PODCAST: The Revellers’ Magnus Bradley on the band’s 10th anniversary

COMMENT: What now for journalism?

By Vaila Wishart

Back in the cold war days of the Soviet Union, a sailor from Russia or one of the Baltic states would occasionally jump ship and make a dash for freedom, often chased by fellow crewmen.

It made a good story which the Shetland stringer, Wishart, Lerwick, would phone down to the national press.

Sometimes the big boys from the daily papers would arrive to cover it for themselves. The Daily Express in particular loved an anti-reds story.

These reporters had a shorthand note of at least 100 words a minute. They could look up their notes
and have a story ready to phone to newsroom copytakers at breakneck speed to beat their rivals.

In those days, when they had sent in their stories, they would come to our house to meet up with Wishart, Lerwick, and spend the night drinking too much and telling tall tales of their exploits, which got taller as the night went on. I know this because I used to sit on the stairs and listen.

Some of those who survived their careers without liver damage became tutors for my generation of would-be reporters, who also understood why shorthand was important: speed and accuracy was the key to good quality reporting.

Times change. Shorthand is rarely used. Reporters carry recorders which makes writing a story take longer.

Drinking at lunchtime is frowned upon. The noisy clack of typewriters gave way long ago to the almost silent tapping on a keyboard.

Newsrooms became quieter.

Today news is no longer daily or weekly. It is instant and continuous. Social media rules, but is it accurate?

As the printed press declines, on at least one national newspaper reporters are expected to reach targets for the number of hits their stories get on their website.

Editorial policy based on clicks.

These days people don’t expect to pay for news. They get fed “news” on Facebook, Tiktok, Telegram, Instagram or whatever and as they scroll they can skim through all kinds of stories.

News? Not really. Clickbait? You bet.

Most in-depth reporting, higher quality journalism, in what’s left of the press is behind paywalls. The Times and Financial Times, for example, produce good quality content, but most folk don’t want to payfor it when they can get headlines free of charge. If you don’t pay for it, you get what you’re given rather than what you choose.

So national and local newspapers are dying and quality is not valued. Accountants have always looked on reporters as a bit of an unnecessary expense, and jobs are being shed up and down the country.

Even the BBC tends to pick up whatever is trending on social media, stories that would never have made five-minute radio bulletins previously, to keep the listener from straying elsewhere. They’re all covering the same things.

As author Ian Dunt has remarked, when journalism was made free it was the death-knell for serious reporting.

So with reporters up and down the land being made redundant, and newspaper circulation plummeting, the outlook is bleak.

There are already parts of the country which can be described as news deserts with no coverage of local councils, courts or other public services. Who provides unbiased reporting and holds those in power to
account? And how does anyone know how accurate the information they read is if they don’t know where it comes from?

I have previously ranted about the need for critical thinking to be on the school curriculum from an early age. We’ve already seen mobs targeting immigrants when misinformation was circulated after three children were brutally murdered in Southport. That scenario is highly likely to happen more often especially as our national politicians concentrate their populist campaigns on immigration.

Misinformation and downright lies travel fast.

We are fortunate in Shetland that there are still going to be reporters at the court and council and hopefully investigative journalism is not dead. Elsewhere the picture is bleaker.

I’m glad our little independent local newspaper, which carried good news as well as bad, has survived this long, and thank those who have kept it going as times became more economically difficult.

There’s no point in being nostalgic. The tough old hard-drinking daily reporter chasing a story in his dirty old mac would frighten the horses these days. But the guff and particularly the atrocious spelling on social media makes me wonder what’s in store for communities as people hunker down into their own little spheres of interest.

It’s ironic that as communication becomes easier and faster we tend to become more insular.

I fear this may be my last column. While I have never expected readers to agree with what I write, perhaps it has occasionally provided food for thought and discussion.

Especially when you disagree. Because if there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s intolerance.

• Vaila Wishart is a Straight Talking contributor for The Shetland Times

Sandwick man fined after confrontation with son at pier

A Sandwick man who drove carelessly along pier to prevent his son from leaving after a confrontation has been fined £720.

Ronald Young, 59, also had five points added to his licence after he admitted the offence, which happened at Blacksness Pier, Scalloway, on 2nd March last year.

The court heard he drove along the pier at speed to block his son Sam Young, who was in a pickup truck.

However, a separate allegation that the accused had assaulted his son was found to be not proven, following last Thursday’s trial at Lerwick Sheriff Court.

The trial featured evidence from two witnesses and a video.

But Sheriff Eilidh MacDonald was unable to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Young was guilty.

The court was told the complainer had finished working on his boat when he had got into his truck and became aware his father was at the pier.

Giving evidence remotely, the complainer said he had a difficult relationship with his father and had made it clear he wanted nothing to do with him.

He said his father shouted at him and threw punches before he blacked out and injured his head.

Procurator fiscal Duncan MacKenzie told the court the complainer received six stitches for a 10cm cut on the side of his head.

Defence agent Tommy Allan suggested his client had gone to the pier to check on his son’s wellbeing, as he had not responded to messages from earlier in the week,

The complainer agreed that was possible – but also said his father had been listening to “lies” that claimed he was involved in drugs.

Mr Allan also said it was “convenient” the complainer had no memory of the incident.

In Ronald Young’s account to the police, he claimed his son “launched” to attack him.

Video evidence taken from a passing fishing boat, showed the two men in a verbal exchange.

Mr MacKenzie claimed the video showed Ronald Young throwing a punch.

But Sheriff MacDonald suggested it was the younger man “who made the move” before the accused backed away.

It was agreed the altercation had already begun before the video had started recording.

A second witness – a friend of the complainer – said he noticed the pair in an argument from across the pier and he rushed over to split them up.

The witness claimed Ronald Young had been the aggressor but accepted both men had been “flapping” their arms at each other.

When the witness arrived, the father and son had stopped and the older man got in his car and left.

The witness noticed the complainer had blood on his head and was going to take him to hospital for treatment.

But then Ronald Young returned  – driving at speed in his car and blocked his son’s truck from leaving the pier.

The witness said the accused had come back to apologise but Mr Allan suggested his client was returning to say “it wasn’t his fault” – as was told in a statement to police.

Sheriff MacDonald told the accused it was clear he had gone to the pier for a “confrontation”.

But she also saw “inconsistencies” in the Crown’s argument and evidence.

She gave a verdict of not proven.

“I think you were ashamed by what happened that day,” Sheriff MacDonald said.