Political Policing Returns to Northern Ireland

Political policing returned to Northern Ireland with a vengeance with the arrest of Bobby Storey

The push against “republican criminality” is a perennial feature of the landscape in post-ceasefire Northern Ireland, normally popping up at times when the Northern “Deep State” (a tiny, pathetic, yet disproportionately powerful version of the British Deep State who planted it in Ulster) scents a possibility of victory, even if that victory is at the expense of peace.

Peace, while the proclaimed objective of Unionist and British politicians during The Troubles was never the goal  of their establishments in the first place. The goal was victory. That is why the leader of the ‘moderate’ Ulster Unionist Party, James Molyneaux, stated in response to the IRA Ceasefire of 1994 that the ceasefire was “the greatest threat to the Union in 60 years”.

See, although peace was achieved, the UUP leader expressed terror that "peace without winning the war" was upon them. (I should state that I have no sympathy for any militarist organisations, from the British Army to the IRA. As a pacifist I believe all war is wanton waste).

UUP leader, Mike Nesbitt, says “the IRA needs to go away and stop terrorising its own communities”. Certainly he also stated he wanted the Loyalists to go away too. If only the Unionist mainstream politicians had taken as tough a line with the UDA/UFF (who they used to bring down the previous Power Sharing government) or with the UVF (which some of their members encouraged set up in 1966) or the LVF (which MI5 helped set up as a "cutting edge" against post-ceasefire republicanism).

The Republican Movement has been pursuing its aim peacefully for 20 years and while a United Ireland isn’t imminent, it’s arguably closer than prior to the ceasefire. This is what has spooked the spooks of the Unionist and British Establishments.

In 2005, the Robert McCartney murder and the Northern Bank Robbery were cited as reasons why Unionists could not sit in a power sharing executive with Sinn Fein, despite a ceasefire being in operation. (Of course, they had no problem sitting down and talking to Loyalist serial killer and British agent Billy Wright, leader of the LVF). No proof that the IRA authorised or participated in either was ever proven.  A man ‘close to MI6 thinking’ I interviewed for a book at that time stated that events on the ground (such as McCartney murder and Northern Bank Robbery) should be moulded to discredit Sinn Fein because, should Sinn Fein be in government North and South, and a Sinn Fein member be president, ‘an unstoppable momentum’ might be created for a United Ireland. 20 years ago that was unimaginable for most. Not now.

Earlier, in 2002, we had Stormontgate , the Stormont spy scandal (citing the existence of a supposed IRA spy ring in Stormont) that was used by Unionists and their unreconstructed “Deep Staters” in Special Branch, MI5 and elsewhere. It transpired that one of those threatened with prosecution, Sinn Fein’s Chief Administrator, Denis Donaldson, had in fact been working for over 20 years for MI5. The affair collapsed the Northern Ireland Executive. In the end no charges were brought.

The inner circle of the Unionist establishment, encouraged if not instructed by the real daddy, British Intelligence (without who's support they simply could not be effective) are seeking to interrupt what is being seen as a worrying momentum. Some of these people felt safer when the aspirations of Irish Republicans and Nationalists were corralled into the cul de sac of political violence.  Republicans and Nationalists – and to be fair, many, many Unionists and Loyalists – moved forward. Time moved forward. But somethings stayed the same.

The deep state is not actually affected greatly by transient elements, like democratically elected politicians, who come and go. Events that we see on the surface, like the latest waves in the Northern Irish political system, are more affected by constant and eternal deep undercurrents than we might realise.

Remember, these deep, dark forces do not ever, ever, seek peace. Only victory will do. No matter the cost.

The Blair Mutiny

Not content with having ‘modernised’ Labour by infiltrating the word ‘New’ in front of ‘Labour’, The Blairites are now insisting that new members joining adhere to their ‘values’ (see @mrmarksteel on Twitter). How very Stalinist of them.

