Following Saturday’s Scottish Independence Convention conference in Glasgow, we publish the full text of The National founding editor and former Sunday Herald editor Richard Walker’s speech on media strategy for indyref 2
WHEN I started writing this speech I envisaged at least part of it as a plea for understanding of poor misunderstood journalists, under attack from all sides while plying an essentially noble trade.
But that defence is barely needed now, thanks to a combination of Donald Trump and Meryl Streep who have combined somehow to make journalists the heroes of the hour – proof for some people that not only do we live in a post-truth age but also a post-sanity one.
Trump’s astonishing attack on a reporter sparked Streep’s robust and inspirational defence, and suddenly journalists are on the side of truth and justice.
Until the Sunday Herald came out in favour of a Yes vote in 2014 not one Scottish newspaper supported the principle of independence.
Those of a progressive mindset should be standing shoulder to shoulder with what Meryl Streep described as the “principled press”, against the bullying and intimidation of a president-elect who has to pay people to cheer at his press conferencess.
Let’s remember the brave journalism which has played a crucial role in supporting mass movements, and in particular independence movements, all over the world.
During India’s first war of independence in 1857, journalists supported that struggle.
Although the Spanish media is largely resistant to Catalan independence, there are a number of important voices within Catalonia which support it, including the newspapers La Vanguardia and Ara.
Other independence movements in Europe and beyond it have gained support from different media platforms and companies.
The National is still, two years after its launch, the only daily newspaper to back independence. All the others have either been on the fence or are opposed to it, expressing that view on a sliding scale of vitriol.
But not here. Not in scotland, where until the Sunday Herald came out in favour of a Yes vote in 2014 not one Scottish newspaper supported the principle of independence. The National is still, two years after its launch, the only daily newspaper to back independence. All the others have either been on the fence or are opposed to it, expressing that view on a sliding scale of vitriol.
Journalists are viewed with varying degrees of hostility by many of those within the Yes movement: accused of bias, of failing to rigorously challenge the crazy scare stories of Better Together’s Project Fear, of being either poisonous or useless. Or, if they work for the BBC, even worse than that.
Journalists might be highky regarded by Meryl Streep, they might be respected by independence supporters in Spain, India, Catalonia, Quebec, but to say they’ve not been seen as heroes by Scotland’s Yes movement would be an understatement.
Why is Scotland so different from elsewhere? To be honest it would take the rest of the day to answer that question, so many and varied are the reasons.
But one of them surely can’t be that we believe Scotland stands as at least the equal of the nations of the world in every field of endeavour apart from journalism.
Call me stupid, but I’d suggest we should try to persuade them – not just that independence is the right future for Scotland but that support for independence in Scotland doesn’t undermine the practice of journalism.
I’m one of the first to admit the attitude of much of the Scottish media to the coverage of independence has really pissed me off.
At one stage I vowed I wouldn’t have been held responsible for my actions if one more media commentator had described The National as McPravda, or if anyone else had suggested that support for independence somehow tainted the noble art of journalism whereas opposition to it was a sign of brave individualism.
In fact, Scotland has some excellent journalists, some of whom agree that we should be an independent nation, some of whom do not, and some of whom are open to persuasion.
Call me stupid, but I’d suggest we should try to persuade them – not just that independence is the right future for Scotland but that support for independence in Scotland doesn’t undermine the practice of journalism. Just as it doesn’t in Catalonia, or in Quebec, and didn’t in India.
We need to adopt a new approach to journalists, particularly those we disagree with. And I could stand here today and list a litany of their ‘sins’ and some of you would cheer and we would all feel self-righteous, but I’ve been asked to speak today on what we can do about the media when the starting whistle is blown on indyref 2.
We need to adopt a new approach to journalists, particularly those we disagree with.
That assumes firstly that we actually want to do something about the media, that in this age of multiple platforms, of blogs and websites and social media posts, having a fair representation of the case for independence on mainstream media can actually change minds.
And secondly, it assumes that there was something very wrong with the mainstream media that is capable of being fixed.
So although I think there were some serious failings in the referendum coverage by some newspapers and by the BBC in the run up to September 2014, it’s not really going to help matters by picking over those issues again and again.
