'The Scotsman' in Freefall

[Craig_]

Looks like our national newspaper's on the way out. Circulation plummeting, content being pulled and voluntary redundancies being invited:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/07/big-changes-for-the-scotsman-as-it-loses-its-magazine?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

 

To be fair, it's been utter garbage since Andrew Neil took over, but their stubbornly right-wing stance seems increasingly at odds with that of the country.

 

Evening News not donig much better either, though can't imagine there'd a huge amount of sympathy on here for them!

 

So, the question is, what do the newspapers need to do to survive in the increasingly online world?

[jambogaz1968]

They need to be free

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Johnston Press have a shite website, poor content and shit journalists.

 

I think they are doomed

[:shitwine:]

 

The EEN is a shite rag that wouldn't be missed.

[mullen13]

The bursd just got a letter today saying she is being made redundant and is pretty upset. Won't get anything because she only joined earlier this year.

[2NaFish]

When my dad, who's bought the paper for 40yrs, gives up you know something is wrong.

[leginten]

The Scotsman has been an appalling publication for a good few years now. It manages to combine rock-bottom standards of journalism with cringe-inducing parochialism. Rarely can a newspaper which claims to represent its nation have been so out of touch with the needs and the mood of that nation. Its attempts to embrace the internet have also flopped spectacularly; replacing its harrowingly amateurish website with an even worse one was always going to be a tall order, but in the end they pulled it off.

[Gorgiewave]

The Scotsman has been an appalling publication for a good few years now. It manages to combine rock-bottom standards of journalism with cringe-inducing parochialism. Rarely can a newspaper which claims to represent its nation have been so out of touch with the needs and the mood of that nation. Its attempts to embrace the internet have also flopped spectacularly; replacing its harrowingly amateurish website with an even worse one was always going to be a tall order, but in the end they pulled it off.

 

What's so amateurish about it?

 

For me, the main problem is the very "thin" content. The independence referendum should be an open door to high-quality analysis of the type offered by Gerry Hassan; but, apart from him, it more or less limits itself to quoting academic reports, without offering anything else.

 

Everybody can find the "news" in a million places. Newspapers' "answer" to this is often to offer lots of cheap opinion. I'd be more interested they offered analysis that I wouldn't or couldn't have thought of myself.

[Craig_]

Agree about the analysis, also investigative stuff is where certain newspapers thrive (such as the NSA revelations of late).

 

Trouble is, this sort of thing costs a lot of money at a time when revenue is in short supply, so it appears to be much easier just to remain in the pockets of vested interests...

[leginten]

 

What's so amateurish about it?

 

Its appearance - lots of empty spaces, very bland colours, unattractive layout. I suppose they tried to make it look leaner, sharper and less cluttered than its predecessor but for me it doesn't work. And the content is the very epitome of thin.

[JamboX2]

The Scotsman was a cheap paper when I was at uni - one of the subsidised ones. About 40p instead of the ?1.20. And it was generally pretty good. Scotland does not need another paper to become a tabloid. It needs a better Scotsman.

 

The referendum was a supreme chance for it to change tact. Could've brought in better columns and a bit of a touch up - look at how well the Herald's down in changing. Today's two page story in the Scotsman was on the Ian Wood oil report. And analysis - the key bit you'd think - got 3 quarter colums below the big photo of an oil rig. The sport section is also generally alright.

 

Sad stuff to see it go this way. An east coast Record. Reckon a buyer could be found to bring it back. Rumours were going about a few weeks back about J.K.Rowling wanting to buy or start a paper.

[davemclaren]

I read it every day from about 1974 to 2000. It used to be a great paper but sadly went down hill.

[dicksojo]

The Scotsman has lost so much ground and has done very little to attract new customers. To me it seems to be aimed at the hoorah henrys who drink in the old fashioned private members clubs and golf clubs of Edinburgh. There is a growing population in Edinburgh of young workers with money burning a hole in their pocket and it should at least have a semi decent section on restaurants, events, gigs, clubs, etc etc but it doesn't whereas the Herald does.

 

The website is an absolute farce and is such a mess that I don't even use it anymore. The Scotsman needs to re-brand itself and it will be a difficult job to pull off. It needs to try and retain its core readership of Major General Toms who probably fought in the Crimean war while attracting a new younger readership which Edinburgh is slowly attracting. I think I read that the Sunday Herald has the younger=st readership of any "quality" Sunday paper. Basically the Scotsman needs to try and emulate the success of the Herald while retaining its Edinburgh roots.

