Rangers - Media Coverage

[Iron Proddy 609]

I see ally is trying to talk down the value of morelos. 

Prick. 

[coopsleftboot 5,512]

2 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

Jesus fucking wept - we start the thread by saying (basically) there are no Rangers minded pundits - when that's shown to be wrong we get pish like this - basically the bad conspiracy agenda theorists - this belief that this  'bias' has all these clever people 'setting the narrative', that despite being the best supported team - everyone is against us, including our own ex-players who are suddenly to scared to be honest -  it's just rampant paranoia and a blue tinted view of the world. It's fucking sad.

The OP wasn't about having "No Rangers minded pundits" at all.  It was about the narrative being set by those prepared to shout loudest and how the current "Rangers minded pundits" don't stand up to it, they either meekly offer minor token comments, agree in the main or say nothing at all.  I think all people would like is honesty and balance.  You know, I used to rally against it too, but it's becoming as blatant as a slap in the coupon and if you can't see it it's because you refuse to. 

I'll give you a recent example, and I'll pretext it with the following.......I'm firmly in the "treat everyone equal camp"; if you allow certain behaviour from one element you must accept it from another.  If you don't accept it then you must condemn it and deal with it all; to use a Dr. Death phrase "without fear or favour".  

Six weeks ago, Steve Clarke complained of having a certain song sang at him by Rangers fans.  Press were all over it and it resonates in political circles with Rangers fans being painted as offensive bigots, even to the point that, at the next game (away to Hamilton) printed and tv media outlets were trying to paint a banner that said "Get Well Soon Stevie Clarke" as equally bigoted and offensive.  BBC even picked up on the tune that was being sung, calling it sectarian; if they'd bothered to check their own footage properly they'd have realised that the words had been changed!! It's there, I seen it.  If this was the watershed moment, then fine, so long as we were all going to be called out and judged to the same standard.

Fast forward a few days, and at the height of the furore started by Clarke, Neil McCann explains on radio of the abuse he got because he was a catholic who signed for Rangers.  National Radio no less....picked up and reported by a few media outlets and reported as what it was, historical abuse.  Fair enough, that was then, this is now.

Same with Derek McInnes who followed on not long after about being sang the very same song earlier this season in the League Cup Final, he didn't complain at the time and there was no media reaction at the time, because then it wasn't deemed an issue.  Fair enough, very recent but you could accept it as it "wasn't an issue" back then.  That was then, but this is now?

So, in the light of Clarke's issue, it would be an issue that would be clamped down on from now on, that's what they promised us, yes?  Even the BBC on Sportscene  after the Hamilton game, they announced they thought they had a moral duty to report it as it happened now it's been raised "if no-one else was going to do anything about it".  That's what they told us.  Right?

So lets get right up to date....as we all thought on the back of Stevie Clarke's meltdown, this is it, this is the watershed moment, this is when it's going to get really clamped down on.  Fair enough, let's drive it out.  Turns out we were wrong weren't we?  The Old Firm game 10 days ago, our manager (and our kit-man ffs), were treated to choruses of same/similar song.  And guess what, the press totally ignored it after being on the highest of horses only 5 weeks earlier. 

At best there's an unconscious bias going on with respect to how the media deal with and report on Rangers issues, there's also some media outlets that are in dispute with the club, maybe that clouds output?  Or at worst there's a deliberate agenda.   Either way, it's incumbent on other media analysts, you could say the "Rangers minded pundits", to offer balance.  But they don't.   So, are we just to believe the narrative, when a simple recent example brings it into question?   Or should we challenge it?

[The Dude 20,026]

10 minutes ago, coopsleftboot said:

The OP wasn't about having "No Rangers minded pundits" at all.  It was about the narrative being set by those prepared to shout loudest and how the current "Rangers minded pundits" don't stand up to it, they either meekly offer minor token comments, agree in the main or say nothing at all.  I think all people would like is honesty and balance.  You know, I used to rally against it too, but it's becoming as blatant as a slap in the coupon and if you can't see it it's because you refuse to. 

I'll give you a recent example, and I'll pretext it with the following.......I'm firmly in the "treat everyone equal camp"; if you allow certain behaviour from one element you must accept it from another.  If you don't accept it then you must condemn it and deal with it all; to use a Dr. Death phrase "without fear or favour".   

Six weeks ago, Steve Clarke complained of having a certain song sang at him by Rangers fans.  Press were all over it and it resonates in political circles with Rangers fans being painted as offensive bigots, even to the point that, at the next game (away to Hamilton) printed and tv media outlets were trying to paint a banner that said "Get Well Soon Stevie Clarke" as equally bigoted and offensive.  BBC even picked up on the tune that was being sung, calling it sectarian; if they'd bothered to check their own footage properly they'd have realised that the words had been changed!! It's there, I seen it.  If this was the watershed moment, then fine, so long as we were all going to be called out and judged to the same standard.

