I Read The News Today - Oh Boy (Lennon and McCartney)

"Twitter now writes the first draft of history, where journalism used to."

John Birmingham is one of my favourite fiction authors who also earns a crust by penning articles for some of Australia's best known and most widely read newspapers. He made the above quote in The Brisbane Times last week in an article relating to largely unreported Police action in forcibly clearing an Aboriginal tent embassy in order to make way for a Greek Paniyiri Festival.

Here in Scotland, the quote is wonderfully relevant given the woeful standards evident in the reporting of our news, current affairs and political events that we are expected to tolerate from both our print and, especially, our visual media with particular emphasis being placed on our publicly funded BBC.

I, like many others, no longer buy what I might previously have termed "my" daily newspaper due in no small part to the lack of balanced and factual reporting available. Some "news"papers, like The Scotsman, have seen their circulation fall to alarming levels, quite probably as a result of the ludicrous slant they place on practically any story relating to Government in and of Scotland.

I have never been a member of Facebook and doubt that I will join but I have now been an active user of Twitter for just over 1 year. Twitter now provides me with not only all the news I require but news that I would, otherwise, not even be permitted to read or hear. Be permitted being the crucial phrase.

Apart from their own refusal to accept that most simply want an unbiased report of the news with even-handed opinion pieces, the biggest threat to traditional media comes from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Had they and the internet existed in the 1970's, Scotland might already be an independent country given the access that each and every one of us now has to attitudes, viewpoints, opinion and even just the news that was once completely denied to us.

Were it not for Twitter, I might never even have heard of any of the following as they have hardly been the subject of widespread media and, particularly, television reporting:

The McCrone Report commissioned in 1974 by the then Conservative Government in London, presented in 1975 and immediately classified as Top Secret by the Labour Government of Harold Wilson. Why was it hidden from us? Because it specifically stated that an Independent Scotland would prosper. Surely, for that reason alone, there exists the basis for a Newsnight Scotland special?

The UK Attorney General blocking the release of official papers relating to Scottish devolution. Why did he block the papers? Because it would not be "in the public interest". Forgive me, but what public? The rest of the UK public or the Scottish public? We are supposed to be in a union of equals but, as is so often the case, it appears that some are more equal than others. Surely, within this classification as secret, there exists the basis for a Brian Taylor studio spot on Reporting Scotland?

The Bain Principle (as tweeted by Willie Bain MP) which is self-explanatory and totally indefensible. To my mind, this was the political revelation of the decade but, to my knowledge, it has not even been mentioned on the BBC never mind discussed or investigated. They are letting us and themselves down by ignoring this revelation as they have a specific remit and responsibility to report the news and to do so in an impartial and balanced way. It is clear to me that they are not doing so.

Glasgow Labour's alleged deal with the Orange Order. Once again, a subject totally ignored by most of our print media and, shamefully, by BBC Scotland. It is alleged that the Leader of Glasgow City Council, Gordon Matheson, agreed to relax regulations concerning Orange Walks in the city in return for the Orange Order 'suggesting' that their membership vote Labour in the recent local authority elections. Once again, this should, surely, have seen an investigation and exposé by one or all of our television outlets. No mention, the story completely brushed under the carpet.

Mr Al-Megrahi, the so-called Lockerbie bomber. I have linked to the Scottish Review because in today's edition, there is a particularly splendid opinion piece written by Kenneth Roy entitled "The coverage of his death has been crass and repugnant" and with which I agree 100%. Were it not for the internet and, to be fair, The Herald, I might never have been presented with a view other than that which states Mr Al-Megrahi was guilty as charged. Personally, I don't believe he was the guilty party but, sadly, I don't believe we will ever find out the truth.

Those, then, are just some examples of where the Internet and Twitter have broadened my horizons. Our print and televisual media are not yet finished, they can save themselves. They could make a start by asking one simple question during political interviews. The next time we have a Labour politician complaining about Westminster this or Tory that, is it to much to ask that the interviewer poses the following:

"If Scotland were Independent, what would the situation be?"

Sadly, I think it is. That will be their downfall.

An Unbiased Report. Match it, my BBC.

They are pretty much finished then - no, not the LibDems but the Scottish Council Elections! Just 4 seats remain to be determined (anticipated to be 2 SNP and 2 Independent) but the make-up of our local authorities for the next 5 years is pretty much known.

I never believed the hype surrounding Glasgow City Council and never believed it realistic to expect the SNP to become anything like the largest party in the city. Labour are, simply, too powerful in Glasgow but further progress has been made. I never believed the suggestions that the Labour vote in Scotland would crumble for two reasons, the STV electoral system used to elect members and the sheer number of candidates standing under the Labour umbrella. I was hopeful that, Scotland wide, the SNP share of the vote and number of elected members would increase and I anticipated a slight fall in the Labour party share of the vote and expected them to lose a small number of Councillors. In the Borders, I had hoped for an increased SNP involvement (they achieved 3 more elected members) and I had wished that the anti-progress and NIMBY Borders party would lose both their seats which, sadly, they didn't!

The title suggests an unbiased report so my sincere congratulations go to the SNP, Labour and Green parties.

To the SNP for gaining the highest percentage of first preference votes; the biggest increase, numbers wise, in Councillors elected; the largest number of Councillors elected and for the bucking of the generally accepted trend that a governing party suffers at the polls mid-term.

To the Labour party for increasing the number of Councillors elected and avoiding yet further crises within their ranks; to the Green party for gaining 6 additional Councillors and, finally, to Professor Pongoo for making us all giggle at the LibDems expense!

