Jump to content

The Media Agenda


BridgeIsBlue

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, They Gnu said:

Are you suggesting The Record are friends of Rangers?

I wouldn't say they are our friends, but our "enemy" would be the BBC,  those are the ones we have banned from the ground and punished.

The Record is almost an irrelevance, they are dying on their arse and make their money from digging at us. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 511
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, gogzy said:

I wouldn't say they are our friends, but our "enemy" would be the BBC,  those are the ones we have banned from the ground and punished.

The Record is almost an irrelevance, they are dying on their arse and make their money from digging at us. 

They weren’t banned, one bias cunt had his press privileges revoked. He’s still free to pay to get in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, gogzy said:

I wouldn't say they are our friends, but our "enemy" would be the BBC,  those are the ones we have banned from the ground and punished.

The Record is almost an irrelevance, they are dying on their arse and make their money from digging at us. 

The death of the media is greatly exaggerated. Much is made of print dying off but digital is regulalry ignored. A far greater audience for a Scottish paper online than there is in print

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Dude said:

The death of the media is greatly exaggerated. Much is made of print dying off but digital is regulalry ignored. A far greater audience for a Scottish paper online than there is in print

So is advertising their only source of income online?

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, They Gnu said:

You’ve gone native mate.

Far from it. I said long before I wrote for them that I don't buy there being an anti-Rangers agenda across the media. There are some bollocks writers who can't wait to take a shot at us - quite a few of them tbf - but there's no editorial agenda to demonise us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, The Dude said:

That's the basic jist of them. Moderates don't really get clicks and you need to be ever more controversial to keep outdoing the others. As much as people like to piss and moan about it, sadly its a trend being driven by what readers react to. If people didn't take the bait every time then guys like Sutton etc who exist more to ruffle feathers than offer meaningful insight would quickly vanish.

I suppose this will be the future of journalism now .Controversial as fuck .more clicks .more wages. 

while back in the day when it was a written hard copy all stories were in one publication and there was no way of ever knowing how many folk read what articles 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, magic8ball said:

I suppose this will be the future of journalism now .Controversial as fuck .more clicks .more wages. 

while back in the day when it was a written hard copy all stories were in one publication and there was no way of ever knowing how many folk read what articles 

Controversy creates cash. Especially if you're an ex-pro who is in a job because you're an ex-pro rather than someone who has a job because they write well or speak well or offer genuine insight into the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, They Gnu said:

They weren’t banned, one bias cunt had his press privileges revoked. He’s still free to pay to get in.

Important point and you are right to correct Gogzy (sorry Gogzy)

The longer that this impasse continues, the more annoyed I get. Surprised that BBC HQ down south haven’t yet sussed the fact that the most successful team in Scotland are treated like lepers. 

Might take a trophy win to get Shearer/Lineker/Crooks up here and realise how half the footballing population are being shortchanged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Controversy creates cash. Especially if you're an ex-pro who is in a job because you're an ex-pro rather than someone who has a job because they write well or speak well or offer genuine insight into the game.

How do real sport journalists get a job, if all these ex-pro are writing Controversy pieces? Shouldn't the editor be employing real sports journalist who offer genuine insight into the game?

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Controversy creates cash. Especially if you're an ex-pro who is in a job because you're an ex-pro rather than someone who has a job because they write well or speak well or offer genuine insight into the game.

not much hope of positivity in Rangers stories anytime soon then 

Dig the dirt on Gers and it's ching ching 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

How do real sport journalists get a job, if all these ex-pro are writing Controversy pieces? Shouldn't the editor be employing real sports journalist who offer genuine insight into the game? 

He hires whoever gives the best results for the business. The vast majority of sports journos largely go unmentioned and it's a handful who generate the most controversy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, magic8ball said:

not much hope of positivity in Rangers stories anytime soon then 

Dig the dirt on Gers and it's ching ching 

Comes with being the biggest and most successful club in the country. I write about the rest of Scottish fitba elsewhere and the difference in numbers from doing Rangers to doing Hibs/Hearts/Aberdeen in incredible. If I do 20,000 hits on a Rangers story, I'll be lucky to 1000 on a Hibs/Hearts/Aberdeen one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

He hires whoever gives the best results for the business. The vast majority of sports journos largely go unmentioned and it's a handful who generate the most controversy.

That stinks. So how are people like yourself meant to climb the ladder to become a sport journalist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Comes with being the biggest and most successful club in the country. I write about the rest of Scottish fitba elsewhere and the difference in numbers from doing Rangers to doing Hibs/Hearts/Aberdeen in incredible. If I do 20,000 hits on a Rangers story, I'll be lucky to 1000 on a Hibs/Hearts/Aberdeen one.

How can the balance be changed? Do we have to give proper journalist stories more hits to have that journalist writing more?

Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Controversy creates cash. Especially if you're an ex-pro who is in a job because you're an ex-pro rather than someone who has a job because they write well or speak well or offer genuine insight into the game.

Friendly with an ex pro's brother in law and this is 100% what he is asked to do. Say shit that creates a lot of clicks and general bedlam. 

The pro in question has already more than made his money so I just wonder why the fuck does he need to do this? 

Putting it down to missing the spotlight and the attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, 35 Yard Dangerman said:

Friendly with an ex pro's brother in law and this is 100% what he is asked to do. Say shit that creates a lot of clicks and general bedlam. 

The pro in question has already more than made his money so I just wonder why the fuck does he need to do this? 

Putting it down to missing the spotlight and the attention.

That's what I put it down to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 21 April 2024 14:00 Until 16:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hearts
      Hampden Park
      Scottish Cup

×
×
  • Create New...