[Patrick Bateman]

It doesn't help that the standard of journalism is somewhere between the gutter and the sewer. They've had an irrational hatred of the Scottish Government since 2007 and expressed it repeatedly and consistently since then. In tandem, their readership has spiralled. If any industry starts to produce a mediocre/poor product, then steadfastly refuses to change that product, they're not going to get any sympathy from me. Personally, I'm going to take great delight in dancing on The Scotsman's grave for this alone.

 

[mullen13]

All newspapers will eventually be extinct unless they can adapt to the online market. The day of the newspaper is over. I know guys in their 60s and 70s who only buy papers and they are reading news I read 24 hours ago on my phone. Such an inept and inefficient medium. Couple this with the fact that articles about any subject can be selected online and do not all conform to the opinion of a sole newspaper editor.

[JamboX2]

The Scotsman has lost so much ground and has done very little to attract new customers. To me it seems to be aimed at the hoorah henrys who drink in the old fashioned private members clubs and golf clubs of Edinburgh. There is a growing population in Edinburgh of young workers with money burning a hole in their pocket and it should at least have a semi decent section on restaurants, events, gigs, clubs, etc etc but it doesn't whereas the Herald does.

 

The website is an absolute farce and is such a mess that I don't even use it anymore. The Scotsman needs to re-brand itself and it will be a difficult job to pull off. It needs to try and retain its core readership of Major General Toms who probably fought in the Crimean war while attracting a new younger readership which Edinburgh is slowly attracting. I think I read that the Sunday Herald has the younger=st readership of any "quality" Sunday paper. Basically the Scotsman needs to try and emulate the success of the Herald while retaining its Edinburgh roots.

 

 

The Sunday Herlad - whilst a paper honking of the West coast - is the better of the Scottish Sunday papers. For a nation built on rich history of journalism that's shocking.

 

The Scotsman has failed in modernising. It went for the small compact, professionals paper. But it never improved it's journalism that much. The Herald and Sunday Herald stayed truer to their styles but improved their journalism. They've just failed to meet the times approriately.

 

As for their political viewpoint - they called for another Salmond led administration in 2011. All beit a minority one. Can't get much more complimentary of a politician than backing their electoral success. As for the Klan Alba stuff, that was poor judgement, but was related to an article about the fliratation with the idea of facism, which many in the 1930s did have, that nationalism had back then. It was a huge error of judgement on the supplement page though. Then again make a shock and sell was probably the motive.

 

The Scotland on Sunday's skepticism of independence has been balanced by the Sunday Herald's pro-independence stance. Both are decent papers, the Herald and Sunday Herald are slightly better in the round, but I try and vary my newspaper reading between the two.

[jambos are go!]

It doesn't help that the standard of journalism is somewhere between the gutter and the sewer. They've had an irrational hatred of the Scottish Government since 2007 and expressed it repeatedly and consistently since then. In tandem, their readership has spiralled. If any industry starts to produce a mediocre/poor product, then steadfastly refuses to change that product, they're not going to get any sympathy from me. Personally, I'm going to take great delight in dancing on The Scotsman's grave for this alone.

 

Do you read the Scotsman? I do and its either sitting on the fence on the Referendum or has one foot in the YES camp. It saves the Labour Party for most of its bile. IMO.Going back before 2007 it led the charge for the creation of Holyrood IIRC.

[Cheile]

Like a previous poster, I bought (or as they say, took) the Scotsman six days a week for nearly thirty years. Then that fud Andrew Neil became involved with it and it has been downhill ever since. The Evening News used to be a fairly decent paper too but it's decline is even worse. The website is poor compared to others and is not worth bothering about.

 

Despite the easy access to news nowadays I still like a newspaper but the choice is not what it used to be. I like the i, very English orientated but a good wee paper for only twenty pence, sometimes have a go with the Independent or dare I say it, the Times. If only Scotland had a slightly left of centre quality newspaper that wasn't too Glasgow biased.

[redm]

It doesn't help that the standard of journalism is somewhere between the gutter and the sewer. They've had an irrational hatred of the Scottish Government since 2007 and expressed it repeatedly and consistently since then. In tandem, their readership has spiralled. If any industry starts to produce a mediocre/poor product, then steadfastly refuses to change that product, they're not going to get any sympathy from me. Personally, I'm going to take great delight in dancing on The Scotsman's grave for this alone.

 

 

Oh my giddy aunt.

When did they publish that? I can see SoS but not the date. Incredible.

