David Maddox: The SNP's cybernat problem
There have been some questions posted on the Scotsman's website about why comments are no longer allowed after my stories.
It has been alleged that I am afraid of criticism or that I can't handle a bit of abuse. Neither of these allegations are true, if they had been comments would have been blocked long ago.
It has also been claimed that I personally ordered comments to be stopped. Again not true, although it is nice to think that people seem to believe I have such authority in the newspaper. If only.
The reason the comments are no longer allowed after my stories is because cybernats - by which I mean the extremist element that supports the SNP and manifests itself under anonymous names - were putting up comments actually seemed to be threatening me physical harm and asking people to track down my home, car etc.
At that point it was decided by the newspaper's management that comments should no longer appear after my stories.
While I think it is a shame to close down the debate, I agreed with the decision, not least because my windows have been smashed eight times in the last two years, which makes personal security for me and my family a high priority, even if the vandalism was probably done by local kids.
I confronted via e-mail a couple of the pro-Nationalist posters who put up these threatening remarks and one, who at least had the decency to apologise, admitted to being a party member.
In the stories we have seen today in Scotland on Sunday and other papers, we have seen that again there is a link between the party and these vicious bloggers.
It rather makes the odd excuse that the SNP have officially always used that these are not party members and claims the posters may even be unionist plants just look silly.
It also does gives some credence to the case of those who believe that many of these bloggers are employed by the SNP or are members and that this sort of thing may actually be co-ordinated, although personally I think we need to see much more evidence before we can draw that conclusion.
I know that this is not only an SNP problem. Labour had Damian McBride, Wendy's drunk spindoctor foul mouthing Alex Salmond and various unionist posters have been pretty vicious too.
However, in Scotland the vast majority of the vicious and defamatory posters on the internet are supporters of the Scottish National Party, whether they are actual members, staff or not.
The SNP has simply refused to deal with this extremist element who do not represent so called civic nationalism, but the extremism evident in other types of nationalism.
The party's silence on the matter has always puzzled me. Some have taken it as actually condoning the behaviour, personally I think it is the equivalent of sticking its fingers in its ears and singing: "La la la nothing's happening."
One thing that is for sure, though, is that if the SNP want us to believe it really stands for civic nationalism, as I think its leadership mostly does, then it has got to tackle this problem and wheedle out the extremists once and for all.
A note on the good guys:
I feel I should add that there some excellent Nationalist contributors in the blogosphere, even if they are a minoritry.
Two of them, who happen to be among my favourite bloggers, but are not the only good ones, are Jeff Breslin of SNP Tactical Voting and now the Steamie, and Calum Cashley, the party's Westminster candidate for Edinburgh North and Leith and a researcher in Holyrood.
Both make thoughtful observations, do not hide behind anonymous names and are well worth a read. Neither feel the need to be abusive or defamatory but address issues through proper political debate.
It has been alleged that I am afraid of criticism or that I can't handle a bit of abuse. Neither of these allegations are true, if they had been comments would have been blocked long ago.
It has also been claimed that I personally ordered comments to be stopped. Again not true, although it is nice to think that people seem to believe I have such authority in the newspaper. If only.
The reason the comments are no longer allowed after my stories is because cybernats - by which I mean the extremist element that supports the SNP and manifests itself under anonymous names - were putting up comments actually seemed to be threatening me physical harm and asking people to track down my home, car etc.
At that point it was decided by the newspaper's management that comments should no longer appear after my stories.
While I think it is a shame to close down the debate, I agreed with the decision, not least because my windows have been smashed eight times in the last two years, which makes personal security for me and my family a high priority, even if the vandalism was probably done by local kids.
I confronted via e-mail a couple of the pro-Nationalist posters who put up these threatening remarks and one, who at least had the decency to apologise, admitted to being a party member.
In the stories we have seen today in Scotland on Sunday and other papers, we have seen that again there is a link between the party and these vicious bloggers.
