Sheer hypocrisy from the Times

BrooklynBlue said:
The media used to advertise at stadiums and buy hospitality boxes. Does that still happen?

In effect, that was paying for access and establishing a relationship with the club.

What’s the Record current deal with Celtic?
Click to expand...
That’s what I was thinking as well there used to be advertising hoardings around the ground with their names on which I assume they paid for. So in fact now they don’t advertise in the grounds they are getting access for free.
 
luckywhitefeather said:
I’m sorry but Rangers can’t afford to discount 80,000 potential eyeballs everyday that the free press in the record could provide (not counting their Twitter / Facebook / online views as well

Also the demographic of those still buying a paper everyday, that older age range who arent going to be using fan media / the internet,

(and then add from the other news outlets and you can see the numbers here are not in Rangers favour

I’d also like to hear exactly how much airtime we’ve lost on the bbc due to just not giving one guy a press pass.
I’m sure someone smarter than me will know of industry equation to give a total of the value of that free press we’ve missed out on

totally ridiculous corner we’ve boxed ourselves into and this charging the media will just add to It.
Click to expand...

Maybe your criticism should be aimed at the BBC for their overreaction and unwillingness to deal with Rangers.

And free press? What coverage is it you’re missing - George Square, John Collins saying McGregor was the difference last season or Gordon Parks analysis, Bill Leckie, Speirs…?

Traditional media have boxed themselves into a corner by taking the readership for granted and treating them with contempt.
 
BrooklynBlue said:
The media used to advertise at stadiums and buy hospitality boxes. Does that still happen?

In effect, that was paying for access and establishing a relationship with the club.

What’s the Record current deal with Celtic?r
Click to expand...
there deal is dont report any bad stuff about there rancid club
 
Sandbear said:
That’s what I was thinking as well there used to be advertising hoardings around the ground with their names on which I assume they paid for. So in fact now they don’t advertise in the grounds they are getting access for free.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see a comparison of media spending at Parkhead vs. Ibrox.
 
TinyRick said:
Yet that same fan based media outlet don't feel it's unfair.

The access to the press conferences was only new last season. The rest of the content was always done without access to the manager etc. I'm going to presume you don't subscribe, given you don't seem to know this. Give it a try!
Click to expand...

That's good to hear. As I said before, I wasn't aware whether their finances would make this a viable option; what I would suggest that the fees will hit them comparatively harder than, say, The Times.

I'm also a subscriber and enjoyed the content from last year; the loss of press conferences, given their quality, would be a shame.

According to FF Twitter, it seems they haven't made a decision yet on whether they'd pay it. That would also represent a great pity.
 
luckywhitefeather said:
I’m sorry but Rangers can’t afford to discount 80,000 potential eyeballs everyday that the free press in the record could provide (not counting their Twitter / Facebook / online views as well

Also the demographic of those still buying a paper everyday, that older age range who arent going to be using fan media / the internet,

(and then add from the other news outlets and you can see the numbers here are not in Rangers favour

I’d also like to hear exactly how much airtime we’ve lost on the bbc due to just not giving one guy a press pass.
I’m sure someone smarter than me will know of industry equation to give a total of the value of that free press we’ve missed out on

totally ridiculous corner we’ve boxed ourselves into and this charging the media will just add to It.
Click to expand...
See now you're just stereotyping.

Older people aren't going to be using the Internet or fan media?

The Internet has been a part of daily life since the 90s. The vast majority of people have had the Web and some form of computers around for the majority of their lives.

Let's flip your question though, how many fans do you think we have gained through media coverage of us in the last 20 years?
 
"(A) concept that runs counter to the whole concept of freedom of the press".

You haven't quite understood what "freedom of the press" actually is, have you? And don't get me started on using "concept" twice in the same sentence!
 
ClockworkOrange said:
That's good to hear. As I said before, I wasn't aware whether their finances would make this a viable option; what I would suggest that the fees will hit them comparatively harder than, say, The Times.

I'm also a subscriber and enjoyed the content from last year; the loss of press conferences, given their quality, would be a shame.

According to FF Twitter, it seems they haven't made a decision yet on whether they'd pay it. That would also represent a great pity.
Click to expand...

I look at the press conferences as an added bonus - as good as they are, they're not a factor in my subscription.