[Gorgiewave]

I wrote a very long, pleading email to The Scotsman in response tobthe survey recalling the many long, happy days I jave spent wading through it, doing the crosswords with my granny and excitedly reading the report on midweek Hearts matches. I got no reply or even acknolwedgement. I'd love it to get back to what it wa.

[jambos are go!]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-23873955

 

The figures shown in the above link shows the Scotsman circulation at roughly 30,000 against roughly 40,000 for the Herald. Given the West has twice the population of the East as a commercial enterprise it outperforms the Herald I would say. It also has 3 times the online presence of the Herald and its biggest problem is exploiting that readership through advertising. One of the problems for these newspapers is that they hire opinionated columnists who get up opinionated readers noses. Hard one to solve that if it counts more than the freedom of the press to folk.

[Pete Seeger]

It's still the best rag for rugby coverage and for that reason I'll miss it when it goes. Shame for the staff.

[Don Draper]

The Scotsman has been an appalling publication for a good few years now. It manages to combine rock-bottom standards of journalism with cringe-inducing parochialism. Rarely can a newspaper which claims to represent its nation have been so out of touch with the needs and the mood of that nation. Its attempts to embrace the internet have also flopped spectacularly; replacing its harrowingly amateurish website with an even worse one was always going to be a tall order, but in the end they pulled it off.

 

This is an excellent summary.

[Jambos_1874]

The standards have undoubtedly dropped but I hope that it can be turned around. One of the main things which attracted me to reading The Scotsman in the first place was the more detailed coverage of football outwith the OF. Now it appears to have increased coverage of anything OF related, particularly stories which are linked to the demise of Rangers, while the coverage of Hearts and Hibs has dropped. However, if The Scotsman goes we are just left with absolute garbage like the Record etc.

[leginten]

 

It doesn't help that the standard of journalism is somewhere between the gutter and the sewer. They've had an irrational hatred of the Scottish Government since 2007 and expressed it repeatedly and consistently since then. In tandem, their readership has spiralled. If any industry starts to produce a mediocre/poor product, then steadfastly refuses to change that product, they're not going to get any sympathy from me. Personally, I'm going to take great delight in dancing on The Scotsman's grave for this alone.

 

 

I always wondered if that was a photoshop job or whether some clown at the newspaper actually paid people to make the flag and pose for the shot. If it was the latter, they could certainly have put the money to better use. A dictionary and a thesaurus for them all to share, perhaps. Or maybe even some EFL lessons for the journalists.

[Patrick Bateman]

Oh my giddy aunt.

When did they publish that? I can see SoS but not the date. Incredible.

 

It was earlier this year, around April I think.

 

I always wondered if that was a photoshop job or whether some clown at the newspaper actually paid people to make the flag and pose for the shot. If it was the latter, they could certainly have put the money to better use. A dictionary and a thesaurus for them all to share, perhaps. Or maybe even some EFL lessons for the journalists.

 

The implication was that Scottish nationalism and the Klu Klux Klan could be linked, there are also hints of the raising of the US flag at Iwo Jima, but I'm not sure why. Im any case, I can't think of many national newspapers that would portray their national flag in such a way, let alone so unsubtly accuse the government of racism/fascism/nazism.

[Socrates]

To be fair, it's not a sudden thing. It's been a very poor quality newspaper for a long time. I suspect that now they don't have the money coming in to put together a high quality product any more, even if they wanted to. As well as the shoddy nature of much of the reporting, they don't appear to have much of an understanding of what they are trying to do. Alienating vast chunks of your readership is pretty idiotic when you are basically a single-city paper. I mean, if you're a right of centre, Hibs supporting Unionist, then you're probably OK (except for the shit journalism), but there aren't a lot of people falling into that demographic.

[leginten]

 

 

 

It was earlier this year, around April I think.

 

 

 

The implication was that Scottish nationalism and the Klu Klux Klan could be linked, there are also hints of the raising of the US flag at Iwo Jima, but I'm not sure why. Im any case, I can't think of many national newspapers that would portray their national flag in such a way, let alone so unsubtly accuse the government of racism/fascism/nazism.

 

Yeah, I read it at the time. A nasty little piece. I wonder where the trail would lead if one were to research the motivation behind the article.

[leginten]

 

To be fair, it's not a sudden thing. It's been a very poor quality newspaper for a long time. I suspect that now they don't have the money coming in to put together a high quality product any more, even if they wanted to. As well as the shoddy nature of much of the reporting, they don't appear to have much of an understanding of what they are trying to do. Alienating vast chunks of your readership is pretty idiotic when you are basically a single-city paper. I mean, if you're a right of centre, Hibs supporting Unionist, then you're probably OK (except for the shit journalism), but there aren't a lot of people falling into that demographic.

