Not that you would know anything about that online.
Because at one point in the debate a member of the audience asked a question that some people took exception to. This prompted a Twitter storm and Facebook posts going into the individual in question's background to undermine her veracity.
Two things about this:
- Well done. No, really, well done. Those of you who participated in this witch hunt managed to divert attention from the real story of the night, which was the BBC's continued blatant bias in favour of the Tories. This was an open goal, so it is disappointing that you find a private individual an easier target. You were perched on the six yard line, the goalie was off his, and you still managed to blooter the ball into the face of someone in the crowd. Round of applause for all concerned.
- This personalisation of a political issue was bang out of order. I don't care if the person disagrees with me. I don't even care if they were lying. As a publicly funded organisation the BBC can be held to account in a way that would be deeply intrusive for a private individual. If you have a problem with what happened, take it up with the BBC, don't trawl social media accounts for evidence about someone's personal life. That is worse than the worst gutter journalism. You are cheapening our discourse and doing the tabloids' job for them. So the person claimed to be in poverty, but seems to be doing alright? I don't care. I don't care what food or wine she likes. I don't care where she goes on holiday, or what school her children go to. That is literally none of my business. I don't need her to perform her poverty for me and abstain from all pleasures in life for her to qualify to comment on poverty. So she said something you consider controversial? So what? Have you ever said something controversial? Would that justify all the details of your life being openly discussed and raked over for the public to disapprove? Take a good look at yourself, guys. Don't let your accusations of hypocrisy blind you to your own.
I have deliberately not named the individual involved or the issue she raised because I am not going to contribute to this discussion about her input to the debate last night other than to say how utterly appalled I am at the behaviour of people online towards her. We need to be much, much better than this. We don't deserve Independence if this is how we act.
"We don't deserve Independence if this is how we act."
ReplyDeleteThe legitimacy of certain people's desire for independence being determined by their moral worth is an idiosyncratic idea. Perhaps in the heat of the moment you - like those who apparently picked up the pitchforks -
allowed emotion to adversely affect your judgement. Reason being a slave to the passions causes all of us problems at times.
Geez
ReplyDeleteWe have spent every day since 2012 being lied and cheated by the the yoons and u go ape shit over 1 mistake from the Yes side .. ??
We dont deserve indi because we upset a fake ???
aye right ..... and who made you judge and jury ??
there are dirty tricks aplenty and thousands dead because of the welfare cuts and u get on your high horse over and absolute plant .
Who the hell do u think u are ?? U have a an opinion and so do others . If we get it wrong we say so like Ms Cherry did last night on twitter .
But please save your faux anger for real life ..
Actually, you miss the point. The witch hunt was because people assumed she was a BBC plant, as that now seems to be par for the course. The fact that she was sitting next to last weeks plant on question time led people to assume she knew him as opposed to the BBC just sit their plants next to one another for easy identification for the camera guy. The point still stands regardless of whether she was complicit, she was clearly there as an ambush. The easiest way to prove that is to prove she was talking shite. Politicians already live in a post truth landscape, we certainly don't need the public joining in. As to the framing of the debate... Really, what did you expect?
ReplyDeleteYou haven't named the individual, but you claim not to have named the issue she raised yet the article is titled Nursegate#.
ReplyDeleteI believe you are correct the focus should have been on BBC Scotland bias. However in an age when the media can't be trusted I can't blame people for doing some simple fact checking for themselves. Once her story was disproved the attention should have turned to the BBC . It seems to be the nature of social media that these witch hunts occur from time to time. Perhaps it's just human nature, certainly mainstream media organises similar campaigns to vilify individuals and groups. Look at Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbot or Alex Salmond. Look at the media treatment of refugees. No one side has a monopoly on "witch hunts" . The person should not be hounded but she should not have lied on TV.