The Ferret and investigative journalism in Scotland

[Northernhibee]

Recently signed up to theferret.scot and have really been enjoying it; old fashioned investigative journalism, no opinion pieces, fact checking politicians and popular social media claims, just as likely to hold to account the Tories as Labour or the SNP and although you just about get one story a day, it's properly refreshing to read what appears to be largely unbiased media.

Recently attended a talk by them at Doune the Rabbit Hole festival and it struck me how much the pressure on 24/7 news and breaking new stories puts on journalists which ends up in sloppy opinion piece articles padded out by social media reaction.

I was wondering, would it ever be possible for a website or newspaper dedicated to investigative journalism to break back into the public mainstream again? Is society so addicted to instant fast news that it doesn't hold the patience for the real story to develop?

[Mibbes Aye]

The Guardian does something called ‘The Long Read’ which are standalone in-depth articles that have been well researched, but they also have a history and even recent history of long-term investigative pieces of work. Similarly the New York Times, though the NYT only offers a limited amount of free articles.

I think both those papers have a history and ethos about respecting the value of longer-term investigation and serious journalism.

By contrast, I can’t remember which site, but I’m sure it is a broadsheet (in old money, that is), maybe the Telegraph or Indy which tellls you how long the article takes to read, I am assuming in case you don’t wish to spend more than seven minutes on it!

[Pretty Boy]

It will likely go down like a lead balloon with some on here but the BBC website has a couple of 'long reads' a week that are usually worth half an hour of your time.

The recent one about Boeing and their attempts to dodge blame for the 787 Max issues was an eye opener.

[Smartie]

It will likely go down like a lead balloon with some on here but the BBC website has a couple of 'long reads' a week that are usually worth half an hour of your time.

The recent one about Boeing and their attempts to dodge blame for the 787 Max issues was an eye opener.

They are amongst the best things you can read on the internet.

I love the way they are put together, and the way they evolve as you scroll down.

My favourite one so far was when they did the feature on the unidentified body that was found on Saddleworth Moor (they've since gone on to identify the man in question). that was the first one I'd read, and make a point of looking out for them now.


Whilst I'll admit myself that I have had issues with the way the BBC have handled certain events and stories, the modern phenomenon of everyone piling in on the BBC is tiresome and unmerited. They still produce some of the very best stuff out there.

[weecounty hibby]

It will likely go down like a lead balloon with some on here but the BBC website has a couple of 'long reads' a week that are usually worth half an hour of your time.

The recent one about Boeing and their attempts to dodge blame for the 787 Max issues was an eye opener.

These are great and shows how good the BBC can be when it comes to news stories and investigations. Really good one about Sonny Liston recently. Most of them give info on stuff that you have heard of but don't know any real details

[Northernhibee]

How open would the public be to spending extra money for "long reads" do you think? The talk at DTRH on the future of Scottish media was interesting and they had someone from the BBC who took a fair bit of flak but actually stood up for the BBC and the "long reads" very well. Obviously the BBC can't charge, but if it was a fiver a month for newspapers to be able to fund stories that have taken weeks or months to create on top of what they normally do, would people accept that as a price for proper journalism?

[Northernhibee]

It will likely go down like a lead balloon with some on here but the BBC website has a couple of 'long reads' a week that are usually worth half an hour of your time.

The recent one about Boeing and their attempts to dodge blame for the 787 Max issues was an eye opener.

There is a lot wrong with the BBC but there is more good than bad IMO. The fact both sides of the argument often seem to hate the BBC is probably quite telling.

The Tories are tying both hands behind their back with constant criticism, forcing them to reveal the salaries of their top talent and sadly rather than going with an "up yours" attitude to them, they do tend to be overly sympathetic to the Tories (I'd guess out of fear of reprisal). They however have some excellent journalists.

[Mibbes Aye]

How open would the public be to spending extra money for "long reads" do you think? The talk at DTRH on the future of Scottish media was interesting and they had someone from the BBC who took a fair bit of flak but actually stood up for the BBC and the "long reads" very well. Obviously the BBC can't charge, but if it was a fiver a month for newspapers to be able to fund stories that have taken weeks or months to create on top of what they normally do, would people accept that as a price for proper journalism?

I think some of us already do. I put money into the Guardian, which isn’t PPV but asks you to donate if you can. I used to subscribe to the NYT but it lapsed and I didn’t get round to renewing it. I subscribe to the Telegraph because I think it is important to get a viewpoint that I don’t tend to agree with.