 

That's pretty good and fair. Especially the bit about not understanding what they're trying to do. Some of the journalism that results is just bizarre and leaves you scratching your head.

[JamboX2]

 

 

It was earlier this year, around April I think.

 

 

 

The implication was that Scottish nationalism and the Klu Klux Klan could be linked, there are also hints of the raising of the US flag at Iwo Jima, but I'm not sure why. Im any case, I can't think of many national newspapers that would portray their national flag in such a way, let alone so unsubtly accuse the government of racism/fascism/nazism.

 

Its taken from the cover of Tom Devines history of Scotland - dont remember the name - which spanned 1700-2000. A photo I believe comes from 1997 referendum literature.

 

Reckon it was more tougne in cheek. I've seen literature depicting the American flag as having a swastika rather than stars with their stripes. A Noam Chomsky book shows it with bombs and guns, are they as bad? Or editorial freedom? In any case they apologised for a pretty distasteful picture.

[I.J]

Its taken from the cover of Tom Devines history of Scotland - dont remember the name - which spanned 1700-2000. A photo I believe comes from 1997 referendum literature.

 

Reckon it was more tougne in cheek. I've seen literature depicting the American flag as having a swastika rather than stars with their stripes. A Noam Chomsky book shows it with bombs and guns, are they as bad? Or editorial freedom? In any case they apologised for a pretty distasteful picture.

 

It was a daft picture, but I'm pretty sure you're no comparing the Scotsman publications to Noam Chomsky, eh?

 

[Jimmy McNulty]

The Scotsman has been bad for a while. SO much so I don't even go on the website any more.

 

Gave up buying papers about 3 years ago. Would never have time to read them (though did daily read sports section and attack cryptic crossword).

 

Online news has made IMO the print media fairly redundant...

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

The decline of The Scotsman saddens me, my dad used to buy it every day and i would look forward to reading it when he came home, then when i started buying papers, the Scotsman and then the SOS to me were great reads. Over time i gradually stopped reading a daily paper but still bought the Saturday Scotsman and SoS, somehow or other, the SoS lost it's appeal for me and the Sunday Herald took over, it was a great irritant to my wife that i'd read it cover to cover on a sunday morning. Now, when we go back to Scotland i look forward to a good read of a decent Sunday paper, and that means the Sunday Herald. It's sad to see the Scotsman go downhill like this, it used to be a great paper but even when i read it online occasionally, i don't enjoy the writing or opinion.

[Darren]

To be fair, it's not a sudden thing. It's been a very poor quality newspaper for a long time. I suspect that now they don't have the money coming in to put together a high quality product any more, even if they wanted to. As well as the shoddy nature of much of the reporting, they don't appear to have much of an understanding of what they are trying to do. Alienating vast chunks of your readership is pretty idiotic when you are basically a single-city paper. I mean, if you're a right of centre, Hibs supporting Unionist, then you're probably OK (except for the shit journalism), but there aren't a lot of people falling into that demographic.

 

I think the only hope for the Scotsman is that it is sold off. It is not the only newspaper Johnston Press has ruined, of course, there are plenty of examples in the local press in Scotland, while the Yorkshire Post is another.

 

Senior management have killed the Scotsman and other titles with what Socrates describes above as a lack of understanding of what they are trying to do. Their approach to their online activity was one of many nails in the coffin, putting all their stuff online for free was suicide. Why would the reader then bother buying a paper? They brought in a paywall for "premium content" at a later date, but the horse had bolted by then.

 

The decline in readership of the Scotsman is really quite startling, I think I'm right in saying it was shifting at about 100,000 copies a day at the turn of the millennium, now it's about a quarter of that. I really do not understand why it is still masquerading as "Scotland's national newspaper". Who is it speaking to? Not that many people. And where? Not many folk outside Edinburgh.

 

To put it into some perspective, the Press and Journal sells between 60,000-70,000 copies a day, The Courier about two-thirds of that. Both are, quite rightly, regarded as regional newspapers. They have focused on their core areas and not suffered anywhere nearly as badly as the Scotsman. Even the Herald, at about 40,000 a day, is now in the ABC's regional category.

 

To deal with the dwindling readership, the Scotsman has downsized without ever downgrading. How was that ever going to work? From an outsider's point of view, it seems like they are trying to be this grand newspaper of Scotland while cutting their number of journalists, their number of pages and their number of stories.