Now they are saying that even if the Labour Party, the party with the largest membership in the UK and thus potentially the most democratic in the UK with it’s OMOV (one member one vote), the Blairites will refuse to serve under Jeremy Corbyn. And that’s even if he wins a highly impressive 60% of the vote of the party. So, what the Blairites are saying is that even if the Party votes overwhelmingly for Corbyn, it’s the 60%+ who should leave Labour, not the minority who are likely to lose. How very feudal of them. Doubtless they will leave and form a new SDP and accuse the left of "splitting the party" when it is them who would have...err...split the party, thus proving it's not the mythically "rebellious left" that Labour should fear but actually the proven rebellious right.

Of course, the current campaign by Blairites states that Corbyn is a "divisive" candidate while they...err...divide the party. How very Kafkaesque of them.

Tony Blair has even stated that he’d never want power were it won by standing on a “left wing” platform. That’d be an admirable principle were he a member of the Tories or even of what is left of the Lib Dems rather than a nominal member of The People’s Party.

The thrust of the Blairite argument is that Labour cannot win if it alienates the middle class “centre ground”. Curiously, Mr Corbyn appears to have managed it for decades. This so-called centre ground is very much to the right of the centre ground many of us remember pre-Blair. And the Blairites never seemed to care about alienating the working class, upon whose backs many of them climbed into safe Labour seats. (What really could a friend of George Bush have in common with the hard working people of Sedgefield for instance?) Blair famously once said that Labour could afford to move to this new “centre ground” without losing its core working class support because, as he put it, “they have nowhere else to go”. That was either a disingenuous comment or a Fundily Mundily misjudgement.

Of course they had somewhere to go. They could go home. Or more accurately, stay home. And they did. They chose to stay home not only on polling day but also throughout whole campaigns. It was as if activists decided that they didn’t want to get pissed on by the British weather while electioneering and get pissed on by their own party ‘elite’ at the same time. And of course, in Scotland, ‘New Labour’ was actually annihilated when voters and activists found somewhere to go – to a relatively tame and only vaguely social democratic SNP. But then again, even the old ‘Tory Wets’ would have been left of New Labour.

So, OMOV which ironically the Blairtes introduced in the first place as a device to neuter the Trade Union “Barons” will be the death of them. Because now the people the Blairites left behind do indeed have somewhere to go – back to centre stage in the Labour Party. Or, to put it more accurately - to come back in from the cold of the Blairite winter, all fired up by hope, and ready to chase away the Blairite infiltrators forcing them to take their Henry Jackson Society and Progress Group values with them.

And if they don’t like it? Well, they can leave the country along with all the over-paid greedy bankers and tax dodgers who are threatening to leave should Corbyn win. Put all the ugly mutineers together in the same boat. Strange Boat-fellows indeed.

Fit and Proper Journalism - The Antodote to Ibrox PR

Goodness me. It turns out SMSM CAN see The Invisible Journalist after all, albeit a week later than the rest of us. Not only can they see @pmacgiollabhain but they can adapt their stenography skills to copy what Phil already wrote last week.  

It would be called catch up if any of them acknowledged the original source of the story, which of course they simply cannot afford to do. It would confound the already creaking, convoluted narrative they have constructed over years, namely that they are the journalists, not some renegade independent who, despite being on several elected bodies in the NUJ, and despite being lauded by UK wide journalists (the Guardian’s Professor Roy Greenslade and Channel 4’s Alex Thomson) is never mentioned by name in the Scottish sports press.

It’s one thing not to acknowledge the expert in the subject of Rangers and Newco’s recent financial troubles. It’s another to pass off Phil Mac Giolla Bhain’s stories as their own.

Look at today’s back pages and see the “King did meet Ashley” scoop. It was indeed a scoop – last week. This week it is a reworking of Phil Mac Giolla Bhain’s ground-breaking work from 17^th June. What is most striking is the shamelessness of it all. Don’t these guys realise that we all read this last week? Do they think we’d ‘forgotten it? Did they think no one would mention the glaring fact that this was already reported without any denial from the club/operating company/entity?