It rather makes the odd excuse that the SNP have officially always used that these are not party members and claims the posters may even be unionist plants just look silly.
It also does gives some credence to the case of those who believe that many of these bloggers are employed by the SNP or are members and that this sort of thing may actually be co-ordinated, although personally I think we need to see much more evidence before we can draw that conclusion.
I know that this is not only an SNP problem. Labour had Damian McBride, Wendy's drunk spindoctor foul mouthing Alex Salmond and various unionist posters have been pretty vicious too.
However, in Scotland the vast majority of the vicious and defamatory posters on the internet are supporters of the Scottish National Party, whether they are actual members, staff or not.
The SNP has simply refused to deal with this extremist element who do not represent so called civic nationalism, but the extremism evident in other types of nationalism.
The party's silence on the matter has always puzzled me. Some have taken it as actually condoning the behaviour, personally I think it is the equivalent of sticking its fingers in its ears and singing: "La la la nothing's happening."
One thing that is for sure, though, is that if the SNP want us to believe it really stands for civic nationalism, as I think its leadership mostly does, then it has got to tackle this problem and wheedle out the extremists once and for all.
A note on the good guys:
I feel I should add that there some excellent Nationalist contributors in the blogosphere, even if they are a minoritry.
Two of them, who happen to be among my favourite bloggers, but are not the only good ones, are Jeff Breslin of SNP Tactical Voting and now the Steamie, and Calum Cashley, the party's Westminster candidate for Edinburgh North and Leith and a researcher in Holyrood.
Both make thoughtful observations, do not hide behind anonymous names and are well worth a read. Neither feel the need to be abusive or defamatory but address issues through proper political debate.
Labels: cybernats, David Maddox, SNP
posted by Administrator at
12:51
22 Comments:
Well, I am really sad to hear about the comment situation, Mr Maddox. Am sure the broken windows are down to local ferals, but the anger levels of blog discourse in Scotland are surprising enough to make one wonder - some 'national conversation' this is, to coin a phrase.
I have raised this before: while the SNP have no monopoly on vitriol, they do have the angriest posters, and I wonder why this should be so.
Joan MacAlpine's blog has a somewhat different perspective on today's media attacks on the cybernats; no point in repeating here what i say there, except perhaps this on Benjamin Franklin, whom Joan brought up as an 18th-century counterpart to today's bloggers:
'Bringing up Benjamin Franklin is also interesting, as it now seems he may have been a British as well as an American spy - he possibly got so involved in his personas that he sometimes forgot what his real individuality was. A lesson for many Scottish bloggers, perhaps.'
"my windows have been smashed eight times in the last two years, which makes personal security for me and my family a high priority, even if the vandalism was probably done by local kids."
I've got a leak in my kitchen, Dave. It's PROBABLY down to natural wear and tear but there's a possibility, howver slight, that Labour supporters have been sneaking into my house at night to rattle my pipework. And all because I voted SNP at the 2007 elections and have said as much on the internet. Now it's just a hunch of mine, but it wouldn't at all surprise me if those local window-smashing kids from Probably Street have parents who vote SNP.
Anyway, I know I've learnt my lesson.
Thanks for your comments David, I'm flattered.
Removing comments sounds like a reasonable course of action to me under the circumstances.
It seems if The Scotsman leaves comments up it's a cynical attempt to win advertising income and if The Scotsman takes comments down then it's stifling debate.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't...
To be fair to the SNP, I don't know how it can combat anonymous bloggers/commenters spouting bile on the net from their own homes, regardless of whether they are inside or outside of the party.
Maybe journalists have to look at their own integrity as being part of the problem. When most things reported on come with a definate bias towards all things unionist good all things nationalist bad without questioning the validity of the arguement, al-Megraphi decision, minimum pricing of alcohol and the Calman farce.
The comments you are complaining about will be caused by frustration from not being given a level playing field and I am not talking about old firm game refs!
The honest truth is what the general public require from the media not political spin direct from the unionist parties.