Fast forward a few days, and at the height of the furore started by Clarke, Neil McCann explains on radio of the abuse he got because he was a catholic who signed for Rangers.  National Radio no less....picked up and reported by a few media outlets and reported as what it was, historical abuse.  Fair enough, that was then, this is now.

Same with Derek McInnes who followed on not long after about being sang the very same song earlier this season in the League Cup Final, he didn't complain at the time and there was no media reaction at the time, because then it wasn't deemed an issue.  Fair enough, very recent but you could accept it as it "wasn't an issue" back then.  That was then, but this is now? 

So, in the light of Clarke's issue, it would be an issue that would be clamped down on from now on, that's what they promised us, yes?  Even the BBC on Sportscene  after the Hamilton game, they announced they thought they had a moral duty to report it as it happened now it's been raised "if no-one else was going to do anything about it".  That's what they told us.  Right?

So lets get right up to date....as we all thought on the back of Stevie Clarke's meltdown, this is it, this is the watershed moment, this is when it's going to get really clamped down on.  Fair enough, let's drive it out.  Turns out we were wrong weren't we?  The Old Firm game 10 days ago, our manager (and our kit-man ffs), were treated to choruses of same/similar song.  And guess what, the press totally ignored it after being on the highest of horses only 5 weeks earlier. 

At best there's an unconscious bias going on with respect to how the media deal with and report on Rangers issues, there's also some media outlets that are in dispute with the club, maybe that clouds output?  Or at worst there's a deliberate agenda.   Either way, it's incumbent on other media analysts, you could say the "Rangers minded pundits", to offer balance.  But they don't.   So, are we just to believe the narrative, when a simple recent example brings it into question?   Or should we challenge it?

'totally ignored it' - https://www.BOYCOTT THIS LINK/sport/football/football-news/sad-orange-bd-Rangers-kitman-14217999

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/4067331/celtic-fan-Rangers-jimmy-bell-sectarian-jibe/

 

 

[jbm26896 995]

3 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

What the fuck is this ?? At least learn to read before writing!

I can read thanks . 

No need to be aggressive, 

Fuck off and argue with someone else that has an interest in your views. 

[Teamgers 1,214]

2 hours ago, jbm26896 said:

I can read thanks . 

No need to be aggressive, 

Fuck off and argue with someone else that has an interest in your views. 

🤣

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

6 hours ago, jbm26896 said:

I can read thanks . 

No need to be aggressive, 

Fuck off and argue with someone else that has an interest in your views. 

Irony overload 

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

15 hours ago, coopsleftboot said:

The OP wasn't about having "No Rangers minded pundits" at all.  It was about the narrative being set by those prepared to shout loudest and how the current "Rangers minded pundits" don't stand up to it, they either meekly offer minor token comments, agree in the main or say nothing at all.  I think all people would like is honesty and balance.  You know, I used to rally against it too, but it's becoming as blatant as a slap in the coupon and if you can't see it it's because you refuse to. 

I'll give you a recent example, and I'll pretext it with the following.......I'm firmly in the "treat everyone equal camp"; if you allow certain behaviour from one element you must accept it from another.  If you don't accept it then you must condemn it and deal with it all; to use a Dr. Death phrase "without fear or favour".  

Six weeks ago, Steve Clarke complained of having a certain song sang at him by Rangers fans.  Press were all over it and it resonates in political circles with Rangers fans being painted as offensive bigots, even to the point that, at the next game (away to Hamilton) printed and tv media outlets were trying to paint a banner that said "Get Well Soon Stevie Clarke" as equally bigoted and offensive.  BBC even picked up on the tune that was being sung, calling it sectarian; if they'd bothered to check their own footage properly they'd have realised that the words had been changed!! It's there, I seen it.  If this was the watershed moment, then fine, so long as we were all going to be called out and judged to the same standard.

Fast forward a few days, and at the height of the furore started by Clarke, Neil McCann explains on radio of the abuse he got because he was a catholic who signed for Rangers.  National Radio no less....picked up and reported by a few media outlets and reported as what it was, historical abuse.  Fair enough, that was then, this is now.

Same with Derek McInnes who followed on not long after about being sang the very same song earlier this season in the League Cup Final, he didn't complain at the time and there was no media reaction at the time, because then it wasn't deemed an issue.  Fair enough, very recent but you could accept it as it "wasn't an issue" back then.  That was then, but this is now?

So, in the light of Clarke's issue, it would be an issue that would be clamped down on from now on, that's what they promised us, yes?  Even the BBC on Sportscene  after the Hamilton game, they announced they thought they had a moral duty to report it as it happened now it's been raised "if no-one else was going to do anything about it".  That's what they told us.  Right?