If we want them to change their attitude to us then we must first change our attitude to them. That ball is in our court and it seems to me we have a choice. We can denounce individual journalists for perceived failings, we can demand their sacking and rejoice in the travails of a scottish media facing unprecedented upheaval and financial pressures and thus alienate the vast majority of Scottish reporters and pretty much guarantee that the next independence referendum will be beset by the same media problems as the last one.
Or we can move on from the problems of 2014 and attempt to negotiate a new relationship with what Meryl Streep called the “principled press”. Even I’m not so blinkered to the media’s failings as to think that the phrase “principled press” applies to all newspapers. There are some newspapers and some journalists who will never be fair or balanced, who will never see independence as anything other than a disaster waiting to happen.
I could list a litany of their ‘sins’ and some of you would cheer and we would all feel self-righteous, but I’ve been asked to speak today on what we can do about the media when the starting whistle is blown on indyref 2.
But there are others trying hard to define what balance means in an independence referendum, how to differentiate facts from wild opinions and propaganda, how to be fair.
If the runup to indyref 2 is about building bridges – and it should be – let’s build bridges with journalists. I’ve seen reporers move from being generally supportive of the Yes campaign to hostility because they feel continually under fire from a minority of independence supporters for whom any criticism of the SNP or pro-indy arguments is simply not acceptable. That isn’t a position which is compatible with how we would define journalism.
So yes, we have to call out inaccurate reports. Yes, we have to draw attention to misinformation. Yes, we have to counter misleading half-truths with the full facts.
But we have to do so with respect and without resorting to personal abuse. That’s not to be nice, it’s to be smart. It’s to change behaviour, change relationships, and change minds.
If the next independence campaign is all about changing No supporters to Yes then in media terms it’s about changing hostile, suspicious journalists into ones who want to give the case for independence a fair crack of the whip.
If we want them to change their attitude to us then we must first change our attitude to them. That ball is in our court and it seems to me we have a choice.
And talking about “fair” – that includes an acknowledgment that the journalist’s role of holding power to account means, right here in Scotland, holding the SNP to account.
We owe the SNP a huge debt. We would never have been in the current situation without them. If we achieve independence – and I believe we will – it will be largely through their efforts.
But the SNP is in the strange position of being a party working to achieve radical, anti-establishment change for our country while at the same time representing a political establishment.
So let’s stop berating journalists, whether in print, radio and television, for tough questioning of government ministers, or pro-independence spokespeople – that’s their job. Honestly, SNP ministers are strong enough to handle it. Criticising journalists who adopt a robust approach to interviewing makes us look weak and short of confidence.
We have an undeniable case for independence. We have the arguments to carry the day. We don’t need a supine, compliant media to convince people of the merits of a case which will withstand the most rigorous of questioning.
If the next independence campaign is all about changing No supporters to Yes then in media terms it’s about changing hostile, suspicious journalists into ones who want to give the case for independence a fair crack of the whip.
If “holding power to account” sometimes means stupid stories about non-existent so-called scandals, that’s the price of being in power. It’s still a price worth paying.
Being pleasant and respectful won’t guarantee we’ll create an improved relationship and less attacking coverage, but remaining hostile will guarantee that we won’t.
I’m all too aware that I’m advocating incredible self restraint, an almost superhuman level of empathy and respect – and what for? Is mainstream media still important at all?
Let’s face it, anything that wins converts to the Yes argument is worth it. Mainstream media still matters, even in an age of pro-indy bloggers and websites and of social media. It matters because it’s a way of reaching those not already onside. It matters because it still, to a large degree, dictates the agenda on TV and radio. It’s a way of changing minds, and changing allegiances.
I’m still not sure why there is still only one Sunday and one daily newspaper who support independence.
Being pleasant and respectful won’t guarantee we’ll create an improved relationship and less attacking coverage, but remaining hostile will guarantee that we won’t.
When the Sunday Herald came out in favour of a Yes vote in 2014 and when The National launched after the referendum itself later that year both papers were overwhelmed by the support and affection expressed on social media, and in many many phone calls to our offices by Yes voters. I know I speak for many of those who still work on those newspapers when I say we will forever remember those kind words.
