2007 - 2022


JS55437000Technically, technically, technically. You’ll be sick of that word by the end of this blog.

But that’s what it’s all about folks, and I want to help explain what’s going on. People were understandably flabbergasted this week after press regulator Ipso ruled that the Daily Express hadn’t breached accuracy guidelines with its “Sturgeon urged to stop multi-million pound referendum crusade article”, which reported “widespread outbreaks of violence” during the Scottish independence referendum.

The article clearly gave a misrepresentative, one-sided view of events, so how could Ipso rule in the paper’s favour? Well, quite easily, really. The regulator doesn’t assess the impact of articles on readers, it doesn’t look at the whole, it looks at the parts. Regulators require complainants to be specific about which parts of an article are inaccurate. If those parts can’t be proven to be so, the regulator will not rule in favour of the complainant, regardless of the bigger picture.

Journalists are obviously very wise to this, and it’s easy to learn the tricks of the trade. It’s totally possible, and incredibly common, to create a very misleading picture while keeping an article on the right side of accuracy.

I’m going to take a look at a few of the most inflammatory lines in the Express article, and explain why I think Ipso ruled against the complainant in this case.

But before we get started, it’s important to know what the complaint to Ipso was. It came in two main points, so bear these in mind when you’re reading this. I’m looking at other claims in the article because it’s relevant to do so, but the complaint itself only dealt with the following:

1.) That the article’s claim of “widespread outbreaks of violence” was inaccurate
2.) That the use of a photograph in the article could give a false impression of who was responsible for the violence.

Now, the second complaint is pretty easy to get out of: the Express article doesn’t lay the blame at either the feet of nationalists or unionists’ directly. You’re probably away to check it, because you’re probably convinced it did, but that’s just clever editorial trickery at play. It’s quite easy in media to say something without explicitly saying it.

The first complaint, I’ll address below.

It’s also important to say that this blog is an exercise in speculation, designed to illustrate how a press regulator might assess a complaint, and how a publisher might defend itself. I don’t have any more knowledge about it than you do. I don’t know how the article was commissioned and I don’t know what steps author Siobhan McFadyen took while putting it together. This is just my imagination at work.

The point of this is to help you understand how journalists and editors think when they’re assessing the accuracy of their output, to give you some insight into that process. Keep that in mind when I’m saying these claims are technically not inaccurate – I’m not saying that makes them right or wrong, I’m saying that this is how media people think.

“Families were split all over Scotland after the Government announced its plans to hold a vote on the 18th of September two years ago.”

Were families really split all over Scotland? Probably, yes. All that’s required for this to be technically true is for a handful of families in different parts of Scotland to disagree on whether to vote Yes or No. I’ve certainly seen a few people on Twitter talk about proper fall outs in their families over indyref.

It’s tiny in comparison to the number of people who’ve told me it didn’t make a blind bit of difference within their families, but they do exist.

And what does ‘families split’ actually mean? It could be as simple as a mild disagreement. Technically that’s a split. Who knows?

We’re not stupid. We know what that wording is suggesting – that families were ripped apart, torn in two, never the same again. Three simple words, ‘families were split’, is enough to paint a picture of deep division without any evidence of it, but technically it’s not inaccurate.

“Nicola Sturgeon is ready to unleash yet more violence on the streets at a cost to the taxpayer” (picture caption)

As First Minister of Scotland and the person most likely to call a second Scottish independence referendum, Nicola Sturgeon is, therefore, technically responsible if it all goes wrong. It’s inflammatory, and it’s a great example of the line between reporting and opinion being blurred. In a commentary piece, this would be considered a valid enough opinion, but it shouldn’t belong in a news report (I’m counting the picture captions in these articles as part of the report, because the parts make up the whole and they’re all important).

We’ll never know, though, whether Ipso would have considered this over the line because the complaint didn’t reference it. Keep that in mind for the future if you ever want to complain: be very specific.

It’s worth noting, too, that these captions accompany pictures of indyref crowds, police and an angry-looking NicolaSturgeon. These have been selectively chosen to support to tone of the reporting, and they are genuine images from throughout the indyref period. We can argue about whether these pictures represent the overwhelming mood of the indyref campaign (they don’t), but the Express will always fall back on the fact that they exist – there’s no smoke without fire, and all that.