What is interesting is Phil’s site gets over 1,000,000 (that's ONE MILLION) monthly views from folks looking for real news about Rangers/Sevco. Why? Because they know that stenography is not news. Congratulations lads, you’ve preserved your precious access to…well…what exactly? At best it’s PR for the latest incumbents at Ibrox.

Now, consider how many people read the stenographers, and then compare that to the numbers reading Phil’s site. What this shows is that there’s a real story here and a real need for journalism to report it. You’d have thought journalists would be fighting over each other to get leads on scoops. So, what is stopping them…

Two In A Row

Well, there you go. You’d have thought it impossible for SMSM not to learn the lessons of its collective failure in 2012, when the real journalism on Rangers going bust was left to an independent journalist, Phil Mac Giolla Bhain. You’d have thought that the bloody nose SMSM media received back then would have rudely woken it up. But instead the shock seems to have sent it into a coma.

A quick look at the back pages of most papers in Scotland recently has seen articles in awe of the new regime at the new club. After a brief, post-liquidation Govan Spring, where journalists considered it momentarily fashionable to hold power to account at Ibrox, stenography has once more returned. And it’s as if it’s never been away.

We’d be wrong to think SMSM is uniquely servile to the interests of power. Most corporate journalism due to pressure from owners, sponsors, advertisers shy away from uncomfortable truths when conflicts of interest appear (The Sunday Herald is an exception). Hence the welcome development of social media and the new wave of independent writing, writing often despised by the MSM as they watch it fill vacuums created by their own timidity.

But what is unique about the SMSM’s treatment of The "Rangers" Story is that despite being called out on their dereliction of duty less than three years ago, and despite knowing that it’s is being examined by readers and media alike, SMSM almost defiantly and loudly proclaim the return of stenography. It’s as if some are proud to return to “the good old days” when dodgy money ruled the league, and power was worshipped by those pretending to question it.

There’s something shameless and glib about all these “we’re back!” proclamations. It’s as if the writers of the story and the subject of the story have colluded to produce this toxic concoction. After all, the sale of season tickets and of the newspapers is often to the same clientele. The only reference to The Criminal Conviction That Dare Not Speak Its Name is disingenuous babble such as “Now that Mr King has resolved his differences with the South African Tax Authorities”. Perhaps that’s true but only in the same sense that Ronnie Biggs “resolved his differences” with the UK legal system regarding the Great Train Robbery. The only thing “off the radar” it seems is Mr King’s fit and proper criminal conviction.

So, Ibrox fans, prepare yourself once more for being led by woolly writing from stenographers who should know better and who will lead you on a wild ride before their mint-sauce train comes crashing into hard truth. And prepare for all the nonsense of “we never saw it coming.”

Thankfully there is truth out there. The Invisible Journalist, invisible that is to all who write and who swallow the fairytales of “minted Dave”, is once again ahead of the pack. Phil Mac Giolla Bhain would, in any other environment, be recognised as such. As for those newshounds who appear to be out to lunch, isn’t it embarrassing to be found wanting twice in such rapid succession?

Geopolitics - The Elephant In The Room

It’s a mystery to some why so many Western MSM journalists, who one imagines once saw their job as challenging power, have now reduced themselves to meekly serving it.

When we look at the conflicts in the world today that affect Western interests we see them routinely reported on without much, if any, objectivity. Doesn’t it strike you as a coincidence that every state opposing our interests is referred to as a fairytale-like ‘baddie’? “The Russians are coming”, The Iranians are coming”, “The Libyans are coming”, “The Venezuelans are coming”, “The Syrians are coming”, “The Chinese are coming”, “The Serbians are coming”. Really? Simple geography and recent history show that we are coming to them, not the other way around, unless I’ve misread my maps and Ukraine is on the US’s border rather than Russia’s, for example. 