But the reaction was not all supportive. Supporters of the union howled predictable accusations that we were nothing more than a McPravda, suggesting that support for independence somehow tainted our journalism in a way that support for the status quo did not.
Even more baffling, and less predictable, was some of the criticism thrown our way by those who shared our belief that Scotland should be in charge of its own destiny.
I remember after the General Election of 2015 seeing the Sunday Herald coming under fire on Twitter for allegedly suggesting Nicola Sturgeon had many similarities to Margaret Thatcher. How had we done so? By printing a photograph of the first minister wearing a jacket the same colour as one worn by the former Tory prime minister.
The National has recently been accused of undermining the SNP campaign to win control of Scottish councils … by reporting that they were likely to succeed. Our reports, seemingly, were an attempt to make SNP voters complacent and less likely to go to the polls, thus – so the conspiracy theory went – aiding the election campaign of Labour in Scotland.
Let’s also realise the importance of nurturing the pro-indy media we have. Let’s make sure The Natoinal reaches its sales potential. Let’s make sure CommonSpace can continue to provide a healthy alternative to traditional news sources. Let’s do all we can to help Bella Caledonia overcome its recent problems and flourish.
The National, the Sunday Herald and pro-indy operations such as Bella Caledonia and CommonSpace came under fire during the last Holyrood election campaign by giving space to pro-indy parties such as Rise and the Greens because that potentially encouraged voters to give their second votes to those parties and, therefore, it was claimed, risked ending the SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament.
Now, I’m not myself particularly bothered about criticism, even criticism coming from within the Yes movement. We’re big enough to take it and people are quite entitled to their views. They can even believe we have mastered the dark arts of subliminal messaging when actually most of us struggle to find the on switch on our computers.
But if we want other newspapers to support independence for indyref 2 it’s not a great encouragement to litter social media with accusations that the only two indy supporters are fifth columnists who tell their readers to vote SNP but really mean vote anybody but the SNP.
Newspapers are a business. They arent going to support independence if they are going to lose readers.
So let’s also realise the importance of nurturing the pro-indy media we have. Let’s make sure The Natoinal reaches its sales potential. Let’s make sure CommonSpace can continue to provide a healthy alternative to traditional news sources. Let’s do all we can to help Bella Caledonia overcome its recent problems and flourish in the future.
Let’s do so not just because we are all one movement and we should support one another. Let’s do so to send a message to other media publishers. Let’s tell them that there is more than a moral and just case for supporting independence, there is a sound business case too.
Let’s do so not just because we are all one movement and we should support one another. Let’s do so not just because it’s the right thing to do – although it is most definitely the right thing to do. Let’s do so to send a message to other media publishers. Let’s tell them that there is more than a moral and just case for supporting independence, there is a sound business case too.
And let’s do that because right now everything – everything – is about changing people’s minds, about persuading them to change sides, about making the switch from No to Yes. And so it’s important that as well as supporting and nurturing our own media, old and new, we have to make sure we’re doing more than just talking to ourselves. We need to be reaching outside of our own bubble.
Which is why, although The National is dear to my heart and although its position as the only pro-indy daily newspaper creates its unique identity, I have to hope that other newspapers make that leap from No to Yes.
I’m pretty certain that some newspapers will adopt a very different line on indyref 2 than they did in 2014. The Daily Record seems to be making a habit of urging Nicola Sturgeon to call a second independence referendum if Theresa May insists on a hard Brexit.
When it comes to changing sides to Yes, whether it’s individual voters or Scottish media companies, there’s no room for resentment at decisions made in 2014.
The National still holds a very special place in my heart. I’m unashamed about my love for the paper a great team has created, so this seems an appropriate place to plug the free key rings it’s giving away today, and the digital report on this event it is preparing for tomorrow. The fact that it is the only pro-indy national daily newspaper is a huge part of its identity.
Today I would encourage everyone here – if another newspaper joins our side, I’d swallow hard and welcolme it onside, because when it comes to changing sides to Yes, whether it’s individual voters or Scottish media companies, there’s no room for resentment at decisions made in 2014.
There’s no room for I told you so’s and what took you so long’s. There’s only one thing that’s necessary, and that’s the warm hand of friendship
Picture courtesy of Jon S
Check out what people are saying about how important CommonSpace is. Pledge your support today.