“There was major disruption to the lives of ordinary Scots over two years” (picture caption)

‘Major disruption’ is a vague term. It could mean anything, and different people will have a different perception of major disruption. This statement also doesn’t give any idea of scale. “The lives of ordinary Scots” is not necessarily the lives of all ordinary Scots, but the statement probably does at least apply to some. Technically, it’s not inaccurate.

As a part, it helps make up the whole and therefore plays a role in the misleading picture the Express painted, but as a stand alone statement it’s not that inflammatory. Rather than lots of outrageous claims, articles can often contain lots of small, misleading ones to wind up with a piece pretty strong in tone.

“There was violence on the streets of Scotland and never before seen abuse.”

Yes, there was violence on the streets of Scotland – the night of 19 September at George Square will always be cited as evidence for this.

Technically, there probably was “never before seen abuse” – cybernat/britnat nonsense on Twitter, for example, is fairly new and can be abusive. Technically, it’s not inaccurate.

Of course, the impression this sentence gives is quite stark. “Never before seen abuse” by default aligns it with nationalists, because that was the new, emerging movement. If the abuse had never been seen before in the status quo of the union, then it can only be the arrival of those pesky nationalists that stirred it up.

Clever, ain’t it?

“At the height of the campaign there was violent outbreaks, death threats and ugly scenes all over Scotland as campaigns gathered on both sides of the debate.”

Yes, this is true, but there’s no mention of the explosion in democratic engagement, the local meetings across the country where people got together and had a great time imagining another way of doing things. The problem here is not that the statement is untrue, the problem is the lack of balance in the article.

There is no space given to any of the voices who praised the campaign. The only image presented is one that hones in on the fact there were incidents of violence. This is bad reporting, it’s bad journalism, but it’s still technically not inaccurate.

But this article probably ticks the box of balance in a reporter’s mind. Why? Because Sturgeon has a quote at the bottom. That’s enough for a reporter to convince themselves they’ve offered both sides of the story. A good news article should give space to opposing voices, or voices representing different positions. Always keep an eye out for the quote right at the bottom of an article, that’s often a reporter’s way of ticking the balance box. It’s worth noting that reporters also know that most people don’t read a news report all the way through.

It becomes less about asking yourself whether you’ve done an honest, decent job of representing what happened, and more about meeting the technical criteria of a news report. The editorial line of a newspaper becomes more important (it’s worth pointing out here that reporters’ articles are often changed during the editorial process. Their job on a newsdesk is not to offer their idea of journalism to the world, they’ve been employed by a newspaper to produce a specific kind of material.)

“Police Scotland was forced to set up a special task force to deal with widespread outbreaks of violence, threats and public disorder for months before and after the referendum.”

Ah, the old “widespread outbreaks of violence” claim, and probably the single most controversial part in this article. But, you guessed it, technically it’s not inaccurate. In my mind, there are two ways the Express could seek to justify this if Ipso had bothered to take the complaint seriously.

Firstly, “widespread outbreaks of violence” could be technically true even if only a very small number of incidents happened, but happened over a widespread area, or across a period of time. The article provides plenty of evidence to support a claim like this: we hear about threats, abuse, violence, arrests and police having to create a special unit to deal with indyref matters. It’s easy to see that the regulator would be satisfied here that enough evidence had been provided in the article to make that an accurate statement.

I can hear you all screaming ‘But it’s a pile of pish, we had a remarkably calm country given we were asking a huge constitutional question, people fight wars over this shit, the worst we had was a few tanked up numpties trying to cause trouble’. I agree with you, but as I said, the regulator isn’t interested in the bigger picture, it ain’t getting involved. You have to make a specific complaint about a specific claim, and if your complaint isn’t watertight the regulator won’t come down on your side.

Secondly, the Express could claim it was just reporting that Police Scotland set up a special task force to deal with these hypothetical scenarios. Read the sentence again and you’ll see that technically, that argument could hold up. It’s ridiculous, I know, but these things descend into technicalities, and I wouldn’t put anything past the Express.

So there you have it.