I subscribe to the New York Review of Books and the London Review Of Books which criminally under-represent themselves as they are so much more than book reviews, they are op pieces and usually carry a hefty intellectual rigour. The NYRB in particular can actually feel exhausting after you have read an article or two, you can feel the brain cells hurting :greengrin Nevertheless, best publication on the planet IMO.

I buy the Economist, the Spectator and the New Statesman from time to time. I would happily read them all regularly but for balance I think it would need to be all, not just one or two. Their pieces are more columnist style but often very good. Not sure I can justify paying for all of them though and not sure I actually have the time to regularly read them either.

[Northernhibee]

I think some of us already do. I put money into the Guardian, which isn’t PPV but asks you to donate if you can. I used to subscribe to the NYT but it lapsed and I didn’t get round to renewing it. I subscribe to the Telegraph because I think it is important to get a viewpoint that I don’t tend to agree with.

I subscribe to the New York Review of Books and the London Review Of Books which criminally under-represent themselves as they are so much more than book reviews, they are op pieces and usually carry a hefty intellectual rigour. The NYRB in particular can actually feel exhausting after you have read an article or two, you can feel the brain cells hurting :greengrin Nevertheless, best publication on the planet IMO.

I buy the Economist, the Spectator and the New Statesman from time to time. I would happily read them all regularly but for balance I think it would need to be all, not just one or two. Their pieces are more columnist style but often very good. Not sure I can justify paying for all of them though and not sure I actually have the time to regularly read them either.

I kind of guess I'm talking about the mainstream, the person who would watch ITV News at Ten but nothing else during the day. Could the journalism that people who currently value enough to pay extra for end up being a "mainstream" proposition? Are people more comforted by easy to digest opinion than a real investigation that relies on you making up your own mind, or is there hope for the future in the way that people absorb information?

[Mibbes Aye]

I kind of guess I'm talking about the mainstream, the person who would watch ITV News at Ten but nothing else during the day. Could the journalism that people who currently value enough to pay extra for end up being a "mainstream" proposition? Are people more comforted by easy to digest opinion than a real investigation that relies on you making up your own mind, or is there hope for the future in the way that people absorb information?

Ah okay.

I think we are on a bad path. The BBC, which we do pay for, has undoubtedly become less rigorous than it was in the time of Lord Reith. While it still provides some very high quality independent broadcasting, the current climate of instant online commentary sees it traduced as biased or that awful acronym, “MSM”.

I am probably typical in that I don’t really watch TV live as it were. I series record what I want to see and catch the news online generally. When I was younger, Panorama or Horizon would be appointment viewing, where they had spent months researching a single issue then exposed it. We seem to have lost that and there seems to be more appetite for instant gratification and a lack of rigorous intellectual examination of issues.

[Fife-Hibee]

The BBC don't do investigative journalism. They are given a narrative to follow and are effectively told which side to take. They are also told which news stories can and can't be mentioned on air. Just earlier on I was watching a discussion on the BBC about Boris Johnson and his cabinet. As soon as the subject was brought up by one of the guests that Priti Patel was forced to resign a couple of years ago for holding secret meetings with Israel. The presenter couldn't jump in quickly enough to tell them that "there isn't enough time to talk about that."

Even as a guest on the BBC, you're not allowed to go off script.

[Lester B]

The BBC don't do investigative journalism. They are given a narrative to follow and are effectively told which side to take. They are also told which news stories can and can't be mentioned on air. Just earlier on I was watching a discussion on the BBC about Boris Johnson and his cabinet. As soon as the subject was brought up by one of the guests that Priti Patel was forced to resign a couple of years ago for holding secret meetings with Israel. The presenter couldn't jump in quickly enough to tell them that "there isn't enough time to talk about that."

Even as a guest on the BBC, you're not allowed to go off script.

So who gives them the narrative? The Rothchilds or the lizards?

Seriously though. What proof do you have of any of this?? Where do you get this stuff from? And why?

[Lester B]

Ah okay.

I think we are on a bad path. The BBC, which we do pay for, has undoubtedly become less rigorous than it was in the time of Lord Reith. While it still provides some very high quality independent broadcasting, the current climate of instant online commentary sees it traduced as biased or that awful acronym, “MSM”.

I am probably typical in that I don’t really watch TV live as it were. I series record what I want to see and catch the news online generally. When I was younger, Panorama or Horizon would be appointment viewing, where they had spent months researching a single issue then exposed it. We seem to have lost that and there seems to be more appetite for instant gratification and a lack of rigorous intellectual examination of issues.

Yup. I cringe at that too.