“Saddam has got WMD”, “Assad has used Chemical Weapons”, “Iran wants a nuclear arsenal”. Really? Haven’t we got WMD (when Saddam had not). Haven’t we used Chemical Weapons (when there’s evidence that Assad did not). Haven’t we got a nuclear arsenal? These are contradictions that in a really healthy democracy would be rapidly exposed by a functioning Fourth Estate.

“Putin, the new Hitler” “Ahmadinejad, the new Hitler” “Miloscovic, the new Hitler” “Assad, the new Hitler” and so on. Really? What have these leaders done what we have not done? Putin is no angel. His murderous campaign in Chechnya alone should have him in from of the ICC. But we peace-loving, morally pure humanitarians turned a blind eye to his slaughter in Chechnya as we wanted to, at that time, be his friend in order to induce Russia into our sphere of influence, imaging that we could control what might otherwise develop into a rival power. Geopolitics, you see. Not that you ever hear much about geopolitics in the West’s MSM. That would be to explain, to put in context, to rationalise, to educate. While mere news-consumers like you and me may wish to have daily events explained and contextualised, those we entrust with this mission, reporters, seem either unwilling or unable to carry out this most basic function of democracy.

Geopolitics is not a bizarre conspiracy theory. It is an obvious historical fact. The most powerful nations throughout history have always built empires. It would be irrational almost if they did not use their status as most powerful people on earth to protect, enhance and indeed develop that position. By their own terms of reference it would be irresponsible not to. The Romans right through to the Americans believed with all their hearts that they had been expedited by fate, or by the gods, to the front of an evolutionary queue. While their accumulation of earth’s resources was the primary propellant of their actions, by happy coincidence they spread “civilisation” in the process, allowing them to self-justify, paradoxically, brutal actions.

What great nation has ever voluntarily given up its control of its empire? If you think the British empire was given up voluntarily then you’re underestimating the power of the new empire at that time, the US, as it gently showed the UK where it’s future interest lay in the new world. And if its not giving up its power, what do you imagine it’s doing? Sitting in neutral? That’d be to invite decline. No. It moves forward, instinctively, automatically.

Consider the current US empire (yes, it’s actually OK to call the most powerful nation on earth, and the satellite states it has accumulated around it, an ‘empire’). There’s no point in calling it evil, or uniquely carnivorous. Seeking to control the resources of the planet is just what all empires have done throughout history. It’s the essence of geopolitics.

Western reporters are not blind to geopolitics, only to the West’s active and aggressive participation in them. Western reporters do not seem at all impeded in applying geopolitical motivations to their analysis of, for example, Russia, often suggesting that Putin has nefarious geopolitical designs in Ukraine or Georgia. Russian action is presented as aggressive, expansionist. This is pathetically alarmist. It is certainly not objective, as a whole serious of contrary facts could be discussed but are ignored because they confound a seemingly prepared and unchallenged narrative.

People, we are being taken for children not only by the powers that be (we expect that) but by the pompous poodles who have wasted their education, their training and their position to investigate.

So, what is it that retards the Fourth Estate’s will to “hold power to account”? Is it fear? Fear of upsetting people in power who have a direct line to their editors? Fear of losing their jobs? Fear of losing position in the career rat race? Fear for their lives? Fear of being ostracised by colleagues? Fear of being silenced by being tarred with the “conspiracy nut” brush? Fear of upsetting official sources on whom they may have become dependent on for stories, quotes?

There are elements of all that. But fear cannot be the sole answer. After all, look at the crusading and downright daring work done by The Daily Telegraph journalists in the MP’s expenses scandal. That was something of a revolutionary act by an unlikely revolutionary agent in the way the scandal threatened so many MPs, and indeed the whole parliamentary class. There may or may not have been an agenda to the Expenses Investigation but regardless of that, it required courage and real investigative journalism to break that story. No, it seems any fear of confronting power can be overcome when it suits someone.