 

A bizarre approach. A lack of finance must be a major reason, and why Johnston Press have not tried to cut their losses a long time ago baffles me. It is to the detriment of their overall business, the Scotsman brand and of course the few staff remaining that they have not.

[JamboX2]

 

 

It was a daft picture, but I'm pretty sure you're no comparing the Scotsman publications to Noam Chomsky, eh?

 

 

 

Never! Huge gulf in ability.

 

Daft picture. But I'll defend the right to print it. Like my take on the Mail. If you dont like it, dont be offended, just dont buy it or go to their website. It'll hurt their pockets.

[Craig_]

Do you read the Scotsman? I do and its either sitting on the fence on the Referendum or has one foot in the YES camp. It saves the Labour Party for most of its bile. IMO.Going back before 2007 it led the charge for the creation of Holyrood IIRC.

 

It's funny you should say that, as it's coverage of the independence debate has been so one-sided and myopic it's absurd. However, I've noticed in the last couple of days a couple of slightly more pragmatic stories which is a start I guess:

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/north-sea-oil-overhaul-would-deliver-200bn-1-3183687

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-armed-forces-to-cost-2-5bn-1-3186006

 

(and if nothing else, the 0.001p they make in click-throughs might help them...)

[Stuart Lyon]

Their office at Holyrood will make a good hotel.

[Mister Dee]

I used to buy it every day, for decades.

 

Obviously, the internet is doing a good job of killing off the newspaper industry, but the Scotsman's journalistic standards have plummeted beyond all recognition which hasn't helped it.

 

I would be sorry to see it go, but as things stand it is inevitable.

 

Unless they started employing top quality journalists & make it an elite paper, I can't see much of a future for it.

[Socrates]

 

Never! Huge gulf in ability.

 

Daft picture. But I'll defend the right to print it. Like my take on the Mail. If you dont like it, dont be offended, just dont buy it or go to their website. It'll hurt their pockets.

 

Oh, they have a right to print it. But then they shouldn't be surprised when people stop buying their paper. Unfortunately, for them, there appear to be very few people left who actually feel the need to buy their paper.

[Socrates]

I think the only hope for the Scotsman is that it is sold off. It is not the only newspaper Johnston Press has ruined, of course, there are plenty of examples in the local press in Scotland, while the Yorkshire Post is another.

 

Senior management have killed the Scotsman and other titles with what Socrates describes above as a lack of understanding of what they are trying to do. Their approach to their online activity was one of many nails in the coffin, putting all their stuff online for free was suicide. Why would the reader then bother buying a paper? They brought in a paywall for "premium content" at a later date, but the horse had bolted by then.

 

The decline in readership of the Scotsman is really quite startling, I think I'm right in saying it was shifting at about 100,000 copies a day at the turn of the millennium, now it's about a quarter of that. I really do not understand why it is still masquerading as "Scotland's national newspaper". Who is it speaking to? Not that many people. And where? Not many folk outside Edinburgh.

 

To put it into some perspective, the Press and Journal sells between 60,000-70,000 copies a day, The Courier about two-thirds of that. Both are, quite rightly, regarded as regional newspapers. They have focused on their core areas and not suffered anywhere nearly as badly as the Scotsman. Even the Herald, at about 40,000 a day, is now in the ABC's regional category.

 

To deal with the dwindling readership, the Scotsman has downsized without ever downgrading. How was that ever going to work? From an outsider's point of view, it seems like they are trying to be this grand newspaper of Scotland while cutting their number of journalists, their number of pages and their number of stories.

 

A bizarre approach. A lack of finance must be a major reason, and why Johnston Press have not tried to cut their losses a long time ago baffles me. It is to the detriment of their overall business, the Scotsman brand and of course the few staff remaining that they have not.

 

The problem with their online stuff is that it's far too poor to get people to pay for. You can do well these days selling high-quality material online, but the Scotsman doesn't really have a lot of that to sell.

[jambos are go!]

Seems clear that some folk on here only want Journalism they agree with. The Scotsman has journalists/ columnists on both sides of the debate like all the Scottish papers (including the tabloids). What we get is both sides of the debate, but particularly the YEs campaign IMO, highlighting and deriding any counter view via their biased networks. So all sense of balance is lost and you get 'the papers have all got it in for us' mentality.

