The Cybernats and the SNP
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
The first time I ever read the comments sections on the Scotsman was in the run up to the Scottish Parliamentary Elections. I had joined the Labour Party about 6 months before but was only just starting to get active and I remember people were talking about the really vile comments people were making about the then First Minister Jack McConnell, it was then when I first heard of the cybernat.
Since the SNP got into power it has continued. Any idea that it is simply harmless juvenile comments are surely blown out of the water by Scotsman Political Editor David Maddox's comments:
"The reason the comments are no longer allowed after my stories is because cybernats - by which I mean the extremist element that supports the SNP and manifests itself under anonymous names - were putting up comments actually seemed to be threatening me physical harm and asking people to track down my home, car etc. At that point it was decided by the newspaper's management that comments should no longer appear after my stories."
I remember back in 2007 there was a general assumption amongst the young activists I was with that this was simply the nationalist mentality within the SNP with such xenophobic anger perpetuated by thugs. I'm proud and quite happy to publicly state that 5 minutes working in the Scottish Parliament shattered that myth forever. Every now and then I would get pelters from friends for talking to our fellow Nationalist researchers but I was keen to find out more about the party for myself and was pleased to meet intelligent rational people with a (very wrong) idea for how to take the country forward and am pleased to be able to call a few of them friends.
So I can understand the frustration people in the SNP feel when they are tarnished by the comments the cybernats make but the strategy in dealing with them has been wrong and the claims that they are not party members is not necessarily the case as we now know.
But even ignoring the moral case there is a strategic issue with the cybernats now getting all over the Internet, just like there was when Damian McBride made his loathsome comments. You can't control what people say on the Internet but you can take a clear stand on it.
And that can be done by Alex Salmond making a speech stating in no uncertain ways with the bravado that only our First Minister can muster stating that these people have no place in a modern civic nationalist party and any who are caught smearing or engaging in these activities will be immediately thrown out of the party.
I don't take any pleasure in it because all of us who believe in the Internet as a force for positive debate in politics suffer when it is seen as a seedy environment for nasty weirdos to put it bluntly. Blogs can be an important place for debate free from commercial pressures papers feel and can be openly biased leading to interrogation of party positions. What's more in terms of mobilising activists and getting messages across and campaigning the Internet will only rise as a medium.
I was talking to a Councillor last week who was telling me he was creating a website and building up his email list telling me how he was soon to have a 1000 constituents he would email updates to whereas it would take him about 10 hours to do normally, breaking down the barriers between politician and electorate.
Posts
22 comments:
The same Daivd Maddox who Jeff refers to here http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/2009/12/maddox-gets-his-facts-wrong.html ?
Seems like the Scotsman's political editor has his own agenda.
Loving your continued attack on cybernats though - as if they were the only ones abusing the internet. I think you'll go far Yousuf. You're clearly shaking off your concerns about the veracity, accuracy and fairness of what you publish.
The reason the comments are no longer allowed after my stories is because cybernats - by which I mean the extremist element that supports the SNP and manifests itself under anonymous names - were putting up comments actually seemed to be threatening me physical harm and asking people to track down my home, car etc. At that point it was decided by the newspaper's management that comments should no longer appear after my stories."
__________
If that is true then that is regrettable and although I don't agree with much Maddoxs writes, no one should be threatened in this way.
I was also threatened on the Scotsman forums and someone posted what they thought was my parents address on the forums last year just because I posted a comment disagreeing with Labour.
I have been subjected to racist attacks on the forums and on my own blog when I have been highly critical of Labour.
As you well know I support the SNP so are you going to blame the so called (cyberNats) for the disgusting behaviour towards me?
Thankfully I'm giving up blogging soon, very soon because its just the same old he said this and she might have said this that you find on they forums which I gave up on sometime ago.
_______
Anyway Yousuf all that aside, Congratulations on your new appointment and I'm sure you will do your party proud.
Hi Yousuf
Thanks very much for being fair minded and noble enough to acknowledge that the behaviour of a few morons on blogs and newspaper comment sections doesn't in any way reflect the SNP or the wider independence movement. The behaviour of such people is reprehensible and embarrassing.
It is clearly reflection of your good character that you didn't allow the prejudice of some of your fellow activists towards SNP members to stand in the way of befriending folk of a different (but equally credible) political persuasion to your own. I have on a number of occasions encountered some of this prejudice and been genuinely upset by it. I'm therefore very glad that as a prominent young Labourite you have recognised it as utterly misplaced and unfair.
The SNP is nothing like the party that some Labourites seem to believe it is. The SNP is a genuinely social democratic, internationalist party of which I am proud to be a member.