Previous tweets suggest that H&H would continue to pay, but like I said, if they decide they want to increase by a few pence a month (literally 40p a month from every subscriber covers it) then I'd be behind that.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1414645378591375369

https://twitter.com/x/status/1414915572589023237

https://twitter.com/x/status/1414919687977279490
 
The sheer number of headlines today that said Rangers are the Real Deal serves to illustrate the paucity of talent employed in the Scottish press.
Their limited vocabulary must have Roget turning in his grave, and their occasional attempts at Gonzo journalism owe more to the Muppet than Dr Thompson.
The sad clickbait world of the online editions undermine further any integrity they believe remains.
If they think this bleating will, in any meaningful way, help them to a share of the Blue Pound they should think again.

Also, the longer the BBC report from a roundabout, the more obvious it becomes that we can all get by without them.
 
TinyRick said:
See now you're just stereotyping.

Older people aren't going to be using the Internet or fan media?

The Internet has been a part of daily life since the 90s. The vast majority of people have had the Web and some form of computers around for the majority of their lives.

Let's flip your question though, how many fans do you think we have gained through media coverage of us in the last 20 years?
Click to expand...
We’ll some people are still buying the daily record everyday (I don’t know why, but they do) I’d hazard a guess tradition / it’s what their used too.

as to the demographic of that buying audience I’d hazard a guess at older working class, call it a stereotype if you wish based on life experience , what I see around me, My dad bought the sun & the record everyday, he did so til he died, if he were still alive now he’d still have been buying the record & sun everyday and I very much doubt he’d have been enticed to start using the Internet, totally different generation / mindset

I just don’t think it’s in the interest of Rangers and treatment of fans to ignore them assuming they will just go online (& yes there are a load of silver web surfers out there, but there are also a good number who aren’t.

since I’m not in charge of the marketing / supporters liaison at Ibrox I wouldn’t know what the figure might be on the number of new fans with no family ties to rangers taking an interest

it will certainly be a lot less than it should’ve been if we’d got our message across / capitalised fully on having Gerrard and the players being broadcast not just to Scottish audience but U.K. wide as well on the BBC
 
Iam in my seventies and the first thing I do everyday is power up the tablet and read what I choose,haven't bought any newspaper in at least 15 years and haven't found the need to either,but I have got a long memory BBC Times Spiers Record Sun Stewart the list is endless, these people would sell there souls to put as down, a perfect example of who we must never bow down to or at least we will never Surrender.
 
It should be noted that Andrew Dickson commented that one of the reason for the demise of the Rangers News was newspapers would just lift stories from it.

We see similar nowadays when they lift podcast interviews.
 
TinyRick said:
I look at the press conferences as an added bonus - as good as they are, they're not a factor in my subscription.

Previous tweets suggest that H&H would continue to pay, but like I said, if they decide they want to increase by a few pence a month (literally 40p a month from every subscriber covers it) then I'd be behind that.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1414645378591375369

https://twitter.com/x/status/1414915572589023237

https://twitter.com/x/status/1414919687977279490
Click to expand...

Press conferences wouldn't factor in for me, either.

My issue is that Rangers have decided to monetise/discourage MSM attendance at Ibrox and that fan-based media also being asked to cough up is probably an unintended consequence of that.
 
ClockworkOrange said:
Press conferences wouldn't factor in for me, either.

My issue is that Rangers have decided to monetise/discourage MSM attendance at Ibrox and that fan-based media also being asked to cough up is probably an unintended consequence of that.
Click to expand...
should they get a free pass when there in bed with these rangers haters?
 
BrooklynBlue said:
Who read the hard-hitting analysis of Scotland’s performance in the Euros in the mainstream press…?

We’ve even had Provo highlighting how easy a ride Clarke has had.
Click to expand...
See if you had genuine insight that adds something to the game from some in the press I could almost understand this tantrum. What you have is the same cliche ridden crap regurgitated year in year out. Nobody is missing anything by them not getting in and you not buying a paper.
 
" there will be no question-and-answer with the manager, no discussion about tactics or team choices."

Honestly behave. The newspapers have been asking the same trash loaded questions since I was a kid. They've squandered their access and instead chose to write biased, or in some cases simply untrue, articles about Rangers for years.

Goodbye, you will not be missed.
 
This is absolutely not about the money for the club, clearly.