[Socrates]

Seems clear that some folk on here only want Journalism they agree with. The Scotsman has journalists/ columnists on both sides of the debate like all the Scottish papers (including the tabloids). What we get is both sides of the debate, but particularly the YEs campaign IMO, highlighting and deriding any counter view via their biased networks. So all sense of balance is lost and you get 'the papers have all got it in for us' mentality.

 

Not so. People expect that reporting ought to be neutral, which is a significant problem for the Scotlsman. Its political reporting is especially biased, but there's a general undercurrent throughout a lot of their reporting that you can tell what the paper's opinion actually is just by reading news articles. When you get on to features and opinion pieces, it's obviously a bit different, but things like the "Klan Alba" picture really put people off. Most people are quite happy with articles they don't agree with, provided they're clearly marked as being opinion pieces, and they are of reasonable quality and aren't insulting or offensive.

 

The real problem with the Scotsman/EEN though, is the lack of quality throughout. One of the ways that is demonstrated is in the way they alienate so much of their potential audience. If we leave politics to one side, it's crassly negligent of a local paper to get to the point where most supporters of one of the two football teams in the city think that their football coverage is a bag of shite. I don't know if the Hibs fans have a similar view, but I'd have thought that providing really good local football coverage is one way for a local/regional paper to maintain a decent sized regular readership.

[jambos are go!]

Not so. People expect that reporting ought to be neutral, which is a significant problem for the Scotlsman. Its political reporting is especially biased, but there's a general undercurrent throughout a lot of their reporting that you can tell what the paper's opinion actually is just by reading news articles. When you get on to features and opinion pieces, it's obviously a bit different, but things like the "Klan Alba" picture really put people off. Most people are quite happy with articles they don't agree with, provided they're clearly marked as being opinion pieces, and they are of reasonable quality and aren't insulting or offensive.

 

The real problem with the Scotsman/EEN though, is the lack of quality throughout. One of the ways that is demonstrated is in the way they alienate so much of their potential audience. If we leave politics to one side, it's crassly negligent of a local paper to get to the point where most supporters of one of the two football teams in the city think that their football coverage is a bag of shite. I don't know if the Hibs fans have a similar view, but I'd have thought that providing really good local football coverage is one way for a local/regional paper to maintain a decent sized regular readership.

This is all opinion. As a Unionist I think the Scotsman is leaning towards the YES but ther are No supporters on here who think its a Unionist Rag.

[Sawdust Caesar]

This is all opinion. As a Unionist I think the Scotsman is leaning towards the YES but ther are No supporters on here who think its a Unionist Rag.

I get the Scotsman and the Herald (for work reasons) and I've always felt the Scotsman is pro union and the Herald is for independence, that may be down to the opinion pieces and readers letters though rather than what slant they put on news stories.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Not so. People expect that reporting ought to be neutral, which is a significant problem for the Scotlsman. Its political reporting is especially biased, but there's a general undercurrent throughout a lot of their reporting that you can tell what the paper's opinion actually is just by reading news.

 

Newspapers have never been neutral arbiters in reporting news. The Telegraph will report a Tory government more favourably than the Guardian or Herald will. Hence the opposition and fear of tighter regulation of the press.

 

The Klan Alba peice was in the SoS Perspective section. Their guest articles and opinion section.

[Socrates]

This is all opinion. As a Unionist I think the Scotsman is leaning towards the YES but ther are No supporters on here who think its a Unionist Rag.

 

You are verging on deluded if you think the Scotsman leans towards independence.

[Socrates]

Newspapers have never been neutral arbiters in reporting news. The Telegraph will report a Tory government more favourably than the Guardian or Herald will. Hence the opposition and fear of tighter regulation of the press.

 

The Klan Alba peice was in the SoS Perspective section. Their guest articles and opinion section.

 

I'm aware that most papers aren't perfect, especially in what they choose to cover and how prominent it is. Given that the Scotsman's target market is people who live in and around Edinburgh, they would be well advised not to antagonise vast chunks of their potenital market. They aren't like the Telegraph, which is aimed at crusty Tory people, or the Guardian which is aimed at bleeding hearted lefties. Also, I think the straight-up news coverage in the Scotsman is much more partial than in the Guardian or the Telegraph.

 

Also, nobody is arguing that the Klan Alba piece was reported as news, or that they don't have the right to publish it if they want to. People are suggesting that publishing crap like that is one of the many reasons why nobody reads the thing any more.

[TheMaganator]

I like the Telegraph - I ain't crusty

[Socrates]

I like the Telegraph - I ain't crusty

 

I'm shocked.

[2NaFish]

You are deluded

 

ftfy. why waste time?