Is it lack of knowledge then? Lack of familiarity of history? Lack of awareness of the elephant in the room - geopolitics? Unlikely, when one considers the education of the majority of MSM senior reporters, an education one imagines that helps them connect the dots, to test historical templates against modern events. 

Talking of their education, perhaps we’ve struck something here...

If you look at the education of many UK MSM senior reporters there’s a similarity with the education of many senior UK political people, across all parties. Could it be then that the reason senior UK MSM reporters appear to be nothing more than conduits for UK power (especially in foreign policy) is because they actually see the world the same way? They don’t need to be fearful or ignorant. They are simply naturally inclined to believe “Power” rather than being naturally inclined to challenge its view.

There’s also the great notion that it’s okay to criticise Power domestically, but it’s something approaching treachery to challenge Power’s position in foreign policy. It’s almost as if Power is perpetually on something of a “war footing” and to challenge your leaders during war is “not done”. Of course there are many courageous exceptions - but they are the exceptions.

Many Scottish people were genuinely shocked by the BBC’s and other UK media’s obvious lack of objectivity during the Indy Referendum. Worse than that, there were glaring examples of supposedly neutral UK MSM manipulating news events to sync into the UK government’s anti-Scottish Independence position. Who can forget the notorious example provided by the BBC’s Nick Robinson. “Salmond wouldn’t answer my question,” said Robinson in a now infamous news broadcast before Youtubers provided footage of Salmond giving him one of the most comprehensive answers given in that election. 

Robinson is an interesting example. One could never contend he was “under pressure” to toe a government line. He didn’t need to be because due his an upbringing and formative education in close proximity to those in power he’d formed, perhaps, much the same views on “Big UK” issues, such as the potential break-up of the UK, as those in power. And even if he did try to reign in what may well have been a subconscious prejudice he could not contain his natural affinity with Power’s position or stop it seeping through into his reporting on something that was akin in importance to UK foreign policy.

I’m not a journalist. I admire however the true journalistic ethos of “holding power to account”. I admire and am inspired by welcome exceptions in MSM who clearly answer to no one. These exceptions hold up a standard that we should expect from all but the laziest, most self-serving frauds who pretend to aspire to objectivity, investigation, truth.

I have no idea what the truth behind geopolitical events is. But I want to find out. I am not beholden to any world view despite my inclination to the liberal left.  I’m just searching for truth. Therefore I am dependent on journalism, on reporting, to tell me what’s going on. But if a pretty uninformed news consumer of average intelligence like me can see that we are being effectively lied to daily,  then surely journalists much smarter than me can get their shit together and start reporting daringly, insightfully, objectively. Tell us more about geopolitics - the elephant in the room. We can all see it. And if you can’t? You’re in the wrong job, pal.

Stabs in the Dark

Publishing Phil Mac Giolla Bháin’s Downfall – How Rangers FC Self Destructed was my introduction to social media which, hitherto, I’d only been vaguely aware of.

I learned what the term MSM meant and of its disdain for “internet bampots” which betrayed contempt for anyone - journalist or otherwise - not choosing “official” media as a route for their observations, work or indeed, scoops. The MSM attitude reminded me of BBC Radio One’s attitude to Punk Rock in the 1970s when the old guard of Tony Blackburn and the like either ignored Punk Rock or rubbished it, the way their forefathers had rubbished The Rolling Stones, all hoping the inevitable New Waves would sink into the sand to forever be forgotten so that they could continue their comfortable, dry existence. The Internet has provided something akin to Pirate Radio in the digital age. The music played on Radio Caroline was still the real deal. Most New Waves however tend to leave a permanent mark for generations, leaving those who tried to put their fingers in the dyke to stem the flow looking a bit daft in retrospect, washed out even.