Some great points made there. Heard an interesting interview with Jeremy Bowen last year where be was bemoaning the number of people who condemned the BBC as biased and said in effect these people were complaining that a national news broadcaster wasn't their personal echo chamber. Some truth in that

[Fife-Hibee]

So who gives them the narrative? The Rothchilds or the lizards?

Seriously though. What proof do you have of any of this?? Where do you get this stuff from? And why?

What do you mean "where do I get this stuff from"?

Presumably we've watched the same BBC channels over the years? It's blatant to anyone who actually cares to notice it.

There's a reason less and less people are putting their time and trust in the BBC (particularly the newer generations). The BBC are entirely at fault for this.

[Lester B]

What do you mean "where do I get this stuff from"?

Presumably we've watched the same BBC channels over the years? It's blatant to anyone who actually cares to notice it.

There's a reason less and less people are putting their time and trust in the BBC (particularly the newer generations). The BBC are entirely at fault for this.

Who gives them this narrative? It's not a difficult question. It's not blatant at all. Oh and 'cares to notice it' is a clear indication of a conspiracy theorist at work; dismissive yet hubristic.

[Fife-Hibee]

Who gives them this narrative? It's not a difficult question. It's not blatant at all. Oh and 'cares to notice it' is a clear indication of a conspiracy theorist at work; dismissive yet hubristic.

You know it's impossible to make any kind of points with people like you who just write anything off as a "conspiracy". It doesn't matter what facts are flung in your face such as the carefully selected BBC Question Time audiences who were found out to be councilors and political activists for the far right. Or the blatant over dramatization of their "panorama" programme on Jeremy Corbyn.

They're not even trying to be balanced anymore. Yet here you are making the same tired age old argument that the BBC are fair and impartial and that anybody who challenges that assertion (with blatant facts) is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

I suppose the ever increasing number of people who are turning their viewership away from the BBC are all crazy conspiracy nuts. Because the BBC can do no wrong.

[Mibbes Aye]

You know it's impossible to make any kind of points with people like you who just write anything off as a "conspiracy". It doesn't matter what facts are flung in your face such as the carefully selected BBC Question Time audiences who were found out to be councilors and political activists for the far right. Or the blatant over dramatization of their "panorama" programme on Jeremy Corbyn.

They're not even trying to be balanced anymore. Yet here you are making the same tired age old argument that the BBC are fair and impartial and that anybody who challenges that assertion (with blatant facts) is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

I suppose the ever increasing number of people who are turning their viewership away from the BBC are all crazy conspiracy nuts. Because the BBC can do no wrong.

I didn’t see the Panorama programme. I’m just hoping they didn’t use eerie music.

[Fife-Hibee]

I didn’t see the Panorama programme. I’m just hoping they didn’t use eerie music.

They did.

[Mibbes Aye]

They did.

Suffering saints. Where is the humanity?

[Fife-Hibee]

Suffering saints. Where is the humanity?

Never mind humanity, a bit of balance with proper investigative journalism would be nice. But I know how much the hard of thinking like specials effects to control the mood of whatever they're watching.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Never mind humanity, a bit of balance with proper investigative journalism would be nice. But I know how much the hard of thinking like specials effects to control the mood of whatever they're watching.

You're starting to grind my gears with your constant put downs of the general population. Is it really necessary to constantly keep coming out with " the hard of thinking" etc etc.

Not everyone has the same intellect as yourself.

Think about it and consider others.

[Fife-Hibee]

You're starting to grind my gears with your constant put downs of the general population. Is it really necessary to constantly keep coming out with " the hard of thinking" etc etc.

Not everyone has the same intellect as yourself.

Think about it and consider others.

I don't care. I don't come on here with the concern of only saying things people want to hear. The intellect of the general population kind of speaks for itself wouldn't you say?

[stoneyburn hibs]

I don't care. I don't come on here with the concern of only saying things people want to hear. The intellect of the general population kind of speaks for itself wouldn't you say?

You really don't care?
I don't expect anyone on here to placate others. It's a forum mate, no need to constantly have the hackles up.

[Fife-Hibee]

You really don't care?
I don't expect anyone on here to placate others. It's a forum mate, no need to constantly have the hackles up.

In a political game where peoples lives are constantly on the line. You better believe my hackles are constantly up. I know politics is just a sideshow to many people. A bit of light entertainment to pass the time. But for some of us, it matters.

[marinello59]

I didn’t see the Panorama programme. I’m just hoping they didn’t use eerie music.