Like I said before, this is just a creative exercise designed to help you understand how to dissect the news. When you’re perplexed at how some newspaper articles can be so incredibly inaccurate, it becomes a lot clearer when you learn to read pieces as parts, rather than as wholes.

The problem this causes is the massive disconnect between reporters and readers. While readers are seeing and digesting whole articles, reporters are thinking in parts. On social media when readers are furiously complaining about a misleading article and journalists are demanding they point out specifically what’s wrong with it, this is what’s going on. It’s as though we’re speaking in different languages.

I hope this post has been useful in joining the dots. The two main points should be these:

– Be very specific and targeted when you make a complaint. Don’t complain in general terms about the whole of an article being misleading; concentrate on very specific things.

– Learn to read articles in parts, and make an effort to understand the mechanics of news reporting. You’ll begin to see things very differently.

I know a few of you will be thinking “Yeah right Angela, very good, but you’ll be just as bad, you’re a journalist as well”. And you’re right. Journalism is a skill, we learn techniques, the tools of the trade. This is all part of that, and it’s really not a bad thing in and of itself.

Knowing how to write articles without leaving a publication open to either a regulator giving it a slap on the wrist, or worse, having legal action taken against it, helps journalists and editors expose serious wrongdoing by powerful people.

The fundamental question in journalism should always come down to this: Is this in the public interest?

In the Express’s case, I don’t believe it was. It was done in the interests of a pre-determined editorial line. I see examples every day of the tools of my trade being used for self-serving purposes, but until readers learn to use the language of reporters, their complaints will continue to fall on deaf ears.

Taking newspapers to task over this kind of misleading reporting – and we’ve seen years of it directed towards asylum seekers and migrants – is becoming a more urgent task than ever, and I believe we all have a responsibility now to do what we can, where we can, to fight it.


Angela Haggerty is the editor of CommonSpace and a columnist with the Sunday Herald

Comments (18)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Jdman says:

    I’m remained of a child hammering pieces into a jigsaw with edges in the middle and middle pieces on the edge, because they want it so.

  2. YESthatcherDead says:

    So to say…

    “The express is a hate rag that has incited deaths”

    …would fall foul.


    “Hate rags are inciting deaths” & “Many see the express as a hate rag”

    …would be fine.

    However it’s undeniable…

    “97% see the express as propaganda”

    …must be fine, given:-


  3. jeanette Ferguson says:

    If as you say IPSO may look at the complaints in this way, why don’t you as someone who does know how to formulate the complaint “complain” in a way in which they couldn’t use these technicalities?? Perhaps then we would get more balanced “reporting”. Or is that like asking the “police to police the police”?????

  4. Richard MacKinnon says:

    For the good of your own health, stand back and look at the bigger picture.
    Of course the Daily Express will manipulate ‘facts’ to make a story. It is a unionist supporting newspaper. That is what they do. It sells newspapers. The fact that Ipso ruled against the complaint tells you that the Siobhan McFadden is a clever journalist.
    The Express can and will attack Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP in any way they can think of. “Sturgeon urged to stop multi-million pound referendum crusade”, is one way but it is predictable and does not show much imagination. Another ‘angle’ and far more damaging to the Scottish independence movement will be when the unionist press realise how dangerous the minefield a second referendum is for the SNP and start writing pieces goading them into holding it.

  5. MBC says:

    There WERE isolated incidents of (low key) violence.

    They were however, NOT widespread.

    Only in the sense of happening in different places at different times. Neither was anyone actually injured by ‘violence’ to the extent of requiring medical treatment.

    There was the English Labour councillor who kicked a Yes supporter. There was the egg that was thrown at Murphy. There was a dodd of keich that was put on a door handle of a Yes shop in Dalkeith which was grasped by a Yes supporter when opening up the shop.

    And that was about it.

    Even the appalling incidents in George Square were only intimidatory. As far as I know, no-one was assaulted – the Saltire sisters were pulled to the ground in their attempt to hold aloft the Saltire. Not sure that qualifies as assault.

  6. Broadbield says:

    “but until readers learn to use the language of reporters…” not sure what you mean by that. Should we learn to smear, use innuendo, fabricate, use hyperbole, lie, character assassinate, the whole panoply of dirty tricks used by Express hacks who have no moral centre? One other point, the poisonous bile which daily emanates from the msn is in part a function of their diminishing returns – they are heading for the grave as their circulation plummets.

