Nastiness and CyberNats
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Regular readers of the Scottish blogosphere may have heard of the stories of the Nationalist blogger 'Wardog' binning his blog after some press enquiries.
An occassional commenter on here he was always on the extreme end of aggressive Nationalism (not that there aren't extreme unionists) and his comments gradually got more and more odd as time went on and recently more and more of his comments were rejected as they became large rants, often incoherent.
He then became more and more aggressive not just to the Labour Party but also to particular politicians and started making wild claims about Jim Murphy and Richard Baker which I won't repeat here referring to our Secretary of State for Scotland as a c***.
The problem of course is that he is not anonymous and a few journalists got in touch who he then also disparages in similar terms which didn't exactly endear himself to them and then with a concern for his job he chose to hang up his blog.
It reminds me of a similar incident when another blogger said the same thing about David Maddox which he then wrote about in the Scotsman.
Wardog was never my biggest fan but I was normally willing to let him comment because extreme he may be but it's a point of view a minority of people have and its worth debating but you can't say things like that when you write a blog that isn't anonymous just like you couldn't if you wrote a paper or made a speech.
Who I do feel a bit sorry for are SNP activists. Often tarred with the same brush as these people, you would be forgiven for looking at the people who comment on newspaper websites and think all Nationalists are raving lunatics.
I know a couple of Nats who are perfectly intelligent, reasonable people with a legitimate point of view for the future of our country and many of these commenter's aren't even members of the SNP but are simply driven by a pathological hatred of the Labour party but it is becoming more and more of a problem for them as people like Magnus Gardham have referenced before.
It just reflects very badly on the SNP as they strive to articulate a vision for a civic progressive nationalism and they will be desperately seeking to find ways to distance themselves from cybernats: they only take the movement for Independence backwards.
Posts
18 comments:
Thanks for setting Scottish nationalism straight Yousuf. That faint praise was very welcome...
Whether or not Jim Murphy is a c*** is a matter of opinion, just as whether or not Alex Salmomd is a c*** is a matter of opinion.
Saying it in public however can have dire consequences as Wardog has found out and as Matthew Marr found before him.
I have my own suspicions as to what may cause people to pass seamlessly through normal social boundaries in that way without even noticing - and it usually comes in a bottle.
However I have to say I always found Wardog quite entertaining. Possibly people took him a little bit too seriously. Certainly more seriously than he took himself.
I don't really understand the Labour/Scotsman journalist obsesion with so-called "cybernats". The equivalent would be if SNP politicians started responding to Grahamski or Rufus T Firefly or the various unionist nutters who stalk the wonderweb. It would be bizarre.
Yousuf
I take it you have never heard of Damien Mc Bride.
Or maybe you have never come across Matthew Marr before.
Before you start trying to climb on your moral high horse, please try to reflect on the following, both of them were employees, yes Yousuf employees,of the Labour party.
Nothing that Wardog ever wrote, and there were things I wish he had no written, came even close to Mc Bride.
Dubbieside, I blogged my disgust at McBrides actions at the time and discussed how they really hurt the party. I look forward to you doing the same.
how was the Stathclyde uni debate with comrades Lee and co?
Yousuf
You must have missed my point, Wardog is an individual blogger, and is in fact a self employed architect.
The two I mentioned were paid employees of the Labour party.
There is a vast difference between what is written by bloggers and people employed by the Labour party.
To expect me to criticize Wardog for expressing his personal opinions is ludicrous, though I do not like bad language at any time. I did say I wished there were things he had not written.
The difference using the word Wardog used in a blog and shouting out the same at a presentation ceremony where there was mixed company, when you were at that presentation representing your employer, should be obvious even to you Yousuf.
You are best just not using the C word full stop.
There may be a telly programme called the F word but there will never be one devoted to the C word.
Yousuf
You use the term 'cybernats' liberally and indiscriminately, as though they are a group of self-proclaimed paramilitaries. I'm sure that this term was coined by people with the same allegiance as yourself, deliberately used in a derogatory manner, and designed to belittle and compartmentalise.
When I started blogging two years ago, I was almost immediately accused of being a 'cybernat' by a number of extreme unionists intent on tarring all who didn't believe in their view of the UK. And guess what: I'm not entirely convinced by immediate independence for Scotland. I supported Labour through the 80's and 90's, and turned to the SNP like many other people when I felt Labour was not evolving as Scotland was devolving. That position hasn't changed as man-of-the-moment Murphy is trying to run Scotland from London.
So you see, if you'd only read the last sentence and not read the rest, you'd immediately call me a cybernat... indiscriminately.
Yousuf, would you care to mention who you think the so called swivel eyed 'cyber nats' are?
It went well Alan, a very interesting debate, I've got a lot of respect for both sides of the debate in a question like that.
Those who backed Independence weren't doing it for some belief in governing ourselves or due to some historic nostalgia but because they actually had an ide for how it would benefit Scots.
My first encounter with wardog was a somewhat angry exchange on the Steamie, but I visited his home page and found out he is actually a nice bloke with a lot of interesting opinions.
His language was terrible of course and he should not have attacked people in the way he did but i do hope he comes back.
Like your blog Yousuf.
Dubbieside, a slight correction: Damian McBride was a paid employee of the taxpayer, not the Labour Party.
Indy: There is an American TV show called 'The C Word' and (just as Ramsay's F word is actually 'food') the word referred to obliquely is 'cancer'...
Yousuf. Sarcasm aside, I should point out that you have a highly readable and intelligent blog. (Not bad for a unionist.)