In recent weeks, I have been asked why I don't update this blog more regularly and my answer has been that, effectively, I need a good reason. I can't simply sit down and pen a piece commenting on something that doesn't stir something within. A bit pretentious, perhaps, but c'est la vie!

Late yesterday afternoon, I listened to the First Minister suggesting that the SNP had gained something in the region of 60 Councillors since 2007 which surprised me since my BBC were telling me (at the time) that it was 44. Now, perhaps naively, I have always watched the BBC's election coverage, believing it to be streets ahead of its competitors and have looked on agog at such inventions as the swingometer, never thinking for a moment that they might be telling porkies or doubting their figures and statistics, so I did a bit of digging (at the same time, it seems, as others noticed the discrepancies in the figures).

Here is the accurate picture (by my reckoning and using BBC figures from 2007):

	2007	2012	Change
SNP	363	424	+61
LAB	348	394	+46
CON	143	115	-28
LIBDEM	166	71	-95
OTHER	203	216	+13

Here is the new and updated BBC picture:

	2007	2012	Change
SNP	367	424	+57
LAB	336	394	+58
CON	131	115	-16
LIBDEM	151	71	-80
OTHER	237	219	-18

I am unable to explain the additional three seats that the BBC have allocated to "other" in this week's election and, in all honesty, am struggling to explain the starting figures used by them in their calculations. It has been suggested that the figures I have listed in the BBC table for 2007 are, in fact, the figures taken as at Wednesday 2nd May, 2012 but I confess that I am unable to reconcile them even then. That might need a little more time than I am prepared to devote! What I do notice, however, is that every pro-Union party is portrayed as having performed better than they have done in reality.

Let's assume, though, that the BBC have used the figures from Wednesday. This renders my understanding of every BBC election programme invalid as I have ALWAYS understood them to have been comparing current with true historic in that the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections, for example, were compared to the results from the 2007 election.

How can I quickly check my understanding of their comparisons in an as up-to-date way as possible? Initially, I thought to compare their coverage of the England and Wales Council elections online but this was complicated by the strange nature of the English set up in particular, where some Councillors are elected one year and others within the same Council in another year. Similarly, not every (by any means) English Council had an election on Thursday. The best and quickest comparison that I could come up with was with the London Assembly and so that is what I have used.

In 2008, the BNP had Richard Barnbrook elected as a member of the London Assembly. He was expelled from the BNP and, subsequently, sat as an Independent. Using the same principles as they have applied to the Scottish elections, the (our) BBC would show the BNP commencing the election on zero seats. Mysteriously, the BBC webpage for this week's London Assembly elections is detailing the BNP as finishing on 0 seats after Thursday's election BUT it then shows them as being -1. For the London Assembly, then, our BBC are using exactly the system that I had always believed them to use and, crucially, a totally different system than they have used here in Scotland.

Now, I appreciate that this is by no means conclusive but it suggests to me that someone within BBC Scotland has decided to completely and unilaterally alter the methodology used when the (our) BBC cover an election. Everywhere else in the UK will compare like with like (i.e.) 2007 with 2012 but that, uniquely, in Scotland alone we shall compare 2nd May with 4th May. Now that we know this, I suggest that one week before the next Council elections, every single Councillor resigns from his or her party and then our BBC can portray everyone as a winner with nobody losing a single seat except for the 'others'. That. then, is my brilliant idea!

Unfortunately, it is more important than that. On BBC Radio 5Live this morning, I listened to SNP MSP Derek MacKay being interviewed when the studio suggested that he was mistaken in his portrayal of the local elections as being an SNP victory. Why? Because "Our Scottish political correspondent, Brian Taylor, says you came second". Unlike some, I don't pretend or insist that BBC staff based in London know the ins and outs of Scottish politics although it would be nice were they a bit more informed. They do, however, rely on their own colleagues based in Scotland to assist them.

Thanks, then, to BBC Scotland we have the situation whereby:
The BBC are stating that Labour gained more seats than the SNP. This is not true.
The BBC are stating that the Conservatives lost only 16 seats. This is not true.
The BBC are stating that the LibDems lost only(!) 80 seats. This is not true.
The BBC are stating that Labour won most votes (using the figures currently available). This is not true.

Here, then, is the situation within BBC Scotland - as I see it:
Uniquely, within the BBC, BBC Scotland does not permit comment on its politics webpages.
Uniquely, within the BBC, BBC Scotland does not permit its staff to reply or retweet on Twitter.
Uniquely, within the BBC, BBC Scotland uses a completely different rule to compare seats won or lost at election time.

BBC Scotland are being accused of bias on a regular basis. It is difficult to argue that they are not, given the situation described above. I don't want my BBC to be biased for either or any side. I want them to carry out their duty in a professional manner in the very ethos of public service broadcasting. More and more, I and many others are of the belief that they are, simply, not to be trusted, which is a crying shame.

We are all forced, by law, to pay for this service whether we like it or not through the Licence Fee. This means, though, that everyone within the BBC is, ultimately, working for us. Within BBC Scotland, it seems that they have chosen to forget this. We do have very limited recourse and can complain about the election figures they have unilaterally used by clicking this link to BBC Complaints or contacting that nice Raymond Snoddy at BBC Newswatch.

Very sadly, I wouldn't hold your breath as it seems more than likely that a generic reply will be sent to all complainants.

In the meantime, some of you might consider attending the protest against perceived bias evident within BBC Scotland on May 26th. Until today, i wouldn't have bothered but now?

Shame on you, BBC Scotland. Scotland deserves better - much better.