Its maybe showing my ignorance but when reading blogs the most abusive seem to be conservative.The near constant reference to our PM as cyclops and the c word.You refer to nationalist bloggers or writers as cybernats this I presume is play on word gnat which is also an insult.I am told David Maddox says people have threatened him in comments section but there are no examples shown so I can judge.The Scotsman is not a non partisan source of news so would it not be natural for it to expect some adverse comment.I like this debate but I dont think it should be confined to one party.
AMW/Macvean I agree it is not all Nationalists and not all the cybernats are SNP members but the vast majority of comments are from Nationalists.
Sorry I am confused do you mean majority of abusive comments are nationalists or majority of comments are nationalist.Is it the comments that we are complaining about or blogs.I like your blog but I am not as well read as you.
I really do dislike this word 'cybernats' to describe anyone who supports independence for Scotland. I'd go as far as to say the word is as offensive to me as some expletives.
It was started by George Foulkes as an abusive term to describe nationalist supporters who contributed to then then Scotsman and Herald forums. Sadly unionists still use it to insult anyone who doesn't conform to their thought that Scotland would be unable to stand on her own two feet.
David Maddox makes no mention of the dreadful comments some unionists left on Scotsman forums. Of course he won't - his newspaper is a unionist paper and that's why it's circulation has reached an all time low.
The average person doesn't want to know about fighting between parties, they want to know what's happening in their schools, hospitals - how we're going to finance these. In fact this week many of my friends (of all political persuasions) have spoken more about the stupid behaviour of the unionists in deciding to vote down the SNP's referendum Bill. They can't believe they're not respected enough to be able to speak for themselves and they very much want to do so.
"...any who are caught smearing or engaging in these activities will be immediately thrown out of the party."
Maybe a better solution would be some kind of concordant between parties to remove attack blog campaigners and so on from their parties. After the events of the past year, there isn't really anyone much left on the moral high-ground of this issue and I can think of at least one negative Labour blog and one Tory blog which receive acknowledgement from MPs within the respective parties.
There are also logistical problems. Identifying members behind attack blogs and web-comments isn't desperately easy unless they clearly identify themselves.
Much as some Tory bloggers tend to blame all of their negative traffic on Labour supporters, the idea of this being some kind of hardcore SNP block is annoying. It's important to remember that not all nationalists are SNP members - indeed, the social attitudes survey suggest that while ±70% od independence supporters are, the remaining 30% are members of other parties.
Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and Tories are all more then capable of using nationalist rhetoric as well, because being a nationalist doesn't mean believing in independence.
To be fair I think there's an undesirable element on both sides, but from where I'm standing the cybernat problem seems greater than the cyberunionist one.
Social Democrat, your portrayal of the SNP was blown out of the water slightly at the weekend in case you've forgotten.
Of course, there's a seedy underbelly across the political spectrum - the unanswered/unanswereable question being its extent - but pretending it doesn't exist simply isn't credible.
And, Yousuf, thanks for the mention at the weekend :0)
"cybernats - by which I mean the extremist element"
Then why not call them extremist cybernats? You are tarring moderate nationalists online with the same brush.
There are extremists on any spectrum and they rarely help their cause.
subrosa/del cybernats refer to the extreme nationalists who pollute the internet with their hatred, not a nationalist online and certainly not anyone who believes in Independence.
Yousuf, the definition you are constantly using is a creation. You can't just change the definition of a word when it already has a meaning.
cyber - relating to electronic communication networks
nat - nationalist
There is no implied extremism in the word 'cybernat'. If you want it to refer to extremists, you should say "extremist cybernats".
Good post. Whilst no one in their mind wishes harm to David Maddox I do find his kind of reporting to be unequivollay biased and should bring into question his ability to hold a senior post in a quality newspaper.
Do you agree that his reporting is heavily slanted against the SNP?
Hi Stuart
"Social Democrat, your portrayal of the SNP was blown out of the water slightly."
With respect I don't think that is the case at all. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Don't tell me you subscribe to the misguided and offensive prejudice against SNP members that Yousuf has rightly highlighted as a myth!
"Whilst no one in their mind wishes harm to David Maddox I do find his kind of reporting to be unequivollay biased and should bring into question his ability to hold a senior post in a quality newspaper."
My opinion is that they are baised against the SNP, despite endorsing them in 2007.
However, I feel that it should be remembered that for years the Conservative Party had a hostile press in Scotland, especially from the Hearld. In fact they still do. I don't however recall anyone from the SNP saying that anyone at the paper was unfit to hold their position.
good stuff yousuf - i think quite a fair assesment.
But whether its "cybernats" of cyberunionists that are worse, here is a thought:
Abusive cybernats do the nationalist cause harm
Abusive cyberunionists do the unionist harm.
So why not a bit of self policing from each respective community? By this I dont just mean individual self restraint, but a collective approach by fellow bloggers, particularly ones from the "communities" concerned - object online to folks on your own "side" when they go OTT someone goes OTT.
