Brian Taylor’s Unionism is no ‘pretence?’

From stewartb:

On 23 April, on the BBC News website, Brian Taylor, Political Editor of BBC Scotland wrote under the headline: “Coronavirus: Nicola Sturgeon abandons the pretence.”

Now that is negative, an accusatory, framing if ever I saw one!

Taylor writes: “Nicola Sturgeon has, to a large extent, abandoned the pretence. In all her remarkable pronouncements during this quite remarkable period, she has constantly stressed that she may have to change tack, that she is open to other ideas.”

So, the headline implies – does it not – that the FM was previously ‘pretending’ about (something) associated with Coronavirus (that’s ‘bad’) and now, finally, has abandoned her reprehensible practice.

But then at the same time Mr Taylor seems be arguing that throughout the crisis the FM has NOT been following this practice of ‘pretence’ (that’s ‘good’ is it not?), despite it being a practice typical of most politicians (he also tells us) who maintain a ‘pretence’ of certainty.

Do you think the headline writer (working for the public service broadcaster remember) when crafting this negative ‘frame’ by juxtaposition simply, innocently failed to understand the positive assessment of the FM’s approach to the crisis that Mr Taylor seems to be delivering? Aye right!

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-52401278

7 thoughts on “Brian Taylor’s Unionism is no ‘pretence?’”

  1. My thoughts were that he was being ‘snide’. The article can be read in two ways, with equal validity , as you have shown.

    I suspect he might well have unionist sympathies – he attended St Andrew’s University , but I saw it in a ‘conservative’ light. By this I mean, hostility to change, which suggests that ‘politics’ and ‘politicians’ change nothing, you cannot trust them, so do not put any hopes in them. Essentially , it is weasel words, saying: ‘accept the status quo’.

    I remember back in the 60s when the Tories in Glasgow called themselves the “progressives” or ‘moderates’ and did not use the Tory/Conservative/Unionist label in local elections. This was to imply they were above the squalid business of politics, which is what the Labour Party (mainly Irish ‘Papes’, ye know!) is doing. By this mendacity they were able to hold on to a fair chunk of the working class Protestant vote and returned a number of MPs for Glasgow constituencies and also a fair number of seats on the Corporation, although only for a brief period, in my memory did they actually provide the Lord Provost and, perhaps, a bit of executive power.

    With the advent of Mrs Thatcher the Conservative and Unionist label became the title and, by 1991, they had heehaw MPs in Scotland, never mind Glasgow.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  2. A piece of solid advice for Mr Taylor
    Before you place any of your bias laden scribbled notes
    Then
    1.proof read but not for grammar but for the
    ACTUAl meaning of the words you deploy
    2.Have access to a dictionary for use of reference
    3.once you deploy 2.above then consider
    How best to associate any words finally
    Proofed and place in proper context with such
    A dictum i always applied to any written communication potentially carrying the prospect of serious ramifications were
    1.choose your words with the utmost of caution
    Why
    Because just one word can mean many different things to many people on many
    different days and occasions
    Once written and signed their is NO WAY BACK

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  3. Wonder how long it took him to put those words together, he didn’t want to praise her but he couldn’t ignore the fact she is doing well , so just let’s say she normally pretends but on this occasion she hasn’t, a psychologist could have a field day with that ! .

    Like

    Reply

  4. The use of ‘headlines’ to provide an immediate, influence-seeking but misleading ‘frame’ is, as someone on a previous thread by the TUSC noted, now a common feature of the media, even it seems the BBC. I posted an example from The Times on a prior TUSC thread : its seems appropriate to repeat it here in order to re-enforce the ‘point’ of the above post. (Apologies to anyone irritated by the repetition.)

    ‘April 23, 2020 at 12:59 pm
    The Times seems to have an ongoing mission to undermine the Scottish Government and Scotland’s health and social care services as this example reveals.

    A known critic of the Scottish Government authors an article in that newspaper today. It actually acknowledges a ‘positive’ concerning the SG’s assessment of Covid-19 statistics. It then draws a comparison with the approach being taken in ‘London’, expressing a negative view of the latter.

    As alert readers will note, the headline writer for The Times seems steeped in the current corporate culture of this once great newspaper of ‘record’. The headline shows the crafting of a blatantly negative message on the situation in Scotland by use of careful juxtaposition of phrases.

    The headline is reproduced below but firstly what does the article tell us (at least that part visible without going behind the paywall)? Written by the seemingly ever present media darling, the care home empire owner Robert Kilgour (how does he find time away from his day job?), The Times article states this:

    “I am on a Whatsapp group with around 500 UK care home operators and they have little to no confidence in the Office for National Statistics data.

    The first minister RIGHTLY cautioned against treating the 33 per cent of deaths in Scottish care homes as the true figure. Some countries further along the curve have seen 40-50 per cent of deaths in care homes. France have been counting care home deaths for quite some time.

    The first minister said there was no reason to think that Scotland was different. The government DESERVE SOME PRAISE for moving to a more accurate reporting system. I wish that were being done in London.”

    That all seems clear. Let’s look at the headline chosen by The Times:

    ‘Coronavirus in Scotland: I don’t believe official data on deaths reflects reality’

    Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/coronavirus-in-scotland-i-don-t-believe-official-data-on-deaths-reflects-reality-nmvlsl3fl

    Now I’m sure that if challenged, The Times would push back: it would point to the full content of the article and even to its willingness to publish it at all. However, it is blindingly obvious what its headline writer was aiming to do, to influence readers through a misrepresentation – unless this is evidence of professional incompetence, of not being able to express ‘meaning’ clearly. Aye right!

    Let’s fix the headline: ‘Cornavirus in England: I don’t believe official data on deaths reflect reality.’ Perhaps BBC Reporting Scotland will offer Mr Kilgour another opportunity this evening to inform its viewers on this matter.’

    So this technique of exploiting juxtaposition to craft a ‘frame’ in the BBC article and in The Times looks remarkably similar. A core competence of some in journalism nowadays?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a reply to Contrary Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.