Let's see David we have the record,Scotsman and the herald pumping out stream after stream of unsubstantiated anti snp bile and you wonder why the nationalist bloggers might be agrieved especially as you were consistently one of the worst culprits.that said your attempts to link the snp to your broken windows are laughable! Your cynicism
and narrow minded ness far exceeds that a few exuberant nat bloggers
I think it would be helpful if you could post the comments made to you.
Anyone who made such a comment does not deserve any kind of confidentiality.
You really should name and shame here.
No ronan if anyone is threatening physical violence then that goes way beyond exuberance.
Which is why I think the comments should be published.
I did warn sensible SNP friends about this even before most of the wingnuts migrated from the Scotsman's comments section to their own blogs.
The standard depressing and aggressive ramblings from paranoid fantasists do no-one any good, not even the SNP's fiercest opponents.
A number of points have cropped up here.
Being threatened with physical violence for having a particular viewpoint goes way beyond politics, and I assume is being followed up by the police. I also have no reason to doubt your claim that your writing has led to your windows being smashed, although it would be a little hard to reconcile the two. I'm sure you must have other evidence before making this claim.
Suggesting that the SNP leadership 'deal' with extremist, non-party members who don't follow 'civic nationalism' implies something rather sinister.
Informing us that "the good guys" who blog in support of the SNP are a minority suggests that you only read The Scotsman threads and not some of the excellent blogs out there.
Having a reputation for carrying an anti-SNP viewpoint, with a good deal of evidence to suggest that that is the case, and at the same time working for what should be a quality Scottish broadsheet, is a great combination for courting regular controversy.
When attempting to "address issues through proper political debate" I have encountered a number of vicious unionist bloggers as well as an unwritten censorship policy on a number of unionist blogs, designed to stifle debate and curtail comments which don't fit in with their political agenda. This is worth more than a passing mention.
It seems to me David, that it's more important who you are than what you say, and I mean that to include everybody. You quite correctly uphold Jeff as a great blogger. He has no problem speaking up against many SNP policies, yet would generally support the SNP. The same cannot be said about many Labour blogs, and indeed many journalists.
The reason the comments are no longer allowed after my stories is because cybernats - by which I mean the extremist element that supports the SNP and manifests itself under anonymous names - were putting up comments actually threatening me physical harm and asking people to track down my home, car etc
That sounds like a matter for the police if they are making direct threats. It should be fairly easy to track these people down with their IP numbers and email addresses. Could you give a link to the stories with theses comments so we can see how bad they were?
In the stories we have seen today in Scotland on Sunday and other papers, we have seen that again there is a link between the party and these vicious bloggers.
The whole thing started when a blogger called Wardog came under attack from the papers because he called Jim Murphy a chump. Calling Murphy a chump wasn't particularly vicious in internet terms, just rude, especially in comparison to posts on bloggers like Devil's Kitchen and Guido Fawkes and he wasn't a party member.
The Universality of Cheese aka Mark MacLachan was rude about a NOTW hack using the word chump because of the attack on Wardog and because Mark could be linked to Mike Russell at the heart of the SNP Government it was a very stupid thing to do but there is not a shred of evidence linking Wardog, who was quite open about his identity, nor Mark MacLachlan with the anonymous bloggers you allege have threatened you with harm.
It also does gives some credence to the case of those who believe that many of these bloggers are employed by the SNP or are members and that this sort of thing may actually be co-ordinated, although personally I think we need to see much more evidence before we can draw that conclusion.
Well I'm an SNP member but I've always commented without any prompting from the Poltiburo in SNP central command. What surprised me when I started commenting on posts on the Guardian and the Herald several years ago was the lack of unionist commenters and this is still true today. The idea that the SNP are running a co-ordinated campaign of cyber-nat warfare has been around for a long time and it still seems to be current in the tin foil hat brigade amongst the unionists. If the SNP are running a co-ordinated campaign it's a particularly stupid one that managed to get lots of bad press just before the independence bill came out. I just can't work that one out. Can you?