I followed very closely the two offending posts that led to Wardogs and then Monty's demise - I posted too them to say I thought their comments out of order. But I think I was almost a lone voice. A lot of silence, but also quite a lot of "well said" ,"here here "oh you are awfull but I like you stuff" from a reasonable range of id say mainsteam cybernats: They'd never say it themselves, but they kind of liked it, egged on the ultras. I say this not to sound self richeous, but if maybe the reaction of fellow bloggers and regualar posters had been universally hostile, the offending posts might have been taken down or ammended significantly before the media got near them. (They aint that net savy that MSM crowd.)
Just a thought - more for the future than the past.
So Yousef - get too it in nulab world!!!
John Hartigan, the CEO of Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited, labelled all bloggers and alternative media outlets as “political extremists”.
Hartigan went on to savagely dismiss blogs as,
“Something of such little intellectual value as to be barely discernible from massive ignorance......Bloggers don’t go to jail for their work. They simply aren’t held accountable like real reporters….It could be said the blogosphere is all eyeballs and no insights,” snarled Hartigan.
“In the blogosphere, of course, the mainstream media is always found wanting. It really is time this myth was blown apart......Blogs, and a large number of comment sites, specialise in political extremism and personal vilification. Radical sweeping statements without evidence are common.”
Put in the context of these rather sweeping generalisations, one can start to realise where Euan McColms, The News of the World's Scottish Political Editor's interest in blogging stems from and on a more sinister level the kind of resource that is being deployed against individuals in society that wish to speak out against politicians.
Hartigan doesn’t seem to grasp the fact that the mainstream media is always found wanting because they habitually lie about news events and spin stories to suit the demands of their corporate owners.
This is the very reason why blogs and alternative media outlets have become so popular and have eaten into the mainstream media’s audience share, because people are sick of being treated like idiots, sick of being lied to, and are desperately in search of the truth.
Indeed, Hartigan’s boss Rupert Murdoch confessed to the fact that his media empire tried to shape public opinion to support the war in Iraq In other words, Murdoch’s many prominent news outlets wantonly put out propaganda supporting the manufactured case for invasion.
Murdoch admitted to this while lamenting the corporate media’s “loss of power” to alternative media and Internet blogs, seemingly unaware of the fact that the two are directly connected.
Now who will step up to the plate to take on and expose these vested interests and their attack on citizen bloggers?
Hi Yousuf
I agree with Stuart Winton that there is a seedy underbelly across the political spectrum and I do agree that this does need to be accepted and something done about it.
The blogosphere has great potential as a forum for political debate. However, I feel it is essential that this debate is carried out in a respectful and constructive way. I believe the best way forward is a policy self policing. We have to start pulling people up for abusive posts. We have to let them know their behaviour is unacceptable and an embarrassment to the causes or political parties they claim to support.
What I think we have to avoid doing is tarring decent, well intentioned people with the same brush. For example, I just don't think it is fair to suggest, as Stuart seems to do above, that the SNP is somehow not a genuine social democratic party full of decent, fair minded people based upon the events of the weekend. We may all have differing political views but we have to respect the fact that we have arrived at our perspective positions with good intentions.
Let’s claim back the online political community for those who believe in reasoned debate.
Hi Social Democrat
The problem with your analysis is that you portray the SNP as unqualified sweetness and light:
"the behaviour of a few morons on blogs and newspaper comment sections doesn't in any way reflect the SNP or the wider independence movement."
And
"a genuine social democratic party full of decent, fair minded people"
What I did do was to say that that image had been tarnished SLIGHTLY by recent events.
Indeed, you yourself agree that there's a "seedy underbelly" across the political spectrum, which to an extent contradicts your two quotes above.
I'm not saying it's huge in extent, but on the other hand it can't be totally dismissed.
Aye We Can
I think your analysis of the threads leading to the Wardog/Monty implosions is bang on the button.
However, I'm sceptical about the self-policing suggestion - as your own analysis indicates, posters of the same political persuasion tend to encourage rather than criticse, and the political opponents will just be ignored. As you yourself noted, in effect you were drowned out. The more measured pro-independence contributors wouldn't be critical, they would just keep out of it.
Hi Stuart
My point wasn’t meant to suggest the SNP was all sweetness and light (no party is), but rather that the vast majority of decent members and supporters of the party shouldn’t be tarred with the same brush, and that we shouldn’t cast aspersions on the honourable ideologies of the SNP (or any other party) based upon the actions of a few cyber-eejits.
To clarify I think you’re completely right in saying that although the problem isn’t huge in extent within the grand scheme of things it can’t be dismissed. I think self policing amongst bloggers would be a very effective way of eradicating the problem.
I couldn't agree more with Del. The word Cybernat in itself applies to all Nationalists who publish online. I support what the SNP is doing, and I have an online blog to express my support. But I've never taken part in insults and smear. Does that make me a Cybernat?
Post a Comment