    I certainly agree with the final paragraph about taking newspapers to task (and the BBC). But how to do so in a way that has any effect?

    1. c rober says:

      By making the legislation , and removing the self regulation , simple , and something that can be done with the Holyrood powers already. Full page retractions , removal of income for the day of the offence as a fine which therfore funds an IPCC , independent of GOVT and press alike.

  7. Yan says:

    The pulp fiction consumer also has a duty to analyse and regulate the information they read, a dumbing down and manipulative press can only prosper on the backs of the willfully ignorant.

  8. Lochside says:

    This article is informative. But only confirms the complete mess we are in democratically. That newspapers and the BBC can twist language in order to send blatant lies and misrepresentations about our government out to the unaware and uninformed, and yet deny their obvious intent to mislead when challenged is unacceptable. This is sophistry writ large.

  9. Alf Baird says:

    Shockeroonie! “British state regulator biased in favour of British state.”

    There are dozens of British regulatory authorities similarly afflicted.

  10. Maria F says:

    “The article clearly gave a misrepresentative, one-sided view of events, so how could Ipso rule in the paper’s favour?”

    Of course another far more simplified and obvious reason for the simple minded like me Angela is that IPSO, for whatever reason (take your pick), don’t see themselves in a position where they can be impartial on this and therefore chose to avoid interference with the current process in motion where all MSM including the BBC are currently being used to suppress the independence movement in Scotland, suppress anything that pictures the current Scottish government in a good light and of course to bombard us with ‘Britishness’ English style to help unification.

    When the ‘regulators’ cannot longer be trusted in delivering and ensuring impartiality I guess that the only counteracting measure left to all that will be the refusal to buying newspapers, listening to the cliches and soundbites of mediocre unionist politicians and so called reporters in the radio, avoid clicking on newspaper websites and of course stop watching the BBC.

    “Journalists are obviously very wise to this, and it’s easy to learn the tricks of the trade”
    I wouldn’t call somebody with those practices a journalist Angela. Doing that is disrespectful to the proper journalists that take the ethics of their job very seriously and sometimes risk their lives, careers and health doing so. I am sorry but in my opinion bombarding the public with tacky propaganda and biased opinions is not journalism. I would call them simply the ghostwriters for a cause: anybody with writing skills can do that but a journalist is far more than that. Calling these ‘writers’ journalists equals to call politician to someone when the only thing they do is to strictly follow a rehearsed script some spin doctor has prepared and proofread for them in advance: that is not a politician, that is a puppet.

    “the regulator isn’t interested in the bigger picture, it ain’t getting involved”
    Then in this case ‘the regulator’ cannot issue an objective resolution. What is the point of issuing any response then? They have now made matters even worse. They should have declined.

    “The problem this causes is the massive disconnect between reporters and readers”
    Reporter is too big a word to be used in these instances Angela: These are not reporters because they are not reporting news, they are spouting at the best their own views and opinions and at worst those of the owners of the newspaper.

    A much bigger problem than the disconnect is the current fact that in Scotland where while at least a 45% of the electorate supports independence there is only one newspaper that actually mildly touches the views of these people. That is not reporting Angela, that is a desperate attempt to suppress public opinion.

    “The fundamental question in journalism should always come down to this: Is this in the public interest?”
    Suppressing public opinion is not in the public interest. When you only have one newspaper in Scotland that mildly appeals to about half of the electorate you can confidently state that none of those newspapers actually bother to ask that question. Of course the alternative to even asking the question is that nothing of what is currently published in the newspapers today (or in the BBC) is actual journalism. I am inclined to take the latter, actually.

    “I believe we all have a responsibility now to do what we can, where we can, to fight it.
    I started my personal fight on this over 2 years ago, after the nauseating bias in ‘reporting’ that I perceived in all MSM towards the independence movement. Since then, I have been deleting from my list newspaper after newspaper and website after website. I only read now independent websites like this that give independence a chance. Needless to say that I do not watch the BBC or STV either. I am of the opinion that it is far better to be less informed rather than misinformed.