There is nothing at all stopping any journalist buying a ticket to any game, sitting in the stands and reporting as he sees fit. What will not now happen is that journalist getting up close access to players and staff, free food and drink in the best seats in the house, the odd nod and wink to a story. They will all, shock horror, have to do their jobs and if they want a little quid pro quo, they can start trying to earn some brownie points.

We pretty clearly owe the press in Scotland absolutely fuck all; they have sold copy directly by lying to the support for decades and they have absolutely refused to report with integrity or fairness at any stage. Not one single second's worry will be devoted to them.

H and H have had a fantastic attitude through this all and if they, who are directly impacted, can take a wide view on matters, credit to them and it is perhaps something folk should pay heed of.
 
55 and counting said:
See if you had genuine insight that adds something to the game from some in the press I could almost understand this tantrum. What you have is the same cliche ridden crap regurgitated year in year out. Nobody is missing anything by them not getting in and you not buying a paper.
Click to expand...
in 1995 - European "cracks" knock out Celtic
in 2021 - European "cracks" knock out Celtic

must be the only brand of journalism I know that still uses the word "cracks" to describe teams they don't know anything about
 
If they have an issue with the 25k fee then surely they can just buy a ticket like everyone else and report from that view point. If they want privileged pictures then they pay for them.

Rangers should have the right to charge fees to who they want, and hold the right to issue free passes to however they deem worthy enough. Its business. The papers are rags that no one reads now.
 
bilkobear said:
Talk of hubris by a legacy press that is no longer trusted by the general public is highly amusing.
The claim of freedom of the press as some sort of right is highly contentious when we are faced with a dishonest press that skews the news by obfuscation, omission, and sometimes outright lies to suit their own agenda.

The insinuations throughout the article about Ranger's previous problems in 2012 are a case in point.
The reporting by the press all the way through these matters was often one of exaggeration and hyperbole, all of it negative.
The agenda seemed to be one designed to open any wounds that became visible and one might have been forgiven believing that the press were delighted to heap problems upon the shoulders of the club some of them often imagined by the press themselves.

In the last thirty years, the Scottish press have been dishonest in their reporting of the club.
Always emphasising the negative whilst playing down or often ignoring the positive.
This type of drip-drip has been wholly to the detriment of the club as a business and to the support as a community.
On the other hand for a comparison, we have seen how they have dealt with their favourite club where the opposite has been the order of the day.
One need look no further than how they manage news about the biggest scandal that should have rocked Scottish sport but has been suppressed at every turn by a compliant and disgustingly agenda confirmed press.

The author talks about humility or lack of it at our club.
To have the Scottish press dare to lecture us on humility is up there with Peter Sutcliffe offering a lesson on violence against women.

The press don't exist to inform or report on the news fairly any longer, they cannot be trusted as even brokers in the matters surrounding Rangers, nor indeed much else.
The BBC are indeed just the most obvious example of the rest, but in truth, they are all much the same.

The claim is that the new policy of Rangers will be to the detriment of the fans.
As one fictional old manager of the England national team would have said, ... 'My arse!'
Click to expand...

Fantastic post Bilko, hits the nail firmly on the head regarding our two-faced Scottish MSM.
 
When I first heard about this I actually thought that £25k was pretty low. We should've been asking them for £100k at least.
 
What I can't in any way excuse - is the moralising tone, self righteous & 'holier than thou' clap-trap spouted in this drivel

Anyone would think this was a statement from a faultless bastion of virtue who'd been unfairly & seriously wronged by an ungrateful benefactor

Whereas a child can understand - the press in this country are the most corrupt, dishonest, duplicitous & spiteful bunch of hypocritical arseholes you'll ever likely to meet in almost any walk of life

I seriously wonder how these people manage to sleep at night
 
The traditional news media are raging that the social media platforms are benefitting from their content without compensation. And they are right to be. Quite rightly Facebook etc are signing deals with the news media to pay them for profiting From their content.

I see very little difference here. The Scottish news media in particular have been living off the Old Firm for decades. With no monetary compensation to us and very little residual benefits its been a one way street for too long. Millions they’ve paid for stories ABOUT us but they’ve never given our club one shiny penny. Time‘s up. The £25k is a bargain given how much we sell the papers, so get it paid or watch your paper rot
 
Way i look at it, fxuk them. If they don't want to pay, they lose out on possible exclusives and such.

