply because it is (possibly politically) contentious? 80.192.37.212 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}No. I said nothing about politically contentiousness. I said that coverage of political leanings is wp:undue in the online media section since it is not covered for the rest of the media types. That's why I tagged the section with the Undue template. I don't think political leanings need to be covered in this article at all, but if the subject is included it needs to be balanced, and thus has to be covered for all mentioned outlets that have a bias or position.

With respect to Newsnet Scotland I said "I don't care if Newsnet Scotland is one of the listed outlets or not. This section makes no attempt at inclusivity, so we are just giving examples of such media outlets. An online-only media outlet with more general coverage (if there is one) than the seemingly one topic Newsnet Scotland would be better example." I'm not suggesting we replace it because of its political position. Use that outlet, or don't. Again, "I don't care." I'm suggesting that if the intention is to give an example of an online-only media outlet we might be able to find a better example, one with more general coverage that does not focus on just one topic.

As for BBC Scotland, none of its many cited refs actually refer to BBC Scotland's online media arm. The mention of the criticism of BBC Scotland's coverage of the independence issue does not belong in the online media section since none of the references mention BBC Scotland's online media outlet. BBC Scotland is presumably a good example of a general coverage online and offline media outlet, and I'm certainly not suggesting it should be removed.

I'd say we're doing more than just giving a handful of examples - that in itself would be a highly subjective and contentious list - rather we should aim to list /notable/ examples of the 'Media in Scotland'. There's no reason why we can't have several on-line outlets. For example - if you were going to list Scottish pop stars from the 1980s, you wouldn't delete Midge Ure only to add Jimmy Somerville: you'd include them both. To that end, the question should be whether NNS is notable or not, and if it is, then it should be included.

PS. NNS is not an single-issue independence campaign site, but it does cover Scottish politics from a pro-independence stance. That's a subtle, but more important difference. 80.192.37.212 (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, both for informing me of NNS's breadth of coverage and for reminding me that DDBBC Scotland is not the only 'online and other' media outlet mentioned in the online media section. I had forgotten that, I have to admit.

I have no objection to NNS being one example of the online-only media outlets mentioned, or to it being the only one mentioned if it is a good example. My concern is the inclusion of the partisan leanings of just some media outlets in just this one section (and to a lesser degree in this article at all). So far no-one has attempted to argue that my WP:Undue tag is not justified. If the tag stands I will simply move all mention of the partisan leanings to the appropriate articles (Scottish independence#Support for independence, Scottish independence#Opposition to independence), and any articles about the specific media outlets), and leave other editors to decide if NNS should be mentioned in the article. Meters (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And if there are more online-only news outlets that are notable - be they pro-union or against it - perhaps we should include them too. On another topic, there's two things I'm unsure whether we should include in this article:

i) mention of political bias in the media in Scotland. Earlier this year, some academic research seemed to indicate systematic political bias in reporting programmes on BBC, STV, etc. If you are unaware of it, it was a rather high-profile story: just google 'Professor John Robertson'. I have not the time to write an entry, but was wondering whether we should mention it here.

ii) Wings over Scotland. What do we do about this? It's a very high-profile site, referenced many times in the mainstream media, and certainly seems have a minor influence Scottish politics -- I'd be very surprised if those involved Scottish political journalism weren't at the very least aware of it. However from what I've seen, it's very much a pro-independence campaign blog, and nothing else. 80.192.37.212 (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Robertson's research should probably be discussed in Scottish independence since that seems to be what he was focused on. Wings over Scotland is a personal blog. It's not a media outlet (at least in my view) and not a WP:RS so it should not be covered in this article. If media outlets are discussing what that blog is saying then it might be worth including that coverage in the appropriate article. Meters (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on Wings over Scotland; furthermore, I'd find it hard to see how it would fit into the page in its current format. On Prof. Robertson's research I believe it's more general than just independence, as it also includes studies into party political bias. I feel it would be best in its own article, and referenced from here. Someone with the time will have to write it first though! 80.192.37.212 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed newsnetscotland.com. Wikipedia needs sources to establish the sites notability. Whether or not one is pro-independenxce, this is the issue.for editors, and proper third-party sources are lacking, it seems. Philip Cross (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

NNS has notability - this has been thoroughly discussed before. If third party references are necessary for one site, they must be necessary for all. 80.192.37.212 (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the site doesn't even seem to exist in its previous form anymore. Unless their website is simply having issues it just times out when you go to the URL. There is a similarly named site which has appeared and seems to be trying to do a similar thing. There was maybe a case for the original site being included on some level, but I certainly can't see any case for keeping it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.17.69 (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Undue material removed from online media section

Since no-one has objected to my description of covering political leanings of just the online media as wp:undue here's what I have removed per the above discussion.

The BBC's coverage of the debate was criticised in 2012 by the National Union of Journalists and there has been an ongoing discussion about media bias in the lead up to the 2014 referendum.

Note that none these refs actually refer to the online arm of BBC Scotland.

The undue material for Newsnet Scotland was never reinstated after I tagged the section as undue. This is what I removed.

I'll move this to an appropriate article if not covered already.Perhaps someone who is more knowledgeable about the topic could add it to the appropriate articles. Meters (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

References