Perhaps I could respond to Indy regarding his/her attempt to tar me with the same brush as 'Wardog'. I post occasionally on the Scotsman comments section, I don't blog and I certainly don't use the internet for ad hominem personal attacks on my political opponents.
The one thing that most bloggers seem to have conveniently ignored is just how boorish and boring this individual was. When he wasn't ranting he was spreading lies about Labour Party members.
The point that the cybernats and indeed many bloggers forget is that far from howling at the moon they are actually publishing material and so are subject to the same rules as anybody else.
To suggest that a blogger should be above the laws of libel is ludicrous.
Wardog is lucky that he has escaped with just losing his blog and ludicrous pseudonym...
I can imagine you and your ilk being delighted at the demise of 'wardog', but it's a strange wee post Yousuf.
It's kind of reminiscent of those old firm fans who call up Real Radio every night to complain about how terrible the other mob are, conveniently forgetting their own bampotry.
"simply driven by a pathological hatred of the Labour party" - A classic of the genre.
Nice wee touch of condescension too with "I know a couple of Nats who are perfectly intelligent, reasonable people with a legitimate point of view for the future of our country".
You must be in clover. Shame we're not talking about your party's opposition to the alcohol measures being proposed. Your party's support for the Trident abomination. Your party's willingness to abandon the highly commendable school meals program for a mile of dubious railway track. Much better to talk about a blogger with Nationalist leanings who overstepped the line.
Grahamski does not "use the internet for ad hominem personal attacks on my political opponents"
Aye right!
Not being AM2/Scottish Unionist I have not compiled a list of Grahamski's worst moments but someone who routinely compares the SNP to the Nazis is not really in a position to judge someone simply becuase they call a politician a c***.
Calling someone a c*** is bad manners. Comparing someone to a Nazi is actually quite offensive as well as being ludicrously over the top.
Just a thought but how do we know that Wardog's blog account was 'wild claims' ?
I remain a relatively silent observer of blogs but had read in passing a number of wardogs posts during the Glasgow NE by-election.
Whilst I abhor unnecessary cursing, the points that Wardog made seem fair game and very far from "making up stories and engaging in defamation", far less demanding the attentions of wandering News of the World Journalists
From what I saw on his blog, he accused Jim Murphy of barging in front of other MP's during the Queens Speech, well I watched the coverage like many others and watched it again when it was on iplayer and he does indeed appear to do exactly that.
First whilst waiting for the procession outside the commons chamber he barges past four MP's to join the throng and then again where he appears to shoulder in front of the SNP's Angus Robertson.
Jim Murphy then get's remarkably close to Nick Clegg, who must have felt his breath on his neck.
This is surely simply factual and whilst Wardog's description of these actions are not necessarily the words that I would use, the images caught on tv don't particularly reflect very well on Jim Murphy either.
Just how did the Secretary of Scotland get from being outside the chamber, standing behind four other MP's to be standing directly behind Gordon Brown at the start of the speech?
Wardog also seems to have made a comparison of this with his account of Richard Baker shoving infront of people who were waiting for a bus in Dundee (I think)
Indeed if I recall correctly, what he actually said in his original tweet on the matter (which incidentally was sent on the morning of the 2nd of December, weeks before the post in question) was that he (wardog) was actually an 'eyewitness' and onboard the very bus.
I haven't yet seen any evidence that Richard Baker was or wasn't on that bus and didn't barge past others to get on it.
So far, all I've seen is a denial on the part of some bloggers of the plausibility of wardogs account but without any substance at all.
Has anyone asked whether Richard Baker was on a bus from Dundee that morning?
Baker seems to be a pretty highly strung individual as witnessed most weeks in the parliament at FMQ's.
Wardog's account, doesn't seem entirely inconsistent with those performances.
Add in the potential displeasure of being delayed at Dundee due to a closed rail line, a busy schedule ahead and the picture becomes quite believable.
Again though, whether factual or not, are we really saying that saying as much on a blog is defamatory to a point of media interest?
Lastly, Wardog's blog was very clear on Willie Bain, he simply asked a series of questions relating to his well publicised domicile and in particular his contributions to Glasgow Council by way of council tax.
Again I've seen little in the way of rebuttal from the articles that appeared on Sunday and the subsequent chatter online.
Isn't asking whether Willie Bain, who let's face it was accusing others of 'ripping off glasgow', had actually paid any council tax to the city whilst in employment not a relevant question?
It all seems a bit like using a hammer to crack a nut and although I don't believe the political bias angle either, there is something strange about how this 'story' came about.
I can't help feeling that it's a unfamiliar world when Journo's accuse blogger's of 'making it up' and then make no effort themselves to ask the questions and gather evidence to refute it.
Let's be frank, bloggers aren't journalists even if and as I suspect many aspire to be.
Commentators really shouldn't use the "c-word" - but it is a greater offence to try and stop them using it by concocting a controversy with their employer (as happened to Wardog).
Most bloggers make their comments in their spare time, on an unpaid basis, and this is freedom of speech, freedom of expression. If anyone has any complaints about what is said, then they should be offered the opportunity to reply on the blog, or express a contrary view elsewhere - it's called "debate". If anyone feels particularly wronged, then they could always seek redress through the courts (as Nadine Dorries did).
However, paid bloggers - politicians, aides, reporters and columnists - are different from "civilians" and carry their party or newspaper's reputation. If they cross the line, they need to go - as for McBride, MacLachlan, and that Labour hack who called Salmond the "C-word" whose name I can't remember!
Post a Comment