Some MSM reporters on Scottish football seemed to grimace en masse when the reporting of Phil Mac Giolla Bháin was referred to on-air or in print. It was like they covered their ears the way Tony Blackburn must have done when he’d heard Anarchy In The UK, as if doing so would make “that racket” go away.  In fact, Mac Giolla Bháin seems to have been air-brushed out of the mainstream history of the Rangers story, becoming The Invisible Journalist. Still, we’ll remember him more than his detractors, just as we remember Anarchy In The UK more than we remember Tony Blackburn. Of course, Mac Giolla Bháin was only invisible to those who chose for whatever reason not to acknowledge his journalistic scoops in breaking the Rangers story in remarkably prophetic fashion.

Was it jealousy that a lone wolf had taken a scoop from under the noses of the pack that accounted for Scottish MSM’s silence while others trumpeted Mac Giolla Bháin’s name from the roof tops, if not the Red Tops? That would have been understandable. However, these journalists had in some cases left the story undeveloped for fear of their “access” to the subject being denied if they ruffled the wrong lamb chops. One wonders what the purpose of journalistic access is if it is not to report on all deeds and misdeeds of public interest, unless there were other benefits outweighing any desire to tell the truth...

All this came back to me recently when I noticed some twitter comments from mainstream journalists regarding Mac Giolla Bháin. After Scottish SMS having maintained a uniform silence, achieved either by coincidence or by design, here were references, however fleeting or disparaging, to The Invisible Journalist. It was like the USSR’s Pravda of the 1980s acknowledging the existence of long-denied dissidents.Was this Perestroika? The ice of silence momentary thawed when one journalist tweeted that Mac Giolla Bháin’s journalism was merely “stabs in the dark.” Another’s tweet implied that Mac Giolla Bháin had been mistaken for a journalist when he was really just a fantasist.

That got me thinking. Not whether or not Mac Giolla Bháin’s work was merely “stabs in the dark”. I already knew that wasn’t true. After all, his work had been vindicated far beyond merely the shores of Scottish mainstream sports writers. For instance, The Press Gazette had named Mac Giolla Bháin as the 10^th most influential tweeting reporter of 2013. His work had been praised UK-wide by many, including Channel Four’s chief correspondent, Alex Thompson and Professor Roy Greenslade of The Guardian. Thompson in fact wrote the foreword for Mac Giolla Bháin’s Downfall book and Greenslade wrote the definitive article covering the outraged and outrageous reaction to the book and The Scottish Sun’s adoption and then pathetic abandonment of the serialisation of the same book due to intimidation by some Rangers supporters. Throughout this time Mac Giolla Bháin has been an active and respected member of the National Union of Journalists holding several senior positions in that union.  Either all these accolades were for “a fantasist’s” “stabs in the dark” - or for well-respected journalism. 

Let’s check the facts;

Mac Giolla Bháin in April 2010 broke the story that spelt out the arithmetic of the Big Tax Case at Rangers.

In November 2010, Mac Giolla Bháin broke the Dallas email story.

In January 2011 Mac Giolla Bháin’s published his scoop on RFC offering to settle BTC for £10M - this was confirmed in 2012 when FTT published result.

In June 2011 Mac Giolla Bháin’s piece on Craig Whyte being no billionaire and using Season Ticket money was published. This at a time when real “fantasists” were describing Whyte as possessing “wealth off the radar”.

In August 2011 Mac Giolla Bháin published his scoop on Sheriff Officers at Ibrox, having his own photographer there.

In October 2011 Mac Giolla Bháin predicted that RFC would run out of money that month - vindicated by Craig Whyte in interview one year later. Whyte’s Rangers stopped paying tax. Mac Giolla Bháin’s reporting was correct again. Rangers did run out of money in the October.

In January 2012 Mac Giolla Bháin was predicting imminent insolvency.

In February, once in Administration Mac Giolla Bháin reported that there was no chance of CVA and that liquidation would take place.

In June 2012 Mac Giolla Bháin’s “stab in the dark” hit the target again.

In the Postscript to Downfall Mac Giolla Bháin sketched out the dangers of insolvency for new entity as they tried to pay topflight wages with bottom tier revenues.