As for their seat in stadium, either cough up, or stfu and get a real supporter in. After all they are taking a place away from them.....

Just my opinion
 
Brydo said:
This is like staff at Blockbuster telling us that Netflix will never work.

Business evolves and you either move with it and adapt, or you disappear.
Click to expand...
Funnily enough Blockbusters turned down buying Netflix at the start and, obviously, turned down the chance.
 
Longread below.

Some thoughts from myself on why the MSM need to self-reflect and consider their own input on Rangers press access move.

https://rangers.vitalfootball.co.uk/hugh-keevins-spin-rangers-press-access-debate/

It was a catchy-one liner to lead into his article for the Daily Record yesterday, but in using the following words, Hugh Keevins lacked self-awareness without a hint of irony, as the Rangers press access debate rumbles on.

“If I was able to gather enough money together to buy access to a Rangers press conference I would have one question for Steven Gerrard as the new league season prepares to start next weekend.”

“But I wouldn’t want to cut into the grandchildren’s inheritance or use the State pension for a purpose for which it was not intended.”

Even if Keevins had access to the bank vault, it probably still wouldn’t be enough to gain him access to the Ibrox press room, by virtue of his employer and it’s collective content/commentary over recent times – that is just one aspect of the overall issue.


Full article on link above. Cheers.
 
ICM said:
Longread below.

Some thoughts from myself on why the MSM need to self-reflect and consider their own input on Rangers press access move.

https://rangers.vitalfootball.co.uk/hugh-keevins-spin-rangers-press-access-debate/
Click to expand...

Thanks for link - I enjoyed the overall article. However, I'm not getting this part (which is being repeated elsewhere):

"...as it points toward a ‘controlling’ of the media and distancing dissenting voices, as well as gatekeeping."

In what way is this a control of dissenting voices?
 
BrooklynBlue said:
Thanks for link - I enjoyed the overall article. However, I'm not getting this part (which is being repeated elsewhere):

"...as it points toward a ‘controlling’ of the media and distancing dissenting voices, as well as gatekeeping."

In what way is this a control of dissenting voices?
Click to expand...
Thanks BB.

Possibly clumsily worded, but the point I was trying to make is that it points away from scrutiny and holding to account whether it is the manager or chief exec being interviewed.

Official channels are great for specific purposes and promoting club activity but I would have preferred a 'compromise' arrangement for pressers.

As things stand, there will be a narrow pool of voices, this season.
 
ICM said:
Thanks BB.

Possibly clumsily worded, but the point I was trying to make is that it points away from scrutiny and holding to account whether it is the manager or chief exec being interviewed.

Official channels are great for specific purposes and promoting club activity but I would have preferred a 'compromise' arrangement for pressers.

As things stand, there will be a narrow pool of voices, this season.
Click to expand...
They don’t need to pay us any money to write about us so I’m not sure why them not physically being in the stadium makes any difference? They can still criticise the press conference or the game or the manager or the fans after they watch it on rtv
 
ICM said:
Thanks BB.

Possibly clumsily worded, but the point I was trying to make is that it points away from scrutiny and holding to account whether it is the manager or chief exec being interviewed.

Official channels are great for specific purposes and promoting club activity but I would have preferred a 'compromise' arrangement for pressers.

As things stand, there will be a narrow pool of voices, this season.
Click to expand...
It does not prevent anyone from holding the club to account in the slightest. It prevents questions being asked directly to individuals, but the answers to questions asked directly will never get a straight answer if they are designed to hold someone to account.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
It does not prevent anyone from holding the club to account in the slightest. It prevents questions being asked directly to individuals, but the answers to questions asked directly will never get a straight answer if they are designed to hold someone to account.
Click to expand...
I disagree, the ability to ask direct questions is vital.

Getting an answer to such a question is a different story, of course.
 
ICM said:
I disagree, the ability to ask direct questions is vital.

Getting an answer to such a question is a different story, of course.
Click to expand...
Give me a single answer Craig Whyte could give you to any question that would hold the slightest bit of validity.

It being perfectly clear that there is not one answer he could give, why does questioning him have any degree of importance when it comes to holding him to account? Not being directly lied to does not prevent you publishing the truth. At all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top