So lets get right up to date....as we all thought on the back of Stevie Clarke's meltdown, this is it, this is the watershed moment, this is when it's going to get really clamped down on.  Fair enough, let's drive it out.  Turns out we were wrong weren't we?  The Old Firm game 10 days ago, our manager (and our kit-man ffs), were treated to choruses of same/similar song.  And guess what, the press totally ignored it after being on the highest of horses only 5 weeks earlier. 

At best there's an unconscious bias going on with respect to how the media deal with and report on Rangers issues, there's also some media outlets that are in dispute with the club, maybe that clouds output?  Or at worst there's a deliberate agenda.   Either way, it's incumbent on other media analysts, you could say the "Rangers minded pundits", to offer balance.  But they don't.   So, are we just to believe the narrative, when a simple recent example brings it into question?   Or should we challenge it?

To me there was plenty condemnation of what was said / happened to SG and the kit man - and there in lies one of my issues we notice / react to things through purely blue tint - using a light example if some one does a high boot on the field against us - we scream and wonder why the player was not booked but if our own player has a high boot it hardly registers.

unconcious bias is a different matte - I absolutely accept Sutton walker etc have a bias against us - I hate walker as co- commentator - but (again) when Ally is on all we seem to notice is what he didn’t do not what he does. Given the size and support for our club there is probably plenty of unconscious bias FOR our club but like the fouls our players get away with it hardly registers.

i know individuals hate us - but just don’t buy into this whole institutional bias crap - all the papers, every tv program, every ref and the sfa are out to get us - it’s just ballocks ( imho of course) 

.   

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Republican twat sticking up for the Republican twats. 

Strange that none of the Republican twats hero’s at Holyrood were lined up to stick the boot into the scum and call for a full national debate on sectarianism when it’s coming from the stands of their glorious kiddieshagging FC. 

[dummiesoot 16,000]

@thedude and @Bluepeter9 the main point for me is, yes the press reported it, there was nowhere near the level of condemnation from political circles, nowhere near the page after page, day after day of diatribe from the usual suspects. Merely starts to look like a token gesture from msm. 

[Sparkle 53,528]

1 hour ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Republican twat sticking up for the Republican twats. 

Strange that none of the Republican twats hero’s at Holyrood were lined up to stick the boot into the scum and call for a full national debate on sectarianism when it’s coming from the stands of their glorious kiddieshagging FC. 

‘None are so blind as those who will not see’

[The Dude 20,026]

1 hour ago, dummiesoot said:

@thedude and @Bluepeter9 the main point for me is, yes the press reported it, there was nowhere near the level of condemnation from political circles, nowhere near the page after page, day after day of diatribe from the usual suspects. Merely starts to look like a token gesture from msm. 

So it wasn't "Totally ignored" as was claimed given the two biggest papers in the country both ran it.

The only reason the Clarke thing became a story was because he explicitly mentioned it happening to him. Of course it's going to be condemned when a manager comes out and makes the accusation. Gerrard chose to say nothing about it.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

11 minutes ago, The Dude said:

So it wasn't "Totally ignored" as was claimed given the two biggest papers in the country both ran it.

The only reason the Clarke thing became a story was because he explicitly mentioned it happening to him. Of course it's going to be condemned when a manager comes out and makes the accusation. Gerrard chose to say nothing about it.

Oh so Holyrood only gets involved when a manager complains. 

What were we all thinking. 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Oh so Holyrood only gets involved when a manager complains. 

What were we all thinking. 

Quite often, yeah. If they commented everytime we sang about fenians or they sang aboug orange Bastards there would be a line from them every single weekend

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Quite often, yeah. If they commented everytime we sang about fenians or they sang aboug orange Bastards there would be a line from them every single weekend

Only line I ever see is when it’s against a catholic, but I’m sure you can find the SNP getting on their moral high horse for a Protestant manager getting abuse from the stands. 

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

2 hours ago, dummiesoot said:

@thedude and @Bluepeter9 the main point for me is, yes the press reported it, there was nowhere near the level of condemnation from political circles, nowhere near the page after page, day after day of diatribe from the usual suspects. Merely starts to look like a token gesture from msm. 

I just think that a lot of this comes from having the blue tinted specs on - and when we start discussing ‘levels’ of coverage and condemnation - that’s just like 2 kids farting in class and when caught one lad saying but his was louder and smellier than mine. 

The only thing that sorts this is when we start winning trophies again and when we start laughing at their paranoia instead of feeding our own.  

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Courtyard Bear said:

Only line I ever see is when it’s against a catholic, but I’m sure you can find the SNP getting on their moral high horse for a Protestant manager getting abuse from the stands. 

I thought it was Holyrood we were bleating about. Where are all the Tories making the same point? That wee creep Murdo Fraser isn't shy in doing his staunch as fuck act on Twitter when it benefits him. I'm sure he'll have been straight onto calling out the sectarian abuse of Gerrard.

