1.25.2022

In the second semester, we learned about the 5 ways information can be censored and controlled. Through ownership, advertising, sources, flak, and ideology. We looked at a couple examples but never on Scotland. Thus, it was intriguing to learn how Scotland kept their dependency on England through media. Geographically, Scotland is seen as a resource-rich country. In the UK, 35% of the land is Scotland, and more than 60% of the sea area is theirs. As such, it is home to abundant oil mines, and for England, that was a huge economic boost for them. Since England has a denser population and historically has been holding authority, it would be a disadvantage for them if Scotland becomes independent. As such, numerous media tactics have been utilized to prevent their worst-case scenario. One of the ways was through tweaking news visuals. For example, the BBC scaled down Scotland into disproportionate lengths in order to look vulnerable compared to England. At first glance, a non-Scottish resident may fall for the trap, but the fact that English people were baffled at realizing the actual size of Scotland, I felt questioning my own common sense. It made me consider whether what I believe as a fact, is really the truth or not. Moreover, the BBC has allegedly invited independent think tanks who always praise and commemorate their unbiased news. However, it is thought that these think tanks are merely fraudsters funded by the UK government to appeal to the public about BBC's neutrality. In reality, media is not neutral and fair at all. During the referendum for unionizing Scotland and England, there was an overwhelmingly larger number of headlines for and or neutral union than pro-independent. From the above, I was astonished by the effects of media manipulation on a country's image, and how difficult it is to realize their sneaky activities. 

Moving on, something that was unbelievable was how apparent England wanted Scotland to be with them. One major example was shifting borders to include more zones with natural gases. When I saw the drastic change in the borderline between Scotland and England, it was very clear to me that England wanted the gas so badly. It didn't even look subtle, and I felt their desperateness. No wonder why they pulled a lot of strings to ensure Scotland's non-independence. Another point I found exhausting was the evident canceling of unbiased, truthful information on Scotland. Visiting indymedia.org, I felt unease with how the website had been shut down. Moreover, learning about an Indy media journalist being banned from Twitter and Youtube, due to media companies siding with England, I became concerned at how blurry the lines are between politics and private institutions. I realized that if this goes to the extreme, things such as the corruption in Iraq and the destruction of basic infrastructure due to American control could take place. Historically, private institutions were created off of government schemes, such as IBM during world war 2. So, it may seem inevitable that they share close ties. However, recent modern companies were not born directly for the war, so I believe there is a better chance of passing regulations that would set a quota for how much a private corporation could intercept and cooperate with the government. By doing so, I think that corporations would not need to be pressured by the government to be on their side, and can work independently in providing their services. In this way, we can prevent the public from becoming manipulated by higher powers.