I wouldn’t worry about it. Our Fifey spent several posts trashing a BBC programme the other week before admitting he hadn’t even seen it. 😂

[Fife-Hibee]

I wouldn’t worry about it. Our Fifey spent several posts trashing a BBC programme the other week before admitting he hadn’t even seen it. 😂

I wasn't wrong though, despite not seeing it.

[marinello59]

I wasn't wrong though, despite not seeing it.

Geez. :faf:

[Pretty Boy]

I wasn't wrong though, despite not seeing it.

You were wrong though, very wrong. As I pointed out at the time. You said 'no mention of the Tories though eh?'

I then informed you there were multiple mentions of the Tories, the lies they had told and the mistakes they had made; it was pretty damming stuff. Then the goalposts were moved, as is the norm with you, and it became' no mention of the Tories with multiple indeterminate but evidently important criteria'.

In your head you obviously imagine yourself to be a political and sociological heavyweight like Chomsky. In reality the description of you as being like Trump is accurate and I don't care if you take umbrage to that. You have an opinion on everything and being completely ignorant about the subject matter is irrelevant, you lie and then when caught out either lie again or shift the discussion to deflect from the lie and/or your own ignorance on the topic. I really don't have the energy for these inane conversations but you, and 2 or 3 others, have completely ruined this forum and you are too narcissistic to see it.

[Hiber-nation]

You were wrong though, very wrong. As I pointed out at the time. You said 'no mention of the Tories though eh?'

I then informed you there were multiple mentions of the Tories, the lies they had told and the mistakes they had made; it was pretty damming stuff. Then the goalposts were moved, as is the norm with you, and it became' no mention of the Tories with multiple indeterminate but evidently important criteria'.

In your head you obviously imagine yourself to be a political and sociological heavyweight like Chomsky. In reality the description of you as being like Trump is accurate and I don't care if you take umbrage to that. You have an opinion on everything and being completely ignorant about the subject matter is irrelevant, you lie and then when caught out either lie again or shift the discussion to deflect from the lie and/or your own ignorance on the topic. I really don't have the energy for these inane conversations but you, and 2 or 3 others, have completely ruined this forum and you are too narcissistic to see it.

Agree. Sorry if this sounds like a witch hunt but I'm afraid that when I see Fife-Hibee's name all over these threads I regularly give up as it's all so predictable. Lots of opinions, little research.

[Bangkok Hibby]

In a political game where peoples lives are constantly on the line. You better believe my hackles are constantly up. I know politics is just a sideshow to many people. A bit of light entertainment to pass the time. But for some of us, it matters.

If only the masses realised this. Politics rules your life from the moment you're born. Shrugging your shoulders and saying "it doesnt affect me" is madness.

[Lester B]

You know it's impossible to make any kind of points with people like you who just write anything off as a "conspiracy". It doesn't matter what facts are flung in your face such as the carefully selected BBC Question Time audiences who were found out to be councilors and political activists for the far right. Or the blatant over dramatization of their "panorama" programme on Jeremy Corbyn.

They're not even trying to be balanced anymore. Yet here you are making the same tired age old argument that the BBC are fair and impartial and that anybody who challenges that assertion (with blatant facts) is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

I suppose the ever increasing number of people who are turning their viewership away from the BBC are all crazy conspiracy nuts. Because the BBC can do no wrong.

I didn't make any argument that "the BBC are fair and impartial". I didn't say "the BBC can do no wrong". I implied that your assertions that "They are given a narrative to follow and are effectively told which side to take. They are also told which news stories can and can't be mentioned on air." were somewhat far fetched and questioned where this "narrative" came from and asked where you got this from. As ever arguing with the self appointed enlightened, there's no answer as such but a lot of hyperbole from you, in effect arguing against points which have not been made. but this in turn consolidates the self appointed position of 'truth seeker' or some similar guff. You cite two examples; QT and Panorama. To project these onto the entire output is creative not credible and certainly doesn't establish your imposed narrative theory

"Blatant facts" is arguable. Heck, "facts" is arguable in this context.

There are more news sources than ever before and people look for something which they feel chimes with their views regardless of esoteric said views are. Some are indeed crazy conspiracy nuts, most are not. You however may well be. I note on another thread that you are suggesting that a meteor may be heading for the earth and it's being hushed up or at least is capable of being kept quiet. Wow. That has to be a parody surely?? Or....

Pure Dunning Kruger

[Hibbyradge]

I wasn't wrong though, despite not seeing it.

Eh, but ...


No, i'm just somebody who likes details before making self righteous assumptions.

:faf: