Sheer hypocrisy from the Times

This has been an exceptional sporting summer: The British Lions’ pulsating victory in South Africa. Adam Peaty heading for gold in Tokyo. Novak Djokovic claiming a record-equalling 20th Grand Slam at Wimbledon. Collin Morikawa winning the Open golf championship on his debut. I would like to add the start of the football season in Scotland. Except there is a sour taste to it.

Last season brought one of the most remarkable resurrections in the history of the Scottish game. Rangers, a club mired for years in financial scandal, insolvency, and a humiliating demotion to the third division, completed their return to the heights of the premiership by winning the title — their first in ten years. Under a brilliant manager, Steven Gerrard, they have turned their fortunes around.

That comeback was reported, daily and in detail, on the back pages of every Scottish newspaper. Not any more. Rangers are proposing that coverage should be paid for. Not a pound or so, but big money. Newspapers will be asked for £25,000 for the privilege of reporting team news. That would allow one reporter and one photographer to attend matches and pre-match press conferences, and buy five exclusive interviews and a sit-down briefing with the manager. For £10,000 they would have access to the club, and one “exclusive” story. The media would be expected to pay for news — a concept that runs counter to the whole concept of freedom of the press. The response from newspapers can best be described as “cool”. One hopes the proposal will be thrown out with much the same disdain as the “super league” put forward by European clubs who ignored the interests of their fans in the interest of profit.

It is an arrogant policy. It assumes that such is the power of a club that has forced itself to the head of the premiership, newspapers will be prepared to join an exclusive club within which information will be shared. That information, of course, will be controlled by Rangers. One has to assume that the privileged briefings and interviews will be entirely at the behest of the club’s executives. Independent scrutiny will go out of the window.

This is not only about making money, it is about the power to manage news and ensure that it is positive. For a club that has only just emerged from the mire, this is hubris of a high degree.
Rangers may be enjoying a one-year high, but who is to say it will be maintained? A manager departs, say, the wins drop away, suspicions grow that the bosses are withholding investment in good players. Who is there to probe for the truth, when every reporter is inside the bubble?
The club seems unaware of all this. It argues that as television pays high fees for coverage, so should newspapers. But there is a crucial difference. Coverage of live games on TV is a boost to ratings, which have a commercial value. Newspapers are giving readers an insight into where the club stands. When, for instance, yesterday’s friendly against Real Madrid is reported, there will be no question-and-answer with the manager, no discussion about tactics or team choices. Any comments will have to be gleaned from Rangers TV, controlled by the club itself.
What is depressing is to note the complete lack of comment from the Scottish Professional Football League — the body that governs the national men’s association football league. Its own rules say there must be media access, but it has, so far as I can see, said nothing about all this. If Rangers have their way and some news organisations accept their terms, this will be the thin end of an almighty wedge, with Celtic possibly willing to join in, and then the other powerful clubs signing on.

The club argues that in the era of social media, fans and their organisations have a far wider reach than newspapers. Better by far to restrict access to supporters — that way favourable coverage can be guaranteed. The fans agree. They have a low opinion of the press, which reports bad news as well as the good. That can change, however, and if an independent voice is excluded, who will represent the interests of fans when they demand answers to what has gone wrong?
A good example is the Europa League incident in which the Czech player Ondrej Kudela was accused of racially abusing the Rangers player Glen Kamara. A disputed episode that required good, objective reporting, it would have been, under Rangers’ new terms, confined to a club-controlled statement, with no investigation of the circumstances, or the rebuttal from Kudela. One-sided news is no news at all.

Football is entertainment as well as spectacle. No self-respecting theatre, concert hall or pop venue would consider charging critics for access. Pretty soon the notices would dry up and the audiences dwindle. In England, where clubs would quite fancy charging newspapers, the argument has got nowhere. Nor should it in Scotland.

Rangers would do well to remember an ancient virtue called humility. It is less than ten years since the club was downgraded to the third division, where it lost 1–0 to Stirling Albion, then the bottom club in the country. Success is never guaranteed; a downward spiral can occur in the blink of an eye. Best perhaps to remember that old adage about pride coming before a fall.
 
prenzlauerbear said:
This has been an exceptional sporting summer: The British Lions’ pulsating victory in South Africa. Adam Peaty heading for gold in Tokyo. Novak Djokovic claiming a record-equalling 20th Grand Slam at Wimbledon. Collin Morikawa winning the Open golf championship on his debut. I would like to add the start of the football season in Scotland. Except there is a sour taste to it.

Last season brought one of the most remarkable resurrections in the history of the Scottish game. Rangers, a club mired for years in financial scandal, insolvency, and a humiliating demotion to the third division, completed their return to the heights of the premiership by winning the title — their first in ten years. Under a brilliant manager, Steven Gerrard, they have turned their fortunes around.

That comeback was reported, daily and in detail, on the back pages of every Scottish newspaper. Not any more. Rangers are proposing that coverage should be paid for. Not a pound or so, but big money. Newspapers will be asked for £25,000 for the privilege of reporting team news. That would allow one reporter and one photographer to attend matches and pre-match press conferences, and buy five exclusive interviews and a sit-down briefing with the manager. For £10,000 they would have access to the club, and one “exclusive” story. The media would be expected to pay for news — a concept that runs counter to the whole concept of freedom of the press. The response from newspapers can best be described as “cool”. One hopes the proposal will be thrown out with much the same disdain as the “super league” put forward by European clubs who ignored the interests of their fans in the interest of profit.

It is an arrogant policy. It assumes that such is the power of a club that has forced itself to the head of the premiership, newspapers will be prepared to join an exclusive club within which information will be shared. That information, of course, will be controlled by Rangers. One has to assume that the privileged briefings and interviews will be entirely at the behest of the club’s executives. Independent scrutiny will go out of the window.

This is not only about making money, it is about the power to manage news and ensure that it is positive. For a club that has only just emerged from the mire, this is hubris of a high degree.
Rangers may be enjoying a one-year high, but who is to say it will be maintained? A manager departs, say, the wins drop away, suspicions grow that the bosses are withholding investment in good players. Who is there to probe for the truth, when every reporter is inside the bubble?
The club seems unaware of all this. It argues that as television pays high fees for coverage, so should newspapers. But there is a crucial difference. Coverage of live games on TV is a boost to ratings, which have a commercial value. Newspapers are giving readers an insight into where the club stands. When, for instance, yesterday’s friendly against Real Madrid is reported, there will be no question-and-answer with the manager, no discussion about tactics or team choices. Any comments will have to be gleaned from Rangers TV, controlled by the club itself.
What is depressing is to note the complete lack of comment from the Scottish Professional Football League — the body that governs the national men’s association football league. Its own rules say there must be media access, but it has, so far as I can see, said nothing about all this. If Rangers have their way and some news organisations accept their terms, this will be the thin end of an almighty wedge, with Celtic possibly willing to join in, and then the other powerful clubs signing on.

The club argues that in the era of social media, fans and their organisations have a far wider reach than newspapers. Better by far to restrict access to supporters — that way favourable coverage can be guaranteed. The fans agree. They have a low opinion of the press, which reports bad news as well as the good. That can change, however, and if an independent voice is excluded, who will represent the interests of fans when they demand answers to what has gone wrong?
A good example is the Europa League incident in which the Czech player Ondrej Kudela was accused of racially abusing the Rangers player Glen Kamara. A disputed episode that required good, objective reporting, it would have been, under Rangers’ new terms, confined to a club-controlled statement, with no investigation of the circumstances, or the rebuttal from Kudela. One-sided news is no news at all.

Football is entertainment as well as spectacle. No self-respecting theatre, concert hall or pop venue would consider charging critics for access. Pretty soon the notices would dry up and the audiences dwindle. In England, where clubs would quite fancy charging newspapers, the argument has got nowhere. Nor should it in Scotland.

Rangers would do well to remember an ancient virtue called humility. It is less than ten years since the club was downgraded to the third division, where it lost 1–0 to Stirling Albion, then the bottom club in the country. Success is never guaranteed; a downward spiral can occur in the blink of an eye. Best perhaps to remember that old adage about pride coming before a fall.
Click to expand...

So they're threatening Rangers that they'll write negative articles? What has been their excuse for the last 20 years?
 
The reporting they chose to highlight the 'benefits of their media is that they allowed a right of denial to the perpetrator of racist abuse directed at one of our players. So actually their example of why they should get in for free was nothing that benefited nor protected Rangers or our player after racial abuse during a match. I won't say alleged as UEFA did ban the player. Also is that a veiled threat at the end of article? 'Let us in or else...'?
 
I have 2 takes on this:

1. The Kudela incident was poorly reported. Michael Stewart said ‘if’ Kamara was racially abused. There was this undercurrent from other Scottish journalists.

2. If we are going to continue being slurred and misreported by people like the journalist tweeting here (remember his attempt to equate the petrol bombing at Liewell’s house with some kind of ‘sectarian’ - his words - attack) then we might as well get 20 grand out of them, as opposed to them doing it for free.
 
So they want to make money from publishing news about our club but are unhappy because they will have to pay for the privilege.
Print press is dying let it die.Who cares what they say.Their staffs are full republican rheptile sycophants and won’t be missed.Enjoy the roundabout beside the dyke maker and write your lies no one believes them anyway.
 
prenzlauerbear said:
It assumes that such is the power of a club that has forced itself to the head of the premiership, newspapers will be prepared to join an exclusive club within which information will be shared. That information, of course, will be controlled by Rangers. One has to assume that the privileged briefings and interviews will be entirely at the behest of the club’s executives. Independent scrutiny will go out of the window.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no reason why the information provided to media companies paying for access would be any less accurate/more biased than at present. They're paying to have access to the club and interviews with the manager etc - what they then do with that content is up to them as it always has been.

I could see his argument if the arrangement was reversed - i.e. Rangers paying the media to cover the club - in that case, sure, there's pressure on media orgs to provide positive coverage for fear of losing their cash.

But here, if anything, the media can say with some justification "we've paid to get access so now we'll write what we like". There's arguments against charging them (I'm in favour btw) - but Rangers controlling the message isn't one of them.
 
How will fans cope without analysis and reports from guys like Michael Gannon, Keith Jackson or Graham Spiers? Guys who know less about football than the average football supporter.

If this puts the sort of scum who have been hounding our club for decades out of a job then I will be delighted, %^*& the lot of them
 
I was in the press/media/PR game for the best part of three decades and was always amazed that’s so much was given away so freely by organizations who wanted to be featured.
When I worked as a reporter, the emphasis was always on finding the sensational/bad story but yet people still courted publicity.
It was good for making the job easy but seemed to me to be counter intuitive.
 
A good example is the Europa League incident in which the Czech player Ondrej Kudela was accused of racially abusing the Rangers player Glen Kamara. A disputed episode that required good, objective reporting, it would have been, under Rangers’ new terms, confined to a club-controlled statement, with no investigation of the circumstances, or the rebuttal from Kudela. One-sided news is no news at all.

This part of the article is quite telling, and why the press in Scotland is poorly received. Kudela did racially abuse Kamara. I'm not sure why he has chosen to include the part of it being an accusation after all of this time and the punishments handed out. Also, one other side of the story should we be looking for when a player is racially abused? The disgusting narrative from Kudela and his team? No thanks.
 
sheddensbear said:
When I was growing up, newspapers were essential. Not now. I can get enough online via newspapers or fan media.
Click to expand...

Genuinely not purchased a paper in over 20 years. Get all my daily World and Rangers news online. As a Bear, FF, Heart and Hand subscription, as well as the other good Rangers websites out there, more than meet my desire for up to date Rangers news.
 
Phuck off SMSM

For 20 years you’ve slandered lied and disrespected our club and fans

Now the club are saying if you want access then pay up for the privilege

If you don’t pay we don’t care. You will still slander and lie about us so we are doing the right thing

Previously there has been an unwillingness to tackle our enemies in the mhedia head on for far too long and now that we are not accepting it and taking a different approach they don’t like it

Tough shit. We don’t need them

Fan media and pro Rangers bloggers are the way forward.

Print mhedia is a dying business and they know it. I’d rather pay a subscription to H&H than pay a single penny to a mhedia outlet

And as another poster highlighted The Times article is behind a paywall. The irony in that is astonishing

Rangers are a business so suck it up scumbags and pay up or do one
 
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!'
 
Giving away something for free but getting absolutely nothing in return.

Can see why they’re doing it.
 
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...
So we give them free access to write their interpretation or spin and the charge people to read it?
Wonder what percentage of their annual costs £25k is ?
 
I’m not on Twitter but tweeting people like Chris Musson at the Sun or Dan Veevers and point them in the direction would be a good move

They both are on the SNPs case and Sturgeons quotes of “vile anti-Catholic bigotry” are clear lies

Same with Swinney Dornan Useless and Harvie

FF is great but it’s not got a wide enough circulation to highlight the lies from Sturgeon and co
 
Newspapers increase their circulation and hits on their website by reporting on the club. Interviews with Gerrard et al will increase their revenue. Why should the club not try and get a slice of the pie?

Newspapers have had their day. Most supporters get their news elsewhere.

Pay up or join the biased BBC on the roundabout.
 
Got to laugh at the Scottish media luvvies crying into their quinoa and avocado this morning over this.

A sector that has willingly ignored a paedophile ring operating out of Celtic boys club for decades (allegedly because of payments to journalists), a sector that failed to accurately investigate and expose the corporate rape that was carried out in Rangers for years following 2012 (allegedly because of payments to journalists).

Finally, and for the sake of the wider populus, a sector that has singularly failed to hold the most corrupt and inept 'government' in the western world to account since it came to power, as a direct result of government relationships with journslists, and alleged financial incentives through advertising

Spare me you hypocritical bullshit. You are still free to lie about Rangers and our fans as you always have done

'Buy a paper' they beg. I'd much rather get my news from Twitter and FF thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top