    Thank you very much for this article Angela. I think it is very important to give publicity and discuss these matters in the open rather than suppress them by brushing them under the carpet, establishment’s style.

  11. Thomas Potter says:

    ‘Establishment Led Regulator Whitewashes Establishment Lies and Smears Mouthpiece Shock’.

    ‘Journalists’ and ‘reporters’?
    Do me a favour.

  12. Vronsky says:

    In my very distant youth I was a rugby captain. The standard advice was ‘never mind what you know about the rules, the referee is the rules on the day’. So we would spend a wee while in safe territory exploring the referee’s idea of the offside rule (code: we ran offside and knocked innocent bystanders over to see what the ref would do). If the ref says it’s legal, then it’s legal even if it’s illegal. Conversely, if the ref says it’s illegal, even if it’s legal, then it’s illegal.

    The thinking behind this approach is that your referee of the day might be incompetent, but he is probably not biased. If he rules something illegal for you he will rule it likewise for your opponents. And thus, you sensibly push the envelope.

    This is not the case with the British media or their protectors, IPSOS. If the indy movement fumbles a pass, it is a knock-on, scrum down, opposition put in. If the yoons fumble a pass, it is a ‘readjustment’ – play on.

    Suggested experiment: complain to IPSOS that the National newspaper acts as a megaphone for the independence movement and, given the refusal of IPSOS to censure the Express, the National must necessarily and logically be an accomplice to further ‘widespread violence’.

    You could win that one.

  13. Ian Miller says:

    Never underestimate peoples intelligence , we know the Express Journalists have a given agenda , and that agenda depends on who owns the newspaper , the Journalist know their articles are total rubbish , but their job depends on doing their masters bidding , they could just as easy get a job with another paper and write the exact opposite if the boss wants them to , it is really just low grade journalism , I am sure they get no more than a pat on the head for adding any story with ‘ SNP are bad ‘ headlines , I would think they do not even have to leave their desks , I mean how clever do you need to be to put .. maybe , could , suspected , perhaps , I think , my sources say , the list is endless , and at the end of the day the reader will laugh at how amateur their attempts are , C’mon admit it some of their articles are a hoot , one writer even has a photo of his face above his offerings , I think he looks depressed ( allegedly ) .

  14. Jim gallacher says:

    When I think of journalists who have given there life for the truth I could weep at the shite in this unionist toilet paper. It should not be about how clever I can be with words it should be about how clever I am at exposing lies.

  15. DR Cameron says:

    Do I detect a degree of admiration for these great journalistic ” skills ” ? What a pathetic way to earn a living.

  16. Broadbield says:

    Let’s start by not crediting these people as journalists. They are not. They are in a long line of propagandists that recently reached an apogee in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Nothing at all to do with journalism. Totally immoral and corrupt.

    “Nicola Sturgeon is ready to unleash yet more violence on the streets at a cost to the taxpayer” There’s nothing in that sentence that is even remotely true. NS is not unleashing anything. People are responsible for their own actions. Would this be true: David Cameron, in calling a Brexit referendum, unleashed violence in the UK, including the murder of an MP?

    “Nicola Sturgeon is, therefore, technically responsible if it all goes wrong” No she’s not. If the Church down my road holds a bring&buy sale and couple of “lads” turn up and have a fight over a manbag and one of them ends up in hospital, the minister is not responsible. The two lads are. If the author really believes her quotation then she has fallen into the same abyss of moral relativism inhabited by the Express propagandists.

    1. c rober says:

      I bet many have also forgot that editors are in there too , Nick Robinson , or indeed any editor that chose to do the “sun” bomb pic , or even put any Sturgeon article next to an article on Dog bites child or paedo convicted.

      This sort of political reporting is expected of a NWO , soviet russia , Turkey of today , but where did the like come from first – Right back to the likes of Napoleon in the English press , or indeed against Scottish Kings and Queens.

      Its a bit like the great British hero Churchill , whom also had his cartoon led detractors and correspondents in the media letter pages , and when he said “of course history will be kind to me , I intend to write it”…. Which translates to “REWRITE History” , winners usually do the editing to their own mandate.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.