By stewartb

Media coverage of ‘ferries’ news has left a lot to be desired. This is true of local press coverage as well as national. In the run up to the Holyrood election there was local press coverage in the Western Isles that seems to exemplify the problem.

From Hebrides News online (April 3, 2026): ‘Island economy struggles ‘turning into a nightmare’ due to CalMac ferry crisis’.

Firstly readers are told this: ‘South Uist Business Impact Group (SUBIG) have raised concerns over reduced animal welfare as a result of CalMac’s cuts to ferry services’ and ‘The ferry action group said: “CalMac’s cuts mean salmon farms are unable to get specialist vehicles on to the island needed to move the youngest fish from where they were raised to where they will grow on.’ (my emphasis)

Then we read this: ‘Ronnie MacKenzie of Hebridean Smolts highlighted: “By now we should have moved over 300,000 smolts into their new homes at sea. But we can’t because the ferries are full and the specialist lorries needed to transport them can’t get onto the Island” and then “Soon our whole business will be under threat, fish farms that have been in operation for over 50 years are at risk because of the Government’s failed ferry policy.”

Mindful of the above SUBIG statement and the highly politicised comment from the local business owner, how then is the reader to reconcile this from the same article? ‘However, CalMac says the smolt trucks are being moved‘ and “there haven’t been any issues reported about them not getting on board” the ferry. A spokesperson said: “We have been able to accommodate all smolt lorries as requested and our port teams have not been made aware of any problems.”

Unfortunately, the journalist makes NO attempt to help the reader find out where the truth might lie between these seemingly irreconcilable contributions. Who’s being less than candid here? The headline writer has clearly chosen a framing advantageous to one point of view!

The same publication, Hebrides News (April 16) had this headline: ‘CalMac ‘profiting from failure’ says South Uist action group’.

We’re told: ‘South Uist Business Impact Group (SUBIG) are calling on CalMac to only charge customers for the direct route they should be able to take, rather than the extended multi-ferry diversions which they are now forced to endure as a result of continuing crisis across the network.’ And: “No customer should be forced to subsidise CalMac by paying extra while at the same time suffering such an appalling lack of service” said John Daniel Peteranna, spokesperson for SUBIG. “The least CalMac can do is offer alternative routes for the same price as the regular route. It should be simple enough to offer a joint ticket online: Mallaig to Lochboidale via Barra, incorporating both ferry journeys. Yet CalMac seem determined to make it as difficult and expensive as possible.”

The article includes this political comment: ‘With the election campaign for the Scottish Parliament now in full swing, islanders are hoping that party leaders heed their call for help.’

Mindful of the pejorative headline and the prominence given to the SUBIG charge, how is the reader to reconcile this: ‘A CalMac spokeswoman said: “We understand that current problems with vessels across the network are causing a lot of disruption to customers and businesses on the Western Isles. This is why we have made sure that no-one is paying additional fares and that the difference in cost is being refunded directly to passengers.

“Any higher cost for a longer journey is written off against a disruption discount – ultimately, the customer should get back their apportioned refund.

The journalist makes no attempt at reconciling the two contributions. However, the headline writer has a preferred framing!

From the CalMac website: ‘Mallaig – Lochboisdale services until 17 May 2026 ‘Customers can submit a claim to be refunded for any difference in cost of travel if they would ordinarily have travelled between Mallaig-Lochboisdale, but due to disruption, now need to make a new booking for an alternative route because their intended route (Mallaig-Lochboisdale) is currently unavailable due to cancellation of this service up to 17 May.‘

What’s going on here? All this reminds me of the discrepancies among views regarding Calmac’s published performance statistics. Across the ‘ferries’ issue, are there folk playing fast and loose with words/data – whether motivated by protecting a corporate reputation or motivated by politics?