[ForeverAndEver 71,365]

24 minutes ago, The Dude said:

So it wasn't "Totally ignored" as was claimed given the two biggest papers in the country both ran it.

The only reason the Clarke thing became a story was because he explicitly mentioned it happening to him. Of course it's going to be condemned when a manager comes out and makes the accusation. Gerrard chose to say nothing about it.

Don’t know how people struggle to see that

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Just now, The Dude said:

I thought it was Holyrood we were bleating about. Where are all the Tories making the same point? That wee creep Murdo Fraser isn't shy in doing his staunch as fuck act on Twitter when it benefits him. I'm sure he'll have been straight onto calling out the sectarian abuse of Gerrard.

Oh so the staunch MSP is a wee creep, because he uses it for his own gains. Do you want me to list the SNP twats that do the exact same thing, 2 spring to mind very quickly  

Have you just shown your political leanings there mate. 😂

When you want to show us the usual full court press from the SNP when it’s a Protestant getting abuse, please feel free. 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Courtyard Bear said:

Oh so the staunch MSP is a wee creep, because he uses it for his own gains. Do you want me to list the SNP twats that do the exact same thing, 2 spring to mind very quickly  

Have you just shown your political leanings there mate. 😂

When you want to show us the usual full court press from the SNP when it’s a Protestant getting abuse, please feel free. 

No, he's a wee creep for a number of other reasons. Hitching his wagon to Rangers isnt one of them. Knock yourself out posting the SNP twats doing the exact same.

Thinking Murdo Fraser is a wee creep has given my political leanings away? Really? What if I also say James Dornan is a cunt and Jeremy Corbyn is a wannabe terrorist without the courage of his convictions?

 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

19 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No, he's a wee creep for a number of other reasons. Hitching his wagon to Rangers isnt one of them. Knock yourself out posting the SNP twats doing the exact same.

Thinking Murdo Fraser is a wee creep has given my political leanings away? Really? What if I also say James Dornan is a cunt and Jeremy Corbyn is a wannabe terrorist without the courage of his convictions?

 

Well your correct on Dornan and Corbyn.

Do you want to opinion on the stance of the whole SNP when it comes to the so called sectarianism debate and the one way approach they are taking. 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Courtyard Bear said:

Well your correct on Dornan and Corbyn.

Do you want to opinion on the stance of the whole SNP when it comes to the so called sectarianism debate and the one way approach they are taking. 

Not particularly. I know some within the SNP (one of whom is a Rangers supporting, ST owning freemason) who are very strongly opposed to sectarianism.Just the same as I know of some within the Tory party who are quite happy to see Protestants treated as second-class citizens.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Just now, The Dude said:

Not particularly. I know some within the SNP (one of whom is a Rangers supporting, ST owning freemason) who are very strongly opposed to sectarianism.Just the same as I know of some within the Tory party who are quite happy to see Protestants treated as second-class citizens.

Great well you can tell them to get in their soapbox and start telling the country all about the scum fc fans, I won’t hold my breath. 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Courtyard Bear said:

Great well you can tell them to get in their soapbox and start telling the country all about the scum fc fans, I won’t hold my breath. 

Aren't super staunch tories like Murdo Fraser already doing it? Why aren't they doing it?

[coopsleftboot 5,512]

20 hours ago, The Dude said:

'totally ignored it' - https://www.BOYCOTT THIS LINK/sport/football/football-news/sad-orange-bd-Rangers-kitman-14217999

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/4067331/celtic-fan-Rangers-jimmy-bell-sectarian-jibe/

 

 

 

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

So it wasn't "Totally ignored" as was claimed given the two biggest papers in the country both ran it.

The only reason the Clarke thing became a story was because he explicitly mentioned it happening to him. Of course it's going to be condemned when a manager comes out and makes the accusation. Gerrard chose to say nothing about it.

To be fair, I'll give you that, although I hadn't specifically read those reports.  But in a way it reinforces the point.  As others have pointed out, there was no follow up articles, no "go to" commentators and no political views sought, as was the case when Clarke spoke out.  Are we to rely on the press and the politicians only to get involved when someone complains?  Similarly, as I mentioned, McInnes and McCanns experiences were reported and quickly left aside.  

And with respect to the BBC?  Well, a 10 second sentence and then on to how Broony was a saint and he did nothing wrong.

If the reality is that we want to get rid of all this "sectarianism" that's a blight on society, then the press really do have a duty, and as the BBC promised, they'd be all over reporting and calling it out.  So why aren't they?

 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

Aren't super staunch tories like Murdo Fraser already doing it? Why aren't they doing it?

Why aren’t your pals in SNP??? 

They are in power, they have the power to tell the SNP leadership to level the playing field.  

Seem to have touch a nerve with you and the SNP.