Enough of a track record there, wouldn’t you say, to qualify Mac Giolla Bháin as a “proper” journalist? Despite this, as witnessed by the recent Twitter Glasnost, there are those who’s faltering attempts to have a go at the invisible journalist inevitably see them falling flat on their faces. Interestingly, another of their number asked Twitter users to “lay off” one of the Pravda brigade who was getting a bit of metaphorical kicking. What a shame that such Good Samaritans were generally absent when Mac Giolla Bháin’s editor of Downfall was having her life threatened, among other abuse. That shameful lack of support was reminiscent not so much of a stab in the dark as a stab in the back.

If all Mac Giolla Bháin’s scoops are a fantasist’s stabs in the dark then Mac Giolla Bháin is a blind-folded knife-thrower you could bet your life on.  Or, perhaps, he’s just an old fashioned journalist, basing his reporting on solid sources, factual evidence with a fearless, loud and unrepentant attitude. Eat yer heart out, Tony Blackburn.

Mac Giolla Bhain makes Press Gazette Top 10 Twitter List

Remarkable, investigative journalist Phil Mac Giolla Bhain, the guy who broke the Rangers-going-bust story way before the Scottish mainstream media even acknowledged there was a story, has been recognised by the Press Gazette, being named in its list of Top Ten Twitter journalists (see link below)

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/peter-jukes-named-best-uk-reporter-twitter-and-social-media-full-press-gazette-top-50-list

The reaction of the Scottish Mainstream Media (SMSM) to Mac Giolla Bhain’s exposes and epitomises, among many things,  the struggle between some in mainstream media to come to terms with social media, describing journalists like Mac Giolla Bhain as everything from “Internet Bampots” to “not proper journalists”, despite Mac Giolla Bhain having been a NUJ member from many years. Indeed, Phil is on the Irish Executive Council (IEC) of the NUJ and editor of The Irish Journalist, Irish journalism’s in-house magazine.

You will very rarely, if at all, find Mac Giolla Bhain’s name mentioned in the SMSM, despite him being championed by some very heavy UK hitters such as Channel 4’s Alex Thomson and the Guardian’s Professor Roy Greenslade. In fact, the mere mention of Mac Giolla Bhain among some established journalists sends shudders down their spine, partly as a reaction to Mac Giolla Bhain himself but also a reaction of Luddites to the ability of new fangled gadgets to operate at least as effectively as certain “proper journalists”. Mac Giolla Bhain’s is the name they dare not speak as Phil has effectively shamed them into, however reluctantly, doing their jobs properly on certain big stories in Scotland today from the liquidation of Rangers FC (the subject of Mac Giolla Bhain’s best-selling book, Downfall, a book conspicuously ignored by SMSM) to anti-Irish racism, a subject so uncomfortable for some in SMSM in the west of Scotland that they deny its existence. Despite glowing reviews from many respected Social Media sites, Mac Giolla Bhain’s book on anti-Irish racism was studiously ignored by the SMSM, with a few honourable exceptions.

There’s a simmering resentment from some in MSM that they are no longer upheld as only guardians of truth and information. Social media has empowered anyone with journalistic talent and a real story to tell as exemplified by the uncovering some of the biggest scoops, scoops that SMSM lacked either the will or the ability to chase. Mac Giolla Bhain has proved himself irrefutably a “proper journalist” and has established a readership far in excess of many of those who continually ignore his existence.

Still, Phil Mac Giolla Bhain, The Invisible Journalist, is continually recognised for his ground-breaking investigative journalism by many on Social Media and beyond Scotland. The Press Gazette’s listing of Mac Giolla Bhain in their Top Ten Twitter journalists of the year is therefore an extremely fitting accolade. However, it’s unlikely you’ll find a reference to this award in many SMSM outlets anytime soon.

No matter. Mac Giolla Bhain has proved that it is possible to reach a readership from wherever when you have a nose for a story, the ability to generate and cultivate contacts, and the balls to not just chase the story, but to print it. Now, that sounds like proper journalism to me.