I am quite sure that many journalists and media reporters were absolutely salivating at the prospect of the Alex Salmond trial.
They would have been rubbing their hands together in glee at the thought of placing him in the worst possible light, and doing many opinion pieces once the trial was over and he had been found guilty of being a sexual predator on the scale of Harvey Weinstein,as they were sure he would be.
How awful then that along should come the corona virus and knock any possibility of Salmonds trial so far off the front page that it almost disappeared into an irrelevance. However there was always the hope that they would be able to make the most of destroying the man and his character once the trial was over.
Unfortunately for them it did not happen. Instead he was found not guilty on all of the charges bar one, and that one was found to be not proven.
How could this have possibly happened with a jury that consisted originally of almost double the women than there was of men?
From their perspective this must have been an unmitigated disaster!
During the trial itself, reading most of the reports, they seemed to primarily focus on what Salmonds accusers were saying whilst brushing over the defence witness statements as much as they could. There seemed to be a very deliberate effort to report in such a fashion that it would have seemed to their readership that the only possible conclusion to the trial would be Salmonds guilt. Such device would ramp up to a frenzy equivalent to the result of a medieval witch trial, with Salmond head on their literal pikes at its end.
Having been found innocent in the eyes of the Highest Court in the land, one might have expected that would be the end of the matter, at least for now, until the Scottish parliament enquiry, or at the very least until the current much more serious matter of the pandemic was over.
Not a bit of it unfortunately. For barely had the verdict been delivered the knives were back out by some of these scribes. These vultures had been deprived of the sizeable carcass they so much desired, and Corona Virus or not, they were determined to extract as much poison as they possibly could.
They set about endeavouring to cast doubt on the jurys decision. They tried to implicate that whilst Salmond had been found not guilty, he must still surely be guilty.
This culminated in a hatchet attack on Salmonds character in a piece sponsored it seems by the same Tory backers who had given Ruth Davidson a sizeable offer to work for them whilst still an MSP.
The piece was written with the cooperation of 5 of Salmonds accusers and backed by Rape Crisis Scotland, with which one of the accusers seemingly has close connections with.
These same 5 accusers seemingly colluding again as they had done when they were part of a WhatsApp group comparing notes prior to the trial, as was reported in the trial.
The journalist paid no heed whatsoever to the women who had been defence witnesses and who had refuted the accusers claims.
Instead this piece was a vehicle which claimed that these accusers voices had not been heard!
No sooner than this piece had come out, a bunch of journalists and those within some SNP circles were applauding the hatchet job.
This in itself shone a light on the journalistic integrity of supposed journalists and reporters who are more polemical political activists than genuine reporters.
A classic rebuttal by Craig Murray in his blog was met with a howling of ravenous starving outraged pack of biased press hounds, and then the knives came out for him.
Moving on from there, we come to the Catherine Calderwood debacle.
Here we have an entirely different scenario.
Catherine Calderwood the Chief Medical Officer who was the person who was the face of the Stay Home campaign was caught out breaking her own message by going to her holiday home in Fife, on not one occasion but by her own admission two weekends in succession.
The story broke on the Saturday night and the First Minister was made aware of it at that point.
By the time we came to the First Ministers daily briefing on the Sunday, the story had changed from her making a single visit to admitting herself that in fact she had made a visit with her family the weekend before too.
She apologised for her actions and offered no excuse for them. She had betrayed the very message she had been insisting that everyone else follow.
The First Minister was thus placed into a totally horrendous problem not of her own making, and it showed as she appeared extremely rattled throughout that briefing.
Obviously she endeavoured to shield the Chief Medical Officer as much as she could as she herself said that she didnt want to lose the Chief Medical Officers valuable input and advice.
The Press was understandably baying for the Chief Medical Officers resignation.
Later that afternoon the Scottish Government announced that the Chief Medical Officer would remain in place but would no longer be seen at daily briefings nor seen in the previous media adverts which had featured her.
By 10pm that night the news came out that Catherine Calderwood had resigned.
In todays briefing naturally the issue came up again, and despite the First Ministers pleas that the journalist not continually the same questions one after another if the question had already been answered, many of them did just that, but in this instance they
were going after the First Minister and not the Chief Medical Officer, laterly demanding that she should apologise for not acting immediately to sack Catherine Calderwood. Suddenly the narrative was to blame the First Minister!
Half a session taken up on this issue rather than the much more important matter of dealing with the Corona Virus.
These are two different stories and two different approaches by the press and media.
The latter approach of persistent questioning is one which we would expect of our press and is perfectly legitimate in order to get to the truth of a matter.
Even so, the question remains, why were they so keen to pursue this rigorously yet absolutely ignore the story of The Prince of Wales and his retainers travelling from London to Balmoral while knowingly being unwell? No suggestion that he be held to account, far less asking any difficult questions about it.
The former stinks of political expediency and polemics in order to bring a man down.
A man who at 65 who if found guilty would very probably have ended his life in jail and had his reputation irredeemably destroyed.
It also stinks of collusion, not only by some of the accusers who have done serious damage to those who have genuinely been raped and abused and seek justice, but also collusion between some high up in the SNP and Scottish Civil Service working closely with the government, the Crown Office and possibly the Police who went on a mass trawl through around 400 people, and Indeed the narrative of some of the Press and Media.
However, what is increasingly noticeable and has been for some time, is that many of our journalists are not reporters in the strict sense of the word, they are for most part polemicists and write from a stance of political bias who seek to stand in judgement as judge and jury and to pass sentence in whatever way they see fit.
Challenge them at your peril, for at the least you will be called a zoomer for having your own valid opinion, or you will have a picture of your house taken, leaving you as an open target for nutters, or at the worst, maligned falsely to such an extent that you will be made a pariah in the publics mind, even if you have found not to be guilty of any crime in the Highest Court in the Land.