4 ms·

> We have seen a strong and undeniable media bias On the contrary, the media insisted for weeks the referendum was "too close to call", citing endless polls th

by UVB-76 12y ago

> We have seen a strong and undeniable media bias On the contrary, the media insisted for weeks the referendum was "too close to call", citing endless polls that generally favored the 'no' vote, but were close to 50-50. Obviously people vote more conservatively when it matters. Meanwhile, the bookmakers, who actually had skin in the game, knew a 'yes' vote was unlikely, and reflected that in their odds.

treerock 12y ago
Not sure how that is to the contrary? Press may report that it's too close to call to motivated No voters to get out and vote. (I don't know either way, not being paying much attention to the press, though BBC Scotland has seemed quite balanced)
jcbrand 12y ago
Saying the referendum is "too close to call" is not the same as being even-handed (i.e. not having a bias). They were biased because they consistently took a negative stance towards the potential ramifications (not chance of outcome) of independence.
- UVB-76 12y ago
  The media thrive on fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The possibility of Scotland voting for independence had that in spades; nobody really knew what it would entail. Thus the media persisted in presenting it as a realistic, likely prospect, even when it was quite apparent (as per bookmakers odds) that a 'yes' vote was very unlikely.
- tobylane 12y ago
  What is an ideal amount of coverage on the negatives? Especially when the negatives of a No vote can be said and understood simply - Westminster keeps some control.
ZeroGravitas 12y ago
I was following the polls more closely than the bookmakers, but both were clear that No was likely to win. If the media, who overwhelmingly supported No were reporting it as "too close to call" then either a) they felt that was the most effective way to bring about the result they desired, or b) they are idiots who don't understand the basics of the things they report on. Probably a little of both.

by UVB-76 12y ago

treerock 12y ago

Not sure how that is to the contrary? Press may report that it's too close to call to motivated No voters to get out and vote. (I don't know either way, not being paying much attention to the press, though BBC Scotland has seemed quite balanced)

jcbrand 12y ago

Saying the referendum is "too close to call" is not the same as being even-handed (i.e. not having a bias). They were biased because they consistently took a negative stance towards the potential ramifications (not chance of outcome) of independence.

UVB-76 12y ago
The media thrive on fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The possibility of Scotland voting for independence had that in spades; nobody really knew what it would entail. Thus the media persisted in presenting it as a realistic, likely prospect, even when it was quite apparent (as per bookmakers odds) that a 'yes' vote was very unlikely.
tobylane 12y ago
What is an ideal amount of coverage on the negatives? Especially when the negatives of a No vote can be said and understood simply - Westminster keeps some control.

ZeroGravitas 12y ago

I was following the polls more closely than the bookmakers, but both were clear that No was likely to win. If the media, who overwhelmingly supported No were reporting it as "too close to call" then either a) they felt that was the most effective way to bring about the result they desired, or b) they are idiots who don't understand the basics of the things they report on. Probably a little of both.