One thing that is for sure, though, is that if the SNP want us to believe it really stands for civic nationalism, as I think its leadership mostly does, then it has got to tackle this problem and wheedle out the extremists once and for all.
How do you suggest the SNP deals with anonymous posters to newspapers and to blogs it does not control? Are you going to discover and pass all the details of abusive commenters to the SNP so they can try and find our if they are party members or is the idea here that the SNP already know who they are? I've been on commenting on Scottish blogs, English blogs and several newspapers for years and I've seen some pretty abusive comments mainly in reference to Scots spongers and to the Scots as drunken freeloaders on English based blogs and papers but I've never seen a co-ordinated campaign by, "Cyber-Nats".
While I think it is a shame to close down the debate, I agreed with the decision, not least because my windows have been smashed eight times in the last two years, which makes personal security for me and my family a high priority, even if the vandalism was probably done by local kids.
They could have been cyber-nat local kids. It's always a possibility.
"However, in Scotland the vast majority of the vicious and defamatory posters on the internet are supporters of the Scottish National Party"
What a load of guff this is. Got even a shred of statistical evidence to back it up? No, thought not.
I'm an SNP supporter (not a member) and I've posted on the Scotsman comment threads under my own real name. I've never defamed or threatened anyone. One day recently, without any sort of warning, I was banned from posting (I can still log in, but can't post). I emailed to enquire as to why, and got no reply. I set up a new account, which also didn't defame or threaten anyone, and that one got banned too.
From what I've seen, there is a far greater proportion of reasoned, grown-up debate from SNP posters, with the Unionist side far more afflicted with trolls like Rufus, Grahamski, WeeGirlie and the rest. I can't actually think of a single nationalist regular who posts pure trolling, whereas the above and several other BritNats do nothing but.
Mr Maddox is clearly just bothered that the Unionists are visibly losing the debate, therefore they've been silenced, leaving only his own extremely biased viewpoints on the site.
Not entirely true. I reported 2 weeks ago of finding pro trolls working on behalf of, it would appear a political party. The main ruse they pulled was poster impersonation.
They and other activists from Labour also done a canny line in rabid nat.
The insecurity of the jpress system is to blame also.
David,
Sorry to hear about your windows and it is difficult to believe that this is just coincidence.
You must be aware, as most posters are, that it is relatively easy for posters under different monikers to post provocative and outrageous anti-unionist statements and then under a different moniker, as a unionist, express outrage at such comments.
This can, of course, work both ways but there are two well-known unionists who post under several different names and, on at least one occasion, openly admitted and congratulated each other on provoking an angry and abusive response.
Would it be too cynical of posters to consider that this may be a ploy to encourage more comments?
I have read your articles for quite some time now but, whilst noticing some abuse, cannot recall seeing any physical threats or pleas for your address. If I had I would certainly have condemned such comments.
Finally, by banning all comments from your articles it would appear that the "baddies" have won, the Scotsman has capitulated, and the majority of decent commentators, from all sides of the political devide, are being silenced by a very tiny and vicious minority.
Brownlie,
I was in two minds about the ban, but as I say the decision was not mine. However, it is also not just my personal safety at question but that of my family.
The comments were there, they were removed and the posters have been banned altogether, as have other abusive ones in the past.
I see what you say about double agent style posters, but whenever we have investigated we have not found evidence to back that up. We have though identified individual party supporters and members.
David M
"The reason the comments are no longer allowed after my stories is because cybernats - by which I mean the extremist element that supports the SNP and manifests itself under anonymous names - were putting up comments actually seemed to be threatening me physical harm and asking people to track down my home, car etc."
Mr Maddox are you finally admitting to being AM2 aka Scottish Unionist aka many other monikers. I read the forums on a regular basis and the only incident I can racall of someone trying to out someone was with AM2. Who had himself identified various other individuals and tried to get them into trouble. He also made foul allegations against Niall Alsen the author of The Great Obfuscation and other documents blowing apart allegations by you and others that Scotland is subsidised by England. he withdrew those remarks when legal action was iminent.
Your claims regarding cyber nats are just pure hypocrisy, and do not stand up to scrutiny. Your claims in the article entitled, "Blogged down in scandal, SNP media chiefs turn to the expert for help." Are just lies as Jeff has stated on his blog in response to your allegations, which you should now withdraw and issue a full apology for.
Your allegations about threats are just more of your smears to try and discredit the SNP as are the vast majority of your New Labour inspired articles. You are truly obsessed. If your claims regarding threats were true, it is your public duty to name and shame. But you wil not as you would have to fabricate and lie again and leave your self open to legal action.
You have dug a nasty smelly hole for your self, stop digging and get out of it.
'Finally, by banning all comments from your articles it would appear that the "baddies" have won, the Scotsman has capitulated, and the majority of decent commentators, from all sides of the political devide, are being silenced by a very tiny and vicious minority.'
Well said Brownlie. I too wondered if it was possible that agent provocateurs were at work in some cases, ie the unpublished cases of physical threats - that's another argument for making this a legal matter, Mr Maddox, at least it would resolve some uncertainties.
Oh for what its worth (not much I know) I've grown to like the Steamie - this and Polaris's page are the only ones I make a habit of going to.
David. Most Nats are reasonable people. As Brownlie says on quite a few occassions unionists have been openly seen congratulating each other on provoking a reaction.
To level the blame at nats is one sided.
Even when not blogging or commenting from april to nov this year. I myself had apparently turned into a racist homophobe on these very boards. Fortunately a few folk where wise to the faker.
In addition I caught another attempting to incite and start arguments on my behalf with combat18 and other groups.
Some Unionists and private companies are using the anonimity of the net to provoke and inflame debate. On some occasions crossing over into clear incitement.
So , it's not all that one sided.
As a regular viewer (and far less regular poster) I find these accusations made by Mr Maddox quite disturbing.
If true, they are to be condemned completely, however I must ask why the police have not been involved (or have they?
On the larger point, I read many, many abusive and inaccurate posts by those who could be assumed to be supporters of the union.
They are condescending in the extreme, rude and dismissive, sometimes downright silly and often attempt to take away any debate they seem in danger of being on the wrong side of down a dead end. Facts are thin on the ground but silly accusations and groundless speculation abundant. Non e of this excuses any nationalist (or purported nationalist) poster making threats at any time.
Although he steers clear of the obvious pitfalls of abuse, Mr Maddox’s blatant bias and near obsessive preoccupation with anti- nationalist propaganda and Labour press releases (for any impartial observer will see it as that I am sure) makes him appear both petty and silly.
His idea of what passes for political reporting is a disgrace to both himself and his profession in my opinion.
As I said at the beginning, if he or his family have been subject to threat or attempted intimidation from any quarter he should either go to the authorities or at the very least re-publish the comments and the names of the authors so we can see the extent of the accuracy of his allegations and be allowed to condemn them as unacceptable in a free democracy.
Dear Scotsman, you have deleted my posts, why? You have my email address, please let me know the reason, surely it wasn't because of my criticism of Mr Maddox?
Mark McCann: could it be because you said you thought threats of violence against Mr Maddox were appropriate?
"The comments were there, they were removed and the posters have been banned altogether, as have other abusive ones in the past."
Having posted on the Scotsman for about 3 or 4 years, it has been my observation that a poster who is banned simply re-registers.
In addition, how can a poster be banned if he/she posts from an internet café?
I didn't say that at all! I stated very clearly that I am against violence. I criticised the Scotsman for allowing his type of journalism, which is so inflammatory, biased, and innaccurate that it had lead to him being threatened with violence. I don't condone the idiot who threatened him, although I have yet to see any proof that that is indeed the case.
Post a Comment
<< Home